First they came for the power users...

They aren't doing this to improve the user experience with the software. They're doing it to address the perception that "new and shiny" is what people want -- not functionality per se. They're aiming at the user experience of getting something new.

You know that marketing slogan, "sell by showing what problem you solve"? The "problem" that marketers have identified is the public's disinterest in things not new and not shiny -- and lately, not thin.

In my view, incompatibility is a sign of poor vision, poor support, and a lack of respect for those people who have come to you for what you offer. Speaking as a developer, if I come up with new functionality that is incompatible with the old, I add the new functionality without breaking the old. There are almost always many ways that can be done. I never did find a worthy excuse not to do it, either.

It isn't Google, or Apple, or whatever vendor that needs to learn a lesson. It's the public. I don't think it can be taught to them, either.

Squirrel!

I write my own.

Yes, I'm a developer as well. Let me re-phrase that, as I was going off an assumption that for all I know is no longer true, now that I look directly at it:

I have no use for graphics solutions that consume memory bandwidth that would otherwise be available to CPU core(s.)

Having said that, as memory bandwidth, as far as I was aware, remains nowhere near the bandwidth required to reach "always there when the CPU needs it", and integrated solutions always share memory with the CPU, particularly when data is being passed between CPU and GPU... it just strikes me that integrated probably -- not certainly -- remains a reliable proxy for "makes things slower."

It's also a given that the more monitors the thing is driving, the more memory bandwidth it will need. If that memory is on the same bus as the rest of the memory in the machine, again, adding monitors reduces memory bandwidth available to the CPU, and remember that the monitor has first priority -- system designs can't have the monitor going blank because the CPU wants memory. Doing both -- running graphics intensive tasks on multiple monitors... that's quite demanding. Hence, my preference for non-integrated graphics. When the graphics subsystem has its own memory, CPU performance has, at least in my experience, been considerably higher in general.

I have six monitors on one desktop setup, and two on the other. My lady has two as well. There are times for me when at least two monitors are very busy continuously and simultaneously for long periods of time (hours) at the same time that there is a heavy CPU load (where at least one core constantly at 100% and others variously hitting hard at times as well.)

Now that solid state drives are around, my machine spends a lot more time computing and a lot less waiting on disk I/O, too.

Anyone who definitively knows modern integrated chipset performance, by all means, stick an oar in.

If the new model has a larger screen, 5K would definitely be insufficient.

I'm a photographer and and constant user/developer of image manipulation software. I edit every shot. I don't need 5k in a monitor; if I need a full-image overview, I can have that, zero perceptible time. If I need to look at pixels, same thing. Or anywhere in between. I do *not* need to be squinting at a monitor in order to resolve detail. I value my vision too highly. And at these resolutions, you don' t squint, you can't see it. And I have extremely high visual acuity.

Higher (and higher) resolution makes sense in data acquisition. Once you have it, you can do damned near anything with it. Even if you exceed the MTF of the lens, you get the advantage that while the edges are smoother, they now start in a more accurate place, geometrically speaking. It can be thought of as like old TV luma; the bandwidth is limited, so the rate of change has a proportionally limited slew rate, but the phosphor on an old B&W monitor is continuous, and you can start a waveform anywhere (horizontally) with luma, to any accuracy within the timing of the display, which can be pretty darned high. So things tend to look very, very good as opposed to what you might expect from naively considering nothing but the bandwidth. It's not like a modern color display, where the phosphor/pixel groups serve to sub-sample the signal no matter how you feed it in. But that advantage goes away when the subtleties exceed your eye's ability to perceive them. Or you have to strain/hurt yourself to do it.

So anyway... any single one or combination of these three things would motivate me to buy more new Apple hardware. Nothing else:

o A Mac pro that is self-contained -- installable, replaceable drives, lots of memory, replicable display cards. The "trashcan" Mac pro is an obscenity. All it did was send me to EBay to buy used prior model Mac Pros. The trashcan isn't so much a wrong turn as it is a faceplant.

o A Mac mid-tower that can have hard drives installed+replaced and at least 16gb of RAM. 32gb would be better. Doesn't have to be that fast. Real gfx. I know, mythical, not probable. Still want it, though. Actually, I want several. :/

o A multicore Mac mini with a real graphics card, 8gb or better ram, network, USB, HDMI and audio ports.

I have uses for all those. Failing that, and in fact that's my expectation, more fail -- I'm done with them. And I have no use whatever for "integrated" graphics.

What's annoying is that just about when they finally managed to a get a stable OS with most of the features I like and want (and the ability to get around the stupid features like "App Nap"), they totally borked the hardware side. I just can't win with Apple. Sigh.

sheeeeeit. These are NOTHING compared to the 16k displays that'll be out in the spring. I hear that's when they're going to add the mandatory "oil cooling hotness" to the Mac Pro, too. Of course, if you wait till fall, those 32k displays are on the way!

[Looks sadly at N(ever)T(wice)S(ame)C(color) security monitor...]

As Cheech and Chong might have put it, "Even gets AM!" Well, ok, old school TV that isn't broadcast any longer. But you know what I meant.

