That's a double-edged sword. The journalists rely on being able to provide news about Nvidia as much as Nvidia relies on them to provide that news. If any journalist stop providing news on Nvidia, the readers will turn somewhere else to get it. If another journalist provides all the news they want under one source, the first journalist is likely to start losing viewership.
I don't know which reason would be worse. On one hand, they knowingly voted it through as is in complete disregard for the people they are supposed to serve. On the other hand, they're too stupid to do their job and voted through what they were told.
No, there are very much laws against drinking a soda. Washington State has made it a secondary offense to be eating or drinking anything while driving. Again, may not have anything to do with where you live, but it's very much a thing. That being said, I never once said it was as bad as texting and driving. However, it is a distraction while driving. This is especially so if you end up dropping your food/drink.
First, as others have said, you shouldn't be drinking anything while driving. Some places have laws against it. I can't speak for where you live in terms of law, but it does cause safety concerns.
Second, most "solutions" to climate change are going to involve a reduction in quality of life... to somebody. You may not be affected by every change, but most everyone will be affected by some change. The key is to reduce the overall negative impact.
Third, I can only imagine that the overall long-term negative impact of climate change will also result in a reduction in quality of life.
That's just it though. We're the modern normal. Those household average, while possibly technically accurate are not actually a fair representation of the average household. If the average older internet user (or really anyone that doesn't spend a lot of time online) only uses a few gigs per month, they're directly offsetting the usage of most normal households. The average just throws them all together, which is only statistically useful and not of any practical significance.
The problem arises when idiots^H^H^H^H^H^H users install some trojan and then expect Apple to fix it and then bad mouth the company when they refuse to deal with it or for having bad security. The problem with a design approach that dumbs things down as much as possible so that any fool can use it is that any fool will use it.
That problem already exists on computers. It has been there for decades. There is no real difference when it comes to a smartphone. People will be smart/stupid regardless of whichever device it is. Restricting usability because some people are barely smart enough to hit a power button is not the best way to go about things. Hell, by making them find the setting (or have someone find it for them) there is an extra step before they can be "idiots". It's still a one up over computers.
Also, I believe you always could side-load if you wanted by compiling the app yourself with XCode and loading it on the device, or at least you used to be able to do so. I can't remember if Apple started charing some yearly fee to app developers that made this unfeasible even for most tech geeks, but this is about the appropriate number of hoops to keep the kinds of users that would do something utterly stupid from hurting themselves.
Yes, because app developers are going to just up and give you the code to compile yourself. I know some would, but I don't see most businesses as wanting to release their apps as code.
If you give the customer the choice of being able to turn on side-loading, you cater to both groups. You just don't turn the setting on if you don't want it. If it's a business concern, I imagine it wouldn't be impossible for management software to lock the setting.
$0.30/GB? Are you insane? Based on Comcast's 1TB limit, you're talking $300/mo. That slightly edges out what Comcast is charging for 2000Mbps internet in my area. For a more normal speed package, you're looking at 3-5x the current monthly rates. Now, again this is based off of the limits Comcast feels it should put on your internet. My roommate and I are gamers so periodic downloads on Steam, and stream a fair bit as well. We average around 450-600GB a month. We're not heavy users. At $0.30/GB you're looking at $150/mo, which would be almost double what we're paying. And while Comcast is a better deal than the DSL options in the general area, including my employer(I live outside the coverage area), they charge what they can get away with and not the actual worth. If I moved into a covered area near work, I could get gigabit internet for less than I pay for 150megabit with Comcast. That is without an employee discount.
I can only imagine that peak demand would very much affect the cost. The circuit will need to be able to handle the load at peak demand, unless the company doesn't care about providing advertised speeds. I get that you can assume the major ISPs don't care about it. I would say that is at least partially correct. They have to provide at least enough bandwidth to keep most people complacent. If you're(average consumer) paying for 100 and only getting 80 you'll likely complain about it, but won't actually do something unless you have a good alternative. With the monoplies/duopolies in place in the US, that won't likely be the case. If you're paying for 100 and only getting 50, you're much more likely to take action. In the end it still comes back to the fact that while it may not be a 1:1, the circuit does have to be built with peak demand in mind.
As technical support for a local ISP, I cannot be sure what percentage of our calls are email related. But, I can say that they take up a lot more of our time on the phone than other issues.
10 years is just not even remotely short when it comes to computers. That isn't to say the computers cannot function, but there is a huge performance difference. On top of that, regardless of what the hardware can handle.. There are huge changes in what the underlying software can handle. The underpinnings of the software between then and now changed a lot.
