You might as well be talking about Microsoft Windows instead of those 300+ cable channels. It's the same excuses from its lazy users, and the same excuse from the technical side too ("The choice is pretty easy for anyone that has even an inkling of technical knowledge", is very much like what most Linux users, including myself, would tell others).
If that's any sign, Cable will be around for a long long time.
His dad's association with the KKK does not seem to be a solid fact (unless I missed something). Their company discriminating against black people is well documented, complete with an extensive court case.
Assuming that this protocol/service is has the features DrXym mentioned:
Now imagine something like that which is federated, works over the internet, is secure and encrypted (such that nobody in the middle knows more than necessary to deliver between the sender and recipient) and you have what chat should be.
... then federation can and will take care of it.
Want to have your chats backed up and shared across your clients with as little effort on your part as possible, all while retaining all the security and encryption? - pay for that service
Want all of that, but don't want to pay? - host it yourself, or join a small group of people that are doing so
Want to have all of that, but you don't want to pay, and you don't care if one provider can see your messages and serve you ads? - use a free ad-based service (you'll give them your private key so they can mine your data)
Don't trust any service for log storage, even if they don't have your keys? - use the service without a chat log storage provider, and keep local logs if you like (which would also be encrypted with your own key)
FWIW, all of this technically exists already: XMPP + OTR. Since it still hasn't taken over the world of chat, there's still an opportunity for a different protocol to be king. However, AFAICT, there's no way in hell any of these other chat clients/protocols/services will EVER unify the situation unless all the major players adopt an open system with all those features.
Open Whisper Systems, Signal, Whatsapp, Facebook Messenger, and Google Allo all make use of the end-to-end encryption protocol, "Signal Protocol", which started as TextSecure and RedPhone. As such, it seems like there has been some unification around what protocol to use for end-to-end encryption.... just need the rest to fall into place.
Ditto. I looked them up, and they have only one style, and it's kinda awful (IMO), and comes in 3 colors. They shoot a video (10-30 secs) when you push a button, and come with a charging case. Reviews have noted that they are heavy, bulky, and the camera bits block your view quite a bit.
I have no idea why anyone would buy this except for shits and giggles. Glasses with built in cameras have been around for over a decade, and generally make the camera blend in quite a bit better. Maybe they made the cameras stand out on purpose so it didn't seem like they were hiding it, probably hoping to avoid the glasshole comments, but they just look dumb.
If I ever buy glasses with some smarts to them, they must have a heads up display of some sort. Even just monochrome plain text is fine, but I want some communication from my smart thing (probably phone). I'd probably miss it if it didn't have a camera, but that's just convenience factor - I could always point some other camera at things... but I need that display, otherwise it's not worth making my glasses heavier.
Looking at how anyone not agreeing with this guy on Slashdot gets hammered down with -1 mods, it seems they have a point.
Looking at how the guy got fired for making his opinion public, people agreeing with him would also have a point.
I don't think one needs to pick a side to see that this situation is not very conducive to the open dialog that the rules were intended to facilitate. It's a tough spot to be in. IMO, they're doing the right thing at this moment by stepping back for a bit. With luck, maybe something far worse will take some of the heat off this topic, then they can do the smaller town halls, then announce some tweaks to policies that don't really change much, and go back to business as usual.
This manifesto is a one in {how-many-employees} event. It's had its 15 minutes. It'd be nice if we could just move on and focus on whatever actionable issues may remain. It started some (probably needed) dialog, but let's throw it out now and focus on the good parts of discussion that has resulted.
Next I'm going to implement a web page on a Raspberry pi - I'll start with a google search for "top open source web server". and see what's popular...
If you tried this, then the results are perfectly acceptable. Google suggests: Apache HTTPD, Lighttpd, Apache Tomcat, Cherokee, Caddy,... First link (https://opensource.com/business/16/8/top-5-open-source-web-servers) suggests: Apache HTTPD, NGINX, Apache Tomcat, Node.js, Lighttpd.
You'll still have to see which is best for your situation (which you could probably just include in your search), but those are perfectly good ones to try first.
