Re: Again seems history repeating itself
You mean in the same way that everything ran just fine on IA-64? Oh wait...
118 posts • joined 9 Jun 2011
If so, what disruptive gadgets will come out of the woodwork to bring everything back locally in a decades time?
No gadgets, just the realisation that the support offered is rubbish, turnaround times aren't good enough to meet SLAs, and that it's ultimately cheaper done properly in-house.
Been a few times, every time I find the bill jaw dropping for a few burgers, chips and a coke.
But you get loads of chips, and you can load up/down your burger, and the burger is better than anything Byron, McDs, BK, Honest, GBK or any other burger joint rustles up. I like Five Guys. And they give you a free drink if you turn up and your food isn't ready.
I see, thanks for the clarification. They're effectively automating the process of taking a sledgehammer to it and sending them video evidence with today's newspaper. That's one way to kill the second hand market I guess.
Every other "trade up" program I've seen involves you posting the old device back, which puts the onus on the company offering the scheme to responsibly dispose of the item. This really does smack as a "recycling? Not my problem, Jack" scheme.
How exactly does this work? You buy a new Sonos, you give them the serial number of the old one, and they remotely brick it? If so then that's wrong for so many reasons. Somebody needs to legislate that devices cannot be remotely updated without positive confirmation from the user.
The Reddit post linked in the article contains downloads which combined weigh in at less than 2MB. Two fucking megabytes.
The last version of their new UHD drivers for Windows 10 64 alone weigh close to a fucking gigabyte:
Interesting. A video card back then would have had about 2MB video RAM, compared to one today which would have something of the order of 4-8Gb.
Apples and oranges I know, but at a simple level would you not expect driver complexity to increase roughly proportionally with the complexity of the device.
It's not a waste of time though, is it? Some cards give you cashback for pretty much nothing. No annual fee. Some give you points which, if you spend a fair bit, can easily cover a long haul business class upgrade or two, which outweighs the fee.
If you're not bothered about points or APR, then why have you got a card with a fee at all? There are plenty of fee-free cards out there.
Why couldn't they have made the Surface Pro 7 with the same form factor, keyboard, pen, etc. as the Surface Pro X? That would make the SP7 a worthwhile (cosmetic, at least) upgrade on a fairly stagnant SP line, and also if you happened for some reason to need both an Intel and an Arm device, you could share the same pen, charger, keyboard across both devices.
"You have purchased a premium product manufactured by a premium product manufacturer."
Ah this old chestnut. a.k.a. You've bought something expensive, you should expect to have your pants pulled down to use it as you'd expect to. After all, you must be rich so what does it matter?
Contrary to what Apple marketing purveys, Apples are not special phones. The lithium in their batteries isn't mixed in with Apple Fairy Dust.
You wouldn't take a 10 year old Rolls Royce the a back street mechanic...Bit lest not forget. It's a message in the settings. Nothing more!
No, but you might take it to a Rolls Royce specialist. You know, somebody who knows what they're doing but doesn't charge as much as the dealer. You'd be a little miffed if, when taking your Rolls Royce back, it said on the dashboard "Cheapskate alert! You should have taken it to our shiny dealers. Attention future buyers, this car hasn't been looked after."
What's with this growing trend of capitalising words that don't need capitalising (or italicising or given any specific emphasis)? Is it a Generation Z 2.0 thing that I've missed?
Coincidentally or not, everybody I know who writes in this style is a berk.
Those LS120 SuperDisk things were a complete joke. A disk that worked in one drive often wouldn't work in another. It meant countless trips back and forward to the university computer room (do such things exist anymore?) to re-download whatever it was I was trying to transfer. The overall time taken meant I was probably better off just using a big pile of normal 3.5" disks.
Fair point, reasonably explained.
The problem is that you started talking about cars vs running, and the physical actions of playing chess, which does not illustrate your point at all well. Not accepting that a computer can beat a human at chess because nobody has yet made it look like a humanoid and physically move pieces without being tethered to a power source has no bearing on the result.
It's not at all like saying a car can run faster than a human - the point is being missed entirely. The difficulty in solving a Rubik's cube or playing chess isn't the physical effort required to rotate the blocks or move pieces. The difficulty is in the thinking (without using a dumb algorithm) what to do next.
Would you say that playing a chess game on a computer screen where there are no physical pieces is not playing chess?
No, the Typhoon is deliberately unbalanced. Turn the computers off (if such a concept existed) and even Douglas Bader couldn't keep it in the air.
Generally speaking, passenger aircraft should be positively stable, i.e. can be trimmed in such a way to fly without input.
This has got nothing to do with "dynamics", but all to do with stability. From what I understand, the 737 Max 8 design changes have made it somewhat less stable, and has MCAS available to manage trim as a result. Nothing inherently wrong with that, assuming of course that MCAS is:
1) tested properly
2) has suitable redundancy
3) is predictable
4) alerts when it is called upon
5) pilots are correctly trained to know what to do when it comes on.
Seemingly none of the above apply.
Regarding the comparison - the point is that you CAN turn something that's unstable into something that's unstable, and that there's nothing wrong with computers doing this, providing they are suitably designed.
There is no way you can make fool physics and force physics to turn an unstable system into a stable one.
There is. The Eurofighter Typhoon has "relaxed stability" (which means it relies on input to fly) and relies on four computers to turn pilot inputs into lots of continuous adjustments to the control surfaces to make it do things that the pilot would expect. Without those computers, it would be unfliable.
The Typhoon has a lot of redundancy built into its software to account for anomalous sensor inputs and computer decision making. It seems Boeing's MCAS system doesn't.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020