Perhaps the GP tried an early version of Windows 10--perhaps it didn't default to tablet mode on tablets at that time. The Verge article says it does now. Of course, maybe it isn't functioning properly....
I don't see why people think IE can be "killed." Until you convince curmudgeony old people (like governments) whose web-based tools break on anything other than IE to pay green money to update their websites, IE will stick around. And, since some people (mostly governments) will never be willing to pay money to fix something that "isn't broken" (as long as you use it on IE), IE will never, ever be completely dispensable.
I guess you haven't found the "tablet mode" feature.
they need to recruit some of the absolutely terrible drivers we've all seen
I humbly volunteer.
Aren't humans a problem with a lot of important hacks anymore. For example:
If not for a human at Apple, this hack wouldn't have happened. The authentication code was intended to prevent this issue.
I was listening to Star Talk again last night and they happened again to talk about dark matter. Neal said that, whatever dark matter is, the apparent characteristics are that it does not interact with normal matter or with itself except by exhibiting gravitational force. Normal matter, he said, attracts other normal matter via gravity and when that attraction brings the objects together, they stick together. Whereas dark matter exerts the gravitational force but does not "stick" to normal matter or to itself.
It seems to me that a black hole is made of up exceedingly dense normal matter, and does "stick" to normal matter in that the normal matter drawn into the black hole becomes a part of the mass of the black hole. So, I don't think that a lot of super massive black holes would exhibit the characteristics observed of dark matter.
My recollection of what Neal DeGrasse Tyson said on one of his podcasts is that matter we cannot see wouldn't explain the "missing mass" because experiments indicate that "dark matter" does not interact with normal matter or photons, except in the form of gravity. I had thought for some time, "perhaps dark matter is just matter for which we have no evidence of its existence because we cannot see it." A hidden black hole would fit the bill there. But what was said on the show completely dispelled that notion. The problem here is that I am a non-scientist and don't quite recall what he said in the episode. Real scientists with knowledge of this--please weigh in!
As a footnote--Wikipedia says that a small portion of "dark matter" seems to be just regular matter we cannot see, but mostly it seems to not fit the characteristics of regular matter.
Follow-up question--could a huge number of supermassive black holes cause the effects we see from earth? My reasoning suggests the answer would be "no." The thought process being that, if scientists have been theorizing a larger number of supermassive black holes for some time and also wondering what this "dark matter" stuff is, more of those scientists would have said, "perhaps dark matter consists of those theorized black holes we haven't seen." I think this hasn't happened because scientists who actually know this stuff (not me) had already concluded that black holes don't fit the mugshot.
Many of the roads of have no speed limits. That's legitimate enough for me. Also, it is the sister isle to Thomas the Tank Engine's (fictional) Sodor, which might be reason enough for someone else.
Numbers 1 and 2 are easily addressed. Number 3 perhaps as well, but I only have ideas for 1 and 2.
1) No windows
It's a pity if you have any sort of claustrophobia.
Solution: Use LCD screens instead.
2) No air
[T]he device doesn't contain any onboard air supply . . . if the device loses power for any reason (electrical, mechanical, computational) then you better be able to hold your breath for a long long time.
Solution: Add an emergency air supply.
Anyone with ideas on Number 3?
My understanding is that modern household water wells generally use reverse osmosis systems. Water quality from drinking wells varies widely depending on the location and quality of the well. But (1) they aren't 100% effective, nor can they be against unanticipated chemicals that weren't being pumped into the ground en masse at the time the well was designed, and (2) I shouldn't have to pay to upgrade my drinking water well filter to handle chemicals used in fracking. Fracking companies should be not contaminating my drinking water.
Who markets the water for the drinking well at a person's home?
You're thinking of the local water company with it's water filtering plants and pipes that lead directly to your home. That is not where fracking is happening. Fracking is done out where there isn't public water and sewer. People have drinking wells for their homes.
This article is saying that fracking chemicals are getting into the same water that is feeding the wells to people's homes. It is the fracking companies' responsibilities to keep their chemicals out of our drinking water wells.
Like the parent post said, "Musk is changing the world":
Solar City lets you buy your solar panels for zero down and "lets you pay off your loan with monthly payments based on the electricity your system produces." So it ends up that the electric bill plus the Solar City bill add up to less than the old electric bill. You don't need a pile of money lying around to buy a modern home solar system. Non-wealthy people who do not care about the environment are signing up with Solar City simply because they'll pay less for utilities.
So, yeah, Musk is changing the world--he's causing people who don't care about the environment to put solar panels on their house that a few years ago would have made zero financial sense. In case you haven't noticed, he also made an all electric vehicle drooled over by people who don't care about saving gas.
I think this paper is saying it is worse than this. Only about 5 percent of studies with 5% chance of results by random chance should be wrong. But this is saying that 60% weren't replicated. It's almost as if the researchers feel pressured to publish papers and they have a hard time publishing papers without results.
These frakking polls are bovine scat.
Ummm, like, I think you've missed the point. The researchers did not say that 100% of people who aren't "Millennial" hate Snowden. They showed that, looking at one metric--age--the percentage of people who appreciate Snowden has a clear trend. And they are saying that this particular trend matters because Millennials will soon be running the country.
If the researchers looked at the demographic of "people who comment on