The problem here, IMO, isn't the list, it's the requirements, specialization, and feature comparisons. For backup (the main example of the parents post), I actively make use of rsnapshot, rdiff-backup, BackupPC, Crashplan, Dropbox, Glacier, Backblaze, and some custom backup jobs that use rsync/tar/gz/bzip2/etc. Most of those could easily be swapped out with similar solutions, but they all have their own ideal scenario, and there are other types of backups that aren't even covered in that list. For example, if you're looking for something that behaves like Dropbox, BackupPC would be a horrible choice... and vice-versa.
You'll either need to do a fair bit of reading/research yourself, or talk to someone who has, and you'll need a good understanding of what your main goals are.
If you can get past that misuse of language ("hacking" = using a password someone gave you before you quit), that company was also sending our FTP passwords to its users via unencrypted email. Whoever authorized that should be fired, and possibly sued in relation to this breach.
I can't find an article in the mainstream media that was as critical of Mother Teresa as they were of Hitler, but that's due to a useless qualifier ("as critical").
There were articles that were VERY critical of President Obama, and there are articles that are VERY critical of Trump. Are you claiming the former didn't exist, or are you just saying they weren't quite as critical of Obama? There's a big difference between those.
Um... I'm sure there's an article somewhere on Fox News that does so, but the link you sent was not to any articles (at least not as far as I could tell - I didn't follow the clickbait through every page).
For those not wishing to click that link, the headline is, "13 Times Fox News Hosts Criticized Donald Trump (Photos)".
If you stuck to US media in general, you could have provided loads of examples, but it's a bit more difficult if you limit yourself to Fox News or Trump TV.
the entire point is to validate an incoming e-mail isn't a phishing message with forged headers. An SMIME cert will help shed light on that.
Close, but wrong. The S/MIME signature applies to the message body. That does NOT include any of the headers (and note, "Subject" is a header, not part of the message body). As an example, I have actually done the following and can assure you this is not only possible, but trivially easy: * have someone send you an S/MIME signed email * send that back out, forge the FROM address to that users address rather than your own, and modify the Subject to something obscene, and set the TO address to anywhere you like * that email will send just fine, it will go to an unintended recipient, and the subject will be altered, but the message signature will say it's valid.
That scared the crap out of some of the IT folks I know, who assumed that the to/from/subject were also protected by the signature. It's scary because the recipient will very likely assume that the original author wrote that subject line and sent it to them, because the little lock icon says so. Fixing this should only require education so people know that's the case, but we (as tech folks) should be doing a better job in that area.
if you're linking in several humongous frameworks just for a handful of the routines they provide then unless your optimization and linking can strip that redundant code out then you're going to end up with exactly the kind of bloat described.
I think that's exactly the point. This is just one of the areas where there is little focus on optimization, and it's ridiculous. The problems exist across the board... * assets may not be optimized * assets may be redundant (including assets for many platforms in one package, rather than packing for specific targets) * frameworks may be redundant (multiple apps using same libraries, but packaging within the app due to poor/inconvenient library handling in the OS) * frameworks are bloated (if they were broken into smaller function groups, then they wouldn't have to include all of it to get the handful of functions they use) * apps aren't stripped (there is some of this happening, but obviously not as much as could be done, especially WRT libraries/frameworks) * they just don't care... when an app grows 10-20x's in size, but doesn't gain any significant features, they should be asking themselves WTF
I'm slightly curious if a deduping filesystem could help. I suspect most things get compressed and stay somewhat packaged up, so this may not be feasible today, but, if all apps were fully extracted onto a deduping filesystem, how much of the bloat would vanish due to duplicate frameworks (or pieces of frameworks)? Maybe that'll have almost no effect though, due to how these frameworks slap everything in one blob and version bits... still seems like that'd have some potential though.
Could help, but they don't. My company uses them and requires us to use them, except when they don't. The problem, IMO, is that the email clients don't alert when there is no signature. They add a tiny icon if a signature is present and valid. They add a warning if the signature is present but invalid.
