Rand0m her0

Even for gaming, the stock cooler is probably fine. I think i mentioned that a few pages back? They're rarely *good* coolers, but they do work well enough. Worst case of using it is that your CPU starts to throttle itself to manage heat. It's not going to melt itself or anything You *might* have an issue with fan noise. AMD coolers in my experience have tended to be quiet loud, although that was some years back. If that's still the case it might be an issue for streaming, unless you're going for the "games next to a jet engine" ambiance. If you want, leave the cooler you bought in the box, stick the stock cooler in, and run the system though a bench mark. See how hot the CPU gets and how loud the fan gets, see if anything starts to throttle. Fart around with it for a few days. If it's not an issue, return the aftermarket cooler. If it is an issue...well it'll take you like 10 minutes to swap the part out. Just make sure to clean off and replace the thermal paste when you do. Watercooling is really nice (and so damn quiet!) but so very not needed unless your overclocking.

Similar. Backplates exist and if you're dealing with that, might as well just install the whole cooler at the same time. I'll also stick the ram in before putting the thing in the case, but that really doesn't matter that much. Just habit from ye olde days of breadboarding builds first. Having the CPU cooler attached to the motherboard gives you a nice handle to move the mobo around by which goes back the whole "try and touch the big electrical insert block of metal and and not the little itty bitty electrosensitive components" thing. Also just having it as a handle can be useful. power supply has its own area in the case covered by a shroud, so put that in roughly whenever. Looking at your case, point the PSU fan downwards. You might want to look up a build guide done in your case. Not so much for the "how to build" but to get an idea of how to run cables from the PSU. You've got the pretty glass case after all, don't want wires all over.

You don't really need the strap. I've never bothered, I work with electrosensitive components on a pretty frequent basis. All you've got to do is ground yourself before hand, and not that hard to just touch the ground terminal on the oscilloscope before fucking with components. In your case just go touch a faucet or a metal bit on a lamp or something. Just do you work off of carpet on a non conductive surface (so like a wood table) and without wearing a wool jumper or something so you're not building up a static charge while you work. Try to grab parts by things like the heatsinks when moving them around as much as possible. A block of metal will care a lot less about a static shock than the components on the PCB. If you want to be really paranoid/fancy, stick the power supply on your workbench, plug it into an outlet but keep it turned off while you work. Then just tap it every few minutes. This also gives you an easy to access place to ground yourself if you end up moving around which is a bit more convenient than remembering to tap a lamp again before sitting down. That said, while not needed, it does still reduce the risk of damage due to ESD, since (provided the other end is properly grounded), you no longer need to think about it. So if you're looking at 900 GBP components and feeling nervous, yea go for it. They should cost you like 5 quid? If you do grab one, do the thing with the power supply, and then just clip the non wrist strap end to it. If you want an anti static platform to breadboard on, get one if you want, but your motherboard box works pretty good too. . Write time is not really all that important, nor really is read time. Access time is the point of an SSD, which is why ti causes such dramatic improvements. If you're getting notable better performance out of a raid array vs and SSD, your running on a system without adequate memory, using a program that makes terrible use of available memory, or have a fairly niche application where you're frequently reading from and writing to many large files. For the home user you're better off installing more RAM into your system, for the cost of a decent RAID 0 setup you can stuff 20 to 30 gigs of DDR4. Infact with modern HDDs RAID doesn't even provide that big a performance boost (Per dollar) over single HDDs anymore. Larger single drives have *way* better data density and the OS is better able to set the system up for sequential read/writes. two 7200RPM 500Gb HDDS in raid 0 will only provide a moderate speed improvement over a single 5200 RPM 4TB HDD, but it'll cost about same amount of money. You need 3 or 4 of them for it to be that big a deal. And once you're up to 3-4 drives in raid 0 your just asking to lose everything, so now you need more HDDs to run an incremental backup and/or you need even more drives to set up a RAID 10 or etc. And at that point you're now up to the cost of a 1Tb to 2Tb SSD. Might as well just got one of those, since they'll be vastly more reliable and have similar write speeds And again, this assumes it's even an application where RAID is even useful; Most of where RAID beat out single HDDs in the past was not read/write time but instead access time, and if that's important SSDs are the clear winners. Games no longer see a noticeable performance improvement in RAID, with the exception of some loading screen times, simply because they've already preloaded the needed assets into RAM. For samus's expected uses, there's no justification for the added cost and headache that comes with using RAID. A modern use case for RAID is something like a video production company that needs a server to handle storage and backup of video files.

