Tories clearly worried about losing what they see as their rightful place - being the biggest wankers in the UK.
I don't have any reason to doubt them - however, it is more complicated than that. Being able to install and play the games takes more than just downloading them from Steam. It dependson how they've been coded, what they expect, etc.
And then there is the issue of timeframes - if it goes tits up, then any ability to download software won't be provided forever.
Bigger qualifier would be - what is measurable software quality? The only measures that really matter are how few bugs are there, how non-serious are the bugs, how easy are the bugs to fix in reality, how quickly and reliably can new features be added, or old ones removed, and how efficient is the code?
You can't genuinely measure software quality in the static. You can't measure it against the unknowns of the future.
Refactoring to meet some arbitrary definition of software quality is a red herring. But refactoring tools and techniques are an invaluable part of addressing the challenges of the future - of being able to address bugs / isolating code for testing, being able add/remove features, increasing code reuse instead of duplication for maintenance and predictability.
If the two-engine planes are such a risk, how the hell have they got air safety certificates?
Unless, due to scheduling issues they intentionally want to run the plane with broken engines, I don't see any good reason why it needs four engines.
Fair enough, buy American - especially when the A380 is more expensive. But given that it is a completely custom fit out, I don't see why the smaller size of a 787 should be a problem either.
The 787 would make it practical / possible to fly into smaller airfields too. And be much, much cheaper - to purchase and run.
You're right, the performance - as long as it stays within 3.5GB - is fine. The thing is, given that the extra 0.5GB brings the performance down, they probably should have just made it a 3GB card - which again would have given the same amount of performance in the majority of cases - and shaved a bit of the costs.
I'm sick of the outdated business practices of media providers. Sure, you can understand the regional libraries for Netflix, et al when the times when things are sold, shown on TV, shown in cinema differ in each region.
And you can understand why that is the case when you are shipping film to cinemas and producing and shipping the film stock is a logistical problem. And to an extent the same with DVD and Blu-Ray.
But we are increasingly moving to a world where we buy or rent digital files rather than physical media. Where even cinemas are going to digital projection and just get files streamed to them.
Other than the time it takes to unwind the backlog, there are no valid reasons for having such vast time difference between when things are released in different regions. And resolving that, there is little (aside from one or two broader regions based on economic activity) reason for price differences between countries.
Making these region locks, on the whole, rather pointless. We need to be clear about this - if a content provider chooses not to provide the content (for very weak reasons), then people attempting to circumvent these arbitrary blocks are not to blame, but the content providers themselves. Stop treating us all so badly.
It's interesting that people believe in creation / intelligent design and use the "odds are so infitessimally small it couldn't happen by chance" reasoning, when the problem with having any being or force responsible for creating everything is you then have to ask who created the creator?
There are approximately 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the observable universe, and even if you say that habitable zones of galaxies are quite small, so really we should talk about the chances of a galaxy sustaining life, then that planet count comes from there being 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe.
1 in 200 billion are quite infitessimally small odds.
And the odds that we were created by "chance" are far higher than there being an intelligent creator that would design our planet, our galaxy in order to sustain life, and yet create over 200 billion other galaxies without any life, because what would be the point of that?
I've tried Inbox. It's as shit as every other attempt to hide away emails in favour of highlighting what it thinks is important.
Force this on users, and I'll finally, permanently switch my email provider.
The likelihood that strafing would fail, and in so doing alert the crew into making a call, is probably higher than a missile cleanly taking the the plane down.
Even if the crew had a chance to make an emergency call about the missile, then it would likely be about the immediate issue (e.g. engine explosion, loss of cabin pressure, etc.) rather than specifically identifying the cause.
You would donate if you believe in the direction that they are taking, and want to help them get there / sustain it.
Just like you buy commercial / closed source software, because you want what it does.
Nothing is ever guaranteed, but you have more of a chance of getting what you want if you are prepared to put your money (or time) where your mouth is.
That's probably why it wasn't being set then.
When people were messing around with pedal powered planes trying to get off the ground initially, I doubt anyone was thinking that we would be able to get 500 people from one side of the world to the other in 24 hours.
No, SpaceShipTwo is not going to be a fundamental change in the way we travel or what we can achieve by itself. But that's no reason why the lessons learned and/or any future cost reductions won't be stepping stones to greater things.
Now you just want a Twitter client where I can assign different alert sounds to accounts you follow...
Sure, if you try to match size for size, spec for spec as closely as possible, you have a problem.
However, the article notes that if you went with nVidia chips rather than AMD - which may be preferable for some workloads - then you have the GPU bill, and immediately bring it below the cost of the Mac Pro.
And if you don't care to much about the size, changing the case and motherboard will likely bring your costs down further.
That's without taking advantage of what is good about DIY- the ability to make your own trade-offs as to where it is important to spend your money. Which is my biggest gripe about Apple hardware - to get the one or two things you really *must* have, you end up spending an awful lot more than you would for a PC, because you have to take a load of other things you simply don't care about.
Nobody wants a desktop operating system on a mobile device, and nobody wants a mobile operating system on a desktop device.