There will be much digital ink spilled over this, then you'll all mostly go vote for the same idiots over and over...
Until you start voting new people in, nothing will change...
And I don't mean one or two, I mean the majority, you need a new government, but you largely won't get one because "the OTHER guys suck, but MY representative is great"
Most computers come with Windows pre-installed, people are not "choosing" Windows.
Over the past 15 years, most of the big PC companies have tried to sell machines with Linux...
Dell about 10 years ago made a big push for a year or two, they sold them right on their home page, for less money than the Windows versions...
They stopped when the return rate was much higher than for Windows PCs and their support costs were higher, since people didn't know how to use it or wanted to know why "X" program wouldn't work on it.
Microsoft Office/Exchange is still huge in the office. DirectX-only games like Overwatch make a killing. Professional tools like Adobe CC don't support Linux.
All true... a bigger problem beyond those three is that Linux doesn't actually solve a need for most people. It doesn't solve a problem.
Windows 10 works fine... the problem is that Linux's biggest selling point can't be that "it isn't Windows". That didn't work 20 years ago, it didn't work 10 years ago, it won't work today.
The real question is, "what will Linux do for normal PC users that Windows will not"
Because there is PLENTY that it won't do, but what will it do that Windows won't? And for 95% of PC users, the answer is "nothing".
That is why Linux will never win the Desktop PC market.
Ahh yes, if only people knew about your better mousetrap, the world would beat a path to its door?
No, it won't... because Linux doesn't solve a problem, it doesn't do anything for most people.
It is a great workstation and server OS for a small sub-set of PC users, it serves a purpose and I'm glad it exists. But to Joe Sixpack, it doesn't fill a need.
If the average person doesn't care about the NSA spying on them, then they sure as hell don't care about MS doing it, and I think most people know Google and Apple are already there, so what's the difference?
Windows 10 works fine, Linux doesn't fill a need in the marketplace.
It is a lot more than 1 in 20 people looking for work...
The numbers are a lie, that is all... I'd explain it, but after that wall of text, I suspect you're so convinced that you're right you wouldn't listen anyway...
Pilots have far, far more time to correct an autopilot than Tesla allows to correct its "Autopilot". Further, pilots go through thousands of hours of training. How much training is required to operate Tesla's "Autopilot"? My point is that Tesla's "Autopilot" is not anything remotely equivalent to a commercial airliner's autopilot, and Tesla's marketing strategy callously blurs this line which, in this case, may have led to death.
How much training does your average Private Pilot have? 40 hours? 80 hours?
A Cessna 172 with 4 seats has an autopilot... Do you know how much training on its use is required to obtain a Pilot Certificate?
NONE... Zero, it is highly unlikely to be on the flight test (it technically can be, but it never has been in my experience)
CATIII autoland does exist, and is used, just not in the USA. The FAA rules do not allow CATIII landings in the US. It is used quite regularly outside of the USA.
And once again someone posts crap without knowing what the hell they are talking about, and this is why we have such idiots running our countries...
4.9% UE3 down from 10%; 5.6% UE4; GDP-per-capita recovered from its dip a couple years ago.
If those numbers were real, you'd see a rise in wages... Supply and demand and all that...
But you don't, because they are a lie... I still see a lot of people having trouble finding work and when I post a job listing I'm overrun with applications...
Seriously, nitpicking? Pilots have many seconds, to a minute to respond to irregularities in autopilot control. Drivers of Tesla's "Autopilot" have less than a second. They aren't remotely the same.
Your statement is not correct...
Pilots have to be able to respond quickly to an autopilot that has lost control, they do not remotely have a minute...
Not from every motherboard... Some I'm sure you could, but some will fry if you try it...
you CAN safely draw 170W from a 6Pin
No, not from every power supply... some, sure, they are designed for it, but many are not... the wires aren't thick enough, the amps may not be there...
every single high end card on the market takes the PCI-e spec and throws it out the window frankly
Nope, sorry, but you're wrong.
the issue was blown out of proportion by a few users that knew nothing of which they spoke and stated it as fact
I think Tom's Hardware knows a hell of a lot more than you do...
