Would the Dell XPS range not suit you better then? Since Dell bought Alienware they're practically the same thing, but without all the gamer gimmickry.
One of my goals is to be able to drive 3 displays, one of which is a 4k. Most laptop video cards only support 2 displays at a time and the lcd counts as one of them. The alienware line makes 3 displays and/or 4k easy as they sell a docking station that supports 3rd party video cards.
If they were only quitting because of financial security there wouldn't be a single CEO still working in silicon valley. More likely there was something wrong in the work environment. That combined with lots of money means they will move on to more fulfilling things.
Notice how all 3 examples started their own business? There is a *huge* difference between "making tons of money *and* being able to call the shots" and "just making tons of money". I own my own business and make around 90k a year. I could likely make considerably more working for someone else and I've considered it a few times but I'm not sure the extra money would be worth losing all the perks I get from owning my own business.
You should look at gaming laptops, some of them are a bit thick, but they really are true desktop replacements.
Yep, I discovered the same thing. My 5 year old laptop is at the end of it's life and I will likely be replacing with with an alienware laptop not because I'm a gamer but because I actually want an upgrade not a downgrade.
Then realize that what is left is a hell of a lot of people who are protesting peacefully because this administration does not represent the wishes and needs of the vast majority of the people in the country. I'm not a Democrat; I've never voted for a Democrat for federal office (twice for Bush and also for McCain), and I am damn tired of being cast as liberal/leftist because I do not toe the party line.
Wake up.
I know very few people who voted for Trump in the primaries. Everyone I know who voted for Trump either voted for Bernie or some other Republican in the primaries. Exit polls showed this as well with a large percentage of Trump supporters wanting a more liberal country. Trump only won because of the lack of runoff voting in the primaries and an exceptionally bad opponent who managed to cheat her way into the general election. Both sides severely underestimated the amount of anti-establishment in their own parties and Clinton was the ultimate establishment candidate.
I checked and the USA was even lower at only 61.5% of new capacity being renewable. I was surprised there was any non-renewable being built new. If we truly started "phasing out" non-renewables then you would expect new capacity to be 100% renewable or even above 100% (if existing non-renewable plants were being shut down). I didn't realize we were still building *any* new coal/gas plants. I knew the existing ones were still being used but surprised that they were still building new ones. I'm surprised with as much renewable that is being built that our energy usage is going up fast enough to need that much new energy.
Coverage is easy to fix. It's very easy for the carries to see when people "fall off" their network and when they see a lot, they put up a tower to cover the hole. Congestion is harder to figure out and could mean backhaul upgrades.
Congestion is probably easier to figure out. Do you not think they know when their tower is at or close to capacity? They might not be able to tell how many people are unable to connect but they can sure likely tell when it's full. Congestion can many times be fixed with an upgrade to an existing tower. Coverage can sometime be difficult to fix as "putting up a new tower" is easier said than done. My drive home goes thru a state park. ATT, Verizon, Tmobile, and Sprint ALL drop calls on that road. It has a fair amount of traffic too. The problem is likely that no one can get permission to put up a tower.
Ask most neighbors of air bnb rentals how they feel about having a different stranger live next to them every few days. Residential areas are created so that people can be part of a community that shares a common interest in the quality of living in that place. Even complaining to the police won't deter an air bnb resident because they know they will be gone soon.
Most people these days don't even know their neighbors. If people want to exclude airbnb then they should create a homeowner's association and set that rule. I wouldn't even mind if a city voted to ban airbnb. My problem with this and similiar bans like smoking bans is that something major like this should be put on the ballot and voted on instead of being enacted by special interest groups.
There are no "additional costs of dealing with climate change" over and above any costs you incur dealing with a climate that varies naturally. That is to say, if you're going to build on the coast you build sea defences (because sea level rise has been constant for hundreds of years and storms occur, naturally) and if you're going to build near or on river flood plains you build flood defences because floods occur, naturally. This is just common sense. Their frequency isn't increasing in any case but how often they happen doesn't make any difference to whether you should defend against them.