Modern SSD write speed will dramatically outperform anything but the most overkill of raid arrays. For random read write on a HDD raid array, to match you'd need something severa drives in RAID 0 which oh god no. It would also cost you vastly more to set up. RAID, while once the hottest shit for gaming is much less of a performance boost day. With RAM being so much more plentiful and DDR3 (let alone DDR4) having much higher speeds, most games just proactively load anything they think they might need into memory anyways well before it's actually needed. even the most stupidly overkill RAID 0 array would only be able to eek out one or two more FPS vs a single HDD. About the only reason to run RAID today is for redundancy and even that that's questionable. Bulk storage is cheap and for a home user it's much less hassle to simply keep an incremental backup than deal with the headaches that come with RAID. Plus the redundancy of RAID is somewhat of a lie anyways, since it distributes the wear equally across drives, they have an unfortunate tendency of failing close together. I've seen more than one attempt to recover a RAID setup from a drive failure collapse because the extra wear on the remaining drives caused some of them to fail. Unless you've got the kind of network infrastructure you have an actual IT team to manage, RAID of any level is probably not needed. Kingston rates the drive samus picked for 80TB of rewrites. Manufacturers tend to be conservative with their TBW, and that will been when performance degradation becomes noticeable, not when the drive becomes degraded to the point of it being an issue. Samus could write 50gb to the drive a day and it would fine for several years. At a still absurd 25gb a day and it would last close to 9 years, which is well past the point you should plan on an HDD lasting. I wouldn't recommend it for any task that involved constant writes to it long term, but for day to day use it's more than sufficient. While a larger ssd is nice, the number of applications that actually require both the hard drive space and the write speed are minimal. 240gb is a bit small personally, but that's just because i'm a lazy bastard who hates to clean up his files, not because it's that much of an issue. With windows and etc that's still the best part of 200gb of "living room" for day to day use, which is more than enough. Samus will just need to be a bit proactive about deleting junk or moving it to the HDD. Not a big deal. By switching to the smaller SSD+HDD combo samus managed to save himself what looks like 60 quid. He could proceed to go stuff that under his mattress, and by time the TBW for the SSD becomes an issue, buy himself a new and probably much larger SSD with the money. And i mean, if you want to do RAID, for that 60 plus another maybe 20 or so he could go buy himself a second one of those SSDs and decent external drive, configure the two SSDS into RAID 0 for pure lulz and stupidity. and then just have the external HDD store incremental image copies off the SSD. That'll even extend the life of the SSDs. HDDS fail mechanical wear and tear, while SSDs fail because of finite writes. so RAID 0 Spreading the wear evenly is actually beneficial to them.

As said, for streaming it's CPU "heavy" work, however on the scale of things encoding video for streaming is still pretty light (your not exactly taking 8k video off a red camera and doing any real processing to it). A decent i3 or some of AMDs APUs would be more than enough, while anything better than that would be future proof for quite some time. What your looking at is hilariously overkill for just streaming I'd honestly not recommend bothering with large SSDs at all. If you want, you can skip ti entirely. They're a fantastic quality of life improvement (PC boots much quicker, programs launch faster etc), but realistically they don't do a whole lot for game performance and will do nothing for streaming. Also games don't universally benefit from an SSD. Some games preload a lot of their assets into memory, which means the SSD has almost no impact. For other games load times have to do with scripts etc that need to execute, and so the storage device will only shave a little off. About the only place where the SSD might have an impact is in open world games with really quick movement. And even then you'd be lucky to see a difference of 1 frame per second. My prefered set up is a smaller SSD, 250 or 500 gigs, and then a larger HDD for bulk storage (any music, videos, pictures, whatever you have don't need to be on an SSD). Doing a quick looksie, you can probably get a 500 gb SSD and a 1tb HDD for a bit less than that 1tb SSD you've picked out. a 500 gb SSD and a 2tb HDD will be about the same price. a 250 gb SSD and a 4tb HDD will only be a little more expensive, although a 250 gb C drive will mean you need to be proactive about moving stuff over to the HDD. Or you could just drop the SSD entirely grab a 2TB HDD, and cut the cost of that down by half. It is just a QoL upgrade as opposed to a performance upgrade

