Also, Microsoft products? This seems to be about patents, and Android != Windows.

Maybe it has since determined that none of the patents MS was holding in that regard are valid?

"What the hell did they do in the 1950s??"

I'd imagine (and in many ways hope) that security requirements and policies have changed quite a bit since the 1950's

From what I see, there's a 45W A8-7600 @ 3100/3300Mhz, and a 65W A8-7600 @ 3300/3800

The clock turn clock would be the second for either version, but the 65W's base close is equiv to the turbo of the other, and the 65W has a 3800Mhz turbo.

I didn't check my frame-rate on the 7850, but at 1080p (full detail) it didn't have any notable lag or tearing, so that's good enough for me.

Gold coins are fairly useless in functional value, but as a conductor or a rust-resistant coating gold is pretty common.

Beyond that: (at any hotel I've attended recently) the front desk still verifies my credit card is present along with my photo ID. Without this step, it seems even easier to book a room on a fraudulent/stolen card. I'm sure criminals will love it!

Not very well thought through, I'm afraid.

In terms of performance, the big difference seems to be a somewhat lower number of graphics cores and lower CPU clock, but the lower TDP (45W vs 95W) could make it attractive along with the price-point. I wonder how it does for heat compared with the 7850k.
From reviews it looks like gameplay FPS is slightly lower but playable. Still not many details on heat though

These aren't exactly new news. I've had a 7850k since March/April. It's a nice CPU, with my main complains being that
a) It gets hot very quickly
b) The accompanying heatsink/fan is crap

The nice part:
The APU is quite nice for gaming. I haven't had any issues running most games at 1080p with graphics settings cranked, especially mantle-enabled stuff (BF4, etc). I've got dual-monitors, but I haven't played much which takes advantage of that so while gaming it's usually 1 for the game and another running monitoring/benchmarking.
It won't likely compare well to a hardcare rig with beefy dedicated graphics cards. Against my mid-level gaming rigs that had a mid-range graphics card, the APUt compared nicely, with the advantage of being more compact when using a mini-itx board.

The "RichShumaker" picture looks like a CGI'ed image. I could put off the ears as being plastic, but the face looks waxy and the eyes/hair don't seem real either.

There's process and then there's information. If a till at the supermarket breaks, once can (theoretically) still process cash purchases by hand, but how about Debit/Credit?

As per the article, it addresses why it was not possible to implement some manual workaround : "We cannot 'handwrite' visas because security measures prevent consular officers from printing a visa unless it is approved through our database system. Until the system is brought back to full capacity and we are able to work through the backlog, service to our customers will be below normal."

Yes=en. Its a short syllable pronounced from the throat with the mouth closed (somewhat grunt-like but not so inelegant). This is effective for most interrogatives.

No is roughly "bu" (boo). This is more a negative so it is often combine with other words, but "bu xie" (Boo shie / no thank you) is generally effective, but in the case of the "do you have" question a straight "boo" wouldn't be correct and the "I don't have" variety is useful. Conversely, "do you want [my pen/to go for lunch]" is generally answerable with "bu xie"

Maybe the parent should swap "simple positive and negative" instead of "yes and no", but the intent is the same and quite often it's not a language issue are you've put forth so much as a culture issue in terms of providing a straightforward response (whether it be ethnic culture or industry culture, etc).

It quite often still comes down to certain people or groups (companies etc) just being naturally evasive towards a straightforward answer.

Alternately, move towards being a game provider rather than a console+game. Generally, people are buying Nintendo stuff because the games are fun, not because the hardware is spectacular. For innovative stuff like wiimote etc, perhaps they could also manufacturer hardware accessories, but much of the Wii U controller functionality could have been replaced by a mobile App.

How much could they make selling copies of Mario [Party/Kart/Bros], Metroid, Zelda, etc on multiple platforms. Games from other vendors that used to be Nintendo exclusives such as Final Fantasy, Castlevania etc seem to manage to do well across consoles.

I think the reasoning is fine, because of these words: "...if the behaviour which is currently criminal is to remain criminal..."

Your example is a simple crime, where the victim had an experience related to the crime (so there's a body to be found by the police, or a surviving victim who says "ouch, someone shot me"). They are talking about certain types of crimes where neither the victim nor anyone closely watching the victim would never have any idea that a crime happened. All the evidence is completely disconnected from the victim.