Severity definitely adds to the cost. If you design a levy for 12 foot of water and there is 24 foot of water then your levy can't contain it. Even frequency can add to the cost. If your basement floods once every 10 years then you can replace the carpet and move on. If your basement floods every week then this no longer is an option. So yes there are incremental costs to dealing with more severe weather events. Yes, you could build a house that is practically invincible to all known weather events that can ever possibly happen in the next 1000 years but the cost would be astronomical so instead we build houses for expected severity of weather events and also optimize for comfort and cost knowing that if there is an unusually bad weather event then we might occasionally take a little damage. If that unusually bad weather becomes a yearly occurrence though then we have to spend extra money to protect against it.
Because they are coming in illegally, pushing to the front of the line of those who obey the law and wait for their visas patiently. And because the assumption that there is no one available to do it is not correct either. The falling unemployment numbers are a measurement failure, ignoring those who have simply stopped looking for work. They are unemployed, they would probably like to work, but they stopped looking.
I never said anything about pushing them to the front of the line. I said that if we have jobs we should allow employers to bring in as many temporary workers as they need as long as we make sure they are paying them market rates and also paying an additional tax so there is an incentive to fill those jobs with local employees first if they are available.
You want penalties and prison time for employers who do something that you want to make legal.
No, what I'm saying is that if an employer had access to as many legals with temporary work visas as they wanted then there would be no incentive to hire illegally especially if the penalty to hire illegally was prison time. If we want to get rid of illegals, we need to eliminate the incentives to hire illegals. If work visas were easy to obtain and everyone could get one then there would be no reason for anyone to be here illegally. The only reason people are here illegally is for the jobs. If you dried up the illegal jobs by creating a ton of legal employees, the illegals would all want to come in the proper way and if you made the work visas expensive, the employer would still have an incentive to hire citizens first.
Increasing the incentive for people to come to the US illegally, and giving companies incentive to hire them, won't mean the illegals are stealing US jobs? Well, I guess, technically you are right. You can't "steal" what is being handed to you on a silver platter.
If there are jobs available and no one to do it, why don't we let people come in? I have no problem giving work visas to people who are working as long as it is not hurting our existing economy. By charging a higher payroll tax to companies who employ people on work visas you assure that the people brought in are not taking jobs from existing citizens and by allowing unlimited work visas you take away any incentive to hire illegals besides being a cheap skate. I think at the same time we need to increase the penalty of hiring illegals and add prison time if someone knowingly does that. This would allow the 22 million illegals to come out of the shadows, pay taxes properly, and still have the ability to apply for full citizenship if they want but in the mean time it would make them accountable to the laws in this country. Currently many illegals actually make less than minimum wage because they are paid under the table. They should make sure that the penalty for employers to do this is harsh enough that it's not worth the risk.
That is basically what is being discussed. But instead of just skimming off the top (forcing foreigners to take lower wages to compete), he is considering what I consider a far better plan. Increasing the minimum wage for H1B visas, and focusing on the highest paid workers. Coupled with his refocusing of immigration to the highest skilled individuals should provide a glut of extremely skilled foreign workers, while weeding out the H1B workers whose only major skill was their price point.
Increasing the minimum wage helps the bottom of the pool but doesn't really help at the middle or top. If you're an expert in your field and are asking 200k but an equivalent expert overseas is only asking 120k then you are going to have a hard time competing and raising the minimum wage to 100k really doesn't help you. It also hurts companies that need entry level 50k employees but now need to pay them 100k just because of a minimum wage. A 20% surcharge would allow you to hire low, middle, and high range employees but give you a slight financial incentive to look locally first. You aren't really "forcing foreigners to take lower wages to compete" as they are already willing to take a lower wage to compete, that's the problem. The tax is a way to balance out their willingness to take a lower wage. The tax is not as much to hurt the foreigner as it is to help the local economy. It makes more sense to hire someone locally who is unemployed than it does to bring someone new in from abroad and leave the local person unemployed. You could also do the same thing at the very low end. Allow companies to hire as many "illegal migrant immigrants" as they want legally but make them pay a higher payroll tax. This would make sure that the "illegals" aren't "stealing american jobs" but still allow farms to get the employees they need to harvest their crops.
Instead of restricting the number of h1b's, it would be simpler if we just taxed them. It could be a flat fee like 20k/year per h1b or it could be a percentage like 20% of payroll. Either way, it would allow companies to hire as many h1b candidates as they need but still give them an incentive to hire local talent first. The number one complain everyone has with h1b is that h1b employees are willing to work for less but if you added a yearly surcharge to the h1b then that argument becomes void because it would then be cheaper to hire local talent than h1b. You could even go to 50% or 100% if you needed to but to me a surcharge makes more sense than a hiring cap. A 50% surcharge would make local talent at 149k cheaper to hire than a h1b at 100k which would completely get rid of the complain that the only reason companies hire h1b is to save money not because the talent isn't available.
Actually, it sounds like a very happy man. The thing that is missing though is that he doesn't seem to realize that just because something makes him happy it doesn't mean that it will make everyone else happy. Everyone is wired a little different. I'm pretty good at math but I find it boring. I enjoy programming which is similar but for whatever reason I find it a lot more interesting and can get lost for hours in a tedious problem that would drive other people crazy. I have a good friend who can't stand to be at a desk job. He *loves* pouring concrete which is about the worst job I can think of but after 4 years at a desk job (as a co-owner of the company no less), he quit and went back to pouring concrete because that is what he enjoys.
Yes, but if you ask someone if birds fly- they might think about penguins or emu, or ostrich, or dodo, or one of the other flightless birds.
So keep it simple and don't rely on their knowledge or the amount of amnesia or brain damage. What's wrong with questions like "Is 3+3=7" and "Does the word Frog start with a G?" If all you're trying to do is detect Yes and No then there are plenty of black and white questions that are much easier to answer.
FWIW, around the same time people have realised that sending editable documents out to their clients or whatever is a bad idea. I'd say most "email me a quote" type stuff is now PDF, rather than.doc,.docx or.odt or whatever else. The only.docs I've received are spam or from a colleague asking for me to make some changed before sending it back to them.
I don't think anyone wants to credit Adobe with breaking the MS stranglehold, but PDF has its part to play in all of this.
I completely agree. That same time period is when.doc files started containing viruses and also when more people started using macs, smart phones, chromebooks, etc.. so having a safe format that renders on all platforms and didn't depend on having the correct version of a particular software installed became important. Also, it probably didn't hurt that pdfs opened inside of web browsers while.doc files didn't.
To put it politely, it's wishful thinking to claim that Office competitors like iWork, LibreOffice, and Google Docs have significantly impacted MS Office's market share.
We switched from Microsoft Office to Open Office about 5 years ago and since that time as computers have been replaced, office has not been purchased for them. 5 years ago it was also common to occasionally have someone send you a.doc file. I haven't had someone do that in several years. I can't even remember the last time I received a document that I couldn't open in Open Office. About that same time we also switched from Outlook to google mail handling all out corporate email and again, we haven't missed it.
Google Docs is another reason. Google Docs doesn't have all the features of MS Office, but it is "good enough" for most people. Instead of $7 per user per month, it is $0 per month. Google Docs also has less downtime.
We switched from Microsoft Office to Open Office a few years ago and no one even blinked. I'm not sure most of the people even realize that it changed. Most of them still refer to the spreadsheet as excel when asking a question.
When you can stream 4K video to every screen in the house, is it fast enough yet?
4K is a number. 1MB is a number. High speed and ultra fast are useless just as is calling something a "medium sized softdrink". What's wrong with using something like 1M/s or 100M/s or 1K/s? I would even be ok with it being a multiple of something arbitrary or a power of something arbitrary. Cdrom drives used multiples of the first speed so a quad speed was 4 times faster. Horsepower is an approximation of a horse. At least if you created a standard that made sense then everyone could communicate easily. The T1 series, the OC series, and the DS series made sense too: http://www.lageman.com/bandwid... where each one is some order of magnitude faster than the other ones but it would make sense to have something that is technology neutral and also knowable so if someone said DS200 or T45 that everyone would know what speed that is.
That's over 1%. Your bank account's balance is less than 1% of your bank's assets (or liabilities), yet I think you would object to them just keeping it.
Actually, it's closer to 1/200 of a percent. Each of those 200+ people are owed around $5700 dollars for theirs shares (100000000/700*8/200) and presumably that once those 8 acres are sold at a public auction that that money would still go into a "lost money" fund where they could still potentially claim it so they aren't really even losing anything. This is a non-story created by hype. This is the way things have worked in Hawaii forever. Zuckerberg might be evil but not for this.
I would venture to guess that the number of mice killed by mousetraps in the USA dwarfs the number killed by scientists each year. I wouldn't be surprised if the number killed by pet snakes is larger than the number killed by scientists and I know that the number killed by pet cats is *way* larger. And let's not get started on the millions of chickens killed each year before barely matured. These mice lived almost their entire lifespan well fed and well cared for. They likely had a much longer and happier life than their wild siblings and may have also helped us get closer to curing diabetes. It pretty much sounds like a win/win for everyone including the mice.
I'm not arguing that one way or the other but if you're going to call someone out on something then call them out on something they actually are doing that is wrong. There are plenty of evil rich guys doing plenty of evil things. Requesting that some unclaimed land with no clear owner be sold to the highest bidder in a public auction is not one of them.
Why doesn't he? He is buying the island on the open market from willing sellers. You could argue why does he deserve billions of dollars but he has the money and whether he spends it on an island, a private jet, or strippers isn't really the point.
So why this apparently VERY common inability to find ownership of Hawaiian lands goes to lawsuits is beyond the pale. And people react as such.
It's basically probate. It would be the same thing that would happen if some dude with 100 acres in the continental USA died and noone knew their next of kin. That might be a bad example because in the most states as soon as you stop paying property tax the government comes and takes your land so maybe it would be more like a guy with a 10M dollar painting dies and noone knows his next of kin. Zuckerberg would be the guy who wants to buy the painting but first he has to track down this dude's closest living relatives.
If he had actually attempted to determine ownership of the land, and then approached the owners with offers to buy, that would have been the proper opening move.
That is exactly what he is doing. He's spent a ton of money researching genealogy and has managed to locate around 300 potential heirs to the 8 acres in question. He managed to locate 1 person. The lawsuit basically is saying that attempts to contact the other 200+ has failed and is asking the court for permission to clear the title and proceed. This is a non-story. This is standard procedure in Hawaii. It's similar to why you buy Title Insurance in the continental USA.
Slashdot Mirror
Would the Dell XPS range not suit you better then? Since Dell bought Alienware they're practically the same thing, but without all the gamer gimmickry.
One of my goals is to be able to drive 3 displays, one of which is a 4k. Most laptop video cards only support 2 displays at a time and the lcd counts as one of them. The alienware line makes 3 displays and/or 4k easy as they sell a docking station that supports 3rd party video cards.
If they were only quitting because of financial security there wouldn't be a single CEO still working in silicon valley.
More likely there was something wrong in the work environment.
That combined with lots of money means they will move on to more fulfilling things.
Notice how all 3 examples started their own business? There is a *huge* difference between "making tons of money *and* being able to call the shots" and "just making tons of money". I own my own business and make around 90k a year. I could likely make considerably more working for someone else and I've considered it a few times but I'm not sure the extra money would be worth losing all the perks I get from owning my own business.
You should look at gaming laptops, some of them are a bit thick, but they really are true desktop replacements.
Yep, I discovered the same thing. My 5 year old laptop is at the end of it's life and I will likely be replacing with with an alienware laptop not because I'm a gamer but because I actually want an upgrade not a downgrade.
Then realize that what is left is a hell of a lot of people who are protesting peacefully because this administration does not represent the wishes and needs of the vast majority of the people in the country. I'm not a Democrat; I've never voted for a Democrat for federal office (twice for Bush and also for McCain), and I am damn tired of being cast as liberal/leftist because I do not toe the party line.
Wake up.
I know very few people who voted for Trump in the primaries. Everyone I know who voted for Trump either voted for Bernie or some other Republican in the primaries. Exit polls showed this as well with a large percentage of Trump supporters wanting a more liberal country. Trump only won because of the lack of runoff voting in the primaries and an exceptionally bad opponent who managed to cheat her way into the general election. Both sides severely underestimated the amount of anti-establishment in their own parties and Clinton was the ultimate establishment candidate.
I checked and the USA was even lower at only 61.5% of new capacity being renewable. I was surprised there was any non-renewable being built new. If we truly started "phasing out" non-renewables then you would expect new capacity to be 100% renewable or even above 100% (if existing non-renewable plants were being shut down). I didn't realize we were still building *any* new coal/gas plants. I knew the existing ones were still being used but surprised that they were still building new ones. I'm surprised with as much renewable that is being built that our energy usage is going up fast enough to need that much new energy.
Coverage is easy to fix. It's very easy for the carries to see when people "fall off" their network and when they see a lot, they put up a tower to cover the hole. Congestion is harder to figure out and could mean backhaul upgrades.
Congestion is probably easier to figure out. Do you not think they know when their tower is at or close to capacity? They might not be able to tell how many people are unable to connect but they can sure likely tell when it's full. Congestion can many times be fixed with an upgrade to an existing tower. Coverage can sometime be difficult to fix as "putting up a new tower" is easier said than done. My drive home goes thru a state park. ATT, Verizon, Tmobile, and Sprint ALL drop calls on that road. It has a fair amount of traffic too. The problem is likely that no one can get permission to put up a tower.
Ask most neighbors of air bnb rentals how they feel about having a different stranger live next to them every few days. Residential areas are created so that people can be part of a community that shares a common interest in the quality of living in that place. Even complaining to the police won't deter an air bnb resident because they know they will be gone soon.
Most people these days don't even know their neighbors. If people want to exclude airbnb then they should create a homeowner's association and set that rule. I wouldn't even mind if a city voted to ban airbnb. My problem with this and similiar bans like smoking bans is that something major like this should be put on the ballot and voted on instead of being enacted by special interest groups.
There are no "additional costs of dealing with climate change" over and above any costs you incur dealing with a climate that varies naturally. That is to say, if you're going to build on the coast you build sea defences (because sea level rise has been constant for hundreds of years and storms occur, naturally) and if you're going to build near or on river flood plains you build flood defences because floods occur, naturally. This is just common sense. Their frequency isn't increasing in any case but how often they happen doesn't make any difference to whether you should defend against them.
Severity definitely adds to the cost. If you design a levy for 12 foot of water and there is 24 foot of water then your levy can't contain it. Even frequency can add to the cost. If your basement floods once every 10 years then you can replace the carpet and move on. If your basement floods every week then this no longer is an option. So yes there are incremental costs to dealing with more severe weather events. Yes, you could build a house that is practically invincible to all known weather events that can ever possibly happen in the next 1000 years but the cost would be astronomical so instead we build houses for expected severity of weather events and also optimize for comfort and cost knowing that if there is an unusually bad weather event then we might occasionally take a little damage. If that unusually bad weather becomes a yearly occurrence though then we have to spend extra money to protect against it.
Because they are coming in illegally, pushing to the front of the line of those who obey the law and wait for their visas patiently. And because the assumption that there is no one available to do it is not correct either. The falling unemployment numbers are a measurement failure, ignoring those who have simply stopped looking for work. They are unemployed, they would probably like to work, but they stopped looking.
I never said anything about pushing them to the front of the line. I said that if we have jobs we should allow employers to bring in as many temporary workers as they need as long as we make sure they are paying them market rates and also paying an additional tax so there is an incentive to fill those jobs with local employees first if they are available.
You want penalties and prison time for employers who do something that you want to make legal.
No, what I'm saying is that if an employer had access to as many legals with temporary work visas as they wanted then there would be no incentive to hire illegally especially if the penalty to hire illegally was prison time. If we want to get rid of illegals, we need to eliminate the incentives to hire illegals. If work visas were easy to obtain and everyone could get one then there would be no reason for anyone to be here illegally. The only reason people are here illegally is for the jobs. If you dried up the illegal jobs by creating a ton of legal employees, the illegals would all want to come in the proper way and if you made the work visas expensive, the employer would still have an incentive to hire citizens first.
Increasing the incentive for people to come to the US illegally, and giving companies incentive to hire them, won't mean the illegals are stealing US jobs? Well, I guess, technically you are right. You can't "steal" what is being handed to you on a silver platter.
If there are jobs available and no one to do it, why don't we let people come in? I have no problem giving work visas to people who are working as long as it is not hurting our existing economy. By charging a higher payroll tax to companies who employ people on work visas you assure that the people brought in are not taking jobs from existing citizens and by allowing unlimited work visas you take away any incentive to hire illegals besides being a cheap skate. I think at the same time we need to increase the penalty of hiring illegals and add prison time if someone knowingly does that. This would allow the 22 million illegals to come out of the shadows, pay taxes properly, and still have the ability to apply for full citizenship if they want but in the mean time it would make them accountable to the laws in this country. Currently many illegals actually make less than minimum wage because they are paid under the table. They should make sure that the penalty for employers to do this is harsh enough that it's not worth the risk.
That is basically what is being discussed. But instead of just skimming off the top (forcing foreigners to take lower wages to compete), he is considering what I consider a far better plan. Increasing the minimum wage for H1B visas, and focusing on the highest paid workers. Coupled with his refocusing of immigration to the highest skilled individuals should provide a glut of extremely skilled foreign workers, while weeding out the H1B workers whose only major skill was their price point.
Increasing the minimum wage helps the bottom of the pool but doesn't really help at the middle or top. If you're an expert in your field and are asking 200k but an equivalent expert overseas is only asking 120k then you are going to have a hard time competing and raising the minimum wage to 100k really doesn't help you. It also hurts companies that need entry level 50k employees but now need to pay them 100k just because of a minimum wage. A 20% surcharge would allow you to hire low, middle, and high range employees but give you a slight financial incentive to look locally first. You aren't really "forcing foreigners to take lower wages to compete" as they are already willing to take a lower wage to compete, that's the problem. The tax is a way to balance out their willingness to take a lower wage. The tax is not as much to hurt the foreigner as it is to help the local economy. It makes more sense to hire someone locally who is unemployed than it does to bring someone new in from abroad and leave the local person unemployed. You could also do the same thing at the very low end. Allow companies to hire as many "illegal migrant immigrants" as they want legally but make them pay a higher payroll tax. This would make sure that the "illegals" aren't "stealing american jobs" but still allow farms to get the employees they need to harvest their crops.
Instead of restricting the number of h1b's, it would be simpler if we just taxed them. It could be a flat fee like 20k/year per h1b or it could be a percentage like 20% of payroll. Either way, it would allow companies to hire as many h1b candidates as they need but still give them an incentive to hire local talent first. The number one complain everyone has with h1b is that h1b employees are willing to work for less but if you added a yearly surcharge to the h1b then that argument becomes void because it would then be cheaper to hire local talent than h1b. You could even go to 50% or 100% if you needed to but to me a surcharge makes more sense than a hiring cap. A 50% surcharge would make local talent at 149k cheaper to hire than a h1b at 100k which would completely get rid of the complain that the only reason companies hire h1b is to save money not because the talent isn't available.
Seriously. This sounds like a sad sad man.
Actually, it sounds like a very happy man. The thing that is missing though is that he doesn't seem to realize that just because something makes him happy it doesn't mean that it will make everyone else happy. Everyone is wired a little different. I'm pretty good at math but I find it boring. I enjoy programming which is similar but for whatever reason I find it a lot more interesting and can get lost for hours in a tedious problem that would drive other people crazy. I have a good friend who can't stand to be at a desk job. He *loves* pouring concrete which is about the worst job I can think of but after 4 years at a desk job (as a co-owner of the company no less), he quit and went back to pouring concrete because that is what he enjoys.
I've watched myself be cut open once and stitched up 7 times
Do you work as a bouncer in a road house, or are you just a mean drunk?
My guess would be some sort of high risk hobby like skateboarding, motorcross, or MMA cage fighting.
Yes, but if you ask someone if birds fly- they might think about penguins or emu, or ostrich, or dodo, or one of the other flightless birds.
So keep it simple and don't rely on their knowledge or the amount of amnesia or brain damage. What's wrong with questions like "Is 3+3=7" and "Does the word Frog start with a G?" If all you're trying to do is detect Yes and No then there are plenty of black and white questions that are much easier to answer.
FWIW, around the same time people have realised that sending editable documents out to their clients or whatever is a bad idea. I'd say most "email me a quote" type stuff is now PDF, rather than .doc, .docx or .odt or whatever else. The only .docs I've received are spam or from a colleague asking for me to make some changed before sending it back to them.
I don't think anyone wants to credit Adobe with breaking the MS stranglehold, but PDF has its part to play in all of this.
I completely agree. That same time period is when .doc files started containing viruses and also when more people started using macs, smart phones, chromebooks, etc.. so having a safe format that renders on all platforms and didn't depend on having the correct version of a particular software installed became important. Also, it probably didn't hurt that pdfs opened inside of web browsers while .doc files didn't.
To put it politely, it's wishful thinking to claim that Office competitors like iWork, LibreOffice, and Google Docs have significantly impacted MS Office's market share.
We switched from Microsoft Office to Open Office about 5 years ago and since that time as computers have been replaced, office has not been purchased for them. 5 years ago it was also common to occasionally have someone send you a .doc file. I haven't had someone do that in several years. I can't even remember the last time I received a document that I couldn't open in Open Office. About that same time we also switched from Outlook to google mail handling all out corporate email and again, we haven't missed it.
Google Docs is another reason. Google Docs doesn't have all the features of MS Office, but it is "good enough" for most people. Instead of $7 per user per month, it is $0 per month. Google Docs also has less downtime.
We switched from Microsoft Office to Open Office a few years ago and no one even blinked. I'm not sure most of the people even realize that it changed. Most of them still refer to the spreadsheet as excel when asking a question.
When you can stream 4K video to every screen in the house, is it fast enough yet?
4K is a number. 1MB is a number. High speed and ultra fast are useless just as is calling something a "medium sized softdrink". What's wrong with using something like 1M/s or 100M/s or 1K/s? I would even be ok with it being a multiple of something arbitrary or a power of something arbitrary. Cdrom drives used multiples of the first speed so a quad speed was 4 times faster. Horsepower is an approximation of a horse. At least if you created a standard that made sense then everyone could communicate easily. The T1 series, the OC series, and the DS series made sense too: http://www.lageman.com/bandwid... where each one is some order of magnitude faster than the other ones but it would make sense to have something that is technology neutral and also knowable so if someone said DS200 or T45 that everyone would know what speed that is.
That's over 1%. Your bank account's balance is less than 1% of your bank's assets (or liabilities), yet I think you would object to them just keeping it.
Actually, it's closer to 1/200 of a percent. Each of those 200+ people are owed around $5700 dollars for theirs shares (100000000/700*8/200) and presumably that once those 8 acres are sold at a public auction that that money would still go into a "lost money" fund where they could still potentially claim it so they aren't really even losing anything. This is a non-story created by hype. This is the way things have worked in Hawaii forever. Zuckerberg might be evil but not for this.
Tl; dr: scientists are murderers.
I would venture to guess that the number of mice killed by mousetraps in the USA dwarfs the number killed by scientists each year. I wouldn't be surprised if the number killed by pet snakes is larger than the number killed by scientists and I know that the number killed by pet cats is *way* larger. And let's not get started on the millions of chickens killed each year before barely matured. These mice lived almost their entire lifespan well fed and well cared for. They likely had a much longer and happier life than their wild siblings and may have also helped us get closer to curing diabetes. It pretty much sounds like a win/win for everyone including the mice.
Well......he is an evil rich guy.
I'm not arguing that one way or the other but if you're going to call someone out on something then call them out on something they actually are doing that is wrong. There are plenty of evil rich guys doing plenty of evil things. Requesting that some unclaimed land with no clear owner be sold to the highest bidder in a public auction is not one of them.
Why does he deserve an island?
Why doesn't he? He is buying the island on the open market from willing sellers. You could argue why does he deserve billions of dollars but he has the money and whether he spends it on an island, a private jet, or strippers isn't really the point.
So why this apparently VERY common inability to find ownership of Hawaiian lands goes to lawsuits is beyond the pale. And people react as such.
It's basically probate. It would be the same thing that would happen if some dude with 100 acres in the continental USA died and noone knew their next of kin. That might be a bad example because in the most states as soon as you stop paying property tax the government comes and takes your land so maybe it would be more like a guy with a 10M dollar painting dies and noone knows his next of kin. Zuckerberg would be the guy who wants to buy the painting but first he has to track down this dude's closest living relatives.
If he had actually attempted to determine ownership of the land, and then approached the owners with offers to buy, that would have been the proper opening move.
That is exactly what he is doing. He's spent a ton of money researching genealogy and has managed to locate around 300 potential heirs to the 8 acres in question. He managed to locate 1 person. The lawsuit basically is saying that attempts to contact the other 200+ has failed and is asking the court for permission to clear the title and proceed. This is a non-story. This is standard procedure in Hawaii. It's similar to why you buy Title Insurance in the continental USA.