And of course, to do that, you would have to trust the windows firewall, which doesn't show everything.
If you run "Windows Firewall with Advanced Security" it shows absolutely everything. I have yet to find anything that bypasses the firewall. Even Windows 10's agressive updates don't work if you block by default, although I have no evidence of the telemetry one way or the other.
That said, if you have an application that runs with elevated security then it can add its own firewall rules. The way around that is to create a special user that just for editing the firewall entries, grant it access to the registry setting and revoke administrator rights. That's only required if you are paranoid though, or if you have a specific requirement. I did this to stop Steam from constantly creating firewall entries for itself and all games. I needed to lock it down to only work over my local connection to prevent it from downloading via my work when I set up a VPN to access the servers.
Why? In what way does it seem implausible? If this malware has only been seen at a certain type of place, what other conclusion is more likely to you? That it is all some giant coincidence and that we should pay no attention to where it was found?
Surely the alarmist thing would be to say that everybody is likely to be attacked by this malware. Or maybe that it was a terrorist plot to release some biological agent into the atmosphere by remote control. But no, it just says that it is probably just everyday industrial espionage with no suggestion of a further agenda. That is not alarmism. In fact, the take home message that I got from the article is that I don't have to worry about my system being infected with this malware; now or in the future. The only reason why it was even reported here was that it was the first malware that he has examined for the year. Considering how old it appears to be, it's not even being portrayed as if it was the first that was written this year.
The article makes it clear that in order to extract and run the malware, you have to extract and install other malware named "Java".
So the article is correct; the malware doesn't have to be authorised with the admin password. The fact that it requires Java just means that it only works on machines with Java installed. Given that it seems to be targeted to a specific industry then it's not an unusual requirement as they are probably using some Java controller software.
You also need to have a Mac for it to run, but that doesn't make people claim that you need to buy the malware from an Apple store.
Are you seriously trying to claim that he is some sort of alarmist? From the link that you provided, it concludes:
Adwind is, overall, a fairly weak effort on the Mac.
And where did the blogger claim the perpetrator of this malware was the boogeyman-du-jour? All I could find was things like:
Although there is no evidence at this point linking this malware to a specific group, the fact that it's been seen specifically at biomedical research institutions certainly seems like it could be the result of exactly that kind of espionage.
This could also signify that the hackers behind it really don't know the Mac very well and were relying on old documentation.
That doesn't paint the picture of an uber-hacker! At no point was it claimed that this was going to affect us all. In fact, it was said that this has already been fixed by Apple:
Apple calls this malware Fruitfly and has released an update that will be automatically downloaded behind the scenes to protect against future infections.
If he is trying to "get some limelight" then aren't you also doing the same thing by posting here? Just talking about something is not the same as getting some limelight. This was just another post about the latest malware to be investigated by them. At no point was it hyped as anything new. It discussed the parts of the malware that seemed to be ancient code, as well as the parts that were new. However, I will admit that the headline of "the first Mac malware of 2017" is pretty inflammatory considering that it seems to have been deployed for a while. I think it would have been better said as the first malware of 2017 that he had looked at.
It doesn't. Someone has to authorize it with the admin password.
Is this based on anything, or are you just guessing? If you read the comment section of the article someone asked how it spread, and "Does running as a standard user as opposed to an admin account prevent its installation?"
To which the malwarebytes.com blogger said:
We still don't know how it gets installed. All samples so far have been observed installed in user space, so running in a standard user account will not protect against this.
Any reason Microsoft picked Intel's chosen distro, as opposed to one from Oracle, Debian, Red Hat or Suse?
This is one of those RTFA moments. They are adding Intel's distro to their selection. It is not the only one. From the article:
Microsoft already supports CentOS, CoreOS, Debian, Oracle Linux, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, SUSE Enterprise Linux, OpenSUSE and Ubuntu in Azure instances.
The operating system that run Azure is actually called Microsoft Azure. It is specifically designed to run virtual machines and other cloud services.
