Come on, give me a break. It's not all about instant death, it's more often about about quality of life.
A few years ago I inexplicably developed asthma in Northern California (I have never had a single allergy, etc in 40 years). The doctor said she had seen a huge number of the same cases due to major fires south of San Jose that year (so bad some days you could see a haze in the air 50+ miles away). And I have never had the symptoms since (well, actually - one time - hanging out in a bar in IL before they instituted the smoking ban... so it's pretty clear what triggers it...)
Well, then I respect what you do and the risks you take, but I still don't agree with your overall assessment of car fires:) But yes, I didn't mean to withhold information, and the fire was initially started on a hot summer day when gasoline vapor ignited from a spark while my Dad was refilling the lawn mower (causing him to drop the gas can, and there ya go...) And I don't see why car burning would imply the tank has to explode - clearly there would be nothing *under* the tank burning, so a car's engine/upholstery, etc on fire with just a concrete slab underneath the car (and therefore the tank) doesn't mean the tank has to get *that* hot.
A gas tank in a burning car will heat up. If it reaches boiling point, it will explode, or violently burn the fuel in the tank.
Boiling point of a liquid just makes it a gas (which of course increases pressure), but in no way does that mean a container undergoing high pressure has to explode. As I'm sure you know, propane containers are under high gas pressure as well, since their boiling point is like -40F - but they are designed for that pressure (but of course, increase the temperature and therefore pressure beyond its limit and who knows, PV=nRT, etc). And while that gasoline might have also been heated to around its ignition temperature, it also requires an oxidizer - as long as the tank can withstand the pressure it's probably not going to explode...
And yes, from my previous comment the NFPA (which as a firefighter I'm sure you know) article said while ~10% of car fires involved the gas tank (my original point!), those of course did involve burrning/exploding tanks and were much more likely to be fatal...
Anyway, I still stand by my point that gasoline tanks (and their placement - ie. not too close to the engine, and not behind the rear axle/in crumple zones) in new cars are very carefully designed for safety, and lithium battery packs not so much yet, so there may be some pretty unexpected electric car incidents. I would guess as a firefighter you'd agree with that? But still, if I had $80k lying around and wanted a Tesla I'd feel perfectly safe driving one - unexpected does not imply inherently dangerous, and the number are way too low to make generalizations. And I'm sure, like ICE cars (see: Pinto) much will be learned and they will become safer with every new incident...
Why on earth would you bother making bunch of wrong assumptions about *my* anecdote?
No, the garage was packed with shit, several other items with gasoline in them (leaf blower, snow blower) literally exploded, and the fire was so hot it warped some glass on the house 30 feet away. There was almost nothing left of the car except the bare metal frame. And the garage definitely "burned down", there was no roof left by the time the firefighters managed to contain it.
And the firefighters themselves said they weren't that worried about the gas tank exploding, since automobile tanks are designed to withstand high heat and pressure in the tank, ie. it was NOT the exception but the rule. Unless the tank it punctured the gas in it was unlikely to ignite. At least go look it up instead of making it up - the majority of car fires (even in "on and running" cars) involve the engine compartment (gas in the lines, oil, etc) and the upholstery, etc, but not the gas tank itself (I saw a stat on NFPA that quoted ~10% of car fires involve the fuel tank). Which was my point in countering the comment "the gasoline is 99% of what is burning and not really the car itself", which is false in more cases than not.
But you probably know more commenting on an anecdote without any information than firefighters who see this all the time or associations whose job is to minimize fire risks, of course...
You do realize the gasoline is 99% of what is burning, and not really the "car" itself, right?
No, that's not necessarily true. my parents' garage burned down a couple years ago and totally destroyed a car inside - but the gas tank survived. The car was a shell, every bit burned down to the metal frame, except for the gasoline in the tank. Gas tanks have had 100 years of engineering to help prevent fires. Lithium batteries in cars are a completely new issue, and are going to have their growing pains.
