It would have been a love letter and a great act of goodwill towards the PlayStation enthusiast community if Sony allowed running Linux on it again.

I own one, but I use it only as a media player.

You're setting up an irrelevant argument with the 0-100F. For one, in places like Canada or Siberia, -30C is considered an unpleasant but still livable temperature. On the other hand, in central Texas, the temperatures hit 110F on daily basis during the hottest time of Summer. The Celsius system makes a lot sense to me. 0 is the freezing point, 100C is the boiling point at sea level. The extremes observed between places like Siberia and deserts are somewhere at -45C and 45C, add or subtract.

You don't have to do it all at once together. How about for start to switch default food labeling from imperial to metric? I know both measures are usually present, but right now metric is treated as a second class citizen. For example, the metric print is often small and the supermarkets often add to the price label the price per oz of food, but not say the price per 100grams.

Run a Cat 6 cable into every bedroom, office, and living room. Nothing beats GigE, not even close, despite of several years of "gigabit Wireless AC" and the new "gigabit powerline" tech, the truth is that under a typical real life scenario those give you at best maybe twice the speed of 100Mbpbs Ethernet.

You can get something like this from HP. And HP Envy is available with AMD FX APUs. Changing the screen to 1080p is a $50 option, and you still should end up with under $600 laptop. Personally though, I would prefer to configure a laptop with a mobile Intel Core i5 and a $50 optional dedicated GPU. This combo may cost $100 more, but will slaughter AMD system in every respect.

You should also take AMD's claims with a grain of salt. I recall the disappointment that was the Kaveri parts once they hit the test labs, and with Kaveri, AMD really made a "paper release" of the mobile units, with a long lag of something like a year before people saw Kaveri laptops.

Listening to some Western pundits and analysts about their ideas about what NATO could do to help Ukrainians fight Russian aggression is hilarious. First of all, I don't think it will help to train Ukrainian Army or give them more weapons. Russia will then up its game, give more weapons to the rebels, send more instructors, send regular troops in, if necessary. Putin has already proved in 2008 and 2014 that he will go all the way, as far as necessary to protect Russian interests.

But the most damning reason not to arm Ukrainians is that Ukraine does not have the human resource for this war. The Ukrainian maximalist nationalist youths, the kind who were bused to Kiev to stage the quasi-violent coup there and who are willing to volunteer to fight in the East are few and far in between. Those come from the West Ukraine, the part Stalin took away from Poland and it was historically a hotbed of Ukrainian nationalist. The rest of Ukraine has a mixed Ukrainian-Russian speaking population, with significantly less radical anti-Russian views. The fact that Ukraine is facing a problem with human resources is underscored by the fact that they're increasingly recruiting conscripts and recalling reservists from the more pro-Russian regions of South East Ukraine. I wouldn't estimate the morale of those troops to be very high. Even after being properly dressed, trained, and fed (the necessities Ukrainian troops often don't get), facing the prospect of Russian on Russian violence, many will shirk, surrender, etc.

I am sorry but this "take it or leave it" idea to asking Russians to become "Ukrainian or leave" sounds like some kind of a twisted neo-nazi ethnic cleansing idea. It goes beyond the modern European norms of human rights of minorities. And it really cracks me up when Ukrainian or say Estonian nationalists love to say that they share European liberal-democratic values, but are also quick to judge and treat their Russian minority as some kind of "fifth column", people of second rank, while also rehabilitating their nazi-collaborating, Jew-killing nationalist ancestors of WWII era, who were considered traitors under USSR.

And what did Ukraine's Russians do to deserve such "solution"? For one, they're living on their historic homeland of many hundreds years. They're not a "fifth column" like some Russia-haters want to believe. The South East Ukraine was conquered by the Russian empire from Crimean Turks in 18th century, not from Ukrainians (in fact term Ukraine as geographic designation didn't become common until late 19th century). At the time of conquest, it was an empty land as it was the policy of Crimean Turks to keep it empty and use it as free a path to raiding lands in the north for obtaining slaves and loot to be sold into Ottoman Empire. Both Russians and Ukrainians settled it in 18-19th century, and then the Russian Empire and USSR spent a lot of effort on building up and industrializing that area. The area was historically called "New Russia" before the revolution, but by some bizarre twist of history, the early day Soviet Communist, and Lenin in particular, decided to roll former "New Russia" into Ukraine SSR jurisdiction, that that's how it's now part of independent Ukraine.

But anyways, regardless of what the history was, the human rights and the right to self determination should always be respected. So in particular Ukraine's minorities, or any other country, should have a right to cultural autonomy if not outright political one.

Please. It's quite disingenuous to say that NATO is not an anti-Russian alliance, just like it is disingenuous to say that NATO's missile defense system in Poland or elsewhere in Europe is meant to protect NATO allies from Iranian missiles. To say "you're not our enemy, but we surround you with our bases just in case if 200 years later things change" is as aggressive and expansionist as it gets. By expanding into and militarizing East Europe NATO is doing the same thing that USSR did after WWII. NATO indeed swept in and gobbled up all of east Europe as fast as it could. Less than 10 years after dissolution of USSR, pretty much every east European country a NATO member.

