and I once brought a metal firecracker revolver at school (in Europe), openly playing with it during recess. Would it be wise to do it today ? Probably not.
we are talking about a one-piece part (made of a few sub-parts) from a 80's electronic clock. It's not rocket science to merely... move it to a different cast. On a personal side, the reason I generally could not put stuff back together is because the tear-down involved destructive force. And anyway, the gizmo I was playing with was already broken. I agree, it would have been awesome to fix it, but I wasn't there yet.
I'm gonna be bold, but he didn't invent shit. At best, from the picture, the "clock" seems more to be a commercial product hacked up in a different case. Why would he add 2 source of power (9V battery + main) ? Why do this on 2 different boards linked up by ribbon cables ?
The situation is nowhere near the same. You can choose not to use Google products, whereas you couldn't, and pretty much still can not choose whether or not you want Microsoft products (and associated costs) when you buy a new machine.
Yes, my argument is just that the EU will use the argument even if it comes from Russia. It is not looking for a fair trial, but for justification to issue the fine. This is the same argument than Internet censorship, where some French politician had the beautiful argument "China's has done it.".
This goes in line with the current Russian policy to bash on western interests. Though, I'm pretty sure the EU will now use this decision as a precedent to extort money from Google in their own "anti-trust" propaganda, quoting it as a "precedent".
That being said, it's weird that nobody has yet targeted Apple, who is certainly an order of magnitude more restrictive than Google, and is as much, or more loaded than Google...
Bullshit. I don't trust LEO *at all*, but I'm nowhere to use violence against them. You cannot win with a frontal attack. Every baby with a brain understand that...
Slashdot Mirror
Red herring argument. Your genius isn't really one, so you try to move the debate on something irrelevant.
"Appeal to extreme" fallacy.
Who the fuck are you to tell other what to think ? You're not Righteous.
before being debunked he's a genius, and after, he just a kid. yeah... the excuse machine is on.
does that include shaking hands with the "president" ?
and I once brought a metal firecracker revolver at school (in Europe), openly playing with it during recess. Would it be wise to do it today ? Probably not.
by modern design, I merely think about a new board revision to cut production cost.
So, it's all a marketing fraud ?
Classical survivorship bias, because 1 item survived him doesn't mean he doesn't have his own pile of garbage.
I thought you didn't use any IC, yet, you used a 555 ?
I would expect to find chip-on-boards in any modern design.
we are talking about a one-piece part (made of a few sub-parts) from a 80's electronic clock. It's not rocket science to merely... move it to a different cast. On a personal side, the reason I generally could not put stuff back together is because the tear-down involved destructive force. And anyway, the gizmo I was playing with was already broken. I agree, it would have been awesome to fix it, but I wasn't there yet.
Yes, it does. Because the clock isn't his invention. There is no honor in undeserved glory.
I'm gonna be bold, but he didn't invent shit. At best, from the picture, the "clock" seems more to be a commercial product hacked up in a different case. Why would he add 2 source of power (9V battery + main) ? Why do this on 2 different boards linked up by ribbon cables ?
at least, with a ZPM, they can deploy a local stargate to save on future round-trip.
and /. engine ate the training %2E ... oh, well...
Slashdot URL detection failed to account for the trailing '.'. Using %2E restores the working link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
The situation is nowhere near the same. You can choose not to use Google products, whereas you couldn't, and pretty much still can not choose whether or not you want Microsoft products (and associated costs) when you buy a new machine.
Browser restrictions on iOS. Firefox or Chrome can't use their own engine.
https://kenneth.io/blog/2015/0... ?
Yes, my argument is just that the EU will use the argument even if it comes from Russia. It is not looking for a fair trial, but for justification to issue the fine. This is the same argument than Internet censorship, where some French politician had the beautiful argument "China's has done it.".
This goes in line with the current Russian policy to bash on western interests. Though, I'm pretty sure the EU will now use this decision as a precedent to extort money from Google in their own "anti-trust" propaganda, quoting it as a "precedent".
That being said, it's weird that nobody has yet targeted Apple, who is certainly an order of magnitude more restrictive than Google, and is as much, or more loaded than Google...
Bullshit. I don't trust LEO *at all*, but I'm nowhere to use violence against them. You cannot win with a frontal attack. Every baby with a brain understand that...
ok, I missed you point, my bad. That's my exact stance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...