Idiots like you are why Hillary is going to win the election, because people like to think they know stuff, when really they don't.
AMD has smart people working for them, how they missed this and launched the card I'm at a loss to explain...
Unless they didn't miss it and hoped no one would notice... Or the left hand didn't talk to the right hand...
As for the extra power coming from the 6-pin PCI-E connector, that doesn't bother me so much, most modern power supplies can do that just fine.
I said *most*, some won't be able to, this is indeed a problem, but for most people the fix is just to update the drivers and the few that it isn't, to put it in "compatibility mode"
The problem is, the people who need *compatibility mode* are exactly the people who won't know that and won't do it.
I think it is a mistake to not make compatibility mode the default and let people manually adjust to the higher draw mode.
Seriously, the fact that this is being passed around major media shows how completely stupid most journalists really are...
Or they don't care and figure their idiots views don't know any better and just want to be entertained...
This has zero chance of happening, for so many reasons...
More than 3 billion people will board airplanes this year, fewer than 1,000 will die. This is SO not a problem that needs a wholesale change...
Fix the million deaths on the road first, that is a much bigger problem... Fix the medical mistakes that kill millions... fix the pollution from fossil fuels that is killing (some number larger than airplanes are)... fix ANYTHING else but this non-existent problem...
Being in space for years, with extreme temperature variations, vacuum, and radiation, isn't sufficient to guarantee sterility? I know bacterial spores can be pretty tough, but THAT tough?
Unlike morons on Earth who are happy to fuck with our air, water, and food supply for profit, NASA understands that you can't fuck this up even once, and it simply isn't worth the chance...
Once even a single anything gets down there, you're screwed and can never remove it...
The jump capability of imperial SDs doesn't support changing destinations in mid-jump. ST ships gain a strategic and tactical advantage in controlling their engagements that the Imperial ships don't have.
While that is true, keep in mind that ST ships can be targeted while at warp, while SW ships cannot. When a SW ship jumps to lightspeed, it is completely invisible and invincible (short of flying into a planet or sun) until it reverts to realspace.
ST ships can quickly enter and exit warp at any time to establish position..
What we don't know is... would Interdictor cruisers pull a ST ship out of Warp and prevent the formation of a warp field?
The relative weapon strengths also would tend to favor the fewer but more powerful SF weapons. SDs are fit with large numbers of weapons designed to attack frigate sized ( 300m targets. There is some effect in 'sand blasting' the target, but this really doesn't create a huge threat to SF vessels. They are not going to get stomped by a large weapon from the SDs... so SF has predictable interval to apply damage and get off grid before their shields fail.
You're ignoring the ion cannons...:) Star Destroyers have an equal number of ion cannons to bring down shields. Of course we have no idea how effective they would be, but they likely would be better than turbo lasers...
You're also forgetting the basic rule that if you put enough fire out, you cannot dodge it all. This is how the M4 Sherman tanks beat German Mark VI Tiger tanks, with shear numbers... A standard Star Destroyer has 80 heavy weapon emplacements and a dozen or so missile and torpedo launchers, it can simply fire in 40 different directions and bracket the ST ships so there is no place to turn or go if it wishes to remain within range.
We also have no useful information on what is more powerful, a Proton Torpedo or a Photon Torpedo
Imperial fighters and support ships ( 50m) are not going to be a significant threat to any SF class of ship even in large numbers. The SF ships can easily kite them, and SF vessels don't have small unshielded systems that a fighter is going to be able to damage.
The Empire has over 1 million starships... what if they simply ram the Star Fleet ships? Shields or no shields, if you ram a 300m long ship into another 300m long ship, bad things will happen to everyone involved.
TL;DR Imperial Navy vs Star Fleet would be a guerrilla war that Star Fleet would likely lose, and would be hideously expensive for the Imperial Navy to win.