After dissolution of USSR, East European countries like Poland or Estonia were certainly free to choose within which sphere of influence they exist based on economic ties (e.g. joining EU), but without having to enter any military alliances at all. Russia did not bully or extort any of its neighbors, not until after USA-backed coups in Georgia in Ukraine in 2003-2004, when GWB and his neo-con friends started talking about NATO and EU membership for those countries. It's specially ridiculous to try to invite a country like Ukraine into NATO, a country with a huge Russian-speaking population, and many lands that Russians consider parts of their cultural heritage (the historic states of "Kievan Rus", regions like "New Russia" and "Little Russia", Crimea, etc)

The "future" war you speak about will never happen. But there have been many conflicts in post-soviet space, where tanks and armor have proven to be both useful. It always cracks me up when there is a discussion about a new tank, there are "internet experts" who proclaim that tanks are obsolete. Well, who is going to pick the fight with the USA? Probably no one, but in all other conflicts, the tanks can be damn useful, and that's why Russia and even Ukraine sold heaps of them. In fact, even conventional tank-vs-tank battles do not happen that often, what we see is many asymmetrical conflict, where one of the sides does not have much armor, but a good quantity of anti-tank weapons. In such setting, the current generation of Soviet-derived tanks have often experienced horrendous loss, just enough to look at Syria or Ukraine wars. So the new Russian tank is probably meant far more to address such settings than a mythical abrams vs other tank conflicts.

I am not sure why you consider me Russian but ok. Russia wants to gobble up Ukraine not for profits, but to prevent NATO expansion into it. You have to first admit that this whole mess and the conflict between the West and Russia is a direct result of relentless and aggressive NATO expansion. There was a handshake agreement when USSR withdrew that NATO will not go beyond Germany. NATO gobbled up all of east Europe, some post-Soviet states, and now wants Ukraine and Georgia. The Ukrainian coup was sponsored and supported diplomatically and politically by USA, down to USA diplomats delivering sandwiches to the protesters in Kiev's Maidan (not just this time, but also in 2004). Russia had to say enough is enough at some point, so they did in 2008 and 2014. Want to end this conflict? The west has to tell Ukraine firmly that it can not join NATO, and that Ukrainian nationalists should tone down their maximalist rhetoric and demands. The American involvement simply adds more fire to this conflict, and is also the cause of this conflict.

I wouldn't disagree that any territorial re-partitions should have happened peacefully. Russia should not have annexed Crimea and invaded other parts. But honestly, I also think decades of inept Ukrainian governance and occasional comical rule by west Ukrainian nationalists have precipitated this conflict. Ukraine from day one should have adopted the "Swiss model", by acknowledging that it is an ethnic multilingual state, allowing each region to have a second official language in addition to Ukrainian, as well as elements of self rule (e.g. letting people elect their regional governors). But whenever, nationalists were in power, they always wanted to antagonize russian-speakers one way or another. Now as a result, Russia bluntly took advantage of the situation.

I have very much a cynical view of both. Ukraine is just as corrupt as Russia. They have their own "oligarch" quasi-criminal class, pretty much merged with the government elites, and a strong unitary government, that's no more democratic than Russian. Journalists, businessmen, and politicians are and have always been murdered in Ukraine just as frequently, if no more frequently, than in Russia. Perhaps, the only difference is that they have not setup a police state in Ukraine, so transitions of power, often by the mean of some kind of chaotic "revolutions" do happen on regular basis.

Armata T-14 is a fourth generation tank platform because it has a fully automated turret, with tank crew in a specially protected capsule. All weapons fully automated. This project is a stepping stone on the way to producing a fully automated, crew-less tank. So yes, it's the first fourth generation tank.

What important about Russian fifth generation fighter jet PAK FA and the Armata tank platform, as well as the Kurganets IFV platform is that the Russian military industrial complex not only can improve upon such excellent Soviet designs such as the Su-27 fighter jets, T-90 tanks, and BMP-3 IFV (arguably the best IFV in the world), but that it can actually produce entirely new designs instead of just minor tweaks to old Soviet platforms. So this IS big stuff for Russia. Russia, along with USA and China are the only countries in the world actively developing the next generation military technologies.

And it is truly laughable to hear from the internet "experts" how much Russian PAK FA, the fifth generation fighter jet, sucks. Give me a break. This is a work in progress. The military trials haven't finished yet. You also forget about the relative worth vs absolute worth of the weapon systems. American military industrial complex and Pentagon always want to deliver systems with class leading capabilities but at a horrendous cost and price/performance. Russians always aim to produce a solution providing 80-85% of capabilities of the best US weapon, but at half the cost or less. That's because in Russia, the military industrial complex serves its state. In USA, the state serves its military industrial complex and fills the pockets of the corporate fat-cats behind it.

You mean, there exists a state-sponsored industrial espionage program, often involving shell firms registered in Mediterranean or Caribbean islands better known as summer tourist destinations? Scary shit!

I would never occur that a country like Russia, or perhaps China or India would ever try to do something like this.

LOL. For someone using such an authoritative voice in a post, you offer zero evidence for any of your claims. If Russian weapons tech was a joke, Russia wouldn't have been worlds second biggest weapons exporter.

Russian fighter jets are indeed very cool. If you're interesting in modern weapon delivery platforms, then look up the brand spanking new Su-34 on wikipedia. Russia is the second country to develop a fifth generation fighter jet, and the first country to build a fourth generation tank platform (Armata).

Yes, Russian solidiers and weapons cross into Ukraine. Big news. Typical information warfare. 15 years ago, our president George W Bush claimed adamantly that there was al-Queda and WMDs in Iraq even though the rest of the world though he is full if shit.

It's hard to believe that Sun would have been fine today, if Oracle hasn't bought them. We kept hearing the same story every year since 2000, and yet Sun's stock never recovered after the dotcom bubble burst. Indeed, the market has become very commodidized with Lintel and Wintel getting better and better at every iteration. Sun's corporate culture that aimed to protect Solaris and Sparc made the company take a wrong turn in the late 90s and early 2000s, by completely missing a chance to embrace Linux, x86, and open source. Sure, they reversed their decision, but Sun has been playing catchup since then. Also Sun's SPARC chips have been consistently a laggard in the performance department. Always overpriced, and always later to the market.