Not everyone operates in the US tribal mindset where criticising Tribe A means you're automatically a member of Tribe B. Maybe both tribes have downsides.
Getting a net CO2 cut would basically require that China stop industrialising. If the Chinese government tried that, they'd be overthrown in a bloody revolution
tl;dr - global CO2 emissions will continue to rise until China has a way to generate energy which is cheaper than coal and doesn't emit CO2.
Until then it doesn't matter what the US, UK and EU do. All of those having falling CO2 emissions, but there's no way they can fall fast enough to compensate for the enormous CO2 increases from China.
Having spent some time in LA and NYC honestly them being underwater isn't all bad. You'd be able to drive a speedboat to work from your home on a giant civilian version of an aircraft carrier to another giant ship. Or you could evolve into a Gill Man.
And NYC's elevation is 10m. So it will take 5000 years or so for it to be inundated. I think it's fair to assume that even with NYC's Gotham City levels of corruption, graft and incompetence government would be able to build 10m of sea wall. That's 1.9mm per year. Even 3mm per year - what the UK apparently uses when planning sea defences - shouldn't be a problem.
Qualcomm doesn't own big.LITTLE. The original implementation was by ARM. In fact Qualcomm stuck to having one Snapdragon core for both high performance and low power tasks until fairly late. E.g. the Galaxy S5 had two models. The Qualcomm Snapdragon one didn't do big.LITTLE/Heterogeneous Multi Processing.
For some Galaxy S5 models, Samsung will use the Exynos 5422, which also was announced at Mobile World Congress. The processor boasts eight ARM cores versus the four in the Snapdragon 801. Samsung has employed ARM technology that allows for four big cores that run at speeds up to 2.1GHz and four small cores for speeds up to 1.5GHz. When the phone requires heavy computing, all eight cores can run at the same time. The phone can also employ just one of the small cores for minor activities
And companies other than Qualcomm and ARM have patents on various implementations of big.LITTLE
Also I'm sure Intel could do HMP. E.g. they could have a chip which has some Coffee Lake i5/i7 type 'big' cores and some Gemini Lake/Goldmont Plus Atom type 'little' ones. Sure there are patents but Intel have a patent portfolio of their own. They could just launch, and if they get sued agree on a cross licence.
NVidia sued Intel and got some cash but no x86 licence or the right to make chipsets for newer Intel CPUs.
And of course a hypothetical Intel chip with Coffee Lake/Gemini Lake might not work like big.LITTLE. On a big.LITTLE chip you can migrate threads from a big core to a little core quickly because they share the same registers. A Coffee Lake/Gemini Lake chip might not need to do that - you could have cores sharing an L3 cache but not much else and just relying on the OS to do the migration. And if you look at the Lenovo patent the patented thing is not 'having big and little cores on the same chip' but rather the way you decide whether a thread runs on the big or little core. Intel could invent their own scheme. Or just leave it to the OS.
Actually it's not a bad idea. The USP of Windows on ARM is 'better battery life'. Unfortunately that comes with Atom like performance. A Coffee Lake/Gemini Lake HMP design would offer the low power of an Atom when the system is idle but also the high power of a Coffee Lake when it is not. And you can have a whole bunch of Gemini Lake cores in the space taken up by a Coffee Lake one. So you might sacrifice 1-2 Coffee Lake and have 4-8 Gemini Lake in the same space.
If Intel can spend R&D on a package which has Coffee Lake and an AMD GPU on it which is basically just for Apple, I reckon they could spend R&D on a HMP chip to attack Qualcomm with.
Actually another option would be to dumb down the integrated graphics. I bet you could get away with just a frame buffer for most users who are just running a GUI and not doing an 3D. So gate all the 3D stuff with a Mosfet and make sure you can power it down.
Intel clearly cares about power consumption and battery life and Windows on ARM shows they've got some way to go to yet. HMP and more work on optimizing the power consumption of the integrated graphics solution in the lowest power/performance state is the way to go.
Clinton did not have a surplus of $230B in the year 2000 because he had to borrow $246.5 From numerous other off budget funds. Clinton NEVER ran a surplus during his 8 years in office, he just borrowed yearly from different budgets, (primarily the SS budget) to offset the general fund losses. In 2000 the following funds were borrowed which resulted in a $16.5 deficit.
$152.3B from Social Security $30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund $18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund $15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund $9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund $8.2B from Military Retirement Fund $3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds $1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund $7.0B from others
Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit. ($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).
