How many issues are caused by a windows update breaking something? How many issues are caused by users not installing important updates? How many home users are aware enough to make a distinction either way?
It is a support issue, which likely was determined by the fact that more problems being caused than the other. Perhaps a more reasonable approach would have simply to make it default in the home version, but still changeable somehow. Bottom line is that it hasn't been released yet, so who knows really.
Also it used to be that I did the same, I would verify, or at least look at each update before installing them... This was before there was 20 updates every week. Now I just let it do everything automatically, and I'll deal with it if something ends up going awry. Odds are MS will deal with it in the following update anyway, which is probably the idea.
Yes because if history tells us anything it is that law enforcement officers are particularly good at dealing with violent mentally ill people.
True, the mentally ill patient usually ends up teased/beaten/shot to death, but at least they didn't tread on their constitutional rights...
That said, I'm not sure an actual law was needed. I'm pretty sure if anyone (doctors included) believe that someone is posing an immediate threat to others, they can take action to detain someone until authorities arrive.
Now if they are talking about something not "immediate" or "imminent", then that is something different. If the idea was to detain someone because perhaps at some point in the distant future they might be a threat that is something else. However since they were talking about a "4 hour" time span, that doesn't appear to be the case, it is just to detain them immediately because they think a threat imminent until authorities can respond. Sounds like they just wanted some clarity or additional protection from litigation should they do it anyway, which may not really be required.
One, from personal accounts, and from what I see in the mass media, on a whole, Australia seems to have more than a few raciest tendencies (sorry non-raciest Australians)... So that might be one reason they are targeting America, VS Asia. They didn't say it, but I'm willing to bet that a significant percentage (90-99%) of people in America that actually have 15 million bucks in the bank are all white anyway.
Two, I was watching Family Feud the other day, and the American contestant was asked the question "if you had to live in any foreign country, which would it be?" The #1 answer was "Australia" so it could be that Americans already perceive it as a good destination as another reason to target the US. That said, the real funny part of that story, is that the contestant's answer was actually "'Murica!", I shit you not. As a Canadian I was a little insulted we got no mention at all...:(
1) Make it free for a long period of time. You need people using it enough to ditch their other forms of transportation. 2) Make significant investments in improving the system. Most systems are at best inconvenient, at worst non-existent. 3) Make driving less attractive. Tax it. Tax the roads. Tax the gas. Tax the parking. Use revenue to pay for public system.
First of all, while I don't use public transportation, I decided to get a house where I could walk to work everyday. I do own and use a car, for longer trips and errands etc... The major difference is my brand new 2002 car has about 80,000 km on it, whereas most of my friends have several hundreds of thousands and are on their second car.
However one public transportation story I do have, is that when I was in college and worked as a grounds keeper at my university I had to be at work at 7am. Being in school I didn't have a car. The *only* bus I could take left at 5:30am. So for a summer I had to get up before 5am everyday to go to work, and I was early for work every day. Which you would think would be a good thing, but my co-workers thought that I was some brown nose suck-up for going to work so early and bred a lot of animosity. Never mind the fact that they all had cars, and I had no choice in the matter if I wanted to get their on time (the next bus would have made me late everyday). The following year I was not hired back, largely because I perceived that several of the staff who had been there longer resented me...
Some intangibles about not driving to work:
The Math: I live close enough I actually walk home for lunch each day as well... So 4 trips a day of roughly about 1km per trip. 4x1 = 4km per day. I work 5 days a week, so 4x5 = 20km a week. If I work 50 weeks a year (which is a bit much, as I get more vacation now, but for ease of calculation) 20km x50 = 1000km a year I've worked there for 15 years... 15x1000 = 15,000km total.
So in all I have walked almost the equivalent of 15,000km in just going to work, never mind walking to close downtown amenities. The gas you save. The less carbon footprint. Less wear and tear on car. However primarily the health benefits of a lot of short walks add up. Though there are times I think I'm wearing a rut into the sidewalk with my trudgery.
Conversely: I have a friend that commutes an hour every day to work in another community. Twice a day. 1h x 2 = 2 h a day in the car... five days a week, is 5 x 2h 10h a week... for the same 50 weeks, 500h a year... If he's done the same 15 years, that's 7500 h in the car... or/12 for a daytime estimate: 625 days wasted sitting in your car over that period.. That's like losing 2 years of your life.
