Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
I bootcamp to run Windows-only steam games on my iMac, but that's the only thing I use it for.
All my work-related stuff that is Win only (Origin 8, ACD labs, Omnic, etc) is done via VM. With Unity mode in Fusion you barely notice the VM itself, other than the fact that the windows look like Windows.
I think you mistake my comment about the nature of GPU driver availability as some sort of criticism of the platform. I'm merely commenting on the reality given the original commenter in this thread wondered about OS X support. I'm just laying it out as I see it. Colour me unsurprised that OS X development of the Rift has been put on hold (almost certainly indefinitely).
Guess what platform I use for the bulk of my computing work?
Right now the "consumer Macs" don't have the GPU power (the Mac Pro does, but it's a sliver of their sales), and even if they did, Apple doesn't focus on the drivers in the way that happens on Windows - while it's possible for third party vendors to release drivers (Nvidia does it, for example), it's just not common - the vast majority of Mac users are running with the driver that ships with the OS and it doesn't get updated often.
They have made some strides forward in shipping decent GPU hardware, but the software is still somewhat lacking for heavy 3D lifting.
They're investing a lot into infrastructure - charging stations, R&D, the giant battery factory - it's not surprising that they are losing money on paper right now.
It's obviously a gamble, but one they are hoping will pay off. They're still in the early stages.
You recycle them. They contain some lithium, a transition metal like cobalt or equivalent, and various anions (PF6, BF4, BPh4) that make up the electrolyte.
You can separate out and recover all of the materials you used to make the battery and make another one.
Lithium ion batteries also don't contain rare earth metals.
What do they call these nervous nellies who constantly monitor their pulse and blood pressure, hyperventilate with the least bit of excitement? It's kinda like 'helicopter' parents, but they 'hover' over themselves. *I've fallen! And I can't get up!*
"All your new crap is named after Halo and Minecraft so nobody will respect it."
Is that considered a bug?
"Bug closed: Issue only affects small portion of user base with mental age = 12"
Holy shit, you're a fucking moron. I'm not sure it can be stated any more clearly than that. Pardon my French.
Calamine lotion as a treatment for chickenpox? Are you fucking high?
Calamine doesn't "treat" chicken pox - it treats the symptoms of the disease. That is, the itching and the rash. It's not a drug that fights off the virus.
Next time I get a serious viral infection I'll just rub some zinc carbonate on my skin. Much better than vaccinating myself.
Jesus fucking christ you anti-vaxxers are unbelievable.
And of course, no "alternative to Mendeley" list would be complete without Endnote. (Although it's somewhat interesting that Mendeley started as "the alternative to Endnote" - I guess it's come full circle.
So, with your expert knowledge of the situation, how do you propose to make the thing hover when the TWR is 1.8 at minimum thrust?
The vertical speed was also planned. How do you propose to control the rocket's attitude with the fins when it's moving very slowly, since they rely on airspeed to function?
Let me guess, you just assumed that "hover slowly and touch down like a helicopter" was the desired descent profile without looking anything up?
That large explosion at the end of the longer video implies there was plenty of fuel left over.
You would assume that, yes. But a) that's mainly the fuel vapour in the near-empty main tanks, and b) the fuel the GP is talking about is the pressurisation of the hydraulic lines for the control systems that run the thrusters and fins, not the fuel that runs the rocket engine.
Is there something wrong with the driver Nvidia supplies?
This is about the open source driver, not the proprietary one that Nvidia ships for Linux that works just as well as the windows one that they ship for Windows.
They licence some of the IP involved in the hardware that does not belong to them. It's not as simple as just letting it out with no restrictions.
What else did you want them to do to prove they were taking the exploit seriously?
Well I'm not writing a book for you, and someone else already covered an example.
Why don't you tell me the answer to your questions.
This isn't a test. What is this? High school?
The fact that you're being acutely defensive suggests to me that you just wanted to engage in some good old fashioned Microsoft bashing with nothing constructive to add in the safety of slashdot.
As far as how I would answer my own question, based on my original assertion that they have already taken it seriously; nothing.
However, since you suggested that they have not taken the exploit seriously enough, I wondered how exactly our positions differed (since I can't read your mind) and what exactly they would have to do so that you and I agreed that they were taking it seriously enough.
Remember, I already think they are taking it seriously enough based on the release of patches back to win 7 and a workaround given for non-patched machines, so my answer is "nothing", but that clearly can't be your answer because otherwise we'd agree.