What is needed is something akin to HTTP's Strict-Transport-Security header. IE. once your email client receives a valid signed email from a particular user, it will then require all email from that user to be signed, or it will put up a giant error/warning. Otherwise, a forged email will come through and look perfectly fine, just no sig, which the user never really cares about anyway.
After that is put in place, then have an option to warn on the lack of a sig from all emails, and maybe a way to whitelist some (ex. for automated emails from amazon).
The first time I saw smart gun things, they were using biometrics (finger prints). Those have plenty of their own issues, which is probably why they've moved on to these other solutions (NFC/RFID/etc). Some example: doesn't work if you're wearing gloves of any kind; doesn't work well if your hands are dirty/muddy/bloody/etc; takes significantly more processing, which used to take quite a bit more time to authenticate; handedness is still a concern due to sensor placement (tend to be either convenient for one hand, or universally inconvenient); fingerprints are easily lifted and reproduced from well maintained guns with a thin oil coating, reducing the effectiveness against theft; difficulty/complexity when adding users/prints; storage concerns since it requires a fair bit of battery power to authenticate, and maintain that system;... etc...
It's very very very unlikely that they're going to get a near perfect solution, which means it shouldn't become the only way to sell new guns. But if smart guns aren't mandated, I don't believe the market will support that industry. IMO, this is one of the biggest underlying reasons that gun folks are anti-smart-gun, because they know they can't succeed without forcing it.
What value does a "smart gun" add that can't be had with a safety and/or trigger lock?
You're saying the optimal proximity range would be about six inches, which means the gun in purse could still be fired by (ex. by a toddler rooting around in there). The simple safety is enough to prevent that situation.
Six inches would also mean that you couldn't fire it with your other hand, should that be necessary, so I'd disagree with that proximity setting. Making it large enough to fire from either hand means 3 to 6 feet, which means the gun next to your bed could be fired by anyone walking in while you're sleeping.
Worse, if you need a watch/ring/bracelet, you're unlikely to be wearing it while you sleep. And where do you keep it when you take it off?... probably right next to the weapon.
Smart guns are also said to prevent stolen weapons from being used, but this article debunks that. A couple magnets and it's easier for the would be criminal to use than for the owner.
There's also a significant cost difference. You can get a master lock combination trigger lock for $13 (ie. no need for a key), and keyed ones are even cheaper. FWIW, I'm not saying that trigger locks should be mandated, nor should they be used in all situations, but, for the cases where you need/want to make sure that it's not used by someone else accidentally, they work perfectly.
Smart guns may have a place in some special situations, but certainly not across the entire market.
Intel's normal desktop chips also support virtualization in most cases (I have an old core2duo laptop that happened to be one of the few that did NOT support VT-x, but even most of those did).
The Ryzen chips do support virtualization. I couldn't find a spec sheet off hand that lists it, but there's plenty of reference to it out there.
One of the big differences between Intel and AMD consumer chips is that Intel frequently disables ECC support, but AMD leaves it enabled and up to the motherboard manufacturer to expose or not. Here's some detailed info on ECC support on Ryzen: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com...
I also ran into anandtech's review here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/... IMO, it has some very useful comparisons right on the first page of that review. Someone else in this thread had mentioned upgrading to the low end Ryzen 5 for an extra $40 to make the upgrade more meaningful from his current platform... but that doesn't seem to add all that much IMHO. Wish I could just paste in the table from that review...
Ryzen 5 1400 and 1500x are both 4 core, 8 thread, but, otherwise, they nearly mirror the specs of Ryzen 3 1200 and 1300x (which have 4 cores / 4 threads). Personally, I'd want to jump up to the 6 core / 12 threads versions, or just stick with the 1300x.
That review also has a nice comparison with Intel's comparatively priced cpus. The Ryzen's have twice the L2 cache (256kb intel, 512kb ryzen), more than twice the L3 cache (3mb intel, 8mb ryzen). and twice the cores (2 core 4 thread intel, 4 core ryzen), all with a similar TDP (51-54w intel, 65w ryzen). They seem like a pretty good option, at least on paper.
