You can usually get more context to his twitter rants by looking at what was on Fox News in the previous half hour.
In this case it was probably a segment on Fox Business.
6738 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Feb 2010
You can usually get more context to his twitter rants by looking at what was on Fox News in the previous half hour.
In this case it was probably a segment on Fox Business.
"offering a similar non-pro (but "consumer pro") stand for like $199/$299"
Well, the VESA adaptor is $199 and you can get a really nice, fully adjustable hydraulic monitor arm for £50, so $299 is about right.
Hence, if Apple actualy did this the price would be $599.
Of the people I know who use one of these (or one of the similar rivals), most people stopped using it almost completely after a few days, and the only uses they get are:
The kids use it to play music etc. (until Frozen gets played for the umpteenth time as mum and dad are trying to sleep so it gets unplugged)
Using it to set reminders when your hands are full (handy when cooking)
Using it to do searches that for whatever reason they don't know how to do via a non-listening device (eg play a radio station. Easy enough to do on a phone or computer, but this friend prefers to just shout at their device, I dunno why).
That's pretty much it, although I can imagine if you had some kind of disability or impairment, one of these could be an absolute godsend, like having your own private servant.
6. Lack of beaches.
Most ground based telescopes have moved to remote islands apparently to reduce light polution, or at least that's what astronomers will tell you, but I've always assumed it was so they got paid to go on jaunts to places like Hawaii and the Canary Islands.
They're certainly always the most well-tanned people in a physics department.
My home computer is running a medium spec i5, and a decent graphics card, and everywhere I've looked recommends at least a 700W PSU for that. (I'm using an 850 because I've also got multiple hardrives, ssds and even a DVD drive plugged in).
For a system that might be running multiple graphics cards, and potentially dual Xeons (They've not mentioned multiple CPUs, but it's something previous Pro's offered), a 1.4kW PSU seems a sensible choice. As everyone else has already pointed out, 1.4kW is the maximum power draw, most likely it'll be pulling a third of that day-to-day, but if it didn't have the extra head room, Apple would have to deal with MacPros suddenly shutting down when they're put under stress.
Even if you go for the most expensive fully adjustable monitor arm, that you bolt to your desk, it's hard to spend more than £200 (and then you're looking at stands for dual monitors). For example
Assuming Apple have left proper VESA mounting holes on the back (rather than offering their own, propriety adaptor for $$$), I can't see how anyone can justify that price.
"how you recover from the situation"
Use a DB that allows transactions, and always start a new transaction before any potentially dodgy commands, then you can just roll-back.
Until the one day you're in a hurry and forget to start a new transaction, and end up rolling back waaaaaay earlier than you intended.
You might be interested in molly-guard
, which is designed to stop exactly that, by forcing you to type the hostname of the machine you want to reboot if you appear to be using SSH to run (eg) shutdown -r
.
The jargon file entry for "Molly guard" is worth a read too :)
"How exactly can you patent a plastic tape coated with a magnetic material?"
They don't obviously, instead they're patenting small improvements. As a (completely fictitious) example,a manufacturer could patent the idea of adding carbon fibres to the plastic tape, thus making it stronger, so they can make it (even) thinner and thus cram more tape into the same size cartridge (increasing the total capacity).
I imagine there's also some pretty trick technology in the read/write heads as well.
Over the last twenty years, LTO tape has gone from ~5000 bits/mm to over 20,000 B/mm. You don't get that without some kind of clever technological tricks (including in the manufacturing), and that's just the sort of thing that can be patented.
If you're really interested the patents they're arguing over seem to be (all US patents): US7029774B1, US6674596B1, and US6979501B2.
"Where do I get the software and how much CPU do I need???"
There's various different suites of software, but just google "how to make deepfakes" and that should get you started.
As for resources, GPUs work better, and nVidia ones seem to be better supported, and on a mid-range graphics card you're looking at hours rather than days to process.
If you just want to watch it, there's various sites dedicated to deepfakes pr0n. Erm, or so I've been told...
"The documentation is VERY hard to find things in"
Every single command has a page which lists the syntax, all the possible parameters, helpful examples etc. (eg)
If you find that hard, (sorry, "VERY hard") then I struggle to think what your idea of easy is. Large pictures and no words longer than two syllables perhaps? Or perhaps pages made of cardboard and a waterproof cover?
My Utilikey has accompanied me on multiple international flights, which always seems like a much worse idea when I'm stood in the queue for security and I suddenly wonder how impressed my boss would be if I got pulled over for having a knife...
Still, it's got me out of so many jams I'd happily buy a new one if it got confiscated. Assuming I wasn't locked up/shot by a trigger happy copper/fired etc.
"Rumors state the Ryzen 3000 line has a 70% yield rate"
AMD used to sell three-core CPUs. These were originally four-core parts where one core was faulty, so AMD just disabled the faulty one and sold it for cheap. Perhaps they'll do the same with some of the Ryzen 3 left-overs? A sept-core (hept-core?) processor would be an interesting upgrade.
That'll never take off.
Now, instead, if you bury a watermark into every frame of video, and sell it as a way to track people for surveillance and/or advertising, now that might get it spread widely.
(Or as an 'anti-piracy' measure).
Technologies usually get taken up because they make someone a lot of money.
I'm going to be pedantic, and point out that most of the propellant* in a rocket launch goes towards accelerating the vehicle sideways, rather than into lifting it up.
The only reason rockets go up first and then turn sideways is because it's easier to go fast if you go up high where there's less atmospheric drag.
On the Moon (as an example), as long as there's no mountains or anything in front of you, you could start your rocket flying sideways right away, and save a bit of delta-V otherwise lost to fighting gravity.
* approx 7-8 times more
The Flight exhibit on the top floor is pretty good (but less interesting for small people).
There's some one-of-a-kind exhibits in there, including Frank Wittle's first jet engine, and the Schneider Trophy, as in, the actual Schneider Trophy trophy itself, next to the S.6B that won it. There's the first Hawker P1127 (the prototype that lead to the Harrier) and Alcock and Brown's Vickers Vimy (first non-stop trans-Atlantic flight).
Basically, the more of a plane geek you are, the more fun you'll find it.
There's loads of things that a full 360 is better at than your mobile phone:
1) Being a doorstop
2) Heating up a room
3) Using enough electricity to keep a couple of coal plants running
4) Looking cool (it's got blinkenlights and reel to reel tapes)
5) Being somewhere to put your mobile phone. Hell, there's enough room on the desk for a proper rotary phone
6) Briefly causing every compass within 100m to twitch when you fire up one of the disk drives
7) Can be programmed using nothing more than some cardboard and a hole punch
IIRC it was an Intel display driver that mapped the rotate screen commands to those key combinations. Of course, because using the onboard Intel graphics was the cheapest option, they were used far and wide across businesses and schools.
Having the ability to rotate the screen is a useful, if somewhat niche, feature, but I never understood why they were enabled by default. Except perhaps to enable pranks.
I've come back and had another look at this, and whatever they are (and I suspect they're really CGI), they can't be F-18s (normal or Super), because the engine exhausts are too far apart.
Check out this picture of an F-18, the jet pipes are almost touching at the back. On the other hand, in this picture of a Mig-29, you can see a similar gap between them as in the original photo.
(I can't seem to easily find any pictures of either jet from a similar angle to the picture).
The slightly canted tail-fins rule out the F-14, F-15, and Su-27 too.