It's not in North America either. Both the last year of the Mark III Jetta / Golf and the first year of the Mark IV are called "1999" with the cutoff being some time in September. Only way for a parts dealer to know is if you enter the VIN and they decode the chassis style.
Yeah, I know when I've sat in one of the same kind of buildings at small airports, the thing practically fell down while I was just enjoying a bloody mary!
No wait, it was just like being in any other building ever. And this was a small airport at 6500 feet above sea level in the Rockies, where they get a bit of weather the Bay Area never sees.
This isn't a god damn Boy Scout tent we're talking about. And it was a couple hundred feet from where they operate jet aircraft, which tend to make a bit of wind on their own.
Go to the same store and ask for something fairly routine for a 1999 Volkswagen Golf or Jetta, such as a coil pack. They will absolutely ask you for when it was manufactured from the label on the driver's door sill - if it's after September 1998, it's a Mark-IV with very different engines and a new body style. The 1999 model manufactured before September was the same Mark-III as 1996 - 1998 with the ODB2 engine (1993 - 1995 used ODB1 variants of the same engines, the rest of the car otherwise being the same).
So no, the second biggest manufacturer of automobiles doesn't even subscribe to your "sticking with one design for a model year." And that's an example off the top of my head.
See: Volkswagen Mark III Jetta / Golf / Cabrio. from 1993 to some time in 1996 they used ODB-I engines and had completely different engine management. In the middle of the 1996 model year they switched to ODB-II engines and everything that goes with it. Then they made a switch mid-1999 to many of the drivetrain components that would be in the Mark IV models from 2000, but had the same Mark-III chassis and body.
And that's just off the top of my head, and VW wasn't the first to do that shit by a long shot.
They actually have "modernized" many hydro projects by shutting down a turbine at a time, removing the old turbine from it's well, and installing a more efficient turbine in it's place. Many hydropower projects have been uprated by doing this. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yeah, and the results of using nuclear weapons were the following:
1. a quick end to a massively bloody conflict, reducing the estimated half-million Allied casualties and who knows how many Japanese casualties. 2. an unconditional surrender which caused Japan to jettison their nationalistic government, and not attempt further military agression 3. a demonstration of power which first gave the Soviets pause, and caused them to create their own bomb, which would result in no additional world wars to date.
Atomic weapons are horrific, but under the least-harm principle, the outcome of using them at the end of WW2 turned out to be a good thing for humanity... so far. Until they're all gone, the end of the story isn't yet written.
What's your pricing on the oil and coal generation's ability to externalize the pollution costs and kill people living downwind? It's been estimated that cleaning up air pollution from fossil fuels would reduce respiratory and heart disease deaths by 10% to 25% per year:
The year 1993 saw the publication of an enormous study that followed over 8,000 adults for 15 years in six U.S. cities. The cities—Topeka; St. Louis; Watertown, Massachusetts; Steubenville, Ohio; Harriman, Tennessee; and Portage, Wisconsin—had differing levels of air pollution.
The researchers measured pollution in detail. After adjusting for factors like smoking, they found that the death rate was 26 percent higher in the most polluted cities than in the cleanest ones. They wrote, “Air pollution was positively associated with death from lung cancer and cardiopulmonary disease . Mortality was most strongly associated with air pollution with fine particulates, including sulfates.” Fine particulate pollution is a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets, many times smaller than a human hair.
When people arguing against renewables start representing the total cost of fossil fuels including the effects of displacing entire mountains into the air by way of a coal furnace, then we can talk about subsidies on an equal footing.
I couldn't agree more. So let's do the same for fossil fuels with carbon offsets. You want to spew particulates and CO / CO2 into the air causing elevated asthma and lung cancer rates, let's price that into the cost of production instead of giving them the subsidy of externalizing that. Then we'll see how coal stacks up to wind and solar.
Less irrational than the assumption of "we're politically for whatever they are politically against": fake news spawned from a paid FUD campaign on the part of the fossil fuel industry.
