The only REAL market for 10, 12, 15k RPM disks is the same market large SSDs are targetting.
I wonder what I'm supposed to do with these 10k and 12k RPM disks now that Slashdot has decided they're impossible.
(I realise that still assumes there's enough memory for the applications to usefully run, which was at least part of your original point)
For the default Linux kernel settings, with anything approaching or exceeding 1GB of RAM you can actually get a benefit from more address space. The kernel only maps 1GB by default because of the restrictions of a 32-bit address space - and some of that 1GB is taken up by devices, rather than actual memory. The result is that the kernel has to create temporary mappings to access process memory. With a 64-bit system the kernel can keep it all mapped, all the time.
My comment applies to x86 specifically - other architectures will not necessarily have the same cost / benefit tradeoff. Also, there have been options for the kernel that allow it to map 2GB (with a reduced 2GB address space per process) or 4GB (which will be at a performance cost) - they're not often used but in a more appliance-like device (i.e. nobody is going to plop a load more memory in later and change the cost/benefit analysis) such as this they may also be a viable option.
I'm with neonKow, this can't be "every". But the prevalence of black & white worldviews seems to be higher among those who spend most of their time indoors with their work. The same goes for scientists, (which is how come we still get to have shitstorms over people wearing pimp shirts), lawyers (who really only meet bad or aggrieved people), the religious profession (who gurn a lot and talk to fairies), and politicians (who generally only meet people who are prepared to give them lots and lots of cash on the sly).
The first Itaniums had x86 compat in hardware and were, I believe, disappointingly slow at executing x86 code. Obviously that's something that Intel could have improved if they applied themselves to the problem (and maybe they'd have made it faster if they hadn't been expecting / hoping / planning to replace x86 anyhow).
But given the different philosophies of the architectures, I think it's somewhat plausible that doing an x86 -> Itanium conversion in hardware is just a bit awkward and that software might genuinely give the flexibility to do a better job. Around the same time, Transmeta were selling their chips that exclusively exposed a software-emulated x86 layer for use in laptops. I remember wishing Intel would buy their tech and apply it to Itanium / x86 compatbility.
They have to be smart enough to jailbreak, point to an alternative app store, and install a corrupted app.
No, this is unnecessary. The malicious applications are signed as an enterprise application, so no jailbreaking is necessary. They are distributed using Apple's standard OTA distribution mechanism designed for enterprise applications and beta testing, so no alternative App Store is necessary.
What happens is that the user goes to a malicious/compromised website, this redirects them to the application, and iOS prompts the user with something like:
malicious-website.com would like to install "Gmail"
Cancel | Install
If I remember correctly, there's an additional prompt if it's the first time you've installed an application from that particular developer.
You still have to be dumb to install an application when you are unexpectedly prompted to, but it's a lot simpler to do than you realise.
It's a shame you put this forth as a "debunking" when your own (miniscule) results are hardly better controlled than the (far more numerous) results you decry.
To control properly, you would need an additional pair of photos of women, similarly dressed, similarly cropped, plus another pair of a mother and baby, but not nursing. I'm no expert on what constitutes proper control, but heck, at least cover the basics.
Me too. I tell you, it was far cheaper for our marriage, and went straight to investments instead of going to fund crypto-slavery.
You go eat on the toilet then, chump.
He (so, so obviously "he") means "fundamental" in the sense he's talking out of his fundament.
Humans don't naturally expose a huge amount of breast, since they don't become large naturally. It's only with the advent of adequate medicine and an abundance (excess?) of nutrition that some women find themselves large mammaries; and it's only with the advent of easily accessible pornography that the "engorged" look has become mixed up with the idea of sexual availability, and subsequently, generic attractiveness and desirability, to the point that many women seek to undergo surgery to enlarge their breasts, and lingerie manufacturers target children with corsetry for displaying cleavage.
Let's just say you're not doing well with your arguments since you're not very well informed about the subject of women. (Which should have been obvious, this being
I realise you had to mention your penis because you're male, but when someone is jerking off the restroom at work, you're fine with that, because the other men peeing are touching their own penises too?
It's all about context. Nursing a child is not a sexual act. Stop trying to sexualize it, you freak.
From the CNBC article:
Google has said it plans to test its driverless cars at Moffett, which would enable it to escape California regulations requiring that such vehicles must have a driver capable of taking over control.
They're seriously covering the use of a non-public test track as "escap[ing] California regulations"? What next? NASCAR plans to have its competitors drive at Sonoma Speedway, which would enable it to escape California regulations requiring that such vehicles do not travel above 85 mph.