Do you have any idea of how expensive beer is in Finland?
Do you have any idea of how expensive beer is in Finland?
What has been requested more - video streaming, or lossless compression for audio?
I suspect the latter.
It says ensure that there are published BIOS update tools, not that it will be forced via Windows Update.
But even if BIOSes can be upgraded by Windows Update, they can't force vendors to supply the BIOS. More than likely anyone that does provide a BIOS, will ensure that they do so for hardware that can update safely (e.g. has dual BIOS capability). After all, it won't be MS on the hook, but the vendors.
Given that CPUs have bugs - see Intel Skylake freezing issue - and fixes are applied via BIOS, ensuring these fixes get distributed to people (safely) without them having to hunt out the problems / solutions, and apply them manually, is actually a good thing.
If this is the reason why you want to move to Linux, then good luck. There are plenty of reasons to choose to use Linux, but support of new architectures without being forced to upgrade the OS isn't one.
There is nothing you can do about people using VPNs, but you could easily make other changes, and not care about the IP address - acknowledging and recognising the people go on holiday.
That's a bigger bugbear with some of these services than the content restrictions - take Mubi. I can download content onto my tablet for offline viewing. But if I happen to turn the network, it realises I'm not in the region that I downloaded the content, and suddenly i can't watch it. Hey, it happens to be that I'm on holiday - let me watch the god damn content that I have paid for and am legally entitled to watch.
Whilst I don't like the body scanner, and prefer the old fashioned metal detectors, I would happily take either in preference to a pat down.
Part of the reason that I don't like the body scanner is it is much more likely to "find" a false positive requiring a partial pat down by the officers than the metal detector is.
If an autonomous car can completely avoid accidents by taking corrective action that keeps it's behaviour within the law, then it should do.
But there will always be occasions that occur out of the ordinary. Take the obvious example of someone stepping out into the road - if you do nothing, then you are certainly going to crash into the person (and likely kill them).
Slamming on the brakes might cause a car behind to run into you, and it may not even be possible to stop in time.
Swerving may be the only option to avoid the person, but that takes you into oncoming traffic. You might hit a car head on. Or catch part of one, and spin and still hit the person in the road.
There are lots of permutations and possible outcomes, and staying entirely within the law may not always give the best outcome.
Predominantly, autonomous cars should keep to being within the law as much as possible, and if they do have to take some form of evasive action that stretches the law, they should be looking to get back to being within the law as quickly as the safely can.
But it doesn't make sense to completely shut off the option of going outside the normal limits, if the sensors are good enough and it is deemed to be the only way to avoid a collision.
I've had numerous Android devices in the past - they've all had worse battery life than the 6 plus, and not had the convenience of a wide selection of good quality headphones with volume control support.
If it comes down to it, I'll switch to a different device, based on the comparative functionality at the time. In all likelihood, I'll probably just stick with the 6 plus for as long as possible.
Aggressive does not equal reckless.
In every generation there are drivers at the front of the grid that are more aggressive than their competitors - Senna, Schumacher, etc. That they aren't constantly crashing, that they are winning multiple titles, shows that they aren't reckless.
At the same time, you have the likes of Prost, who became multiple world champion through consistency rather than outright performance.
No, AIs don't inately have a sense of self preservation - they function as they have been programmed to do. But the people that write them and the people that run the teams will care how the AI performs. Especially if you are invested in providing AIs for road cars - you're not going to make many sales of an AI that continually crashes spectacularly.
It says the cars will be of the same specification. Theroretically, you can save some weight by not having a driver - more interestingly, you can save space by not providing room for a driver. Maybe that means smaller, more stream lined cars? Maybe it means adding more batteries so they can run longer - adding weight.
And true, you aren't G restricted on the basis of what a driver can withstand - but the driver isn't the limit of the amount of G cars can currently pull; the rules and restrictions of car design, the limit of grip of the tyres are.
So it will all depend on the design of car that they mandate for everybody as to how fast they ultimately run.
More reckless? Maybe. You don't have to worry about driver safety, only stewards and spectators. So there is less of a risk of someone being injured from a crash.
But the old saying is "in order to finish first, first you must finish". It will be interesting to see how aggressive different algorithms are, and how they respond to different circumstances. There is always a possibility of an "error in calculation", but the algorithms are unlikely to be out and out reckless, because they won't achieve anything by not finishing.
If the 3.5mm jack is restricting you from making the device thinner, then use the "unnecessary" space for high battery capacity.
Hell, just make the device a tiny bit thicker and increase the battery life anyway.
Just because Jony Ive is a twat that craves how things look over how they function, a substantial part of your user base (and potential user base), actually give a shit about having a device that can be used consistently without dying in under 24 hours, and might even last more than a day without charging.
To an extent we will trade battery life for increased functionality, but an even thinner device isn't more functional. We want more battery life.
Currently, I am a Firefox user - but maybe not for much longer if they carry on like this.
First, they introduce Australis, and refuse to listen to any of their users complaining that it suffers from bad usability.
For a long time, I was using the full theme support, in order to not have to use crappy Australis. I stopped doing so, not because I don't want to use theme support, but because the themes themselves don't work with newer versions - continual bloody cat and mouse game.
I've never used tab groups, but maybe there is a reason for that - if you want users to use a feature, DON'T HIDE IT. Seriously, the average user would have no idea that tab groups even exist, because there is no button for it by default, no menu for it. You either have to customise the UI, or know an obscure hotkey.
I had switched back to Firefox because Chrome isn't as efficient as it appears to be. But at this rate, I'm either going to be back on Chrome, or going to Vivaldi. The only thing preventing me from giving Edge a serious go is a lack of plugins.
Imho, the biggest "flaw" with agile development, is that it is - if not selling itself, seen as by many as - being everything to everyone. You can take a bit of this or leave a bit of that, but this is the right way of doing things. And it all gets wrapped up in terminology (agile, velocity, etc.), that suggest that the process will be faster and better.
But different processes have different strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes it's more important to put in design effort upfront. Sometimes it's most important to make the most efficient use of resources (e.g. not wasting time doing things based on a narrow requirement knowing that you'll need to change it later), sometimes it's important to be able to adapt to changes, and knowingly change requirements based on feedback. Agile methodologies only really address the last one.
The best results will come from understanding what the project needs, and choosing the methodology that best addresses that, not from always trying to fit one methodology to every project.
How on earth did anyone cope in the 70s, before iPads were invented?
So, the most prevalent complaint is that the car is too good, such that you can notice minor defects that would be undetectable in a petrol car.
"There are things that are so serious that you can only joke about them" - Heisenberg