Yeah, I know, conspiracy theory; but not really - we've seen dying industries do this before on the way down. If your product is exactly the same as the competition, but your process is far dirtier to get the job done, get your competition into the dirt too.
The real story here is probably a combination of the two: we're politically for whatever they are politically against, and it turns out that our re-election financiers are in the business of being for that too.
And the cost of fossil fuels, minus the external costs associated with it (read: CO / CO2 emissions, PM5 emissions, coal fly ash not captured by stack filters, mercury emissions, downwind elevated asthma and lung disease rates, possible AGW-caused sea level rise causing abandonment of vast tracts of coastal land and massive flooding of cities) gets compared to renewables every day as a reason to not build renewables because "they are too expensive". Basically the same as fossil fuel guys bitching about the subsidies to renewables, all while cashing the billions of dollars of subsidies they get.
Why do fossil fuels guys get to do that, where it's unacceptable for the renewable guys?
How about we don't bitch about the ignored external costs of wind until we stop ignoring the external costs of fossil fuels that are orders of magnitude greater, if not an actual threat to civilization?
You would be surprised. I'm typing this on a Dell XPS 15 that has two USB-C / Thunderbolt 3 ports, which I use to plug in a Thunderbolt dock that keeps two displays, keyboard, mouse attached. One cable when I walk into my home office, everything fires up. Works with Linux too, as long as you can get past the abomination that is X.org support for HiDPI displays.
Apple did fuck up when they decided that nobody needed any of the perfectly fine legacy ports though, which would still fit (USB-A, HDMI, Mini DisplayPort) - if either Linux or Windows power management was anywhere as good as Apple's, and the trackpad wasn't absolute garbage, this thing would be a better MacBook Pro than the actual MacBook Pro.
Yeah, because thunderbolt attached external GPUs are brand new, and this is the first one on the market. No wait, they've been around for years, practically since Thunderbolt existed.
You could, if there was some tricky drivers built for it. This is essentially how Nvidia Optimus works in equipped notebooks - the discrete GPU is only used for frame rendering, and the frame is handed off to the Intel GPU that draws it to the display. I'm sure they have patented the living balls out of it and wouldn't hesitate to fire off many lawsuits at Apple if they tried to recreate it using AMD GPUs, but it could be technically possible.
So your argument is that this is a useless product because you would have to plug a single DisplayPort cable into it from a display, and never do anything else with it?
Really? That sounds like a fucking useability shit show. Oh my god. You have to plug a display into it. THE HORROR.
Never mind that if you wanted to use that display with literally any laptop ever, you would have to either plug it into a docking station, and plug the docking station into the laptop (exactly the same as this), or plug it into the laptop every single time you move the laptop, as well as all other cables. (worse than this).
MacBook Pro has always had more than one USB-C port. Plugging this in would take one. You still have more. And the first person that said anything remotely close to "you shouldn't game on a Mac" is you. There was one other guy talking about how there are no games on Mac, which is false, and completely forgets about the ability to install Windows as a dual-boot OS anyway.
Stop building straw men and knocking the hell out of them. .
You know it would be a single plug, right? The keyboard and mouse would stay plugged into the eGPU. It would look amazingly like the following:
1. put laptop on desk 2. plug in Thunderbolt-3 USB-C connector 3. display(s) turn on and you start using keyboard and mouse that were already plugged in to the USB on the eGPU.
This is exactly how my Thunderbolt-3 dock works with my Dell XPS. Why would it be any different on OS X, except without all the stupid Windows sounds trampling each other for each device detected all at once? Oh, but I'm sure that plugging in that one wire would take you longer than all the time wasted by Windows Update over the last few years.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a difference between things that work, and things that work while being an elegant and well-executed design. And you know it.
It's not in North America either. Both the last year of the Mark III Jetta / Golf and the first year of the Mark IV are called "1999" with the cutoff being some time in September. Only way for a parts dealer to know is if you enter the VIN and they decode the chassis style.
Yeah, I know when I've sat in one of the same kind of buildings at small airports, the thing practically fell down while I was just enjoying a bloody mary!
