I looked at ONE site, and Net10 offers unlimited (throttled after 500m) Talk, Text, Data at $40/mo -- exactly what the OP posted, and BYOD.
If you want 4G data, though, you pretty much have to stick with the original sources, as nobody resells Verizon or AT&T 4G, with only one for each of Sprint and T-Mobile.
The 2nd amendment qualifies that right with words about a "well regulated militia".
In the 1700s, "regulated" meant "smoothly functioning" or "accurate". For example, another name for the pendulum clock was a "regulator clock". With people, "regulated" would mean "trained" or "skilled".
Then, since "militia" meant "people who could be required to defend their country from tyrants, either as part of the army or as irregulars", which today would likely mean anybody who could conceivably be drafted, the whole phrase takes on a completely different meaning today.
With the rewrite into modern English, you get something like "since people who are trained well enough to be able to defend their country are necessary, and those people need access to the tools with which to become familiar with defense procedures, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
My conclusion is that there are people who cannot drive and talk at the same time, and those people should choose not to do so.
I've never seen anyone with a cell phone in their hand who didn't drastically alter their driving style as soon as the phone went into their hand. I've also never seen any one of those people who realized that their behavior changed.
I suspect that you need to "choose not to do so", as well.
For me the 20 or so pixels that are saved by hiding the menu bar isn't worth the inconvenience of always having to turn these menus back on.
I don't understand how hiding the menu bar saves any pixels.
There are so few top-level menu items, that you can easily place the URL bar right beside the menu bar and still have plenty of room for both. Below that, I have the search box and various shortcut icons on the next row, with tabs below that. Although you can strip down the UI, I can't see how you can not leave room for some combination of what I use, at least for the vast majority of people.
Other people might not have the search box displayed, but they also might have a lot more bookmark shortcut icons than I do. I also can't see any way that hiding the URL bar is useful, so you need room for that. Maybe you could get by with one row of toolbars, but you'd be pretty stripped down.
Why should I be able to open every door of every house in a street only because there is one house I have to visit?
Because you have a rocket launcher.
5. What happens if there are two players? Doors behave the same for all players. It's a door. See point 2.
No, because one player could be allowed to open the door as owner of the house, apartment. The second one is not allowed to open that door.
You are conflating "open" with "unlock". If a door is locked, once player 1 unlocks the door, player 2 should be able to open the door.
In addition, you are conflating "permission" with "ability". Even if you give me permission to open your front door, I cannot do so if the door is locked and you did not give me the key (or I dropped the key you gave me). OTOH, I don't need your permission (or your keys) when I have a rocket launcher.
As soon as you got to your step 2 and step 3 you just increased the programming load by a considerable amount.
It really isn't that hard to put "stock empty room #7" behind a door. And, if your level-design software is any good, you should be able to have random tweaks applied with the click of a mouse.
For the hotel example, you could have a template room that could then be changed (bed made/unmade, suitcase on the floor, chair starting position slightly different, etc.), perhaps using some random system (20% chance of unmade bed, etc.).
I thought I made a decent case, using mild sarcasm, for not having every door be openable.
You made a case for every door not being easy to open. But, the only reason to have a door that can never be opened is laziness on the part of the level designer.
But there might be red herring doors which behave like all other locked doors, but which have no key available in the game or are (visibly?) blocked from behind or chained together.
The only place a door that can never open makes sense is at the edge of a level, since there is no "world" behind such a door. The solution is to simply design the levels so that there is nothing at the edge that contains a door.
That would be a perfect first response, BTW. Many good interview questions are intentionally vague, precisely to see if the candidate will recognize the ambiguity and ask appropriate questions to clarify it, because that's a critically important skill/habit for the real world.
Getting a specification that you can work with is very often like pulling teeth. Likewise, when communicating back to non-technical types, I have often been called "long-winded", and that comes from making sure that they understand exactly what I am saying, and so won't make any assumptions that will come back to haunt me later.
What are the chances of pulling four-of-a-kind from a deck of cards in five tries?
It depends on what you mean by "five tries".
Do I shuffle and pull four cards, check to see if they are all the same number, and if not, repeat up to 4 more times? Or, do you mean "what are the chances that you have four-of-a-kind when dealt 5 cards?"
Not in real world use. There are no 1M IOPS SLC SSDs (single drive), but there are plenty of 100K IOPS MLC SSDs.
