The desktop will not disappear. I don't think that's what all the "the Desktop is Dead" hype is about. The desktop will no longer be the primary technology driver and will become a much smaller part of the overall computing-device market - probably to less than 10% of the overall market (including phones, tablets, laptops and whatever comes next).
The desktop IS dead, at least in one sense. If you buy one now, you might never have to buy one again.
Acknowledging that I might be pulling a "640k ought to be enough for everybody", I predict that a current generation mainline i7 and i5 will be sufficient for any "desktop" task more or less for ever (or until we move away from a physical interface like keyboard / mouse and touchscreens).
My 5 1/2 year old desktop is still a solid workhorse and significantly faster than my new $3000 ultrabook.
You're right about them not being for dogfighting over Canadian territories, the F35 is not that kind of aircraft. The F35 is a bomber that can run bombing missions without an escort (when not expecting to meet state of the art interceptors).
Sweden and Finland have the means to produce nuclear weapons. Same goes for most other countries with nuclear research facilities. It's not as if it's difficult.
It's great for coding, webdesign or anything where you are interacting with two or more windows at the same time.
My coding days are more or less over, but I still find it very useful in almost all tasks. Keeping everything you're working on visible is a great productivity booster. I've had my monitor for roughly 3 months, and it has already paid for itself.
Both Linux and Windows 8.1 deals just fine with 4k. Requires a decent graphics card with drivers that actually work, but other than that there's no problem.
There's a whole bunch of 27" 1440p monitors out there, and they sell a lot. At the office we've not bought one single 1080p since starting up in 2010. We started off with 1200p when that was still possible to get, and moved on to 1440p and now 4k for those who want it.
It's not a 28" TV, it's a monitor. I have a 4k monitor at work now, and would really like that at home as well - but until know it's been way to expensive. At $650 it's below what a decent 1440p monitor costs, and will be within budget for most home-office users.
All of the claims the past 15 years have been about the expected state in 2050 or later. If you know none of it came to pass, I'd like to borrow your time machine.
I guess drawing the line in instances like this is difficult, but here is my thoughts:
* If you are passing by a car accident or someone bleeding out in the street, action is required (often by law - depending on the country / state). * If you're parking your car in a downhill street, you're required to engage the handbrake/emergency brake before leaving the car - action required of you to avoid hurting other people.
As the chain of actions (or people) between the (missing) action and the outcome grows, our perceived responsibility is diminished. The same is true if the distance (or time) from us to where (when) the impact is felt increases. As you pointed out, we need some kind of filter - or the consequences of all our inactions would crush our sanity.
Our sense of responsibility only stretches a certain distance (or time) from ourselves. We don't let ourselves be affected by deaths far from us (either in time or distance), even if we could have (contributed) to preventing it. There are certainly interesting moral discussions to be had about that trait, but I think we would have been driven insane if we didn't have a filter like that.
Some inactions are more easily identifiable as bad, for instance not pulling the handbrake when parking in a downhill street. Not assisting someone who's been badly injured (car accident for instance) would be criminal inaction where I'm from, but it's not like that everywhere.
For my example I assumed identical cars and velocities, and a head-on collision. That should have been stated. My point was that equating the other vehicle with an immovable barrier is only correct for a very specific case, and as you pointed out - I'd forgotten to include all the details (head- on collision with identical speed, mass, crumple zones, elasticity etc).
Mass, speed and angle of impact matters. GPs statement of "mass of the object you're striking isn't relevant" is wrong.
Your physics makes no sense. The energy of the car you crash into is what gets transferred to you. The factors involved is the speed and mass of the car that hits you, not your car.
Crashing with an identical car as your own is the same as crashing into a fixed barrier. Crashing into a SUV at twice your cars mass is much worse, as the other car will not stop. If the difference in mass is large enough your car will crushed without affecting the speed of the other vehicle in any significant way (think train).
Nuclear is safer than any other form of energy production. It's safer than hydro, and significantly safer than wind and solar - and several orders of magnitude safer than fossil fuels.
