To add insult to injury, NVIDIA actually makes a great macOS driver. It works even on my non-apple GTX 970 on my PC. My old 2003 Powerbook had a NVIDIA chip. So blame Apple even more.
Get a PC laptop and call it a day. You can even install macOS if you want. The new HP Spectra and Dell XPS are two excellent laptops.
I just bought a cheap refurbished Lenovo laptop, only $435 and has a 1080p screen, skylake processor and a discrete NVIDIA card. You can add a nice 512GB SSD for $120 if you want.
If 400 customers share a 10 Gbps uplink to the backbone, they each need to pay about 0.25% of the cost*. On the other hand, if he were hosting xvides.com over that connection, he'd be using it 10% of the time (averaging 1 Gbps). The 10 Gbps could only handle about 8 such customers, so each would need to pay 12.5% of the cost.
Or use quotas. Quotas are actually okay if they're clearly advertised don't try to trick yon into overage fees. Just set a reasonable quota and just throttle you down to say 10 Mbps afterwards with the option to purchase more at a reasonable cost/TB. I used to do that at my cabin with my cell phone, one or maybe two months a year I'd pay extra and I found that totally fair. Didn't need it all year, never expected unlimited and in proportion to their other subscriptions I got a fair price that was somewhat more expensive those months but cheaper than having it all year.
WTF will it be looking like with consumers torrenting @ 10Gbps? Meh. Not really thought through this article...
Would we download more though, or just faster? A Netflix 4K stream is 25 Mbps, BluRay Video has a max rate of 54 Mbps, UHD BluRay 128 Mbps. I have a 150 Mbps line and apart from occasionally downloading a season and figuring out it's junk after a few episodes I use the bandwidth regardless. The only advantage is that huge game patches and such download quicker so I don't get stuck just because Steam wants to install a 2GB patch right when I want to play. Even a big family streaming half a dozen UHD monsters shouldn't be able to saturate a 1 Gbps link.
His huge downloads are probably hogging the whole bandwidth because of poor QoS, so 10 Gbps solves the problem with brute excess capacity. Either that or he ran into some kind of soft limiter because 30000*10GB = 300TB a year is way, way outside the norm but they let it pass if you pay the 10 Gbps price. And if the software was a little smarter at caching 30000 images / 2000 working hours = average 4 minutes/photo, download takes about 10 seconds so if it would preload he wouldn't be waiting at all. I'm sure he can well afford the extra $3k/year to just make the problem go away though.
I worked for @Home and ATTBI. ATTBI was 1500/128 which pissed off a TON of @Home customers.
Tesla sales curves are growing at a factor of 1.5x annually, which is the definition of exponential.
However this will no longer be the case when they ship the Model 3 in late 2017, since at that point sales are expected to grow by a factor of 2x for a couple of years.
This is false. The car industry likes to say as a joke that the first car costs 1 billion to make, and every other car thereafter costs $1,500 in parts and labor. This is so because design and factory tooling are ultra expensive, but once the line is up and running the costs drop precipitously.
Now, this expression comes from the early 80s, so you need to adjust the figures for inflation, but you get the picture.
What this means is that it takes years to amortize the cost of car design and factory tooling and only in later years of production do you start making money from each model. Tesla's model S has already amortized it's design costs, but not yet their factory tooling costs as until very recently they were still growing by leaps and bounds their plant to meet enormous demand.
In the meantime accounting ignoramuses like yourself can get to say that they are losing $7K per car. Nothing further from the truth.
to do precisely what people like me fear.
Let's say that instead of texting potential witnesses, they find someone upon whom they can pin the crime.
No leads, no suspects but they find that someone just happened to be in the areas with a criminal record.
Really, they are only strictly interpreting the text of the law as written - legislating from the bench is against the separation of powers defined in the Constitution. What needs to happen now is an updated law to clarify this to the original intent (and hopefully grant amnesty to anyone wrongly covered). Doubtful that will ever happen, but that's what should happen.