I publish a magnet link. You read it, and use it to acquire a file. Someone who isn't there and sees absolutely no effect on their life, is defined as a victim because the action is "currently criminal." Maybe it's because they hold a copyright on the contents of the file, or because the file contains a picture of them without clothes (taken by hidden camera when they were 17 years and 364 days old), or because the file contains some other information related to them.

You can't detect these kinds of things.

The House of Lords is saying that if these are going to remain crimes, then the laws should be enforced, and if we ass/u/me that getting laws enforced is far more valuable to our society than liberty, efficiency, etc then it's important that the watchers know about every transaction that is happening and who is involved. They need to know that I transmitted information to you (and who both of us are) and what that information was. Until they have all that information, they can't even begin to guess whether or not a crime occurred. Maybe the file contained a picture of my dog rather than a 17-year-old human, and they need to know who took the dog picture and that I sent it to you, so that they know it wasn't a copyright violation.

Of course it's absurd, but that's because the premise is absurd. Their reaction to it, is quite rational. But that's my point: it almost looks like (especially in the paragraph that I quoted) they might be calling the bluff, pointing out the inevitable consequences of having externally un-detectable things be crimes. If they weren't that clever and didn't mean to do that, too bad, but even if it's an accident, they did it.

It's not an accident, though. Look at it (emphasis mine): "if it's to remain criminal" (see the wiggle room there?) and "currently criminal" and "there is little point in [doing this] at the same time [as doing that]" and "difficult question."

I'm not saying this is ingenious, but it really is a fairly well-crafted.

Nope, sorry. For three reasons:

1. 1.) VoLTE on one carrier is not necessarily compatible with VoLTE on another carrier. VoLTE is not plain VoIP - like Skype etc. - where it is a pure "over the top" Layer 7 application that any IP network should support. It is built at a much lower layer in the OSI stack, and each carrier's implementation will be optimized for their own network and may not be compatible with another carrier's.
2. 2.) To roam on "any network" (at least in the US) requires your phone to be able to access all the different LTE bands licensed to different carriers. Most phones sold in the US don't because it costs extra money to support the frequency bands of multiple carriers which is pointless when 95% of customers will use the phone for its two-year lifetime on the carrier that they bought it from
3. 3.) Also - to roam onto another network, by the way that GSM cellular technology works, your home carrier must have a roaming agreement with the "other" carrier. Generally speaking, the big US carriers have roaming agreements for international use and for remote rural use, but not in domestic areas where they have their own networks. The simple explanation is that if you lose your Verizon signal for a second and your phone tries to go roam onto T-Mobile, that costs VZ a lot of money.... whereas in that area it's more likely that you will get a VZ tower back within a few minutes and not cost them any roaming fees if you didn't attach to a roaming network. TL;DR - somebody will always pay more if you are using a network other than your "home" carrier, and that somebody will end up being you - at a rate that will make it economically unfeasible.

Lastly, if you thought that VoLTE was going to mean that you could just use any given carrier at your convenience, I'm sorry but that's just not how cellular works. In the mobile (GSM and its successor technologies like LTE) world, you have a "home" carrier (who gave you your SIM and sends you your monthly bill) and you will always use your home carrier whenever possible because it's less expensive for them. To use another carrier - even if they have better coverage in a certain area, and your device has the other carrier's frequencies enabled - means that your home carrier will absorb roaming charges and they will pass those along to you. With a markup. So it makes no economic sense for you or your carrier to just let you use the network that has the strongest signal in any given area... or if they do, be prepared to pay out the frickin' wazoo for every time you surf the web on a carrier that isn't your home provider.

The techdirt article quotes this delicious excerpt:

From our perspective in the United Kingdom, if the behaviour which is currently criminal is to remain criminal and also capable of prosecution, we consider that it would be proportionate to require the operators of websites first to establish the identity of people opening accounts but that it is also proportionate to allow people thereafter to use websites using pseudonyms or anonymously. There is little point in criminalising certain behaviour and at the same time legitimately making that same behaviour impossible to detect. We recognise that this is a difficult question, especially as it relates to jurisdiction and enforcement.

I can't even say I really disagree with that reasoning. Can't you see how there are two completely different ways to reach a conclusion from that paragraph?

Pointy Haired Boss - http://www.dilbert.com/