I said the same thing when they introduced region locking with the Nintendo 3DS. I think I only bought one or two games from overseas for the DS, but I just don't want to have any worry when buying a game from a website which region it is for. And dammit, it's the principle.
I don't play multiplayer games, so it will be interesting to see how tempting the Switch is to see if I will stand on principle there too.
Having looked at the small amount of information that we have been given (including the one screenshot), I don't see anything that we could not already change. All the settings listed in the screenshot are currently under the Privacy section of the Windows 10 settings right now.
In fact, the new dashboard is worse than the current settings in regards to the diagnostics. In the current settings you diagnostic and usage data can be one of three settings: Basic, Enhanced, and Full. The dashboard only allows two settings: Full and ????. It certainly isn't On/Off so this doesn't prevent the telemetry that made us lose trust in Windows 10 in the first place.
My guess was that by "health activity" they mean the health of the computer (diagnostics), since there currently isn't any ability to track the user's health. Or maybe it is something that is only on the phone version of Windows. The iPhone has a health app which has privacy settings to allow apps to read and write the data. When you first run it asks for a bunch of personal information (which I won't tell them so I have no idea what it looks like after that point). Perhaps Windows Phone has the same thing.
For example, the first time you hit the start menu, it can show you a balloon: "Would you like to see customized content here?....They could something similar in other places where they think there might be a benefit to the users.
God no! I hate it when you have to hunt around and try everything out when you set up a computer to make sure that you found all the settings. It's much better to have one single place that has all the configuration options. Given that you can set these options at install time, I fail to see how scattering the privacy settings all over the place makes it any more convenient or "proof that they are taking things seriously".
All of that is based on the premise that the economy will tank if do anything to address global warming. But that is the same argument that has been leveled at every attempt to fix an environmental or social problem, like banning CFCs to stop destroying the ozone layer, or stopping the dumping harmful chemicals in any old place without a care for the health effects, or improving safety in factories to prevent workers dying from the chemicals they use, or the abolition of slavery, etc.
And yet here were are after all those changes. The economy wasn't destroyed, and scientific research is still being funded. That is because the economy adapted, as it always does. In this case we might have some short-term pain with the cost of converting to cleaner energy sources and technologies, but that will get forgotten once we find that we can save money by being smart about taking the energy from the air and sunlight around us. While coal miners won't be happy about the reduction of coal use, solar panel manufacturers will delight as their industry booms. While some things might cost us more as we have to find environmentally friendly ways of manufacturing goods, the work we do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have the effect of lowering levels of all pollutions. This will lead to a reduction in pollution-related diseases lowering the health care costs.
We will soon forget about what we had to do to fix climate change just as we have with all the other changes that I mentioned above. Eventually, some other problem will occur and nay-sayers will predict the ruin of the economy yet again.
If I disagreed with it and was certain (with proof) that I was right, then I would falsify your statement with references, right then and there
Why bother going to all that trouble for someone who made some pretty bold claims without references themselves. The most likely outcome would be that when the next climate-related story comes out the OP will simply ignore any evidence posted to the contrary (since all scientists are corrupt frauds) and repeat the same nonsense again.
A down-mod is my nice, easy, comfortable, anonymous "screw you" that faces no danger of me being personally questioned for choosing it. So there. Ha-ha!
That doesn't make sense. You can't pan your normal TV around in a 2D plane;
You certainly can in a 3D space, though
I can in a 2D space too. If I zoom in on a picture on my computer, I can pan around the image to see more, up until the edges of the original unzoomed picture. But if I zoom out to see the full image, it is still 2D even though I can't pan around any further. The fact that I can't move the image does not suddenly make it 1D or pseudo-2D.
Ever been to a play? Do you realize that the people in the balconies aren't seeing what you are seeing?
