JacobZuma

So imagine you still have a dual-core and your computer is really slow... so then you spend a shit load of money to build a completely new computer, only to have it also be... slow. This is my problem currently. I have 8 GB DDR RAM and at the moment 99% of it is being used. It's not being used by any process that I can see, as all the processes running currently is usiong little over 800mb of RAM. Opening a new website takes me about 5 minutes and my patience has run out with all of the "scan for a virus" and "look for malware" comments all over the internet. DId anyone else experience this problem and already know the solution? As far as I can tell there is a memory leak in Windows 8.1 (the OS I have), but what seems to have been the solution for other people isn't working for me. I've scanned for a virus, looked for malware, looked to see if for some reason ESET security installed itself (it hasn't), I've disabled SDU.sys and I've checked my Qualcomm driver. Nothing so far has worked. If anyone have some advice I'd really appreciate it. As I said, my patience has run out and my computer is very slow. I only have a handful of programmes installed and they're not supposed to use that much RAM. My guess is that it should be a driver of something that is messing things up and I don't have the patience to update all of them - and these programmes that promise to update them all or find the problem, with the only catch being that after you spent 20 minutes downloading it and then running a scan - you have to pay $30 to buy a license isn't really working for me. My processes window looks like this: http://i61.tinypic.com/furvog.jpg http://i59.tinypic.com/15nuo9g.png http://i60.tinypic.com/2h66gjb.png I tried to think back when this memomry leak started, it was earlier today, and i've been using my BRAND NEW computer from around Thursday. The only thing I can think of that I did today was install 3 add-ons for Firefox, adblocker, DWhelper and VideoDownloader, but I doubt it's a plug-in of Firefox using all of my RAM but it might be possible. I have an Intel Core i7 - 4790 3.60 GHz with 8 gb DDR RAM and also the 64 bit 8.1 Windows Pro running. Graphics card is a Gigabyte G1 gaming GTX 970 4 GB and the motherboard is a gigabyte z97x-gaming 5. When I installed the motherboard it installed a few programmes like Killer Network Manager (some people have said that if you Enable Bandwidth Control on KNM that it causes a memory leak, but mine has been disabled since day 1), REALtek and all those default programmes. Any help would be appreciated guys. As I said, it takes me ages to load a website, nevermind trying to update drivers etc. I have all of my drivers up to date as far as I am aware - but there's probably a problem with one of them.

What you say is true, but the exact same can be said about the European Union. What does all European countries have in common, except the fact that they're all situated in Europe? BRICS is based solely on trade agreements and other small agreements like student exchanges, technical assistance and policing. It's not as politically connected as the EU. Regarding direct competition - I don't see this as a limitation of the relationship at all, and if you look at trade deals between Russia and China especially, it's skyrocketing. That's what BICS is - it's promoting trade. China buys natural gas, aircraft, naval ships etc. from Russia so there isn't direct competition in all sectors - and for Russia especially this proved vital because of the EU sanctions banning natural gas exports - they had to look for a new market, and they found Asia. The whole idea is to focus on development - and this is why the NDB was launched - to provide smaller developing countries the opportunity to develop. Sure, there is always the question over China's true intentions - but in a global economy this question can be asked about every international transaction. China needs resources in order to expand, and they're more than happy to pay for those resources. If you look back at any country in Central Africa, they had no infrastructure, not even paved roads. Today countries like Zambia, Uganda etc. have massive infrastructure projects underway. Even Jeremy Clarkson commented on one of Top Gear's specials that the roads are some of the best he has ever driven on. There is also many counterarguments saying that, in South Sudan for example, the only infrastructure the Chinese build is the necessary infrastructure to export the oil, which is entirely true - but it still improves the economy of the country and creates employment (in most cases locals are employed, but Chinese companies are known for flying in their own workers to work in Africa). I understand where you're coming from though - and I think in politics you always have to be sceptical, but from my point of view, and especially becuase I am in BRICS, I can see a lot of potential if the political will is there.

Wow,cool!!! But,still,isn't it pretty hot in South Africa? Not in the winter, no... lol. Unless you call snowing weather hot. No,no! i'm asking,because South Africa's climate is kinda trppical,isn't it??? Not tropical no. It's more temperate. In the winter it goes to around -5 degrees celcius with day temperatures around 15 degrees and in the summer day temperatures go as high as 40 degrees in some places but the average would be around 35.

Wow,cool!!! But,still,isn't it pretty hot in South Africa? Not in the winter, no... lol. Unless you call snowing weather hot.

Germany is showing interest in joining but has not signed a MOU as of yet, neither has any other European country, so unless you're hinting at just conspiracy theories, then no.