We're all being pretty dumb and stubborn about this stuff.
Netflix 4k is a horribly inefficient means of delivering that content. Satellite + DVR is by far the most efficient solution, and should also be the cheapest after accounting for the economies of scale (ie. if everyone was splitting the cost of the infrastructure), but they are way overpriced, don't provide inexpensive ala cart, restrict your use (how the hell do they get away with charging per-TV!?!!?), and (IME) don't maintain their equipment. That last bit was the last straw for me - my dish, which they installed, came slightly loose from the chimney, and they wouldn't fix it and said I was responsible for that (ie. their faulty installation on a multi-tenant apartment building was not their responsibility to maintain).
If we moved the bulk of content off of the internet delivery option, we'd all have plenty of bandwidth left for the remaining random youtube things, OS updates, games, etc. FWIW, I'm not suggesting that all on demand over the net content go away, but the bulk of content is all the stuff that broadcast fulfills better (live sports, latest sitcoms, etc).
Thank you for taking the time to provide all of that. I've only been wearing glasses for a few years, and haven't really done my homework. I thought I had a good experience where I went, but I needed an eye exam anyway, and I had no idea most brands had the same parent company. (I got a pair made by Hackett... wouldn't surprise me if they're in that group, but they're based in London, so maybe I got lucky?)
Slashdot Mirror
You might as well be talking about Microsoft Windows instead of those 300+ cable channels. It's the same excuses from its lazy users, and the same excuse from the technical side too ("The choice is pretty easy for anyone that has even an inkling of technical knowledge", is very much like what most Linux users, including myself, would tell others).
If that's any sign, Cable will be around for a long long time.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=trump+ren...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=frank+tru...
His dad's association with the KKK does not seem to be a solid fact (unless I missed something).
Their company discriminating against black people is well documented, complete with an extensive court case.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of Bannon's!
Assuming that this protocol/service is has the features DrXym mentioned:
Now imagine something like that which is federated, works over the internet, is secure and encrypted (such that nobody in the middle knows more than necessary to deliver between the sender and recipient) and you have what chat should be.
... then federation can and will take care of it.
Want to have your chats backed up and shared across your clients with as little effort on your part as possible, all while retaining all the security and encryption?
- pay for that service
Want all of that, but don't want to pay?
- host it yourself, or join a small group of people that are doing so
Want to have all of that, but you don't want to pay, and you don't care if one provider can see your messages and serve you ads?
- use a free ad-based service (you'll give them your private key so they can mine your data)
Don't trust any service for log storage, even if they don't have your keys?
- use the service without a chat log storage provider, and keep local logs if you like (which would also be encrypted with your own key)
FWIW, all of this technically exists already: XMPP + OTR.
Since it still hasn't taken over the world of chat, there's still an opportunity for a different protocol to be king. However, AFAICT, there's no way in hell any of these other chat clients/protocols/services will EVER unify the situation unless all the major players adopt an open system with all those features.
Open Whisper Systems, Signal, Whatsapp, Facebook Messenger, and Google Allo all make use of the end-to-end encryption protocol, "Signal Protocol", which started as TextSecure and RedPhone. As such, it seems like there has been some unification around what protocol to use for end-to-end encryption.... just need the rest to fall into place.
Ditto.
I looked them up, and they have only one style, and it's kinda awful (IMO), and comes in 3 colors. They shoot a video (10-30 secs) when you push a button, and come with a charging case. Reviews have noted that they are heavy, bulky, and the camera bits block your view quite a bit.
I have no idea why anyone would buy this except for shits and giggles. Glasses with built in cameras have been around for over a decade, and generally make the camera blend in quite a bit better. Maybe they made the cameras stand out on purpose so it didn't seem like they were hiding it, probably hoping to avoid the glasshole comments, but they just look dumb.
If I ever buy glasses with some smarts to them, they must have a heads up display of some sort. Even just monochrome plain text is fine, but I want some communication from my smart thing (probably phone). I'd probably miss it if it didn't have a camera, but that's just convenience factor - I could always point some other camera at things... but I need that display, otherwise it's not worth making my glasses heavier.