Wow, so if I'm alone in a theater watching a play (an unpopular one, obviously) then I am actually seeing a 2D image, and that it doesn't become 3D until another observer arrives and watches the scene from a different angle? That's astounding! It's in the realms of quantum physics.
Seriously though, when I sit at a play I am actually seeing the play from two perspectives; my left eye and my right eye. My brain merges those images together to build a 3D picture of the world. When I sit in a cinema and watch a 3D movies, I am actually seeing the movie from two perspectives; my left eye and my right eye. They use tricks to send two different images from slightly different perspectives to match my eyes. My brain merges those images together to build a 3D picture of the world. The mechanism is identical, and the end result is identical. I see a 3D picture. I see the same 3D picture whether or not anyone else is in the cinema with me.
Nobody is saying that this is the same as the holodeck on Star Trek, where you can move around and interact with the scene. But that doesn't mean that the resulting image isn't 3D.
I'm sorry, but simply repeating the same statement does not actually argue the point. I am sitting in my chair right now looking around and seeing the world in 3D. Someone could throw a ball at me and I could catch it without moving from my seat because I have the depth perception granted to me by my ability to see in three dimensions. I certainly don't need to get up out of my chair to look inside someone's ear to tell where they are in the 3D space in front of me.
As others have correctly said in reply to my comment, the thing that kills the illusion of 3D (or at least makes it painful for some people) is that our focus is stuffed up. We are not in control of what we focus on, and our eyes are accustomed to focusing on fixed points and the artificial focal point of 3D images confuses our brains.
If you are in front of me, and I walk to your side, I can look in your ear. That is 3d.
That doesn't make sense. You can't pan your normal TV around in a 2D plane; you are stuck with the camera placement that the director wanted you to see. Does that mean you don't have real 2D? The ability to change the camera location is not what defines whether something is 2D or 3D.
China isn't doing it because they're environmentally conscious, they're doing it because that's where the MONEY is.
Seriously, why on Earth would you even think that? Reports have been coming from China for many, many years about their pollution problem, and even in recent days there have been articles of the heavy air pollution alerts for multiple days in a row. It's a problem that they have been working hard to fix. Here's a quote from the first article:
On Sunday, 25 cities in China issued "red alerts" for smog, which triggers orders to close factories, schools and construction sites.
So I really do wonder why you thought that China wasn't environmentally conscious. Were you basing this on something, or was it just blind assumption?
Looks like they just took their compute stick and changed the dimensions a bit.
Did you even read the summary? Specifically, where they said:
The company considers the Compute Card to be a replacement of sorts for the Compute Stick, which Intel says will probably disappear from its roadmap in 2018 or so. The issue with the Compute Stick from Intel's perspective is that its input and output ports were unnecessarily limiting -- it could only connect to HDMI ports and could only accept a limited number of USB inputs.
So yes, they did just change the dimensions of the Compute Stick, as well as give it different ports and potentially a wider assortment of CPUs. (I prefer the simplicity of the Compute Sticks myself)
As displays support greater ranges of color and luminance (e.g. HDR), apps should take advantage of this by increasing bit depth. 10-bit/channel color is an excellent starting point. 16-bit/channel color may work well in some cases. Games that want to use HDR to drive an HDR display (a TV or Monitor) will want to use at least 10bit, but could also consider using 16bit floating point, for the format for the final swap chain.
Since when ever was this NOT happening? , specially with digital interfaces such as HDMI.
Consumer-level LCD monitors don't show the full colour gamut. It varies between monitors exactly how much of the computer's idea of the colour range can be displayed. This will only get more complicated as monitors start offering HDR.
FreeSync 2 allows the monitor to tell the computer exactly what it can display so the graphic cards can output the exact colours that can are supported. This eliminates the need for the monitor to convert the video's colours on the fly. Supposedly this makes it faster to display, although given how fast monitors are now I'm not sure how much difference it will make.
