There are technophiles out there who love this stuff. They know nothing about how technology works but they are enamored of any and all gadgets and will show off the new cool app they found to any of their remaining friends. It's a status symbol that says I was into unsafe transactions before it was cool.
I've noticed that memory and hard disk speed are some of the biggest improvements you can make with games, it's no longer the video card that's a bottle neck. And those improvements do more than help gaming, they'll help all the other stuff you use a computer for.
We're at a point where you don't need to upgrade that PC anymore just for games. The new AAA titles run very well on average hardware. The only reason to break the bank is to keep up with elitists. I have components below the _minimum_ specs for Fallout4 and it runs great and looks great. I don't have super high resolution though, and anyone worrying about 2K or 4K resolution is already in their own reality along with audiophiles using gold plated connectors on ethernet cables.
You also don't need to keep up to date. The games that need top end PC are very niche games for the overly dedicated FPS gamer playing set to extremely high resolution. You actually get much bigger bank for the buck by getting more memory or upgrading your hard drive to be solid state, upgrading the video card is very often not necessary. You don't need $2000 skis to go skiing, and you don't need $2000 bicycle to go cycling, and you don't need a $2000 PC to play games, and you you will find people willing to spend that much who claim that it's necessary.
As for consoles they were originally intended for a lower end market, for people who don't even own a computer. Sit it in the living room and keep the kids occupied. That's why the early ones had controllers designed for small hands and simplistic game play. But if you've already got a computer why waste money on a second computer that can't do anything except play some games (it can't even play your collection of older games). Why learn how to use a clumsy game controller when you already know how to use a mouse and keyboard? The types of games on consoles tend to be limited too, lots of FPS and racing games, anything that sounds interesting is exclusive to a different platform, and never a niche game due to the huge up front licensing cost to the console maker.
He's winning because he was followers, not because he's got an amazing plan to defeat his rivals. And his followers aren't geniuses either, otherwise why follow him when he's give absolutely no information what how he's going to follow through on his promises? Where does he get the money to build his wall, how is he going to change the constititution to allow banning people based upon religion or sue newspapers based upon what they say, how does he convince soldiers to violate their conscience and bomb families of suspected terrorists?
I don't think he's winning because his conservative opponents are underestimating him, but because they're overestimating the angry anti-establishment voters. When even Cruz gets branded as too establishment you know there's not a lot of deep thought going on in that faction.
The media isn't payin for Trumps campaign. The media is not buying all those posters you see, they're not paying the salaries or rent for the campaign offices. He has financial donors, he has millions of dollars coming in from individual donations. Sure he gets free press coverage over the dumb things he says but that applies to any candidate saying dumb things, it's decent revenue for the media but it's not funding for any campaign.
I said evil genius because it mollifies the tea partiers. Give any hint that she may be a normal person and you get called nasty names. For Trump though, if he's so smart, then why does he fail at his ventures so often? At least Hillary is smart enough to actually use a teleprompter instead of Trump using stream of consciousness for his communication style.
Trump is stupid. Just step back and listen to what he says. Hillary may be an evil genius but Trump's got nothing. Trump has a track record of *failed* projects. He's not a genius at business. He started out amazingly rich and because of a lot of failed ventures he's only slightly richer now instead of amazingly richer. Trump Taj Mahal and other failed casinos, Trump Vodka, Trump Steaks, Trump University, Trump Mortgage ("it's a great time to start a mortgage business"), Trump Magazine, Trump Airlines, etc. Ok, true, many of those projects he just lends his name to, after declaring how incredibly valuable his name is. And those bankruptcies were only for his businesses but not a personal bankruptcy, which he states as if there's nothing wrong with having his biggest investments that he personally manages completely fail even after he kept borrowing more money trying to keep it afloat. Not how I want someone to run country.
True or not, Trump isn't going to stop any of it. Probably lots of illegals working indirectly for Trump as well. He says he'll stop it but he's given no plan of how he will stop it other than issue dictates and wishful thinking.
