That 30 minutes only gets you half a charge, which amounts to barely 2-2.5 hours of driving time. That means if you wanted to spend the day driving (10-12 hours) you'd spend over two hours sitting at charging stations. That's absolutely terrible.
You have a good point, but you should have RTFA. It says the rapid charge stations take 30 minutes to charge the battery halfway. Which is why my money says this is all a huge waste. No one wants to sit at some station half an hour to be able to drive another hour and a half.
I think putting in such charging stations is pointless, unless you have the battery tech to the point where they're actually useful for the average driver. And that would mean charging 3-5 hours worth of driving time in 15 minutes or less. Personally, I don't think we're likely to get there any time soon, if ever. I think we're more likely to find ways to increase the total capacity of car batteries so you can do a day's worth of driving on one charge, then charge overnight.
I pin the ones I use most. I don't have to hunt for them, as they're always in the same place. I can type pretty fast, and that's still faster. The reason for the clean taskbar is preference. I used to put everything in the quick launch but it got so full my open windows buttons were too small to read. It doesn't take but a second or two for the extra click on the start menu. As for pinning stuff, I just don't like how it works. I keep explorer pinned, but that's it.
Uh yeah, that's exactly what's meant by "shoves itself in your face". You are forced to deal with it every time you start up Windows, whether you want to or not. My point stands.
I use the start menu to lauch almost all my apps, and not by typing. It helps keep my desktop and taskbar clean, and new stuff shows up automatically. So no, Windows 8 or 8.1 will never replace Windows 7 for me.
Normally I'd agree with you but this time around I'm not so sure. I can't say exactly what "feature" is likely to bust the XBOne, or if it's going to be a combination of everything. But somehow I get this feeling that MS is pushing too hard this time. However, the only thing I'm confident about is that it's going to be either a runaway success or a complete failure. I don't think there's going to be any middle ground. Viral marketing will either make it or destroy it.
The problem in this case is that the electronic entertainment industry changes fast. It's entirely possible (even likely, perhaps) that the bottom will drop out of the console market (as we know it) before MS is able to recoup their investment. The way the mobile industry is taking off, I would surprised if it doesn't virtually take over the gaming industry, along with the PC industry, in the next 5-10 years. I fully expect to see a powerful gaming tablet capable of playing the latest and greatest available for ~$500 within ten years. If this happens, MS had best hope their attempt at a mobile OS takes off as well, or they will be hurting. (Ironically, it would then be the much-hated Windows 8 and its successors that save MS from their bad XBox investment.)
No, I don't think that's it at all. I think Wal-Mart won out because Sam Walton and the Wal-Mart execs realized the majority of Americans would rather have quantity over quality.
I just really hate to go back to chasing that upgrade dragon.
Well then you're in luck, because keeping a gaming PC capable of playing the latest games is less painful than it has ever been. Mid-grade CPUs and motherboards from 3-5 years ago are still perfectly capable of running any new game. Ram and HDDs are dirt cheap. The only thing you'll be sinking much money into is most likely a graphics card, and even that isn't too bad if you shop carefully. Usually the best value is a current-gen mid-grade card that you can pick up for $150-200, and you won't need to upgrade it more than about every 2-3 years. And this situation is only going to keep getting better.
So then we should take the typical cost of filing such a lawsuit (including lawyer fees) and multiply it by 750 for each individual they wrongfully included in this lawsuit. That's what they should pay for attempting this bullshit. And then they still need to go back and do it all correctly if they actually want to proceed with the lawsuits.
The only statistic that actually matters for this is: how many accidents are caused by drunk drivers with BAC at.05-.08. Until I know that, I can neither support nor oppose this new law.
In the seed case, the grain elevator owner presumably paid the patent fees to Monsanto. If the Indiana farmer had bought the seeds and eaten them or turned them into animal feed, then it would be analogous to your computer example and there would be no problem. But he replanted them to grow more crop, which created more copies of the patented gene. Monsanto's argument was that in that case he had to pay them royalties. In that context, I actually agree with them.