As a matter of fact, this seems to show that with the exception of the Fusion-io ioDrive2 SLC variant, all the top-performing single drive SSDs are MLC. And, the MLC variants of the ioDrive2 are only about 10% behind the SLC variant.
You can see from the Wikipedia article that what truly affects final throughput is the bus width and number of channels of SSD controller, just like I said. The fastest systems are just many MLC SSDs connected to a very fast bus.
That comparison is meaningless because a 4TB is at a premium price. If you think you need 500GB, use should compare a 500GB HDD with an SSD (480GB being close enough).
Although 4TB drives are still at a premium, I don't think it's unreasonable to compare a much larger spinning disk, as you can get a 3TB drive for around $110.
I can get a 500GB 7200RPM SATA drive for about $50. A Crucial M500 is about $120.
And the problem here is that you're comparing a 500GB spinning drive to a 240GB SSD. If you truly want to compare space to space, then you'd need to spend around $240 for a 480-500GB SSD. That makes the SSD 4.8x as much money, and around 10x more per GB. And, it's even worse with a 3TB disk, as it's still half the price of the ~500GB SSD, but has 6x the space, making the SSD cost 12x per GB.
That said, I've got SSDs as boot disks in all my systems, but obviously use hard drives to store large amounts of data.
So for a given number of dollars the smaller drive will have better performance.
First, this is a red herring, since the price you pay for an SSD in a given size class won't buy you any significantly larger drive. So, a 60GB dog of an SSD for $60 is still far faster than the zero IOPS you get from a $60 120GB SSD. What you really need to compare is the cost per GB, because then you can compare things like the performance of a pair of 60GB drives in RAID-0 vs. a single 120GB.
That said, the primary factor in SSD speed is the number of controller channels that can be connected to the flash chips. For an example, see pretty much any review (like this one). Because of this, smaller drives always have lower performance. Even crossing manufacturers/lines can only rarely make this untrue, as a doubling of size doubles the channels, so the flash on a smaller drive would have to be more than twice as fast to make up the difference. And although you are correct that SLC is faster than MLC, it's not twice as fast.
So, if you can find a larger drive that costs less in total dollars than a smaller drive (and it is possible...there are a few 120GB drives that cost less than 60GB drives), in every case you will get astoundingly more for your money, as you get more storage and more channels used on the controller, which gives you more performance.
You could, for example, send all links on one page and have that be signed.
Since we don't know exact details, it's possible that the official wording was something like "each link has to be individually approved".
Even if that wasn't the case, with 400 or so new links per day, that would be 5-8 pages depending on font size, margins, etc. Sure, the powers that be could just rubber-stamp the process without actually reading and investigating each link, but then what happens when one of links is an issue (points to porn, material copyrighted by big media, etc.)? Before, they could just write it off as a mistake by some low-level web coder. With the signature of the vice-chancellor on it, it pretty much becomes officially endorsed by the university.
When the constitution was ratified, the militia was the only defense that the United States had, and all able bodied men were expected to be ready to serve.
Now, whether the militia is the intent of the second amendment is a question that we have been asking for a long time now. The wording of the second amendment is not particularly clear on that.
And yes, I know that this opinion is not popular on a site as conservative as slashdot.
I don't see where you wrote any opinion.
It's a fact that the definition of "militia" at the time of the writing of the Constitution was radically different from what we think of today. A modern day wording might be "anybody who is eligible to be drafted into the military". With the 1770s definition of "militia" in mind, the proposed change in TFA really means nothing. "Militia" was just everyone who wasn't presently in the army but could be if needed.
It's also a fact that the wording of the 2nd isn't as clear as it should be, and likewise that we can't be 100% sure whether the "militia" part was intended as a comment or a limit for the right.
Even if it was a limit, though, with the definition of "militia" at the time of the writing, it would limit to something like any male older than about 14. Since that time, women have been defined as equal to men in most ways, and since they can serve in the military, and we treat 14-year-olds as children instead of adults, the current definition would be something like "any person 18 years or older". And, since "regulated" meant "trained" at the time of the writing, we end up with:
People well-trained in the handling of firearms being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of persons 18 years and older to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Besides, these days the price difference often isn't actually very large anymore, once you add the cost of shipping.
I always have plenty of stuff in my "buy it when I get a chance" list that I never pay for shipping from Amazon.