The thing is, Trump doesn't know what can be done either. He hasn't given any plan on how to fix things, instead he just says that he'll fix things (sometimes even on day one). But *every* politician says that. They also usually have a plan on how to go about it too, but not always. So why is Trump different? Why does a known blowhard who says he will fix things get the attention when other blowhards saying the same thing are ignored? Much less a blowhard who can't string together a coherent sentence ("I know words, the best words")?
He disavowed after the most bizarre answer ever. If you listen to it unedited it was clear that he knew exactly what the question was and there was no problem with an ear piece. He just didn't want a blanked disavowal of white supremecist groups because he didn't know about all those groups personally (after all, some of them might be ok in his book). But he was rambling which is what he does with any question.
Trump can threaten to sue but the constitution trumps Trump. Free speech, freedom of the press, this isn't Putin's country.
It also seems to say something about the Republican party base when it turns out enough of them will follow the crazy unfocused anger guy that there's not enough left with actual social or fiscal conservative credentials to get nominated. A warning to Democratic party as well to make sure they've got a solid base that's not ready to implode either. Both parties are probably smug thinking that 50% of the country is on their side when in reality they've probably got only 10% of the country each with the rest just following along out of habit.
Get to a seedy bar on half price drinks night at 1am. You'll see patrons swaying and trying to keep on their feet, while shouting angry words about what is pissing them off. They don't know what they're really saying and you may not even understand the words they're saying. Then one of those swaying drunks says "hey maybe I can run for preshident! I'll make merica great again!", and the other drunks start shouting "ya man, you'd be awesum!" But then instead of passing out onto a pile of peanut shells and stale beer they actually do it and one of them starts winning primaries...
Trump is better than Hillary? Trump is a terrible business person, he has so many project failures that he makes Dubya seem like an business genius. He can't even properly denounce the KKK (which Reagan did very eloquently). He can't manage to keep one position of his straight consistently. He has advocated using the office to commit war crimes. He wants to sue people for expressing their constitutionally protected opinions about him. His comment about his daughter makes him a hundred times more creepy than Bill Clinton.
Sure, a monkey could do a better job than Hillary. But Hillary would still be better than Trump. Hillary has learned how to treat people around her politely, whereas Trump splashes water on you if you get too close. You can tell when Hillary is lying because she just opened her mouth, but you can tell when Trump is lying because he woke up. You really think Trump would be better than a criminal in office?
Trump is so bad that I have heard quite a few people who seriously think that he's a stooge secretly trying to get Hillary elected.
Trump can say that he'll personally carry the next spaceship to Mars on his back, but doesn't mean he'll do it or that he even has a plan on how to do it. Any moron can say "Make America Great", just about every politician here says something like that. There are no politicians claiming to make America worse. So latching onto the dumbest candidate as hopes that he'll be the one to make it happen is even more dumb.
I also am baffled by people who claim he has good business sense and want him to run the country like he runs his businesses. But he's horrible at business. He make "deals" mostly, he doesn't run things personally. He lends his names to projects rather than build the projects himselves. Many of his deals go bad, not just slightly bad but horrifically bad. Just look at Atlantic City. Oh sure, he claims the bankruptcy wasn't his personal bankruptcy but only that of his company, which means *his* *company* with *his* *name* on it went bankrupt in a very public spectacle of ineptitude. I certainly don't want this country run the way he ran his Taj Mahal, and I don't want to see a coast to coast version of Atlantic City. He's being sued by students at "Trump University" (yes it is an oxymoron). He didn't even build his success from the ground up, he inherited most of his fortune and it's easy to make more money if you start with an amazing amount.
How can people be so blind as to support him? He has no plans. None. He has no discernible political stance other than "Make America Great". He advocates committing war crimes. He has suggestions that could only be accomplished through a dictatorship. The party that used to laugh at "flip flops" is supporting the biggest flip flopper of all time? It's obvious that he's lying and the suporters don't seem to care. The only time he's been to church is for weddings, funerals, and when he decided to run for President, and yet he manages to get a highly religious state to nominate him? Some news reports say he's attracting people opposed to elitism, but Trump is the biggest elitist of them all.
A warrant by the way is a writ. Not all writs are warrants though. No one needs to be charged to have a warrant either. The difference in this case is somewhat slight, but I'll admit to getting off track based on not understanding what question you were really asking, or whether it was just rhetoric.
