Windows is crashing because users are doing things that cause crashes.

This issue needs to be investigated in MUCH more detail.

I don't have crashes.

A truly non-lazy person, then, would have to conduct a detailed spectrographic assay of all of the pipes (or at least sufficient samples from each lot) to accurately determine the precise composition of each, because all of them contain impurities and aren't merely copper and phosphorous.

In general, getting a truly pure sample of almost any element is incredibly-hard, and outside of laboratories (and even in laboratories, most of the time) it just doesn't matter. In the case of transporting anti-protons, standard "pure" copper is apparently inadequate, because it's not pure enough.

Also the major flaw in this plan is whether the assembly is in the US or overseas does not stop backdoors from being loaded.

It sounds like the person behind this does not understand how manufacturing works. If backdoors are being implanted into these routers, it is not some rogue foreign agent assembling the router. The backdoors are most likely designed in the firmware. Somewhere in the assembly process, a worker or machine will load the firmware. The assembly workers whether they are in the US or overseas do not know what is in the firmware. Their job is to load it. Another workers job may be to test the router by hooking it up to a testing machine.

Even with the reduced precipitation there's still plenty of water for residential and commercial use. The problem, at least where I live (Utah), is agriculture. 80% of our water goes to agriculture. It would be one thing if we were growing regionally-appropriate crops for local consumption, but nearly all of that agriculture is to grow alfalfa (a water-hungry crop that isn't appropriate for the high desert climate), and nearly all of that alfalfa is shipped out of state, much of it out of the country, to feed cattle elsewhere. China is one of the biggest buyers. Essentially, our farmers are selling the contents of our aquifers to the world.

If we had plenty of water, letting our farmers buy it at a deep discount and sell it to willing buyers elsewhere would be fine, just another commercial use of a local resource, which is what trade is all about. But we definitely don't have plenty of water.

The solution is simple and straightforward (though legally complicated): Don't discounts. Set the same price for water across the board, residential, commercial and agricultural. There can and should be minor differences in delivery cost, and surcharges for purification, but the base cost of the water should be set through a single government-managed market, probably at the state level, probably divided up by drainages (drainages with more abundant water will have cheaper water; if this creates an arbitrage opportunity for someone to pipe water between drainages, great!).

Yes, this would probably put the alfalfa farmers out of business, but that's good because growing alfalfa in the desert is a bad idea. It might also raise the price of local produce, but that's as it should be, putting agricultural water use directly in competition with other water use. If prices go up, people will find ways to be more efficient. Farmers may switch to drip irrigation. If you build too many houses for the available water supply, well, those houses are going to have very expensive water and residents are going to want to find ways to conserve -- and maybe the high cost of water will disincentivize new move-ins.

The bottom line is that efficiently allocating scarce resources is what markets are good at. The problem with water isn't that there are too many people or not enough water, the problem is that we don't properly allocate the water or encourage conservation in the right places. Trying to fix this through regulation rather than market pricing will always be subject to regulatory capture and will never be as efficient or as effective as just enabling a competitive market and letting it work.

I think the word that has some wiggle room is "consumer". Business grade routers are exempt however I did not read that business grade meant enterprise. There are business grade routers meant for small and medium sized businesses. They cost a little more than consumer grade ones, have better warranties, and most of the time use better parts. I can see a loophole being exploited by the router manufacturers is to launch a new line of business budget models that are basically the same models as consumer ones with slight changes. "It is in a different housing and the we updated [meaningless metric] to double."

And how will requiring the PCBs be manufactured in the US prevent backdoors from being designed in the system. The backdoors are at the firmware level not during assembly.

The problem is the solution is also shortsighted. Rather than target TP-Link routers, all consumer routers are affected. Business routers are not affected. Also making the router made in the US does not actually remove any back doors. The back doors were placed in the design not the assembly of the router.

This is part of what Colbert wants to fix. His proposed film will cover the largely-omitted chapters 3-8 of The Fellowship of the Ring, including the barrow wights and Tom Bombadil.

And the thought never occurred to you the AI gives you code riddle with syntax errors somehow gives you the correct code. It must be my fault. Just like it was my fault that you assumed everything.

Regardless if I need or want help, you think I need help from you. I don't want your help. I don't need your help. You don't accept it when someone say "no" to you, do you?

No idea. It's fine so far, but I've only had it for a few months. Honestly, I'm pretty brutal on devices. Odds are high that I'll break it in some other way before the flexing causes a problem.

I think he was talking about casting Orlando Bloom to play a younger Legolas ten years after he portrayed him. It was unnecessary as The Hobbit book did not feature Legolas. It has been a while since I read the book, but I only remember Legolas being mentioned briefly in the book.

The real question is how much studio interference will there be? A reason The Hobbit trilogy was terrible was it was a trilogy. But the trilogy was mandated by the studio. There was simply not enough material to make 3 movies only 2. Another reason was the studio interference drove away Guillermo Del Toro who was originally supposed to direct the trilogy. Peter Jackson had to step in as he was the head of the production company. Instead of years he had to plan for The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Jackson had weeks to prepare for The Hobbit.

It was not an argument from authority. I posted metrics about the movie. You have posted nothing but your personal opinion.

The Oscars are based on a voting system of peers. In this case a peers in the motion picture industry. My point is that is their opinion. How should your opinion negate theirs other than your own personal taste of the movie?

As a director, he has made the studio money. That is my point. Some directors lose money for their studios.

With that all said: Do you have any points other than your personal taste of the director's former movie that he is not credible.