6mbps is about as good as it gets. That's what Youtube and Netflix use for 1080p stuff. So that is the standard you need to worry about for streaming in general. Yes, I know that Blu-ray is higher bitrate, but little if anything streams at that rate. For the web, 6mbps is "high quality". You might not care for that definition, but it is what it is.
If you asked them not to change the definition because "broadband" technically refers to how data is transferred (10gbit ethernet is not broadband, despite the speed, it is baseband) then ok, you can be cpt pedantic.
However this is just you lying. 4mbps is not "enough" for the modern Internet. Currently I find the breakpoint to be about 20mbps. That is the point after which normal users won't notice much, if any, improvement. As such, that is my baseline for recommendation to people. 10mbps is serviceable I guess, but is a pain for video streaming. 4mbps would be a real issue, even low bandwidth streams wouldn't work well.
The minimum needs to keep rising. We keep finding more to do with our net connections. These companies are just whiny because they don't want to have to roll out FTTH, they want to keep doing DSL and pretending like that works.
The way they design their CPUs it is easy to have pretty much any number that is divisible by 2. It isn't a big deal to have something that is any particular amount more or less. So then it comes down to power, thermal, and die size limits.
Apparently 18 cores is what they cap out at, this time around. I'm sure you'll be able to get 16 core, and less, chips, that is just the most they could stuff in there before exceeding whatever design limitations they'd set.
There is a legal obligation to focus on profits.
No, there is a legal obligation to act based on another party's interests, not based solely on another party's financial interests. Shareholders have interests other than money—having clean drinking water for their kids, supporting cultural growth, improving the quality of education, not getting buried in lawsuits from the government when you cross a legal line (though this one arguably is financial, just over the longer term), and so on. That's why you don't see shareholders suing companies for giving money to charities, for example. A purely financial misinterpretation of the word "fiduciary" would make such donations illegal.
IMO, it's 33% of a roughly 3x larger pie.
400 kilobytes? For 30 seconds of video? That's barely a hundred kilobits per second. Are you sure that wasn't a reference movie to content at a different URL? Because that's not likely to be anything approaching what most people would call "full quality" unless the content started out as a postage-stamp-sized cell phone video....
There's no choice. There isn't a "little bit better" choice on domestic flights, even international flights on the same continent. When I fly up to Canada to visit my parents I have two options: Coach or First Class. The prices are VASTLY different, first class is over double the price of coach. Now it is much nicer, wide seats, plenty of legroom, and all the booze you'd like if you are the sort of person who likes to drink. But it is really expensive.
There's no mid-range option. I can't pay 1.2x the coach price for something a bit better. If I could, I would.
So how would they know? I've never seen it tried. If they offered the option and those seats always sat empty, or were full of people who had been given upgrades for no money, then ok, remove them. But they aren't available. Your only options are "cheapest possible" or "waaaaaay more expensive."
Look at the military hardware the Saddam era Iraqi army used: It wasn't American make, it was Russian/Soviet. Now look at Egypt, a country the US does arm, they are using US equipment.
Unsurprisingly, when countries arm other countries, they do it using their stuff. It is not only convenient, but it is one of those nice political things where you can help your own industries because you are buying from them.
It is a government actions, specifically this lawsuit is based on the federal anti-trust laws, which are completely unconstitutional and illegal and detrimental to the economy in every way.
You're joking, right? Antitrust laws are only detrimental to one aspect of the economy: the unregulated ability for a few individuals or corporations to make an obscene amount of money at the expense of everyone else. When a monopoly exists, it gains an incredible amount of power over the free market that is not easy to overcome. At that point, a free market no longer realistically exists without government intervention, because the ability to break into that market becomes hopelessly compromised. To the extent that free markets are generally considered to be the epitome of a good economic system these days, clearly any government intervention required to ensure that such free markets continue to exist is justified, legal, and constitutional.
The issue is he may never have had the right to release the derivative he did. So the original decompile/redistribution of Micecraft's code is not legal. That people said it was GPL doesn't make it so. It was an illegal distribution of copyrighted code. Mojang didn't care and didn't stop it, but it was illegal all the same. Well what that means is that if you then made a derivative of that, it wasn't legal either. He didn't have a license to distribute a derivative work and thus he can't go and declare it to be GPL.
So now the issue comes down to the part of the code he wrote. Well that is his... maybe. The problem is that his derivative was never legal in the first place. So a court could, and probably would, award control to Mojang. This has happened in music before. Someone makes a remix without permission and the work then gets granted to the original copyright owner.
If this kid pushes it, it is likely to end up badly for him. He would likely lose rights to the code, have to pay court costs and then, if they were feeling evil, could go after him for the illegal derivative work.
Basically if you make a derivative of someone's work and you don't have explicit permission to, either from them directly or via a license like the GPL, you need to be ok with them making use of that derivative if they want to, because you aren't going to win that fight. Maybe you don't think that is how it should be, but that's how it is. Copyright owners maintain control over their work, even if they choose to overlook a given violation. It isn't "protect it or lose it" like with trademark.
I'm pretty sure the headline "ISIS attacks ISS" would confuse so many people that the world would never recover.
Well, it would appear that she may have used sex for personal gain. She had sex with people in positions to help her career, and did so while in a relationship with another person without his consent, which is immoral according to her. While that isn't direct monetary payment for sex, I can see how some people would consider it a form of prostitution.
There is a difference in the minds of many between having sex with a person because you want to for physical/emotional pleasure and having sex with a person because you wish to gain something from it. Also these is the issue of being in a relationship that has been set out as monogamous and then not adhering to that.
If you mean in Youtube comments, please. Those are a shit show of the worst of humanity. Most people do not care to wade in to that. If you do, ok good on you, but you shouldn't be surprised that most don't.
If you mean in games, well most of us don't see it, probably because we don't hang out with people like that and would call them out if they did. Assholes tend to operate where they can be assholes, and if they don't think they can get away with it they won't. I've not encountered people harassing women in the games I've played. The reason is probably because the kind of groups/guilds that I'm interested in joining are not the kind that would tolerate such things.
The solution isn't random info. It's questions you create with personal information that is memorable enough that you're remember in an instance, but only you, or a very small handful of intimate people, would know. Ie, 'Who was that girl you had a really secret crush on in grade 10?"
This is a great example of why security questions are inherently dangerous. Most people—even geeks—have no idea what makes a good security question. Cracking an account secured with this question is almost always very, very easy:
Better than 95% of of the time, this will result in a successful compromise of the user's account. And if you branch out from there into organizations that the person was in, churches, etc., you'll rapidly approach 100% coverage. And of course if someone really knew you or your crush back in 10th grade, it probably wasn't nearly as much of a secret as you thought it was, which could mean that it won't take many tries at all.
To be fair, unless you're someone famous or there's a significant financial incentive to do so, it probably wouldn't be worth someone's time to type in the names of all the several hundred girls who attended your school, but once you have that information in electronic form, it would probably take a matter of seconds to crack such a security question in the absence of mechanisms to prevent repeat guessing. And even those mechanisms only slow down the process.
Do you mean Yorkshire Pudding Purple Monkey Dishwasher or her sister, Idaho Potato Purple Monkey Dishwasher?
There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.
