Comment Re: 8GB is only to claim lower starting price... (Score 1) 361
There are also PCIe busses (Thunderbolt) for large SSD arrays and entire companies specializing in such addons. For most people this is not a problem.
There are also PCIe busses (Thunderbolt) for large SSD arrays and entire companies specializing in such addons. For most people this is not a problem.
There is virtually no software that is Mac exclusive. If you can find it on Linux, you can likely run it on Mac and most big Windows packages (Office, Adobe etc) run there as well so it is the best of both worlds.
Youâ(TM)re comparing workstation grade SSD with consumer grade. 2TB Kioxia CM7-R (their lower end PCIe TLC) is $1546 on a discount site.
There is a technical reason for integrating the RAM into the CPU package. Having it very close coupled does allow for very tight timing.
Dude you're seriously fucking bonkers if you believe that provides any material benefit at all. The absolute best it can do is add a very miniscule amount of energy efficiency, but we're talking on the scale of adding less than one second to a ten hour battery life.
Putting the ram on the package means both making everything cheaper and smaller. Having equal length traces between modern CPUs and memory is not feasible so you also have to add latency to compensate. Apple probably gets a measurable performance boost this way, but making the system cheaper and smaller certainly matters more.
None of that excuses selling such a low-memory configuration at all, or the prices Apple charges for versions with larger storage, let alone having soldered storage. Ram on package makes sense, it saves space and significant money. SSD soldered makes little sense, it saves almost no space or money. The soldered SSD is on the same kind of bus it would be on if it weren't soldered!
I'm not necessarily going to defend this protest, but criticism of Israel is hardly some "woke Commie" position (whatever the hell that even means). One can sincerely believe Israel's actions against Palestinians is unjust, without, say, wanting state control of the economy.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It's been protected since 1791.
I expect that general anxiety about anti-Semitism is driving this. Like it or not, condemnation of Israel comes with certain baggage, and as can be seen on campuses throughout the Western world, criticism of Israel can turn into anti-Zionism which then turns into anti-Semitism very quickly. The lines are very thin. The business world is very risk averse, and coming down on the wrong side of this particular debate can have a whole lot of consequences. Beyond that, of course, Alphabet is a business, not a society for activists, and while it may tolerate certain kinds of activism that may not be perceived as threatening the bottom line, right now, criticism of Israel is just a step too far.
It is retaliation in English, but it is not retaliation in legalese.
And only the latter matters when it comes to having something done about a firing.
I had an employer who did not pay the wages legally required by the state. The state was unwilling to do anything about my wage claim. Although what he did was technically grand theft (here in California, wage theft over a certain amount is now legally grand theft) they had no interest in prosecuting. This is why wage theft exceeds all other theft combined, it is not at all enforced. District Attorneys across the nation are not willing to do their jobs and prosecute. But once we got to my retaliation complaint things got a lot more serious and I was able to secure a settlement.
If I see you for defamation because you claimed I was a thief, that is indeed retaliation.
I think most people are just offended by the almost automatic arrest of someone who acts in self defence. But this is really a procedural matter - it might seem really obvious that the person was acting in self defence, but the police cannot just make that assumption at the outset, especially in serious cases involving a death.
It's also a side effect of the creeping ideological position that if you are arrested you're probably guilty, and hence there is no reason to fund decent remand prisons, legal aid, and a justice system that can resolve cases in a timely manner. That attitude's all fine until someone who is probably a victim gets sucked into the justice system and it becomes apparent how your punishment begins long before you ever make it to trial.
The most straightforward approach to safeguarding homeowners and discouraging criminals involves asserting that while a burglar remains on your property, you bear no responsibility for any harm that befalls them. Eliminate the self-defense prerequisite if the intruder is injured or killed after unlawfully entering your premises. In such harrowing circumstances, where adrenaline surges and panic sets in, homeowners find themselves at a disadvantage when it comes to protecting their homes and families. The law as stated seems to be designed to protect the criminal.
LoL, no.
the most straightforward approach to safeguarding homes and persons is to have a society where people aren't forced into crime due to systemic poverty. Amazing isn't it, prevention always works better than cure.
Castle doctrine only results in it being abused as murders aren't investigated so you can literally get away with murder by making sure it occurs on your own property. This is the kind of law that favours the criminal by giving them carte blanche
I think most people are just offended by the almost automatic arrest of someone who acts in self defence. But this is really a procedural matter - it might seem really obvious that the person was acting in self defence, but the police cannot just make that assumption at the outset, especially in serious cases involving a death.
It's also a side effect of the creeping ideological position that if you are arrested you're probably guilty, and hence there is no reason to fund decent remand prisons, legal aid, and a justice system that can resolve cases in a timely manner. That attitude's all fine until someone who is probably a victim gets sucked into the justice system and it becomes apparent how your punishment begins long before you ever make it to trial.
As a UK resident trained in self defence, being arrested as a matter of procedure is a good thing and were I ever in a situation where I had to defend myself I'd happily go along with it. Being "arrested" is a bit of a misnomer because it conjures up images of being dragged off in chains by a sneering bobby where as in reality it's more of a "Sir, we need you to come to the station with us to make an official statement". Being arrested does not mean you're automatically charged with anything, when you stop reading the Daily Mail you'll quickly find out that most people aren't even charged because the self defence, defence is so bleeding obvious it's just not worth anyone's time.
There are two main reasons and one minor one why I'd completely co-operate with the Rozzers if I ever had to violently defend myself.
1. I'll be pretty badly shaken up and you'd be completely retarded if you weren't. I'd likely have a minor injury as well. Cops in the UK will have someone at the station trained to help you or at the very least offer you a cup of tea.
2. It lets me get my story straight (as an act of self defence) from the very start and very much on the record. If it ever goes to court, this is a huge advantage for anyone claiming self defence. Conversely if I didn't co-operate with the police it would look quite bad in the eyes of a judge or possibly even a jury.
And the minor one.
3. Whoever I beat up or harm might come back with a few mates looking for payback, I'd rather not be there if they do.
The actual law on self defence in the United Kingdom is considerably less alarmist than the tabloids would have you believe. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence-and-prevention-crime. The other big misconception is "reasonable force == no more force than absolutely necessary" where as in reality the law understands that under such a stressful situation people cannot be relied upon to know exactly how much force to apply, so there's a lot of leeway, the excessive force clause is only there for things that are very, very egregious (I.E. striking them a few times unnecessarily is not considered excessive, taking them outside for a curbstomp is). Generally the only "gotcha" is if the perp is trying to escape, let them. Don't chase after them. If you do then it's two counts of assault and you only get to claim self defence for one.
modular ram performs worse than on die memory? how so?
Because of interconnects. Are you new? Apple has even claimed themselves that putting the RAM in the same package improves performance. Here are the claims distilled by some iFanboys.
Sorry, but the article is about East Jerusalem. What Palestinian village or town was demolished to make way for this construction?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/w...
The Hamas terrorists entered Israel and butchered and raped innocent civilians living on land internationally recognized as 100% Israeli. Enough with the lies!
By all means, enough with the lies.
The last 200 years of capitalism is trickle-down in action
Yes, it is. Homelessness has been rising over that time. Very capitalism, much progress.
BLISS is ignorance.