Personally I agree with the point that there is not enough data to support Lion battery cars are any more dangerous than ICE, but you have to admit the latter does have a lot more data and engineering to ensure safety...
You couldn't have read much Heinlein to have that impression. Some of his stuff was brilliant, some (the later stuff) was just weird and pervy, but one thing he generally didn't do was push a single socio-political agenda in his works. In fact, if anything, he very specifically explored about a half dozen over his various novels and short stories.
Just because someone writes about a topic (even one with political themes) doesn't mean that has to represent his personal beliefs... If that were true, Stephen King would qualify as the most twistedly evil man of all time...
Except that Verhoeven himself has said he never finished the book, and in fact only got through a few chapters. In fact, early drafts of the movie weren't even directly based on the novel. The only reason it had a passing resemblance to (and title of) the book is that someone thought it would sell more tickets, and apparently the screenwriter did in fact read it.
Anyone familiar with Verhoeven's work knows he has a fascination with fascism/Nazism and could probably do an anti-fascist parody of Snow White if he felt like it.
I find this to be somewhat laughable. Robert Heinlein was entirely serious about the message that the story delivers. That only those who serve in the military and commit violence in the name of their country should truly be considered "citizens" of the country.
Actually, you have just proven you never really studied the author (or at least understood what you read). The book even says (and Heinlein has expanded on it in interviews, etc) that the service did NOT need to be military, but could take many forms of volunteer government service. His message had nothing to do with requiring someone to "commit violence in the military", it was about feeling a moral responsibility to your county if you want to choose its leaders (or become one).
Three reasons this isn't all that "insightful" (sorry):
1) two hours to encode a two hour movie is real time.
2) 1080p h.264 video encoders are available in $10 chips. Or if you don't want dedicated hardware for it, it can also be done on a PC at good quality using a half-decent GPU.
3) there are already decent examples of this being done in the real world - OnLive, GaiKai, etc. So it's clearly not only plausible, but working.
I don't even want to think about what a 200mph+ DOT tire costs.
Especially since the DOT doesn't even rate them;) They rate up to Y (186mph) but manufacturers tend to use "ZR" (which is unofficial) for tires that can go beyond that. Though the Veyron's tires aren't rated at all since there is no point, they are custom made for that one car and cost $40k for a new set (and not only that - they recommend replacement of the tires every 2500 miles and of the WHEELS every 10,000 miles!)
As far as the cost of regular tires, I guess it depends on what you mean by "regular". I just put new Michelin PSS's on a 997 C2S and they were cheaper than the "regular" PS2's I had before. $1200 to replace all 4 from tire rack, that's actually pretty cheap for ZR tires of that quality...
132 MPH isn't THAT ridiculously fast, but it is certainly fast enough that you shouldn't be doing it on standard production tires, even the ones rated for high speed, because they aren't rated for that high speed for any length of time... or even... say hitting a reflector on the road.
Depends what you mean by "standard production tires". Production tires like Michelin PS2's/PSS's are most definitely rated for over 132mph for decent lengths of time. They are stock on 911's and Ferrari's that people use on the track all the time.
I agree that there is no good reason the TPMS would be going off at that speed, though. He may have had them over/under inflated for some reason (or carelessness). The stock tires on a Tesla S are Y (186mph) rated Continentals, which would have no problem driving 130mph for a long time.
Yes and no. I'm betting this was about the top of the engineered range for the Tesla and its tires
Nope. The Tesla S comes with 21" Continental Extreme Contact DW's, which are Y rated (ie. to 188mph). The performance package actually comes with Michelin Pilot Sport PS2's... the same Z rated tires standard on the Porsche 911. Those can easily handle 190mph+
If there was a TPMS warning for driving at 130mph for a couple minutes, there was clearly either something wrong with the tire (over/under inflated?) or the monitor...
When those passwords are for systems related to employee benefits, pensions, and the 911 services of a city with 700,000 residents and all you have to do is write down a few words to your boss but refuse, yeah, that's jail-worthy.