The greatest enemy to free speech in the world is leftists. If you can refute someone, speak up and do it
... says the Anonymous Coward
Looking at how anyone not agreeing with this guy on Slashdot gets hammered down with -1 mods, it seems they have a point.
Looking at how the guy got fired for making his opinion public, people agreeing with him would also have a point.
I don't think one needs to pick a side to see that this situation is not very conducive to the open dialog that the rules were intended to facilitate. It's a tough spot to be in. IMO, they're doing the right thing at this moment by stepping back for a bit. With luck, maybe something far worse will take some of the heat off this topic, then they can do the smaller town halls, then announce some tweaks to policies that don't really change much, and go back to business as usual.
This manifesto is a one in {how-many-employees} event. It's had its 15 minutes. It'd be nice if we could just move on and focus on whatever actionable issues may remain. It started some (probably needed) dialog, but let's throw it out now and focus on the good parts of discussion that has resulted.
Next I'm going to implement a web page on a Raspberry pi - I'll start with a google search for "top open source web server". and see what's popular...
If you tried this, then the results are perfectly acceptable. ...
Google suggests: Apache HTTPD, Lighttpd, Apache Tomcat, Cherokee, Caddy,
First link (https://opensource.com/business/16/8/top-5-open-source-web-servers) suggests: Apache HTTPD, NGINX, Apache Tomcat, Node.js, Lighttpd.
You'll still have to see which is best for your situation (which you could probably just include in your search), but those are perfectly good ones to try first.
The problem here, IMO, isn't the list, it's the requirements, specialization, and feature comparisons. For backup (the main example of the parents post), I actively make use of rsnapshot, rdiff-backup, BackupPC, Crashplan, Dropbox, Glacier, Backblaze, and some custom backup jobs that use rsync/tar/gz/bzip2/etc. Most of those could easily be swapped out with similar solutions, but they all have their own ideal scenario, and there are other types of backups that aren't even covered in that list. For example, if you're looking for something that behaves like Dropbox, BackupPC would be a horrible choice... and vice-versa.
You'll either need to do a fair bit of reading/research yourself, or talk to someone who has, and you'll need a good understanding of what your main goals are.
If you can get past that misuse of language ("hacking" = using a password someone gave you before you quit), that company was also sending our FTP passwords to its users via unencrypted email. Whoever authorized that should be fired, and possibly sued in relation to this breach.
I prefer the sequel, Bourne Again Shell
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=trump+pol...
First link, MSNBC, "Trump wants America to be 'energy dominant.' Here's what that means" ... "Trump and Obama: Not so different?"
Second link, MSNBC, "Trump sticks to Obama’s ISIS plan, but hopes it looks different"
There's a bunch more. You're simply wrong, sorry.
I can't find an article in the mainstream media that was as critical of Mother Teresa as they were of Hitler, but that's due to a useless qualifier ("as critical").
There were articles that were VERY critical of President Obama, and there are articles that are VERY critical of Trump. Are you claiming the former didn't exist, or are you just saying they weren't quite as critical of Obama? There's a big difference between those.
Um... I'm sure there's an article somewhere on Fox News that does so, but the link you sent was not to any articles (at least not as far as I could tell - I didn't follow the clickbait through every page).
For those not wishing to click that link, the headline is, "13 Times Fox News Hosts Criticized Donald Trump (Photos)".
If you stuck to US media in general, you could have provided loads of examples, but it's a bit more difficult if you limit yourself to Fox News or Trump TV.
the entire point is to validate an incoming e-mail isn't a phishing message with forged headers. An SMIME cert will help shed light on that.
Close, but wrong.
The S/MIME signature applies to the message body. That does NOT include any of the headers (and note, "Subject" is a header, not part of the message body).