I thought that either the summary got the story wrong, or NYC is somehow uniquely weird, like the UK and driving on the other side of the road. Perhaps their research is simply terribly flawed. I think it likely that it is more prone to reporting problems... or something...
As you say, it isn't the left hand turns that are a problem, it is the right hand turns on a red. While not NY, I walk a lot, and I've been hit or almost hit several times. Every single one of those were people turning right at a red light, not looking the other way.
This is exasperated by one way streets, and high traffic volume during certain times of the day.
They could probably save more pedestrians by targeting certain busy intersections, and not allowing right hand turns on red lights, or at least during peek hours.
Also as someone mentioned, less left hand would mean even more right hand turns...
I work for government. I work with some pretty contentious issues. I deal with FOI requests all the time. Personally I think it is a good idea for a great number of reasons, provided you have the resources to host and support it.
Firstly is that of bias. Journalists have some, usually depending on who they're working for. However I've found that more FOI requests come from A) Lawyers, and B) Special Interest Groups, both left and right, industry and association. In most cases, there isn't anything overly shocking about the information that the government has. However whoever is getting it will want to twist whatever it is towards their own purposes. In some cases this results in the misrepresentation of facts, or the omission of inconvenient material. However there is nothing government can do, we're obligated by law to provide the information, and can't control how it is used. By making sure that the *whole* information request is released to the public and made available to everyone, anyone curious about the story that was written, or the facts that were released, can look it up and judge for themselves what is actually going on.
Secondly, it is a very small subset of people that request most of the FOI material. As mentioned most of them are a select few with an agenda, or lawyers working on their behalf. What a lot of people do not realize is that government needs to do a awful lot of work for these requests. We have to do them, there are strict time lines (so you have to drop everything else), and have little control over scope. A *LOT* of money is spent fulfilling these requests for a very small select few people and groups. On release, the work is already done, the money spent. You might as well provide the information to the widest group of people as possible for the most benefit.
Lastly, as mentioned most of these requests is one group of people trying to get dirt/leverage over another group of people. Is it fair that one group is being notified and not the other because of who requested the information? In fairness, if an environmental group is looking for information to try and use it to limit industrial development in a particular area, should the folks doing the industrial development also not get access to the same information to use for their counter arguments? Also along the same lines, this would also cut down on the number (hopefully) of like requests from the various groups saving government money from doing multiple FOI requests that have already been completed.
I'm wondering if he could make a case for time served in Russia as part of his prison sentence?
I mean Russian Exile isn't prison, but it's no cake walk either I don't doubt.
Perhaps a way to save face. Sit in Russia awhile, come back to the US, get "convicted" of something like the inappropriate use of government IT assets with the equivalent of a NDA...
Heck, not even that long ago OC folks have been testing with the stuff for years. I recall reading several articles years ago, where people were taking souped up (pardon pun) PC's and immersing them in a liquid solution to test for cooling... They may or may not be using more less the same inert liquid.
As I recall, while there were some benefits, there were significant problems as well. Maintenance was obliviously one, both of the components, but also the bath. Also it should be pointed out, while this does allow all components to be cooled at the same time, certain components heat up significantly faster than others, so unless you have significant circulation (and coolant), all you are doing is heating up the surrounding components.
Presumably this is an exotic enough system that the expense of maintaining it isn't an issue.
From what I understand, we haven't ever "seen" any black holes, let alone super massive ones. What we do see is immense radiation emission coupled with mathematical mass projections that we theorize *may* be black holes. While this is the commonly excepted knowledge, it is far from absolute. There are plenty of related exotic things like dark matter, and mass projections that do not make sense... What we have is another tool apparently able to somehow pierce formerly obscured areas due to dust and gas. There are a lot of things we can't see, but can test for, and then there are things we can explain with mathematical models and theory, that is why it is call theoretical physics, and for the most part it is pretty difficult to prove one way or another. This is why we build multi-billion dollar massive colliders on earth to try and actually be able to measure and test some of these theories at least in an abstract way (underlying mechanics, to refine theories that have implications on other theories). Though I didn't RTFA of course, it is probably just the summary that is making such factual assertions, rather than something like "enhanced observation of characteristics such as radiation once obscured by dust and gas in which we currently theorize may be SMBH"...