This gives a comprehensive overview of the fossil fuel subsidies in the US: http://www.oecd.org/site/tadff... Far from all of these are available to other industries (somehow I doubt Apple is able to claim tax credit for production of low-sulphur diesel, or 15% tax credit for utilizing enhanced oil recovery methods or transporting Alaskan natural gas)
You might not have considered this, but the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and Strategic Petroleum Reserve are effectively fossil fuel subsidies.
Norway and Denmark are also full of corruption, it's just usually not as disastrous or obvious as in the two other countries you mention. Nepotism is very strong in Scandinavia, but direct payment or trades for favors are very uncommon. Corporate influence on law-making is negligible compared to the US.
Your comment made no sense. When one industry gets a tax break, and another doesn't get that tax break, it is a subsidy. Same if some companies in one industry gets the tax break while others do not. That has nothing to do with you 100% tax straw man.
Solar panel installation gives the owner of the panels tax credits, which is a form of tax break. This is a government stimuli both for the person / company buying the panels and the producer.
Governments role as a regulator is more efficiently achieved by taxing unwanted behavior and stimulating wanted behavior - this makes a society more free compared to the alternative of outlawing/mandating the unwanted/wanted. Ideally the income from tax on unwanted behavior should offset the cost that behavior has to society. Oil production and consumption is a wanted behavior, it should be taxed not stimulated. Those tax breaks should be re-routed to increase sustainable energy production.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. And that means that the Desktop is dead as a technology driver.
The desktop will not disappear. I don't think that's what all the "the Desktop is Dead" hype is about. The desktop will no longer be the primary technology driver and will become a much smaller part of the overall computing-device market - probably to less than 10% of the overall market (including phones, tablets, laptops and whatever comes next).
The desktop IS dead, at least in one sense.
If you buy one now, you might never have to buy one again.
Acknowledging that I might be pulling a "640k ought to be enough for everybody", I predict that a current generation mainline i7 and i5 will be sufficient for any "desktop" task more or less for ever (or until we move away from a physical interface like keyboard / mouse and touchscreens).
My 5 1/2 year old desktop is still a solid workhorse and significantly faster than my new $3000 ultrabook.
You can always wait for the finished game and buy that when it arrives next year.
Elite is crowd funded - early access is one of the perks of contributing. Alpha access was a $300+ tier.
Partly right, but still wrong.
You're right about them not being for dogfighting over Canadian territories, the F35 is not that kind of aircraft.
The F35 is a bomber that can run bombing missions without an escort (when not expecting to meet state of the art interceptors).
Sweden and Finland have the means to produce nuclear weapons.
Same goes for most other countries with nuclear research facilities. It's not as if it's difficult.
Wan't the confirmation just slightly different from what they expected.
The deviation might actually be traces of this unknown 2nd Higgs particle.
If H+ is slow for video, you're not getting H+ speeds.
H+ is supposed to be 20-42Mbit. Should even be enough for Netflix 4k
It's great for coding, webdesign or anything where you are interacting with two or more windows at the same time.
My coding days are more or less over, but I still find it very useful in almost all tasks. Keeping everything you're working on visible is a great productivity booster. I've had my monitor for roughly 3 months, and it has already paid for itself.
Both Linux and Windows 8.1 deals just fine with 4k.
Requires a decent graphics card with drivers that actually work, but other than that there's no problem.
There's a whole bunch of 27" 1440p monitors out there, and they sell a lot.
At the office we've not bought one single 1080p since starting up in 2010. We started off with 1200p when that was still possible to get, and moved on to 1440p and now 4k for those who want it.
It's not a 28" TV, it's a monitor.
I have a 4k monitor at work now, and would really like that at home as well - but until know it's been way to expensive.
At $650 it's below what a decent 1440p monitor costs, and will be within budget for most home-office users.
None of this has any relevance, Nintendo is selling software.
