You would assume that, yes. But a) that's mainly the fuel vapour in the near-empty main tanks, and b) the fuel the GP is talking about is the pressurisation of the hydraulic lines for the control systems that run the thrusters and fins, not the fuel that runs the rocket engine.

Is there something wrong with the driver Nvidia supplies?

This is about the open source driver, not the proprietary one that Nvidia ships for Linux that works just as well as the windows one that they ship for Windows.

They licence some of the IP involved in the hardware that does not belong to them. It's not as simple as just letting it out with no restrictions.

This isn't a test. What is this? High school?

The fact that you're being acutely defensive suggests to me that you just wanted to engage in some good old fashioned Microsoft bashing with nothing constructive to add in the safety of slashdot.

As far as how I would answer my own question, based on my original assertion that they have already taken it seriously; nothing.

However, since you suggested that they have not taken the exploit seriously enough, I wondered how exactly our positions differed (since I can't read your mind) and what exactly they would have to do so that you and I agreed that they were taking it seriously enough.

Remember, I already think they are taking it seriously enough based on the release of patches back to win 7 and a workaround given for non-patched machines, so my answer is "nothing", but that clearly can't be your answer because otherwise we'd agree.

I think you missed my sarcasm.

I was continuing the riff, you know, because Bill Paxton was not in ID4 and Will Smith was, thus proving the point that Will Smith clearly played all the...

Never mind.

I'll put a giant "this is a joke" disclaimer next time.

I think you missed my continuation of the theme, or was it too subtle?

Today I learned that if one actor stars in a film then no one else starred in it.

How are they not taking it seriously? The summary mentions that patches are already available, plus a method to prevent the exploit occurring on a non-patched machine.

What else did you want them to do to prove they were taking the exploit seriously?

I believe someone here proposed the same adjustment when the original iPhone launched.

Also when the iPad launched.

Strangely no adjustment when the Galaxy Gear launched, although I think they sold at least than 1 per minute, but you think they'd want to adjust it the other way too, eh?

You mean Android smart watches right?

There's a reason for that - the early ones were alpha-quality (especially Samsung's) since they rushed them to market long before they were ready in the wake of the continual "Apple is making a watch, any time now" rumours.

They're much better now - for example, the LG one doesn't cut off part of the screen and the Gear actually functions now.

It still has to be proven to me that the bus does something valuable. I stopped riding the bus over a decade ago.

I wear a watch all the time. I don;t want an Appel smart watch, but I do wear an analogue watch made of metal.

I also wash my hands frequently (I work in a lab).

Oh sorry, I forgot that everyone on earth has the same needs as you. My mistake.

Well Citizens United says that corporations are people, so really there's no distinction.

Either you agree with the civil rights act or you don't, but the fact remains that it is in place to ensure that the "every man is equal" part of the constitution is upheld, hence the inability of a business to turn away black people. What this bill seeks to do is ensure that if homosexuality becomes a protected class that business owners who are bigoted won't be sued.

Also, your first sentence is a huge, huge non-sequitur. There is no "requirement to do business" to survive - you can work for someone else if you want to, and even have your religious beliefs upheld (for example, if you work in a store you can ask to not handle pork as a Jew or a Muslim). The fact that you think that if a bill specifically designed to protect religious people's ability to discriminate is removed means that "none of us have freedom" is just laughable.

Or they're limiting supply because supply is limited, which has been known for some time.

Of course, the click bait summary doesn't think that's a sexy enough headline, so they're going with the "exclusivity" angle.

If you walk into the Apple store and want one, an employee will walk you through buying one online fem inside the store, because they won't have the stock on hand to just be able to give you one right there due to a) the tight supply of the watch itself (mainly down to the screen) and b) the large number of combinations of strap.

Until the demand settles out, you'll have to order one online, which is exactly what Apple are setting up for. Either ahead of time and then pick up in store, or if you just walk in, they'll do it for you right there.

However "Apple employees will order a watch for you online if you go to the store because they won't have lots of stock on hand" just doesn't get those ad impressions roiling.

$3 metal band. lol.

Speck of gold. lol.

2/10, kid. Try harder next time.