Freesync 2 is all about adding HDR support for the existing Freesync standard. There is more information in the arstechnica article:
HDR on PC is a more complex beast than just panel brightness, though. First, a game performs colour tone mapping after an engine renders a scene. Then, when the frame is passed to a monitor, it's tone-mapped yet again to fit the display's supported colour range. That may or may not be the same colour space required by HDR10 or Dolby Vision. This two-stage process takes time and introduces latency.
With FreeSync 2, AMD is removing the second step, connecting the game engine directly to the HDR display. When you plug in a FreeSync 2 display, the display announces its HDR capabilities, and the AMD graphics driver will shuttle that information over to the game engine. This ensures that gamers get the best possible image quality, because the game tone-maps to the screen's native colour space, while also reducing input lag. Unfortunately, it also means that in order for FreeSync 2 and HDR to work, AMD needs the specific colour and brightness capabilities of every FreeSync 2 monitor, while games and video players must be enabled via AMD's API. AMD is going to have to win over a lot of hardware partners to make FreeSync 2 a reality.
So they are getting more colours by mandating HDR and increasing performance by removing a stage from the rendering process by allowing the game to use to exact colour space of the monitor.
If you have a program that needs to be 64bit to run, then I doubt this CPU would have the grunt to run it. If you want to run AutoCAD without having to twiddle your thumbs while waiting for the screen to draw, then you should just buy a real Intel or AMD CPU.
Ever seen what Joe Belfiore looks like? He's a middle aged man who still thinks he's a teenager in the 90s.
How utterly irrelevant! Once again you are just looking for excuses to hate.
HAHAHAHA! "Cutting edge"? Really? And you don't think that sounds incredibly stupid and cheesy?
No, I don't. Obviously you do, but then you are an idiot.
I said that the name Edge is no better or worse than all those other names. None of them are descriptive or professional like you want Microsoft's browser name to be.
Then why bring them up? They weren't the topic of discussion, nor was their descriptiveness.
I don't know how many different ways I can explain this for you. Your entire complaint is about the name of the browser, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that it is no different than any of its competition. You said that it was a "dated name to use", which means you are comparing the name to the names being used today. If the other browser names are off-topic to this discussion, then exactly how can the name Edge be outdated?
Really? Let's see what you said before
I'm waiting....where did I say that?
Oh my god! I linked to the post and then copied the text to quote from it. I see you managed to forget to include either of those parts in what you quoted. Trying to be deceptive, hey?
You said that one of the reasons that the name Internet Explorer was better was better was that it was "somewhat descriptive". That's right; you were the first one to use the word "descriptive". Why are you trying so hard to distance yourself from that?
I guess it is because you are a lying troll. It's such a shame. One of my New Year's resolutions was not to engage with trolls, and I fell at the first hurdle. So I will stop now, as there is no point in continuing with someone who either just simply repeats themselves and thinks that is an argument, or lies about what they have said even though anyone can look back up the thread. I am sure that you will do one more post to repeat your original statement again as if it is a fact and think that is a "win". I'll give you that. Congratulations, even though you will have convinced nobody and will deep down know that you are just a lying zealot. Good luck with all your future trolling.
The name refers to the idea of being on the edge of consuming and creating. It refers to the developer notion of being closer to the modern capabilities of the web.
So there you go. That wanted to move away from IE's reputation of not supporting modern standards so they chose a name to suggest being more cutting edge. You have decided that they meant for this to be part of some fashion trend, but that is all in your head. "Edge" doesn't mean edgy in a trendy sense, but cutting edge in a software development sense.
BTW, nice strawman, but I never said a thing in support of or against other browser names. I only said that Internet Explorer is a better name than Edge
If you think that I was accusing you of saying anything about the other browser names then you have reading comprehension problems. I said that the name Edge is no better or worse than all those other names. None of them are descriptive or professional like you want Microsoft's browser name to be. Nobody is ever going to say that Edge doesn't sound professional enough so that they will use Firefox instead.