That's idiotic. It had nothing to do with HIPAA (what the heck is HIIPA?), but it did have to do with systems like employee pensions and 911 service. Your BOSS, and then (eventually) the mayor (you boss's boss's boss's boss) asks you to turn over the passwords and you refuse, you deserve what you get.
So to answer your question, yes, I'd obviously hand over the passwords in those cases. But in this case you have no clue about what actually happened, which was he changed the passwords *without* permission and refused to provide them, which is pretty much extortion.
I have already posted the same too many times so no mod points, but this summarizes what happened very clearly.
It's ridiculous how many posts on this topic are so wrong that they don't know what Childs actually did (intentionally change and then not disclose passwords without permission), but they don't even get that it was a municipal (city of SF) computer system, not "some company". For those joining us, RTFA = READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE...
Except you are completely missing what actually happened in the case. Childs changed the passwords intentionally and without anyone else's permission so his coworkers and superiors couldn't use them because he claimed "they couldn't be trusted with them". In fact, they asked him for the passwords BEFORE he was fired and he refused. It basically was simple extortion, and no amount of documents are going to protect him from that.
Besides, what in fact was the city of SF "pulling on him"? They just wanted the passwords to THEIR COMPUTERS, and he had them. He refused. That's entirely on him, and was a totally solvable problem (the mayor of SF actually visited him after he was arrested and asked him for the passwords before he gave any up. If he hadn't finally given up his bizarre god complex and complied he'd probably be on the hook for a MUCH larger financial loss...
Seriously, have ANY of you actually followed this case at ALL?
He changed the passwords and then wouldn't tell anyone what they were because he claimed he "didn't trust anyone else with them". It's more like changing the lock on the door without your company's approval, and having the only key. It's a pretty clear cut case of either someone with a god complex or someone trying to extort the city of SF to keep his job.
No, seriously, YOUR argument is bullshit. Why? Because never once in that entire rant did you address any of the *specifics* of the actual case.
In the end Childs KNOWINGLY AND WITHOUT PERMISSION *changed* the passwords on a bunch of computers and then refused to give the owners of those devices (the city of San Francisco) those passwords. If for some bizarre and horrible reason by normal operational procedure he was just the only person who knew these passwords, was fired, and said "fuck you", that would be one thing, and I'd agree with you. But he intentionally locked down the systems and refused to unlock them - both before and after he was fired. He even claimed that the reason was because "he didn't trust his supervisors with them". That's pretty much a textbook application of the law, and could probably be extended to extortion if they wanted...
They just use OpenGL, or DirectX, and the chip and video card driver decides how to execute it and render it.
*Real* use of OpenGL and DirectX these days is all about the shaders, which get compiled and run on the GPUs. And even basic ops that are "builtin" to the drivers usually are using shader code internal to the driver (or microcode internal to the hardware/firmware).
The people programming against the hardware shouldn't have to decide how much, if any, error is acceptable.
Absolutely they should, and have been doing so with existing 3D hardware for a long time. It's just been more about 3D rendering shortcuts/heuristics/etc than faulty hardware. It's all about tricking the viewer's eyes and brain to increasing degrees, not reproducing an exactly correctly rendered 3D image... and until everything is raytraced that will continue be the case.
For instance, If I'm decoding video, I would just pass the encoded stream to a function, and get decoded frames back, or they would be displayed on the screen.
Well, I just finished implemented stereoscopic 3D video playback on the PS4, and I guarantee it's more work than that;) Libraries are provided to do the low level decoding, but demuxing, decryption, scaling/blitting to framebuffers, compositing with UI elements, audio processing, A/V sync, etc, are largely left up to the application programmer. Even even with that, the "hardware decoding" is mostly happening on the GPU or other *programmable* video decoder hardware anyway.
These reasons are precisely why GPUs / "hardware" decoders will likely be the first processors to benefit from frameworks like the one described in the article...