No wait, it was just like being in any other building ever. And this was a small airport at 6500 feet above sea level in the Rockies, where they get a bit of weather the Bay Area never sees.
This isn't a god damn Boy Scout tent we're talking about. And it was a couple hundred feet from where they operate jet aircraft, which tend to make a bit of wind on their own.
[Citation Needed]
Never mind, you can't, because you can't cite your descending colon as a source.
Go to the same store and ask for something fairly routine for a 1999 Volkswagen Golf or Jetta, such as a coil pack. They will absolutely ask you for when it was manufactured from the label on the driver's door sill - if it's after September 1998, it's a Mark-IV with very different engines and a new body style. The 1999 model manufactured before September was the same Mark-III as 1996 - 1998 with the ODB2 engine (1993 - 1995 used ODB1 variants of the same engines, the rest of the car otherwise being the same).
So no, the second biggest manufacturer of automobiles doesn't even subscribe to your "sticking with one design for a model year." And that's an example off the top of my head.
See: Volkswagen Mark III Jetta / Golf / Cabrio. from 1993 to some time in 1996 they used ODB-I engines and had completely different engine management. In the middle of the 1996 model year they switched to ODB-II engines and everything that goes with it. Then they made a switch mid-1999 to many of the drivetrain components that would be in the Mark IV models from 2000, but had the same Mark-III chassis and body.
And that's just off the top of my head, and VW wasn't the first to do that shit by a long shot.
True, but "clean" energy generates electricity without continuously spewing pollution. And you know that.
They actually have "modernized" many hydro projects by shutting down a turbine at a time, removing the old turbine from it's well, and installing a more efficient turbine in it's place. Many hydropower projects have been uprated by doing this. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yeah, and the results of using nuclear weapons were the following:
1. a quick end to a massively bloody conflict, reducing the estimated half-million Allied casualties and who knows how many Japanese casualties.
2. an unconditional surrender which caused Japan to jettison their nationalistic government, and not attempt further military agression
3. a demonstration of power which first gave the Soviets pause, and caused them to create their own bomb, which would result in no additional world wars to date.
Atomic weapons are horrific, but under the least-harm principle, the outcome of using them at the end of WW2 turned out to be a good thing for humanity... so far. Until they're all gone, the end of the story isn't yet written.
What's your pricing on the oil and coal generation's ability to externalize the pollution costs and kill people living downwind? It's been estimated that cleaning up air pollution from fossil fuels would reduce respiratory and heart disease deaths by 10% to 25% per year:
The year 1993 saw the publication of an enormous study that followed over 8,000 adults for 15 years in six U.S. cities. The cities—Topeka; St. Louis; Watertown, Massachusetts; Steubenville, Ohio; Harriman, Tennessee; and Portage, Wisconsin—had differing levels of air pollution.
The researchers measured pollution in detail. After adjusting for factors like smoking, they found that the death rate was 26 percent higher in the most polluted cities than in the cleanest ones. They wrote, “Air pollution was positively associated with death from lung cancer and cardiopulmonary disease . Mortality was most strongly associated with air pollution with fine particulates, including sulfates.” Fine particulate pollution is a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets, many times smaller than a human hair.
When people arguing against renewables start representing the total cost of fossil fuels including the effects of displacing entire mountains into the air by way of a coal furnace, then we can talk about subsidies on an equal footing.
I couldn't agree more. So let's do the same for fossil fuels with carbon offsets. You want to spew particulates and CO / CO2 into the air causing elevated asthma and lung cancer rates, let's price that into the cost of production instead of giving them the subsidy of externalizing that. Then we'll see how coal stacks up to wind and solar.
Or they could just respool the wire and use it for other shit?
What a hack piece of shit this article is.
Less irrational than the assumption of "we're politically for whatever they are politically against": fake news spawned from a paid FUD campaign on the part of the fossil fuel industry.
Yeah, I know, conspiracy theory; but not really - we've seen dying industries do this before on the way down. If your product is exactly the same as the competition, but your process is far dirtier to get the job done, get your competition into the dirt too.