As an example, I have actually done the following and can assure you this is not only possible, but trivially easy:
* have someone send you an S/MIME signed email
* send that back out, forge the FROM address to that users address rather than your own, and modify the Subject to something obscene, and set the TO address to anywhere you like
* that email will send just fine, it will go to an unintended recipient, and the subject will be altered, but the message signature will say it's valid.
That scared the crap out of some of the IT folks I know, who assumed that the to/from/subject were also protected by the signature. It's scary because the recipient will very likely assume that the original author wrote that subject line and sent it to them, because the little lock icon says so. Fixing this should only require education so people know that's the case, but we (as tech folks) should be doing a better job in that area.
if you're linking in several humongous frameworks just for a handful of the routines they provide then unless your optimization and linking can strip that redundant code out then you're going to end up with exactly the kind of bloat described.
I think that's exactly the point. This is just one of the areas where there is little focus on optimization, and it's ridiculous. The problems exist across the board...
* assets may not be optimized
* assets may be redundant (including assets for many platforms in one package, rather than packing for specific targets)
* frameworks may be redundant (multiple apps using same libraries, but packaging within the app due to poor/inconvenient library handling in the OS)
* frameworks are bloated (if they were broken into smaller function groups, then they wouldn't have to include all of it to get the handful of functions they use)
* apps aren't stripped (there is some of this happening, but obviously not as much as could be done, especially WRT libraries/frameworks)
* they just don't care... when an app grows 10-20x's in size, but doesn't gain any significant features, they should be asking themselves WTF
I'm slightly curious if a deduping filesystem could help. I suspect most things get compressed and stay somewhat packaged up, so this may not be feasible today, but, if all apps were fully extracted onto a deduping filesystem, how much of the bloat would vanish due to duplicate frameworks (or pieces of frameworks)? Maybe that'll have almost no effect though, due to how these frameworks slap everything in one blob and version bits... still seems like that'd have some potential though.
SMIME certificates do help. :)
Could help, but they don't.
My company uses them and requires us to use them, except when they don't. The problem, IMO, is that the email clients don't alert when there is no signature. They add a tiny icon if a signature is present and valid. They add a warning if the signature is present but invalid.
What is needed is something akin to HTTP's Strict-Transport-Security header. IE. once your email client receives a valid signed email from a particular user, it will then require all email from that user to be signed, or it will put up a giant error/warning. Otherwise, a forged email will come through and look perfectly fine, just no sig, which the user never really cares about anyway.
After that is put in place, then have an option to warn on the lack of a sig from all emails, and maybe a way to whitelist some (ex. for automated emails from amazon).
The first time I saw smart gun things, they were using biometrics (finger prints). Those have plenty of their own issues, which is probably why they've moved on to these other solutions (NFC/RFID/etc). Some example: doesn't work if you're wearing gloves of any kind; doesn't work well if your hands are dirty/muddy/bloody/etc; takes significantly more processing, which used to take quite a bit more time to authenticate; handedness is still a concern due to sensor placement (tend to be either convenient for one hand, or universally inconvenient); fingerprints are easily lifted and reproduced from well maintained guns with a thin oil coating, reducing the effectiveness against theft; difficulty/complexity when adding users/prints; storage concerns since it requires a fair bit of battery power to authenticate, and maintain that system; ... etc ...
It's very very very unlikely that they're going to get a near perfect solution, which means it shouldn't become the only way to sell new guns. But if smart guns aren't mandated, I don't believe the market will support that industry. IMO, this is one of the biggest underlying reasons that gun folks are anti-smart-gun, because they know they can't succeed without forcing it.
Thank you. You summed that up better than I.
What value does a "smart gun" add that can't be had with a safety and/or trigger lock?
You're saying the optimal proximity range would be about six inches, which means the gun in purse could still be fired by (ex. by a toddler rooting around in there). The simple safety is enough to prevent that situation.
Six inches would also mean that you couldn't fire it with your other hand, should that be necessary, so I'd disagree with that proximity setting. Making it large enough to fire from either hand means 3 to 6 feet, which means the gun next to your bed could be fired by anyone walking in while you're sleeping.
