Sure, if you ignore:
Sure, if you ignore:
I am NAL, but it does not.
> How many MORE users are there on Steam that have been sitting around not buying anything because the only way they have to process a transaction is with bitcoin?
Well, probably at least one. But that's not really the question, is it? If I accept A, B, C, and D, and you can only pay with E, F, and G, you'll be happy if I implement E, F, or G.
I'm sure if there was no market for it all, they wouldn't have done it. So presumably it it worth it, to some measure.
The point is that MORE users will be able to buy Steam games now. I think it's interesting that Bitcoin is somehow the best way to make this happen, but it doesn't seem out of line. Certainly, Bitcoins are suited about as well as they can be for buying Steam stuff. Bitcoin suffers from a bunch of problems that don't really hit this type of purchase.
Microsoft is going in the WRONG direction. Their insistence on alerting the mothership every time you compile, open notepad, open your media player, view photos... it isn't good. At all.
...and if you can't find that one, how about a dim bulb that lasts forever, like that firestation bulb that has been going a hundred years or whatever? If there's no "bright and robust", just link me "robust and efficient". Or, really, just "robust".
Can you link me to one that is "bright and robust"- lasts a lifetime, is bright, but isn't efficient? I'd definitely like at least one bulb like that.
Your first and fourth links are both really derived from the same 2008 computer simulation. A fuller discussion is here:
I think the fifth link falls into this bucket as well.
You second link ALSO refers to the same 2008 RAND corporation one, and it also simply waves away stealth by assuming that the F -35 would be detected by ground based radar, or that the infrared signature on it would automatically betray it.
The third article has a sensational headline, and doubles down with this quote:
"The F-35 isn't even close to fully operational - it can fly only on sunny days. It can't fly at night. And it can't fly in clouds or near lightning. We know this because the Pentagon tells us so, in a report written for the Secretary of Defense by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, J. Michael Gilmore, dated February 15, 2013."
Curious phrasing. Since they have to cite the "written report" to have any weight, why not link directly to it? Is a hyperlink too fucking hard for the author? He certainly has no problem providing one when something lets him editorialize.
Well, here's the report:
And here's the quote:
"The Block 1A training syllabus used during the OUE was limited by the current restrictions of the aircraft. Aircraft operating limitations prohibit flying the aircraft at night or in instrument meteorological conditions, hence pilots must avoid clouds or other weather. However, the student pilots are able to simulate instrument flight in visual meteorological conditions to practice basic instrument procedures. These restrictions are in place because testing has not been completed to certify the aircraft for night and instrument flight."
Note also the title of this report: "F -35A Ready for Training Operational Utility Evaluation"
This report was talking about the first stages of training pilots. It happened before the plane had been tested for all the conditions, and talked about what the workaround was at the time. Hey, did they ever get to that testing? http://www.livescience.com/496...
Your links are sensational. Certainly, they are all over the internet, but most of them source the same few out-of-context facts. The fact that the authors have to really dig to find facts which they then portray sans-quote and most assuredly sans-context sorta shows that they have some kind of editorial vision that they were going to enact. Taking training reports and pretending that the restrictions in place for them are fundamental restrictions on the jet, extensive reliance on a 2008 computer simulation- these guys obviously have a bone to pick. Neutral headlines and reports don't get clicks though.
Well, the "expensive" part is correct. But claiming it "can't fly, can't fight" is just not true.
It's the fact that there's a bunch of functioning F-35s, and these stories are controversial so they run. If it bleeds, it leads. The F-35 has a whole bunch of versions, for different military branches, different countries, etc. All these stories make it sound like it's some alpha project instead of a functioning jet.
The breech is mostly when he segues from "this is the general path technology could very well follow" to "...and here is the timeline". His timeline is really generous, and he spends most of his time defending it. He also seems to mostly skip over the ludicrously huge social upheaval that many of his technology milestones could cause. Skipping over some of them might be possible, but for ALL of them to happen like that? A technological singularity would have unprecedented social effects, even if it happened at a slower rate than he states.
Yes, one day we'll cure aging. But for it to happen on a schedule that includes Kurzweil, or any of us, seems optimistic.
> In the meantime, I need to keep browsing forums for another 20-30 minutes while my console updates... and then has to download a patch for the game.
This has really hurt my console gaming. I have a Wii-U and a PS4, and I like them both. But every single time I get a new game, it needs to download hundreds of megabytes- and sometimes dozens of gigabytes- from the mothership before it will play.
This is a stupendously fragile system, and is only workable because I have a good internet connection. More importantly, it makes the process of playing a game orders of magnitude stupider than before, and roughly as stupid as on a PC. If I have friends coming over, I can't go buy a fun party game none of us have played, because I know that's something I need to budget time for ahead of time, to ensure it works.
I'm pretty sure I've been replaced with a simple shell script.
In Windows 10 it shows ads. Installing Windows 10 strips away your old ad-free version of Solitaire, too.
If you don't want to see ads, they offer a yearly subscription that lets you play Solitaire without ads.
If you cleverly kept your old executables, they won't work, but you can find a workaround here:
Even as a solitaire box, Windows 10 falls short. Linux, of course, still offers that game and many more!
Economists can certainly disappoint you. One said that the economy would turn up by the last quarter. Well, I'm down to mine and it hasn't. -- Robert Orben