I used to wander through a lot of bookstores and book sales from colleges/charities/etc., but I don't any more, since I can pretty much always find exactly what I want by searching Amazon. In addition, I don't have to puzzle through the bookstore category system to figure out where a book might be. A great example of this is that I pretty much like everything that Isaac Asimov has ever written, but finding it all in a bookstore is painful. On Amazon, it's a simple search for his name.
I'm reminded of Mark Cerny's thoughts on Atari and how arcade machines were run. It was completely brutal. Kill player in 3 minutes. 2 1/2 minutes was better.
Games where everyone always died in 3 minutes didn't get repeat players and lost new players because of word of mouth. You have to have at least some people who can play for a while to entice other players to spend their money.
Back in the day, Pole Position was one of the few games with a real limit to the amount of time you could play. Sure, there were a lot of games that could kill you in a few minutes, but those same games (Joust, Pac-Man, Tron, Robotron, Defender, etc.) could easily be played for 30 minutes on a single credit if you were good, and many hours if you were very good.
Today, a likely reason for the demise of the arcade is because there are very few games that offer the chance of a long play time. Many games have fixed times or are simply too hard to allow long play.
Google Chrome has a feature (or used to, I haven't used it for a while) that allows you to selectively block Javascript by domain. I find this to be a better approach -- everything is whitelisted by default and you selectively block the ones you don't like.
Malware writers like this approach, too, as it makes you more vulnerable to drive-bys.
NoScript requires a one-time click to allow a domain. I don't find this to be much of a burden. If it is for you, you can use "Allow all this page", which will permanently allow JavaScript for every domain the current page references.
IMHO these websites are examples of bad design . Good design should fall back to plain html/css with ideally, minimum loss of functionality
Yeah, but then you wouldn't have to whitelist the JavaScript to see the content and get all the advertisements too.
Working as intended.
Most sites don't serve their own ads, so I can generally allow the site itself without getting ads. And, since NoScript has a "temporarily enable..." choice, I do that and only permanently enable sites that I use regularly.
For example, I allow slashdot.com and fsdn.com, but googleadservices.com, google-analytics.com, rpxnow.com, and doubleclick.net (which are all included into the/. pages) are all set to "untrusted".
Slashdot Mirror
I looked at ONE site, and Net10 offers unlimited (throttled after 500m) Talk, Text, Data at $40/mo -- exactly what the OP posted, and BYOD.
If you want 4G data, though, you pretty much have to stick with the original sources, as nobody resells Verizon or AT&T 4G, with only one for each of Sprint and T-Mobile.
As well as the meaning of the word "militia" during the time of the writing of the amendment.
Or "regulated".
Keeping and bearing Arms is a right ... but it's a right, a power that comes with a hefty dose of responsibility (to be "well regulated") as well.
If you don't let me own guns, how can I become "skilled in their use" (which is what "well regulated" means in that context)?
The 2nd amendment qualifies that right with words about a "well regulated militia".
In the 1700s, "regulated" meant "smoothly functioning" or "accurate". For example, another name for the pendulum clock was a "regulator clock". With people, "regulated" would mean "trained" or "skilled".
Then, since "militia" meant "people who could be required to defend their country from tyrants, either as part of the army or as irregulars", which today would likely mean anybody who could conceivably be drafted, the whole phrase takes on a completely different meaning today.
With the rewrite into modern English, you get something like "since people who are trained well enough to be able to defend their country are necessary, and those people need access to the tools with which to become familiar with defense procedures, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
My conclusion is that there are people who cannot drive and talk at the same time, and those people should choose not to do so.
I've never seen anyone with a cell phone in their hand who didn't drastically alter their driving style as soon as the phone went into their hand. I've also never seen any one of those people who realized that their behavior changed.
I suspect that you need to "choose not to do so", as well.
For me the 20 or so pixels that are saved by hiding the menu bar isn't worth the inconvenience of always having to turn these menus back on.
I don't understand how hiding the menu bar saves any pixels.
There are so few top-level menu items, that you can easily place the URL bar right beside the menu bar and still have plenty of room for both. Below that, I have the search box and various shortcut icons on the next row, with tabs below that. Although you can strip down the UI, I can't see how you can not leave room for some combination of what I use, at least for the vast majority of people.
