I bootcamp to run Windows-only steam games on my iMac, but that's the only thing I use it for.
All my work-related stuff that is Win only (Origin 8, ACD labs, Omnic, etc) is done via VM. With Unity mode in Fusion you barely notice the VM itself, other than the fact that the windows look like Windows.
I think you mistake my comment about the nature of GPU driver availability as some sort of criticism of the platform. I'm merely commenting on the reality given the original commenter in this thread wondered about OS X support. I'm just laying it out as I see it. Colour me unsurprised that OS X development of the Rift has been put on hold (almost certainly indefinitely).
Guess what platform I use for the bulk of my computing work?
Right now the "consumer Macs" don't have the GPU power (the Mac Pro does, but it's a sliver of their sales), and even if they did, Apple doesn't focus on the drivers in the way that happens on Windows - while it's possible for third party vendors to release drivers (Nvidia does it, for example), it's just not common - the vast majority of Mac users are running with the driver that ships with the OS and it doesn't get updated often.
They have made some strides forward in shipping decent GPU hardware, but the software is still somewhat lacking for heavy 3D lifting.
They're investing a lot into infrastructure - charging stations, R&D, the giant battery factory - it's not surprising that they are losing money on paper right now.
It's obviously a gamble, but one they are hoping will pay off. They're still in the early stages.
You recycle them. They contain some lithium, a transition metal like cobalt or equivalent, and various anions (PF6, BF4, BPh4) that make up the electrolyte.
You can separate out and recover all of the materials you used to make the battery and make another one.
Lithium ion batteries also don't contain rare earth metals.
What do they call these nervous nellies who constantly monitor their pulse and blood pressure, hyperventilate with the least bit of excitement? It's kinda like 'helicopter' parents, but they 'hover' over themselves. *I've fallen! And I can't get up!*
Holy shit, you're a fucking moron. I'm not sure it can be stated any more clearly than that. Pardon my French.
Calamine lotion as a treatment for chickenpox? Are you fucking high?
Calamine doesn't "treat" chicken pox - it treats the symptoms of the disease. That is, the itching and the rash. It's not a drug that fights off the virus.
Next time I get a serious viral infection I'll just rub some zinc carbonate on my skin. Much better than vaccinating myself.
Jesus fucking christ you anti-vaxxers are unbelievable.
And of course, no "alternative to Mendeley" list would be complete without Endnote. (Although it's somewhat interesting that Mendeley started as "the alternative to Endnote" - I guess it's come full circle.
So, with your expert knowledge of the situation, how do you propose to make the thing hover when the TWR is 1.8 at minimum thrust?
Just curious.
The vertical speed was also planned. How do you propose to control the rocket's attitude with the fins when it's moving very slowly, since they rely on airspeed to function?
Let me guess, you just assumed that "hover slowly and touch down like a helicopter" was the desired descent profile without looking anything up?
That large explosion at the end of the longer video implies there was plenty of fuel left over.
You would assume that, yes. But a) that's mainly the fuel vapour in the near-empty main tanks, and b) the fuel the GP is talking about is the pressurisation of the hydraulic lines for the control systems that run the thrusters and fins, not the fuel that runs the rocket engine.
Is there something wrong with the driver Nvidia supplies?
This is about the open source driver, not the proprietary one that Nvidia ships for Linux that works just as well as the windows one that they ship for Windows.
What else did you want them to do to prove they were taking the exploit seriously?
Well I'm not writing a book for you, and someone else already covered an example.
Why don't you tell me the answer to your questions.
This isn't a test. What is this? High school?
The fact that you're being acutely defensive suggests to me that you just wanted to engage in some good old fashioned Microsoft bashing with nothing constructive to add in the safety of slashdot.
As far as how I would answer my own question, based on my original assertion that they have already taken it seriously; nothing.
However, since you suggested that they have not taken the exploit seriously enough, I wondered how exactly our positions differed (since I can't read your mind) and what exactly they would have to do so that you and I agreed that they were taking it seriously enough.
Remember, I already think they are taking it seriously enough based on the release of patches back to win 7 and a workaround given for non-patched machines, so my answer is "nothing", but that clearly can't be your answer because otherwise we'd agree.
I was continuing the riff, you know, because Bill Paxton was not in ID4 and Will Smith was, thus proving the point that Will Smith clearly played all the...