You never did answer my question about what name they should use instead of Edge. They have tried to distance themselves from the Internet Explorer product, so they can't just reuse that name.
I never said that browsers had to have descriptive names. Maybe you should learn how to read before posting again.
Assuming that you are the same AC that posted before, you are the only one who thinks that a name has to be cool or hip. I certainly never said that Edge was a cool name.
Edge is just a name. Just like Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Vivaldi, Safari, K-Meleon, Mosaic, Lynx, Epiphany, SeaMonkey, Konqueror and all the fifty million other browsers out there. Netscape Navigator is probably the only one (other than Internet Explorer) that tries to describe what it does in the name. But that's another old name that is no longer in use, so if you think that a name needs to be descriptive then it appears that it is you who is out-of-touch. It has been decades since people thought that those sorts of names were "cool".
Slashdot Mirror
And of course, to do that, you would have to trust the windows firewall, which doesn't show everything.
If you run "Windows Firewall with Advanced Security" it shows absolutely everything. I have yet to find anything that bypasses the firewall. Even Windows 10's agressive updates don't work if you block by default, although I have no evidence of the telemetry one way or the other.
That said, if you have an application that runs with elevated security then it can add its own firewall rules. The way around that is to create a special user that just for editing the firewall entries, grant it access to the registry setting and revoke administrator rights. That's only required if you are paranoid though, or if you have a specific requirement. I did this to stop Steam from constantly creating firewall entries for itself and all games. I needed to lock it down to only work over my local connection to prevent it from downloading via my work when I set up a VPN to access the servers.
The safest solution is to block outgoing traffic by default and whitelist what you want to allow in the firewall.
Why? In what way does it seem implausible? If this malware has only been seen at a certain type of place, what other conclusion is more likely to you? That it is all some giant coincidence and that we should pay no attention to where it was found?
Surely the alarmist thing would be to say that everybody is likely to be attacked by this malware. Or maybe that it was a terrorist plot to release some biological agent into the atmosphere by remote control. But no, it just says that it is probably just everyday industrial espionage with no suggestion of a further agenda. That is not alarmism. In fact, the take home message that I got from the article is that I don't have to worry about my system being infected with this malware; now or in the future. The only reason why it was even reported here was that it was the first malware that he has examined for the year. Considering how old it appears to be, it's not even being portrayed as if it was the first that was written this year.
The article makes it clear that in order to extract and run the malware, you have to extract and install other malware named "Java".
So the article is correct; the malware doesn't have to be authorised with the admin password. The fact that it requires Java just means that it only works on machines with Java installed. Given that it seems to be targeted to a specific industry then it's not an unusual requirement as they are probably using some Java controller software.
You also need to have a Mac for it to run, but that doesn't make people claim that you need to buy the malware from an Apple store.
Are you seriously trying to claim that he is some sort of alarmist? From the link that you provided, it concludes:
And where did the blogger claim the perpetrator of this malware was the boogeyman-du-jour? All I could find was things like:
That doesn't paint the picture of an uber-hacker! At no point was it claimed that this was going to affect us all. In fact, it was said that this has already been fixed by Apple:
If he is trying to "get some limelight" then aren't you also doing the same thing by posting here? Just talking about something is not the same as getting some limelight. This was just another post about the latest malware to be investigated by them. At no point was it hyped as anything new. It discussed the parts of the malware that seemed to be ancient code, as well as the parts that were new. However, I will admit that the headline of "the first Mac malware of 2017" is pretty inflammatory considering that it seems to have been deployed for a while. I think it would have been better said as the first malware of 2017 that he had looked at.
It doesn't. Someone has to authorize it with the admin password.
Is this based on anything, or are you just guessing? If you read the comment section of the article someone asked how it spread, and "Does running as a standard user as opposed to an admin account prevent its installation?"
To which the malwarebytes.com blogger said:
That seems to contradict what you have claimed.
Any reason Microsoft picked Intel's chosen distro, as opposed to one from Oracle, Debian, Red Hat or Suse?