The last time the federal government ran a true suplus was 1969, the total surplus was $3.2B and before that was $1960, $.3 B
If you look here you can see the debt increased each year he was in office. Which means he ran a deficit
However, nobody was really concerned about how hard they would be to sink, because there was no way to keep the Germans from sinking them if they found them
Actually the 'unsinkable' nature of pykrete ships was a selling point
When I had read their report, I advised my superiors to scrap our experiments with pure ice and set up a laboratory for the manufacture and testing of reinforced ice. Combined Operations requisitioned a large meat store five floors underground beneath Smithfield Market, which lies within sight of St. Paul's Cathedral, and ordered some electrically heated suits, of the type issued to airmen, to keep us warm at less than 0 degree C (32 degree F) temperatures. They detailed some young commandos to work as my technicians, and I invited Kenneth Pascoe, who was then a physics student and later became a lecturer in engineering at Cambridge, to come and help me. We built a big wind tunnel to freeze the mush of wet wood pulp, and sawed the reinforced ice into blocks. Our tests soon confirmed Mark and Hohenstein's results. Blocks of ice containing as little as four percent wood pulp were weight for weight as strong as concrete; in honor of the originator of the project, we called this reinforced ice "pykrete". When we fired a rifle bullet into an upright block of pure ice two feet square and one foot thick, the block shattered; in pykrete the bullet made a little crater and was embedded without doing any damage. My stock rose, but no one would tell me what pykrete was needed for, except that it was for Project Habakkuk.
* I Wish I'd Made You Angry Earlier, Perutz, Max
A good deal of consideration, much of it highly technical, was also given to the feasibility of building floating platforms which could either be used by fighters to support opposed landings until such time as airfields ashore were available, or act as staging points for ferrying aircraft over long distances. The idea as originally conceived by a member of Combined Operations staff, and vehemently supported by Mountbatten, was that these floating platforms should be constructed out of icebergs. They would be provided with engines which would enable them to steam at slow speed, and with refrigeration plants to prevent them melting. They would be unsinkable. The whole thing seemed completely fantastic, but the idea was not abandoned without a great deal of investigation. Various alternative methods of construction were then considered by the United States naval authorities, but in the end there was general agreement that carriers and auxiliary carriers would serve the same purpose more effectively."
* The Memoirs of Lord Ismay, Ismay, General Lord
The other intriguing property was that they could be made so large that conventional bombers could land, refuel and take off from them. Even now aircraft carriers have very strict limits on what aircraft they can support - the planes need to be navalised so they can survive short takes offs and landings. The selling point of an Pykrete ship was that you could land a heavy bomber, refuel it and have it take off again. You could have a few in the Atlantic and have bombers take off from the US, refuel on a Pykrete base mid Atlantic and arrive in the Europe or vice versa. Anti submarine aircraft could refuel on them and protect convoys from U boats. Fighters could refuel on them and protect them from bombers.
They're not so much carriers as floating islands. If bombed they could be repaired with seawater. However the side that had them would end up having air superiority over the whole Atlantic, so in the long run the Germans wouldn't have been able to get close enough to bomb them.
It's not as simple as that. Suppose I'd built some Mac software at the time I built my NT 4.0 binaries in 1997.
At that point I'd have been building a 32 bit 68K and PowerPC binary for MacOs 8.x.
For the first few releases of OS X my code could have run in the Classic Environment. That is no longer supported.
Then I'd have had to move to Carbon, which requires code changes.
Since then support for Carbon has been drooped so I'd need to move to Cocoa. More changes.
At some point I'd need to have moved from PowerPC to Intel. More changes.
And finally support for 32 bit binaries is being killed off, so I'd need more changes to get my code to build for 64 bit.
I.e. to keep my application running I'd have had to make at least four sets of changes.
Meanwhile with Windows I can run literally the same binary I compiled in 1997. It's Win32 x86 code. In fact a few of the things I wrote needed Admin rights. Since I wanted them to work in corporate environments where not everyone is Admin they actually work OK on a machine with UAC - they say you need Admin rights to run, so you run them from an Admin command prompt.
The GUI ones look at bit dated, but that's because Windows runs them with the old version of the Common Controls. If I added a manifest they'd look pretty modern. And of course running old code with an old version of the common controls is something MS do to increase the likelihood of it working.
Compare that to multiple changes of instruction set and API for an equivalent Apple utility. Plus of course there are lot more Windows machines than Macs. About 10x now and it was up to 20x in the past.
So for Mac you have to do more busy work because Apple keep killing off legacy features in return for a 10x smaller market. And you need to keep buying Macs to support the latest OS so you can run the latest development environment and do that busy work.
In fact the development environment has changed at least once in that time too.
Adobe Photoshop was aimed at Carbon. John Nack at Adobe explained why Photoshop wouldn't be 64 bit on Mac at the same time it was 64 bit on Windows
Basically Photoshop was a Carbon App. Apple had been telling Adobe that Carbon would be able to run 64 bit applications and but when they went to the WWDC they heard from the stage that Carbon 64 had been cancelled. In the comments you read a lot of people flaming Adobe for sticking to an old API but one comment that points out that moving a large application from CodeWarrior to XCode is not easy and you need to do that to port from Carbon to Cocoa -
This is one of the very few areas where I simply cannot fault Adobe management in any way. To the general public, and to younger Mac developers who jumped on board after the iPod, it may seem as though they've been dragging their feet all this time, but the reality is that Apple has hasn't expressed much interest in supporting the efforts of third-party developers since the NeXT buyout, and Adobe engineers had every reason to reject the grossly inferior tools they were being offered every step of the way.
