studiot

I was told, when I got my bus pass, that I automatically made the top 1%

Well my wife works for the NHS and was 'upgraded' 2 weeks ago. (Almost) nothing now works, and the comp techs have taken up residency in Pharmacy. But if you truly want 7, then come to Somerset. Mondie, XP has something (if implemented) that Vista and above gave up. The Limited User. I have seen so many users insiste they must have administrator privileges, then get hit. Quote from Russinovich (you have heard of him?)

Which makes me glad I'm in the 95% -100% bracket.

Well I could point to many businesses that use XP regularly as their workhorse, from Shell International, to Best Western Hotels, to small businesses like Blackberries restaurent in SW UK ........... Sorry to disappoint. It is only governments with too much money (haven't they all) that can afford to upgrade willy nilly.

That is what interests me. I think you will find the others are possible, at least in a thought experiment. I did not say there would not be consequences, but to just dismiss it out of hand is too slick and simplistick. But thank you for replying anyway.

So the figures were from those logging on to Wiki, not those using computers? How many commercial computers are there that are doing the job they were intended for and where the employee could not or should not log on to the internet, in general or Wiki in particular? For instance in a company network, often, every user logs onto the company home page as standard, but most user's only legitimate use of the net is company Email.

That's why I apologised for not making myself clear. A serial killer kills again and again and.... - by definition. The character in the story expresses poetically the cost to humanity of allowing such a person(?) to carry out their to carry out their desires. Someone other than the serial killer must die. This sad fact is also true in reality. That is one side. The other is exemplified by the observation that murderers are not on average deterred by the (legal) death penalty. Also that the post-war French are not noted for pussy-footing around when it comes to security. Their response is noticeably more John Wayne/ Tom Clancey than US administrations themselves. So which is better? For the serial killer to die or for another serial victim to die?

Sensei You are referring to market share in 2014, not the total number of working installations in use. Since it is now difficult to buy a new machine with XP, I'm suprised how many are claimed in Wiki figures.

Do you have referenced statistics to back this up? I provided some (sorry I can't vouchsafe their sources but they are referenced so those who know can check)

You clearly didn't understand my original post. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clearer. I'm contrasting two different statements, ideas or whatever under one banner since they appear to me to be opposed, not in the least because they perhaps do not overlap in their coverage of all the conceivable circumstances of killing people.

Consider the following thought experiment. Suppose we have two charges in an otherwise empty universe, stationed a distance d from each other. Suppose also that we have buttons we can press that will destroy one or simultaneously both charges. We can easily calculate the potential energy associated with this setup, but what happens to it if we press the 'nuke both' button? Further if the charges are in relative motion and we nuke only one, what happens in the relativistic time before light can reach the second one to 'tell it' there is no longer any potnetial energy?

This is a quote from another thread where it was off topic and , I hope, said in jest. Today I reveived the following from a technical news service I subscribe too, I found it wryly interesting.

All this economics assumes the 'case' goes to trial. It hasn't in France. It did in the case of Saddam. What do you do with a pack of rabid dogs about to make a meal of your sister?

Tenoz, In your statement of return you are ignoring another factor, called risk. Savings accounts carry the lowest rate of return because this return is less risky and even sometimes carries some sort of guarantee. Renewables are slightly better since they are subject to a measure of risk. High rate of return investments such as arms, diamonds mines, oil and so forth offer still higher returns sometimes, but as oil investors are finding at the moment, not always.

Here we have something we can agree on. If you break arc's hypothesis into not just any old pieces but links in a chain then my position is that I have consistently (apart form post#21 which I will return to) set aside the early link(s) and concentrated on purely mechanical link at the end, from my post 26 on. Several others including Ophiolite and yourself have identified the same set of links as myself and asked some of the same questions, plus others I didn't ask. I don't find that suprising. In reviewing the thread I note several other instances of arc revising his notions in the light of comment, including one from Tim-the-plumber about relative densities. In my case I queried arc's kinetic energy mechanism (post26) and was rewarded with post 27. This should all be clear to anyone who has the stamina to read the thread. Returning to post 21 I queried arc's thermodynamic statement. I seem to remember (from elsewhere) that this is absolutely crucial to mantle convection since conventional mathematical models suggest that it is not temperature difference but heat flow difference that provides the energy for convection. All this is why I recommended that arc catch up on some basic physics to inject into his hypothesis.

In DP debates It is often pointed out the the DP does not form an effective deterrent. That is over a long period the statistics show that the murder rate remains the same with it or without it. Here is a quote from a novel I have been reading about the hunt for a particularly unpleasant serial killer. Today we have learned that the French discontinued surveillance of the perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo massacre about six months ago. There are good people in France, needing help medical or otherwise, that there was no money to help whilst at the same time expensive resources were being spent of surveillance and finally combating such monsters. Let the discussion commence.

Billiards Hmm let me see. arc proposed an expanding Earth, powered by electrodynamic action, in order to explain observed effects. and you acknowledged this. That is a chain of two separate sequential propositions and one set of results. That entails two steps to heaven. I stated that arc has suspended step 1 so that we can examine if step 2 would actually work as proposed. And you have been berating me for that statement, in most intemperate language, ever since. Would we be any more able to get to heaven if we followed steps 1 2 and 3?

If you guys keep using the wrong code I will have to send the man with the WaltherPPK to shoot you.

Would this be homework?

我不明白中國人。你能不能用英語寫的？謝謝 Nah, the correct response is ######################### See Bletchly Park for details.

Who hasn't been following closely? Page 1, post 1 lines 1-4. Clearly I was correct. As regards mantle convection And I refuted your underlined statement. Both subduction and mantle convection are possible without the other. It is entirely possible for one of two impacting plates to ride over the other, which is a definition of subduction. However without mantle convection another mechanism would be required to cause the horizontal advection of the plates in the first place. We are examining arc's speculation that such a mechanism could be radial expansion. It is worth noting that mantle convection does not require segments of colder more dense lithosphere to descend, in order to take place. Mantle material falls within the Raleigh criterion for such convection to occur, but we cannot expect arc to solve as even the simplest equations to derive this lead to a sixth order differential equation. Agreed arc's speculation requires core expansion, but that requires an energy source and we are setting aside the original proposal for the moment to examine if it is worth continuing since unless the speculation can be shown to produce the surface dynamics there is no point seeking an alternative energy source.

I'm glad everyone's enjoying my thread. But please remember that I did not suggest a total ban on non-science, just commented on the relative proportions.

Get a hold of The Chemistry Maths Book Erich Steiner Oxford University Press. This is easier than maths for physics but will take you a long way towards what you need. There are several editions, you don't need a new copy, pretty well any version will do.

Scotch or 3M had lots of egg on their faces in the heyday of cassette tapes when they introduced a super chrome tape that did exactly this. But that was years ago. What brand are they?

IEeeeeeee Who is he?