Following your logic Adobe should claim ownership to anything produced by Photoshop.
There's very few areas where the cost of renting is lower than interest unless there's some form of rent control.
Again with the claim of big $$.
Do you have any idea how moronic that looks when the "let it burn" crowd is the oil and coal industry?
All of the claims the past 15 years have been about the expected state in 2050 or later.
If you know none of it came to pass, I'd like to borrow your time machine.
I guess drawing the line in instances like this is difficult, but here is my thoughts:
* If you are passing by a car accident or someone bleeding out in the street, action is required (often by law - depending on the country / state).
* If you're parking your car in a downhill street, you're required to engage the handbrake/emergency brake before leaving the car - action required of you to avoid hurting other people.
As the chain of actions (or people) between the (missing) action and the outcome grows, our perceived responsibility is diminished. The same is true if the distance (or time) from us to where (when) the impact is felt increases. As you pointed out, we need some kind of filter - or the consequences of all our inactions would crush our sanity.
Completely agree.
Our sense of responsibility only stretches a certain distance (or time) from ourselves. We don't let ourselves be affected by deaths far from us (either in time or distance), even if we could have (contributed) to preventing it. There are certainly interesting moral discussions to be had about that trait, but I think we would have been driven insane if we didn't have a filter like that.
Some inactions are more easily identifiable as bad, for instance not pulling the handbrake when parking in a downhill street.
Not assisting someone who's been badly injured (car accident for instance) would be criminal inaction where I'm from, but it's not like that everywhere.
For my example I assumed identical cars and velocities, and a head-on collision. That should have been stated.
My point was that equating the other vehicle with an immovable barrier is only correct for a very specific case, and as you pointed out - I'd forgotten to include all the details (head- on collision with identical speed, mass, crumple zones, elasticity etc).
Mass, speed and angle of impact matters. GPs statement of "mass of the object you're striking isn't relevant" is wrong.
Your physics makes no sense.
The energy of the car you crash into is what gets transferred to you. The factors involved is the speed and mass of the car that hits you, not your car.
Crashing with an identical car as your own is the same as crashing into a fixed barrier. Crashing into a SUV at twice your cars mass is much worse, as the other car will not stop. If the difference in mass is large enough your car will crushed without affecting the speed of the other vehicle in any significant way (think train).
Killing someone by inaction is also murder.
The question then becomes, kill 3 or kill 300.
Nuclear is safer than any other form of energy production.
It's safer than hydro, and significantly safer than wind and solar - and several orders of magnitude safer than fossil fuels.
This gives a comprehensive overview of the fossil fuel subsidies in the US: http://www.oecd.org/site/tadff...
Far from all of these are available to other industries (somehow I doubt Apple is able to claim tax credit for production of low-sulphur diesel, or 15% tax credit for utilizing enhanced oil recovery methods or transporting Alaskan natural gas)
You might not have considered this, but the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and Strategic Petroleum Reserve are effectively fossil fuel subsidies.
Norway and Denmark are also full of corruption, it's just usually not as disastrous or obvious as in the two other countries you mention.
Nepotism is very strong in Scandinavia, but direct payment or trades for favors are very uncommon. Corporate influence on law-making is negligible compared to the US.
Your comment made no sense.
When one industry gets a tax break, and another doesn't get that tax break, it is a subsidy. Same if some companies in one industry gets the tax break while others do not. That has nothing to do with you 100% tax straw man.
Solar panel installation gives the owner of the panels tax credits, which is a form of tax break. This is a government stimuli both for the person / company buying the panels and the producer.
Governments role as a regulator is more efficiently achieved by taxing unwanted behavior and stimulating wanted behavior - this makes a society more free compared to the alternative of outlawing/mandating the unwanted/wanted. Ideally the income from tax on unwanted behavior should offset the cost that behavior has to society. Oil production and consumption is a wanted behavior, it should be taxed not stimulated. Those tax breaks should be re-routed to increase sustainable energy production.