What gives the judge the authority to give "these orders". What does "these orders" refer to that's obscure enough that it's not already answered? If you're asking about the writ for Apple to unlock the iPhone via the New York case in question then that's the All Writs Act and was granted by Congress, but that's a well known answer. So I assumed you were asking a more general question about court powers.
You mean the authority to make decisions, or the authority to grant warrants, or what?
Basically it boils down to two parties unable to reach an agreement, so they consult a third party to make the decision and resolve the dispute. That's a court. Just because one of those two parties happens to be the US executive branch should not make a difference. In this particular case, the government wants a very special type of search warrant, and the courts most certainly have the power to tell the executive branch "no".
The constitution requires that warrants for searching require probable cause. The ability to decide what is or is not probable cause was established by precedent as the right of the courts. And the right of the courts to have judicial review over congress and the executive was decided in Marbury vs Madison, 1803. Later in 1961 the 4th amendment was held to also apply to the individual states. So yes, the courts have the authority to grant or reject warrants, and the DOJ does not have the ability to unilaterally enact warrants.
That's why I really don't like to drive in San Francisco. Impossible to predict what other drivers, pedestrians, or especially cyclists, will do.
As for that particular intersection, you could wait there stopped for hours until someone lets you move over. This is the Bay Area, if you want polite and reasonable drivers you go to Los Angeles instead.
Trucks do the same thing at times, assuming that the other vehicle will give way. If a truck wants to merge into your lane then common sense says to move regardless of who has the right to be there. So how do you teach that to an AI?
When I was in cub scouts, they weren't a religious organization any more than the YMCA was a religious organization. We even had a group in town that was scout-like but religious, as a counter part to the secular scouts. This was a few years before the whole Moral Majority wave that blurred the line between politics and pulpit. Oh and gays are allowed in churches.
Slashdot Mirror
There are technophiles out there who love this stuff. They know nothing about how technology works but they are enamored of any and all gadgets and will show off the new cool app they found to any of their remaining friends. It's a status symbol that says I was into unsafe transactions before it was cool.
I've noticed that memory and hard disk speed are some of the biggest improvements you can make with games, it's no longer the video card that's a bottle neck. And those improvements do more than help gaming, they'll help all the other stuff you use a computer for.
We're at a point where you don't need to upgrade that PC anymore just for games. The new AAA titles run very well on average hardware. The only reason to break the bank is to keep up with elitists. I have components below the _minimum_ specs for Fallout4 and it runs great and looks great. I don't have super high resolution though, and anyone worrying about 2K or 4K resolution is already in their own reality along with audiophiles using gold plated connectors on ethernet cables.
You also don't need to keep up to date. The games that need top end PC are very niche games for the overly dedicated FPS gamer playing set to extremely high resolution. You actually get much bigger bank for the buck by getting more memory or upgrading your hard drive to be solid state, upgrading the video card is very often not necessary. You don't need $2000 skis to go skiing, and you don't need $2000 bicycle to go cycling, and you don't need a $2000 PC to play games, and you you will find people willing to spend that much who claim that it's necessary.
As for consoles they were originally intended for a lower end market, for people who don't even own a computer. Sit it in the living room and keep the kids occupied. That's why the early ones had controllers designed for small hands and simplistic game play. But if you've already got a computer why waste money on a second computer that can't do anything except play some games (it can't even play your collection of older games). Why learn how to use a clumsy game controller when you already know how to use a mouse and keyboard? The types of games on consoles tend to be limited too, lots of FPS and racing games, anything that sounds interesting is exclusive to a different platform, and never a niche game due to the huge up front licensing cost to the console maker.
But you'd have to have first class games too, and we haven't had those in a decade.
He's winning because he was followers, not because he's got an amazing plan to defeat his rivals. And his followers aren't geniuses either, otherwise why follow him when he's give absolutely no information what how he's going to follow through on his promises? Where does he get the money to build his wall, how is he going to change the constititution to allow banning people based upon religion or sue newspapers based upon what they say, how does he convince soldiers to violate their conscience and bomb families of suspected terrorists?
