That's the most idiotic comment if i ever heard one. The virtual screen obscures half of what you're looking at? for the X time your are typing ? a feature phone blocks half of ALL of your phone, depriving you permanently of the possible screen area you would have if you didn't have a mechanical keyboard claiming half of your phone space.
The user will receive a code via sms which then he will have to manually enter ? If that is so, it is a much worse - less practical - tactic than just entering my password. Unless, the app will automatically read the sms and enter the code. Plus I don't understand why this new method is needed, most apps and browsers offer the option to save my credentials, why would we need a new method ?
Yes it can do 21,6 teraflop.... at FP16.... half precision...it can "only" do 10,6 teraflop at single precision and 5,3 teraflop at double (64) precision.
Also it doesn't have 1TB/sec advertised (for months) HBM2 memory speed, but only 720GB/sec
That's where it geographically should be (Greenwich meridian) and it isn't for political reasons. It's not just what you said, but also reasons such as differentiating from the UK.France's time was GMT+0 and it was changed by occupying Nazis. When the war ended, there was a decision to change it back but it was canceled.
Spain is in the "wrong" time-zone as well due to Franco's decision during WW2.
I (genuinely) don't understand this tendency with flat buttons and interfaces, they do look slight of "90-sh revamped". Generally speaking through the years, changes in the UI have been positive and IMHO they were at their peak with Windows 7.
What's the sudden (the last year or two) appeal with the super flat GUIs all over the place ?
Change for the sake of.. UX experts...I apologize, for the sake of change ?
android (iphone is eating the dust of android phones)
google search (if you think that google was the first ever search engine, yahoo, altavista says hello to you)
facebook (myspace is still angry you know)
need more example of non-first runners winners?
australia, 1901, which incidentally is about 130 years after the US. comparing the britain of 1770 with that of 1900 is comparing apples to oranges. Plus australia is not totally independent, having the queen still as head of state and the british flag as part of its own.
Is this the first time in your life that you see a not 100% correct by the international standards change of regimes/borders (Kosovo comes to mind)? On the other hand I do like your Kuril argument. Let's extend it a bit more: "Finally, would the British Empire accept a referendum by residents of it's colonies in the new world, for example, on breaking away from motherland and becoming independent?" Those sorts of things are not achieved by throwing roses at your enemies.