My roof is often exposed and bare when my yard is covered in snow, and I have light colored shingles and good insulation.
Sounds like you may want to get that insulation checked. When you have a good cold spell, If possible rent a thermal camera and see what your roof looks like before dawn. It sounds like it is radiating enough heat from inside your home to melt the snow.
Now where I live hurricanes are something to deal with and traditional shingles tend to be the first thing that gets ripped off, then the roof.
I've been lucky since my house damage has been manageable during the past major hurricanes I've experienced (Katrina being one of them). Storm surge is the number one damage producer for a hurricane, and if you aren't in a area prone to storm surge and you are blessed to have a tree miss your house then your damage is limited to roof, window, and some wall damage from yard debris being thrown by the wind.
My problem with the solar roof is that it is VERY expensive and he is using the electricity generated to offset the total cost of ownership over a decade (or more) and that's assuming that electricity costs remain high.
As for durability, he demonstrates that the shingles can take hail really well which is great, but during a hurricane the shingles WILL get damaged from a tree hitting the roof (At my old location, I had a tree not fall but instead act like a whip that kept bashing into the side of my house damaging the eaves and roof), or get peeled off by the high winds. The need to hire a specialists to repair the roof and the cost of replacement parts will be expensive and to make matters worse my insurance has a very high deductible for any damage that occurred during a Hurricane warning or landfall so I will be incurring most of the cost.
Despite Musk's rosy forecast of generating enough electricity to offset the cost of the roof, if my roof suffers any kind of major damage then any possible savings vanish and I wound up spending a lot of money for an expensive solar array.
Now if the authorized installers are able to make it as hurricane proof as possible and back that up with some type of secondary insurance that only covers the repair/replacement costs to the roof with a reasonable deductible then the total cost of the roof may remain competitive.
Yes I did. And it was about allowing them 60 days which since the fix didn't even solved the problem completely become 5 months.
Yet the vulnerability was fixed and it allowed Apple to push out an update.
Of course it could be fixed faster than within 5 months and Apple likely would have had to do it very quickly if the exploit was known in the public.
Or the more likely scenario would be that the same number of engineers will still work on the vulnerability, except now an exploit was disclosed putting people at risk.
With more vulnerabilities do you mean the implementation of the fix or by just being known?
Whenever a change is made to the software, especially something as complicated as an OS, you need to allow time for regression testing to make sure the modification doesn't introduce a different vulnerability elsewhere.
.. except that they want to be able to take their time and not fix security issues as soon as they are found.
Did you read the summary? Apple's initial fix didn't work well, so Google responsibily allowed Apple more time to fix the vulnerability.
If Google had told about it immediately the world would had known about the issue five months earlier and could had sorted with it one way or the other and Apple would likely had been forced to fix it quicker.
That is speculation. Apple was actively working on it and I rather the fix not cause more vulnerabilities simply because someone was impatient.
Given that it does have a headphone jack [apple.com] (look under "Charging and Expansion"), will you be buying it?
Sure. I use USB headphones. I'm able to have the system sounds continue to go out the built-in audio while my headphones only contains audio of my telecom.
I've been happy with my logitech headset but, if I weren't, I can get a USB-C to 3.5mm adapter like for the Moto Z. (I have a USB to audio out/in adapter already, but might as well get one that doesn't require a USB to USB-C adapter)
I don't think so. The sites I go to are pretty fair with their criticisms of both candidates. It's not MSM's fault that Trump can't control himself and runs his campaign like it's a reality TV show. He is still operating with the idea that any media coverage is good media coverage.
I think this story has more to do with excuses for not doing well. I mean it's hard to take Trump's complaints seriously when he has Fox and Breitbart as allies and not to mention the the talk show hosts. I live in a very red state and most of my local news (TV and paper) are pro-Trump so I strongly disagree with the notion that somehow Trump is a victim.
AMD promoting a specialized connector for a third-party GPU reminds me of the short lived VESA local bus connector in the early 1990's. It became unnecessary as soon as a general purpose expansion bus (PCI) became available which was fast enough to support gaming GPUs.
With the arrival of Thunderbolt 3, it looks like AMD's idea is pretty much dead on arrival.
The DOJ's position of the matter is marketing. Giving hyperbole speculative statements about what they MIGHT find to justify setting a precedence that the government can limit how much encryption its citizens can actually own.
I think that the only way Google could make those promises is if they operated as a livery service, where they remain the owners and maintainers of the vehicles and the people subscribe to the transportation service.
The manufacturer gets sued. The manufacturer would keep insurance and lawyers for these lawsuits.
This is not a given. The plaintiff has to right to sue all parties that the plaintiff believes contributed to the accident. It's up to the courts to dismiss the suit against the owner of the vehicle or the person determined to be in a position to take corrective action.
I don't believe the court will automatically dismiss the suit since the person in the vehicle still played a role in the accident by not taking corrective action such as hitting the big red stop button. The owner of the vehicle could still be held liable if the court decides that the owner allowed the use of his vehicle by someone unable to take corrective action, but this type of liability is usually dismissed unless the plaintiff can show that the owner knew that the person they allowed to use the car would be unable to take corrective action.
It would probably be more accurate to say that the manufacturer can assume the liability and court costs for the third parties but I think, if you look in the fine print, you'll see that they only assume liability for any defects or deficiencies in the AI software. I bet the owner will still be held liable if the owner didn't maintain the vehicle and its sensor in good working order.
A cable that locks the brakes is not an emergency brake as a matter of fact if you are moving and engage it you are likely to cause an emergency. Why does everyone insist on calling the parking brake an emergency brake.
People use the term "Emergency Brake" because it also serves as a purely mechanical backup to the hydraulic braking system.
Slowly applying the mechanical brake will not cause the rear wheels to lock and will bring the vehicle to a controlled stop.
After a number of decimal places, nobody gives a damn.