Because Venus sure as hell isn't any better (92 times the atmospheric pressure, 400 degrees hotter, sulphuric acid clouds, etc.) even if it is closer, and Mars is further from the Sun than Earth (1.5 AU instead of 1 AU).
Hence it's the nearest sensible suggestion and we have to deal with radiation on ANY long space trip anyway because there's not much like Earth's protection anywhere else. If we can't cope with the radiation on Mars, we might as well just give up now.
And a crumple-front I expect to crumple. That's the point of it. And that would have happened the second it "nosedived" from the flat road into the flat-gradient-but-uneven field.
Cars have rollcages for a reason. Cars have crumple zones for a reason. Cars travelling forwards get more damage on the front end. That's why it crumples.
And that's why the majority of cars that pass Euro NCP are actually as safe or safer than the Tesla, petrol, diesel, hybrid, LPG, or electric.
Accidents nowadays look atrocious BECAUSE they are saving your life by doing so. The days of solid-metal cars that survive even the gentlest of bumps intact are long gone. Hell, I had a less-than-20mph collision (my only collision, with a cutting-in-and-braking vehicle on a traffic-lighted roundabout, so I couldn't even get to more than 100 yards of travel before another red traffic light) - my car front indented on the entire front chassis by 6 inches, nearly destroying the radiator and fan, bending the bonnet (hood) up. No airbag, it barely tightened my seat-belt. It's DESIGNED to do that.
The back of the guy's car I hit did the same. But it just felt like a bump, not a smash, and certainly nowhere near a high-speed crash. That's what modern cars, with their plastic/foam bumpers, collapsible subframes and crumple zones are designed to do.
Notice how everything in the rollcage is untouched. That's why you can open the door. That's how they're designed. Engine compartment sacrifices itself so it doesn't impinge on anything to do with the (pretty solid) rollcage and bubble of surrounding chassis around the passengers.
This isn't "fabulous safety". This is normal expectation for a modern car.
It's wasteful to have ten separate high-powered servers, pulling more than a lot more clients would, sitting pulling lots of power (and redundant power, and UPS power) and yet sitting relatively idle when they could share a machine quite happily.
It's wasteful to keep old junk running just because it's what you're used to compared to new, energy-efficient stuff. It's wasteful to have to have machines that are churning their disks and getting hot because they only have a few Gig of RAM where an extra 4Gb RAM chip costs a pittance.
Nobody's saying "ditch everything you have immediately", We're saying "All the hardware you have almost certainly supports this already". And I buy "new old" stock - i.e. obsolete models of machines but still new in wrapper - and they are all 64-bit capable. This isn't ditching stuff that you just got, this is just that you ALREADY have compatible gear but you've put the wrong software on it so that it's limited and more difficult to maintain than if you'd just installed the 64-bit versions.
Seriously, hands up if you have a production machine, not involved in something specialist, but just an ordinary "client" that's simply not capable of 64-bit instructions? Nobody? There's a reason for that. And, in fact, as pointed out the article is actually talking about even more ancient machines than that (early Pentium's!).
We're talking machines that you can't run any modern version of Windows or Linux on out-of-the-box most likely. But, no, let's keep them around because otherwise "it's a waste".
Hint: I've never worked in a company that had a policy that kept clients for more than 4 years, and they WOULD just throw out "working" machines that old just to save on maintenance costs that would start cropping up (disks and fans start to die). We'd be talking four, five or even six rounds of throw-out and complete client replacement in such places for the hardware mentioned, just as a matter of course.
Plus as people move to the only viable mining hardware nowadays (ASIC's, etc.), the electricity cost is pretty stable and you can still make profit.
But people's blinkered opinions on a tech based on rumour and falsehood, especially when they don't understand economics and that it doesn't NEED to be cheap to make in order to sell, will continue to blight something that's actually a technical marvel if nothing else.
Use it or don't. I stuck GBP20 on it years back and bought something like 50 games with the proceeds over the following years. I have a handful of BitCoin in it now and it's actually given me more back than my online saving accounts over the same period. I don't really care how much electricity it took to make, the market determines the price and you can profit without knowing what the product is at all (welcome to "commodities trading").
And if electricity is "free" to certain people (solar, etc.) then BitCoin could actually turn out to be a more efficient way of monetising it than converting it to some voltage with losses, pushing it down a cable of several hundred kilometres to the grid, and then being paid a pittance of a taxpayer subsidy for the effort of doing so. In fact, even if it's "not free", if the electricity comes from the right sources, you might even find that its more profitable to convert it to Bitcoin + heat than it would be to sell it on or even use it for other purposes.
I was having a conversation with another IT Manager friend of mine and he expressed that he would "have to test for 64-bit Windows" at his site now.