I wouldn't say that I know more about that specific board. But there's a reason the voltage regulator module on a good board has heatsink on it. This also means it wants good airflow, and i don't see how the heck that I/O shroud isn't going to screw with airflow. And I know ASUS has had some stuff with their VRMs running hot in the past. I don't have the time to go hunt down if it's going to be an issue on that board. Doing some googling on my suspicions i've found some people mentioning that it has meh thermals, but not what the impact of that is. It might not be an issue, it might only be an issue for overclocking, maybe it's just fine with the 2600 but not the 2700x or etc, it might only be an issue witha water cooling setup where there's less airflow. Given the fact that every manufacturer has a board at that price point, a bit of comparison shopping wouldn't be the worst idea. That said, nothing about the board screams awful. Iif the thing goes on any real sale in the next couple days i'd heartily recommend jumping on it. It's just that the I/O shroud makes me want to slap whoever decided screwing with airflow over the VRM was totally worth the extra LEDs they could cram on.

a 1tb solid state drive is hilariously overkill. You can get away with a much small one (think 250 gb) and a secondary hdd and shuffle things over to the HDD as needed Or If you want to save money, just getting a decent HDD would also be fine. an SDD is a very nice QoL upgrade, but it's mostly good for load times and boot times, which is not actually that big a deal performance wise. Can always pick an SSD up later if you want. That mobo is hilariously overkill, so if you want you could shave £20-£40 on that. Something like the MSI tomohawk maybe. Also while yhat ROG one is probably not terrible, the weird ass I/O shroud is making me wonder what it'll do to air flow, especially since it looks like it's right over the voltage regulator module. I doubt it'll be an issue unless you overclock, but i'd look up some comparisons with MSI and Gigabyte's offerings in the same price range see how they compare. Either of those graphics cards are just fine. Your parts should come with any needed screws, and it should all fit just fine. ATX standard is nice like that. Cooling is something to pay attention to, I don't know if that CPU comes with one (probably, but maybe not?) and i don't know about the fans in the case, but stock cooling has a tendency to be a bit garbage. You can wait till after you've assembled the thing and seen how hot it gets before deciding the buy that.

Go figure out what it'll cost to build around a i5-8400 and a 1050 ti along with a pretty decent chunk of RAM. Those two parts (or their amd equivalents) are the solid mid range parts for gaming, and will probably come in around £300-£350, leaving you with a decent bit of head room before you even touch the bottom of your budget range. If you've got some parts to salvage from an old computer (As long as it's not utter trash, a case is a case). It won't be like 120 fps at 4k capable or anything, but it'll be entirely solid for gaming and should be fine to stream with at the same time (although you may not get uber high graphics and perfect 1080p video capture out of it simultaneously) Iterate on the build from there depending on what you want to shave (or improve). If you want a dedicated streaming box period you can scale it back a fair bit. Encoding video is CPU work not GPU work so you could go for a much weaker videocard, or even run off the integrated graphics. You could even scale back the CPU a bit, although at that point your dropping back into the i3s, which while not bad can definitely limit what else you can do with the thing in the future besides streaming (also you're probably only saving £50 on that). Doing that has the advantage that, you'll probabLY end up way under budget. There's actually something too be said for using a dedicated streaming box and capture card even if you stream PC gaming primarily just cause of how inexpensive it is relative to a high end gaming machine. If you want to go in on gaming and streaming on the same machine, especially if you want 1080p streaming and high graphics settings, bumping up the specs is worthwhile. the Intel i7-8700K or AMDs Ryzen 7 2700X, a nvida 1070 or equivalent, etc. That'll detainyl start to push up out of your budget however.