Yeah, but you could save just as much power (I'm guessing) with dedicated hardware decoders, as you could by letting the chips be inaccurate.
Eh, a dedicated hardware decoder is still made out of silicon. That's the point, make chips that perform tasks like that (or other things pushing lots of data that is only relevant for a short period, like GPUs - GPUs used only for gfx and not computation, at least) tolerate some error, so that they can use even less power. No one is yet suggesting we make general purpose CPUs in today's architectures unreliable:)
Actually, my experiences with Apple's (in store, at least) support has been extremely positive.
#1: yes, this is somewhat true. Though it's more like "deny it's a widespread or manufacturing defect".
#2: not really relevant to in-person support. If you ware just going to whine anonymously on a forum good luck anyway.
#3: My girlfriend is on her 4th iPhone 4S now. First she dropped (finally overpriced AppleCare comes in handy), second the mic went bad, 3rd wouldn't charge. Clearly some manufacturing issues on the last two but at least they replaced them with new phones (not refurbs... I guess another advantage of AppleCare) with no questions asked. Further, she brought in a 5+ year old Macbook (one of those white plastic ones) that had a (literal) battery meltdown. They replaced the whole case, battery, and even the keyboard (damaged by our cat ripping off a key). Again, no questions asked, no charge. Finally, they actually replaced the glass on my iPad a while back after my cat knocked it off a table (yeah, what's with my cats and Apple products... though it is ironic the original article is about Dell and cat piss...) at no charge. Guess my sob story was good, because I was expecting they'd charge ~$200 (in which case I would probably have done it myself).
Moral of the story is, yes, Apple will NEVER admit they do anything (in design or manufacturing) wrong, but they DO tend to stand behind their products...
I made the mistake of buying BF3. My graphics card (not the top of the line, but not bad) played it fine. The problem was the game was mostly mindless repetitive crap.
Slashdot Mirror
Come on, give me a break. It's not all about instant death, it's more often about about quality of life.
A few years ago I inexplicably developed asthma in Northern California (I have never had a single allergy, etc in 40 years). The doctor said she had seen a huge number of the same cases due to major fires south of San Jose that year (so bad some days you could see a haze in the air 50+ miles away). And I have never had the symptoms since (well, actually - one time - hanging out in a bar in IL before they instituted the smoking ban... so it's pretty clear what triggers it...)
Well, then I respect what you do and the risks you take, but I still don't agree with your overall assessment of car fires :) But yes, I didn't mean to withhold information, and the fire was initially started on a hot summer day when gasoline vapor ignited from a spark while my Dad was refilling the lawn mower (causing him to drop the gas can, and there ya go...) And I don't see why car burning would imply the tank has to explode - clearly there would be nothing *under* the tank burning, so a car's engine/upholstery, etc on fire with just a concrete slab underneath the car (and therefore the tank) doesn't mean the tank has to get *that* hot.
A gas tank in a burning car will heat up. If it reaches boiling point, it will explode, or violently burn the fuel in the tank.
Boiling point of a liquid just makes it a gas (which of course increases pressure), but in no way does that mean a container undergoing high pressure has to explode. As I'm sure you know, propane containers are under high gas pressure as well, since their boiling point is like -40F - but they are designed for that pressure (but of course, increase the temperature and therefore pressure beyond its limit and who knows, PV=nRT, etc). And while that gasoline might have also been heated to around its ignition temperature, it also requires an oxidizer - as long as the tank can withstand the pressure it's probably not going to explode...
And yes, from my previous comment the NFPA (which as a firefighter I'm sure you know) article said while ~10% of car fires involved the gas tank (my original point!), those of course did involve burrning/exploding tanks and were much more likely to be fatal...
Anyway, I still stand by my point that gasoline tanks (and their placement - ie. not too close to the engine, and not behind the rear axle/in crumple zones) in new cars are very carefully designed for safety, and lithium battery packs not so much yet, so there may be some pretty unexpected electric car incidents. I would guess as a firefighter you'd agree with that? But still, if I had $80k lying around and wanted a Tesla I'd feel perfectly safe driving one - unexpected does not imply inherently dangerous, and the number are way too low to make generalizations. And I'm sure, like ICE cars (see: Pinto) much will be learned and they will become safer with every new incident...