First they killed CFM in favor of Mach-O; not because it made any sense at the time, but because Avie stood to profit from Mach-O's adoption. Remember how CFM had all that multi-ISA support in there? Wouldn't that have come in handy during the Intel transition? I personally thing it might have, but I'm not in a position to look at Rosetta's code and offer anything resembling an educated opinion--just uneducated speculation.
Then they gave Mike Ferris free reign over the amount of turd polish that would be applied to Proje
Yeah, I'm still irritated they replace the 2012 Macbook Pro which had a user replaceable battery, expandable Ram and storage with the current Macbook "Pros" which have soldered Ram, proprietary or soldered SSD and the newest models even have a Wifi card which is tied to the firmware.
In fact in the 2012 model you can actually have two SSDs - one in the main 2.5" storage bay and one to replace the optical drive. People have run two drives in Raid 0. Awesome!
Mine has an 1TB SSD and 16GB Ram. And it's a great machine. With the new ones I'd have to spend a fortune upping the Ram and storage at purchase time to get anything comparable. And it's not like Intel chips have got drastically faster since then. Plus the new slimline Macbooks have a low travel keyboard that I find very irritating to type on.
This sort of thing makes me think that Windows isn't all that bad.
But it does look like it can only be offset against vat charged to customers, so I guess these companies would simply have to buy from vat&sales tax-free regions like some areas in the US.
At least in the UK if you import stuff from outside the EU you need to pay VAT
Incidentally personal belongings usual don't count. The rules on this are a bit vague though - I've flown all over the place with a laptop and no one has demanded VAT or duty on it. It's rumoured that so long as you don't have the original box you're OK, but it's probably really up to whether customs catch you and whether they think it's a personal possession or something you intend to sell. It also seems like if you fly with something it's mostly ignored but if you post it will almost always get clobbered for VAT, duties and a handling fee from the shipper.
Now Iceland is in the EEA but not the EU. But I bet the EU impose EU VAT rules on them. Also arguably even a country that wasn't in the EU wouldn't allow people to avoid VAT by buying things abroad. I.e. I bet the UK keeps the same sort of rules on VAT from non EU countries to keep collecting VAT. And probably the same rules on VAT from EU countries too, because the UK doesn't want to have additional trade barriers for EU/UK trade.
I've always wondered what caused Apple to blacklist Nvidia and only use AMD GPUs. For a while it seemed like they were GPU vendor agnostic. Now it seems they'll only use AMD for discrete GPUs and only Intel CPUs/integrated GPUs, to the point where Intel are doing a device that has and Intel CPU and and AMD GPU on the same package. Which I'm sure is aimed at Apple.
Then again Intel apparently hates Nvidia even more than AMD.
I've always thought MS should do something like this
1) Initially unactivated Windows runs normally 2) After a while the screen develops a one pixel black border 3) The border gradually grows 4) When wide enough cockroach like bugs occasionally sneak in 5) When enough roaches are on screen they grab the mouse pointer or move icons on the desktop 6) However moving the mouse pointer will initially scare them off 7) Later on they lose their fear of the mouse pointer and brazenly walk on the main screen, not just the border. 8) At this stage you can still click on them and they will be destroyed with a squish animation. If you leave the machine locked when you unlock it you'll spend a minute battling bugs. 9) Windows will offer you "Microsoft insecticide" the price of which will be a Windows license
The reason I like it is because you'd go into shops in China and people would be frantically clicking to kill the bugs on their pirated Windows
That's another reason why companies like Razer don't like non Windows. Traditionally Microsoft have gone to great lengths to keep old third party software running. Of course that's not as true as it used to be. XP SP3 and Vista broke insecure software and the message from Microsoft since Windows 8 has been that the Win32/Win64 API is going away in the long run. Still I've got some binaries built with Visual Studio 6 on NT 4.0 which run fine on Windows 10. You could never do that with Mac software - they've made loads of breaking ABI changes.
Exactly. They exist to sell hardware to people willing to pay for overpriced stuff (i.e., gamers, the new audiophool). Practically all of them run Windows and knows nothing else, and they probably get their sales from people who see their boxes at Best Buy, go "ooh shiny" and whip out their credit card.
The interesting thing is Windows is free if you're a gamer. Either you buy a laptop and it comes with a Windows licence. Or you build a machine and just live with the unactivated version - the only limit is that you can't change the theme/color scheme/wallpaper from the control panel. Though you can right click on an image and set it as wallpaper. And you have a 'Activate Windows' watermark in the bottom right of the desktop. None of which is too bad
I guess MS are worried about SteamOS - people building $500 PCs might use SteamOS if Windows were $99 but they probably won't if they can get away with the unactivated version for free.
With the Trump-Russia collusion story all but debunked, the left has immediately turned to its next-stage scandal: they want President Trump locked up for "obstruction of justice." They base their claims of obstruction on the following chain of events: Trump hired National Security Advisor Michael Flynn against the advice of nearly everyone in the foreign policy community, fired him under questionable circumstances, then allegedly told FBI director James Comey he "hoped" Comey would find a way to let Flynn go, later fired Comey, and then finally told the Russian ambassador and foreign minister that he had fired Comey to relieve pressure over the Russia investigation.
