Gimp's system requirements are a fraction of what a program like CS5 needs.
There's nothing really that makes the ARM SoC less powerful than a mid 90's PC, but it's market viability and adoption hasn't been as widespread as x86 chips have been in the past.
The ARM SoC's used on the Surfaces were actually pretty impressive for what they were, it's simply been too difficult a task to get developers to embrace it enough to be used outside of closed-garden mobile phones/tablets.
Also, Microsoft simply beat everyone to the mid/high-end tablet laptop market after seeing what was happening with netbooks. Netbooks were okay, but they served only specific purposes. This is likely why the RT only saw two generations. People thought it was a great idea at the time, but soon realized that they couldn't expand their use if their needs had changed, whereas the Pro's have wider versatility.
But you can't run photoshop or skyrim on a netbook. You can on the Pro.
You get what you pay for. You want a tablet laptop that you can do virtually anything on? You're not going to get that with $500. That'll cost you more, especially in a market that barely existed at the time.
Who else made full-fledged(windows-based) tablet laptops for $900 in 2012? Nobody.
Also, the Surface 3 with the atom CPU became the cost-effective tablet laptop to replace the RT's, but again, that's an entry-level model.
My girlfriend was told this by her last employer. They expected her to do the work of someone making 40-50k/yr in her position, for 30k/yr instead, and told her that the job should be her life(little to no time off, mandatory OT if necessary). She told them that she expected a raise at her 1yr review, and instead they fired her. The funny thing though is that she was the best employee that they had, and after they fired her a number of people immediately started looking for jobs elsewhere and quit. It's a fairly small company, so they've been impacted greatly now.
Considering that CEO-to-regular employee pay is now around 300-to-1, and that CEO pay has increased almost 1000% since the 1970's, and regular employee compensation has only increased 10% in the same time frame, I'd say that there are serious socioeconomic impacts that needs to be addressed.
Personal opinion: It's not ideal to enforce pay restrictions, but there has been a serious class divide over the last 40-50 years, culminating to a point where CEO's are paid absurd compensation packages, even in the event that they tank the company. Employees are now no longer considered valuable assets to a company that is not employee-owned. Something needs to be done to balance company salaries, and to prevent CEO's from running away with the lion's share when the employees are likely more responsible for the company's success than the CEO.
If proposed laws to restrict CEO pay are not constitutional, we should amend the constitution to allow it. Until we do, they will reap the unwarranted benefits incurred by the labor and sacrifices made by the under-paid employees.
Again, this is my personal opinion and I could be completely in the wrong, but I feel like SOMETHING needs to be done or else we're all going to be stuck with the shitty end of the stick for a long time to come.
""We're the platform for the alt-right," Bannon told me proudly when I interviewed him at the Republican National Convention (RNC) in July. Though disavowed by every other major conservative news outlet, the alt-right has been Bannon's target audience ever since he took over Breitbart News from its late founder, Andrew Breitbart, four years ago." http://www.theinvestigativefun...
It's strange.. I provide these sources that directly contradicts your silly arguments.. yet you don't really seem to be providing much proof yourself for these silly arguments that you're making.
So, Unless you can provide a citation that contradicts what Bannon himself had specifically told a reporter who was doing a profile piece on him, you've lost the game.
Brietbart IS alt-right. The people who run it have specifically said so. They labeled themselves, not anyone else.
Also, Alt-right is not in fact a label applied to anyone who's not left-leaning, but if it makes you feel better believing such is not true, then so be it.
There are conservatives/republicans who disavow the alt-right movement for the same reasons that liberals/democrats do. Their behavior isn't accepted on either side.
As for the source I used, it provided the necessary evidence to show that the person you specifically named was suspended for a legitimate reason. If you fail to accept that, it's not my problem. I refuse to cite infowars or brietbart, for the sole reason that they don't produce factual news, and there aren't any other legitimate news sources that covered it if you do a simple google search about his ban.
I know that they have done mass bans on alt-right accounts, which considering their white nationalist views, doesn't surprise me. I haven't heard of mass bans towards basic conservatives(brietbart is not basic conservative, btw. They fall into the alt-right category), so I'd need some evidence of that before I can make any judgements.
Their TOS and EULA do not state that they banish people expressing opinions that don't fit their political leanings, which would surely have impact on how many people join, or continue to use, that service.