Why on earth would you bother making bunch of wrong assumptions about *my* anecdote?
No, the garage was packed with shit, several other items with gasoline in them (leaf blower, snow blower) literally exploded, and the fire was so hot it warped some glass on the house 30 feet away. There was almost nothing left of the car except the bare metal frame. And the garage definitely "burned down", there was no roof left by the time the firefighters managed to contain it.
And the firefighters themselves said they weren't that worried about the gas tank exploding, since automobile tanks are designed to withstand high heat and pressure in the tank, ie. it was NOT the exception but the rule. Unless the tank it punctured the gas in it was unlikely to ignite. At least go look it up instead of making it up - the majority of car fires (even in "on and running" cars) involve the engine compartment (gas in the lines, oil, etc) and the upholstery, etc, but not the gas tank itself (I saw a stat on NFPA that quoted ~10% of car fires involve the fuel tank). Which was my point in countering the comment "the gasoline is 99% of what is burning and not really the car itself", which is false in more cases than not.
But you probably know more commenting on an anecdote without any information than firefighters who see this all the time or associations whose job is to minimize fire risks, of course...
You do realize the gasoline is 99% of what is burning, and not really the "car" itself, right?
No, that's not necessarily true. my parents' garage burned down a couple years ago and totally destroyed a car inside - but the gas tank survived. The car was a shell, every bit burned down to the metal frame, except for the gasoline in the tank. Gas tanks have had 100 years of engineering to help prevent fires. Lithium batteries in cars are a completely new issue, and are going to have their growing pains.
Personally I agree with the point that there is not enough data to support Lion battery cars are any more dangerous than ICE, but you have to admit the latter does have a lot more data and engineering to ensure safety...
You couldn't have read much Heinlein to have that impression. Some of his stuff was brilliant, some (the later stuff) was just weird and pervy, but one thing he generally didn't do was push a single socio-political agenda in his works. In fact, if anything, he very specifically explored about a half dozen over his various novels and short stories.
Just because someone writes about a topic (even one with political themes) doesn't mean that has to represent his personal beliefs... If that were true, Stephen King would qualify as the most twistedly evil man of all time...
Except that Verhoeven himself has said he never finished the book, and in fact only got through a few chapters. In fact, early drafts of the movie weren't even directly based on the novel. The only reason it had a passing resemblance to (and title of) the book is that someone thought it would sell more tickets, and apparently the screenwriter did in fact read it.
Anyone familiar with Verhoeven's work knows he has a fascination with fascism/Nazism and could probably do an anti-fascist parody of Snow White if he felt like it.
I find this to be somewhat laughable. Robert Heinlein was entirely serious about the message that the story delivers. That only those who serve in the military and commit violence in the name of their country should truly be considered "citizens" of the country.
Actually, you have just proven you never really studied the author (or at least understood what you read). The book even says (and Heinlein has expanded on it in interviews, etc) that the service did NOT need to be military, but could take many forms of volunteer government service. His message had nothing to do with requiring someone to "commit violence in the military", it was about feeling a moral responsibility to your county if you want to choose its leaders (or become one).
The fact that they are not breaking the capability on 'enterprise' policy installs suggests the same.
And the fact that they allow anyone to run dev channel build, and they don't block them there...
Three reasons this isn't all that "insightful" (sorry):
1) two hours to encode a two hour movie is real time.
2) 1080p h.264 video encoders are available in $10 chips. Or if you don't want dedicated hardware for it, it can also be done on a PC at good quality using a half-decent GPU.
3) there are already decent examples of this being done in the real world - OnLive, GaiKai, etc. So it's clearly not only plausible, but working.
I don't even want to think about what a 200mph+ DOT tire costs.