This, in the minds of the left, means that Trump fired Comey in order to shut down the Flynn investigation after essentially ordering him to do so.
So, would that be "obstruction of justice," even if it were true?
Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School says no. Dershowitz says, "The president could have told Comey, you are commanded, directed, to drop the prosecution against Flynn. The president has the right to do that. Comey acknowledges that. He says in the statement that historically, historically presidents have done that to the Justice Department."
It is unquestionably true that Trump has the absolute right to fire his FBI director. And the old, Supreme Court-protected Independent Counsel Act was allowed to die a decade and a half ago; that Act could have granted an independent counsel freedom from presidential firing, but it no longer exists. As Dershowitz also points out, Trump has pardon power, so he could have just pardoned Flynn outright.
With that said, the counter case goes something like this: if Trump wanted to fire Comey for failing to comply with his desires, he could have. Instead, he threatened him. That amounts to obstruction.
But that case is weak on a legal level. There are three separate federal laws, as The New York Times points out, that could deal with this situation. None clearly does.
1. 18 USC 1503: This "omnibus" clause covers "corruptly or...by any threatening letter or communication influenc[ing], or imped[ing] or endeavor[ing[ to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice." But the clause also requires a pending judicial proceeding - and as far as we are all aware, there is none. Furthermore, the Supreme Court is quite exacting on the application of this law - a prosecutor would need to prove that Trump's conduct materially impeded the investigation, which even Comey has said didn't happen.
2. 18 USC 1512(c): This provision of law covers anyone who "obstructs, influences, or impedes an official proceeding, or attempts to do so." It is not clear that an FBI investigation is an "official proceeding," and proving intent is difficult in any case. And it's not enough to show intent to violate the subsection - you have to take a "substantial step toward the accomplishment of that goal."
3. 18 USC 1519: This provision covers destroying evidence related to a federal investigation. There are no accusations that Trump destroyed evidence. Unless Trump had tapes and destroyed them, the statue simply doesn't apply.
None of this is to argue that Congress can't impeach. Congress can impeach for anything and everything - impeachment is a political matter, not a legal one. And even if Trump's activity wasn't illegal, that doesn't mean it was moral. But all the amateur legal analysts claiming that an indictment is just around the corner simply don't know what they're talking about.
Ironically one person who could be prosecuted under 18 USC 1519 is Hillary Clinton. And 18 USC 1519 doesn't require a pending prosecution - destroying evidence to stop a future prosecution is criminal.
Sure they could assign someone to do LVFS contributions to do firmware updates for their USB devices, but I guess their priorities are elsewhere. It's not at all clear that significant numbers of people are not buying Razer USB devices because you can't update the firmware on Linux. I'm guessing some support engineer got the request, escalated it up to management and management said "No".
It's worth pointing out that when the CEO made his comments, the response here was less than enthusiastic
The Democrats won't lock up Trump for the same reason that the Republicans won't lock up Clinton.
Locking up failed POTUS tier politicians just because they've committed a crime would set a nasty precedent that neither party wants to set - the system would spiral down into one where politicians would all end up in prison at the end of the careers rather than giving speeches to Goldman Sachs for $300K a shot. Or, even worse from their perspective, one where elite politicians didn't act like they're completely above the law. The horror!
They're like two cats having a fight over who gets to fuck the female - they'll draw blood and maybe disable their opponent but they won't kill each other. The female in this analogy being you, the American voter.
But keep chanting 'Lock her/him up!' if it makes you feel empowered.
Democrats don't hold a candle to Republicans when it comes to increasing national debt. It's already been said, but it's worth noting that the last Republican to lower the deficit on average was Nixon, yet Clinton and Obama both managed it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup. Secure DLL search paths isn't that hard to implement.
Not everyone operates in the US tribal mindset where criticising Tribe A means you're automatically a member of Tribe B. Maybe both tribes have downsides.
I think China trying to deploy fission plants at the speed they're currently deploying coal is going to lead to Chernobyl type accidents.
Getting a net CO2 cut would basically require that China stop industrialising. If the Chinese government tried that, they'd be overthrown in a bloody revolution
https://photos.mongabay.com/09...
tl;dr - global CO2 emissions will continue to rise until China has a way to generate energy which is cheaper than coal and doesn't emit CO2.
Until then it doesn't matter what the US, UK and EU do. All of those having falling CO2 emissions, but there's no way they can fall fast enough to compensate for the enormous CO2 increases from China.
Having spent some time in LA and NYC honestly them being underwater isn't all bad. You'd be able to drive a speedboat to work from your home on a giant civilian version of an aircraft carrier to another giant ship. Or you could evolve into a Gill Man.
And NYC's elevation is 10m. So it will take 5000 years or so for it to be inundated. I think it's fair to assume that even with NYC's Gotham City levels of corruption, graft and incompetence government would be able to build 10m of sea wall. That's 1.9mm per year. Even 3mm per year - what the UK apparently uses when planning sea defences - shouldn't be a problem.