My jaw hit the floor. I mean, seriously? Granted, we both work in schools so the clients aren't exactly beefy, but the amount of use they get and they hadn't gone past 4Gb (or likely even TO 4Gb properly!) or onto 64-bit operating systems? And at no point had bothered to say "I wonder if these machines I'm intending to use for the next 4 years will actually support 64-bit versions of our software that I will no doubt need to rollout in the future?"
And the guy had some kind of fixation with printer drivers on 64-bit. There I was thinking "Well, if your managed print providers can't handle a '64-bit compatible' printer driver in this day and age, maybe it's time to look for a new one"
I was pushing out 64-bit Windows years ago, and the only "problems" I ever had are that basically you have to push 32-bit Office for best results, but that will change with Office 2016 rollouts no doubt.
On Linux, I don't even look but I'm fairly sure the default is 64-bit for just about anything vaguely recent (Ubuntu LTS from about, what, at least 10.04 or before has had 64-bit?). I know I've had to install the 32-bit libs on Ubuntu more than once over the last five years or so, for certain programs.
I hate to see support for old hardware dropped, as much as anyone. I tinker with old junk, especially the junk that my workplace can't make use of any more. But, come on. 64-bit? You MUST at least have checked compatibility and taken it into account when purchasing by now.
You SHOULD at least have migrated to 64-bit everywhere practical already (yes, I still have 32-bit devices, but they are thin-clients, or used for things like digital signage and thus I just don't care as they aren't critical and are easily replaced if I need to).
And if you've not done this already, this article and maybe the other comments here are the kick in the teeth that you need to do that.
Especially with 32-bit now instruction sets - how the hell have you been virtualising your stuff with only 4Gb RAM? Or are you not even there yet either? And if you ARE stuck with 32-bit on hardware / operating systems that need 64-bit, guess what technology you need to look into? Virtualisation.
Honestly guys, I have about 5% of my client stock that can't do more than 4Gb RAM because of motherboard limitations but even they support 64-bit operating systems and instructions as a matter of course.
For a desktop-focus operating systems, 64-bit should have been the default for, what? Nearly a decade? I'm not sure, it's so long ago that I needed to worry about it.
Given what kind of a stunned sloth the demo ran on my machine that's either:
a) impressive. b) indication that they optimised it and ran it on a half-decent machine.
I can't say I'm that impressed. 1000 fps, yeah, THAT'S one hell of a piece of hardware and worthy of an article.
But that an in-production game runs at 60fps vsynced 120 without at 1080p (which isn't actually that high a resolution guys, welcome to 1999) on the top-of-the-line unreleased hardware? Well, I'd bloody hope so. Or else nothing else would work and the game developers aren't even trying to push boundaries.
People who are genuinely sorry attempt to fix the situation, where possible.
Given that fixing the situation would consist of exactly what he promised (loading up an old Bitcoin wallet and moving a fraction of a coin out of it to anywhere else), that would seem to indicate that he's NOT sorry and/or he's lying (i.e. he's lost the wallet or he has no such power and never did).
Yeah, I haven't seen anything of the "ecat" for ages.
Thank god for the Wiki though or I'd have missed this:
"In April 2016, Rossi filed a lawsuit in the USA against Industrial Heat, alleging that he was not paid an $89 million licensing fee due after a one year test period of an E-cat unit. Industrial Heat's comment on the lawsuit was that after three years of effort they were unable to reproduce Rossi's E-cat test results"
I mean, why would you? They aren't on Apple's storage, they don't cost Apple anything, it's stored on your own laptop or whatever. To delete, then giving ONLY ONE COPY of the user's files - original creations including commercial MP3's - is downright obnoxious behaviour from a piece of software.
It's like Google Drive deleting your My Documents but, don't worry, it's "in the cloud" so you can just download it again *
(*at your own time and expense, and assuming you aren't bandwidth limited and that you get them all before your subscriptions expire and your only remaining copies are deleted from the cloud).
Aliens has everything from green-phosphor, text-only teletype-speed consoles to yellow-screen laptops, to low-res monochrome blocky graphics, to huge "TVs" full of monochrome photographs and green text. .
Even for the sentry guns, the remote piloting via a huge satellite uplink, the Earth-based personnel records, the hypersleep computers, the blueprint machines, the health read-outs, the motion sensors, etc. etc. etc.
In a movie, the tech shown is what feels / looks good, not what would actually be used (e.g. nmap in The Matrix Reloaded), and even back in the day teletype terminals were long dead, but the ddddrrrtttttt of text appearing one letter at a time is much more cinematic:
There's no need for desktop-performance on a watch.
But equally, there's no need for a watch to "feel" sluggish at all.
Apple are even skilled at such tricks. Load up a modern Apple Mac OS X image in a VMWare machine. Dial down the specifications of the machine to the bare minimum. Make sure you DON'T have graphical acceleration etc. on.
