I think he's confusing Salon.com with Slate.com since they both start with "S".

Ummm, Bing is not Yahoo. Yahoo is Bing.

3% isn't great. But Apple only has 10%. So it's not *that* far behind what most people consider the leader.

IE is dead second. Well behind Chrome but way ahead of Firefox etc.

Bing is also the default search engine for the iPhone. So I guess that means Apple is in on this conspiracy to cram Bing down everyone's throats.

And ironically specialized hardware is better than the CPU at raytracing and Intel might lose that battle as well after being its lone champion for so long.

http://techreport.com/news/261...

Compression quality can increase with longer processing time. If they are pre-processing frames then they can spend a few extra milliseconds on compression encoding and decoding quality.

Yes. Budgenator is correct, we do need to recognize that the models are wrong. They are .0000001% off. Clearly we should discard them and view them for the frauds they are.

Another way to put that is: "Why is it that Tesla and SpaceX are so disproportionately doing things worthy of the News for Nerds title?"

Imagine if there was some competition for cool new science in the consumer space.

To be fair, the fact that it's a problem now isn't Lockheed Martin's fault, it's the US government's fault for denying access to the engine.

I say handle it like COTS. Offer a contract for X launches at Y price. If Lockheed wants to continue flying the Atlas they'll find a solution that matches Y price. If another vendor such as SpaceX can delivery Y price then problem solved. If both deliver, all the better.

However it's important to keep in mind that we already have 1 launch vehicle that is capable of fulfilling the air forces missions. This is about having a redundant second option. So unlike COTS where we needed multiple solutions to maintain competition--we currently have one viable solution we just would like to have a second one. So if one or the other is cheaper I would say no need to go with both as soon as it's viable.

Are you suggesting that slowly transitioning a totalitarian state run by a single dictator into some semblance of a democracy is comparable to a cancer?

I was with you all along the way until you concluded that the elimination of a dictator was a bad outcome. I would say the Bureaucrats won as did Rome when freed from the tyranny of the Caesars.

You're completely misrepresenting the facts. Nobody has denied that temperatures had flatlined. What they objected to was the false conclusion that the hiatus meant global warming was over.

Every single rebuttal of the "hiatus" that I've seen has been essentially "Yes there is a pause in global warming, but only if you carefully narrow the years studied."

For instance if you look at short segments of the long term warming trend you can find multiple instances of where over the course of a number of years it actually cooled. The hiatus proponents have essentially been looking at the temperature over a week time and said "looks like there'll be no winter this year, it's been warming the entire first week of November!"

So yes, it is a denier hoax, in that it hasn't meant the end of Global Warming as Deniers have proposed. And yes we understand the cause of this specific short term variability. If it suddenly got much hotter than we predicted we would also look for an explanation as to why things are above expected predictions.

Climate ultimately is somewhat simple. Just like a perpetual motion machine claim you have to look for input and output energy. Even though the world wasn't warming, it was still absorbing a massive amount of energy. Where was it going? If your water tank has a leak you can clearly see its level going down. You can know there is a leak without knowing the cause. There was a "leak" in the energy models. We knew how much water (heat) should be in the tank (world) but even with lots of water going in we didn't know where it was going since the water level wasn't rising (earth wasn't warming).

Yeah, I just can't see the OS being too large of a financial drain. You can get a pro version of Windows for $90 bulk. So let's say you have 10,000 employees and you're spending $1m on licenses. You have to remember that you only upgrade OSes probably once every 4-5 years at best. So that's $200k per year. So for the price of Windows licensing you could only really hire one IT person to manage your Linux Distro. For $200k per year though you might be able to push some municipal management software far enough to get a few other cities contributing. As it improves then you would have more and more people working.

The problem with this theory of even just biting off chunks is that now you're a software company and a city. You have to find and hire and manage teams of people. There will also be tons of moochers. At some point if a bunch of cities are pooling their resources to build an application... how is that different from paying a company for a license? And then you're REALLY locked into a vendor if you spend $10m over 10 years on an in house product that isn't as good as someone else's new shiny thing.

The argument to develop in-house software always comes up at every company when they are looking at a large software licensing purchase order. But unless you need something very specific that off-the-shelf software just doesn't do--it rarely is worth the investment to rebuild it.

No it sounds more like an Uber App but instead of being locked into one transportation vendor they allow you to price compare and shop between multiple competing transportation solutions whether that's municipal bus, car2go, zip car and uber in one hub.

There is a feature of OSS that is often touted and that is that you get to enjoy the progress of software development "for free". That is when someone solves a problem you get to benefit. As a developer I see this all the time and it's incredibly true. As a developer I love working with Open SDKs since I can make small changes and our powers combined results in improved results.

The problem is with someone like Munich it's Munich's IT department trying to create software on Linux which solves the problems a municipality faces vs. THE REST OF THE WORLD. Sure some die hard linux gurus will volunteer their time to improve OpenOffice with only slight gain to themselves. But would I ever bother contributing to OpenOffice? No. I imagine that over the last decade what Munich has found is that a competitive marketplace of multiple software developers has created a pretty nice rich ecosystem of software that's improving and updating while their linux stack has been largely dependent on their internal team to push forward.

All of our in-house development we try to open source--we would love another company to improve our internal tools. We've even gotten one of our internal tools pushed into an off the shelf product in exchange for free licenses. But even studios far larger than us have started giving up on in-house development because it's just not economical to pay in-house developers to try and replicate consumer software.

The trouble is trademark. If you use the trademark of the software you recompiled then you are violating trademark law and using the official branch's trademark for personal gain.

The Store is awesome. When I boot up a new computer, I go to my download history, click re-install and my computer is back to the way it was. I don't have to go to a dozen websites to find each of the apps I use regularly.*

The choice is between Google search and a store, I prefer the store. At least the download button is actually a download button not a "Pop up 10 ads" button like on a lot of download sites.

*I still do since not everything is in the store, but the apps that I do use from the store are way easier to re-install.

I use it quite a bit. I like the metro Skype better, since I want it more full screen. I like it for email and chat too since I can have metro snapped to the side with desktop full screen. I also use a metro calculator for similar reasons.