Qualcomm doesn't own big.LITTLE. The original implementation was by ARM. In fact Qualcomm stuck to having one Snapdragon core for both high performance and low power tasks until fairly late. E.g. the Galaxy S5 had two models. The Qualcomm Snapdragon one didn't do big.LITTLE/Heterogeneous Multi Processing.
https://www.cnet.com/news/the-...
For some Galaxy S5 models, Samsung will use the Exynos 5422, which also was announced at Mobile World Congress. The processor boasts eight ARM cores versus the four in the Snapdragon 801. Samsung has employed ARM technology that allows for four big cores that run at speeds up to 2.1GHz and four small cores for speeds up to 1.5GHz. When the phone requires heavy computing, all eight cores can run at the same time. The phone can also employ just one of the small cores for minor activities
And companies other than Qualcomm and ARM have patents on various implementations of big.LITTLE
https://patents.google.com/pat...
Also I'm sure Intel could do HMP. E.g. they could have a chip which has some Coffee Lake i5/i7 type 'big' cores and some Gemini Lake/Goldmont Plus Atom type 'little' ones. Sure there are patents but Intel have a patent portfolio of their own. They could just launch, and if they get sued agree on a cross licence.
NVidia sued Intel and got some cash but no x86 licence or the right to make chipsets for newer Intel CPUs.
https://www.anandtech.com/show...
And of course a hypothetical Intel chip with Coffee Lake/Gemini Lake might not work like big.LITTLE. On a big.LITTLE chip you can migrate threads from a big core to a little core quickly because they share the same registers. A Coffee Lake/Gemini Lake chip might not need to do that - you could have cores sharing an L3 cache but not much else and just relying on the OS to do the migration. And if you look at the Lenovo patent the patented thing is not 'having big and little cores on the same chip' but rather the way you decide whether a thread runs on the big or little core. Intel could invent their own scheme. Or just leave it to the OS.
Actually it's not a bad idea. The USP of Windows on ARM is 'better battery life'. Unfortunately that comes with Atom like performance. A Coffee Lake/Gemini Lake HMP design would offer the low power of an Atom when the system is idle but also the high power of a Coffee Lake when it is not. And you can have a whole bunch of Gemini Lake cores in the space taken up by a Coffee Lake one. So you might sacrifice 1-2 Coffee Lake and have 4-8 Gemini Lake in the same space.
If Intel can spend R&D on a package which has Coffee Lake and an AMD GPU on it which is basically just for Apple, I reckon they could spend R&D on a HMP chip to attack Qualcomm with.
Actually another option would be to dumb down the integrated graphics. I bet you could get away with just a frame buffer for most users who are just running a GUI and not doing an 3D. So gate all the 3D stuff with a Mosfet and make sure you can power it down.
Intel clearly cares about power consumption and battery life and Windows on ARM shows they've got some way to go to yet. HMP and more work on optimizing the power consumption of the integrated graphics solution in the lowest power/performance state is the way to go.
The debt is just the sum of all the deficits. And Clinton never run a surplus
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Clinton did not have a surplus of $230B in the year 2000 because he had to borrow $246.5 From numerous other off budget funds. Clinton NEVER ran a surplus during his 8 years in office, he just borrowed yearly from different budgets, (primarily the SS budget) to offset the general fund losses. In 2000 the following funds were borrowed which resulted in a $16.5 deficit.
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others
Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).
The last time the federal government ran a true suplus was 1969, the total surplus was $3.2B and before that was $1960, $.3 B
If you look here you can see the debt increased each year he was in office. Which means he ran a deficit
E.g. from
https://www.treasurydirect.gov...
and
https://www.treasurydirect.gov...
you get
Each year the debt increased because each year a deficit was run. Including 2000, Clinton's claimed 'surplus year'.
I had to ship it to a guy in NYC who replaced it with a later version of the same chip.
Was that Louis Rossman?
https://store.rossmanngroup.co...
However, nobody was really concerned about how hard they would be to sink, because there was no way to keep the Germans from sinking them if they found them
Actually the 'unsinkable' nature of pykrete ships was a selling point
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
When I had read their report, I advised my superiors to scrap our experiments with pure ice and set up a laboratory for the manufacture and testing of reinforced ice. Combined Operations requisitioned a large meat store five floors underground beneath Smithfield Market, which lies within sight of St. Paul's Cathedral, and ordered some electrically heated suits, of the type issued to airmen, to keep us warm at less than 0 degree C (32 degree F) temperatures. They detailed some young commandos to work as my technicians, and I invited Kenneth Pascoe, who was then a physics student and later became a lecturer in engineering at Cambridge, to come and help me. We built a big wind tunnel to freeze the mush of wet wood pulp, and sawed the reinforced ice into blocks. Our tests soon confirmed Mark and Hohenstein's results. Blocks of ice containing as little as four percent wood pulp were weight for weight as strong as concrete; in honor of the originator of the project, we called this reinforced ice "pykrete". When we fired a rifle bullet into an upright block of pure ice two feet square and one foot thick, the block shattered; in pykrete the bullet made a little crater and was embedded without doing any damage. My stock rose, but no one would tell me what pykrete was needed for, except that it was for Project Habakkuk.