Now slide over the bottom row of icons that you get on Mac OS. It will look and slide as smooth as silk. How do they do that? They pre-rasterise the icons in a variety of sizes and keep them loaded in RAM so you're basically seeing a flickbook of all the different sizes depending on which icon your mouse is over at that moment. No, they ARE NOT using "scalable vector icons" - it's pre-rendered from an those vectors into multiple bitmaps instead ahead of time.
It's simple, beautiful, fast. But it's also a con. It's not ACTUALLY resizing those icons or blitting them to the screen via an OpenGL filter or similar in real-time. It's just been optimised to its precise usage... to look "slippy, slidey, silky, bulgy" for the first time you log onto the machine and the thing you'll use to start all your programs. But you have to say that it "feels" nice even on a machine incapable of running anything else at a comfortable speed.
Apple could do similar. There's no reason the watch can't be high-res and super-responsive and just a fraction of a second latent to the message coming in or whatever. But they haven't done that. They haven't spent time optimising it to its intended usage. They've rushed it to market. There's no need for it to be able to render 4K video at 120fps or whatever. It just needs to show a simple interface fast, something a Z80 could do in the same position if you were to really want it to, just tie it to a bluetooth chip to talk to the phone and make the phone do the heavy lifting and the watch just display what it needs to.
That Apple, master of such tricks, hasn't done this means they aren't really interested in spending time on it, I think. It also means that competitors can have easy-wins. Nobody cares that the Apple Watch is 100 MHz and the Competitor Watch is only 99MHz if the competitors just feels so much sleeker to use.
Now, personally, I hate Apple and have never owned a single product of theirs in my life. But some things, especially where appearance matters over substance, they utilise clever tricks to good effect. With the Apple Watch, it just... seems sloppy. Like they don't expect it to be successful, or like they expect it to be successful no matter what it actually does (the famous "It's expensive, it must be good" factor).
But just because the chip may not be the latest and greatest? That's no excuse for a bad user experience. The CPU and RAM specifications in my client machines haven't changed in years but going from 7 to 8 to 10 actually makes the same machine "feel" faster, even if statistically it may not be.
That Apple can't avoid this tells me they had no idea what to do with it when it was being designed, or just don't care because they don't plan on any more of them.
Just get them to sign a contract that says if they don't meet the specified performance criteria within a year, and then for X years after that, they don't get paid a penny. Oh, and they have to supply the up-front cash.
See how quickly that offer gets retracted. The response to such an item will tell you exactly how confident they were of actually delivering.
The difference is that if you're asked BEFOREHAND to memorise in detail, you'll remember most of the those horrible details too. Literally, the more attention you pay and the more consciously you do so at the outset, the more accurate your memories and - thus - the more accurate your assessment of something when you later recall it.
The problem is that when you stumble upon a special thing, you don't remember to memorise details, but you allow yourself to be absorbed by it, so it enters into your brain only subconsciously. That's also part of why you just don't remember what dress it was that she was wearing that night, etc. (as well as just being a man, you don't care too much), and why people are TERRIBLE eyewitnesses in stressful situations (literally, you can do experiments that basically prove that almost all people will see things that weren't there, mis-recognise faces, mis-read colours, etc.).
If you love something and want to remember it, memorise it deliberately and in detail a few times. Watch the movie over and over and over. One of two things will happen. You will suddenly NOT love it as much as you notice the flaws, or you will love it and remember it and not be disappointed years in the future when you watch it again.
It's "going back to school syndrome". That classroom is never quite as big as you remember it, the teacher not quite as ugly, the playground equipment not quite as scary. Because at no point did you bother to measure it and when you're little it seemed so big.
America doesn't understand that certain things everyone has to pay for, and then everyone benefits from.
Police and other emergency services Street lighting and road maintenance. Healthcare.
Why anyone would want to involve a third-party insurance company into their payment of such things, or be able to "opt-out" of any of those, I can't fathom. You can't just say "Oh, I'll save a few dollars and the police won't be available to me". That's ridiculous and dangerous and burdensome.
Same with healthcare. Provide basic healthcare for everyone. If you want, provide "above-and-beyond" healthcare that can be insured for. Like almost every other first-world country that provide "state" and "private" healthcare side by side.
But if you need to pay into a fund just to ensure that if you accidentally break your leg you're not going to be put out on the streets because you can't work and/or pay the medical bills, then that fund needs to be centralised, non-profit and available to all. Not some private stash.
You honestly might as well not have any healthcare at all, and just pay for the operations YOU need. It's honestly how it works out, but with a 50% profit for the insurers thrown in for good measure. At least without the insurers the poor would still die, the sick would still have to fund an unfair proportion according to how sick they are, but the insurers wouldn't be taking their cut.
The biggest problem with America is that it doesn't see outside its own borders. The next is that, because of that, it thinks it's the best at everything. Sure, you're the best. If you never look at anyone else, ever. But the second you start to compare, it all falls apart.
If he's forced to sell it by a court, or decides to flog it off of his own will, that will bring the price of Bitcoin right down.
