Aberu

The problem comes into play when your freedom to choose infringes on someone else's autonomy. If your child goes to school, and they are allowed to not be vaccinated, they are in danger of spreading communicable disease, meaning your children's disease (which was a result of not vaccinating) infringes on the rights of the other children to get educated. Also your child is not your property and children don't have the capacity to make informed decisions the way an adult does, so you deciding not to vaccinate your child shouldn't be a choice you are allowed to make in my opinion. You are putting them at risk of harm when THEY don't have a choice. There has to be a scientific standard in place then, not a subjective evaluation from each parent. This standard has to be applied through regulation so as to uphold the right to education that the other children (including yours hypothetically) have.
 
There has to be a line somewhere. Pure libertarianism doesn't function because the rich generally don't care if the poor die (e.g. see wealth inequality in the world on the whole and how many children starve), corporations don't have feelings (e.g. the Ford Pinto and McDonald's Hot Coffee, etc...), and most people care about themselves and their families as per our species evolving in small tribes that were mostly related to each other in some way and not the way we are as interconnected as we are now.

The problem comes into play when your freedom to choose infringes on someone else's autonomy. If your child goes to school, and they are allowed to not be vaccinated, they are in danger of spreading communicable disease, meaning your children's disease (which was a result of not vaccinating) infringes on the rights of the other children to get educated. Also your child is not your property and children don't have the capacity to make informed decisions the way an adult does, so you deciding not to vaccinate your child shouldn't be a choice you are allowed to make in my opinion. You are putting them at risk of harm when THEY don't have a choice. There has to be a scientific standard in place then, not a subjective evaluation from each parent. This standard has to be applied through regulation so as to uphold the right to education that the other children (including yours hypothetically) have.
 
There has to be a line somewhere. Pure libertarianism doesn't function because the rich generally don't care if the poor die (e.g. see wealth inequality in the world on the whole and how many children starve), corporations don't have feelings (e.g. the Ford Pinto and McDonald's Hot Coffee, etc...), and most people care about themselves and their families as per our species evolving in small tribes that were mostly related to each other in some way and not the way we are as interconnected as we are now.

That's not a red herring or a strawman. If someone's child gets sick because less people vaccinate their children, then those children who got sick have just had their time in school decreased because of someone else valuing their personal choice to not vaccinate over the rights of others to pursue education. Are you suggesting that if people don't vaccinate then the diseases that are being vaccinated against will have the same infection rate and nothing will change?
 
It's the same as having a child who is deathly allergic to peanut butter, the school can place a ban on peanut butter sandwiches in the relevant places of exposure to ensure not only the child's safety but their reasonable expectation of a right to pursue education.

I hate that I have to use it for sharepoint at work. Chrome just bugs out too much with sharepoint.

The problem comes into play when your freedom to choose infringes on someone else's autonomy. If your child goes to school, and they are allowed to not be vaccinated, they are in danger of spreading communicable disease, meaning your children's disease (which was a result of not vaccinating) infringes on the rights of the other children to get educated. Also your child is not your property and children don't have the capacity to make informed decisions the way an adult does, so you deciding not to vaccinate your child shouldn't be a choice you are allowed to make in my opinion. You are putting them at risk of harm when THEY don't have a choice. There has to be a scientific standard in place then, not a subjective evaluation from each parent. This standard has to be applied through regulation so as to uphold the right to education that the other children (including yours hypothetically) have.
 
There has to be a line somewhere. Pure libertarianism doesn't function because the rich generally don't care if the poor die (e.g. see wealth inequality in the world on the whole and how many children starve), corporations don't have feelings (e.g. the Ford Pinto and McDonald's Hot Coffee, etc...), and most people care about themselves and their families as per our species evolving in small tribes that were mostly related to each other in some way and not the way we are as interconnected as we are now.

http://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/Z97P/specifications/
 
Check the specs. It has 1 pcie x16 slot and another pcie x2 slot. No mention of SLI at all. Not all z97's support sli.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/geforce-gtx-970-sli-review,4.html
 
 
I would highly advise against it for a few reasons:
 
1. A 500w PSU is not putting out 500w under load to your components. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80_Plus
 
2. When you push the physical limit of a PSU, that's when the components of the PSU struggle long term.
 
3. Over time ALL capacitors wear out and transfer energy less efficiently, meaning what was once effectively capable of 420 watts eventually puts out 400 and 380, etc... In a couple years your PSU will render your system unusable most likely.
 
