Thankfully I don't buy or use prebuilt PC's. And I will not use a motherboard that doesn't allow turning off secure boot.
65nm isn't "competitive". It's 10 years old. It might compete with the original Athlon 64. Certainly not with anything modern.
Except they didn't use transparent aluminum in the bird of prey. They used ordinary 6-inch thick plexiglass. The plexiglass was given to them in return for the molecular formula for transparent aluminum. The guy that Scotty gave the formula to said it would take *years* to make use of it. It was a long term investment.
Except for gaming. Gaming is really the only thing that needs a computer newer than 7 years old now.
Right now, I download my TV shows/movies from Pirate Bay or wherever, and then I get the DVD's when they are released. I can easily play DVD's without using any proprietary software, and I can also rip/re-encode them to any format I want (for things like watching movies on my phone at work). The physical media has value to me because of how useful it is (and the fact that I don't have to keep terabytes of videos around). I don't care about Blu-ray, or 1080p...most DVD's look fine to me on my 1080p monitor (considering I am usually less than a foot away). I don't own a TV. The only DVD's that look "fuzzy" are old TV shows, and it's not the DVD format that's making them fuzzy, but rather the fact that they are old shows that weren't recorded at a particularly high quality. If they make it so the physical media no longer has that value to me...then I will simply stop buying it and download everything. I'm not paying money for LESS convenience. If there is going to be less convenience, I will simply put that money into lots of extra hard drive space instead.
Honestly, I'm still happy with DVD's. And I see zero point to higher resolutions than 1080p at this time. Especially since I'm less than a foot away from my monitor when using it. I don't own a TV, if I watch something it'll be either on that computer or on my laptop (which is 1368x768). And DVD is more than good enough for my needs. Does 1080p video look better? Yes. Does it look better enough to make it worth dealing with all of the DRM (I won't use proprietary software to play movies)? No, not at all. Honestly, the only DVD's I have that look "fuzzy" at 1080p are old TV shows...and the DVD is basically the same quality as the masters they had since they weren't recorded at high resolution.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wik... "I've been told that I've already been charged, indicted, convicted, and sentenced. What would I need with a lawyer?" "Well, Mr. O'Brien, if it sounds immodest of me I apologize, but the role of public conservator is key to the productive functioning of our courts. I'm here to help you concede the wisdom of the state."
It's broken but it's intentional. The people in charge want things the way they are, that's how plutocracies roll.
What's this obsession with giving great apes more legal rights, but not other animals. Why not cats, or dolphins?
Some antivirus utilities are better than others, but even the best of the best are only around 60% effective at detecting threats. That said, in a corporate environment having one of the better ones is a good idea and certainly better than nothing. But I've noticed a lot of companies buying TERRIBLE antivirus "solutions" that not only never detect anything, but are horribly expensive. CA Etrust and Trend Micro OfficeScan are the worst I've seen in this category (ie, in the 7 years I've worked for companies that use one of those 2, I've never once seen either one successfully detect or remove anything). Actually I take that back, I DID see Etrust flag *itself* as a virus once and remove itself. That was rather amusing. On another note, I was on a gaming forum (where you'd think people would be a little bit more tech savvy than the average person), and someone was arguing on the tech support forums, saying they couldn't possibly have a virus because "they pay for virus protection".
I honestly don't see anything wrong with euthanizing people, if they have a terminal/incurable illness and are in pain to the point where living at all is misery to them. People in these situations often *want* to die, but the law won't let the doctors do it for them, and a lot of them end up doing it themselves.
I know that statement was made as a joke, but in all seriousness nitrogen is the least expensive non-toxic asphyxiating gas (meaning something that isn't toxic but doesn't contain oxygen) there is, due to it already being 78% of the air. Breathing pure helium would do exactly the same thing, but helium is a lot more scarce, and thus more expensive.
Um, you've got your nitrogen compounds mixed up there. Nitrous oxide is N2O, NOT NO2. NO2 (aka nitrogen dioxide) is reddish brown, very toxic, and has a very sharp biting odor. NO2 would not be pleasant at all.
Yeah, this is something that's often overlooked. The "omg I can't hold my breath any longer" reflex has nothing to do with oxygen, it is solely based on CO2 buildup. Someone breathing pure nitrogen wouldn't even realize anything was wrong until right before they lose consciousness (which would happen in seconds anyway).
Any gas or gas mixture that doesn't contain oxygen of at least 1/5 of 1 atmosphere by partial pressure will do the same thing. I suppose mitrogen has the advantage to the government of being VERY cheap, because the air around us is already 78% nitrogen. Much more common than say, helium, or argon.