This is true although in the past I guess I've managed to buy at the right time. The cards are back compatible: I used a PCIe3 card (GTX750) in a PCIe2 slot and didn't have any problems running games at 1080p a couple of years ago. You'll just miss out on the extra bandwidth and possibly you can get away with it. PCIe2 isn't that much slower than PCIe3 (5 vs 8 GB/s)- at least compared to the doubling from v3 to v4. PCIe3 has been around for 6 years (2010), nobody is using PCIe3.1 yet and the specification for PCIe4 isn't even being released until next year. On top of that most games shouldn't require higher bandwidth cards for a least a year after the standard trickles down to new motherboards so I peg that at around 8 years lifespan (since the new cards will still work, but at 8GB/s vs 16GB/s).
Hypothetically if you bought a new rig in 2010 the motherboard would still be good until 2017.
It's much of a muchness.
A Core2Duo or Quad is plenty good enough for a modern AAA title combined with a modern graphics card like the GTX960. This means that you can get away with spending $200 every few years to keep up to date. Every now and again you might need a new processor, an SSD, or some more RAM, but it averages out. The big plus is that any game (pretty much ever) will run on the latest PC. And of course that it's a PC so it can do other things.
The latest and greatest console costs $400-500 (here at least) and you'd need to buy one every few years to avoid back-compatibility problems. The main advantage of a console is that it's self contained and should just work. You also have guarantees on whether a game is playable. This is similar to how Apple has been so successful with iOS because they know exactly what it's being run on vs Android which is fine on new phones, but progressively crap on older ones.
Given that the paper is in fact open access: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2...
Why not link that in the summary instead of Gizmag's nonsense article ?
Also I'm confused. The paper says the lens thickness is 200nm. So where did the "1 billionth of a metre" come into it? From the paper: "a large size 200-nm-thick GO thin film is prepared on a glass substrate".
To address your question they show focused spots in wavelengths from the VIS-NIR (400-1000nm ish). The focus performance is pretty much constant throughout.
At that point you should be considering battery swaps. Wasn't one of Tesla's early demos that their automated battery exchanger could replace batteries faster than a human could pump gas?
Obviously a problem if you drain the battery to get to the middle of nowhere (need those charging stations), but that's probably "the future".
That's pretty standard for all aviation training. Flying is easy, much easier than driving in a lot of ways. Not killing yourself is a lot harder. That's why pilots have reams and reams of checklists covering pretty much every conceivable problem that can happen. Similarly when training in a simulator, the operators can pretty much throw the book at you to see how you react to losing all your instruments and a wing while flying through a thunderstorm.
NASA's generic rulebook is over 2000 pages long and is well worth a flick through if you're a space geek http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/news/c...
It's risk analysis. Password managers are essentially making a bet that the risk of your hard drive being compromised is far less likely than a website being compromised. Most people can't remember more than 5 (strong) passwords at best and they get lazy and reuse them everywhere. Password managers let you eliminate password reuse so even if your Amazon account gets hacked, the attackers won't suddenly have the keys to the castle.
It is one place to attack, true, but how likely is it that someone targets your password database? I would argue it's pretty remote, even if your machine was compromised or stolen. Assuming your master password is strong, the attacker either needs to crack it (difficult) or know you well enough to guess it. What's far more likely is that the drive the database is on fails and you lose access to all your randomised passwords. However in that scenario, you might have printed backup keys for your email account (Gmail will let you do this) and no worries.
For the truly paranoid, good old wetware suffices or a pencil and paper; again, you're weighing the risk of your house (or mind) being broken into vs some script kiddies attacking a website.
If at first you don't succeed, you must be a programmer.