I don't think he's winning because his conservative opponents are underestimating him, but because they're overestimating the angry anti-establishment voters. When even Cruz gets branded as too establishment you know there's not a lot of deep thought going on in that faction.
The media isn't payin for Trumps campaign. The media is not buying all those posters you see, they're not paying the salaries or rent for the campaign offices. He has financial donors, he has millions of dollars coming in from individual donations. Sure he gets free press coverage over the dumb things he says but that applies to any candidate saying dumb things, it's decent revenue for the media but it's not funding for any campaign.
I said evil genius because it mollifies the tea partiers. Give any hint that she may be a normal person and you get called nasty names.
For Trump though, if he's so smart, then why does he fail at his ventures so often? At least Hillary is smart enough to actually use a teleprompter instead of Trump using stream of consciousness for his communication style.
Marxist racist divider who despises the American people? What country are you in?
Trump is stupid. Just step back and listen to what he says. Hillary may be an evil genius but Trump's got nothing. Trump has a track record of *failed* projects. He's not a genius at business. He started out amazingly rich and because of a lot of failed ventures he's only slightly richer now instead of amazingly richer. Trump Taj Mahal and other failed casinos, Trump Vodka, Trump Steaks, Trump University, Trump Mortgage ("it's a great time to start a mortgage business"), Trump Magazine, Trump Airlines, etc. Ok, true, many of those projects he just lends his name to, after declaring how incredibly valuable his name is. And those bankruptcies were only for his businesses but not a personal bankruptcy, which he states as if there's nothing wrong with having his biggest investments that he personally manages completely fail even after he kept borrowing more money trying to keep it afloat. Not how I want someone to run country.
True or not, Trump isn't going to stop any of it. Probably lots of illegals working indirectly for Trump as well. He says he'll stop it but he's given no plan of how he will stop it other than issue dictates and wishful thinking.
The thing is, Trump doesn't know what can be done either. He hasn't given any plan on how to fix things, instead he just says that he'll fix things (sometimes even on day one). But *every* politician says that. They also usually have a plan on how to go about it too, but not always. So why is Trump different? Why does a known blowhard who says he will fix things get the attention when other blowhards saying the same thing are ignored? Much less a blowhard who can't string together a coherent sentence ("I know words, the best words")?
He disavowed after the most bizarre answer ever. If you listen to it unedited it was clear that he knew exactly what the question was and there was no problem with an ear piece. He just didn't want a blanked disavowal of white supremecist groups because he didn't know about all those groups personally (after all, some of them might be ok in his book). But he was rambling which is what he does with any question.
Trump can threaten to sue but the constitution trumps Trump. Free speech, freedom of the press, this isn't Putin's country.
It also seems to say something about the Republican party base when it turns out enough of them will follow the crazy unfocused anger guy that there's not enough left with actual social or fiscal conservative credentials to get nominated. A warning to Democratic party as well to make sure they've got a solid base that's not ready to implode either. Both parties are probably smug thinking that 50% of the country is on their side when in reality they've probably got only 10% of the country each with the rest just following along out of habit.
Except Trump makes those two look like elder statesmen in comparison.
Don't forget splashing water on the stage! It's like kindergarten but without the teacher.
Get to a seedy bar on half price drinks night at 1am. You'll see patrons swaying and trying to keep on their feet, while shouting angry words about what is pissing them off. They don't know what they're really saying and you may not even understand the words they're saying. Then one of those swaying drunks says "hey maybe I can run for preshident! I'll make merica great again!", and the other drunks start shouting "ya man, you'd be awesum!" But then instead of passing out onto a pile of peanut shells and stale beer they actually do it and one of them starts winning primaries...
Trump is better than Hillary? Trump is a terrible business person, he has so many project failures that he makes Dubya seem like an business genius. He can't even properly denounce the KKK (which Reagan did very eloquently). He can't manage to keep one position of his straight consistently. He has advocated using the office to commit war crimes. He wants to sue people for expressing their constitutionally protected opinions about him. His comment about his daughter makes him a hundred times more creepy than Bill Clinton.