Worse, if you need a watch/ring/bracelet, you're unlikely to be wearing it while you sleep. And where do you keep it when you take it off? ... probably right next to the weapon.
Smart guns are also said to prevent stolen weapons from being used, but this article debunks that. A couple magnets and it's easier for the would be criminal to use than for the owner.
There's also a significant cost difference. You can get a master lock combination trigger lock for $13 (ie. no need for a key), and keyed ones are even cheaper. FWIW, I'm not saying that trigger locks should be mandated, nor should they be used in all situations, but, for the cases where you need/want to make sure that it's not used by someone else accidentally, they work perfectly.
Smart guns may have a place in some special situations, but certainly not across the entire market.
Intel's normal desktop chips also support virtualization in most cases (I have an old core2duo laptop that happened to be one of the few that did NOT support VT-x, but even most of those did).
The Ryzen chips do support virtualization. I couldn't find a spec sheet off hand that lists it, but there's plenty of reference to it out there.
One of the big differences between Intel and AMD consumer chips is that Intel frequently disables ECC support, but AMD leaves it enabled and up to the motherboard manufacturer to expose or not. Here's some detailed info on ECC support on Ryzen: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com...
I also ran into anandtech's review here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/...
IMO, it has some very useful comparisons right on the first page of that review. Someone else in this thread had mentioned upgrading to the low end Ryzen 5 for an extra $40 to make the upgrade more meaningful from his current platform... but that doesn't seem to add all that much IMHO. Wish I could just paste in the table from that review...
Ryzen 5 1400 and 1500x are both 4 core, 8 thread, but, otherwise, they nearly mirror the specs of Ryzen 3 1200 and 1300x (which have 4 cores / 4 threads). Personally, I'd want to jump up to the 6 core / 12 threads versions, or just stick with the 1300x.
That review also has a nice comparison with Intel's comparatively priced cpus. The Ryzen's have twice the L2 cache (256kb intel, 512kb ryzen), more than twice the L3 cache (3mb intel, 8mb ryzen). and twice the cores (2 core 4 thread intel, 4 core ryzen), all with a similar TDP (51-54w intel, 65w ryzen). They seem like a pretty good option, at least on paper.
Would you react the same way if someone were killed?
Great point. They're all murderers!
Yeah... that doesn't work either :-(
We're all being pretty dumb and stubborn about this stuff.
Netflix 4k is a horribly inefficient means of delivering that content. Satellite + DVR is by far the most efficient solution, and should also be the cheapest after accounting for the economies of scale (ie. if everyone was splitting the cost of the infrastructure), but they are way overpriced, don't provide inexpensive ala cart, restrict your use (how the hell do they get away with charging per-TV!?!!?), and (IME) don't maintain their equipment. That last bit was the last straw for me - my dish, which they installed, came slightly loose from the chimney, and they wouldn't fix it and said I was responsible for that (ie. their faulty installation on a multi-tenant apartment building was not their responsibility to maintain).
If we moved the bulk of content off of the internet delivery option, we'd all have plenty of bandwidth left for the remaining random youtube things, OS updates, games, etc. FWIW, I'm not suggesting that all on demand over the net content go away, but the bulk of content is all the stuff that broadcast fulfills better (live sports, latest sitcoms, etc).
Thank you for taking the time to provide all of that. I've only been wearing glasses for a few years, and haven't really done my homework. I thought I had a good experience where I went, but I needed an eye exam anyway, and I had no idea most brands had the same parent company. (I got a pair made by Hackett... wouldn't surprise me if they're in that group, but they're based in London, so maybe I got lucky?)
You sure that was Ted, and not Trump? https://www.theguardian.com/en...
Or his own words: https://twitter.com/realdonald...
"@Al_Co: @realDonaldTrump Wind Turbines are Ugly and a FRAUD. Remove them. UK is going down the gutter." @aberdeenshire @AlexSalmond
I have no idea how a wind turbine can be a fraud, but mixing in absurdities seems to be his MO.
(fwiw, I don't doubt your claim)
The eyeglasses bit surprised me as well. Is there really just a couple big companies making them?