I think a lot depends on if Starfleet has anything to defend or not... If "Earth" exists and they are tasked with defending it, I think they would lose very quickly. If they are mobile and have no fixed bases, it would be a much different story.
Star Trek had some major size inflation going on there, Voyager is larger than the Enterprise from Kirk's time.
Take Enterprise-D, since we know the most about it...
You could just about dock it inside the Imperial Star Destroyer (not really, the hangers aren't that big, but it would fit into an empty shell).
It is powered by matter-antimatter reactors that provide a lot of power to travel at faster than light speed and power the phaser arrays.
However, the Imperial Star Destroyer is powered by a hyper-matter annihilator (whatever the hell that is) that can propel the ship from one side of the Galaxy to the other in a few days.
The Enterprise would take a lifetime to do that.
The Phasers on the Enterprise are probably stronger than the individual weapons on the Star Destroyer, but the Star Destroyer has a lot more of them. Its shields appear to suck however and it lacks transporters.
But what it lacks in tech, it makes up for in raw weight of numbers... The Empire has over 25,000 Imperial Star Destroyers by the time of the Battle of Endor...
Find the Enterprise in that picture... Now consider that the Emperor built 8 Supers... (officially 4, but each were built twice using the same names and orders to hide the extra 4)
Now tell me the Federation would last 5 minutes against the Empire as it existed BBY 3
---
And also, lets not ignore the whole... Jedi/Sith thing... what really competes with that in the Star Trek universe?
You mean you would block Hillary from doing things,just like Republicans have blocked obama from doing things for 6+ years?
Yes, she is evil and evil must be opposed...
I don't like Hillary but Hillary would galvanize the Republicans against her.
Right, which is why the Democrats are morons for running her, they can't get anything done because she is hated so much...
Trump will bully Republicans into following him, or risk losing out.
And you know how Trump will do that? Because if the Republicans don't listen to him, he'll walk across the isle and do a deal with the Democrats...
That is why you should want him, he loves doing deals, getting things done... the idea of sitting around for 4 years does NOT appeal to him...
If you want Hillary, what you're really saying is you want more continuing resolutions, no solution to immigration, no solutions to jobs, no solutions to trade, more corporate welfare, more deals for big business...
What amazes me is that for all the threads on Slashdot complaining about big business, taxes, global warming, etc. this forum is rather liberal and wants to elect someone who will do NOTHING ABOUT ANY OF THAT... You think Hillary wants to stop oil and natural gas? Seriously? You think she wants corporate tax reform? Against the very people giving her tens of millions of dollars?
Sure, half of what comes out of Trump's mouth is complete bullshit, but at least he has no problem telling idiots to go fuck themselves... Hillary won't do that, she'll instead lick their boots and say "yes please may I have some more sir" to the big money...
Slashdot Mirror
You'll get upvoted to funny, but the reality is for most people installing Linux on their desktop is not an upgrade...
If it was, Linux would have more than 2% of the desktop market...
The Linux fanboys are out in force... my post was up to +5, but has been downvoted to just +2...
There will be much digital ink spilled over this, then you'll all mostly go vote for the same idiots over and over...
Until you start voting new people in, nothing will change...
And I don't mean one or two, I mean the majority, you need a new government, but you largely won't get one because "the OTHER guys suck, but MY representative is great"
Most computers come with Windows pre-installed, people are not "choosing" Windows.
Over the past 15 years, most of the big PC companies have tried to sell machines with Linux...
Dell about 10 years ago made a big push for a year or two, they sold them right on their home page, for less money than the Windows versions...
They stopped when the return rate was much higher than for Windows PCs and their support costs were higher, since people didn't know how to use it or wanted to know why "X" program wouldn't work on it.
So yes, customers did choose...
Microsoft Office/Exchange is still huge in the office.
DirectX-only games like Overwatch make a killing.
Professional tools like Adobe CC don't support Linux.
All true... a bigger problem beyond those three is that Linux doesn't actually solve a need for most people. It doesn't solve a problem.