They have Twitter Rules in their TOS(https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311#), and those outline what is and isn't acceptable. They are not banishing people for expressing a different political opinion than of those carried by the operators of the service. They suspend/ban accounts that break their rules of appropriate behavior. They will not allow the harassment of other users, and if there's a particular group on the political spectrum that are more prone to harassing others, that is not singling out their politics, that's singling out their unacceptable behavior as a group.
Well it's a good thing that the US isn't based on Petry's Beliefs.
Private enterprises such as Twitter control their own content. They are not obligated to tell you why they decided to block something. If you don't care for it, then find a different platform to use.
Not exactly. MS was bleeding money to get developers onto UWP, so it wasn't very profitable to start.
Not everybody wants to re-compile to 32-bit ARM. There would also be major inconsistencies with compatible desktop apps, and that would cause even greater user frustration because they wouldn't be able to tell what will and won't work with it. That's not the experience that MS was shooting for with the WinRT platform. They wanted a pure tablet-based, closed-garden experience with WinRT, meaning that Windows Store apps were all you get because they can guarantee their functionality along with maintaining virus-free computers/tablets. If they wanted desktop apps to be available they would have simply nixed the entire idea and stuck with Pro tablets. Think of iPads and Android tablets: You get what's in the app store because those apps are certified to work and that's what the platform supports. You wouldn't buy an iPad and expect to install desktop apps, would you? If you wanted a tablet that you can throw desktop apps on, you would get the Pro version that runs x86 and windows 8/10 pro.
Obviously their WinRT experiment failed(for more than one reason), and they went the route of atom-based x86 tablets instead for their non-pro version.
Disclaimer: Did tech support for Surface tablets for four years.
I've met some very nice taxi drivers who were pleasant to talk with around my area. Just because the taxi drivers in your area are a bunch of assholes doesn't make the rest of them "scum of the earth."
What? Think of it as lifelock for your computer. You can disable potentially unsafe program installs while it's enabled. If there's something you want to install that's not in the windows store(apps already vetted by MS), simply disable it!
I hear Mars is beautiful around this time of year and there's plenty of land to grab. There's no formal government or any type of regulations present. It's like the Wild Wild West! Why not volunteer yourself for a one-way ticket? I'm sure NASA and some other countries are looking for test subj---err space travelers.
Anybody who disparages liberals is also then acting like bigots if you're going to apply that term to anybody who talks about republicans negatively. That pretty much encompasses the entire right-wing media.
Well maybe if African Americans stopped acting like giant douchebags who seek profit over duty, then they might actually write some favorable articles.
Hmmm.... not sure what duty ALL African Americans have floundered to cause NYT to write scathing articles about them.
Well maybe if gays stopped acting like giant douchebags who seek profit over duty, then they might actually write some favorable articles.
Again.. not sure what duty that ALL the gays have neglected that would warrant critical news articles to be written about them.
Well maybe if women stopped acting like giant douchebags who seek profit over duty, then they might actually write some favorable articles.
What duty are ALL women responsible for that would cause the NYT to condemn them with unfavorable opinions? That I'm not sure of..
Now, conservative republican congressmen/women, are 99% complicit with the disastrous government policies being pushed forward on a national scale, along with re-enforcing Trumps anti-American anti-constitutional behaviors and orders, while at the same time gobbling up all of those lobbying dollars and donations from republican think-tanks, Super PAC's, and the oil industry who influence them more than the people they are supposed to represent. I'd say a blanket attack on them is warranted until they can prove to the American people that their vested interest isn't in only representing their own financial interests tied to previous said groups, but representing the ENTIRE constituency, even going so far as to listen and accept widely popular concepts, such as universal healthcare, women's rights, sensible gun control, equality for LGBT, clean/renewable energy, non-interventionist foreign policies, etc.
If money was completely removed from politics, republicans would likely be seen in a much more favorable light(along with some dem's, too), because people like the Koch Brothers wouldn't be able to influence them in relaxing/removing regulations to allow private companies to poison the well./rant
Slashdot Mirror
Gimp's system requirements are a fraction of what a program like CS5 needs.
There's nothing really that makes the ARM SoC less powerful than a mid 90's PC, but it's market viability and adoption hasn't been as widespread as x86 chips have been in the past.
The ARM SoC's used on the Surfaces were actually pretty impressive for what they were, it's simply been too difficult a task to get developers to embrace it enough to be used outside of closed-garden mobile phones/tablets.