Or not. I'm old.

GET OFF MY NURSING HOME'S LAWN!

My software is SdrDx. Details here: Very much a "radio person's" design.

As for the eggs, that's not all of em -- those are the easiest to find, too. And they're a thing that's been in there for a couple of years or so, I figure it's not much a secret. Also, there's not much overlap between slashdot and my users. If any. Lastly, I don't think of them as exclusive so much as I do something fun to find.

You might be the first, if it turns out to be something you can use. :)

The top meter is one of the documented ones for reference -- so you can see the kind of "normal" thing the eggs replace. With this meter model, the left meter is the s-meter, and the bar graph sub-display in it is the noise detection level, which correlates with the noise reduction intensity. The squares are unfilled dark red because the noise reduction function was off when I took the screen capture. The segments are filled with a light blue color with noise reduction on; they display the detected noise level actively regardless of the setting. The smaller, yellow meter on the right is an audio VU meter that tracks the modulation percentage for FM, SAM, FSK and AM (bottom scale), and the dB output level for other modes -- USB, LSB, CWU, CWL.

For the Klingon meter, The triangle at the left is the s-meter value; as the signal increases, it fills with nested triangles, segment by segment. The slanted bar is the AGC level, which is independent from the S level in my radio design. The double row of symbols that comes next is the freq to kHz resolution on top, and the remaining freq component in Hz on the bottom. The last set of larger symbols is the signal level in dBm.

For the Predator meter, the first two symbols are the S meter value.The next five are the signal level in microvolts. The last four are the current time HHmm. On the bottom row, all the symbols are frequency.

Here's what they look like.

I *always* squeeze out one or more easter eggs.

My latest: The application, which is free, is software defined radio. It's loaded with features, and everything is documented in detail. Radios have something called an "S Meter", which in a "real" radio is often an actual meter. I offer, and fully document, quite a few different s meter types you can switch by simply clicking on the currently displayed meter. Left click gets you the next model, right click the previous model. Some are classic looking meters, some are digits, some are graphs, some have audio dB meters incorporated as well, some read S, some read S+AGC, some read S+noise reduction, some read S+microvolts at the antenna input, some graphs are vertical, some are horizontal... and there are various combinations of the foregoing. Quite a variety.

So, if you follow the directions, you get exactly what the docs tell you you'll get.

But if, when you reach the last s-meter model, you left click again, you get an s-meter with some of the above information packed into it... in Klingon. :)

If you click one more time, you get the same set of information again, but this time... predator.

Both meter styles are quite dynamic. As they should be, since they're driven by actual data and displaying it. Albeit not in the usual fashion.

My only regret is that Alien's aliens were not written language users. I suppose it was alien to them. And perhaps that's why they were so mean... because they were... alienated.

Ok, I'll stop now. :)

I simply answered the asserted hypothetical correctly. I didn't attack anyone. Carry on. :)

Move to the US.

I'm a US citizen. I live in the US.

We have a document that lists the rights and it describes how the rights are not granted ... they are an attribute.

Yes, we do. That document does two things. Both of which are 100% subordinate to exactly what I said above.

First, it enumerates a small set of rights that the government is enjoined against interfering with. The constitution, however, has no power -- there's no constitutional punishment for congress making, and the legal system enforcing, violation of those rights. Which is one of the prime reasons why we have multiple laws that are fully realized interferences with the very rights specified in the document. The only way such interference can be prevented is if someone with power takes up the cause of defending them. This completely backs up the assertion you were responding to.

Second, constitution refers (vaguely) to other rights in the 9th amendment, stating that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This means that the various government bodies of lawmakers can make laws against exercise of those rights, whatever they may be, with impunity. And they do.

For instance, perhaps you might assert you have the right to walk outside naked. No one else is damaged by this; at worst, they might do damage to themselves because they have been conditioned to be neurotic, but that, of course, should not be your responsibility, any more than it should be your responsibility for walking by someone wearing a hat when said person is neurotic about hats.

Therefore, any infringement on a presumptive right to walk around outside naked should be construed as denial as defined in the ninth. But no one in power will defend this right (primarily because they are also neurotic, or catering to the neurotic, but I digress.) Consequently, it does not actually exist other than as a mental exercise or within very limited, generally quite private, circumstances. This is true for anything you can imagine that is not explicitly called out in the constitution.

Again, this precisely makes my point. When there are no powerful people backing a right up, then it's no more than an idea of no particular consequence unless one incorrectly assumes it is more than that, in which case, other people with power will show you the error of your ways, and you will indeed incur consequences. Not the ones you thought you should, either.

Bottom line: We have a document that talks big, but has no legal teeth. Without people who have, and are willing to use, the power to enforce the very rights that it lays out, and for that matter the ones that it does not, they simply do not exist in any objective sense. They're just concepts you are extremely ill-advised to rely on.

Suggestion: talk to some trafficking victims.

Locating someone who legitimately fits the definition would be nearly impossible. However, counter suggestion: Dig yourself out of the propaganda you've been fed. Example -- don't simply read that, although it is quite accurate -- actually follow the links in it and confirm for yourself.