Never mind.
I'll put a giant "this is a joke" disclaimer next time.
I'll explain the joke: people seem to get confused between Bill Pullman and Bill Paxton. (And apparently so did you; Paxton was NOT in Independence Day.)
The OP wrote Bill Paxton, and given the length of the post, I assume the mistake was intentional. The standard response is, of course, that "Bill Pullman was in Independence Day, not Bill Paxton". The poster you quoted then took the standard response and twisted it around by correctly naming an actor other than Pullman who was in Independence Day.
It's of course no longer funny since I had to explain it, but it seemed necessary.
I think you missed my continuation of the theme, or was it too subtle?
I'm against "withholding details" if anything there should be an established web page that release the exploit as soon as it is found FORCING M$ and Apple to take it more seriously.
How are they not taking it seriously? The summary mentions that patches are already available, plus a method to prevent the exploit occurring on a non-patched machine.
What else did you want them to do to prove they were taking the exploit seriously?
I believe someone here proposed the same adjustment when the original iPhone launched.
Also when the iPad launched.
Strangely no adjustment when the Galaxy Gear launched, although I think they sold at least than 1 per minute, but you think they'd want to adjust it the other way too, eh?
There's a reason for that - the early ones were alpha-quality (especially Samsung's) since they rushed them to market long before they were ready in the wake of the continual "Apple is making a watch, any time now" rumours.
They're much better now - for example, the LG one doesn't cut off part of the screen and the Gear actually functions now.
Since everybody is required to do business to survive, you're effectively saying that nobody has rights. Where in the Constitution does it say that we lose them when engaging in business? I can accept that for corporations, who are making a bargain in exchange for limited liability, but not for partnerships and proprietorships.
Well Citizens United says that corporations are people, so really there's no distinction.
Either you agree with the civil rights act or you don't, but the fact remains that it is in place to ensure that the "every man is equal" part of the constitution is upheld, hence the inability of a business to turn away black people. What this bill seeks to do is ensure that if homosexuality becomes a protected class that business owners who are bigoted won't be sued.
Also, your first sentence is a huge, huge non-sequitur. There is no "requirement to do business" to survive - you can work for someone else if you want to, and even have your religious beliefs upheld (for example, if you work in a store you can ask to not handle pork as a Jew or a Muslim). The fact that you think that if a bill specifically designed to protect religious people's ability to discriminate is removed means that "none of us have freedom" is just laughable.
Look, consumer electronics these days are for everyone (they're not like the Casio calculator watch from back in the day), so they need to look sexy and even a little bit "exclusive". Apple hasn't been "exclusive" for years now, and I suspect they want to take the idea back a little: being fashion-forward AND having something that not everyone else has yet.
Except...I've had a smart-watch for months. People notice and ask questions, but I've observed that the questions I get aren't from people who WANT one of their own, even the iPhone users (people still have phones that are glued to them anyway), they're just wondering why I have it in the first place. So Apple is probably limiting supply to increase perception of demand.
Or they're limiting supply because supply is limited, which has been known for some time.
Of course, the click bait summary doesn't think that's a sexy enough headline, so they're going with the "exclusivity" angle.
If you walk into the Apple store and want one, an employee will walk you through buying one online fem inside the store, because they won't have the stock on hand to just be able to give you one right there due to a) the tight supply of the watch itself (mainly down to the screen) and b) the large number of combinations of strap.
Until the demand settles out, you'll have to order one online, which is exactly what Apple are setting up for. Either ahead of time and then pick up in store, or if you just walk in, they'll do it for you right there.
However "Apple employees will order a watch for you online if you go to the store because they won't have lots of stock on hand" just doesn't get those ad impressions roiling.
Slashdot Mirror
I bootcamp to run Windows-only steam games on my iMac, but that's the only thing I use it for.
All my work-related stuff that is Win only (Origin 8, ACD labs, Omnic, etc) is done via VM. With Unity mode in Fusion you barely notice the VM itself, other than the fact that the windows look like Windows.
I think you mistake my comment about the nature of GPU driver availability as some sort of criticism of the platform. I'm merely commenting on the reality given the original commenter in this thread wondered about OS X support. I'm just laying it out as I see it. Colour me unsurprised that OS X development of the Rift has been put on hold (almost certainly indefinitely).
