As people said PCIe SSD always have been available as cards, but they're typically damn expensive. So what is needed is a more standard and common format. Intel touted SATA Express, a connector that you can use either as a couple SATA 6Gb or as a single PCIe 2.0 2x link at 1GB/s ; but that didn't work out (for now at least) and instead the next round of motherboard with Intel Z97 (maybe lower end ones, we'll see) will have a connector for M.2 format drives (a small "chocolate bar" form factor), which is PCIe at 1GB/s again. Maybe that'll get to 2GB/s some day.
If you want to do something that needs IOPS (I/O per second), e.g. running Slashdot's comment system, you can use RAID. But maybe you'll be running eight 15000 rpm disks in RAID 10, and not using the slower half or third of the drives (that makes the heads fly back and forth on a shorter segment as well).
When you're down to that point, using a single SSD will allow you considerable savings on all manners of cost and you get higher performance even.
Russia has just admitted that it really did move members of its armed forces into Crimea prior to the annexation. How do you think they managed that without people catching on?
Maybe old school subterfuge? Or are you arguing we need mass warrantless surveillance of American citizens in order to track Russain military units overseas?
The blue guards in Wolfenstein 3D shout "Mein Leiben!" when they die, or that's what I seem to hear.
Yes he does. Because Alphawolf_HK is a college kid with no real life experience himself.
How many times do they do it a week without all that official authorization stuff?
If they use them in criminal investigations the usage eventually becomes part of the public record when entered into evidence. Using them for search and rescue ought to be non-controversial enough. "National Security" is of course the grey area, though there's a fair amount of overlap between National Security and criminal prosecutions, for offenses like espionage or terrorism, so a lot of that use would eventually make it into the public record as well.
Does Valve know any time I've played such and such games, on which servers and so on? Are data anonymized when surveys or such sociological studies are made?
It is one troubling aspect, or the biggest one. DRM philosophical arguments almost do not matter. When Amazon knows what books you've read, even down to the last page you've viewed for every book (that was in the news about recently) you have a situation that goes further than what the science fiction books and movies from the 60s and 70s and earlier anticipated.
So the five extra words of the proposed amendment can't hurt, now can they?
If you can get the amendment passed, then it is by definition constitutional. I'm not a big fan of either the 16th or 17th Amendments, but the federal income tax and direct election of senators are both absolutely constitutional to even the most hard-line strict constructionists.
Society is entirely within its rights to demand the sacrifice of those whose lives might have been saved by possession of firearms by the argument that more lives would be saved by not permitting ownership of firearms.
Then prove that your premise is true.
I think you are feeling very confused: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
You actually live in something *better* than a direct democracy.
A direct democracy enjoys no constitutional guarantees of rights. It's strictly majority rule.
Right this way sir... here's some bread, we hope you enjoy the circus.
This study defines "rich people" as those making around $146000/year.
If you think about it, there's no control for expenses there, so it's not a very effective definition (I'm always kind of a amazed at the mindset in the US that tries to simplify things by drawing a numeric line in the sand, as if there were no other issues. And people put up with it. We need better schools.
I define "rich" as: wealthy enough to be living in a manner comfortable in every material way to the individual or family, and able to survive indefinitely in that state, or in an increasingly wealthy state without relying on income from, or charity of, others. Regardless of if one actually chooses to exist in that state, or not.
Not trying to force that definition on anyone else, but that's how I see it personally.
I recommend antibiotics.
The transition was from a flawed, but still readily identifiable constitutional republic (not a democracy), to a corporate oligarchy.
This has never been a democracy, and furthermore, the constitution insists that the federal government guarantee each state a republican form of government, as in, a republic -- not a democracy. That's in article 4, section 4.
This is why representatives decide the actual matters, and voters don't, in the basic design.
Of course, now even the representatives don't decide -- nor judges -- if the legislation deals in any significant way with business interests. The only way the old system still operates even remotely the way it was designed to is when the issue(s) at hand a purely social ones. Even then, the bill of rights seems to be at the very bottom of any legislator's or judge's list of concerns.
Can't see any of this changing, though. The public is too uninformed, and short of completely revamping the school curriculums, they're going to remain that way.
The point is that technological advancement in the press allows for information to reach more people more quickly, and that makes society better.
Have you ever heard the expression "the pen is mightier than the sword"? It's not just a pithy one-liner. The press can be used to influence the thinking of many people. The reason a large militia gathered in Nevada was because the event got press. It doesn't matter how many guns Cliven Bundy had, of what caliber, or magazine size, he could not have turned away a heavily-armed federal police force of 200 people by himself. The press is much more powerful, for good or ill, than firearms by themselves. Technological advancements have only made it that much more powerful. That's why oppressive governments have to control both the firearms and the press. You can't effectively control one without controlling the other.
Technological advancement in armaments allows for bullets to reach more people more quickly, and that makes society worse.
Why? Because you say so? I live in Texas, and feel relatively secure from home invasion because criminals here know that any given home in Texas has a good chance of being well armed with modern, effective firearms. That's not to say that violent home invasions never happen here, just that they happen quite a bit less. Compare that to Australia, where the government confiscated all the guns to keep people safe, and violent home invasions skyrocketed. And since you seem to think that gun-free places are safer, consider how quickly these senseless mass shootings would end if more people were armed. Take the recent one in Fort Hood. Would that guy have been able kill and injure so many people if we didn't disarm our own soldiers (who are well trained in handling firearms) on their home bases? Instead of hiding helplessly, the victims could have quickly taken the guy down and not been victims. I personally find it very disconcerting that the only thing standing between a crazy gunman and an elementary school is a piece of paper that says it's illegal to carry a gun on campus. The gunman doesn't care about that law, but he knows that the campus is full of lawful citizens, which means he knows he will be the only person who is armed there. You don't see a lot of mass shooting rages at the NRA convention, or at your local Bass Pro Shop.
If you are personally afraid of guns, that's your business. I'm not going to try to force you to own one. But you have not convinced me that I would be better off living in a society where law-abiding citizens are disarmed.