* I Wish I'd Made You Angry Earlier, Perutz, Max
A good deal of consideration, much of it highly technical, was also given to the feasibility of building floating platforms which could either be used by fighters to support opposed landings until such time as airfields ashore were available, or act as staging points for ferrying aircraft over long distances. The idea as originally conceived by a member of Combined Operations staff, and vehemently supported by Mountbatten, was that these floating platforms should be constructed out of icebergs. They would be provided with engines which would enable them to steam at slow speed, and with refrigeration plants to prevent them melting. They would be unsinkable. The whole thing seemed completely fantastic, but the idea was not abandoned without a great deal of investigation. Various alternative methods of construction were then considered by the United States naval authorities, but in the end there was general agreement that carriers and auxiliary carriers would serve the same purpose more effectively."
* The Memoirs of Lord Ismay, Ismay, General Lord
The other intriguing property was that they could be made so large that conventional bombers could land, refuel and take off from them. Even now aircraft carriers have very strict limits on what aircraft they can support - the planes need to be navalised so they can survive short takes offs and landings. The selling point of an Pykrete ship was that you could land a heavy bomber, refuel it and have it take off again. You could have a few in the Atlantic and have bombers take off from the US, refuel on a Pykrete base mid Atlantic and arrive in the Europe or vice versa. Anti submarine aircraft could refuel on them and protect convoys from U boats. Fighters could refuel on them and protect them from bombers.
They're not so much carriers as floating islands. If bombed they could be repaired with seawater. However the side that had them would end up having air superiority over the whole Atlantic, so in the long run the Germans wouldn't have been able to get close enough to bomb them.
It's not as simple as that. Suppose I'd built some Mac software at the time I built my NT 4.0 binaries in 1997.
At that point I'd have been building a 32 bit 68K and PowerPC binary for MacOs 8.x.
For the first few releases of OS X my code could have run in the Classic Environment. That is no longer supported.
Then I'd have had to move to Carbon, which requires code changes.
Since then support for Carbon has been drooped so I'd need to move to Cocoa. More changes.
At some point I'd need to have moved from PowerPC to Intel. More changes.
And finally support for 32 bit binaries is being killed off, so I'd need more changes to get my code to build for 64 bit.
I.e. to keep my application running I'd have had to make at least four sets of changes.
Meanwhile with Windows I can run literally the same binary I compiled in 1997. It's Win32 x86 code. In fact a few of the things I wrote needed Admin rights. Since I wanted them to work in corporate environments where not everyone is Admin they actually work OK on a machine with UAC - they say you need Admin rights to run, so you run them from an Admin command prompt.
The GUI ones look at bit dated, but that's because Windows runs them with the old version of the Common Controls. If I added a manifest they'd look pretty modern. And of course running old code with an old version of the common controls is something MS do to increase the likelihood of it working.
Compare that to multiple changes of instruction set and API for an equivalent Apple utility. Plus of course there are lot more Windows machines than Macs. About 10x now and it was up to 20x in the past.
https://www.netmarketshare.com...
So for Mac you have to do more busy work because Apple keep killing off legacy features in return for a 10x smaller market. And you need to keep buying Macs to support the latest OS so you can run the latest development environment and do that busy work.
In fact the development environment has changed at least once in that time too.
Adobe Photoshop was aimed at Carbon. John Nack at Adobe explained why Photoshop wouldn't be 64 bit on Mac at the same time it was 64 bit on Windows
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
Basically Photoshop was a Carbon App. Apple had been telling Adobe that Carbon would be able to run 64 bit applications and but when they went to the WWDC they heard from the stage that Carbon 64 had been cancelled. In the comments you read a lot of people flaming Adobe for sticking to an old API but one comment that points out that moving a large application from CodeWarrior to XCode is not easy and you need to do that to port from Carbon to Cocoa -
This is one of the very few areas where I simply cannot fault Adobe management in any way. To the general public, and to younger Mac developers who jumped on board after the iPod, it may seem as though they've been dragging their feet all this time, but the reality is that Apple has hasn't expressed much interest in supporting the efforts of third-party developers since the NeXT buyout, and Adobe engineers had every reason to reject the grossly inferior tools they were being offered every step of the way.
First they killed CFM in favor of Mach-O; not because it made any sense at the time, but because Avie stood to profit from Mach-O's adoption. Remember how CFM had all that multi-ISA support in there? Wouldn't that have come in handy during the Intel transition? I personally thing it might have, but I'm not in a position to look at Rosetta's code and offer anything resembling an educated opinion--just uneducated speculation.
Then they gave Mike Ferris free reign over the amount of turd polish that would be applied to Proje
Yeah, I'm still irritated they replace the 2012 Macbook Pro which had a user replaceable battery, expandable Ram and storage with the current Macbook "Pros" which have soldered Ram, proprietary or soldered SSD and the newest models even have a Wifi card which is tied to the firmware.