Especially since the DOT doesn't even rate them ;) They rate up to Y (186mph) but manufacturers tend to use "ZR" (which is unofficial) for tires that can go beyond that. Though the Veyron's tires aren't rated at all since there is no point, they are custom made for that one car and cost $40k for a new set (and not only that - they recommend replacement of the tires every 2500 miles and of the WHEELS every 10,000 miles!)
As far as the cost of regular tires, I guess it depends on what you mean by "regular". I just put new Michelin PSS's on a 997 C2S and they were cheaper than the "regular" PS2's I had before. $1200 to replace all 4 from tire rack, that's actually pretty cheap for ZR tires of that quality...
132 MPH isn't THAT ridiculously fast, but it is certainly fast enough that you shouldn't be doing it on standard production tires, even the ones rated for high speed, because they aren't rated for that high speed for any length of time ... or even ... say hitting a reflector on the road.
Depends what you mean by "standard production tires". Production tires like Michelin PS2's/PSS's are most definitely rated for over 132mph for decent lengths of time. They are stock on 911's and Ferrari's that people use on the track all the time.
I agree that there is no good reason the TPMS would be going off at that speed, though. He may have had them over/under inflated for some reason (or carelessness). The stock tires on a Tesla S are Y (186mph) rated Continentals, which would have no problem driving 130mph for a long time.
Yes and no. I'm betting this was about the top of the engineered range for the Tesla and its tires
Nope. The Tesla S comes with 21" Continental Extreme Contact DW's, which are Y rated (ie. to 188mph). The performance package actually comes with Michelin Pilot Sport PS2's... the same Z rated tires standard on the Porsche 911. Those can easily handle 190mph+
If there was a TPMS warning for driving at 130mph for a couple minutes, there was clearly either something wrong with the tire (over/under inflated?) or the monitor...
When those passwords are for systems related to employee benefits, pensions, and the 911 services of a city with 700,000 residents and all you have to do is write down a few words to your boss but refuse, yeah, that's jail-worthy.
That's idiotic. It had nothing to do with HIPAA (what the heck is HIIPA?), but it did have to do with systems like employee pensions and 911 service. Your BOSS, and then (eventually) the mayor (you boss's boss's boss's boss) asks you to turn over the passwords and you refuse, you deserve what you get.
So to answer your question, yes, I'd obviously hand over the passwords in those cases. But in this case you have no clue about what actually happened, which was he changed the passwords *without* permission and refused to provide them, which is pretty much extortion.
How do you change the passwords when he changed them without anyone's knowledge BEFORE he was fired and wouldn't provide them?
I have already posted the same too many times so no mod points, but this summarizes what happened very clearly.
It's ridiculous how many posts on this topic are so wrong that they don't know what Childs actually did (intentionally change and then not disclose passwords without permission), but they don't even get that it was a municipal (city of SF) computer system, not "some company". For those joining us, RTFA = READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE...
Except you are completely missing what actually happened in the case. Childs changed the passwords intentionally and without anyone else's permission so his coworkers and superiors couldn't use them because he claimed "they couldn't be trusted with them". In fact, they asked him for the passwords BEFORE he was fired and he refused. It basically was simple extortion, and no amount of documents are going to protect him from that.
Besides, what in fact was the city of SF "pulling on him"? They just wanted the passwords to THEIR COMPUTERS, and he had them. He refused. That's entirely on him, and was a totally solvable problem (the mayor of SF actually visited him after he was arrested and asked him for the passwords before he gave any up. If he hadn't finally given up his bizarre god complex and complied he'd probably be on the hook for a MUCH larger financial loss...
Seriously, have ANY of you actually followed this case at ALL?
He changed the passwords and then wouldn't tell anyone what they were because he claimed he "didn't trust anyone else with them". It's more like changing the lock on the door without your company's approval, and having the only key. It's a pretty clear cut case of either someone with a god complex or someone trying to extort the city of SF to keep his job.