I'm not sure what needs to be clarified, a repeat offender seems like a common and trivial concept that the District Court completely messed up by tying it to a particular action. The entire point of using the word repeated is to punish a consistent pattern of behavior, it applies to everything from shoplifters to serial killers. Why should downloaders be an exception? For that matter, why should uploaders be singled out in particular? If I screw up and put something in my shared folder that I shouldn't have it's still one bad act from me. That does not make me a repeat infringer even if I shared a hundred songs and a thousand people took the opportunity to download from me. It just means I screwed up big, once. Same way getting into one fight and hurting four people is not the same as getting into four separate fights and hurting someone each time. The former is still an isolated incident, the latter a repeating pattern.
"Wipe out" is indeed what it would do.
Let's imagine this is a MIRV with 15 separate warheads, totaling 50 megatons, total (maybe). Let's imagine the targets are the following British cities: London, Bristol, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Birmingham, Sheffield, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinborough, with the larger ones receiving two warheads.
Britain would basically cease to exist as a nation. So much damage would be done the economy would be non-functional. All the transport links in the country flow through those now destroyed cities, and that infrastructure would be destroyed. Every single piece of modern electronics in the country and in neighbouring countries that was not EMP hardened would no longer work, and everything (especially the transportation system) depends on all this stuff working. The prevailing south west winds would ensure that enough fallout would end up on surrounding areas adding to the casualties, and areas with nearby nuclear power stations would receive a lot of extra fallout. Just feeding the survivors with a barely functioning transportation system would be a logistical nightmare - ground transportation would be difficult thanks most of the major road and rail routes having been destroyed. Injured survivors would be left to fend for themselves - the entire capacity of the health service would be overwhelmed with the casualties of just one of the bombs. The electricity grid would be destroyed, even to the undamaged areas, it would be years before power was restored.
The survivors themselves, many of them would be suffering PTSD in the years afterwards, and virtually everyone will have lost friends and family and probably most of what they own in the attacks. What survived wouldn't be Britain, it would be a grotesque almost zombie like Britain with at best third world conditions for decades following.
Just because there are survivors and some land left untouched doesn't mean the country is effectively destroyed.
> You think Russia is going to bother bombing North Dakota?
Yes, absolutely North Dakota would be bombed, because that's where a bunch of American missile silos are, and Minot AFB. North Dakota might not exactly be carpet bombed but it would be the recipient of more and larger weapons than you might think.
> A nuclear war would be horrifying but it wouldn't wipe out all life on earth
No, but human life afterwards wouldn't be much fun for generations, and even after the planet had recovered, would be like pre-industrial times. A nuclear winter caused by an all out exchange would be deeply unpleasant and finish off most of the survivors. Industrial society would unlikely ever restart, given the lack of people and lack of easy to mine resources (to get much of the resources we use now requires an already existing high technology base, that would no longer exist after a catastrophic exchange of nuclear weapons).
Well, more accurately it would be an American-built website, on a Taiwanese-made server, using Taiwanese-designed hardware, running a Finnish operating system, with his American designed cellphone made in China, running a Finnish operating system...
One that doesn't want to see his own country nuked. That's the thing about an arms race you see. It's compulsory. The peace loving hippy gets his stuff taken away by the guys with the guns. Every time.
An arms balance is necessary, an arms race implies an out of control positive feedback loop. It might be because one side genuinely wants to be the agressor or both sides are confusing shows of strength and willingness to defend themselves with escalating aggression, but mostly it's because we don't want to be vulnerable. But the less you can be harmed, the more everyone else is at your mercy. And they don't want to be vulnerable either, so they want better weapons so they can hurt you too. Disarmament is taking down this stress level, we won't point big guns at you if you don't point big guns at us. But with nukes and MAD both sides want to hold that "FUCK YOU TOO" card, just in case it's a deception.
Seriously. People are talking about it. Very important people. Experts!
Happiness is a positive cash flow.