Which is of course vastly higher in the USA than in most of the rest of the world. By about an order of magnitude. A doctor in europe might pay 10k USD a year for insurance. The same doctor in the USA could pay 10k *a month*.

I don't know anything about private prison systems. It doesn't make much sense for the government to convict someone and then turn them over to civilians to incarcerate them. Free market business operates on customer service, customer satisfaction, quality control, and profit... hard to find a reason for a private prison to operate on satisfying the customers, so I get what you mean. Student loans are something different. Education costs money, and if they want the education, someone has to pay for it. If they apply for the loans, they agree to the terms, they sign the documents, and they spend the money... they are bound by contract to pay it back. They know this going in. I have no sympathy for them... I have children myself that are still paying back their student loans. Regarding healthcare... you seem to blame insurance companies for everything, and you believe that creating anything that will undercut and destroy them will make healthcare cheaper. It will not. Take "Medicare for all" for instance. Medicare is for seniors, and doctors accept Medicare because it's only for the seniors. They will make less, and it will take them much longer to get paid, but they do it for the seniors. Most of what they make, and what keeps their offices running, comes from employer based medical insurance. Now suddenly, Medicare is available to all... employer based insurance cannot compete, and is destroyed. Do you believe they will just accept this? No they won't. They will no longer accept Medicare, and they will only accept private insurance, credit, or cash. People become doctors because they want to be rich, it's not about taking care of the sick... at all. If they can help people, that is what justifies their income. The amount doctors make from medicare and the amount they make from insurance patients are pretty comparable. Medicare in the USA. A lot of the difference in cost is because medicare will, at least some of the time, inform a clinic or hospital where and how they can go fuck themselves if they try to bill several hundred dollars for a saline IV for example. As well, much of the cost is either in the cost of medication or in the cost to use equipment, which isn't money that goes to the doctor. Across all OCED nations, doctor salaries are about the same. In the USA for they make a little more than the average, but it's offset ion part by the much much higher cost of malpractice insurance. Adjusting for cost of living and currency differences, the OCED range is between 100k USD a year and 150k USD a year. They also don't make any less under medicare/medicaid. Pharmaceutical companies and for profit hospitals make less, but that's because they if they try to charge a 400 bucks for a saline IV medicare/medicaid tells them to go fuck themselves. The idea that healthcare providers would simply decline to take medicare is ridiculous, since medicare and medicaid already make up something like half of the healthcare spending in the USA (turns out most of the cost of healthcare is spent on seniors, go figure). Physician and Clinical Services make up about a fifth of the USA health spending, and private health insurance pays for less than a third of that. The idea that "Most of what they make, and what keeps their offices running, comes from employer based medical insurance." is manifestly incorrect. This is part of the scam of insurance companies in the USA; since they refuse to insure anyone that might maybe actually costs them money they don't actually pay for shit. With the USAs current healthcare system system, almost no one wins except the insurance companies and a handful of other corporations and they win in the same sense a parasite "wins". No matter how you cut it, the USA spends twice as much per capita as any other western country, outcomes are worse (For example the worst maternal mortality rate in the developed world), and physicians don't really make more than anywhere else. Universal healthcare plans are not some new experimental idea, they've been in place for nearly a century in much of the west, and every single one of those nations has comparable *or better* healthcare than the USA, at literally half the cost. Infact at this point the sheer number of different countries with a universal healthcare system demonstrate that *what* model of UHC you adopt doesn't seem to matter, whether it's the government provided insurance you see in Canada, the nationalized health service in the UK, or something like the multi payer statutory health insurance in Germany. they *all* get it done and they get it done at half the cost.