The real story here is probably a combination of the two: we're politically for whatever they are politically against, and it turns out that our re-election financiers are in the business of being for that too.
And the cost of fossil fuels, minus the external costs associated with it (read: CO / CO2 emissions, PM5 emissions, coal fly ash not captured by stack filters, mercury emissions, downwind elevated asthma and lung disease rates, possible AGW-caused sea level rise causing abandonment of vast tracts of coastal land and massive flooding of cities) gets compared to renewables every day as a reason to not build renewables because "they are too expensive". Basically the same as fossil fuel guys bitching about the subsidies to renewables, all while cashing the billions of dollars of subsidies they get.
Why do fossil fuels guys get to do that, where it's unacceptable for the renewable guys?
How about we don't bitch about the ignored external costs of wind until we stop ignoring the external costs of fossil fuels that are orders of magnitude greater, if not an actual threat to civilization?
You would be surprised. I'm typing this on a Dell XPS 15 that has two USB-C / Thunderbolt 3 ports, which I use to plug in a Thunderbolt dock that keeps two displays, keyboard, mouse attached. One cable when I walk into my home office, everything fires up. Works with Linux too, as long as you can get past the abomination that is X.org support for HiDPI displays.
Apple did fuck up when they decided that nobody needed any of the perfectly fine legacy ports though, which would still fit (USB-A, HDMI, Mini DisplayPort) - if either Linux or Windows power management was anywhere as good as Apple's, and the trackpad wasn't absolute garbage, this thing would be a better MacBook Pro than the actual MacBook Pro.
Because USB is CPU bound, where Thunderbolt is essentially PCI express?
Yeah, because thunderbolt attached external GPUs are brand new, and this is the first one on the market. No wait, they've been around for years, practically since Thunderbolt existed.
You could, if there was some tricky drivers built for it. This is essentially how Nvidia Optimus works in equipped notebooks - the discrete GPU is only used for frame rendering, and the frame is handed off to the Intel GPU that draws it to the display. I'm sure they have patented the living balls out of it and wouldn't hesitate to fire off many lawsuits at Apple if they tried to recreate it using AMD GPUs, but it could be technically possible.
GPUs are used for more than games. This shouldn't come as news to a 6-digit ID around here.
So your argument is that this is a useless product because you would have to plug a single DisplayPort cable into it from a display, and never do anything else with it?
Really? That sounds like a fucking useability shit show. Oh my god. You have to plug a display into it. THE HORROR.
Never mind that if you wanted to use that display with literally any laptop ever, you would have to either plug it into a docking station, and plug the docking station into the laptop (exactly the same as this), or plug it into the laptop every single time you move the laptop, as well as all other cables. (worse than this).
What are you complaining about again?
I don't even know what you tried to say.
MacBook Pro has always had more than one USB-C port. Plugging this in would take one. You still have more. And the first person that said anything remotely close to "you shouldn't game on a Mac" is you. There was one other guy talking about how there are no games on Mac, which is false, and completely forgets about the ability to install Windows as a dual-boot OS anyway.
Stop building straw men and knocking the hell out of them.
.
You know it would be a single plug, right? The keyboard and mouse would stay plugged into the eGPU. It would look amazingly like the following:
1. put laptop on desk
2. plug in Thunderbolt-3 USB-C connector
3. display(s) turn on and you start using keyboard and mouse that were already plugged in to the USB on the eGPU.
This is exactly how my Thunderbolt-3 dock works with my Dell XPS. Why would it be any different on OS X, except without all the stupid Windows sounds trampling each other for each device detected all at once? Oh, but I'm sure that plugging in that one wire would take you longer than all the time wasted by Windows Update over the last few years.
Did this malware destroy your ability to use punctuation? Or coherent thought?
OS X for work, Windows dual-boot for play.
Windows laptop cannot (legally) do the first bit.
In big fucking bold print in TFA:
Bug affects Intel and ARM, most likely AMD too
Also from TFA, a table documenting how AMD is affected by other Spectre variants.
Don't be a fucking fanboy, spreading lies.