Also, Microsoft simply beat everyone to the mid/high-end tablet laptop market after seeing what was happening with netbooks. Netbooks were okay, but they served only specific purposes. This is likely why the RT only saw two generations. People thought it was a great idea at the time, but soon realized that they couldn't expand their use if their needs had changed, whereas the Pro's have wider versatility.
But you can't run photoshop or skyrim on a netbook. You can on the Pro.
You get what you pay for. You want a tablet laptop that you can do virtually anything on? You're not going to get that with $500. That'll cost you more, especially in a market that barely existed at the time.
Who else made full-fledged(windows-based) tablet laptops for $900 in 2012? Nobody.
Also, the Surface 3 with the atom CPU became the cost-effective tablet laptop to replace the RT's, but again, that's an entry-level model.
An exodus of tech workers from the SF Bay area will likely happen. Eventually their market is going to burst.
My girlfriend was told this by her last employer. They expected her to do the work of someone making 40-50k/yr in her position, for 30k/yr instead, and told her that the job should be her life(little to no time off, mandatory OT if necessary). She told them that she expected a raise at her 1yr review, and instead they fired her.
The funny thing though is that she was the best employee that they had, and after they fired her a number of people immediately started looking for jobs elsewhere and quit. It's a fairly small company, so they've been impacted greatly now.
Considering that CEO-to-regular employee pay is now around 300-to-1, and that CEO pay has increased almost 1000% since the 1970's, and regular employee compensation has only increased 10% in the same time frame, I'd say that there are serious socioeconomic impacts that needs to be addressed.
Personal opinion:
It's not ideal to enforce pay restrictions, but there has been a serious class divide over the last 40-50 years, culminating to a point where CEO's are paid absurd compensation packages, even in the event that they tank the company. Employees are now no longer considered valuable assets to a company that is not employee-owned. Something needs to be done to balance company salaries, and to prevent CEO's from running away with the lion's share when the employees are likely more responsible for the company's success than the CEO.
If proposed laws to restrict CEO pay are not constitutional, we should amend the constitution to allow it. Until we do, they will reap the unwarranted benefits incurred by the labor and sacrifices made by the under-paid employees.
Again, this is my personal opinion and I could be completely in the wrong, but I feel like SOMETHING needs to be done or else we're all going to be stuck with the shitty end of the stick for a long time to come.
http://www.epi.org/publication...
""We're the platform for the alt-right," Bannon told me proudly when I interviewed him at the Republican National Convention (RNC) in July. Though disavowed by every other major conservative news outlet, the alt-right has been Bannon's target audience ever since he took over Breitbart News from its late founder, Andrew Breitbart, four years ago."
http://www.theinvestigativefun...
It's strange.. I provide these sources that directly contradicts your silly arguments.. yet you don't really seem to be providing much proof yourself for these silly arguments that you're making.
So, Unless you can provide a citation that contradicts what Bannon himself had specifically told a reporter who was doing a profile piece on him, you've lost the game.
Enjoy your day.
Brietbart IS alt-right. The people who run it have specifically said so. They labeled themselves, not anyone else.
Also, Alt-right is not in fact a label applied to anyone who's not left-leaning, but if it makes you feel better believing such is not true, then so be it.
There are conservatives/republicans who disavow the alt-right movement for the same reasons that liberals/democrats do. Their behavior isn't accepted on either side.
As for the source I used, it provided the necessary evidence to show that the person you specifically named was suspended for a legitimate reason. If you fail to accept that, it's not my problem. I refuse to cite infowars or brietbart, for the sole reason that they don't produce factual news, and there aren't any other legitimate news sources that covered it if you do a simple google search about his ban.
I know that they have done mass bans on alt-right accounts, which considering their white nationalist views, doesn't surprise me. I haven't heard of mass bans towards basic conservatives(brietbart is not basic conservative, btw. They fall into the alt-right category), so I'd need some evidence of that before I can make any judgements.
As for Sargon, he DID break a twitter rule:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/b...
Have you received your Hellfire missile implants yet?
Their TOS and EULA do not state that they banish people expressing opinions that don't fit their political leanings, which would surely have impact on how many people join, or continue to use, that service.