No, seriously, YOUR argument is bullshit. Why? Because never once in that entire rant did you address any of the *specifics* of the actual case.
In the end Childs KNOWINGLY AND WITHOUT PERMISSION *changed* the passwords on a bunch of computers and then refused to give the owners of those devices (the city of San Francisco) those passwords. If for some bizarre and horrible reason by normal operational procedure he was just the only person who knew these passwords, was fired, and said "fuck you", that would be one thing, and I'd agree with you. But he intentionally locked down the systems and refused to unlock them - both before and after he was fired. He even claimed that the reason was because "he didn't trust his supervisors with them". That's pretty much a textbook application of the law, and could probably be extended to extortion if they wanted...
They just use OpenGL, or DirectX, and the chip and video card driver decides how to execute it and render it.
*Real* use of OpenGL and DirectX these days is all about the shaders, which get compiled and run on the GPUs. And even basic ops that are "builtin" to the drivers usually are using shader code internal to the driver (or microcode internal to the hardware/firmware).
The people programming against the hardware shouldn't have to decide how much, if any, error is acceptable.
Absolutely they should, and have been doing so with existing 3D hardware for a long time. It's just been more about 3D rendering shortcuts/heuristics/etc than faulty hardware. It's all about tricking the viewer's eyes and brain to increasing degrees, not reproducing an exactly correctly rendered 3D image... and until everything is raytraced that will continue be the case.
For instance, If I'm decoding video, I would just pass the encoded stream to a function, and get decoded frames back, or they would be displayed on the screen.
Well, I just finished implemented stereoscopic 3D video playback on the PS4, and I guarantee it's more work than that ;) Libraries are provided to do the low level decoding, but demuxing, decryption, scaling/blitting to framebuffers, compositing with UI elements, audio processing, A/V sync, etc, are largely left up to the application programmer. Even even with that, the "hardware decoding" is mostly happening on the GPU or other *programmable* video decoder hardware anyway.
These reasons are precisely why GPUs / "hardware" decoders will likely be the first processors to benefit from frameworks like the one described in the article...
Yeah, but you could save just as much power (I'm guessing) with dedicated hardware decoders, as you could by letting the chips be inaccurate.
Eh, a dedicated hardware decoder is still made out of silicon. That's the point, make chips that perform tasks like that (or other things pushing lots of data that is only relevant for a short period, like GPUs - GPUs used only for gfx and not computation, at least) tolerate some error, so that they can use even less power. No one is yet suggesting we make general purpose CPUs in today's architectures unreliable :)
Or admit no fault but offer a free cover lined with Febreeze...
Actually, my experiences with Apple's (in store, at least) support has been extremely positive.
#1: yes, this is somewhat true. Though it's more like "deny it's a widespread or manufacturing defect".
#2: not really relevant to in-person support. If you ware just going to whine anonymously on a forum good luck anyway.
#3: My girlfriend is on her 4th iPhone 4S now. First she dropped (finally overpriced AppleCare comes in handy), second the mic went bad, 3rd wouldn't charge. Clearly some manufacturing issues on the last two but at least they replaced them with new phones (not refurbs... I guess another advantage of AppleCare) with no questions asked. Further, she brought in a 5+ year old Macbook (one of those white plastic ones) that had a (literal) battery meltdown. They replaced the whole case, battery, and even the keyboard (damaged by our cat ripping off a key). Again, no questions asked, no charge. Finally, they actually replaced the glass on my iPad a while back after my cat knocked it off a table (yeah, what's with my cats and Apple products... though it is ironic the original article is about Dell and cat piss...) at no charge. Guess my sob story was good, because I was expecting they'd charge ~$200 (in which case I would probably have done it myself).
Moral of the story is, yes, Apple will NEVER admit they do anything (in design or manufacturing) wrong, but they DO tend to stand behind their products...
Oh. "LOL".
I made the mistake of buying BF3. My graphics card (not the top of the line, but not bad) played it fine. The problem was the game was mostly mindless repetitive crap.