Your point is good, but this is almost certainly incorrect. The soybeans that Bowman bought were presumably sold to the grain elevator company by other farmers who had grown the beans from Monsanto seed. (That's the purpose of grain elevators.) The only soybeans with the Monsanto gene modifications that are legal for planting would be ones specifically authorized by Monsanto, either grown by them or by specific authorized farmers. So if the grain elevator does sell legal Monsanto seedstock, those soybeans would be completely separate from the ones Bowman purchased, and the grain elevator wouldn't "pay the patent fees" so to speak, but rather just purchase the seedstock directly from Monsanto.
That may have helped ice the unanimous SCOTUS decision, but that's not what the lawsuit was really about. The lawsuit was about planting unauthorized Monsanto seeds, pure and simple. Monsanto is constantly suing farmers who never buy or plant any kind of Monsanto seeds merely because some Monsanto seeds show up in their fields from cross-pollination. In some of these cases Monsanto is even suspected of causing the cross-pollination so they can bring a lawsuit.
So you think the people who run the grain elevator should be required to monitor all the potentially-Monsanto seed they sell 24/7 after it's sold, until it's used? Really? Or did you just not think before you posted?
They didn't sue the elevator because they did nothing wrong. They were selling the soybeans for 'feed, milling, and other uses'. Not for seed to be planted. You really can't do anything else useful with soybeans, so there you go.
He went to a grain elevator that held soybeans it typically sells for feed, milling and other uses, but not as seed.
Nothing indicates that they sold him the soybeans to be planted. They sold them for feed, milling, or other uses, but he decided to plant them instead.
Which to me just highlights how bad it is to allow something self-replicating (like plant seeds) to be patented. You can buy the seeds and grow the plants, but the 'fruit' you get from the plants (which are just new seeds) you're not allowed to plant. Frankly, it's stupid IMO, and one more reason patent law needs a major overhaul.
Yeah, I haven't seen the long-term results either. Despite having exceptional reading and math ability at that age my income is still shit, decades later.
Well that's the great thing about Eve. The way it's designed, a brand new player can be effective. Not as effective as a player who's played for years, no, but still effective.
I started playing Eve a couple years ago, and my second day ever playing, I got invited into a fleet made up of nothing but complete newbies and a fleet leader who'd been playing maybe 6-8 months. There were about a dozen of us, and we headed out into low-security space (good PvP area for small groups) and proceeded to kick some ass. We killed more ships than we lost, and every ship we killed was worth more than all the ships we lost put together.
Focused training for about 18-24 months is sufficient to get you to an expert status on just about any ship battleship-size or smaller.
That being said, Eve does have its shortcomings. For me, the gameplay itself ended up being just too boring. It's all just click-to-move and then click to activate or deactivate modules. The strategy and tactics (both in warefare and economics) is where the real fun is at, so if you enjoy that kind of thing you may just find Eve is something you really like. In the end I just wasn't enjoying it enough to justify the subscription cost, so I finally quit after a year and a half.
Yeah, I don't know why more real MMOs don't try that model. Even ArenaNet ditched it in GW2, and guess what... it cost them customers (and I'm one of them). Sure, there's a few players out there that will quit playing if they can't keep getting better gear, but I've seen online polls where the overwhelming majority of players indicated they'd be just as happy going after cosmetic upgrades as power upgrades. I think the players with the obsessive need for continous gear upgrades are a niche group.
And there's so many upsides to a system like that. Endgame content never gets obsolete. Gear level never separates you from your friends, once you both hit end-game. You're not restricted to a small set of "relevant" endgame content you can participate in. And the list goes on. I really don't see any downsides.
Slashdot Mirror
That 30 minutes only gets you half a charge, which amounts to barely 2-2.5 hours of driving time. That means if you wanted to spend the day driving (10-12 hours) you'd spend over two hours sitting at charging stations. That's absolutely terrible.
You have a good point, but you should have RTFA. It says the rapid charge stations take 30 minutes to charge the battery halfway. Which is why my money says this is all a huge waste. No one wants to sit at some station half an hour to be able to drive another hour and a half.