1) International Banks take stupid risks giving out inappropriate loans to people who can't possibly pay it back (Housing Crisis) 2) Greece's already shaky economy fails. 3) Banks get bailout out by Governments (Taxpayers) 4) International Banks take stupid risks giving out inappropriate loans to people who can't possibly pay it back (Greece Crisis) 5) Greece's already shaky economy fails. 6) International Banks take stupid risks giving out inappropriate loans to people who can't possibly pay it back (Greece Crisis) 7) Banks get bailout out by Governments (Taxpayers) 8) Repeat...
As I see it, a lot of hate towards Greece, when you look at it, the people who are getting all the money are Banks, and they people who are paying all the money are Taxpayers. This all just seems like another complex shell/ponzi game to shuffle as much taxpayer money into banking coffers. It seems to me that some people in Europe are getting played, while others are getting paid, at the same time as blaming the Greeks somehow for the whole mess.
I've been to Greece. They have no economy, it is about 95% based on tourists coming to visit. Greece doesn't even have proper sewage system. In order to compete with other destinations, they succeed by making their's much cheaper. You do this by deflating your currency. By joining the Euro, they lose the ability to control this. I can't see how no one saw this coming.
Ironically enough, the reparations and austerity forced on Germans because of WWI is in part also what got them so fired up about Jewish people, in that stereotypical it would be Jewish moneylenders and banks collecting on German debt. Now you have Germany in the role of usury and the Greeks facing austerity, and rebelling because of it. Now the Greek government is talking about printing money and screwing the rest of Europe...
Presumably when you are very far away and invisible to the enemy, you fly back to where ever you came from, reload, and repeat until the enemy has no planes left. I think this is generally the idea behind the whole F-35 concept.
The other idea (which is why it is so expensive) is in a supposed cost saving measure (lol!) in that rather than design, build, and support multiple airframes designed to do different things, you only make one that does them all. The draw back being that doing them all really well (like dogfighting) is a bit unrealistic. Compounding the issue is functionality creep, where you had various stakeholders (different branches of the armed forces) start adding additional requirements making designing variants anyway such as the vertical takeoff model, which further exacerbates an already blown budget.
Anyway the enemy counter to this, is to build sufficiently good planes, that are very cheap, so that in such an encounter, you just throw pilots at the F-35 until they run out of firepower, then continue advancing to targets while they are rearming. The two things going against this is the ratio of cheap plans to available F-35 and number of armaments they might carry, and also the moral of your pilots flying the planes. Pilots are pretty autonomous insofar as soldiers go, as seen in the gulf war, sufficiently moraless pilots would just fly over and defect rather than just get blown out of the sky. The famous instances of this were the Russians in WWII throwing soldiers into the meat grinder, then having moral officers waiting behind them should they decide to retreat... Can't see that working with air warfare, and even if it did, then you have to have some moral planes trailing the possible defectors... Then again you could build in remote detonators, however at that point having superior electronic warfare (which the US and F-35 likely does), you could possible win any engagement from afar with a single button press...
I think the real question is, for those of us debating the free upgrade, most of us with Windows 7, how long do you wait?
I guess it must depend on how much of a disaster the initial launch is...
From my own perspective it will be: How many drivers will be broken? What software will not be supported?
All I know for sure is that WMC will be gone, and I will have to find a replacement for it. Though it has been kinda half broken for awhile now (unsupported codecs etc...).
They are showcasing their GPU. I've had better experiences with ATI/AMD GPU over nVIDIA.
I'd buy a AMD GPU over an Intel one any day.
But yes, until AMD makes something significantly better, I'll buy an Intel CPU. My current system is Intel CPU, AMD GPU. The system I built before that was an Intel CPU, and ATI GPU, which is pretty much the same thing. Were I to build one tomorrow, probably also.
At least this shows that AMD doesn't have their own head stuck up their ass to know that their customers regularly pair their AMD GPU's with Intel CPU's...