And this is why you don't take trump tweets as news. have an example of what comey doens't know Opening an investigation such as that is not something that FBI requires the director to sign off on. Infact it should be trivially obvious why that's the case; counterintelligence investigations are routine for the FBI and requiring the director to sign off on everyone would be an enormous waste of time and allow a single individual to quash an investigation. Jame Comey having read that document is no more likely than Sundar Pichai to have read the initiation document for a study of new blades for one of google's data centers. Also, lol, that is such a transparent attempt at the most pathetic perjury trap. If the committee gave a shit, they'd ask the FBI to cough up a copy of the document out of the archive, or even just confirm that author. There's zero reason to even ask such a question other than hoping he answers incorrectly and then go ZOMG COMEY LIED TO CONGRESS! There is of course things like Which is an entirely reasonable answer since the question is about a investigation into illegal activities and "collusion" has no legal definition, something which Trey Gowdy agrees with like 5 lines later. Lots of other things that Committee expects him to know includes details of conversation between people who are not him that happened while he was not present. Also random highly specific facts about investigations that he had minimal role in, interviews he was not present at, or just basic information that the committee could trivally obtain from congressional records. Not to metion: "do you know if other people knew things". And of course other things include entirely subjective statements Because obviously Comey isn't going to "Yes I know for a fact this person was literally the best person at the job in the whole world". I stand by my statement re: political grandstanding. This was such a transparent fishing expedition.

Oh come now, making fun of people for that misspelling is time honored sport Oh and because i just realized you're all a bunch of filth i mean alliance scum i mean players.

Did some of the other include a furry warrior and a holly priest? >_> Also WoD was just fine. It had some of the best questing, a bunch of amazing dungeons, and both HFC and Blackrock were are some of the best raids blizz has done. The problem with WoD was, including SoO, 4 raids in 3 years. As crazy as HFC was, it wasn't "I want to run this for *14 months*" fun. Well, to each his own. I can't exactly remember what annoyed me about WoD. Sure, the quests were nice, I had fun playing them. It was something about the that expansion I didn't like. I guess, I was starting to lose interest in the game about that time. I never really bothered with raids, I just didn't have the time for them. I did a few, and found it was like herding cats. Just absolutely frustrating. Problems with worgens or problems with rouges eh? I never played a warrior. I tried a few times, but didn't like them. Same goes for priests, couldn't get into the class. Druids as well. I had (have), aside from my main: -Worgen War Lock -Draenei Death Knight (tank) -Blood Elf Mage -Blood Elf Paladin Nah just poking fun at you for spelling rogue, rouge

Did some of the other include a furry warrior and a holly priest? >_> Also WoD was just fine. It had some of the best questing, a bunch of amazing dungeons, and both HFC and Blackrock were are some of the best raids blizz has done. The problem with WoD was, including SoO, 4 raids in 3 years. As crazy as HFC was, it wasn't "I want to run this for *14 months*" fun.

James Comey will be showing up for his subpoena tomorrow. He will testify in a closed setting. He will be questioned extensively by Trey Gowdy and John Ratcliffe. He has already lied to Congress, so we will see just how much he wants to double down. He can't hide from it anymore. Loretta Lynch will be next. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/comey-drops-legal-challenge-to-house-gop-subpoena-will-testify-on-trump-clinton-probes The session is "closed" but he's allowed to release the transcript. Which means the details are public. All it means that everything gets released a day later instead of the day of. ie, they gave him a public session for all practical purposes but is refusing to allow it to be explicitly public in order to not look like they folded like a house of cards. Because, again, this is political grandstanding on part of the GOP.

Okay, no more chocolate or beer for you >_> Chocolate is South American and the only reason you have chocolate at all is Spain and the Congo. Beer aint belgian either and most of your beers are norman in origin. Face it betsy, the fastest way to construct a belgian dish is to take some meat and add the word "frites" to the end of it!

Of course it isn't weird. Weird is collecting furbies, or having insect jewelry or taking part in competitive dog grooming. The word you're looking for is "depraved"

You say the first because you're wrong (bipetual ftw), and the second because fries are like the only thing belgian cuisine has going for it

The dog likes the delivery person. She gets really excited when she figures out pizza is coming. I just hollered the price of the usual order out to the other room to confirm, and now the dog is all excited. I apparently order pizza enough she's learned the price of the pizza order.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/conservative-nonprofit-with-obscure-roots-and-undisclosed-funders-paid-matthew-whitaker-12-million/2018/11/20/25ff987e-e9db-11e8-bd89-eecf3b178206_story.html? Today in transparent corruption...