I think putting in such charging stations is pointless, unless you have the battery tech to the point where they're actually useful for the average driver. And that would mean charging 3-5 hours worth of driving time in 15 minutes or less. Personally, I don't think we're likely to get there any time soon, if ever. I think we're more likely to find ways to increase the total capacity of car batteries so you can do a day's worth of driving on one charge, then charge overnight.
I hope what they're paying you is worth it.
To clarify, I pin my most used apps to the start menu. I don't like pinning stuff to the taskbar.
I pin the ones I use most. I don't have to hunt for them, as they're always in the same place. I can type pretty fast, and that's still faster. The reason for the clean taskbar is preference. I used to put everything in the quick launch but it got so full my open windows buttons were too small to read. It doesn't take but a second or two for the extra click on the start menu. As for pinning stuff, I just don't like how it works. I keep explorer pinned, but that's it.
Uh yeah, that's exactly what's meant by "shoves itself in your face". You are forced to deal with it every time you start up Windows, whether you want to or not. My point stands.
And the personality that shoves itself in your face is the useless one. Honestly, Windows 3.0 was more user-friendly.
I use the start menu to lauch almost all my apps, and not by typing. It helps keep my desktop and taskbar clean, and new stuff shows up automatically. So no, Windows 8 or 8.1 will never replace Windows 7 for me.
This post could be modded to +100 and it still wouldn't be enough.
Normally I'd agree with you but this time around I'm not so sure. I can't say exactly what "feature" is likely to bust the XBOne, or if it's going to be a combination of everything. But somehow I get this feeling that MS is pushing too hard this time. However, the only thing I'm confident about is that it's going to be either a runaway success or a complete failure. I don't think there's going to be any middle ground. Viral marketing will either make it or destroy it.
What a nice offtopic, bullshit, personal agenda rant. You're either trolling, stupid, or both.
The problem in this case is that the electronic entertainment industry changes fast. It's entirely possible (even likely, perhaps) that the bottom will drop out of the console market (as we know it) before MS is able to recoup their investment. The way the mobile industry is taking off, I would surprised if it doesn't virtually take over the gaming industry, along with the PC industry, in the next 5-10 years. I fully expect to see a powerful gaming tablet capable of playing the latest and greatest available for ~$500 within ten years. If this happens, MS had best hope their attempt at a mobile OS takes off as well, or they will be hurting. (Ironically, it would then be the much-hated Windows 8 and its successors that save MS from their bad XBox investment.)
Don't download or buy kids!
I agree completely. I think your idea for punishment is a bit off though.
No, I don't think that's it at all. I think Wal-Mart won out because Sam Walton and the Wal-Mart execs realized the majority of Americans would rather have quantity over quality.
I just really hate to go back to chasing that upgrade dragon.
Well then you're in luck, because keeping a gaming PC capable of playing the latest games is less painful than it has ever been. Mid-grade CPUs and motherboards from 3-5 years ago are still perfectly capable of running any new game. Ram and HDDs are dirt cheap. The only thing you'll be sinking much money into is most likely a graphics card, and even that isn't too bad if you shop carefully. Usually the best value is a current-gen mid-grade card that you can pick up for $150-200, and you won't need to upgrade it more than about every 2-3 years. And this situation is only going to keep getting better.
So then we should take the typical cost of filing such a lawsuit (including lawyer fees) and multiply it by 750 for each individual they wrongfully included in this lawsuit. That's what they should pay for attempting this bullshit. And then they still need to go back and do it all correctly if they actually want to proceed with the lawsuits.
The only statistic that actually matters for this is: how many accidents are caused by drunk drivers with BAC at .05-.08. Until I know that, I can neither support nor oppose this new law.
In the seed case, the grain elevator owner presumably paid the patent fees to Monsanto. If the Indiana farmer had bought the seeds and eaten them or turned them into animal feed, then it would be analogous to your computer example and there would be no problem. But he replanted them to grow more crop, which created more copies of the patented gene. Monsanto's argument was that in that case he had to pay them royalties. In that context, I actually agree with them.