Yes. AMD had a brief window of a few years of total dominance. I recall the Athlon64 (AthlonXP?) crushed the Intel counterparts. They were faster, cooler, and better supported. Then Intel ditched the P4 and went to Core 2 Duo's and the rest is history.
I am kind of shocked however on the decision. Usually corporate types like to stick head in the sand and make believe hard enough until the get their bonuses. I wonder how far up the chain this decision went, and if not far enough if heads will roll. If this was a purposeful corporate decision, perhaps there is hope yet for AMD...
I know you're joking, however the decision does bring up some questions about marriage, what it is, and why government is involved with it at all. So far as I can tell the only reason government is involved at all, is because marriage does a number of things for you financially and your rights. First you get a bunch of income tax breaks, and second, some rights in court in terms of finance and possessions. Presumably these laws exist for pretty much two reasons, 1) To promote and to help families who would theoretically have kids, and 2) to "protect" the spouse that decides to be the primary person to raise those kids, who really may not make much external money.
Which is the first problem, is that even a traditional marriage, the couple may not want kids, or are unable to have any. Why are they afforded the same benefits as everyone else? Why do non-married people not get the same benefits?
Anyway congrats to all the folks who can now get legally married in the US. However getting the tax advantage is a bit balanced by the protection piece. When marriage works, the people are all very rosie about it, however I'm pretty sure just about every single divorced friend has said, never ever get married, just don't do it! So I guess some more people have some decisions to make, hopefully they make some right ones. Somehow with all the celebration about this decision, I can somehow see a lot of couples getting married that maybe shouldn't, and then a rash of court cases and divorce proceedings in a few years... we'll see how much they think of marriage then.
Slashdot Mirror
Home VS Pro VS enterprise
Likely the decision went something like this:
How many issues are caused by a windows update breaking something?
How many issues are caused by users not installing important updates?
How many home users are aware enough to make a distinction either way?
It is a support issue, which likely was determined by the fact that more problems being caused than the other. Perhaps a more reasonable approach would have simply to make it default in the home version, but still changeable somehow. Bottom line is that it hasn't been released yet, so who knows really.
Also it used to be that I did the same, I would verify, or at least look at each update before installing them... This was before there was 20 updates every week. Now I just let it do everything automatically, and I'll deal with it if something ends up going awry. Odds are MS will deal with it in the following update anyway, which is probably the idea.
Yes because if history tells us anything it is that law enforcement officers are particularly good at dealing with violent mentally ill people.
True, the mentally ill patient usually ends up teased/beaten/shot to death, but at least they didn't tread on their constitutional rights...
That said, I'm not sure an actual law was needed. I'm pretty sure if anyone (doctors included) believe that someone is posing an immediate threat to others, they can take action to detain someone until authorities arrive.
Now if they are talking about something not "immediate" or "imminent", then that is something different. If the idea was to detain someone because perhaps at some point in the distant future they might be a threat that is something else. However since they were talking about a "4 hour" time span, that doesn't appear to be the case, it is just to detain them immediately because they think a threat imminent until authorities can respond. Sounds like they just wanted some clarity or additional protection from litigation should they do it anyway, which may not really be required.
Chinese Girl Receives Full Skull Reconstruction Via 3D Printing
"remove a large portion of her skull"
Headline VS Summary... FIGHT!
Sounds an awful lot like Han Han had PARTIAL skull reconstruction... That's what "portion" means right?
One, from personal accounts, and from what I see in the mass media, on a whole, Australia seems to have more than a few raciest tendencies (sorry non-raciest Australians)... So that might be one reason they are targeting America, VS Asia. They didn't say it, but I'm willing to bet that a significant percentage (90-99%) of people in America that actually have 15 million bucks in the bank are all white anyway.
Two, I was watching Family Feud the other day, and the American contestant was asked the question "if you had to live in any foreign country, which would it be?" The #1 answer was "Australia" so it could be that Americans already perceive it as a good destination as another reason to target the US. That said, the real funny part of that story, is that the contestant's answer was actually "'Murica!", I shit you not. As a Canadian I was a little insulted we got no mention at all... :(
Probably why the article mentions his phone type as an iPhone so everyone can make the assumption themselves that he was probably an asshole anyway.
1) Make it free for a long period of time. You need people using it enough to ditch their other forms of transportation.
