I still run an irc server you insensitive clod
I still run an irc server you insensitive clod
I spent mine on bolstering the down payment on my house. Than goodness I was bored and had those old Radeon 6950's way back when
Except that Apple wants to write most of the driver, you'd be right. Nvidia doesn't get to write the driver for the Macs, that's why there are never any direct graphics driver updates from any GPU provider for Apple hardware, it all goes through them. Apple gets the blame because they're the ones doing the development.
3x3 plus an apartment number? You find the building, you can find the sub-section of it. But the point is more for places that don't have solid street names and such, which aren't likely to have high-rises to any appreciable extent...
If there's no simple street name or number or anything, there probably aren't going to be that many stories to deal with, either
They don't. The pressure rating for Skylake is the same as Broadwell, 50psi. Which ensures a good contact. What is likely happening is that some aftermarket coolers used more pressure because they're huge, heavy hunks of metal and needed more force to keep from lifting away, and those worked with the stronger substrate that Broadwell and earlier had, but not with Skylake.
That shouldn't be a point of pride. "Thick skin" should not be necessary for a daily discussion, people should be able to act like adults, even when emotionally invested in their technological baby. It's one thing to have an argument, it's another thing to have to gear up for an argument for every single discussion.
Yes. It works great.
Why have 4K at 17", though? Or even 18"? I have a 28" 4K desktop monitor and it's gorgeous, but I can't even make out the pixels when I'm at a reasonable using distance. What benefit is 4K over 1440 on a laptop, other than requiring beefier gaming components?
But this isn't a bank vault. This was someone hiding the cash in a box under the bushes and claiming it was safe.
That may be, but this is specifically a fighter plane. A plane designed to dogfight.
Wrong, for two reasons. Firstly, the F-35 is designed as a multirole aircraft: the F-22 is a pure air superiority fighter, but the F-35 is supposed to be able to look after itself in the air and hit ground targets too.
The "look after itself in the air" would seem to agree with my assertion that one of the metrics for which it was designed was aerial combat. I did not say there were not others. The F-35C adds carrier landing and storage. If it is really bad at that you can't excuse it away with, "but it's a multirole aircraft, so it should be judged only as a FB, even if it splits apart on deck when it catches a hook." For one thing, single flight planes get *really* expensive.
Sure it's a multirole aircraft. In fact, each type has a different focus. But one of the roles it is currently intended to fill *is* aerial combat. But I disagree that it will necessarily be bad at it forever. These airframes can sometimes see a lot of changes over their lifespans. And if it is, it still will likely be useful. Look at the B-1B conventional munitions conversion: aircraft do shift roles as needed.
What you're saying is it's a bad tool for dick measuring games like Russia with its bombers or Greece and Turkey with their US provided fighters play? Well that I agree, it might hurt the exports if F16s beat it at it.
And tsotha already answered but I believe it's worth repeating: it's not a fighter. It's a design-by-committee everything plane.
I didn't say it's a bad tool, and I don't think we really see the final iteration of the concept, so the problems today aren't what the problems with it will be in 15 years. They will be different and exciting new problems. But it'll likely serve well.
I almost dropped in the multipurpose/multibranch aspect, but I was addressing specifically the assertion that it is stupid to be judged as an aerial combat plane. It is an aerial combat plane by designation and it is designed to fill that role. As has been pointed out several times (which quite gratifies me; there are some smart folks here), it is a multirole aircraft that has the primary designation of fighter, but it certainly isn't *only* a fighter.
But it is indeed questionable to say aerial combat is *not* a role it is intended for. Multirole does not preclude the metric, it merely adds more criteria for the aircraft. The person to whom I was responding was saying that it was ridiculous to judge it's merit in that role. You might as well say that the F-35B should not be judged as a military craft as it has the role of a VTOL aircraft, so it's moot if it can carry munitions. Sure the F-35 series is also FB, but it *is* designed for an aerial combat role *as well*.
That's an assumption that'll get you killed.
Lots of cops playing army without as much danger of being actually shot at. Lots of forces operating as for-profit gangs that do whatever they want. They'll shout "stop resisting" as they de-escalate the situation with violence.
I'm not saying that there aren't any, or not even that most cops aren't good. But it doesn't take very many to poison a whole department, only a few in the higher ranks to run out the good cops.
I disagree that dogfighting is relevant in modern warfare, at least with USA as one side.
That may be, but this is specifically a fighter plane. A plane designed to dogfight. That is the metric upon which it is being judged here.
Similarly, an ICBM is a poor tool to handle smugglers off the coast of the US. You can judge the concept of a fighter plane as irrelevant in 2015-2037 (the period over which they are being delivered), but your initial statement, "Why is dogfight a parameter in assessing 5th generation plane?" can be simplified down to, "Why is aerial combat a parameter in assessing a plane intended for the role of aerial combat?"
The answer to that simplified question is: Because that's the slot of functionality it is intended for.
But you probably meant to ask, "Why are we making 5th generation fighters anyway?" That's a good question, but I'd suspect that the answer is primarily because they are still used worldwide today in shows of force and occasional engagement. They are scrambled now when commercial jetliners go radio silent, ever since they were used as weapons on US soil.
Another aspect is that military forces are intended to be functional -- but also showy, so they can be used to intimidate. And intimidation is a tool of emotion, not logic. There are strange quasi-engagements between many countries on their borders to show intent to defend, and fighter planes are often used in that capacity. Being intimidating also helps your own forces. Fighter pilots are perceived as badasses, and a young person's gut instinct is to want to have the badasses on your side when you're being ordered to throw your body into armed conflict.
This is also related to why all branches still have swords as a ceremonial part of their formal uniforms, and they are used in situations like honor guards and events of historical or great personal importance. Military might is not a video game or board game with simple stats. It's sloppy and human, and involves more diplomats and mistakes affecting it than simple white room simulations tend to account for.
"Spock, did you see the looks on their faces?" "Yes, Captain, a sort of vacant contentment."