More and more girls who are younger and younger. The average age has gone down over the years--you used to every once in a while see a girl who was underage. Now it's all the time. Girls who are underage cannot consent.

The underlying assumption you are working from is incorrect. You assume those girls were coerced, and therefore had to consent. While the (ridiculous, but that's a different subject) legal "age line in the sand" that permits young sex workers to consent and to make choices for themselves has not been crossed in either instance, it still requires coercion by another person, not personal choice without interpersonal coercion -- informed or not -- in order to meet even the vaguest concept of "trafficked."

Reasons to enter into the sex worker trade are myriad. The money can be good, and of course our society offers advantage in direct proportion to the amount of money one has. As long as that is the case, income, even the perception of income, will be a prime motivator. Sex work can be fun. It offers both self-management and self-reliance, and this in turn can allow setting one's own schedule as opposed to the typical wage-slave. It can be rewarding, particularly in service to those who are unable to otherwise obtain sex with others due to the intense social stigma associated with looks and/or physical handicaps. Presently there's an element of legal risk, as well as one of push-back, and either or both may serve as titillation.

Any combination of the foregoing (and other similar issues -- post is long enough as-is) can serve to provide sufficient motivation for someone legally underage to decide to go this way. These are not in any sense "trafficked" individuals. They are, at most, people whose decisions you disagree with, who are breaking (arbitrary, ridiculous) rules based on their own decision making.

Which, if you want to concern yourself with it, is something completely different. But at least it is real, unlike the entire trafficking narrative. Arguments can be made and countered for both views on it. Trafficking is, in any significant sense, illusory. Arguments against an imaginary problem are inherently unproductive at the very least. All they do is paint a highly inaccurate picture of the world, which can (and has, in this case) lead to all manner of negative outcomes.

Now go out to one of the cops who is actually properly trained in dealing with human trafficking

You mean like this?

But it is very real.

In the sense that it hasn't happened zero times, yes, it's real. In the sense that it's in any sense a significant social problem affecting numerous individuals, no, it isn't real at all. It is in fact one of the most overblown and pernicious hoaxes pulled on the public in recent years. You've been hoodwinked.

a lot of them aren't even going to understand that some young women they think are their voluntarily have been effectively brainwashed by someone who collects all of their profits and buys them an ice cream cone and says that they care.

Again, the facts do not support your assertion. You are regurgitating propaganda. Not facts. Learn the facts. Only when in possession of the actual facts can you make informed statements about a subject. Without them, you're more likely to do harm than anything else.

Lots of additional useful related information here.

If you use electricity, you do [willingly breathe coal combustion products].

My electricity is strictly hydro.

So someone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to smoke? WTF?

Second-hand smoke.

as manifested in these matters by our elected legislature's

Speak for yourself. They are not my elected representatives. There isn't anyone in congressional office I voted for. My opinion, input, and concerns are not represented directly or indirectly, fractionally or otherwise, by any currently sitting politician. The relationship to me of the legislature's work product in these particular matters is purely coercive.

If the fact that a person (you?) or group of people didn't like the use of those fuels was enough to make it go away, then pretty much everything would go away, because there's always someone who hates everything.

Sure. But that's not really what's at issue here, as it assumes that good choices will be made and bad choices will not, the nature of those choices being based upon the majority's indirect selection of quality representatives.

Sounds good. But the reality is that the majority of the voting public have made extremely poor choices in selecting legislators, who in turn have made (many) extremely poor choices in their name. This is precisely why the massively polluting carbon-based energy infrastructure -- coal, petroleum -- remains largely still in place.

What would demonstrate the kind of system where your observation would be on point is a situation where the majority of the voting public made good choices, and the representatives then made good choices for them.

As it stands now, we have legislators making decisions for the nation based on principles toxic to the nation, and a largely uninformed and complacent voting public that keeps those legislators in place doing so. There's no need for "haters" to make poor choices; congress already has that well in hand.

But I don't willingly want to live in a world that includes evil nuclear power or thousands of acres of pristine desert habitat ruined by solar farms that kill birds and ruin the scenery!

See how that works?

Yep, sure do.

You think nuclear power is "evil." It isn't. You've been a victim of pro-petroleum propaganda, directly or otherwise. Nuclear power is extremely low risk, extremely low-pollution, and efficient. Fun fact: Coal plants produce more radioactive pollutants than do nuclear power plants by a factor of about one hundred. 'Nuther fun fact: Nuclear power plants produce far more energy than do coal or petroleum technology plants. Cool, eh?

You think solar panels kill birds. They don't. Well, unless you picked up a solar panel and somehow managed to hit the bird with it. Perhaps you're thinking of windmills. Or cats. Or human hunters.

You think solar panels "ruin desert habitat." They don't. The habitat is still right there underneath and around the panels. As well as newly provided shade.

You have also expressed more concern about scenery in your post than you have about people's actual health and welfare.

It appears you've made your position clear. Would you care to clarify and/or further expound on your statements?