They have Twitter Rules in their TOS(https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311#), and those outline what is and isn't acceptable. They are not banishing people for expressing a different political opinion than of those carried by the operators of the service. They suspend/ban accounts that break their rules of appropriate behavior. They will not allow the harassment of other users, and if there's a particular group on the political spectrum that are more prone to harassing others, that is not singling out their politics, that's singling out their unacceptable behavior as a group.
Well it's a good thing that the US isn't based on Petry's Beliefs.
Private enterprises such as Twitter control their own content. They are not obligated to tell you why they decided to block something. If you don't care for it, then find a different platform to use.
Just because your tiny brain can't understand gender dysphoria doesn't mean those diagnosed with it receive any less credibility.
Now-a-days it seems you need to be a qualified liar to win elections.
Not exactly. MS was bleeding money to get developers onto UWP, so it wasn't very profitable to start.
Not everybody wants to re-compile to 32-bit ARM. There would also be major inconsistencies with compatible desktop apps, and that would cause even greater user frustration because they wouldn't be able to tell what will and won't work with it. That's not the experience that MS was shooting for with the WinRT platform. They wanted a pure tablet-based, closed-garden experience with WinRT, meaning that Windows Store apps were all you get because they can guarantee their functionality along with maintaining virus-free computers/tablets. If they wanted desktop apps to be available they would have simply nixed the entire idea and stuck with Pro tablets. Think of iPads and Android tablets: You get what's in the app store because those apps are certified to work and that's what the platform supports. You wouldn't buy an iPad and expect to install desktop apps, would you? If you wanted a tablet that you can throw desktop apps on, you would get the Pro version that runs x86 and windows 8/10 pro.
Obviously their WinRT experiment failed(for more than one reason), and they went the route of atom-based x86 tablets instead for their non-pro version.
Disclaimer: Did tech support for Surface tablets for four years.
Do you even know why RT shipped with that feature forced on?
rumored
Lets stop right there, shall we?
quite the pedantic troll aren't we?
I've met some very nice taxi drivers who were pleasant to talk with around my area. Just because the taxi drivers in your area are a bunch of assholes doesn't make the rest of them "scum of the earth."
Unsuccessful Troll 101
What? Think of it as lifelock for your computer. You can disable potentially unsafe program installs while it's enabled. If there's something you want to install that's not in the windows store(apps already vetted by MS), simply disable it!
Is this so hard to comprehend, people?
I hear Mars is beautiful around this time of year and there's plenty of land to grab. There's no formal government or any type of regulations present. It's like the Wild Wild West! Why not volunteer yourself for a one-way ticket? I'm sure NASA and some other countries are looking for test subj---err space travelers.
Think of it as an opportunity of a lifetime!
Anybody who disparages liberals is also then acting like bigots if you're going to apply that term to anybody who talks about republicans negatively. That pretty much encompasses the entire right-wing media.
Well, you completely missed the context.
Well maybe if African Americans stopped acting like giant douchebags who seek profit over duty, then they might actually write some favorable articles.
Hmmm.... not sure what duty ALL African Americans have floundered to cause NYT to write scathing articles about them.
Well maybe if gays stopped acting like giant douchebags who seek profit over duty, then they might actually write some favorable articles.
Again.. not sure what duty that ALL the gays have neglected that would warrant critical news articles to be written about them.
Well maybe if women stopped acting like giant douchebags who seek profit over duty, then they might actually write some favorable articles.
What duty are ALL women responsible for that would cause the NYT to condemn them with unfavorable opinions? That I'm not sure of..
Now, conservative republican congressmen/women, are 99% complicit with the disastrous government policies being pushed forward on a national scale, along with re-enforcing Trumps anti-American anti-constitutional behaviors and orders, while at the same time gobbling up all of those lobbying dollars and donations from republican think-tanks, Super PAC's, and the oil industry who influence them more than the people they are supposed to represent. I'd say a blanket attack on them is warranted until they can prove to the American people that their vested interest isn't in only representing their own financial interests tied to previous said groups, but representing the ENTIRE constituency, even going so far as to listen and accept widely popular concepts, such as universal healthcare, women's rights, sensible gun control, equality for LGBT, clean/renewable energy, non-interventionist foreign policies, etc.
If money was completely removed from politics, republicans would likely be seen in a much more favorable light(along with some dem's, too), because people like the Koch Brothers wouldn't be able to influence them in relaxing/removing regulations to allow private companies to poison the well. /rant
Get outta here with that common sense!