I read an article today about a tool called Stuff in Space that shows all of the debris in space. I find it quite interesting. Article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3152148/Our-cosmic-junkyard-Stuff-Space-tracks-thousands-satellites-spent-rockets-debris-orbit-Earth-real-time.html

Not only that, but we're also busy with the New Development Bank under BRICS. It will give a lot of African countries access to finance that they were never able to get in previous years. The majority of it will be funded by China in the future as most other BRICS countries just don't have the finances to do that, but eventually other countries will join in, after all the whole idea is development. There is also talks of Nigeria to join BRICS, and other countries such as Mexico. I think it's fair to say that the US and Europe is completely losing its grip on developing nations and under the influence of Russia and China, these nations collectively will have a big influence on change.

Had to reply to this as this sounded odd. Greece is at 24% of GDP expences going to "social part", as seen here. It is 12th in that ranking (even Germany is ahead of it with 25.8%). Obvious winner is France, at 31.9% >_> Belgium is 3rd (30.7%), huzzahi Yet Greece owes Germany money, not the other way around. And you will see from those stats it dramatically increased after Greece joined the Eurozone and it hasn't gone down since 2012 - even though they're on the brink of defaulting on their loans. That is very irresponsible, they're refusing to put austerity measures in places because they are arrogant and have a sense of false self-importance. The differences between Germany, France and Greece is that the first two countries have huge economies that can support social grants. Greece doesn't have a big economy and cannot sustain 1/4 of their GDP going to social grants and they also don't want to cut back on that, for reasonable reasons - if they cut back on pensions, unemployment grants etc. then their citizens would literally starve to death because more than 50% of their population will have no income, but it's still their own fault for leading to this path. percentage is percentage, its relative and as such claiming greece 24% is worse then germany's 26% is odd It isn't odd. The difference is Germany is using its own revenue to fund that 25% social grants. Greece, essentially, is not using its own revenue but is borrowing money to fund their 24%, that's the difference, and even though Greece owes other European countries and the IMF 300 BILLION Euros (and the ECB already defaulted on 50% of the loan amount) the Greek government isn't cutting back on spending - meaning they will have to borrow MORE money because they don't have enough revenue for all of their expenses. I really cannot see how you can even compare Greece to France or Germany. You could have compared Greece to Spain or Ireland, but those 2 countries are cutting back on spending, unlike Greece, trying to resolve the situation. The other big difference is the fact that Germany has a lot more working adults supporting their pensioners and unemployed. There is a specific term used to define this, something along the lines of Population Support Ratio, where Greece doesn't. Greece sits with 27% unemployment and a big percentage that are pensioners, essentially meaning that the few who does work have to support the many that do not, in Germany that's the direct opposite. Claiming that Greece isn't in the wrong for spending 24% on social expenses because Germany is spending 25% is exactly the Greek way of thinking. By your rationale, your country, Belgium, could spend just as much money as Germany does, because why not? Greece is spending more money than it is capable of - hence the situation they're in now. My country, South Africa, cannot spend the same amount of money that the US spends on our military, because we don't have that kind of money. We can't spend $700 bn a year on our armed forces, our entire budget is $200 bn, which means if we wanted to do that we will have to go and borrow the rest - which is what Greece did, and still does. Obviously there is a difference between % of GDP and actual value, but the principle is exactly the same.

Had to reply to this as this sounded odd. Greece is at 24% of GDP expences going to "social part", as seen here. It is 12th in that ranking (even Germany is ahead of it with 25.8%). Obvious winner is France, at 31.9% >_> Belgium is 3rd (30.7%), huzzahi Yet Greece owes Germany money, not the other way around. And you will see from those stats it dramatically increased after Greece joined the Eurozone and it hasn't gone down since 2012 - even though they're on the brink of defaulting on their loans. That is very irresponsible, they're refusing to put austerity measures in places because they are arrogant and have a sense of false self-importance. The differences between Germany, France and Greece is that the first two countries have huge economies that can support social grants. Greece doesn't have a big economy and cannot sustain 1/4 of their GDP going to social grants and they also don't want to cut back on that, for reasonable reasons - if they cut back on pensions, unemployment grants etc. then their citizens would literally starve to death because more than 50% of their population will have no income, but it's still their own fault for leading to this path.

What about her work as Secretary of State? I know she got a lot of bad rep because of the Benghazi attacks, but in all honesty that was a collective administration blunder and she was scapegoated. She did good work representing the US and she was very dedicated to her job, at least that's my perspective. Obviously I view it from an outside perspective - you might have a completely different view since you are her constituent or she is at least responsible to you so you might have a completely different point of view.