2) Make significant investments in improving the system. Most systems are at best inconvenient, at worst non-existent.
3) Make driving less attractive. Tax it. Tax the roads. Tax the gas. Tax the parking. Use revenue to pay for public system.
First of all, while I don't use public transportation, I decided to get a house where I could walk to work everyday. I do own and use a car, for longer trips and errands etc... The major difference is my brand new 2002 car has about 80,000 km on it, whereas most of my friends have several hundreds of thousands and are on their second car.
However one public transportation story I do have, is that when I was in college and worked as a grounds keeper at my university I had to be at work at 7am. Being in school I didn't have a car. The *only* bus I could take left at 5:30am. So for a summer I had to get up before 5am everyday to go to work, and I was early for work every day. Which you would think would be a good thing, but my co-workers thought that I was some brown nose suck-up for going to work so early and bred a lot of animosity. Never mind the fact that they all had cars, and I had no choice in the matter if I wanted to get their on time (the next bus would have made me late everyday). The following year I was not hired back, largely because I perceived that several of the staff who had been there longer resented me...
Some intangibles about not driving to work:
The Math:
I live close enough I actually walk home for lunch each day as well...
So 4 trips a day of roughly about 1km per trip.
4x1 = 4km per day.
I work 5 days a week, so 4x5 = 20km a week.
If I work 50 weeks a year (which is a bit much, as I get more vacation now, but for ease of calculation)
20km x50 = 1000km a year
I've worked there for 15 years...
15x1000 = 15,000km total.
So in all I have walked almost the equivalent of 15,000km in just going to work, never mind walking to close downtown amenities.
The gas you save. The less carbon footprint. Less wear and tear on car. However primarily the health benefits of a lot of short walks add up.
Though there are times I think I'm wearing a rut into the sidewalk with my trudgery.
Conversely: /12 for a daytime estimate: 625 days wasted sitting in your car over that period..
I have a friend that commutes an hour every day to work in another community.
Twice a day. 1h x 2 = 2 h a day in the car...
five days a week, is 5 x 2h 10h a week...
for the same 50 weeks, 500h a year...
If he's done the same 15 years, that's 7500 h in the car...
or
That's like losing 2 years of your life.
I thought that either the summary got the story wrong, or NYC is somehow uniquely weird, like the UK and driving on the other side of the road. Perhaps their research is simply terribly flawed. I think it likely that it is more prone to reporting problems... or something...
As you say, it isn't the left hand turns that are a problem, it is the right hand turns on a red. While not NY, I walk a lot, and I've been hit or almost hit several times. Every single one of those were people turning right at a red light, not looking the other way.
This is exasperated by one way streets, and high traffic volume during certain times of the day.
They could probably save more pedestrians by targeting certain busy intersections, and not allowing right hand turns on red lights, or at least during peek hours.
Also as someone mentioned, less left hand would mean even more right hand turns...
I work for government. I work with some pretty contentious issues. I deal with FOI requests all the time. Personally I think it is a good idea for a great number of reasons, provided you have the resources to host and support it.
Firstly is that of bias. Journalists have some, usually depending on who they're working for. However I've found that more FOI requests come from A) Lawyers, and B) Special Interest Groups, both left and right, industry and association. In most cases, there isn't anything overly shocking about the information that the government has. However whoever is getting it will want to twist whatever it is towards their own purposes. In some cases this results in the misrepresentation of facts, or the omission of inconvenient material. However there is nothing government can do, we're obligated by law to provide the information, and can't control how it is used. By making sure that the *whole* information request is released to the public and made available to everyone, anyone curious about the story that was written, or the facts that were released, can look it up and judge for themselves what is actually going on.
Secondly, it is a very small subset of people that request most of the FOI material. As mentioned most of them are a select few with an agenda, or lawyers working on their behalf. What a lot of people do not realize is that government needs to do a awful lot of work for these requests. We have to do them, there are strict time lines (so you have to drop everything else), and have little control over scope. A *LOT* of money is spent fulfilling these requests for a very small select few people and groups. On release, the work is already done, the money spent. You might as well provide the information to the widest group of people as possible for the most benefit.