Guess what platform I use for the bulk of my computing work?
Right now the "consumer Macs" don't have the GPU power (the Mac Pro does, but it's a sliver of their sales), and even if they did, Apple doesn't focus on the drivers in the way that happens on Windows - while it's possible for third party vendors to release drivers (Nvidia does it, for example), it's just not common - the vast majority of Mac users are running with the driver that ships with the OS and it doesn't get updated often.
They have made some strides forward in shipping decent GPU hardware, but the software is still somewhat lacking for heavy 3D lifting.
They're investing a lot into infrastructure - charging stations, R&D, the giant battery factory - it's not surprising that they are losing money on paper right now.
It's obviously a gamble, but one they are hoping will pay off. They're still in the early stages.
You recycle them. They contain some lithium, a transition metal like cobalt or equivalent, and various anions (PF6, BF4, BPh4) that make up the electrolyte.
You can separate out and recover all of the materials you used to make the battery and make another one.
Lithium ion batteries also don't contain rare earth metals.
What do they call these nervous nellies who constantly monitor their pulse and blood pressure, hyperventilate with the least bit of excitement? It's kinda like 'helicopter' parents, but they 'hover' over themselves. *I've fallen! And I can't get up!*
Humans.
"All your new crap is named after Halo and Minecraft so nobody will respect it."
Is that considered a bug?
"Bug closed: Issue only affects small portion of user base with mental age = 12"
Holy shit, you're a fucking moron. I'm not sure it can be stated any more clearly than that. Pardon my French.
Calamine lotion as a treatment for chickenpox? Are you fucking high?
Calamine doesn't "treat" chicken pox - it treats the symptoms of the disease. That is, the itching and the rash. It's not a drug that fights off the virus.
Next time I get a serious viral infection I'll just rub some zinc carbonate on my skin. Much better than vaccinating myself.
Jesus fucking christ you anti-vaxxers are unbelievable.
And of course, no "alternative to Mendeley" list would be complete without Endnote. (Although it's somewhat interesting that Mendeley started as "the alternative to Endnote" - I guess it's come full circle.
So, with your expert knowledge of the situation, how do you propose to make the thing hover when the TWR is 1.8 at minimum thrust?
Just curious.
The vertical speed was also planned. How do you propose to control the rocket's attitude with the fins when it's moving very slowly, since they rely on airspeed to function?
Let me guess, you just assumed that "hover slowly and touch down like a helicopter" was the desired descent profile without looking anything up?
That large explosion at the end of the longer video implies there was plenty of fuel left over.
You would assume that, yes. But a) that's mainly the fuel vapour in the near-empty main tanks, and b) the fuel the GP is talking about is the pressurisation of the hydraulic lines for the control systems that run the thrusters and fins, not the fuel that runs the rocket engine.
Is there something wrong with the driver Nvidia supplies?
This is about the open source driver, not the proprietary one that Nvidia ships for Linux that works just as well as the windows one that they ship for Windows.
They licence some of the IP involved in the hardware that does not belong to them. It's not as simple as just letting it out with no restrictions.
What else did you want them to do to prove they were taking the exploit seriously?
Well I'm not writing a book for you, and someone else already covered an example.
Why don't you tell me the answer to your questions.
This isn't a test. What is this? High school?
The fact that you're being acutely defensive suggests to me that you just wanted to engage in some good old fashioned Microsoft bashing with nothing constructive to add in the safety of slashdot.
As far as how I would answer my own question, based on my original assertion that they have already taken it seriously; nothing.
However, since you suggested that they have not taken the exploit seriously enough, I wondered how exactly our positions differed (since I can't read your mind) and what exactly they would have to do so that you and I agreed that they were taking it seriously enough.
Remember, I already think they are taking it seriously enough based on the release of patches back to win 7 and a workaround given for non-patched machines, so my answer is "nothing", but that clearly can't be your answer because otherwise we'd agree.
I think you missed my sarcasm.
I was continuing the riff, you know, because Bill Paxton was not in ID4 and Will Smith was, thus proving the point that Will Smith clearly played all the...
Never mind.
I'll put a giant "this is a joke" disclaimer next time.
Here's your obligatory: "Whoosh".
I'll explain the joke: people seem to get confused between Bill Pullman and Bill Paxton. (And apparently so did you; Paxton was NOT in Independence Day.)
