Few people would be convicted in a court of law based upon testimony alone — it's the weakest form of 'evidence' possible. "They said so therefore true!" is not an acceptable form of evidence when you're describing a concept that governs everything in the universe (and apparently outside it, whatever that entails). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Why do you feel like "Gamergate" is worthy of additional mainstream news coverage? Mainstream news is an entertainment product more than anything else, and few people who watch / read it religiously are likely to be both heavily involved in gaming and passionate about the range of issues Gamergate purports to cover. It makes sense that it's more of a footnote or focuses more on the side that's likely to be of interest to a wider audience.
Discussions of the Gamergate issue haven't proven productive in any venue thus far, as they're often dominated by mistruths, irrelevant information, lies, and harassment. I usually avoid voluntarily exposing myself to it because I have no way of determining who is being truthful without significant investigation, and I frankly don't care enough to spend the time looking into the various claims; I suspect that's true of many people.
Let's be a bit more frank here, the movement has something in common with religion: its goals are so vague that the people who are trying to do 'good' and improve things are sheltering those who want to cause destruction. There is a significant vocal minority who are using the shield of the many moderates to justify their extremist tactics, which seem to revolve around harassment campaigns. When this happens to your movement you can either try to correct it or disassociate yourself from it and re-form in a more focused group. I suggest the latter is more likely to work at this point, it seems like it would be quite hard to drown out the vitriol I've seen without even trying to look for it.
You should really look into dropping Gamergate entirely, to divest yourself of its now relatively toxic branding, and creating several focused movements to replace it.
So reduce the number of regulations and taxes that taxis are subject to and suddenly they'll be able to deliver the same service as Uber but even more reliable. The taxi drivers seem to be complaining about the unfair advantage that the Uber drivers have, so you either subject the Uber drivers, who certainly fall into the definition of "taxi", to regulation or you deregulate taxis.
I assume there's some good reasons behind most, but probably not all, of the regulations affecting taxis, so why would we want to allow some subset of drivers to bypass those but not others?
I'd personally prefer the route of all of them being subject to the taxi regulations, but those regulations being eased in areas where they might have grown absurd.
The rendering at higher resolution then down-scaling without the game being aware of it is a pretty dreadful idea, you're just going to get tiny interfaces in most games or, as apparently pictured, a massive field of view which makes it harder to see smaller details. Microsoft's DirectX12 (or was it 11?) for mobile devices allows you to render the game world at higher or lower resolution and the interface at native, then merges them when displaying it; requires hardware support, apparently, but that seems like the best approach to scaling.
I'll this seems like the introduction of Eyefinity/Surround/Stereoscopic 3D/hardware PhysX. They'd be cool if games supported them properly, but since each implementation is different (and they have to wrestle with the Windows display system) it becomes easier to just ignore them. You're only likely to find Eyefinity/Surround in racing games, and physx where nVidia has paid to add it. The chances of many games going to the effort of supporting an upscaling hack seem pretty low.
Defining if-then-else is literally a couple of lines of code.
I'm curious, when is the definition of a content-free if-then-else statement more than a couple of lines? A random line from a
I think you're incorrectly assuming they're supposed to be primarily a watch. These devices track your approximated movement, location, and, most importantly, heart rate (resting HR is one of the best measures of your fitness). That allows you to get a pretty decent overview of your health and which direction it's trending in over time. Alone, not necessarily very useful after the honeymoon period is over. But when folk figure out ways to use that to effectively motivate people to get better it'll be pretty revolutionary.
They have displays so they can show more detailed information about what they're tracking, but I suspect it'd be a mistake to assume people would be buying them primarily for the watch functionality. They're all a crap watches, but they're awesome fitness trackers.
... and no, searching for everything is NOT a solution.
This may be a stupid question, but why not? I've found pressing win+q and typing "proxy" then enter opening the proxy settings to be significantly faster than attempting to navigate to them manually. Win+Q and "event" is a fairly speedy way to get to the event viewer, though Win+X then V is probably faster. Searching for settings seems significantly easier than attempting to determine which sub-menu item/icon they placed a command under.
I'd argue that searching for everything is a good thing, but not all implementations are up to scratch. They can improve that, though, and have over a year before release, so there's still time to report the search terms that don't do what you expect (if you're ever bored enough to bother doing free testing for them – which is the problem).
If the reverse is true, which seems fairly likely, there'll be an equilibrium at some point. If that point is overweight for both persons, it'd be interesting to which trend continued (assuming fat people eat less around slimmer people). I guess they'll publish more papers exploring the other combinations of people in the future.
User experience is probably pretty key; people will buy the cheapest SD cards they can find (despite some people buying their iPhones up-front, most get them 'free' with plans and like the 'cheap' route). Without some sort of quality control on the cards you could get some pretty dodgy performance. It seems Tom's Hardware did some performance testing of them a while ago, with the slowest random write being 25x slower than the fastest and the slowest random read being 4x slower than the fastest. Those are some pretty large differences.
Windows 8 had a bunch of back-end upgrades that would be incorporated into Windows 9 and that you would be missing by running Windows 7. They probably won't be night and day, but native USB 3.0 support, DirectX12+ (I think Win7 doesn't get it?), file history, and powershell 4, amongst other things, might be useful.
The shell changes are interesting. The only Metro apps I use are Reader, because it scrolls much more smoothly than Adobe/foxit ever did for me, and Weather, because it's less typing than looking up a website. Having them not take the whole screen will be nice.
Most of the complaints about pricing in Australia are around digital products, where there are apparently no protections outside the ability to return it if it doesn't work. That can't justify the 50-100% price increase on digital goods. You're correct that the increased price of things like e.g. Apple products is most likely due to them having to provide actual service without you paying extra, but that isn't what a lot of us are complaining about. A few years ago it was cheaper to take a flight to America and buy Adobe software then fly back than it was to buy it in Australia, despite gaining zero additional protections for it outside of a return if it doesn't work (which is fairly unlikely, depending on your definition of "doesn't work").