Up until recently, OS X severely lagged behind Windows in several security features. IIRC, it took Mavericks to bring it up to feature parity (or close). There is nothing about OS X that makes it inherently more secure than Windows.
As for the linked article, moving to a "closed" OS is the cheap and lazy way to protect against some things. The same has long been done on Windows, by the more paranoid admins. It does not solve any underlying issues - if anything, incentives to actively seek out issues are reduced.
7 runs far better than Vista in limited RAM. Specifically, 7 avoids keeping copies of VRAM contents in main RAM, whenever possible, freeing up room for other stuff. 8 had some more unspecified changes made (specifically due to Windows Phone and Windows RT) to the kernel to help contain memory usage further.
Congratulations for presenting "proof" that doesn't prove anything. User-perceived sluggish behavior is mostly due to slow hard drives not loading stuff quickly enough. 4GB of RAM is more than enough for anything casual (except newer games - but it's silly to run those on a laptop) and the majority of productivity software.
I mean, it's general knowledge that iTunes for Windows is most likely the worst piece of software ever written... But what you describe takes it to a whole new level of stupidity.
Hell, it almost makes it sound like they're trying to slow down Windows on purpose...
The number was not universally known, but it was known among those who could make use of it (explorers and cartographers).
The western route was probably ruled out for a number of reasons: It's significantly longer Requires much more exploration and there's little to no information on what's beyond the Atlantic An Atlantic crossing is significantly more difficult than a journey hugging Africa (more places to stop, basically) - the difficulty of the latter may have been underestimated at first.
It's also important to note that the long timeframe was designed into the method used (intentionally or not): Expeditions that slowly chart a bit further and then report back, so that the next phase can be planned and then sent on its way.
Reaching India by going West would have required pretty much the same innovations, and it's safe to assume most were aware of this.
He originally pitched his idea of the route to "India" over here, so he was most certainly not aware of what was going on. Whether anyone in the whole operation knew is a different story.
The only fatality in a Model S was a moron who stole one and crashed in a ludicrous speed chase in the middle of a city, cutting the car in half and wedging one of the halves between two buildings.
Then the three caught fire after hitting stuff (IIRC, only one of them was driving normally and not involved in a crash, but was hit by some nasty debris), but as you said, they addressed that head on, with insane overkill.
I'll subscribe to the sentiment about GM, by the way. I considered the Volt the next best thing until Tesla had something a bit more affordable. Now, I consider it a likely deathtrap, like all GM cars.
Being Portuguese, I'm damned happy that my ancestors laughed Columbus out of the country.
Only a grade A moron arrives in America and says to himself "I have arrived in India!".
The Earth's radius was known with some precision back then. Nobody with an education really believed that the Earth was flat. Anyone with half a brain who planned exploration would've figured out that the continent whose existence was vaguely known was not far enough to be India.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
With Kodos, the whole comments section would be filled only with Simpsons quotes.
"Ultrasmall" is not a word.
"Ultra-small" or "ultra small" are better, but sound way too stupid.
"Extremely small", "smallest yet" are better alternatives.
Yes it is. Not because of availability, but other issues like allergies or compromised immune systems.
And those unfortunate enough not to be able to be vaccinated.
You're the one making outrageous claims, so don't expect people to believe you unless you have proof to show.
Just because a random guy publishes a list with no explanation doesn't mean he's right.
How about a reputable citation?
[Citation Needed]
Up until recently, OS X severely lagged behind Windows in several security features. IIRC, it took Mavericks to bring it up to feature parity (or close). There is nothing about OS X that makes it inherently more secure than Windows.
As for the linked article, moving to a "closed" OS is the cheap and lazy way to protect against some things. The same has long been done on Windows, by the more paranoid admins. It does not solve any underlying issues - if anything, incentives to actively seek out issues are reduced.
More popular OS gets more attention from exploit and virus coders. News at 11.
Upgrade to 7 or 8 and enjoy a little better performance. Not magically better, but better.
Those Core i7s are using exactly as much power idling as a Core i3, most likely.
7 runs far better than Vista in limited RAM. Specifically, 7 avoids keeping copies of VRAM contents in main RAM, whenever possible, freeing up room for other stuff.
8 had some more unspecified changes made (specifically due to Windows Phone and Windows RT) to the kernel to help contain memory usage further.
Congratulations for presenting "proof" that doesn't prove anything. User-perceived sluggish behavior is mostly due to slow hard drives not loading stuff quickly enough. 4GB of RAM is more than enough for anything casual (except newer games - but it's silly to run those on a laptop) and the majority of productivity software.
That's why only high-end Xeons support multi-processor setups.
Yeah, avoid OS X at all costs.
Holy shit.
I mean, it's general knowledge that iTunes for Windows is most likely the worst piece of software ever written... But what you describe takes it to a whole new level of stupidity.
Hell, it almost makes it sound like they're trying to slow down Windows on purpose...
This does not sound like it will be of much use for discrete electronic components.
The number was not universally known, but it was known among those who could make use of it (explorers and cartographers).
The western route was probably ruled out for a number of reasons:
It's significantly longer
Requires much more exploration and there's little to no information on what's beyond the Atlantic
An Atlantic crossing is significantly more difficult than a journey hugging Africa (more places to stop, basically) - the difficulty of the latter may have been underestimated at first.
It's also important to note that the long timeframe was designed into the method used (intentionally or not): Expeditions that slowly chart a bit further and then report back, so that the next phase can be planned and then sent on its way.
Reaching India by going West would have required pretty much the same innovations, and it's safe to assume most were aware of this.
He originally pitched his idea of the route to "India" over here, so he was most certainly not aware of what was going on. Whether anyone in the whole operation knew is a different story.
Tesla has had safety issues?
The only fatality in a Model S was a moron who stole one and crashed in a ludicrous speed chase in the middle of a city, cutting the car in half and wedging one of the halves between two buildings.
Then the three caught fire after hitting stuff (IIRC, only one of them was driving normally and not involved in a crash, but was hit by some nasty debris), but as you said, they addressed that head on, with insane overkill.
I'll subscribe to the sentiment about GM, by the way. I considered the Volt the next best thing until Tesla had something a bit more affordable. Now, I consider it a likely deathtrap, like all GM cars.
Being Portuguese, I'm damned happy that my ancestors laughed Columbus out of the country.
Only a grade A moron arrives in America and says to himself "I have arrived in India!".
The Earth's radius was known with some precision back then. Nobody with an education really believed that the Earth was flat. Anyone with half a brain who planned exploration would've figured out that the continent whose existence was vaguely known was not far enough to be India.
It's spam, did you expect a logical set of ideas?
It's not the weakest, so it's in line.
I wouldn't buy such a phone, but you can't say it's a problem that is unacceptable - nobody complained about the HTC.
Of course, this hinges on the test being somewhat accurate. I'll reserve judgement on that for now.
Recall-worthy? No, it's in line with other, comparable phones.
A stupid, easily-avoided consequence of the foolish pursuit of extreme thinness? Definitely.
...yet.
An OLED is an LED, so the title isn't a lie. It's vague.
An LED would have little problem running from a PWM dimmer, as long as the eletronics around it don't blow from it.
The diode itself couldn't care less about the voltage waveform, as long as it stays away from the breakdown voltages.
At this rate, it won't be cheaper than the F22.