Please reconsider. You are potentially in danger of permanently damaging components in your build and in your PSU by doing this.
 
Given the minimum standard of 80 watt plus and the watt test above for dual 970s, I doubt you would have sufficient power under full load to handle it already. sure the example I gave was an i7 extreme, but it's not THAT much higher in consumption. It's never a good idea to push your PSU to it's limit, it's always good to have about 100W of breathing room past what you expect to use or so.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/geforce-gtx-970-sli-review,4.html
 
 
I would highly advise against it for a few reasons:
 
1. A 500w PSU is not putting out 500w under load to your components. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80_Plus
 
2. When you push the physical limit of a PSU, that's when the components of the PSU struggle long term.
 
3. Over time ALL capacitors wear out and transfer energy less efficiently, meaning what was once effectively capable of 420 watts eventually puts out 400 and 380, etc... In a couple years your PSU will render your system unusable most likely.
 
Please reconsider. You are potentially in danger of permanently damaging components in your build and in your PSU by doing this.
 
Given the minimum standard of 80 watt plus and the watt test above for dual 970s, I doubt you would have sufficient power under full load to handle it already. sure the example I gave was an i7 extreme, but it's not THAT much higher in consumption. It's never a good idea to push your PSU to it's limit, it's always good to have about 100W of breathing room past what you expect to use or so.

The problem comes into play when your freedom to choose infringes on someone else's autonomy. If your child goes to school, and they are allowed to not be vaccinated, they are in danger of spreading communicable disease, meaning your children's disease (which was a result of not vaccinating) infringes on the rights of the other children to get educated. Also your child is not your property and children don't have the capacity to make informed decisions the way an adult does, so you deciding not to vaccinate your child shouldn't be a choice you are allowed to make in my opinion. You are putting them at risk of harm when THEY don't have a choice. There has to be a scientific standard in place then, not a subjective evaluation from each parent. This standard has to be applied through regulation so as to uphold the right to education that the other children (including yours hypothetically) have.
 
There has to be a line somewhere. Pure libertarianism doesn't function because the rich generally don't care if the poor die (e.g. see wealth inequality in the world on the whole and how many children starve), corporations don't have feelings (e.g. the Ford Pinto and McDonald's Hot Coffee, etc...), and most people care about themselves and their families as per our species evolving in small tribes that were mostly related to each other in some way and not the way we are as interconnected as we are now.

Translation: I would prefer to make controversial statements over the internet, but when proven how untenable these positions are I will deflect to not liking arguments.
 
The world is always a better place when people are willing to discuss controversial issues.

The problem comes into play when your freedom to choose infringes on someone else's autonomy. If your child goes to school, and they are allowed to not be vaccinated, they are in danger of spreading communicable disease, meaning your children's disease (which was a result of not vaccinating) infringes on the rights of the other children to get educated. Also your child is not your property and children don't have the capacity to make informed decisions the way an adult does, so you deciding not to vaccinate your child shouldn't be a choice you are allowed to make in my opinion. You are putting them at risk of harm when THEY don't have a choice. There has to be a scientific standard in place then, not a subjective evaluation from each parent. This standard has to be applied through regulation so as to uphold the right to education that the other children (including yours hypothetically) have.
 
There has to be a line somewhere. Pure libertarianism doesn't function because the rich generally don't care if the poor die (e.g. see wealth inequality in the world on the whole and how many children starve), corporations don't have feelings (e.g. the Ford Pinto and McDonald's Hot Coffee, etc...), and most people care about themselves and their families as per our species evolving in small tribes that were mostly related to each other in some way and not the way we are as interconnected as we are now.

The problem comes into play when your freedom to choose infringes on someone else's autonomy. If your child goes to school, and they are allowed to not be vaccinated, they are in danger of spreading communicable disease, meaning your children's disease (which was a result of not vaccinating) infringes on the rights of the other children to get educated. Also your child is not your property and children don't have the capacity to make informed decisions the way an adult does, so you deciding not to vaccinate your child shouldn't be a choice you are allowed to make in my opinion. You are putting them at risk of harm when THEY don't have a choice. There has to be a scientific standard in place then, not a subjective evaluation from each parent. This standard has to be applied through regulation so as to uphold the right to education that the other children (including yours hypothetically) have.
 
