That's not out of line with other high end portables, especially with 128gb internally. Lots of other players in that space and price range.
It does need to be GOOD...VERY good....though. The guys on Head-Fi are pretty picky!
I need a large capacity high end player, but I'm not willing to spend quite that much. Geekwave looks promising.
I dunno man, have you ever seen Vin Diesel say anything in a different manner across every movie he's ever been in?
I wasn't talking about the technology at all. I mean, generally, its so far off TOS it just doesn't even make sense at all. I would give them leeway to make it look cool and facilitate some story elements, but they're just off in lala land. Its a completely different universe.
What I was talking about is more the character development, the message, etc.
There's too much in the canon and too many people who love it to just burn it. It's just stupid, you might as well just start a new canon if you want freedom.
The thing is, even if you're OK with them burning the canon so they can do whatever they want, what they did with that freedom is make shitty action movies with horrible dialogue and no plot. Someone else mentioned that none of the movies really lived up to the TV show, and that's probably true, but the new stuff is just shit. How they've handled Spock's character is just pathetic....his scenes are basically unwatchable.
The technology is all way off too. It doesn't jive with the original in any possible way. I realize this is a geeky thing to say but its fucking *Star Trek* if we can't be geeky about that, we can't be geeky about anything.
I agree about McCoy. He does a good job. If the writing weren't so patronizing I think he would pull off the character really well.
First Abrams' complete disregard for the history and the message of every previous Star Trek in favor of everything superficial and minor that has ever been in the series, and now they bring in this guy, of all people? They should just have Vin Diesel play Kirk and put the series out of its misery.
I actually wouldn't have minded the 2 newest Star Trek movies as mediocre sci-fi films, *if* they weren't labelled "Star Trek". The lens flare bullshit and the incompetent/inconsistent portrayal of Spock are things I could get past, but not as a Star Trek movie.
My shrink told me she doesn't do social media because all her patients tell her how horrible it is.
"if we don't do X, we going to get pwned" into "if we don't spend X$ and Y man-hours, we are exposing our business to $Z,000,000 -sized liability".
Um.
This sounds a lot like risk management.
Risk management is for COMMUNISTS.
Never do a risk assessment when you start a new project, it will just bring up uncomfortable information and make everyone feel sad.
In the case of security, it falls into this classification of 'technical things nobody even wants to understand' and also into the classification of 'preventative measures that people will not recognize the importance of, until after it bites them in the ass.' You tell people that it's a bad idea to use "password" as your password, and they'll blow you off. The more you stress the point, the more annoyed the'll become-- all the way up until someone malicious gains access to their accounts. Once they've been hacked, they'll come back angry, demanding, "Why didn't anyone tell me it was a bad idea."
Until there's an actual security breach, people think you're chicken little. They'll tell you, "I've been using 'password' for my password for 10 years and I've never had a problem."
Face that kind of attitude for a several years, and you get awfully tired of warning people.
Exactly right.
Security professionals have had to be budget-minded for a while now. We're not telling you this because we want to bankrupt the business, we're telling you this because it is a reasonable precaution to take, in line with standards and industry norms, and will save your ass and pay for itself 100x over if there is a breach. People view their own internal security department as the enemy, rather than someone who is on the same side trying to get people to do things properly. We get that there's a margin and a budget, but if you always decide in favor of, "get it done now, as cheaply as possible, we don't have time to do it right" eventually it will catch up with you.
Adversarial is the key word here. Business doesn't view security as an entity trying to protect them from liability, get them on par with industry norms, and maybe even create some efficiency and ease support burdens, they view security as an impediment to signing the contract. Your own security team is just trying to save you from yourself...arguing with them as a proxy for the customer doesn't get you anywhere but into even more trouble.
I was in college just at the cusp of people starting to take notes on laptops. It never appealed to me. Even today in meetings, the information just doesn't sink in like it does with hand writing notes. I take notes in meetings that I know I will never read, just because it helps pound it into my memory.
I can never keep notes on the computer organized either. Not that my paper notes are super organized, but at least there is an indestructible (unless I rip pages out) linear timeline to everything. You know everything is there somewhere and if you can't remember where the other things you were taking notes on at the time can help you zero in.
Only in theory, not in practice. Without ranked voting, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is effectively a vote against whoever your second choice is, so voters are often faced with voting for the lesser of 2 evils. In the past 4 presidential elections, the only time a 3rd party candidate managed to get more than 1% of the popular vote (yet still 0% of the electoral votes) was in 2000 when Nader had 2.78% of the popular vote and if a fraction of his votes had gone to Gore, George W Bush wouldn't have made it to the white house.
I agree that ranked voting would be a much better option and would make third parties more viable.
However, this transfers the responsibility for the sad state of affairs in which we find ourselves to the government. There is nothing stopping people from voting third party. If people are serious about their dissatisfaction with the government, they need to vote third party and not for the, "lesser of two evils". We bear the responsibility for the situation we're in.
To further complicate things, when we transfer that responsibility to the government, i.e. electoral process reform, we are transferring the responsibility to the one entity with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Washington has no interest in enabling third parties or democracy, and they have attacked them at every possible opportunity.
Bottom line, the responsibility lies with the citizens whether we like it or not and whether we choose to accept that responsibility or not.
No one listens to the security group no matter how badly they get hammered. This is just dumb shit. If I ran the world everyone who was involved with implementing this would be fired immediately.
Remote access for customer support is a great thing...just build it right. It's really not that hard at all to build it right...probably even easier than building it this stupid ass way.
Right, so when someone writes a worm that exploits this, NBD!
The PC is here to stay. What we are seeing is a longer life cycle. There is no need to update the hardware these days, there's plenty of power and storage for people writing the odd letter/email, social media and most games. Unless you're a developer or working with huge amounts of media data, PC users aren't going to notice a shit load of RAM, loads of cores CPU and a GPU capable of real-time Avatar level of rendering.
This is exactly what I was going to reply. There haven't been significant advancements in processing power, or in applications which require that increased power. Everyone has what they need. They'll replace them when they break or maybe upgrade them once in a while, but there's no need for the turnover we used to see...we've reached a point of diminishing returns where upgrading every 2 years or less just isn't worth it.
Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer
