Because $100 of electricity is worth more than $100. If you render everything as a dollar value then nothing will have real value anymore. How much are the kids worth, how much to charge for an evening watching the sunset, how much to charge to improve the environment?
Makes no sense. You can make sports cars that are more efficient. And besides, those people with the expensive polluting sports cars are considered assholes by most of the world, I don't see why anyone would want to compared with them.
Gaming PCs are very wasteful and usually for the reason that no one has even once bothered to care about efficiency. They started selling kilowatt power supplies and the gamers said "hey, I want one of those!" They could get the same performance with a more efficient computer. It would cost more though, which is actually a selling point since many of these gamers brag about how much they spent.
But it keeps working until the requirements change to require the new standards. If it works then it keeps working for as long as the computer still works. So let's say BIOS is deprecated and some few new computers use UEFI, but the BIOS version still continues to work.
It didn't really need to understand new file systems. As I recall it kept a list of blocks that were a part of the boot image. Ultimately things are complex enough that you need multiple boot loader stages but originally LILO had to be very small and compact. If it works on a computer it'll keep working unless something radical changes (such as someone turning the boot device into a RAID system).
Also none of this is really about a fundamental nature of how computers boot, it's about the how the very strange ad-hoc design of the PC boots.
What does HBO have? I always regretted it when I added HBO for a month.
Prime is not worth it for many people, if I ever buy enough from Amazon so that spending $100 a year for shipping saves me money, then someone come and cut up my credit cards and give me a dope slap. I'll support the local economy instead. As such, I don't see the value of adding Amazon Prime for their limited selection and the opportunity to be told that the movie I want doesn't come with Prime and that I have to pay extra.
Netflix without those movies is still more TV than I'll ever get around to watching.
This was a great model too. I got to see a lot of shows I never saw the first time around, because I don't want to hop into the middle of a series (if I don't see episode one of a plot based series, I won't watch any of the rest). Plus ability to watch old episode of current shows is very handy as the cable channels have little interest in doing this. Lots of cable shows don't end up in syndication either.
Probably, but the explanation from Netflix was rather rude. As in we can get the same movies from our cable and satellite providers that we cut the cord to.
If things balkanize, and you get some shows on Netflix, some on Hulu, some on Amazon, etc, the viewers won't subscribe to all of them at once. They'll just change subscriptions every few months.
$8 a month can save money on movies versus the per-movie rental price that most have. Unless you're talking about the Netflix DVD service. (and I'm never going blu-ray)
It didn't have everything, and didn't need to. But it had enough, and had more than any cable provider had on any one day. Add in the DVD service (doubling the price) and you've got most everything.
It's a dangerous move hoping that cord-cutters don't cut a second time.
Amazon apparently doesn't have that much with the basic subscription; a lot of their movies require paying a bit extra. I know someone who signed up for it who has regretted it (and it's a yearly subscription too).
It's not like cord cutters are going to go back to cable and satellite. They're overpriced essentially and many providers have horrid service. Plus Netflix and others have a great backlog of shows available anytime, rather than just the 5 most recent episodes.
I don't care about the original programming; Arrested Development was nice but it wasn't originally on Netflix but just continued one more season there. Subscribing to a streaming service just for one show is as stupid as subscribing to a premium cable channel for just one show (though slightly less expensive).
This is a big boost to Hulu+ I think, but in a year it may be in the same boat when it comes to negotiating the license renewal.
But most subscribers aren't going to Netflix for their original content, they're going there because they've dumped traditional cable and satellite. So it's dumb for Netflix to explain that these movies are available elsewhere when their customers aren't going elsewhere. Maybe this is a move to get more streaming customers onto their DVD service? I'll watch a bunch of these movies before they vanish, but really I'm on Netflix for TV series, but the extra movies did make up my mind to go with Netflix instead of Hulu so it's disappointing to see the frosting taken off the cake.
It's possible this is just another one of those situations where studios won't budge on prices and the entire providers get dropped in a game of chicken. I've seen DirecTV, Dish, and Comcast do this; then the viewers have to scroll past all the notices of "if you want this show, please contact FOX/Turner/Whoever".
If it was by anyone other than Obama, there would have been nothing at all political about this. It's just one more of the things that the Department of the Interior does all the time.
After all, if we allowed the Republicans to name an airport after a president that was still alive, we can at least allow the Democrats to name a mountain something that everyone in the country already calls it.
McKinley is not a poster child for modern conservatives. He was republican, but remember that we had a big swap of the poles in politics since then, the southern Democrats are now the hard right conservatives. McKinley was far too moderate anyway to be taken seriously by any tea partier.
The grandparents of today's angry conservatives were Southern Democrats who would strangle their own hound dogs rather than vote for a Yankee Republican like McKinley.
It's federal land and so Alaska as a state can not rename it, even though everyone locally in Alaska calls it Denali. Congress was asked to rename it and congress never managed to get it done (neither to rename it nor to affirm the existing name).
An act of congress is not needed to name things. There are far too many things named on federal lands to waste the time of congress on this. However congress decided in its wisdom to not act on this naming for several decades, despite the state of Alaska requesting the name change. There was no one opposed to this name change except a congress member from Ohio (and in general the citizens of Ohio don't care about the matter anyway, with a few of them heard to mutter "who's this McKinley guy?").
This is not a matter of Obama acting unilaterally against the will of congress, but instead taking action where congress has dragged its feet for decades, which is allowed by law. If Bush Jr had done this instead people would have been celebrating.
It's ok. Google Maps calls it Denali. Paper maps only get updated over time, it's not like the minstry of truth goes around and collects the old maps. Place names change every day and map makers know how to deal with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Because $100 of electricity is worth more than $100. If you render everything as a dollar value then nothing will have real value anymore. How much are the kids worth, how much to charge for an evening watching the sunset, how much to charge to improve the environment?
Makes no sense. You can make sports cars that are more efficient. And besides, those people with the expensive polluting sports cars are considered assholes by most of the world, I don't see why anyone would want to compared with them.
Gaming PCs are very wasteful and usually for the reason that no one has even once bothered to care about efficiency. They started selling kilowatt power supplies and the gamers said "hey, I want one of those!" They could get the same performance with a more efficient computer. It would cost more though, which is actually a selling point since many of these gamers brag about how much they spent.
But it keeps working until the requirements change to require the new standards. If it works then it keeps working for as long as the computer still works. So let's say BIOS is deprecated and some few new computers use UEFI, but the BIOS version still continues to work.
It didn't really need to understand new file systems. As I recall it kept a list of blocks that were a part of the boot image. Ultimately things are complex enough that you need multiple boot loader stages but originally LILO had to be very small and compact. If it works on a computer it'll keep working unless something radical changes (such as someone turning the boot device into a RAID system).
Also none of this is really about a fundamental nature of how computers boot, it's about the how the very strange ad-hoc design of the PC boots.
Except that I'm not going to use Bluray. So getting DVD with the clumsy interface after having HDTV streaming isn't going to cut it.
What does HBO have? I always regretted it when I added HBO for a month.
Prime is not worth it for many people, if I ever buy enough from Amazon so that spending $100 a year for shipping saves me money, then someone come and cut up my credit cards and give me a dope slap. I'll support the local economy instead. As such, I don't see the value of adding Amazon Prime for their limited selection and the opportunity to be told that the movie I want doesn't come with Prime and that I have to pay extra.
Netflix without those movies is still more TV than I'll ever get around to watching.
This was a great model too. I got to see a lot of shows I never saw the first time around, because I don't want to hop into the middle of a series (if I don't see episode one of a plot based series, I won't watch any of the rest). Plus ability to watch old episode of current shows is very handy as the cable channels have little interest in doing this. Lots of cable shows don't end up in syndication either.