There has to be a line somewhere. Pure libertarianism doesn't function because the rich generally don't care if the poor die (e.g. see wealth inequality in the world on the whole and how many children starve), corporations don't have feelings (e.g. the Ford Pinto and McDonald's Hot Coffee, etc...), and most people care about themselves and their families as per our species evolving in small tribes that were mostly related to each other in some way and not the way we are as interconnected as we are now.

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor-geforce-gtx-970-vram-stress-test.html
 
I wouldn't worry about it. Whatever difference between 3.5 gb of RAM with the .5 gb partition that the 970 has and an exactly the same card with 4 gb of RAM would be is not usually noticeable.
 
When you SLI, both cards run a "mirror" of the RAM, meaning each card has the same things in it's RAM, it's just a copy because communicating between each card via the RAM would bottleneck anything loaded into RAM over the bus.

Best Feature: Hats?
 
Worst feature: Unreasonably high minimum system requirements (AC Unity, Dying Light, I'm looking at you)

The problem comes into play when your freedom to choose infringes on someone else's autonomy. If your child goes to school, and they are allowed to not be vaccinated, they are in danger of spreading communicable disease, meaning your children's disease (which was a result of not vaccinating) infringes on the rights of the other children to get educated. Also your child is not your property and children don't have the capacity to make informed decisions the way an adult does, so you deciding not to vaccinate your child shouldn't be a choice you are allowed to make in my opinion. You are putting them at risk of harm when THEY don't have a choice. There has to be a scientific standard in place then, not a subjective evaluation from each parent. This standard has to be applied through regulation so as to uphold the right to education that the other children (including yours hypothetically) have.
 
There has to be a line somewhere. Pure libertarianism doesn't function because the rich generally don't care if the poor die (e.g. see wealth inequality in the world on the whole and how many children starve), corporations don't have feelings (e.g. the Ford Pinto and McDonald's Hot Coffee, etc...), and most people care about themselves and their families as per our species evolving in small tribes that were mostly related to each other in some way and not the way we are as interconnected as we are now.

Translation: I would prefer to make controversial statements over the internet, but when proven how untenable these positions are I will deflect to not liking arguments.
 
The world is always a better place when people are willing to discuss controversial issues.

That's not a red herring or a strawman. If someone's child gets sick because less people vaccinate their children, then those children who got sick have just had their time in school decreased because of someone else valuing their personal choice to not vaccinate over the rights of others to pursue education. Are you suggesting that if people don't vaccinate then the diseases that are being vaccinated against will have the same infection rate and nothing will change?
 
It's the same as having a child who is deathly allergic to peanut butter, the school can place a ban on peanut butter sandwiches in the relevant places of exposure to ensure not only the child's safety but their reasonable expectation of a right to pursue education.

That's not a red herring or a strawman. If someone's child gets sick because less people vaccinate their children, then those children who got sick have just had their time in school decreased because of someone else valuing their personal choice to not vaccinate over the rights of others to pursue education. Are you suggesting that if people don't vaccinate then the diseases that are being vaccinated against will have the same infection rate and nothing will change?
 
It's the same as having a child who is deathly allergic to peanut butter, the school can place a ban on peanut butter sandwiches in the relevant places of exposure to ensure not only the child's safety but their reasonable expectation of a right to pursue education.

The problem comes into play when your freedom to choose infringes on someone else's autonomy. If your child goes to school, and they are allowed to not be vaccinated, they are in danger of spreading communicable disease, meaning your children's disease (which was a result of not vaccinating) infringes on the rights of the other children to get educated. Also your child is not your property and children don't have the capacity to make informed decisions the way an adult does, so you deciding not to vaccinate your child shouldn't be a choice you are allowed to make in my opinion. You are putting them at risk of harm when THEY don't have a choice. There has to be a scientific standard in place then, not a subjective evaluation from each parent. This standard has to be applied through regulation so as to uphold the right to education that the other children (including yours hypothetically) have.
 
There has to be a line somewhere. Pure libertarianism doesn't function because the rich generally don't care if the poor die (e.g. see wealth inequality in the world on the whole and how many children starve), corporations don't have feelings (e.g. the Ford Pinto and McDonald's Hot Coffee, etc...), and most people care about themselves and their families as per our species evolving in small tribes that were mostly related to each other in some way and not the way we are as interconnected as we are now.