Dumb what down? The Greek financial crisis? Long story short, Greece has been living on borrowed money ever since adopting the Euro. They thought it was acceptable because their GDP kept growing, but in reality that is meaningless when your government is being funded by other countries. Being funded by other countries isn't a complete problem. It depends on what those funds are being used for. Like you said, pensions, military, and many of the other programs did not help Greece. They could have built ports, highways, and rail systems. Or universities and hospitals. The first would have made them a trade hub. The second would have made them a student/expat pensioner hub. Both would have made them money. Yeah, you're completely spot on about that. Had Greece used it's ability to borrow more money, and spent it on infrastructure and the growth of the economy then there would be no problem at all. But they decides, because.. socialism, to spend it on pensions, unemployment insurance etc. There are many small countries with really big economies such as Luxembourg, Switzerland etc. Greece just didn't spend its money correctly, which is why not a lot of people like them right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8xAXJx9WJ8 That is a nice video visualizing a simplistic explanation.

I believe my statement was: "The sole reason I would never support a Republican is because of their conservative views that usually include "Death to enemies of America!" which is sort of what you just state yourself. Republicans use military authority and force and 'bully' other countries and people to enforce their foreign policy - which is why every region the US Armed Forces have been active in is a mess. You will not solve today's problems with another Republican - that is my point. Regarding your list of Presidents who have deployed soldiers overseas - I will remove WWI and WWII from that list as any President would have gotten involved in the World Wars sooner or later. But to look at the Republican list, 1. Iraq 2. Afghanistan 3. Gulf War 4. Panama 5. Grenada 6. Lebanon. This is also a big number of wars/conflicts that Republicans got involved in. So your statement that Republicans avoid war by bullying isn't really true. " China is attacking our economic infrastructure " China is not attacking the US economic infrastructure. China may have copied some things and sell it for cheap, but that's hardly an attack. They're competing in the world economy and the US cannot keep up. This is what we call American arrogance. Your entire stance gives that away immediately. You also have the typical view that if it's not for-America, it's immediately against-America. Any country is free to participate in the world economy. China managed to create products for cheap (and we can go into living standards, workers' compensation etc. but that's really not the point), China manages to export a lot more products than the US anticipated and China is investing in many countries, many in Africa, which are resource-rich. The US isn't capable/isn't willing to invest so much money in impoverished countries. I see this as pure jealousy and nothing more. Our intentions are obviously not to offend one another but to have a healthy debate so I hope there are no hard feelings.

The entire reason Greece is about to default on its loans are because the government spends too much money - money it doesn't have. A few years ago Greece had an account deficit of 12.9%, now in bigger countries this might be acceptable because bigger countries are able to pay off the installments, Greece isn't able to. The government has too much debt and cannot repay the installments, but a few years ago government spending was at an all time high. Most countries have an account deficit of around 2-6%. Greece, a small Mediterranean nation has almost double the account deficit that some of your biggest nations have. To answer your question, the Greek government until very recently has spent 25% of its GDP on social insurance. One quarter of its GDP was spent on pensions, unemployment benefits, insurance etc. That is what the government is spending money on. If you compare this percentage to other nations, even other smaller nations, then it is way out of proportion. The entire deadlock over the Greece issue is because Germany is demanding austerity measures (as in, government needs to stop spending money), so I honestly don't really know why you act like the Greek government isn't spending money. Unless I interpreted your question incorrectly. Me saying "If only war was an option" is an exaggeration, I agree. But when you look at accountability, Greece doesn't know what that word means. Reckless financial management on their part is jeopardizing the whole bond market. Investment will run dry in the EU and countries like Spain, Ireland, Portugal and Italy will feel the impact. It will affect their economies and their future loans tremendously. When you consider the grave economical impact this will have on already fragile European economies, not to mention economies all around the world - then I would say a much cheaper option would be to take control of the Greek government and manage its finances correctly. The EU should have thought about such measures when the Eurozone was first created.

Well, there's nothing that says American capitalism more than political donors. If a Republican wins the election then I would not be surprised to see the US at war with who knows who in 2016 - 2019. The sole reason I would never support a Republican is because of their conservative views that usually include "Death to enemies of America!". You're right though, I cannot vote in the US election nor would I want to - so my views are nothing more than that, a view.

This.

Well let me just clarify one thing on this issue. I think I speak for all South Africans when I say that it came as a huge shock and we were all completely surprised when allegations surfaced that the South African government bribed an institution to get what it wants, because the South African government would never contradict its own statements that democratic principles such as accountability (more importantly financial accountability) should be adhered to at all times.