And if he is "the creator", then he's a clever guy (or those that he hired were). Nobody's yet found a flaw in Bitcoin that allows anyone to steal protected money (stupid auto-generated accounts and crap passwords don't count), or falsify the blockchain.
Fingerprints are not passwords. If you use them that way, you're an idiot.
At best, fingerprints are shortcuts for your USERNAME. You can use them in systems like that - school library and dining hall systems are perfect, you're not interested in "security", you're just interested in determining the correct child to a certain degree of accuracy quickly.
Your password should still be something that only you know.
People using fingerprints for passwords are deliberately making their machines less secure.
The media are generally allowed to report anything "in the public interest" no matter the source.
Technically every celebrity photo is stolen, or taken without permission, or whatever. But because the press are able to hide behind it being "in the public interest", where you and I could be sued to oblivion if we touched it, they get free reign.
Maybe if they can make an affordable and fun-to-use one it might catch one.
Honestly, I was like you. And I grew up in the 80's where VRML and everything else were being pushed as "the future".
And then I played with a Google Cardboard set and, actually, the base mobile phones now can do a better job of VR than you'd probably think. Nowhere near perfect, but enough that we were passing them around the IT Office and others bought their own, all run from a bog-standard Android smartphone.
The Vive and Rift? Stupendously expensive. And you have to have one hell of a machine to get close to using them.
But now consider if you could get one, off-the-shelf, for a few hundred, with a bunch of Wii-like games to entice people and have a laugh at parties with them. Sorry, but that would sell. All the other competitors are similarly pipedreams, homebrew, or too expensive. A Nintendo one - even sold at a loss - could really bring it home to people.
Hell, even just a headset that plugged into a Wii U would do it. And if you could make it commercial, you could repurpose them like people have repurposed the Wiimotes etc.
Sure, you probably aren't going to play Crysis 10 at full speed with them, but that's NOT the be-all-and-end-all of gaming. Make it fun enough that granny buys one for the kids because she was "on a rollercoaster" and you have a seller. WiiFit was nothing special, look how many people bought that.
A WiiVR could easily take the market if launched at the right time - late enough to be developed, early enough to get in before the big players - and the right price point.
I mean, come on. This is Slashdot. Stump up a pittance, buy a domain name and either forward it to whatever you want (e.g. GMail) or stick a mailbox on it for another pittance.
And then you aren't tied into whatever your ISP wants to give you for email, especially if someday they are bought up, sold off, or just plain decide to stop doing email.
VPN is perfectly doable for any major VPN protocol (including OpenVPN) on a bog-standard, unrooted Android device.
And those people who are using, say, the other Exchange capable apps on their phone will use it. Like, say, all the Samsung apps that do just this. Or something like TouchDown (is that being sold still since it was sold to Symantec?).
So precisely those people who a) have an android phone and er... b) want to, can connect to an Exchange server. This just ties it into the GMail app rather than someone else's.
UK I get 11 movies, none of which I've ever heard of.
I really don't understand what's so hard with someone making a movie and then releasing it for sale worldwide, giving local partners the relevant cut as necessary rather than holding it to random in each jurisdiction.
It's not public money. It's a private school. With 1:1 BYOD's. With site-wide wireless. With site-wide PoE for CCTV, VoIP, access control and bell/speaker systems, all QoS'd. With need for multi-gigabit backbone. With device MDM so that when we block an BYOD (because it's not up to date, say, or is missing AV), it blocks it site-wide on the wireless and Ethernet, alerts, stops sending down paid-apps, etc. etc. And the network sockets are opened on the basis of device owner (set from VPP from Apple, Google, etc.), time of day, location, quarantine, etc. automatically.
And that's just the basics. When you get into actual, useful technical features, live-cable-testing (including distance to fault), capture portals even on Ethernet, voucher codes to purchase network time, etc. the money is more than worth it. But you know what's the bit we pay for more? 48-port PoE, and a backbone in every switch capable of giving full gigabit to every port. Not many off-the-shelf switches can actually do that.
We're not alone. Cisco Meraki is inside almost every school I visit, the larger ones especially. You don't convince bursars to pay that kind of money without saving it elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Because Venus sure as hell isn't any better (92 times the atmospheric pressure, 400 degrees hotter, sulphuric acid clouds, etc.) even if it is closer, and Mars is further from the Sun than Earth (1.5 AU instead of 1 AU).
Hence it's the nearest sensible suggestion and we have to deal with radiation on ANY long space trip anyway because there's not much like Earth's protection anywhere else. If we can't cope with the radiation on Mars, we might as well just give up now.
I did.
And a crumple-front I expect to crumple. That's the point of it. And that would have happened the second it "nosedived" from the flat road into the flat-gradient-but-uneven field.
Cars have rollcages for a reason. Cars have crumple zones for a reason. Cars travelling forwards get more damage on the front end. That's why it crumples.