In fact in the 2012 model you can actually have two SSDs - one in the main 2.5" storage bay and one to replace the optical drive. People have run two drives in Raid 0. Awesome!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Mine has an 1TB SSD and 16GB Ram. And it's a great machine. With the new ones I'd have to spend a fortune upping the Ram and storage at purchase time to get anything comparable. And it's not like Intel chips have got drastically faster since then. Plus the new slimline Macbooks have a low travel keyboard that I find very irritating to type on.
This sort of thing makes me think that Windows isn't all that bad.
But it does look like it can only be offset against vat charged to customers, so I guess these companies would simply have to buy from vat&sales tax-free regions like some areas in the US.
At least in the UK if you import stuff from outside the EU you need to pay VAT
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/va...
If there's customs duty (tariff) you'd have to pay that too
https://www.gov.uk/goods-sent-...
It's the same in other EU countries
https://travel.stackexchange.c...
Incidentally personal belongings usual don't count. The rules on this are a bit vague though - I've flown all over the place with a laptop and no one has demanded VAT or duty on it. It's rumoured that so long as you don't have the original box you're OK, but it's probably really up to whether customs catch you and whether they think it's a personal possession or something you intend to sell. It also seems like if you fly with something it's mostly ignored but if you post it will almost always get clobbered for VAT, duties and a handling fee from the shipper.
Now Iceland is in the EEA but not the EU. But I bet the EU impose EU VAT rules on them. Also arguably even a country that wasn't in the EU wouldn't allow people to avoid VAT by buying things abroad. I.e. I bet the UK keeps the same sort of rules on VAT from non EU countries to keep collecting VAT. And probably the same rules on VAT from EU countries too, because the UK doesn't want to have additional trade barriers for EU/UK trade.
I've always wondered what caused Apple to blacklist Nvidia and only use AMD GPUs. For a while it seemed like they were GPU vendor agnostic. Now it seems they'll only use AMD for discrete GPUs and only Intel CPUs/integrated GPUs, to the point where Intel are doing a device that has and Intel CPU and and AMD GPU on the same package. Which I'm sure is aimed at Apple.
Then again Intel apparently hates Nvidia even more than AMD.
I've always thought MS should do something like this
1) Initially unactivated Windows runs normally
2) After a while the screen develops a one pixel black border
3) The border gradually grows
4) When wide enough cockroach like bugs occasionally sneak in
5) When enough roaches are on screen they grab the mouse pointer or move icons on the desktop
6) However moving the mouse pointer will initially scare them off
7) Later on they lose their fear of the mouse pointer and brazenly walk on the main screen, not just the border.
8) At this stage you can still click on them and they will be destroyed with a squish animation. If you leave the machine locked when you unlock it you'll spend a minute battling bugs.
9) Windows will offer you "Microsoft insecticide" the price of which will be a Windows license
The reason I like it is because you'd go into shops in China and people would be frantically clicking to kill the bugs on their pirated Windows
That's another reason why companies like Razer don't like non Windows. Traditionally Microsoft have gone to great lengths to keep old third party software running. Of course that's not as true as it used to be. XP SP3 and Vista broke insecure software and the message from Microsoft since Windows 8 has been that the Win32/Win64 API is going away in the long run. Still I've got some binaries built with Visual Studio 6 on NT 4.0 which run fine on Windows 10. You could never do that with Mac software - they've made loads of breaking ABI changes.
Exactly. They exist to sell hardware to people willing to pay for overpriced stuff (i.e., gamers, the new audiophool). Practically all of them run Windows and knows nothing else, and they probably get their sales from people who see their boxes at Best Buy, go "ooh shiny" and whip out their credit card.
The interesting thing is Windows is free if you're a gamer. Either you buy a laptop and it comes with a Windows licence. Or you build a machine and just live with the unactivated version - the only limit is that you can't change the theme/color scheme/wallpaper from the control panel. Though you can right click on an image and set it as wallpaper. And you have a 'Activate Windows' watermark in the bottom right of the desktop. None of which is too bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I guess MS are worried about SteamOS - people building $500 PCs might use SteamOS if Windows were $99 but they probably won't if they can get away with the unactivated version for free.
It doesn't surprise me at all. PC Gaming is basically a Windows thing. Razer know that.
Why are you anti Trump AC trolls so obsessed with homosexuality and obesity?
If they're dual booting, can't then run the firmware update in Windows?
If I were a manager at Razer trying to work out whether to assign an engineer to do LVFS submissions, I'm sure that argument would occur to me.
It's not obstruction unless there is a pending judicial proceeding
https://www.dailywire.com/news...
With the Trump-Russia collusion story all but debunked, the left has immediately turned to its next-stage scandal: they want President Trump locked up for "obstruction of justice." They base their claims of obstruction on the following chain of events: Trump hired National Security Advisor Michael Flynn against the advice of nearly everyone in the foreign policy community, fired him under questionable circumstances, then allegedly told FBI director James Comey he "hoped" Comey would find a way to let Flynn go, later fired Comey, and then finally told the Russian ambassador and foreign minister that he had fired Comey to relieve pressure over the Russia investigation.
This, in the minds of the left, means that Trump fired Comey in order to shut down the Flynn investigation after essentially ordering him to do so.