Lastly, as mentioned most of these requests is one group of people trying to get dirt/leverage over another group of people. Is it fair that one group is being notified and not the other because of who requested the information? In fairness, if an environmental group is looking for information to try and use it to limit industrial development in a particular area, should the folks doing the industrial development also not get access to the same information to use for their counter arguments? Also along the same lines, this would also cut down on the number (hopefully) of like requests from the various groups saving government money from doing multiple FOI requests that have already been completed.
by the sound of it, Nokia was doing a fairly good job at destroying themselves anyway, MS did't really need to help.
They are writing off *more* than they paid for Nokia, pretty much saying Nokia was worse than worthless...
Except rather than make a whole movie about the younger backstory they just made it the beginning of the movie...
Junior!
I'm wondering if he could make a case for time served in Russia as part of his prison sentence?
I mean Russian Exile isn't prison, but it's no cake walk either I don't doubt.
Perhaps a way to save face. Sit in Russia awhile, come back to the US, get "convicted" of something like the inappropriate use of government IT assets with the equivalent of a NDA...
Heck, not even that long ago OC folks have been testing with the stuff for years. I recall reading several articles years ago, where people were taking souped up (pardon pun) PC's and immersing them in a liquid solution to test for cooling... They may or may not be using more less the same inert liquid.
As I recall, while there were some benefits, there were significant problems as well. Maintenance was obliviously one, both of the components, but also the bath. Also it should be pointed out, while this does allow all components to be cooled at the same time, certain components heat up significantly faster than others, so unless you have significant circulation (and coolant), all you are doing is heating up the surrounding components.
Presumably this is an exotic enough system that the expense of maintaining it isn't an issue.
From what I understand, we haven't ever "seen" any black holes, let alone super massive ones. What we do see is immense radiation emission coupled with mathematical mass projections that we theorize *may* be black holes. While this is the commonly excepted knowledge, it is far from absolute. There are plenty of related exotic things like dark matter, and mass projections that do not make sense... What we have is another tool apparently able to somehow pierce formerly obscured areas due to dust and gas. There are a lot of things we can't see, but can test for, and then there are things we can explain with mathematical models and theory, that is why it is call theoretical physics, and for the most part it is pretty difficult to prove one way or another. This is why we build multi-billion dollar massive colliders on earth to try and actually be able to measure and test some of these theories at least in an abstract way (underlying mechanics, to refine theories that have implications on other theories). Though I didn't RTFA of course, it is probably just the summary that is making such factual assertions, rather than something like "enhanced observation of characteristics such as radiation once obscured by dust and gas in which we currently theorize may be SMBH"...
1) International Banks take stupid risks giving out inappropriate loans to people who can't possibly pay it back (Housing Crisis)
2) Greece's already shaky economy fails.
3) Banks get bailout out by Governments (Taxpayers)
4) International Banks take stupid risks giving out inappropriate loans to people who can't possibly pay it back (Greece Crisis)
5) Greece's already shaky economy fails.
6) International Banks take stupid risks giving out inappropriate loans to people who can't possibly pay it back (Greece Crisis)
7) Banks get bailout out by Governments (Taxpayers)
8) Repeat...
As I see it, a lot of hate towards Greece, when you look at it, the people who are getting all the money are Banks, and they people who are paying all the money are Taxpayers. This all just seems like another complex shell/ponzi game to shuffle as much taxpayer money into banking coffers. It seems to me that some people in Europe are getting played, while others are getting paid, at the same time as blaming the Greeks somehow for the whole mess.
I've been to Greece. They have no economy, it is about 95% based on tourists coming to visit. Greece doesn't even have proper sewage system. In order to compete with other destinations, they succeed by making their's much cheaper. You do this by deflating your currency. By joining the Euro, they lose the ability to control this. I can't see how no one saw this coming.
Ironically enough, the reparations and austerity forced on Germans because of WWI is in part also what got them so fired up about Jewish people, in that stereotypical it would be Jewish moneylenders and banks collecting on German debt. Now you have Germany in the role of usury and the Greeks facing austerity, and rebelling because of it. Now the Greek government is talking about printing money and screwing the rest of Europe...
Pretty sure there are a few natives reading this giving you all the finger...