This is one of those RTFA moments. They are adding Intel's distro to their selection. It is not the only one. From the article:
The operating system that run Azure is actually called Microsoft Azure. It is specifically designed to run virtual machines and other cloud services.
You're dead to me, Nintendo.
I said the same thing when they introduced region locking with the Nintendo 3DS. I think I only bought one or two games from overseas for the DS, but I just don't want to have any worry when buying a game from a website which region it is for. And dammit, it's the principle.
I don't play multiplayer games, so it will be interesting to see how tempting the Switch is to see if I will stand on principle there too.
Having looked at the small amount of information that we have been given (including the one screenshot), I don't see anything that we could not already change. All the settings listed in the screenshot are currently under the Privacy section of the Windows 10 settings right now.
Location: Privacy->Location
Speech Recognition: Privacy->Speech, inking & typing
Diagnostics: Privacy->Feedback & diagnostics
Tailored experiences with diagnostic data: Personalization->Start (and maybe Privacy->General)
Relevent ads: Privacy->General
In fact, the new dashboard is worse than the current settings in regards to the diagnostics. In the current settings you diagnostic and usage data can be one of three settings: Basic, Enhanced, and Full. The dashboard only allows two settings: Full and ????. It certainly isn't On/Off so this doesn't prevent the telemetry that made us lose trust in Windows 10 in the first place.
My guess was that by "health activity" they mean the health of the computer (diagnostics), since there currently isn't any ability to track the user's health. Or maybe it is something that is only on the phone version of Windows. The iPhone has a health app which has privacy settings to allow apps to read and write the data. When you first run it asks for a bunch of personal information (which I won't tell them so I have no idea what it looks like after that point). Perhaps Windows Phone has the same thing.
For example, the first time you hit the start menu, it can show you a balloon: "Would you like to see customized content here?....They could something similar in other places where they think there might be a benefit to the users.
God no! I hate it when you have to hunt around and try everything out when you set up a computer to make sure that you found all the settings. It's much better to have one single place that has all the configuration options. Given that you can set these options at install time, I fail to see how scattering the privacy settings all over the place makes it any more convenient or "proof that they are taking things seriously".
All of that is based on the premise that the economy will tank if do anything to address global warming. But that is the same argument that has been leveled at every attempt to fix an environmental or social problem, like banning CFCs to stop destroying the ozone layer, or stopping the dumping harmful chemicals in any old place without a care for the health effects, or improving safety in factories to prevent workers dying from the chemicals they use, or the abolition of slavery, etc.
And yet here were are after all those changes. The economy wasn't destroyed, and scientific research is still being funded. That is because the economy adapted, as it always does. In this case we might have some short-term pain with the cost of converting to cleaner energy sources and technologies, but that will get forgotten once we find that we can save money by being smart about taking the energy from the air and sunlight around us. While coal miners won't be happy about the reduction of coal use, solar panel manufacturers will delight as their industry booms. While some things might cost us more as we have to find environmentally friendly ways of manufacturing goods, the work we do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have the effect of lowering levels of all pollutions. This will lead to a reduction in pollution-related diseases lowering the health care costs.
We will soon forget about what we had to do to fix climate change just as we have with all the other changes that I mentioned above. Eventually, some other problem will occur and nay-sayers will predict the ruin of the economy yet again.
If I disagreed with it and was certain (with proof) that I was right, then I would falsify your statement with references, right then and there
Why bother going to all that trouble for someone who made some pretty bold claims without references themselves. The most likely outcome would be that when the next climate-related story comes out the OP will simply ignore any evidence posted to the contrary (since all scientists are corrupt frauds) and repeat the same nonsense again.
A down-mod is my nice, easy, comfortable, anonymous "screw you" that faces no danger of me being personally questioned for choosing it. So there. Ha-ha!
Says the Anonymous Coward. Nice one.