Sure, a monkey could do a better job than Hillary. But Hillary would still be better than Trump. Hillary has learned how to treat people around her politely, whereas Trump splashes water on you if you get too close. You can tell when Hillary is lying because she just opened her mouth, but you can tell when Trump is lying because he woke up. You really think Trump would be better than a criminal in office?
Trump is so bad that I have heard quite a few people who seriously think that he's a stooge secretly trying to get Hillary elected.
Trump can say that he'll personally carry the next spaceship to Mars on his back, but doesn't mean he'll do it or that he even has a plan on how to do it. Any moron can say "Make America Great", just about every politician here says something like that. There are no politicians claiming to make America worse. So latching onto the dumbest candidate as hopes that he'll be the one to make it happen is even more dumb.
I also am baffled by people who claim he has good business sense and want him to run the country like he runs his businesses. But he's horrible at business. He make "deals" mostly, he doesn't run things personally. He lends his names to projects rather than build the projects himselves. Many of his deals go bad, not just slightly bad but horrifically bad. Just look at Atlantic City. Oh sure, he claims the bankruptcy wasn't his personal bankruptcy but only that of his company, which means *his* *company* with *his* *name* on it went bankrupt in a very public spectacle of ineptitude. I certainly don't want this country run the way he ran his Taj Mahal, and I don't want to see a coast to coast version of Atlantic City. He's being sued by students at "Trump University" (yes it is an oxymoron). He didn't even build his success from the ground up, he inherited most of his fortune and it's easy to make more money if you start with an amazing amount.
How can people be so blind as to support him? He has no plans. None. He has no discernible political stance other than "Make America Great". He advocates committing war crimes. He has suggestions that could only be accomplished through a dictatorship. The party that used to laugh at "flip flops" is supporting the biggest flip flopper of all time? It's obvious that he's lying and the suporters don't seem to care. The only time he's been to church is for weddings, funerals, and when he decided to run for President, and yet he manages to get a highly religious state to nominate him? Some news reports say he's attracting people opposed to elitism, but Trump is the biggest elitist of them all.
Inconceivable!
A warrant by the way is a writ. Not all writs are warrants though. No one needs to be charged to have a warrant either. The difference in this case is somewhat slight, but I'll admit to getting off track based on not understanding what question you were really asking, or whether it was just rhetoric.
What gives the judge the authority to give "these orders". What does "these orders" refer to that's obscure enough that it's not already answered? If you're asking about the writ for Apple to unlock the iPhone via the New York case in question then that's the All Writs Act and was granted by Congress, but that's a well known answer. So I assumed you were asking a more general question about court powers.
You mean the authority to make decisions, or the authority to grant warrants, or what?
Basically it boils down to two parties unable to reach an agreement, so they consult a third party to make the decision and resolve the dispute. That's a court. Just because one of those two parties happens to be the US executive branch should not make a difference. In this particular case, the government wants a very special type of search warrant, and the courts most certainly have the power to tell the executive branch "no".
The constitution requires that warrants for searching require probable cause. The ability to decide what is or is not probable cause was established by precedent as the right of the courts. And the right of the courts to have judicial review over congress and the executive was decided in Marbury vs Madison, 1803. Later in 1961 the 4th amendment was held to also apply to the individual states. So yes, the courts have the authority to grant or reject warrants, and the DOJ does not have the ability to unilaterally enact warrants.
You may be right. And stop calling me Surly.
The good part is that the Google car has a whole lot of telemetry data waiting to be analyzed to figure out what really happened.
That's why I really don't like to drive in San Francisco. Impossible to predict what other drivers, pedestrians, or especially cyclists, will do.
As for that particular intersection, you could wait there stopped for hours until someone lets you move over. This is the Bay Area, if you want polite and reasonable drivers you go to Los Angeles instead.
Trucks do the same thing at times, assuming that the other vehicle will give way. If a truck wants to merge into your lane then common sense says to move regardless of who has the right to be there. So how do you teach that to an AI?
When I was in cub scouts, they weren't a religious organization any more than the YMCA was a religious organization. We even had a group in town that was scout-like but religious, as a counter part to the secular scouts. This was a few years before the whole Moral Majority wave that blurred the line between politics and pulpit. Oh and gays are allowed in churches.