Windows 10 works fine... the problem is that Linux's biggest selling point can't be that "it isn't Windows". That didn't work 20 years ago, it didn't work 10 years ago, it won't work today.
The real question is, "what will Linux do for normal PC users that Windows will not"
Because there is PLENTY that it won't do, but what will it do that Windows won't? And for 95% of PC users, the answer is "nothing".
That is why Linux will never win the Desktop PC market.
Only if they knew about it....
Ahh yes, if only people knew about your better mousetrap, the world would beat a path to its door?
No, it won't... because Linux doesn't solve a problem, it doesn't do anything for most people.
It is a great workstation and server OS for a small sub-set of PC users, it serves a purpose and I'm glad it exists. But to Joe Sixpack, it doesn't fill a need.
If the average person doesn't care about the NSA spying on them, then they sure as hell don't care about MS doing it, and I think most people know Google and Apple are already there, so what's the difference?
Windows 10 works fine, Linux doesn't fill a need in the marketplace.
It sounds to me like you're working from either anecdote or a foregone conclusion that resists all logic.
The grand irony is that you're the one not using logic...
The numbers aren't even a secret, the Government just hides them in plain sight in 127 page reports that no one reads...
You'll get upvoted to funny, but the reality is for most people installing Linux on their desktop is not an upgrade...
If it was, Linux would have more than 2% of the desktop market...
It is a lot more than 1 in 20 people looking for work...
The numbers are a lie, that is all... I'd explain it, but after that wall of text, I suspect you're so convinced that you're right you wouldn't listen anyway...
Pilots have far, far more time to correct an autopilot than Tesla allows to correct its "Autopilot". Further, pilots go through thousands of hours of training. How much training is required to operate Tesla's "Autopilot"? My point is that Tesla's "Autopilot" is not anything remotely equivalent to a commercial airliner's autopilot, and Tesla's marketing strategy callously blurs this line which, in this case, may have led to death.
How much training does your average Private Pilot have? 40 hours? 80 hours?
A Cessna 172 with 4 seats has an autopilot... Do you know how much training on its use is required to obtain a Pilot Certificate?
NONE... Zero, it is highly unlikely to be on the flight test (it technically can be, but it never has been in my experience)
CATIII autoland does exist, and is used, just not in the USA. The FAA rules do not allow CATIII landings in the US. It is used quite regularly outside of the USA.
And once again someone posts crap without knowing what the hell they are talking about, and this is why we have such idiots running our countries...
https://www.faa.gov/about/offi...
You are wrong, there are lots of US airports that allow Category III Autoland and have for decades...
I could care less about the company I work for. they could care less about me.
Watch and learn something, then you might have a better job finding employment...
https://youtu.be/om7O0MFkmpw
4.9% UE3 down from 10%; 5.6% UE4; GDP-per-capita recovered from its dip a couple years ago.
If those numbers were real, you'd see a rise in wages... Supply and demand and all that...
But you don't, because they are a lie... I still see a lot of people having trouble finding work and when I post a job listing I'm overrun with applications...
Seriously, nitpicking? Pilots have many seconds, to a minute to respond to irregularities in autopilot control. Drivers of Tesla's "Autopilot" have less than a second. They aren't remotely the same.
Your statement is not correct...
Pilots have to be able to respond quickly to an autopilot that has lost control, they do not remotely have a minute...
Pilots' training includes the definition of autopilot. Driver training does not. Don't blame the driver.
Perhaps I should blame the driver training then, which is a complete joke in the United States anyway...
If we treated driving as an earned privileged rather than a right, and had REAL training on how to drive, perhaps we'd have fewer problems...
Pilots operating under autopilot do not need to "keep [their] hands on the steering wheel at all times."
You're nitpicking, that is a minor detail that isn't material to the situation...
Tesla's "Autopilot" is not an autopilot
Yes, it is, in every way you could possibly consider it, it is an autopilot...
What it is NOT is a "self-driving car"... Just like an airplane with an autopilot is not a "self-flying drone"...
Large airplanes have been able to land themselves since the 1970s...