In the end, this is all a matter of opinion. You believe differently, and to each their own for that. On top of that, while not at the crux of discussion... in the case of Steam only 0.22% of the customer base uses XP. They shouldn't be hobbling their software to support less than a percent of their users who are on an operating system that hasn't been for sale for about a decade.
I was only specifically going at you going after someone for the 17 years. There was no real need for it in the first place. That being said, when the last security patch is released for a product is not a good way to determine whether an entirely separate business entity should stop supporting a product. The last security patch, that I'm aware of, for XP was in 2017. The last patch prior to that was in 2014. End of mainstream support was in 2009. SP3 was in 2008. Microsoft stopped selling general licenses in 2008. So, even if you want to count from when MS stopped selling it... We're talking 10 fucking years. More than long enough time for a software company to support an operating system after it went off the market.
He's a fictional person, but he still very much exists. Saying he doesn't exist would be the same as saying words, music, stories, etc.. all don't exist.
I never said you did. I merely made a sarcastic remark about his character in relation to said events. My point still stands, however. In the context of those events, he was only a man trying to obtain freedom for his people. I'm not saying he was/wasn't a wholly good man, just that his action in relation to WW2 were entirely justified. Using them as an example for why he is a dick seems unfounded.
100 years is very much limited. The human race has been here for hundreds of thousands of years, what's 100 years but an incredibly small portion of it.
It's a joke, but also reality. A large limited time frame is still a limited time frame. Now, the fact that they are able to keep extending the limit leaves it open to potentially be limitless. The end of the nation/species/world/solar system/etc being the only hard limits.
I only read the wikipedia article, about him and ww2 so I'm not exactly an expert. But, it is what you suggested. In WW2 he campaigned for India's freedom from Britain. He said that they should not support a war meant to secure the freedom of others, when their own freedoms were being denied. He also wanted to see a peaceful resolution to the war, instead of bloodshed. He sounds like a real monster.
I just accidentally nuked my fully typed reply. The quick and dirty. The goalposts comment. I was only referring to s8 and s8+, and also my s9+. There are multiple models of the s8/s8+ and same with s9/s9+, whether they're snapdragon or exynos.. or other carrier specifics. There are also multiple markets they're sold in. The point was that not every model and/or market gets the same set of updates.
The talk about the May update was for my s9+. It exists, but not for the US carriers I checked.
Samsung is not free of fault when the updates are delayed. They're definitely not the only ones at fault, but they're not free of it. If they wanted us to get our updates sooner, we would get them. If Apple can do it, so can Samsung. It's just a matter of what will it take.
Finally, I noted that there were more updates released than I ever received.. even on my carrier. I don't know why, but not the point. However, there were still a couple missed updates. Those missed updates weren't exclusive to my carrier either. They were also regularly a month behind. I said before that isn't a huge issue, just pointing it out as you tried countering it earlier. Samsung is also terrible about version updates. They cannot be bothered to release their phones on the latest release version and take nearly a year to put out a version update. Hopefully Treble and the other changes to the back end really improve all this.
It's not bullshit. It's a verifiable fact that Samsung doesn't release regular updates. Hell, this article is about that very fact. Samsung does not release updates for every version of every model phone to every market on a regular basis. Some markets get them more frequently than others. Some carriers also interfere in the process. My lack of updates was not exclusive to my carrier. But, when multiple markets with multiple carriers are having problems getting updates it's not one carrier. Also, for the record, I said before that Samsung is not solely responsible for the problem.
As for the oreo bit. Yes, OS updates aren't security updates. They are, however, no less fucking important.
I had an S8+ and went months between updates. The S8/S8+ only recently getting Oreo. I know Samsung isn't alone for the blame, but they sure as hell aren't releasing timely updates. The only update to come out for my s9+ was on March 16th and that was using the Feb 1st security patch. So, I'm currently all but 4 months behind. I don't expect same day releases or anything, just showing the current time frame. I know there is a May update that has gone out to SOME markets, but definitely not here yet.
The problem with that, it implies they'll get them before that date but without any actual guarantee. Given Samsung's current trends, they most definitely wouldn't. I say that as someone using Samsung phones.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a double-edged sword. The journalists rely on being able to provide news about Nvidia as much as Nvidia relies on them to provide that news. If any journalist stop providing news on Nvidia, the readers will turn somewhere else to get it. If another journalist provides all the news they want under one source, the first journalist is likely to start losing viewership.