The OP wrote Bill Paxton, and given the length of the post, I assume the mistake was intentional. The standard response is, of course, that "Bill Pullman was in Independence Day, not Bill Paxton". The poster you quoted then took the standard response and twisted it around by correctly naming an actor other than Pullman who was in Independence Day.
It's of course no longer funny since I had to explain it, but it seemed necessary.
I think you missed my continuation of the theme, or was it too subtle?
Bill Paxton was amazing in Independence Day!
Will Smith was in Independence Day, not Bill Paxton...
Today I learned that if one actor stars in a film then no one else starred in it.
I'm against "withholding details" if anything there should be an established web page that release the exploit as soon as it is found FORCING M$ and Apple to take it more seriously.
char request1[] = "GET / HTTP/1.1\r\nHost: stuff\r\nRange: bytes=0-18446744073709551615\r\n\r\n";
How are they not taking it seriously? The summary mentions that patches are already available, plus a method to prevent the exploit occurring on a non-patched machine.
What else did you want them to do to prove they were taking the exploit seriously?
I believe someone here proposed the same adjustment when the original iPhone launched.
Also when the iPad launched.
Strangely no adjustment when the Galaxy Gear launched, although I think they sold at least than 1 per minute, but you think they'd want to adjust it the other way too, eh?
You mean Android smart watches right?
There's a reason for that - the early ones were alpha-quality (especially Samsung's) since they rushed them to market long before they were ready in the wake of the continual "Apple is making a watch, any time now" rumours.
They're much better now - for example, the LG one doesn't cut off part of the screen and the Gear actually functions now.
It still has to be proven to me that the bus does something valuable. I stopped riding the bus over a decade ago.
I wear a watch all the time. I don;t want an Appel smart watch, but I do wear an analogue watch made of metal.
I also wash my hands frequently (I work in a lab).
Oh sorry, I forgot that everyone on earth has the same needs as you. My mistake.
Since everybody is required to do business to survive, you're effectively saying that nobody has rights. Where in the Constitution does it say that we lose them when engaging in business? I can accept that for corporations, who are making a bargain in exchange for limited liability, but not for partnerships and proprietorships.
Well Citizens United says that corporations are people, so really there's no distinction.
Either you agree with the civil rights act or you don't, but the fact remains that it is in place to ensure that the "every man is equal" part of the constitution is upheld, hence the inability of a business to turn away black people. What this bill seeks to do is ensure that if homosexuality becomes a protected class that business owners who are bigoted won't be sued.
Also, your first sentence is a huge, huge non-sequitur. There is no "requirement to do business" to survive - you can work for someone else if you want to, and even have your religious beliefs upheld (for example, if you work in a store you can ask to not handle pork as a Jew or a Muslim). The fact that you think that if a bill specifically designed to protect religious people's ability to discriminate is removed means that "none of us have freedom" is just laughable.
Look, consumer electronics these days are for everyone (they're not like the Casio calculator watch from back in the day), so they need to look sexy and even a little bit "exclusive". Apple hasn't been "exclusive" for years now, and I suspect they want to take the idea back a little: being fashion-forward AND having something that not everyone else has yet.
Except...I've had a smart-watch for months. People notice and ask questions, but I've observed that the questions I get aren't from people who WANT one of their own, even the iPhone users (people still have phones that are glued to them anyway), they're just wondering why I have it in the first place. So Apple is probably limiting supply to increase perception of demand.
Or they're limiting supply because supply is limited, which has been known for some time.
Of course, the click bait summary doesn't think that's a sexy enough headline, so they're going with the "exclusivity" angle.
If you walk into the Apple store and want one, an employee will walk you through buying one online fem inside the store, because they won't have the stock on hand to just be able to give you one right there due to a) the tight supply of the watch itself (mainly down to the screen) and b) the large number of combinations of strap.
Until the demand settles out, you'll have to order one online, which is exactly what Apple are setting up for. Either ahead of time and then pick up in store, or if you just walk in, they'll do it for you right there.
However "Apple employees will order a watch for you online if you go to the store because they won't have lots of stock on hand" just doesn't get those ad impressions roiling.
$3 metal band. lol.
Speck of gold. lol.
2/10, kid. Try harder next time.