Stupid double post bug

Lys the subpoena is for next week and Congress hasn't even gave him the required information about topics of questioning. Fucking mark Zuckerberg had piles of warning and has entire departments of his company dedicated to preparing reports on exactly the questions he got asked and he still got something like a months notice. Less than a week is absolutely nuts. This is the house deliberately making a demand it can't back. Comey is gonna keep going ya no, and the subpoena will get dropped. Also seriously, what could possibly be discussed that should not be made public that the house judiciary committee can't request to be briefed on? If the question can't be answered in public, then Congress can't release the answers given anyways. Which means they could simply request to be briefed on those topics. Likey doesn't even need Comey.'s involvement. And if the answer can be released to the public, then what benefit is gained by Congress selectively releasing parts of the answer. Hell it's not even clear that Congress can make this a closed hearing. The restrictions on when that can happen are pretty well defined. The topic pretty much needs to touch on national security or require the publication of stuff like personal finical information. The constitution is pretty big on the government not doing shit behind closed doors This is a bit of political showmanship and nothing more. Comey's gonna go nah, Congress is going to do nothing because they're playing with no hand and then either the hearing will be delayed till January, or they'll just outright drop the subpoena. If they try to compel Comey to show up with less than a week's prep time, they will lose and lose hard.

Oh god the subpoena is for December the third? Yea not a damn chance. That is a huge procedural break. Comey isn't even resisting the subpoena here, for an investgative hearing he's susposed to have way more time to prepare for the hearing, seek legal counsel, etc. They're trying to rush the hearing through on barley more than a week's notice. That shit doesn't happen. Like hell to the all no. It would be one heck of a due process violation for them to try and compel that. I almost want to see them try, the judges decision would be a glorious legal smack down to read. Of course the judiciary committee can't be that stupid, so they almost certainly know that, and the subpoena is just political showmanship Comey's request for the hearing to be public, leaving aside my previous comment, is him wanting a concession to drop everything else he's doing in order to show up on such short notice. Dude could reasonably expect at least a months notice and realistically closer to 60 days to seek counsel and prepare. Seriously, out side of emergency hearings, has anyone ever given testimony in an investgative hearing on a week's notice? Cause I'd bet it happens rarely if ever. They should consider themselves lucky the response wasn't comey' telling them to sit on it and rotate

The subpoena us to testify re "anti trump bias". There is no legal definition there, and its a highly charged political matter. He'd be the biggest idiot in the country if he didn't want that as part of the public record. With out that Congress would be able to release information from the hearing selectively. That creates a massive public issue. For that matter there is little reason for the hearing to be closed. If he declines to comment publicly due to classified material, then the question shouldn't be brought before the house at all. The house judiciary committee could request to be briefed on the topic and make recommendations from there. If necessary they could then subpoena for spefic testimony on those issues (the answers to which could not be disemenated publicly anyways). They'd even be able to get better answers that way anyways, and that's usually how Congressional hearings work anyways; anything that can be public should be public Theres no real reason for this to be a closed hearing, it could well violate due process, Comey would be an idiot if he wanted any publicly releaseable statement to not be public record in its entirety, and frankly it serves no purpose for the public for it to be closed. Theres reason why Congressional hearings are almost never closed, and when they are they're almost universally security briefings.

The lowest the us gdp dipped in 1937 and 1938 was 1.13 trillion. This was still in excess of 1929. Unemployment rose by about 3 percent and had dropped below pre 1937 levels by mid 1938 ish. It was a recession, not a return to depression. The great depression ended in the USA by 1939. The USA didn't enter the war till 1941. As well much of the world expesically the portion that got off the gold standard were out of it by 1936. WW2 did not end the great depression. The USA was well out of it before war time spending kicked iand much of the rest.of the world's econmy was harmed by the outbreak of war in 1939. What WW2 caused was the massive economic boom that followed rather than the more modest inflationary period that usually characterizes recovery. Saying that WW2 ended the great depression is a grade school level simplification. Like most things you learned in grade school, it's not particularly accurate. Fun fact both Monetarists and Keynesian both aruge that the 1937 budget, which aimed to scale down government spending and limit the expansion of the monetary supply is to blame.cause 1937 saw the us with a balanced budget and "fiscal conservative" policy. The return to new deal policies saw a return to economic growth.