And 8 registers aren't enough for anyone. x64-64 is a better architecture for reasons beyond its larger memory addressing.

With email subscriptions, users can unsubscribe, suspend, and resume viewing updates at their convenience. Email is also vastly more bandwidth and power friendly than continually polling to ask "have anything for me yet? have anything for me yet? have anything for me yet?".

An email newsletter that a user can subscribe to and which honors the "unsubscribe" link it at the bottom is identically as spammy as RSS.

I just got a large, image-filled email from a vendor, and it came out to 20KB (including headers). Let's assume Microsoft's announcement emails are that huge, and that Microsoft sends out 100,000,000 of them. Let's further assume that Outlook is smart enough to batch recipients to the same domain with a conservative 10-to-1 reduction in number of unique messages sent (probably closer to 500-1, given the number of Gmail users you can collapse). That math works out to about 1000 gigabit ethernet seconds, or about about 1 second of AWS's estimated bandwidth-time, or about 3 seconds of Azure's estimated bandwidth-time, or about a second of traffic at a major porn site. And that's with hugely conservative worst-case estimates for all the numbers involved.

Egress doesn't take nearly the bandwidth you might think it does.

As a side note: I despise a lot of the laws we've been pushing out and don't mean to defend them. I just get weary of the idea I hear too often that the US is uniquely and historically bad about this.

So you'd rather pass laws requiring all of that cultural information to be individually memorized and kept in short supply, rather than those allowing it to be distributed to anyone who wants it. That's interesting. Bizarrely Luddite and a touch racist (because you prefer discriminating against places "everyone knows are bad" rather than ones that can be objectively demonstrated as such), but interesting.

I'll take newer, faster, and scientific, thank you. Fetishizing tradition often equals heresy, and this is one of those times.

I live in San Francisco and you won't be getting a ride from the cabbies who are hypothetically required to take you. Dispatch will accept the call, but no one will ever show up. Maybe you hail a cab, but when they find out you're going to a sketch part of town they'll suddenly remember that their meter is broken.

Taxis are required to pick you up and take you wherever, now. A fat lot of good that actually does you when the driver would rather be somewhere else.

Quick: name a country which doesn't think its ways are the obviously correct ways, and that the world wouldn't better if only everyone else would adopt their standards. Europeans are convinced that we should maintain a bit of aloof isolationism. The Middle East is convinced that a Muslim theocracy would benefit everyone. Much of Asia wishes we could get over the recent notion of individual rights instead of duties to country. And every single one of those groups write laws and UN proposals that - if adopted - would enshrine their ideals and apply them globally.

The US gets slagged on because it's more successful than many others at doing so, but don't for a moment thing it'd be any different if France or Russia or Egypt or China was at the helm.

I think you might classify this alongside "jumping on a grenade".

There's a metal for those wounded in combat, and Perl cuts psyches deeply indeed.

You're almost certainly right that they'll try it, but that's not what it means here. "Imminent" means "in the near future", and the idea is that cops would like to know if you just texted all your buddies to "come to the corner of 5th and Ghetto to kill the pigs arresting you". I can certainly see why police would like to know that and have a legitimate reason to.

However, there's no way to ask a phone (slash-camera slash-Rolodex (SCOTUS's words!)), "hey, can you give me just the information I need to know in the next 5 minutes and keep everything else safe for its owner?". Cops could use that as an excuse to get into your phone, and hey, since I'm already in here, let's see what this little miscreant was posting on Facebook... SCOTUS ruled that this is a flimsy excuse that doesn't justify the privacy abuses that police had committed, and so dismissed it explicitly as not being sufficient cause to invade your personal information repo.

Also known as "the law, as written". The concept that obeying the written law isn't enough and that you need to predict what a judge might like on a future date is kind of horrifying.

I bought a Synology NAS and set it up with appropriate file sharing (and the Cloud Station Dropbox-alike). I now have my own personal cloud with several TB of storage, and it's all under my control. Tell me again why I'd want a teensy little OneDrive?

BTW, I like my Synology but almost any other modern NAS will give you the same features. Pick one you like and free yourself from relying on Microsoft/Google/Dropbox's good graces and government backups.

That's not quite the same though, as the tests weren't in overclocked or otherwise out-of-spec scenarios. The reviewers unboxed the drives, plugged them in, and ran some benchmarks. There's not a legitimate reason why an off the shelf unit in a stock operating environment shouldn't have similar benchmarks to the one the reviewer got.

I bought a Leaf Plus powered antenna, and its max power draw is .75 watts. My Apple TV has a 6W power supply, so it can't draw more than that even when it's turned on. For the price of a DVR, I can buy a metric buttload of Netflix, Hulu Plus, and iTunes content.

You seem to think that everyone cutting the cord is turning to your own unusual setup. Most of us are getting (in our opinion better) replacements that happen to use far less power, which is what this whole conversation is about.

It's a scam and they're liars. It's really as clear and un-subtle as that. When they deliver a review unit, the expectation is that it will be representative of the products that end users will by buying. They'll have gone over it with a fine toothed comb, sure, to make sure it doesn't have any obvious defects. But the nature of a review is that the reviewer will be getting the same product that you and I will. Without that implicit contract, the whole concept of a review is utterly worthless.

In fact, Kingston and friends burned their reviewers' reputations, not just their own. If I buy something because Joe Smith says he liked it and it turns out to be a piece of junk, I'll never trust Joe Smith's opinion again. If I'd written about one of these units - particularly for a major review site - I'd be raising holy hell, warning all of my readers, and distancing myself from it as far as possible. It'd be along the lines of "Kingston lied to me and I passed it along to you. For that, I am very sorry, and I will never review another of their products." and updating the original review to add a giant red disclaimer and explanation at the top.

This isn't subtle. It's a flat-out lie to customers and can only reasonably be seen as such.