But when I was a surveyor's assistant we usually tried to close surveys to less than an inch. We were really, really, precise about locations. Maybe that was just a weird firm, but I suspect not, I think that's SOP. Given that we placed markers that precise, it is hard to imagine that the physical structures, items, etc got placed more than a couple inches off.

I can't imagine roadways would be much different.

So ya, as you say, these things are known pretty precisely. Turns out that even pre-GPS you could get really good measurements, if you did it right.

Also having done that, it makes me think all the metric stuff is a little silly. It really isn't that hard to go back and forth. Most contracts were in US units, however some government contracts were in metric. So what did we do? Switched the digital theodolite and computer to metric and worked with that.

Really metric only shines when you talk science or engineering, when you are doing more advanced things like inter-unit conversion. There the standardization is so damn useful, hence why science, including in the US, is done and taught in metric (or at least it was when I went to school).

For every day use though? It doesn't really matter. All that matters is you have a feel for the units, and you can have that for both no problem. I really can't see what the compelling reason to convert to metric for everyday use is. Even in countries that have converted, you find plenty of unit mixture. In Canada you will see things at grocers sold in pounds, gallons, etc. It is amusing that in the same grocer you can see meats side by side, some priced by pound, some by 100 grams.

Then all over you find some units that defy either system. Like ever buy a home AC? They are sized in "tons" however if you've had a look at the unit you realize that it is far lighter than the figure. So what the hell does that mean? It means how many tons of ice per day you'd need to equal the cooling capacity. Seriously. It started way back in the day when it was a new concept, and that was a comparable method of measure.

I really think people make a bigger deal of this than is warranted. I certainly don't think there should be any resistance to using the metric system, it is great, but in terms of forcing a conversion, I fail to see what that gains you.

It can also mean "no preset limit" which is what it usually mean for Internet plans. They don't have a hard and fast limit, you can use it without hitting some magic number when you get cut off or charged. However that doesn't mean you can just go crazy and use the max all the time.

This is also how it needs to be, if you want cheap Internet. If you think companies can cheaply provide Internet service where everyone uses it full bore 24/7, then you haven't done much looking in to network infrastructure. The only way it works is if people play nice and use it when they need it, and let it be used by other people the rest of the time.

When your chosen platform can't do something, just redefine the goal and then hate on anyone who doesn't accept that definition. So any game I can't get on Linux is a "watt-sucking/heat-sink-busting" game? Well then count me in as wanting to play those! Of games I've played lately that don't run on Linux Skyrim has topped the list, 200 hours in it so far. It is an extremely entertaining game, I have gotten my money's worth and more out of it. Also on the list would be Xcom, Torchlight 2, Deus Ex, Fallen Enchantress, Shogun 2 Total War, Terraia and so on. Now if those are all "watt-sucking/heat-sink-busting" games according to you, fine, but I don't care I liked them, a lot, and want to play them. Crysis? Not on the list, I didn't care for it, so I haven't bought any of the sequels.

Frankly the measure of how good the platform is for gaming isn't how many games you can find for it, it is how many games that you want to play run on it. That'll vary person to person. However trying to point to a bunch of little indy or half-finished OSS titles isn't going to make many gamers happy. Sorry, but I want Skyrim, it is all kinds of worth it and not just for the graphics (though when yo uload up some mods those are pretty impressive too). I don't want Vega Strike.

If you want higher resolutions and frame rates, you need more powerful GPUs to handle it. For example moving to 2560x1600 or to 120fps doubles the pixel requirement over 1920x1080@60fps. So whatever amount of power you needed to achieve 1080p60, double that for either of those targets. 4k will require a quadrupling, and 120fps 4k would require 8x the power.

All this is assuming you are getting 60fps in the first place. Now maybe you are fine with trading off lower frame rates, or lower resolutions, that's all up to you. If 720p30 is your target, you can get away with a whole lot less power. However that doesn't mean that nobody wants to target higher resolutions or frame rates.

There are also other visual quality settings to consider, like anti-aliasing and so on that can require more power. Depending on what you are targeting with that, you can need a lot of power.

Personally I really find frame rates much below 60 pretty annoying in most games. I really like the feeling of fluidity you get. 120 fps is even better, but the monitor I normally use doesn't handle that. Well maintaining that 60fps at a 2.5k resolution is not a trivial feat. I don't think a $250 graphics card would do that for most games.

Seriously, for some people, gaming is their hobby and that kind of money is not that much when you talk what people spend on hobbies. My coworker just bought himself like a $2000 turbo for his car, to replace (or augment, I'm not sure) the one that's already there. He has no need for it, but he likes playing with his car.

Now that you, and most others, don't want to spend that kind of money is understandable and not problematic. There's a reason why companies have a lineup of stuff and why the high end stuff is just for those with plenty of money. It also doesn't scale linearly since the higher end something is, the less units get sold, and so the more the fixed costs influence the unit cost.

However don't hate on it. That you don't wish to spend that kind of money doesn't mean that nobody should. Also you should be glad people do: The expensive parts fund the cheap parts. They can recover more R&D costs on these units, letting them sell lower end parts for less, since lower end parts are the same tech, just less of it.

When you post stuff like that, and fanboys mod it to +5, it looks really silly. The reason isn't because it is not true, but because it is not impressive. Yes, Linux has a few games for it including some older Source games. Yay. Trying to imply that because it has Steam it has games is silly. Roughly 6 of my 163 Steam games will run on Linux and most of those are the older Source engine games.

Having Steam doesn't mean you get games. It means there's a platform to sell games on that many Linux users will hate on (costs money, has DRM, no source code). The games themselves have to be ported and so far, not much of that has been going on.

