Something is a good idea for everyone?
Can't have that! We'll just put it in as a special carve-out for some group that people can't say NO to - such as teachers, firemen, police, etc. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES do it for the average citizen on an equal and equitable basis.
. . .
Always ALWAYS vote against carve-outs. All you are doing is ensuring the general public doesn't get whatever it is.
The Hugos used to be pretty useful to pick out things I would like. Now they are a better indicator of things I won't. I purchase and read accordingly.
"the molecules freeze regardless of the temperature"
Criminy, it isn't actually a bad statement.
They're referring to upfront cost of course, as you are are aware.
However it IS common to compare the cheapest bulb you can get when comparing prices, but compare the manufacturer claimed life expectancy improvements from high end bulbs.
The cheap POS LEDs do NOT last 5x longer. I wouldn't even give them 2x.
The higher quality LED bulbs are great, but make the cost analysis closer (and of course 5x is still BS)
And I say this as someone with a handful of incandescent still burning, no remaining CFLs (hated them so much...) and almost entirely LEDs at this point.
LEDs are the better direction but it's not as overwhelming an analysis as it is made out to be. Particularly as they have significantly more efficient incandescents that became available once that sluggish industry realized it was being regulated out of existence and tried to adjust (too late). Comparisons are of course not done against the more efficient incandescent bulbs. LED still wins those comparisons, but the story is again reduced when this is done.
You will not, and will not allow any third party to (i) use, copy, distribute, sell or offer to sell the Software or associated documentation; (ii) modify, adapt, enhance, disassemble, decompile, reverse engineer, change or create derivative works from the Software except and only to the extent as specifically required by mandatory applicable laws or any applicable third party license terms accompanying the Software; (iii) use or make the Software available for the use or benefit of third parties; or (iv) use the Software on Your products other than those that include the Intel hardware product(s), platform(s), or software identified in the Software; or (v) publish or provide any Software benchmark or comparison test results.
The security fixes are known to significantly slow down Intel processors, which won’t just disappoint customers and reduce the public regard of Intel, it will probably lead to lawsuits (if it hasn’t already). Suddenly having processors that are perhaps 5% to 10% slower, if they are to be secure, is a significant damage to many companies that run server farms or provide cloud services. I’m not blaming Intel for this, I don’t know if Intel could have forseen the problem. Since wome similar exploits have been discovered for AMD and ARM CPUs, the answer could be “no”. But certainly customers are upset.
Another issue is whether the customer should install the fix at all. Many computer users don’t allow outside or unprivileged users to run on their CPUs the way a cloud or hosting company does. For them, these side-channel and timing attacks are mostly irrelevant, and the slowdown incurred by installing the fix is unnecessary.
So, lots of people are interested in the speed penalty incurred in the microcode fixes, and Intel has now attempted to gag anyone who would collect information for reporting about those penalties, through a restriction in their license. Bad move. The correct way to handle security problems is to own up to the damage, publish mitigations, and make it possible for your customers to get along. Hiding how they are damaged is unacceptable. Silencing free speech by those who would merely publish benchmarks? Bad business. Customers can’t trust your components when you do that.
The President is a special case and everyone with two connected brain cells is aware of that. Kick him off and a third of the country follows him someplace that doesn't censor opinions, like GAB.AI. That's about the most insanely stupid thing Twitter could possibly do. They have no significant competition now, why would they go and create competition by fiat?
The second Twitter makes the calculation that it won't hurt them significantly, rest assured Trump will be shown the exit.
If you must buy a Pixel, don't get one from Google's Project FI
I have five phones from Google (2 nexus, 3 pixel) and was one of their biggest fanbois, primarily because they put out crapware free phones.
I currently have two broken FI pixels (broken hardware) and one working one. (along with a couple of Nexus phones).
Still paying on the three pixels, all are under the (extra cost/month) hardware assurance plan.
I can't get them fixed despite paying the extra hardware assurance simply because i put a TMO sim in them instead of a FI sim (doesn't void warranty or anything, just doesn't register in their system then, and they can't get past that). I eventually wound up purchasing lower end Samsungs just so the kids had phones and have largely given up fighting with them over this.
I'm done with FI, and likely done with Google's hardware as well. At least if i buy cheap off brands i know better than to expect actual resolution to issues.
This would ring truer if the arguments against GMOs were more cogent
It is however using the usual hyperbolic reason-free alarmism playbook that works well enough on joe six pack and jane soccer mom and leads to so many other human catastrophes (Nuclear Power and Vaccines come to mind as examples)
Agreed. Pull the reactors. Check for residual radioactivity and remediate as needed.
Then find a nice spot for a reef and let the navy have some target practice.
Now what to do with those pesky spent reactors?
Do these cows need nicotine patches if they aren't deployed for a while?
"No matter where you go, there you are..." -- Buckaroo Banzai