Probably, but the explanation from Netflix was rather rude. As in we can get the same movies from our cable and satellite providers that we cut the cord to.
If things balkanize, and you get some shows on Netflix, some on Hulu, some on Amazon, etc, the viewers won't subscribe to all of them at once. They'll just change subscriptions every few months.
$8 a month can save money on movies versus the per-movie rental price that most have. Unless you're talking about the Netflix DVD service. (and I'm never going blu-ray)
It didn't have everything, and didn't need to. But it had enough, and had more than any cable provider had on any one day. Add in the DVD service (doubling the price) and you've got most everything.
It's a dangerous move hoping that cord-cutters don't cut a second time.
Amazon apparently doesn't have that much with the basic subscription; a lot of their movies require paying a bit extra. I know someone who signed up for it who has regretted it (and it's a yearly subscription too).
It's not like cord cutters are going to go back to cable and satellite. They're overpriced essentially and many providers have horrid service. Plus Netflix and others have a great backlog of shows available anytime, rather than just the 5 most recent episodes.
I don't care about the original programming; Arrested Development was nice but it wasn't originally on Netflix but just continued one more season there. Subscribing to a streaming service just for one show is as stupid as subscribing to a premium cable channel for just one show (though slightly less expensive).
This is a big boost to Hulu+ I think, but in a year it may be in the same boat when it comes to negotiating the license renewal.
It's also the $8 a month and service versus $75 or $100 a month and being treated like a pesky annoyance.
But most subscribers aren't going to Netflix for their original content, they're going there because they've dumped traditional cable and satellite. So it's dumb for Netflix to explain that these movies are available elsewhere when their customers aren't going elsewhere. Maybe this is a move to get more streaming customers onto their DVD service? I'll watch a bunch of these movies before they vanish, but really I'm on Netflix for TV series, but the extra movies did make up my mind to go with Netflix instead of Hulu so it's disappointing to see the frosting taken off the cake.
It's possible this is just another one of those situations where studios won't budge on prices and the entire providers get dropped in a game of chicken. I've seen DirecTV, Dish, and Comcast do this; then the viewers have to scroll past all the notices of "if you want this show, please contact FOX/Turner/Whoever".
Are you anti-Zionist?
Denali sounds like a big rough and rugged truck. McKinley sounds like some sort of minivan.
If it was by anyone other than Obama, there would have been nothing at all political about this. It's just one more of the things that the Department of the Interior does all the time.
After all, if we allowed the Republicans to name an airport after a president that was still alive, we can at least allow the Democrats to name a mountain something that everyone in the country already calls it.
McKinley is not a poster child for modern conservatives. He was republican, but remember that we had a big swap of the poles in politics since then, the southern Democrats are now the hard right conservatives. McKinley was far too moderate anyway to be taken seriously by any tea partier.
The grandparents of today's angry conservatives were Southern Democrats who would strangle their own hound dogs rather than vote for a Yankee Republican like McKinley.
uJane.
Three dollars. I'll cover it for you.
It's federal land and so Alaska as a state can not rename it, even though everyone locally in Alaska calls it Denali. Congress was asked to rename it and congress never managed to get it done (neither to rename it nor to affirm the existing name).
An act of congress is not needed to name things. There are far too many things named on federal lands to waste the time of congress on this. However congress decided in its wisdom to not act on this naming for several decades, despite the state of Alaska requesting the name change. There was no one opposed to this name change except a congress member from Ohio (and in general the citizens of Ohio don't care about the matter anyway, with a few of them heard to mutter "who's this McKinley guy?").
This is not a matter of Obama acting unilaterally against the will of congress, but instead taking action where congress has dragged its feet for decades, which is allowed by law. If Bush Jr had done this instead people would have been celebrating.
It's ok. Google Maps calls it Denali. Paper maps only get updated over time, it's not like the minstry of truth goes around and collects the old maps. Place names change every day and map makers know how to deal with it.