It does not strengthen your point when you go and make a rather silly argument. The "but it has Steam!" argument that keeps getting trotted out when someone comments on Linux and gaming reminds me of Mac users back in the 90s pointing to the 10 or so old titles you could find in the store as proof that there were plenty of games on the Mac.

Linux gaming is not in a good state currently, and trying to mask that is silly.

Article is devoid of citations. Are Irish spuds as highly radioactive as Idaho spuds? Are spuds from Oregon spuds from volcanic spuds as radioactive?

Chips can't be radioactive if produced from material free of radioactive material.

I'm a little better supplied by having a motorhome. 100 gallons of fresh water, generator, propane stove, fridge heat and a 240 Watt solar pannel with inverter and deep cycle batteries. If needed, I can travel.

Sometimes the camping supplies can double as emergency supplies.

Google have always been pretty ruthless about culling services that aren't getting enough traction, but in the last year I think it's been more visible - and rather than being just services that few people are using (Wave), it's been targeted at services that can be somehow monetised or otherwise made directly relevant to the business.

Off the top of my head:

  - There's no longer a free Google Apps for Domains tier. Existing domains have been allowed to stay but nobody new can register for free.
  - Those who are still on the Free tier have had ActiveSync turned off. Works for existing devices, will break when you try and set up a new one.
  - CalDAV is in the process of being discontinued. Quite what this will mean for iPhone owners is anyone's guess - it still works at this stage but I wouldn't be too surprised if Google are using this behind closed doors as a bargaining chip with Apple: "You want all your iPhone users to be able to sync their devices with Google? Well, I guess you'd better stop suing all the Android handset manufacturers."

They are getting a head start on Obamacare where your medical care and finances are all part of the Government. Get used to it as the new norm if you use healthcare in the US.

I am wondering if the underground queens can be eliminated with the application of an Oxygen deficient gas such as CO2 or Nitrogen. I presume the nests can be found. A few cubic feet of Nitrogen should cause problems if injected directly into the soil in the mound displacing the normal air.

In those places, a $100 bill would work as well or better than a passport for getting through checkpoint guards. The idea that someone would bother with your passport number in trying to forge a passport to get through there is rather laughable, since they didn't even bother to check said number to see if it was legit.

At a border with better security? Not going to work. Passports have a lot more security to them than that, particularly now.

Basically if places have weak security, the have weak security. Someone isn't going to bother to try to get a legit name and number to forge a passport. If they have tight security, then it wouldn't do any good as they check the other features, which wouldn't match.

See if the point of someone having your information is to, well, be able to access your information then it needs to be stored in that format. A password can be hashed, but something like name and address needs to be stored in text. Encrypting it is the kind of thing that does a limited amount of good. They may well encrypt it on disk, but the software that accesses it still needs to be able to decrypt it, wouldn't be of much use if it couldn't. So if someone busts in through a problem in the software, they can get your data.

It is easy to get mad and say companies should "do something" but ask yourself what that something is, I mean really analyze the problem, and then try and come up with a solution that works. It is harder.

We deal with that kind of thing at work. Securing data isn't just a magic switch you can flick. Like our new storage array has self-encrypting drives. Great, we can, with no performance loss, encrypt everything on it... However that only really helps against it getting stolen, or if we forgot to wipe the disks when we decommission it. Being that all data is encrypted, the unit has the password (it is a power-on kind of thing) so if you bust in over the network, well then you can get at the data unencrypted.

For more sensitive stuff you can take it a step further, use Sophos (ya that is what they bought, no not my choice) full disk or file container encryption. That means that if a system with it is lost, nobody can get the data. However, when that system is online and the FS mounted, again a break in can get at the data.

The only way to stop network breakins from being a possible compromise is to take the systems entirely off the Internet. Not only is that unfeasible in normal cases, but it is impossible if you are talking the system that is to handle talking to the users online.

I can't come up with a way that you can have a system where the data is secure, even if the system gets compromised. Of course you try and stop systems from getting compromised, but the idea that data should be stored somehow that even if a system gets broken in to you can't get at it is rather silly.

For example the powers that be at work decided that the important thing was 3 of the 4 groups (upper, lower, numbers, and punctuation are the groups), and length, with 14+ being what makes it happy. So you input a short phrase like "I like puppies" it'll call it strong and take it. However if you input "@la2wo!d?o-z4" it'll call it weak because it is too short. Input something like "niecrlazleswiariucriuml7priu8roab7iuyluc0oawr1u5pl" and it'll reject it because there are only 2 of the 4 groups).

There's no further analysis, it is just a length and groups thing, with rather poorly defined groups.

Also in terms of strength, while there's no perfect one, measuring bits of entropy, which you can do, is pretty good. However few sites use anything that advanced.

I'd say I'm a pretty security aware individual, what with working in IT and all that. I do defense in depth on computer and physical security, I'm proactive about things, etc. Seems to have worked, I've never had a system owned.

So I never reuse passwords, right?

Wrong, I do all the time. Almost every forum online I have the same password for, and it is a weak one. Why? Because I don't care. Oh no, someone might hack my forum account and... I dunno, post something as me! Whatever would I do? I'm not going to bother to generate a great, unique, password for every site.

However my bank account? Random password (I don't seem to have trouble remembering them), long, and it requires two factor authentication. That protects my finances, and those matter. So security on that is pretty high.

The idea that everyone is going to have a high security password for every site and not reuse it is silly. There are plenty of things where if your account got compromised, you just don't care so much.

Also it can make sense to group systems. All my systems at home use a single password. There is no reason for them not to. They are all in the same security context, basically. It is no different than at work where my single account gets me access to any domain system.