And that's why the majority of cars that pass Euro NCP are actually as safe or safer than the Tesla, petrol, diesel, hybrid, LPG, or electric.
Accidents nowadays look atrocious BECAUSE they are saving your life by doing so. The days of solid-metal cars that survive even the gentlest of bumps intact are long gone. Hell, I had a less-than-20mph collision (my only collision, with a cutting-in-and-braking vehicle on a traffic-lighted roundabout, so I couldn't even get to more than 100 yards of travel before another red traffic light) - my car front indented on the entire front chassis by 6 inches, nearly destroying the radiator and fan, bending the bonnet (hood) up. No airbag, it barely tightened my seat-belt. It's DESIGNED to do that.
The back of the guy's car I hit did the same. But it just felt like a bump, not a smash, and certainly nowhere near a high-speed crash. That's what modern cars, with their plastic/foam bumpers, collapsible subframes and crumple zones are designed to do.
Notice how everything in the rollcage is untouched. That's why you can open the door. That's how they're designed. Engine compartment sacrifices itself so it doesn't impinge on anything to do with the (pretty solid) rollcage and bubble of surrounding chassis around the passengers.
This isn't "fabulous safety". This is normal expectation for a modern car.
Already done by most first-world countries.
It's GBP 1.20 per litre, here in the UK. Do the conversion and exchange - that's about $6.5 per gallon.
Read:
Virtualisation.
It's wasteful to have ten separate high-powered servers, pulling more than a lot more clients would, sitting pulling lots of power (and redundant power, and UPS power) and yet sitting relatively idle when they could share a machine quite happily.
It's wasteful to keep old junk running just because it's what you're used to compared to new, energy-efficient stuff. It's wasteful to have to have machines that are churning their disks and getting hot because they only have a few Gig of RAM where an extra 4Gb RAM chip costs a pittance.
Nobody's saying "ditch everything you have immediately", We're saying "All the hardware you have almost certainly supports this already". And I buy "new old" stock - i.e. obsolete models of machines but still new in wrapper - and they are all 64-bit capable. This isn't ditching stuff that you just got, this is just that you ALREADY have compatible gear but you've put the wrong software on it so that it's limited and more difficult to maintain than if you'd just installed the 64-bit versions.
Seriously, hands up if you have a production machine, not involved in something specialist, but just an ordinary "client" that's simply not capable of 64-bit instructions? Nobody? There's a reason for that. And, in fact, as pointed out the article is actually talking about even more ancient machines than that (early Pentium's!).
We're talking machines that you can't run any modern version of Windows or Linux on out-of-the-box most likely. But, no, let's keep them around because otherwise "it's a waste".
Hint: I've never worked in a company that had a policy that kept clients for more than 4 years, and they WOULD just throw out "working" machines that old just to save on maintenance costs that would start cropping up (disks and fans start to die). We'd be talking four, five or even six rounds of throw-out and complete client replacement in such places for the hardware mentioned, just as a matter of course.
80 feet... into a flat field, beside a road that's also flat and on the same level.
Sorry, but if your car CAN'T survive that without lethal injury, how the hell has it passed basic safety tests like Euro NCAP ratings?
Next question - what speed were you doing on that unbordered single-lane country road that you lose control and drive 80-feet into a field?
This safety demonstration was brought to you by our sponsor, Tesla, indeed.
You probably need to plug some numbers into some of the mining calculators at some point.
Bitcoin electricity costs aren't that high (max 50% of your mining cost), and taken account of in the price of Bitcoin.
http://www.coinwarz.com/calcul...
Plus as people move to the only viable mining hardware nowadays (ASIC's, etc.), the electricity cost is pretty stable and you can still make profit.
But people's blinkered opinions on a tech based on rumour and falsehood, especially when they don't understand economics and that it doesn't NEED to be cheap to make in order to sell, will continue to blight something that's actually a technical marvel if nothing else.
Use it or don't. I stuck GBP20 on it years back and bought something like 50 games with the proceeds over the following years. I have a handful of BitCoin in it now and it's actually given me more back than my online saving accounts over the same period. I don't really care how much electricity it took to make, the market determines the price and you can profit without knowing what the product is at all (welcome to "commodities trading").
And if electricity is "free" to certain people (solar, etc.) then BitCoin could actually turn out to be a more efficient way of monetising it than converting it to some voltage with losses, pushing it down a cable of several hundred kilometres to the grid, and then being paid a pittance of a taxpayer subsidy for the effort of doing so. In fact, even if it's "not free", if the electricity comes from the right sources, you might even find that its more profitable to convert it to Bitcoin + heat than it would be to sell it on or even use it for other purposes.
I was having a conversation with another IT Manager friend of mine and he expressed that he would "have to test for 64-bit Windows" at his site now.
