Not likely. New Shepard goes up at about Mach 3, orbital speed is about Mach 25. Testing suborbital doesn't really get you anywhere toward orbital flight, and as far as I know they haven't built or done any tests of their theoretical orbital rocket yet.
Enthusiastic? Nobody is going to commercially mine the mantle for diamonds. Even the deepest oil wells are only a few miles. At any rate, diamonds are the most common gem on the surface.
911 calls can use any available network (hence the "emergency service only" which us t-mobile users see when we go anywhere off the highway), so they should work in areas covered by other service providers.
The Soviet constitution was different -- it was a supranational entity of sorts. And more importantly, it was dominated by Russia so it was easily dissolved by the choice of Russia (Yeltsin specifically). What were the other republics of the USSR going to do, invade Russia?
The USA is much more challenging to break apart, but fortunately I think it can be done if a popular consensus can be built for it in a couple of large states like California and Texas (that pair would be ideal for bi-partisan support). It may require a constitutional amendment, but it would be possible if enough people want it that the people of the other states will not see justification for an occupation.
If a large majority (say 2/3 or 3/4ths) of the people of Texas -- or any other state -- actually wanted independence, they'd get it. Not on their preferred terms perhaps, but they'd get it because the people of the USA would be unwilling to continue occupying an unwilling state. The civil war was very different because there was no consensus among the peoples of the rebel states to leave, only among their elected officials (elected by while males only).
The Arab spring revolutions "worked" in the sense of overthrowing some governments. The problem with revolutions is they turn into civil wars. A revolution in China would likely be a very bloody disaster occupying all the world's efforts/money for the next couple of decades. Would be a huge breeding ground for terrorists who'd later spread across the world too.
The Skype client (at least on Linux) has been torturous for ages, so I use the pidgin plugin. When Microsoft cuts off Skype 7.0, is that going to break things for pidgin as well?
You don't have to worry about an unexpected bill if you set your account quota to not exceed the free service. It's annoying that isn't configured that way by default or more obvious to do, but it's not that hard and I've already done it.
Better yet, just leave them where they are. Dead windmills do not force people to gouge their eyes out, in fact a decaying toppling windmill sounds like a much more interesting sight than a functional one.
I live a hundred miles from Silicon Valley. My current Android phone cost $65, has GPS . It runs Nougat and doesn't need any "lite" apps. It does everything I could want except VR, and is plenty fast enough for me. Frankly there's nothing of any significance I'd gain from moving to a $700 phone, except a lot of worry about breaking it.
There are $20 Android phones. Those run old versions and can't handle all apps. Those may be good for the developing world, but can also be found in any supermarket in California and are not exactly new ideas either.
You could've taken a few years off and traveled the world at your leisure, but you decided to buy an airplane and new car and iphone instead. You're simply a rich person choosing financial struggle.
Which amendment says google has to pay you to speak? Does it specify how much they have to pay you, are you still being persecuted if they decide to pay you less for certain content than other content?
If there's no profit in manual review for adwords, then there's no reason for adwords to manually review. You cannot force another company to choose to do business with you and pay you. If they only want to pay you for webpages their algorithm is absolutely certain are safe and they're happy to lose the revenue from the questionable pages, then good for them. If you really must monetize a web page about an old law, you can find another company that'll pay you your 3 cents for it.
Charging per view requires the content owners to have a great deal of trust in the streaming services reporting accurately. Content owners will also worry their content will be hidden/discouraged in favor of promoting content that's cheaper per view. On the other side, streaming services don't want to pay per view because that would enable small startups to easily break into their market and compete with them.
The solution to the fact that everyone makes mistakes driving is not to let everyone get away with it. It's to reduce the fines to the point where people who rarely make mistakes can afford it but people who make them constantly can't afford it (this also really requires adjusting fines to the driver's income, but that's a different matter).
The only companies that do well by forcing people to work crazy hours are game developers
The biggest problem is the many, many companies (though maybe not many software companies) that make people work more hours without paying them -- by classifying most of their employees as "management" with salaried positions, no matter how obviously they're not actually managers. There are millions of people forced to work 70 hour weeks for the same pay they'd get for a 40 hour week.
I'm a liberal. I believe that monopolies need to be broken in a way that creates real competition, or if that's not practical with some natural monopolies then the business should become a non-profit state utility. Forcing them to lease lines to competitors at cost is one strategy that's been used. But simply breaking a national monopoly into regional monopolies does nothing in itself.
The breakup of Ma Bell was good for long distance call competition, but did nothing for local service which remained under monopolies. In fact, wikipedia says it caused local rates to rise: "One consequence of the breakup was that local residential service rates, which were formerly subsidized by long distance revenues, began to rise faster than the rate of inflation. Long-distance rates, meanwhile, fell both due to the end of this subsidy and increased competition."
The development this article is about is exactly why that doesn't happen. Nobody's going to re-purpose their factory to specialty cards for a market that can virtually disappear by the time you're ready to go to market.
Breaking up the Bell monopoly was a pointless exercise, because the way it was done simply created a bunch of regional monopolies with no competition between them. Nobody movies to another state to get a lower price on their telephone / TV / internet. We got all the disadvantages of Ma Bell, with additional inefficiencies added.
Google is never going to make Chrome unable to access HTTP sites. If for no other reason than because the moment they did, they know everybody would switch to a different browser. They're not in the business of making information inaccessible. Their strategy of giving preference to HTTPS sites is perfectly reasonable though, all the more reasonable because of the fact that HTTP sites are generally old and unmaintained. I want old data to show up in my search results, but I rarely want it to show up first.
Slashdot Mirror
Not likely. New Shepard goes up at about Mach 3, orbital speed is about Mach 25. Testing suborbital doesn't really get you anywhere toward orbital flight, and as far as I know they haven't built or done any tests of their theoretical orbital rocket yet.