That still doesn't mean the pilot can watch Netflix while the plane lands and if it crashes, it is still his fault...
But I hope they get hit hard for calling their adaptive cruise control feature "autopilot".
Why? That is what it is...
Do you think airplane pilots who are using the autopilot are allowed to just ignore what is going on and watch a movie?
How about private pilots in little 4 seat planes that have autopilots? Can they just have a nap while the plane flies?
you CAN safely draw 100W from the PEG slot
Not from every motherboard... Some I'm sure you could, but some will fry if you try it...
you CAN safely draw 170W from a 6Pin
No, not from every power supply... some, sure, they are designed for it, but many are not... the wires aren't thick enough, the amps may not be there...
every single high end card on the market takes the PCI-e spec and throws it out the window frankly
Nope, sorry, but you're wrong.
the issue was blown out of proportion by a few users that knew nothing of which they spoke and stated it as fact
I think Tom's Hardware knows a hell of a lot more than you do...
Idiots like you are why Hillary is going to win the election, because people like to think they know stuff, when really they don't.
AMD has smart people working for them, how they missed this and launched the card I'm at a loss to explain...
Unless they didn't miss it and hoped no one would notice... Or the left hand didn't talk to the right hand...
As for the extra power coming from the 6-pin PCI-E connector, that doesn't bother me so much, most modern power supplies can do that just fine.
I said *most*, some won't be able to, this is indeed a problem, but for most people the fix is just to update the drivers and the few that it isn't, to put it in "compatibility mode"
The problem is, the people who need *compatibility mode* are exactly the people who won't know that and won't do it.
I think it is a mistake to not make compatibility mode the default and let people manually adjust to the higher draw mode.
Seriously, the fact that this is being passed around major media shows how completely stupid most journalists really are...
Or they don't care and figure their idiots views don't know any better and just want to be entertained...
This has zero chance of happening, for so many reasons...
More than 3 billion people will board airplanes this year, fewer than 1,000 will die. This is SO not a problem that needs a wholesale change...
Fix the million deaths on the road first, that is a much bigger problem... Fix the medical mistakes that kill millions... fix the pollution from fossil fuels that is killing (some number larger than airplanes are)... fix ANYTHING else but this non-existent problem...
Being in space for years, with extreme temperature variations, vacuum, and radiation, isn't sufficient to guarantee sterility? I know bacterial spores can be pretty tough, but THAT tough?
Unlike morons on Earth who are happy to fuck with our air, water, and food supply for profit, NASA understands that you can't fuck this up even once, and it simply isn't worth the chance...
Once even a single anything gets down there, you're screwed and can never remove it...
The jump capability of imperial SDs doesn't support changing destinations in mid-jump. ST ships gain a strategic and tactical advantage in controlling their engagements that the Imperial ships don't have.
While that is true, keep in mind that ST ships can be targeted while at warp, while SW ships cannot. When a SW ship jumps to lightspeed, it is completely invisible and invincible (short of flying into a planet or sun) until it reverts to realspace.
ST ships can quickly enter and exit warp at any time to establish position..
What we don't know is... would Interdictor cruisers pull a ST ship out of Warp and prevent the formation of a warp field?
The relative weapon strengths also would tend to favor the fewer but more powerful SF weapons. SDs are fit with large numbers of weapons designed to attack frigate sized ( 300m targets. There is some effect in 'sand blasting' the target, but this really doesn't create a huge threat to SF vessels. They are not going to get stomped by a large weapon from the SDs... so SF has predictable interval to apply damage and get off grid before their shields fail.
You're ignoring the ion cannons... :) Star Destroyers have an equal number of ion cannons to bring down shields. Of course we have no idea how effective they would be, but they likely would be better than turbo lasers...
You're also forgetting the basic rule that if you put enough fire out, you cannot dodge it all. This is how the M4 Sherman tanks beat German Mark VI Tiger tanks, with shear numbers... A standard Star Destroyer has 80 heavy weapon emplacements and a dozen or so missile and torpedo launchers, it can simply fire in 40 different directions and bracket the ST ships so there is no place to turn or go if it wishes to remain within range.