That doesn't make sense. You can't pan your normal TV around in a 2D plane;
You certainly can in a 3D space, though
I can in a 2D space too. If I zoom in on a picture on my computer, I can pan around the image to see more, up until the edges of the original unzoomed picture. But if I zoom out to see the full image, it is still 2D even though I can't pan around any further. The fact that I can't move the image does not suddenly make it 1D or pseudo-2D.
Ever been to a play? Do you realize that the people in the balconies aren't seeing what you are seeing?
Wow, so if I'm alone in a theater watching a play (an unpopular one, obviously) then I am actually seeing a 2D image, and that it doesn't become 3D until another observer arrives and watches the scene from a different angle? That's astounding! It's in the realms of quantum physics.
Seriously though, when I sit at a play I am actually seeing the play from two perspectives; my left eye and my right eye. My brain merges those images together to build a 3D picture of the world. When I sit in a cinema and watch a 3D movies, I am actually seeing the movie from two perspectives; my left eye and my right eye. They use tricks to send two different images from slightly different perspectives to match my eyes. My brain merges those images together to build a 3D picture of the world. The mechanism is identical, and the end result is identical. I see a 3D picture. I see the same 3D picture whether or not anyone else is in the cinema with me.
Nobody is saying that this is the same as the holodeck on Star Trek, where you can move around and interact with the scene. But that doesn't mean that the resulting image isn't 3D.
I'm sorry, but simply repeating the same statement does not actually argue the point. I am sitting in my chair right now looking around and seeing the world in 3D. Someone could throw a ball at me and I could catch it without moving from my seat because I have the depth perception granted to me by my ability to see in three dimensions. I certainly don't need to get up out of my chair to look inside someone's ear to tell where they are in the 3D space in front of me.
As others have correctly said in reply to my comment, the thing that kills the illusion of 3D (or at least makes it painful for some people) is that our focus is stuffed up. We are not in control of what we focus on, and our eyes are accustomed to focusing on fixed points and the artificial focal point of 3D images confuses our brains.
If you are in front of me, and I walk to your side, I can look in your ear. That is 3d.
That doesn't make sense. You can't pan your normal TV around in a 2D plane; you are stuck with the camera placement that the director wanted you to see. Does that mean you don't have real 2D? The ability to change the camera location is not what defines whether something is 2D or 3D.
China isn't doing it because they're environmentally conscious, they're doing it because that's where the MONEY is.
Seriously, why on Earth would you even think that? Reports have been coming from China for many, many years about their pollution problem, and even in recent days there have been articles of the heavy air pollution alerts for multiple days in a row. It's a problem that they have been working hard to fix. Here's a quote from the first article:
So I really do wonder why you thought that China wasn't environmentally conscious. Were you basing this on something, or was it just blind assumption?
Looks like they just took their compute stick and changed the dimensions a bit.
Did you even read the summary? Specifically, where they said:
So yes, they did just change the dimensions of the Compute Stick, as well as give it different ports and potentially a wider assortment of CPUs. (I prefer the simplicity of the Compute Sticks myself)
You need more than that. From Microsoft's DirectX Graphics Infrastructure (DXGI) documentation:
Since when ever was this NOT happening? , specially with digital interfaces such as HDMI.
Consumer-level LCD monitors don't show the full colour gamut. It varies between monitors exactly how much of the computer's idea of the colour range can be displayed. This will only get more complicated as monitors start offering HDR.
FreeSync 2 allows the monitor to tell the computer exactly what it can display so the graphic cards can output the exact colours that can are supported. This eliminates the need for the monitor to convert the video's colours on the fly. Supposedly this makes it faster to display, although given how fast monitors are now I'm not sure how much difference it will make.
Freesync 2 is all about adding HDR support for the existing Freesync standard. There is more information in the arstechnica article:
So they are getting more colours by mandating HDR and increasing performance by removing a stage from the rendering process by allowing the game to use to exact colour space of the monitor.