My jaw hit the floor. I mean, seriously? Granted, we both work in schools so the clients aren't exactly beefy, but the amount of use they get and they hadn't gone past 4Gb (or likely even TO 4Gb properly!) or onto 64-bit operating systems? And at no point had bothered to say "I wonder if these machines I'm intending to use for the next 4 years will actually support 64-bit versions of our software that I will no doubt need to rollout in the future?"
And the guy had some kind of fixation with printer drivers on 64-bit. There I was thinking "Well, if your managed print providers can't handle a '64-bit compatible' printer driver in this day and age, maybe it's time to look for a new one"
I was pushing out 64-bit Windows years ago, and the only "problems" I ever had are that basically you have to push 32-bit Office for best results, but that will change with Office 2016 rollouts no doubt.
On Linux, I don't even look but I'm fairly sure the default is 64-bit for just about anything vaguely recent (Ubuntu LTS from about, what, at least 10.04 or before has had 64-bit?). I know I've had to install the 32-bit libs on Ubuntu more than once over the last five years or so, for certain programs.
I hate to see support for old hardware dropped, as much as anyone. I tinker with old junk, especially the junk that my workplace can't make use of any more. But, come on. 64-bit? You MUST at least have checked compatibility and taken it into account when purchasing by now.
You SHOULD at least have migrated to 64-bit everywhere practical already (yes, I still have 32-bit devices, but they are thin-clients, or used for things like digital signage and thus I just don't care as they aren't critical and are easily replaced if I need to).
And if you've not done this already, this article and maybe the other comments here are the kick in the teeth that you need to do that.
Especially with 32-bit now instruction sets - how the hell have you been virtualising your stuff with only 4Gb RAM? Or are you not even there yet either? And if you ARE stuck with 32-bit on hardware / operating systems that need 64-bit, guess what technology you need to look into? Virtualisation.
Honestly guys, I have about 5% of my client stock that can't do more than 4Gb RAM because of motherboard limitations but even they support 64-bit operating systems and instructions as a matter of course.
For a desktop-focus operating systems, 64-bit should have been the default for, what? Nearly a decade? I'm not sure, it's so long ago that I needed to worry about it.
Correction: Doom 3 might have been OpenGL.
Doom was most certainly not.
In fact, it wasn't "anything" but register/memory poking, I imagine.
A sad state of affairs that a sequel's sequel is regarded as the definitive version after only 20 years.
Given what kind of a stunned sloth the demo ran on my machine that's either:
a) impressive.
b) indication that they optimised it and ran it on a half-decent machine.
I can't say I'm that impressed. 1000 fps, yeah, THAT'S one hell of a piece of hardware and worthy of an article.
But that an in-production game runs at 60fps vsynced 120 without at 1080p (which isn't actually that high a resolution guys, welcome to 1999) on the top-of-the-line unreleased hardware? Well, I'd bloody hope so. Or else nothing else would work and the game developers aren't even trying to push boundaries.
Call me when it can do 4K at that kind of speed.
People who are genuinely sorry attempt to fix the situation, where possible.
Given that fixing the situation would consist of exactly what he promised (loading up an old Bitcoin wallet and moving a fraction of a coin out of it to anywhere else), that would seem to indicate that he's NOT sorry and/or he's lying (i.e. he's lost the wallet or he has no such power and never did).
Yeah, I haven't seen anything of the "ecat" for ages.
Thank god for the Wiki though or I'd have missed this:
"In April 2016, Rossi filed a lawsuit in the USA against Industrial Heat, alleging that he was not paid an $89 million licensing fee due after a one year test period of an E-cat unit. Industrial Heat's comment on the lawsuit was that after three years of effort they were unable to reproduce Rossi's E-cat test results"
Should not delete LOCAL copies.
I mean, why would you? They aren't on Apple's storage, they don't cost Apple anything, it's stored on your own laptop or whatever. To delete, then giving ONLY ONE COPY of the user's files - original creations including commercial MP3's - is downright obnoxious behaviour from a piece of software.
It's like Google Drive deleting your My Documents but, don't worry, it's "in the cloud" so you can just download it again *
(*at your own time and expense, and assuming you aren't bandwidth limited and that you get them all before your subscriptions expire and your only remaining copies are deleted from the cloud).
Aliens has everything from green-phosphor, text-only teletype-speed consoles to yellow-screen laptops, to low-res monochrome blocky graphics, to huge "TVs" full of monochrome photographs and green text. .
Even for the sentry guns, the remote piloting via a huge satellite uplink, the Earth-based personnel records, the hypersleep computers, the blueprint machines, the health read-outs, the motion sensors, etc. etc. etc.
In a movie, the tech shown is what feels / looks good, not what would actually be used (e.g. nmap in The Matrix Reloaded), and even back in the day teletype terminals were long dead, but the ddddrrrtttttt of text appearing one letter at a time is much more cinematic:
File Closed.
I'm torn here.