Enthusiastic? Nobody is going to commercially mine the mantle for diamonds. Even the deepest oil wells are only a few miles. At any rate, diamonds are the most common gem on the surface.
911 calls can use any available network (hence the "emergency service only" which us t-mobile users see when we go anywhere off the highway), so they should work in areas covered by other service providers.
The Soviet constitution was different -- it was a supranational entity of sorts. And more importantly, it was dominated by Russia so it was easily dissolved by the choice of Russia (Yeltsin specifically). What were the other republics of the USSR going to do, invade Russia?
The USA is much more challenging to break apart, but fortunately I think it can be done if a popular consensus can be built for it in a couple of large states like California and Texas (that pair would be ideal for bi-partisan support). It may require a constitutional amendment, but it would be possible if enough people want it that the people of the other states will not see justification for an occupation.
If a large majority (say 2/3 or 3/4ths) of the people of Texas -- or any other state -- actually wanted independence, they'd get it. Not on their preferred terms perhaps, but they'd get it because the people of the USA would be unwilling to continue occupying an unwilling state. The civil war was very different because there was no consensus among the peoples of the rebel states to leave, only among their elected officials (elected by while males only).
The USA never truly had Cuba. If a military occupation counts as ownership, you might as well say the USA gave up France and West Germany and Iraq.
The Arab spring revolutions "worked" in the sense of overthrowing some governments. The problem with revolutions is they turn into civil wars. A revolution in China would likely be a very bloody disaster occupying all the world's efforts/money for the next couple of decades. Would be a huge breeding ground for terrorists who'd later spread across the world too.
The Skype client (at least on Linux) has been torturous for ages, so I use the pidgin plugin. When Microsoft cuts off Skype 7.0, is that going to break things for pidgin as well?
You don't have to worry about an unexpected bill if you set your account quota to not exceed the free service. It's annoying that isn't configured that way by default or more obvious to do, but it's not that hard and I've already done it.
Better yet, just leave them where they are. Dead windmills do not force people to gouge their eyes out, in fact a decaying toppling windmill sounds like a much more interesting sight than a functional one.
I live a hundred miles from Silicon Valley. My current Android phone cost $65, has GPS . It runs Nougat and doesn't need any "lite" apps. It does everything I could want except VR, and is plenty fast enough for me. Frankly there's nothing of any significance I'd gain from moving to a $700 phone, except a lot of worry about breaking it.
There are $20 Android phones. Those run old versions and can't handle all apps. Those may be good for the developing world, but can also be found in any supermarket in California and are not exactly new ideas either.
Well, it's nice to finally be part of the 1% even if it's the wrong 1%.
Same for me, on Chrome 67. Perhaps it's only enabled for new installations for now?
You could've taken a few years off and traveled the world at your leisure, but you decided to buy an airplane and new car and iphone instead. You're simply a rich person choosing financial struggle.
Both iphones and Ferraris sometimes only predict that your parents are high income.
Which amendment says google has to pay you to speak? Does it specify how much they have to pay you, are you still being persecuted if they decide to pay you less for certain content than other content?
If there's no profit in manual review for adwords, then there's no reason for adwords to manually review. You cannot force another company to choose to do business with you and pay you. If they only want to pay you for webpages their algorithm is absolutely certain are safe and they're happy to lose the revenue from the questionable pages, then good for them. If you really must monetize a web page about an old law, you can find another company that'll pay you your 3 cents for it.
Charging per view requires the content owners to have a great deal of trust in the streaming services reporting accurately. Content owners will also worry their content will be hidden/discouraged in favor of promoting content that's cheaper per view. On the other side, streaming services don't want to pay per view because that would enable small startups to easily break into their market and compete with them.
The solution to the fact that everyone makes mistakes driving is not to let everyone get away with it. It's to reduce the fines to the point where people who rarely make mistakes can afford it but people who make them constantly can't afford it (this also really requires adjusting fines to the driver's income, but that's a different matter).
The biggest problem is the many, many companies (though maybe not many software companies) that make people work more hours without paying them -- by classifying most of their employees as "management" with salaried positions, no matter how obviously they're not actually managers. There are millions of people forced to work 70 hour weeks for the same pay they'd get for a 40 hour week.
I'm a liberal. I believe that monopolies need to be broken in a way that creates real competition, or if that's not practical with some natural monopolies then the business should become a non-profit state utility. Forcing them to lease lines to competitors at cost is one strategy that's been used. But simply breaking a national monopoly into regional monopolies does nothing in itself.
The breakup of Ma Bell was good for long distance call competition, but did nothing for local service which remained under monopolies. In fact, wikipedia says it caused local rates to rise: "One consequence of the breakup was that local residential service rates, which were formerly subsidized by long distance revenues, began to rise faster than the rate of inflation. Long-distance rates, meanwhile, fell both due to the end of this subsidy and increased competition."
The development this article is about is exactly why that doesn't happen. Nobody's going to re-purpose their factory to specialty cards for a market that can virtually disappear by the time you're ready to go to market.
Breaking up the Bell monopoly was a pointless exercise, because the way it was done simply created a bunch of regional monopolies with no competition between them. Nobody movies to another state to get a lower price on their telephone / TV / internet. We got all the disadvantages of Ma Bell, with additional inefficiencies added.
Google is never going to make Chrome unable to access HTTP sites. If for no other reason than because the moment they did, they know everybody would switch to a different browser. They're not in the business of making information inaccessible. Their strategy of giving preference to HTTPS sites is perfectly reasonable though, all the more reasonable because of the fact that HTTP sites are generally old and unmaintained. I want old data to show up in my search results, but I rarely want it to show up first.
Hard to keep on breaking the law once you become popular enough to be noticed by the lawyers.