If you have a program that needs to be 64bit to run, then I doubt this CPU would have the grunt to run it. If you want to run AutoCAD without having to twiddle your thumbs while waiting for the screen to draw, then you should just buy a real Intel or AMD CPU.
Ever seen what Joe Belfiore looks like? He's a middle aged man who still thinks he's a teenager in the 90s.
How utterly irrelevant! Once again you are just looking for excuses to hate.
HAHAHAHA! "Cutting edge"? Really? And you don't think that sounds incredibly stupid and cheesy?
No, I don't. Obviously you do, but then you are an idiot.
I said that the name Edge is no better or worse than all those other names. None of them are descriptive or professional like you want Microsoft's browser name to be.
Then why bring them up? They weren't the topic of discussion, nor was their descriptiveness.
I don't know how many different ways I can explain this for you. Your entire complaint is about the name of the browser, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that it is no different than any of its competition. You said that it was a "dated name to use", which means you are comparing the name to the names being used today. If the other browser names are off-topic to this discussion, then exactly how can the name Edge be outdated?
Really? Let's see what you said before
I'm waiting....where did I say that?
Oh my god! I linked to the post and then copied the text to quote from it. I see you managed to forget to include either of those parts in what you quoted. Trying to be deceptive, hey?
You said that one of the reasons that the name Internet Explorer was better was better was that it was "somewhat descriptive". That's right; you were the first one to use the word "descriptive". Why are you trying so hard to distance yourself from that?
I guess it is because you are a lying troll. It's such a shame. One of my New Year's resolutions was not to engage with trolls, and I fell at the first hurdle. So I will stop now, as there is no point in continuing with someone who either just simply repeats themselves and thinks that is an argument, or lies about what they have said even though anyone can look back up the thread. I am sure that you will do one more post to repeat your original statement again as if it is a fact and think that is a "win". I'll give you that. Congratulations, even though you will have convinced nobody and will deep down know that you are just a lying zealot. Good luck with all your future trolling.
Microsoft was trying for hip, gritty and edgy, but "Edge" is just cheesy and anachronistic.
You have also never proven that Microsoft was actually attempting to be hip, gritty and edgy. You just keep asserting the claim over and over again. So what does Edge mean? Microsoft VP Joe Belfiore said during his Build 2015 keynote:
So there you go. That wanted to move away from IE's reputation of not supporting modern standards so they chose a name to suggest being more cutting edge. You have decided that they meant for this to be part of some fashion trend, but that is all in your head. "Edge" doesn't mean edgy in a trendy sense, but cutting edge in a software development sense.
BTW, nice strawman, but I never said a thing in support of or against other browser names. I only said that Internet Explorer is a better name than Edge
If you think that I was accusing you of saying anything about the other browser names then you have reading comprehension problems. I said that the name Edge is no better or worse than all those other names. None of them are descriptive or professional like you want Microsoft's browser name to be. Nobody is ever going to say that Edge doesn't sound professional enough so that they will use Firefox instead.
You never did answer my question about what name they should use instead of Edge. They have tried to distance themselves from the Internet Explorer product, so they can't just reuse that name.
I never said that browsers had to have descriptive names. Maybe you should learn how to read before posting again.
Really? Let's see what you said before:
Maybe you should just stop lying and fixating on what is a perfectly unremarkable name for a browser.
Assuming that you are the same AC that posted before, you are the only one who thinks that a name has to be cool or hip. I certainly never said that Edge was a cool name.
Edge is just a name. Just like Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Vivaldi, Safari, K-Meleon, Mosaic, Lynx, Epiphany, SeaMonkey, Konqueror and all the fifty million other browsers out there. Netscape Navigator is probably the only one (other than Internet Explorer) that tries to describe what it does in the name. But that's another old name that is no longer in use, so if you think that a name needs to be descriptive then it appears that it is you who is out-of-touch. It has been decades since people thought that those sorts of names were "cool".