So, would that be "obstruction of justice," even if it were true?
Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School says no. Dershowitz says, "The president could have told Comey, you are commanded, directed, to drop the prosecution against Flynn. The president has the right to do that. Comey acknowledges that. He says in the statement that historically, historically presidents have done that to the Justice Department."
It is unquestionably true that Trump has the absolute right to fire his FBI director. And the old, Supreme Court-protected Independent Counsel Act was allowed to die a decade and a half ago; that Act could have granted an independent counsel freedom from presidential firing, but it no longer exists. As Dershowitz also points out, Trump has pardon power, so he could have just pardoned Flynn outright.
With that said, the counter case goes something like this: if Trump wanted to fire Comey for failing to comply with his desires, he could have. Instead, he threatened him. That amounts to obstruction.
But that case is weak on a legal level. There are three separate federal laws, as The New York Times points out, that could deal with this situation. None clearly does.
1. 18 USC 1503: This "omnibus" clause covers "corruptly or...by any threatening letter or communication influenc[ing], or imped[ing] or endeavor[ing[ to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice." But the clause also requires a pending judicial proceeding - and as far as we are all aware, there is none. Furthermore, the Supreme Court is quite exacting on the application of this law - a prosecutor would need to prove that Trump's conduct materially impeded the investigation, which even Comey has said didn't happen.
2. 18 USC 1512(c): This provision of law covers anyone who "obstructs, influences, or impedes an official proceeding, or attempts to do so." It is not clear that an FBI investigation is an "official proceeding," and proving intent is difficult in any case. And it's not enough to show intent to violate the subsection - you have to take a "substantial step toward the accomplishment of that goal."
3. 18 USC 1519: This provision covers destroying evidence related to a federal investigation. There are no accusations that Trump destroyed evidence. Unless Trump had tapes and destroyed them, the statue simply doesn't apply.
None of this is to argue that Congress can't impeach. Congress can impeach for anything and everything - impeachment is a political matter, not a legal one. And even if Trump's activity wasn't illegal, that doesn't mean it was moral. But all the amateur legal analysts claiming that an indictment is just around the corner simply don't know what they're talking about.
Ironically one person who could be prosecuted under 18 USC 1519 is Hillary Clinton. And 18 USC 1519 doesn't require a pending prosecution - destroying evidence to stop a future prosecution is criminal.
In WWII there was a plan to make enormous aircraft carriers out of Pykrete, a mix of wood pulp and ice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If they're making expensive laptops to play games, are Linux users their intended market?
Also referencing "Meltdown and Spectre" is a bit bogus. Intel CPUs have a firmware update facility but that's already supported.
https://downloadcenter.intel.c...
And the kernel already does KPTI.
Sure they could assign someone to do LVFS contributions to do firmware updates for their USB devices, but I guess their priorities are elsewhere. It's not at all clear that significant numbers of people are not buying Razer USB devices because you can't update the firmware on Linux. I'm guessing some support engineer got the request, escalated it up to management and management said "No".
It's worth pointing out that when the CEO made his comments, the response here was less than enthusiastic
https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
Pyramid schemes expand, and then collapse entirely.
Bitcoin has expanded and shrunk by large percentages around a dozen times so far, and each time, it comes back stronger than before.
Not the behavior of a pyramid scheme.
This sure looks like a pyramid scheme that grew exponentially until around 18th December 2018 and has fallen ever since then.
https://coinmarketcap.com/curr...
https://i.imgur.com/tIRjZll.pn...
The Democrats won't lock up Trump for the same reason that the Republicans won't lock up Clinton.
Locking up failed POTUS tier politicians just because they've committed a crime would set a nasty precedent that neither party wants to set - the system would spiral down into one where politicians would all end up in prison at the end of the careers rather than giving speeches to Goldman Sachs for $300K a shot. Or, even worse from their perspective, one where elite politicians didn't act like they're completely above the law. The horror!
They're like two cats having a fight over who gets to fuck the female - they'll draw blood and maybe disable their opponent but they won't kill each other. The female in this analogy being you, the American voter.
But keep chanting 'Lock her/him up!' if it makes you feel empowered.
Democrats don't hold a candle to Republicans when it comes to increasing national debt. It's already been said, but it's worth noting that the last Republican to lower the deficit on average was Nixon, yet Clinton and Obama both managed it.
Each one of those increased the debt
https://www.thebalance.com/us-...
Barack Obama: Added $7.917 trillion, a 68 percent increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of George W. Bushâ(TM)s last budget, FY 2009.
Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32 percent increase from the $4.4 trillion debt at the end of George H.W. Bush's last budget, FY 1993.
Richard Nixon: Added $121 billion, a 34 percent increase from the $354 billion debt at the end of LBJ's last budget, FY 1969.
And if you don't trust that, you can check the figures here
https://www.treasurydirect.gov...
and
https://www.treasurydirect.gov...
E.g. Nixon you subtract 1974's debt from 1969's. I.e. $475B - $353B = $121B
For Clinton you subtract 2001's debt from 1993's, i.e. $5.807T - $4.411T = 1.396T