I don't know which reason would be worse. On one hand, they knowingly voted it through as is in complete disregard for the people they are supposed to serve. On the other hand, they're too stupid to do their job and voted through what they were told.
No, there are very much laws against drinking a soda. Washington State has made it a secondary offense to be eating or drinking anything while driving. Again, may not have anything to do with where you live, but it's very much a thing. That being said, I never once said it was as bad as texting and driving. However, it is a distraction while driving. This is especially so if you end up dropping your food/drink.
First, as others have said, you shouldn't be drinking anything while driving. Some places have laws against it. I can't speak for where you live in terms of law, but it does cause safety concerns.
Second, most "solutions" to climate change are going to involve a reduction in quality of life... to somebody. You may not be affected by every change, but most everyone will be affected by some change. The key is to reduce the overall negative impact.
Third, I can only imagine that the overall long-term negative impact of climate change will also result in a reduction in quality of life.
That's just it though. We're the modern normal. Those household average, while possibly technically accurate are not actually a fair representation of the average household. If the average older internet user (or really anyone that doesn't spend a lot of time online) only uses a few gigs per month, they're directly offsetting the usage of most normal households. The average just throws them all together, which is only statistically useful and not of any practical significance.
The problem arises when idiots^H^H^H^H^H^H users install some trojan and then expect Apple to fix it and then bad mouth the company when they refuse to deal with it or for having bad security. The problem with a design approach that dumbs things down as much as possible so that any fool can use it is that any fool will use it.
That problem already exists on computers. It has been there for decades. There is no real difference when it comes to a smartphone. People will be smart/stupid regardless of whichever device it is. Restricting usability because some people are barely smart enough to hit a power button is not the best way to go about things. Hell, by making them find the setting (or have someone find it for them) there is an extra step before they can be "idiots". It's still a one up over computers.
Also, I believe you always could side-load if you wanted by compiling the app yourself with XCode and loading it on the device, or at least you used to be able to do so. I can't remember if Apple started charing some yearly fee to app developers that made this unfeasible even for most tech geeks, but this is about the appropriate number of hoops to keep the kinds of users that would do something utterly stupid from hurting themselves.
Yes, because app developers are going to just up and give you the code to compile yourself. I know some would, but I don't see most businesses as wanting to release their apps as code.
If you give the customer the choice of being able to turn on side-loading, you cater to both groups. You just don't turn the setting on if you don't want it. If it's a business concern, I imagine it wouldn't be impossible for management software to lock the setting.
I think the bigger issue is that the app developers aren't going to develop side-loaded apps unless it's a viable option for people.
$0.30/GB? Are you insane? Based on Comcast's 1TB limit, you're talking $300/mo. That slightly edges out what Comcast is charging for 2000Mbps internet in my area. For a more normal speed package, you're looking at 3-5x the current monthly rates. Now, again this is based off of the limits Comcast feels it should put on your internet. My roommate and I are gamers so periodic downloads on Steam, and stream a fair bit as well. We average around 450-600GB a month. We're not heavy users. At $0.30/GB you're looking at $150/mo, which would be almost double what we're paying. And while Comcast is a better deal than the DSL options in the general area, including my employer(I live outside the coverage area), they charge what they can get away with and not the actual worth. If I moved into a covered area near work, I could get gigabit internet for less than I pay for 150megabit with Comcast. That is without an employee discount.
I can only imagine that peak demand would very much affect the cost. The circuit will need to be able to handle the load at peak demand, unless the company doesn't care about providing advertised speeds. I get that you can assume the major ISPs don't care about it. I would say that is at least partially correct. They have to provide at least enough bandwidth to keep most people complacent. If you're(average consumer) paying for 100 and only getting 80 you'll likely complain about it, but won't actually do something unless you have a good alternative. With the monoplies/duopolies in place in the US, that won't likely be the case. If you're paying for 100 and only getting 50, you're much more likely to take action. In the end it still comes back to the fact that while it may not be a 1:1, the circuit does have to be built with peak demand in mind.
As technical support for a local ISP, I cannot be sure what percentage of our calls are email related. But, I can say that they take up a lot more of our time on the phone than other issues.
10 years is just not even remotely short when it comes to computers. That isn't to say the computers cannot function, but there is a huge performance difference. On top of that, regardless of what the hardware can handle.. There are huge changes in what the underlying software can handle. The underpinnings of the software between then and now changed a lot.
In the end, this is all a matter of opinion. You believe differently, and to each their own for that. On top of that, while not at the crux of discussion... in the case of Steam only 0.22% of the customer base uses XP. They shouldn't be hobbling their software to support less than a percent of their users who are on an operating system that hasn't been for sale for about a decade.
