So then they buy a retail copy to get support. I'm not saying it is completely useless, just useless to someone who has been using Windows long enough or is comfortable with computers in general.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Who actually calls Microsoft for support? They should scrap Retail, OEM, System builder, etc. and just have With Support $X, Without Support $Y.
Hidden? Not the last time I checked. If you skip the Wi-Fi setup, you CAN'T create the online account, so you create the local account. No access to Windows Store? Boo. Hoo.
What if the object starts at an enormous size, and the physical size erodes at the same rate as the angular size increases?
The 3D printing didn't have anything to do with it. Getting 10 failed transmissions from the junk yard, rebuilding a single good one, and using the others for various experiments would be cheaper and lead to far greater understanding. The fact that it was 3D printed is largely irrelevant and didn't make it any more accessible. If the goal was learning about transmissions, then my above example would garner far more knowledge. If it is to learn about 3D printing, there would be countless other examples (like one piece manufacturing with metal) that would yield far more impressive results, and potentially lead to improved manufacturing processes.
I didn't say "this entire exercise" had no value, I'm saying that the fact it is a 3D printed, otherwise common every day part, with no other greater derived knowledge doesn't really make it news worthy, nor generate valuable discussion for others.
People can do whatever they want with their own time.
I really don't want to troll, but these "articles" themselves are trolling. 3D printing as a form of non-useful replication is a waste of time, as the person could have likely acquired an equivalently non-functioning identical part for less.
3D printing something which is actually useful, functional replication, reduced cost, increased availability, etc...THOSE would be useful articles to read, since it can generate positive discussion and ideas to move the technology forward.
Oblig. xkcd. 1% of anything but Apple, Google, Microsoft, IBM, etc. is still a remarkably small number. Progress? Yes. Newsworthy or worth being associated with "year of _______"? No.
It is a market blip.
Mouse: What does it mean?
Switch: It doesn't mean anything.
Cypher: Everyone falls the first time.
Wallet was hidden in a Mindcraft structure.
I was waiting for a joke containing "your momma so fat" and "gravitational waves"...I leave here disappointed
Using a somewhat related example: all "measurements" we perform on macro objects are identical to those on quantum objects, but the relative scale of effects are drastically different. How do you "measure the color of grass"? Fire a few photons of different wavelengths at it, and see which photons come back. At a macro scale, we may not thing we changed the grass, but you can be sure we did. We changed the momentum of the blade of grass, the position, etc by a small but finite degree.
You have attempted to complicate the quantum world, while leaving the macro world alone, when in fact the same thing happens at both scales. Yes, there is still some hand-waving to relate the too, but to say that "measurement" is not valid at the quantum level, only at macro level is just hogwash. You may as well say that "measurement" doesn't apply at macro levels either.
After reading the wiki article on Compiz, it seems to be the same animation/fluff shit Linux users got pissed off at Microsoft for including...?
If you attempt to measure it in the way you would measure a wave, it will present itself as a wave.
If you attempt to measure it in the way you would measure a particle, it will present itself as a particle.
Light doesn't choose to be a particle or a wave at any given time, the measurement we use defines the characteristics it has. Nothing more, nothing less.