Donald Trump is already losing the election and he only just recently made it public that he intends to run. His Mexico rants and various other beliefs will just make him more of a laughing stock. We all know Trump is a joke anyway - remember his statements that Obama wasn't really an American and insisted on seeing his birth certificate? He likes to divert attention from important matters. Imagine him running the US. I think Oprah Winfrey should run for President. At least then every American can get something out of the deal, she likes to give freebies out to everyone. On a more serious note, I think Clinton would win the election, or at least have a very strong chance of being elected VP, that's if the Republicans don't have good candidates. If I was an American I would vote for Clinton. Once again the public's attention is diverted from important issues and the focus is unimportant things such as deleted e-mails... Her husband was President, she is/was a Senator and she was Secretary of State. She already has more experience than anyone else. I don't think Americans realize just how influential she is in the world. I bet she has every Head of State and every important person in the world in her phone book. In a time when US foreign policy is misdirected and the US image is tarnished a skilled diplomat is what's required. There's no one else currently in the running who has a better chance of fixing things than Clinton. I'm obviously speaking purely of foreign policy - I'm not really aware of her track record on local issues such as taxes, which Americans place a lot of emphasis on. From a foreigners perspective, this is what the US have to do in the coming years, and obviously they need a President that can achieve this: Reduce their deficit. Stop spending so much money. Create a strong middle class. Improve education (with all of the infrastructure and resources that schools in the US have - something is really off with their curriculum). Improve foreign relations. Stop getting involved in wars and conflicts. Focus on your own livelihoods and don't get involved in the internal affairs of foreign countries. Make nice with Russia and China. We don't want a second Cold War, which is already starting. There's no reason why 3 superpowers cannot co-exist. In general: they should stop being the 'bully' in the story and force their own beliefs and ways of doing things onto others.

This is sadly the truth. The problem is that the United States view any country that does not have a 'democratic' form of government as the enemy, that is when it suits them and it does not conflict with their own foreign policy. The US was perfectly fine with instituting their own dictators in Latin American countries to counter the Soviet Union, but at the same time they were doing that they were criticizing the likes of Amin, Gaddafi, Mugabe etc. Say what you want about Gaddafi, yes he terrorized opposition within his borders, but the man had a vision, not only for his own people but for Africans. The economy of Libya was vibrant and order was maintained. The thing that the US does not understand is that there will always be someone who wants to take over the place of a dictator, and in almost every case it will be worse. That's why you don't overthrow a dictator. Simple lesson. By overthrowing Gaddafi they created a huge power vacuum with no party or person that has the political will and power to control everyone in the country. You end up with different factions all fighting for control - and they do it because of money, usually hiding behind a curtain of religious or ethnic purposes. The same story happens all over the world. Today it's Yemen's turn. The US and the 'West' openly opposed the government and is now funding and supporting the opposition. In a year or three the same groups that were armed by the US and the 'West' will become the problem. The exact same thing happened with Iraq. The US wanted to overthrow Hussein and played all their cards to make it happen. Another power vacuum happened, which is why the situation there exists today. Not to mention the US government thought it best to completely obliterate all of the institutions in Iraq, so that they can have all of the power in the country, then after years of fighting complain how Iraq is a mess. After the Iran-Iraq war Hussein managed to completely rebuild the country in a matter of months, not years. Yes, we was a dictator, but he did it a lot cheaper than the US have invested in Iraq already. My point is this: If it's not in your backyard, back off and don't get involved. The US especially has this sense of 'responsibility' to act whenever something does not fit into their foreign policy and then they just make the matter so much worse, usually for themselves. That's why our definition of 'terrorism' exists today. Terrorism itself is just a creation of US foreign policy that's biting them in the ass. They should really start backtracking and fix the entire situation by stop getting involved in the internal affairs of other countries. The Taliban wants to run Afghanistan? Fine, let them... if Afghans do not have the will to stand up against the Taliban then why should the US? Do not get involved. Another thing that has always amazed me was that if there isn't a political motivation then the US and its allies would never act. I think it's reasonable to exclude France from this as France actually does get involved in its former colonies to try and fix things, but the rest of the bunch only gets involved when there's political motivation. In 1994 in Rwanda mass atrocities were committed and every leader on earth knew what was happening. No one did anything. The US and all of the European countries knew exactly what was going to happen. They didn't even consider sending in troops - the UN peacekeepers that were in Rwanda were ordered to withdraw, after all of the Europeans were evacuated. We all know the result of the genocide - but my point is that NATO and the EU had no problem sending in troops into Iraq, Afghanistan, depose Gaddafi, fund extremists in the Middle East etc. Because it suits their foreign policy and their agenda. They act like they try and protect the helpless and enforce human rights, but if they don't have an interest in a country they don't really care what happens.

Well, it's winter here, not summer... and I will be going to Cape Town for a week on holiday and then back to University.

The EU allowing Greece into the Eurozone was their own mistake, as Greece already had a very bad record of financial accountability. They don't pay their taxes, the government doesn't come knocking on the door when you owe taxes, and the government spends a lot of money because 'socialism' is not a bad thing at all... And now that they're in trouble, because of Greeks and the Greek government, they're acting like typical spoiled brats and put the blame on other parties. If only war was an option...