I was only specifically going at you going after someone for the 17 years. There was no real need for it in the first place. That being said, when the last security patch is released for a product is not a good way to determine whether an entirely separate business entity should stop supporting a product. The last security patch, that I'm aware of, for XP was in 2017. The last patch prior to that was in 2014. End of mainstream support was in 2009. SP3 was in 2008. Microsoft stopped selling general licenses in 2008. So, even if you want to count from when MS stopped selling it... We're talking 10 fucking years. More than long enough time for a software company to support an operating system after it went off the market.
16 years 9+ months is close enough to 17 for you to stop being a fucking pedantic tool.
How can you consider Waluigi's blatant ostracization in the new game a fun topic!! This is tragic!
All jokes aside, I get why some people would be upset. It isn't front-page newsworthy, but it's a letdown for some people.
He's a fictional person, but he still very much exists. Saying he doesn't exist would be the same as saying words, music, stories, etc.. all don't exist.
I never said you did. I merely made a sarcastic remark about his character in relation to said events. My point still stands, however. In the context of those events, he was only a man trying to obtain freedom for his people. I'm not saying he was/wasn't a wholly good man, just that his action in relation to WW2 were entirely justified. Using them as an example for why he is a dick seems unfounded.
100 years is very much limited. The human race has been here for hundreds of thousands of years, what's 100 years but an incredibly small portion of it.
It's a joke, but also reality. A large limited time frame is still a limited time frame. Now, the fact that they are able to keep extending the limit leaves it open to potentially be limitless. The end of the nation/species/world/solar system/etc being the only hard limits.
Fun Fact: I heard pizza boxes are not recyclable because of all the oil from the pizza soaking into the cardboard!
As an aside: They can usually go in yard waste, if you get the option.
When you're talking about systems that need(truly make use of) 32 cores, the math isn't that simple.
I only read the wikipedia article, about him and ww2 so I'm not exactly an expert. But, it is what you suggested. In WW2 he campaigned for India's freedom from Britain. He said that they should not support a war meant to secure the freedom of others, when their own freedoms were being denied. He also wanted to see a peaceful resolution to the war, instead of bloodshed. He sounds like a real monster.
I just accidentally nuked my fully typed reply. The quick and dirty. The goalposts comment. I was only referring to s8 and s8+, and also my s9+. There are multiple models of the s8/s8+ and same with s9/s9+, whether they're snapdragon or exynos.. or other carrier specifics. There are also multiple markets they're sold in. The point was that not every model and/or market gets the same set of updates.
The talk about the May update was for my s9+. It exists, but not for the US carriers I checked.
Samsung is not free of fault when the updates are delayed. They're definitely not the only ones at fault, but they're not free of it. If they wanted us to get our updates sooner, we would get them. If Apple can do it, so can Samsung. It's just a matter of what will it take.
Finally, I noted that there were more updates released than I ever received.. even on my carrier. I don't know why, but not the point. However, there were still a couple missed updates. Those missed updates weren't exclusive to my carrier either. They were also regularly a month behind. I said before that isn't a huge issue, just pointing it out as you tried countering it earlier. Samsung is also terrible about version updates. They cannot be bothered to release their phones on the latest release version and take nearly a year to put out a version update. Hopefully Treble and the other changes to the back end really improve all this.
It's not bullshit. It's a verifiable fact that Samsung doesn't release regular updates. Hell, this article is about that very fact. Samsung does not release updates for every version of every model phone to every market on a regular basis. Some markets get them more frequently than others. Some carriers also interfere in the process. My lack of updates was not exclusive to my carrier. But, when multiple markets with multiple carriers are having problems getting updates it's not one carrier. Also, for the record, I said before that Samsung is not solely responsible for the problem.
As for the oreo bit. Yes, OS updates aren't security updates. They are, however, no less fucking important.
I had an S8+ and went months between updates. The S8/S8+ only recently getting Oreo. I know Samsung isn't alone for the blame, but they sure as hell aren't releasing timely updates. The only update to come out for my s9+ was on March 16th and that was using the Feb 1st security patch. So, I'm currently all but 4 months behind. I don't expect same day releases or anything, just showing the current time frame. I know there is a May update that has gone out to SOME markets, but definitely not here yet.
The problem with that, it implies they'll get them before that date but without any actual guarantee. Given Samsung's current trends, they most definitely wouldn't. I say that as someone using Samsung phones.