Your point is good, but this is almost certainly incorrect. The soybeans that Bowman bought were presumably sold to the grain elevator company by other farmers who had grown the beans from Monsanto seed. (That's the purpose of grain elevators.) The only soybeans with the Monsanto gene modifications that are legal for planting would be ones specifically authorized by Monsanto, either grown by them or by specific authorized farmers. So if the grain elevator does sell legal Monsanto seedstock, those soybeans would be completely separate from the ones Bowman purchased, and the grain elevator wouldn't "pay the patent fees" so to speak, but rather just purchase the seedstock directly from Monsanto.
That may have helped ice the unanimous SCOTUS decision, but that's not what the lawsuit was really about. The lawsuit was about planting unauthorized Monsanto seeds, pure and simple. Monsanto is constantly suing farmers who never buy or plant any kind of Monsanto seeds merely because some Monsanto seeds show up in their fields from cross-pollination. In some of these cases Monsanto is even suspected of causing the cross-pollination so they can bring a lawsuit.
http://www.dailytech.com/Monsanto+Defeats+Small+Farmers+in+Critical+Bioethics+Class+Action+Suit/article24118.htm
There's a big fight going on between organic farmers and Monsanto over this issue, because the organic farmers don't want the Monsanto seed at all.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/17/local/la-me-gs-organic-farmers-sue-monsanto-to-stop-patent-suits-20120217
A quick google search shows dozens of articles about this.
https://www.google.com/search?q=monsanto+cross+pollination+lawsuit
So you think the people who run the grain elevator should be required to monitor all the potentially-Monsanto seed they sell 24/7 after it's sold, until it's used? Really? Or did you just not think before you posted?
They didn't sue the elevator because they did nothing wrong. They were selling the soybeans for 'feed, milling, and other uses'. Not for seed to be planted. You really can't do anything else useful with soybeans, so there you go.
Actually, no.
From TFA:
He went to a grain elevator that held soybeans it typically sells for feed, milling and other uses, but not as seed.
Nothing indicates that they sold him the soybeans to be planted. They sold them for feed, milling, or other uses, but he decided to plant them instead.
Which to me just highlights how bad it is to allow something self-replicating (like plant seeds) to be patented. You can buy the seeds and grow the plants, but the 'fruit' you get from the plants (which are just new seeds) you're not allowed to plant. Frankly, it's stupid IMO, and one more reason patent law needs a major overhaul.
Yeah, I haven't seen the long-term results either. Despite having exceptional reading and math ability at that age my income is still shit, decades later.
Well that's the great thing about Eve. The way it's designed, a brand new player can be effective. Not as effective as a player who's played for years, no, but still effective.
I started playing Eve a couple years ago, and my second day ever playing, I got invited into a fleet made up of nothing but complete newbies and a fleet leader who'd been playing maybe 6-8 months. There were about a dozen of us, and we headed out into low-security space (good PvP area for small groups) and proceeded to kick some ass. We killed more ships than we lost, and every ship we killed was worth more than all the ships we lost put together.
Focused training for about 18-24 months is sufficient to get you to an expert status on just about any ship battleship-size or smaller.
That being said, Eve does have its shortcomings. For me, the gameplay itself ended up being just too boring. It's all just click-to-move and then click to activate or deactivate modules. The strategy and tactics (both in warefare and economics) is where the real fun is at, so if you enjoy that kind of thing you may just find Eve is something you really like. In the end I just wasn't enjoying it enough to justify the subscription cost, so I finally quit after a year and a half.
Yeah, I don't know why more real MMOs don't try that model. Even ArenaNet ditched it in GW2, and guess what... it cost them customers (and I'm one of them). Sure, there's a few players out there that will quit playing if they can't keep getting better gear, but I've seen online polls where the overwhelming majority of players indicated they'd be just as happy going after cosmetic upgrades as power upgrades. I think the players with the obsessive need for continous gear upgrades are a niche group.
And there's so many upsides to a system like that. Endgame content never gets obsolete. Gear level never separates you from your friends, once you both hit end-game. You're not restricted to a small set of "relevant" endgame content you can participate in. And the list goes on. I really don't see any downsides.