We also have no useful information on what is more powerful, a Proton Torpedo or a Photon Torpedo
Imperial fighters and support ships ( 50m) are not going to be a significant threat to any SF class of ship even in large numbers. The SF ships can easily kite them, and SF vessels don't have small unshielded systems that a fighter is going to be able to damage.
The Empire has over 1 million starships... what if they simply ram the Star Fleet ships? Shields or no shields, if you ram a 300m long ship into another 300m long ship, bad things will happen to everyone involved.
TL;DR Imperial Navy vs Star Fleet would be a guerrilla war that Star Fleet would likely lose, and would be hideously expensive for the Imperial Navy to win.
I think a lot depends on if Starfleet has anything to defend or not... If "Earth" exists and they are tasked with defending it, I think they would lose very quickly. If they are mobile and have no fixed bases, it would be a much different story.
Putting aside the "my pretend spaceship can beatup your pretend spaceship..." :)
http://www.daltonator.net/fanf...
Star Trek had some major size inflation going on there, Voyager is larger than the Enterprise from Kirk's time.
Take Enterprise-D, since we know the most about it...
You could just about dock it inside the Imperial Star Destroyer (not really, the hangers aren't that big, but it would fit into an empty shell).
It is powered by matter-antimatter reactors that provide a lot of power to travel at faster than light speed and power the phaser arrays.
However, the Imperial Star Destroyer is powered by a hyper-matter annihilator (whatever the hell that is) that can propel the ship from one side of the Galaxy to the other in a few days.
The Enterprise would take a lifetime to do that.
The Phasers on the Enterprise are probably stronger than the individual weapons on the Star Destroyer, but the Star Destroyer has a lot more of them. Its shields appear to suck however and it lacks transporters.
But what it lacks in tech, it makes up for in raw weight of numbers... The Empire has over 25,000 Imperial Star Destroyers by the time of the Battle of Endor...
And this ignores the Supers...
http://i49.photobucket.com/alb...
Find the Enterprise in that picture... Now consider that the Emperor built 8 Supers... (officially 4, but each were built twice using the same names and orders to hide the extra 4)
Now tell me the Federation would last 5 minutes against the Empire as it existed BBY 3
---
And also, lets not ignore the whole... Jedi/Sith thing... what really competes with that in the Star Trek universe?
Oh I agree. But it's the system which wreaks the efforts of even those who are capable.
It would take a "strongman" to do it, but so often those turn bad (see: most of them in history)...
The wholesale removal of all people in congress would be a great start to changing things.
It will, sadly, take another war to do that, I don't see a peaceful path forward to do it.
Which is a shame...
You mean you would block Hillary from doing things,just like Republicans have blocked obama from doing things for 6+ years?
Yes, she is evil and evil must be opposed...
I don't like Hillary but Hillary would galvanize the Republicans against her.
Right, which is why the Democrats are morons for running her, they can't get anything done because she is hated so much...
Trump will bully Republicans into following him, or risk losing out.
And you know how Trump will do that? Because if the Republicans don't listen to him, he'll walk across the isle and do a deal with the Democrats...
That is why you should want him, he loves doing deals, getting things done... the idea of sitting around for 4 years does NOT appeal to him...
If you want Hillary, what you're really saying is you want more continuing resolutions, no solution to immigration, no solutions to jobs, no solutions to trade, more corporate welfare, more deals for big business...
What amazes me is that for all the threads on Slashdot complaining about big business, taxes, global warming, etc. this forum is rather liberal and wants to elect someone who will do NOTHING ABOUT ANY OF THAT... You think Hillary wants to stop oil and natural gas? Seriously? You think she wants corporate tax reform? Against the very people giving her tens of millions of dollars?
Sure, half of what comes out of Trump's mouth is complete bullshit, but at least he has no problem telling idiots to go fuck themselves... Hillary won't do that, she'll instead lick their boots and say "yes please may I have some more sir" to the big money...