There's no need for desktop-performance on a watch.
But equally, there's no need for a watch to "feel" sluggish at all.
Apple are even skilled at such tricks. Load up a modern Apple Mac OS X image in a VMWare machine. Dial down the specifications of the machine to the bare minimum. Make sure you DON'T have graphical acceleration etc. on.
Now slide over the bottom row of icons that you get on Mac OS. It will look and slide as smooth as silk. How do they do that? They pre-rasterise the icons in a variety of sizes and keep them loaded in RAM so you're basically seeing a flickbook of all the different sizes depending on which icon your mouse is over at that moment. No, they ARE NOT using "scalable vector icons" - it's pre-rendered from an those vectors into multiple bitmaps instead ahead of time.
It's simple, beautiful, fast. But it's also a con. It's not ACTUALLY resizing those icons or blitting them to the screen via an OpenGL filter or similar in real-time. It's just been optimised to its precise usage... to look "slippy, slidey, silky, bulgy" for the first time you log onto the machine and the thing you'll use to start all your programs. But you have to say that it "feels" nice even on a machine incapable of running anything else at a comfortable speed.
Apple could do similar. There's no reason the watch can't be high-res and super-responsive and just a fraction of a second latent to the message coming in or whatever. But they haven't done that. They haven't spent time optimising it to its intended usage. They've rushed it to market. There's no need for it to be able to render 4K video at 120fps or whatever. It just needs to show a simple interface fast, something a Z80 could do in the same position if you were to really want it to, just tie it to a bluetooth chip to talk to the phone and make the phone do the heavy lifting and the watch just display what it needs to.
That Apple, master of such tricks, hasn't done this means they aren't really interested in spending time on it, I think. It also means that competitors can have easy-wins. Nobody cares that the Apple Watch is 100 MHz and the Competitor Watch is only 99MHz if the competitors just feels so much sleeker to use.
Now, personally, I hate Apple and have never owned a single product of theirs in my life. But some things, especially where appearance matters over substance, they utilise clever tricks to good effect. With the Apple Watch, it just ... seems sloppy. Like they don't expect it to be successful, or like they expect it to be successful no matter what it actually does (the famous "It's expensive, it must be good" factor).
But just because the chip may not be the latest and greatest? That's no excuse for a bad user experience. The CPU and RAM specifications in my client machines haven't changed in years but going from 7 to 8 to 10 actually makes the same machine "feel" faster, even if statistically it may not be.
That Apple can't avoid this tells me they had no idea what to do with it when it was being designed, or just don't care because they don't plan on any more of them.
Just get them to sign a contract that says if they don't meet the specified performance criteria within a year, and then for X years after that, they don't get paid a penny. Oh, and they have to supply the up-front cash.
See how quickly that offer gets retracted. The response to such an item will tell you exactly how confident they were of actually delivering.
Memories are certainly affected by perception.
The difference is that if you're asked BEFOREHAND to memorise in detail, you'll remember most of the those horrible details too. Literally, the more attention you pay and the more consciously you do so at the outset, the more accurate your memories and - thus - the more accurate your assessment of something when you later recall it.
The problem is that when you stumble upon a special thing, you don't remember to memorise details, but you allow yourself to be absorbed by it, so it enters into your brain only subconsciously. That's also part of why you just don't remember what dress it was that she was wearing that night, etc. (as well as just being a man, you don't care too much), and why people are TERRIBLE eyewitnesses in stressful situations (literally, you can do experiments that basically prove that almost all people will see things that weren't there, mis-recognise faces, mis-read colours, etc.).
If you love something and want to remember it, memorise it deliberately and in detail a few times. Watch the movie over and over and over. One of two things will happen. You will suddenly NOT love it as much as you notice the flaws, or you will love it and remember it and not be disappointed years in the future when you watch it again.
It's "going back to school syndrome". That classroom is never quite as big as you remember it, the teacher not quite as ugly, the playground equipment not quite as scary. Because at no point did you bother to measure it and when you're little it seemed so big.
America doesn't understand that certain things everyone has to pay for, and then everyone benefits from.
Police and other emergency services
Street lighting and road maintenance.
Healthcare.
Why anyone would want to involve a third-party insurance company into their payment of such things, or be able to "opt-out" of any of those, I can't fathom. You can't just say "Oh, I'll save a few dollars and the police won't be available to me". That's ridiculous and dangerous and burdensome.
Same with healthcare. Provide basic healthcare for everyone. If you want, provide "above-and-beyond" healthcare that can be insured for. Like almost every other first-world country that provide "state" and "private" healthcare side by side.
But if you need to pay into a fund just to ensure that if you accidentally break your leg you're not going to be put out on the streets because you can't work and/or pay the medical bills, then that fund needs to be centralised, non-profit and available to all. Not some private stash.