Presumably when you are very far away and invisible to the enemy, you fly back to where ever you came from, reload, and repeat until the enemy has no planes left. I think this is generally the idea behind the whole F-35 concept.
The other idea (which is why it is so expensive) is in a supposed cost saving measure (lol!) in that rather than design, build, and support multiple airframes designed to do different things, you only make one that does them all. The draw back being that doing them all really well (like dogfighting) is a bit unrealistic. Compounding the issue is functionality creep, where you had various stakeholders (different branches of the armed forces) start adding additional requirements making designing variants anyway such as the vertical takeoff model, which further exacerbates an already blown budget.
Anyway the enemy counter to this, is to build sufficiently good planes, that are very cheap, so that in such an encounter, you just throw pilots at the F-35 until they run out of firepower, then continue advancing to targets while they are rearming. The two things going against this is the ratio of cheap plans to available F-35 and number of armaments they might carry, and also the moral of your pilots flying the planes. Pilots are pretty autonomous insofar as soldiers go, as seen in the gulf war, sufficiently moraless pilots would just fly over and defect rather than just get blown out of the sky. The famous instances of this were the Russians in WWII throwing soldiers into the meat grinder, then having moral officers waiting behind them should they decide to retreat... Can't see that working with air warfare, and even if it did, then you have to have some moral planes trailing the possible defectors... Then again you could build in remote detonators, however at that point having superior electronic warfare (which the US and F-35 likely does), you could possible win any engagement from afar with a single button press...
I think the real question is, for those of us debating the free upgrade, most of us with Windows 7, how long do you wait?
I guess it must depend on how much of a disaster the initial launch is...
From my own perspective it will be: How many drivers will be broken? What software will not be supported?
All I know for sure is that WMC will be gone, and I will have to find a replacement for it. Though it has been kinda half broken for awhile now (unsupported codecs etc...).
The real cause of failure? Russian sabotage! Possibly by a deep mole Russian within SpaceX.
They are showcasing their GPU. I've had better experiences with ATI/AMD GPU over nVIDIA.
I'd buy a AMD GPU over an Intel one any day.
But yes, until AMD makes something significantly better, I'll buy an Intel CPU. My current system is Intel CPU, AMD GPU. The system I built before that was an Intel CPU, and ATI GPU, which is pretty much the same thing. Were I to build one tomorrow, probably also.
At least this shows that AMD doesn't have their own head stuck up their ass to know that their customers regularly pair their AMD GPU's with Intel CPU's...
Yes. AMD had a brief window of a few years of total dominance. I recall the Athlon64 (AthlonXP?) crushed the Intel counterparts. They were faster, cooler, and better supported. Then Intel ditched the P4 and went to Core 2 Duo's and the rest is history.
I am kind of shocked however on the decision. Usually corporate types like to stick head in the sand and make believe hard enough until the get their bonuses. I wonder how far up the chain this decision went, and if not far enough if heads will roll. If this was a purposeful corporate decision, perhaps there is hope yet for AMD...
You just want to do a giant selfie don't you?!
This is not new, and happens everywhere. It isn't so much a protest is it is an negotiation tactic.
I know you're joking, however the decision does bring up some questions about marriage, what it is, and why government is involved with it at all. So far as I can tell the only reason government is involved at all, is because marriage does a number of things for you financially and your rights. First you get a bunch of income tax breaks, and second, some rights in court in terms of finance and possessions. Presumably these laws exist for pretty much two reasons, 1) To promote and to help families who would theoretically have kids, and 2) to "protect" the spouse that decides to be the primary person to raise those kids, who really may not make much external money.
Which is the first problem, is that even a traditional marriage, the couple may not want kids, or are unable to have any. Why are they afforded the same benefits as everyone else? Why do non-married people not get the same benefits?
Anyway congrats to all the folks who can now get legally married in the US. However getting the tax advantage is a bit balanced by the protection piece. When marriage works, the people are all very rosie about it, however I'm pretty sure just about every single divorced friend has said, never ever get married, just don't do it! So I guess some more people have some decisions to make, hopefully they make some right ones. Somehow with all the celebration about this decision, I can somehow see a lot of couples getting married that maybe shouldn't, and then a rash of court cases and divorce proceedings in a few years... we'll see how much they think of marriage then.