Thanks! I'd prefer debian but I didn't bother checking how to install it. After all, at the moment it is only an xbmc box. in the long run i'd like to build a groundstation for my autonomous vehicles on it, then a reliable distor matters more.
I don't know about this one, but I own an Odroid U3 (Cortex A9, quad 1.7ghz) and it does very well. It costs abit more (I think it was around usd 50 or 60).
Their Linux distro is not the best, based on ubuntu and their documentation is really crap. Fine hardware tho.
Actually our central IT buys core i7 with 1GB ram and HDDs. What we do (after the fact is) adding an SSD and 4GB ram for my departement. Also we have been heavily pushing for 1GB ethernet to all offices.
After that we started buying clients with slower cpus but with SSD, more ram and combined with the faster network the overall performance is much better for an office user. And the average price per client is now usd 400 instead of usd 1200. Our researchers get faster computers where needed.
I am working for a company with 6000+ desktops. I do not understand why our client engineering is rolling out faster hardware every year. 95% of all office workers need MS office, a browser and email. Most of the home users just need a browser these days. Those core i7 are just idling around heating office space.
I have now started rolling out 200 dollar desktop hardware (zotac). Which could really become a problem for microsoft. The windows licence price tag looks really expensive with these hardware prices.
Office problems are solved, we do not need faster hardware. And microsoft is manly making money from, *drumbeat*, office workers.
Good questions indeed. Apple has rolled out a "Safari Update" on Sept 29th, but there seems to be more to it, however, apple is very secretive about the security updates. Something I really dislike about them:
Haha, my fist thought after reading the headline.
For those who don't know, this comes from a Windows Vista speech recognition demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... skip to 0:30
This is because microsoft manages to be incompatible with their own ISO standard (I guess their own "standard" is not documented).
I am feeling very privileged to live in a direct democracy, the country is very small and is called Switzerland. We do have 2 instruments to keep our Politicians behaving and represent the people:
1) Referendum: if we don't like what our policy makers have enacted, we can collect 50'000 signatures and the people have to vote on it
2) Initiative: Our policy makers don't want to take care of a certain topic? we, the poeple will vote on it after collecting 100'000 signatures.
It's not a perfect system and it might not work in larger countries on national level, because it is a somewhat slow process to find consensus. However, only the thought alone that politicians' decisions could be overthrown by the people helps keeping them thinking twice what to support and do.
Our Linux servers (there are many) are updated much more frequently than the windows servers, because we expect and have less problems.
Generally Windows bugs get patched fairly quickly.
This is appropriate use of "generally" and "fairly" in that sentence I guess.
They are the only big-name vendor who was supporting a 12-year old OS until a week ago.
Microsoft had to support XP so long because Longhorn development was a disaster. Only with win7 they gave companies a viable upgrade. I am working for a large company and we are only just finishing the transition from XP to 7. Guess why? because of loads of Microsoft specific technologies that are not supported anymore and had to be replaced.
The SSL flaw has been fixed and rolled out very quickly, it was not the first and will not be the last. How many known Security flaws for windows, IE and many other Microsoft products are out there, unfixed?
Could you explain why "Microsoft has a bigger problem with having to support old platforms" than anyone else? They seem to have vast resources and should actually be able to react quicker than others.
These statements show exactly why the FAA cannot be trusted about matters of small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. I am an sUAS operator myself and I am doing it for charity (check http://conservationdrones.org/ if you want to find out more).
Raphael's statement has always been, that he is operating an RC plane. The FAA does not regulate RC planes. There are no binding rules at least. They gave out recommendations and acted as if they were binding rules. Since 2007 the FAA has been grounding aerial photography businesses on the grounds of these recommendations.
Raphael was the first to challenge it in court. And the Judge ruled that this is non of the FAA's business. At least not as long as they come up with proper regulations as I understand this. The FAA has been dragging it's feets for 7 years now and they will most probably not have any regulations in place by 2015 (the next deadline).
This means that hollywood has to hire foreign countries abroad to use multirotors for some of the footage they want. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. Thousands of farmers, civil engineers, maintenance workers, security workers, you name it have been forced to stop doing their business for 7 years without a resolution in sight. This ruling clears up the matters for commercial drone use in the US.
Once they are finished with their nerd cleansing, they can build a new Slashdot. A sexier Slashdot. A Slashdot the kids can dance to.
They aren't ignoring you. They are exterminating you."