You honestly might as well not have any healthcare at all, and just pay for the operations YOU need. It's honestly how it works out, but with a 50% profit for the insurers thrown in for good measure. At least without the insurers the poor would still die, the sick would still have to fund an unfair proportion according to how sick they are, but the insurers wouldn't be taking their cut.
The biggest problem with America is that it doesn't see outside its own borders. The next is that, because of that, it thinks it's the best at everything. Sure, you're the best. If you never look at anyone else, ever. But the second you start to compare, it all falls apart.
Maybe that's why they never do that comparison.
This guy holds more Bitcoin that anyone else.
If he's forced to sell it by a court, or decides to flog it off of his own will, that will bring the price of Bitcoin right down.
And if he is "the creator", then he's a clever guy (or those that he hired were). Nobody's yet found a flaw in Bitcoin that allows anyone to steal protected money (stupid auto-generated accounts and crap passwords don't count), or falsify the blockchain.
Fingerprints are not passwords. If you use them that way, you're an idiot.
At best, fingerprints are shortcuts for your USERNAME. You can use them in systems like that - school library and dining hall systems are perfect, you're not interested in "security", you're just interested in determining the correct child to a certain degree of accuracy quickly.
Your password should still be something that only you know.
People using fingerprints for passwords are deliberately making their machines less secure.
The media are generally allowed to report anything "in the public interest" no matter the source.
Technically every celebrity photo is stolen, or taken without permission, or whatever. But because the press are able to hide behind it being "in the public interest", where you and I could be sued to oblivion if we touched it, they get free reign.
Maybe if they can make an affordable and fun-to-use one it might catch one.
Honestly, I was like you. And I grew up in the 80's where VRML and everything else were being pushed as "the future".
And then I played with a Google Cardboard set and, actually, the base mobile phones now can do a better job of VR than you'd probably think. Nowhere near perfect, but enough that we were passing them around the IT Office and others bought their own, all run from a bog-standard Android smartphone.
The Vive and Rift? Stupendously expensive. And you have to have one hell of a machine to get close to using them.
But now consider if you could get one, off-the-shelf, for a few hundred, with a bunch of Wii-like games to entice people and have a laugh at parties with them. Sorry, but that would sell. All the other competitors are similarly pipedreams, homebrew, or too expensive. A Nintendo one - even sold at a loss - could really bring it home to people.
Hell, even just a headset that plugged into a Wii U would do it. And if you could make it commercial, you could repurpose them like people have repurposed the Wiimotes etc.
Sure, you probably aren't going to play Crysis 10 at full speed with them, but that's NOT the be-all-and-end-all of gaming. Make it fun enough that granny buys one for the kids because she was "on a rollercoaster" and you have a seller. WiiFit was nothing special, look how many people bought that.
A WiiVR could easily take the market if launched at the right time - late enough to be developed, early enough to get in before the big players - and the right price point.
Bigger question:
Then why the hell are you using your ISP mailbox?
I mean, come on. This is Slashdot. Stump up a pittance, buy a domain name and either forward it to whatever you want (e.g. GMail) or stick a mailbox on it for another pittance.
And then you aren't tied into whatever your ISP wants to give you for email, especially if someday they are bought up, sold off, or just plain decide to stop doing email.
Er.... and your point is?
VPN is perfectly doable for any major VPN protocol (including OpenVPN) on a bog-standard, unrooted Android device.
And those people who are using, say, the other Exchange capable apps on their phone will use it. Like, say, all the Samsung apps that do just this. Or something like TouchDown (is that being sold still since it was sold to Symantec?).
So precisely those people who a) have an android phone and er... b) want to, can connect to an Exchange server. This just ties it into the GMail app rather than someone else's.
UK I get 11 movies, none of which I've ever heard of.
I really don't understand what's so hard with someone making a movie and then releasing it for sale worldwide, giving local partners the relevant cut as necessary rather than holding it to random in each jurisdiction.
It's not public money.
It's a private school.
With 1:1 BYOD's.
With site-wide wireless.
With site-wide PoE for CCTV, VoIP, access control and bell/speaker systems, all QoS'd.
With need for multi-gigabit backbone.
With device MDM so that when we block an BYOD (because it's not up to date, say, or is missing AV), it blocks it site-wide on the wireless and Ethernet, alerts, stops sending down paid-apps, etc. etc.
And the network sockets are opened on the basis of device owner (set from VPP from Apple, Google, etc.), time of day, location, quarantine, etc. automatically.
And that's just the basics. When you get into actual, useful technical features, live-cable-testing (including distance to fault), capture portals even on Ethernet, voucher codes to purchase network time, etc. the money is more than worth it. But you know what's the bit we pay for more? 48-port PoE, and a backbone in every switch capable of giving full gigabit to every port. Not many off-the-shelf switches can actually do that.
We're not alone. Cisco Meraki is inside almost every school I visit, the larger ones especially. You don't convince bursars to pay that kind of money without saving it elsewhere.