Other people might not have the search box displayed, but they also might have a lot more bookmark shortcut icons than I do. I also can't see any way that hiding the URL bar is useful, so you need room for that. Maybe you could get by with one row of toolbars, but you'd be pretty stripped down.
Why should I be able to open every door of every house in a street only because there is one house I have to visit?
Because you have a rocket launcher.
5. What happens if there are two players? Doors behave the same for all players. It's a door. See point 2.
No, because one player could be allowed to open the door as owner of the house, apartment. The second one is not allowed to open that door.
You are conflating "open" with "unlock". If a door is locked, once player 1 unlocks the door, player 2 should be able to open the door.
In addition, you are conflating "permission" with "ability". Even if you give me permission to open your front door, I cannot do so if the door is locked and you did not give me the key (or I dropped the key you gave me). OTOH, I don't need your permission (or your keys) when I have a rocket launcher.
As soon as you got to your step 2 and step 3 you just increased the programming load by a considerable amount.
It really isn't that hard to put "stock empty room #7" behind a door. And, if your level-design software is any good, you should be able to have random tweaks applied with the click of a mouse.
For the hotel example, you could have a template room that could then be changed (bed made/unmade, suitcase on the floor, chair starting position slightly different, etc.), perhaps using some random system (20% chance of unmade bed, etc.).
I'm perfectly used to encountering doors that I will never be able to unlock in real life.
There are very few doors in real life that can't be "unlocked" with the weapons available in most FPS games.
I thought I made a decent case, using mild sarcasm, for not having every door be openable.
You made a case for every door not being easy to open. But, the only reason to have a door that can never be opened is laziness on the part of the level designer.
But there might be red herring doors which behave like all other locked doors, but which have no key available in the game or are (visibly?) blocked from behind or chained together.
The only place a door that can never open makes sense is at the edge of a level, since there is no "world" behind such a door. The solution is to simply design the levels so that there is nothing at the edge that contains a door.
That would be a perfect first response, BTW. Many good interview questions are intentionally vague, precisely to see if the candidate will recognize the ambiguity and ask appropriate questions to clarify it, because that's a critically important skill/habit for the real world.
Getting a specification that you can work with is very often like pulling teeth. Likewise, when communicating back to non-technical types, I have often been called "long-winded", and that comes from making sure that they understand exactly what I am saying, and so won't make any assumptions that will come back to haunt me later.
What are the chances of pulling four-of-a-kind from a deck of cards in five tries?
It depends on what you mean by "five tries".
Do I shuffle and pull four cards, check to see if they are all the same number, and if not, repeat up to 4 more times? Or, do you mean "what are the chances that you have four-of-a-kind when dealt 5 cards?"
Not in real world use. There are no 1M IOPS SLC SSDs (single drive), but there are plenty of 100K IOPS MLC SSDs.
As a matter of fact, this seems to show that with the exception of the Fusion-io ioDrive2 SLC variant, all the top-performing single drive SSDs are MLC. And, the MLC variants of the ioDrive2 are only about 10% behind the SLC variant.
You can see from the Wikipedia article that what truly affects final throughput is the bus width and number of channels of SSD controller, just like I said. The fastest systems are just many MLC SSDs connected to a very fast bus.
That comparison is meaningless because a 4TB is at a premium price. If you think you need 500GB, use should compare a 500GB HDD with an SSD (480GB being close enough).
Although 4TB drives are still at a premium, I don't think it's unreasonable to compare a much larger spinning disk, as you can get a 3TB drive for around $110.
I can get a 500GB 7200RPM SATA drive for about $50. A Crucial M500 is about $120.
And the problem here is that you're comparing a 500GB spinning drive to a 240GB SSD. If you truly want to compare space to space, then you'd need to spend around $240 for a 480-500GB SSD. That makes the SSD 4.8x as much money, and around 10x more per GB. And, it's even worse with a 3TB disk, as it's still half the price of the ~500GB SSD, but has 6x the space, making the SSD cost 12x per GB.
That said, I've got SSDs as boot disks in all my systems, but obviously use hard drives to store large amounts of data.
So for a given number of dollars the smaller drive will have better performance.
First, this is a red herring, since the price you pay for an SSD in a given size class won't buy you any significantly larger drive. So, a 60GB dog of an SSD for $60 is still far faster than the zero IOPS you get from a $60 120GB SSD. What you really need to compare is the cost per GB, because then you can compare things like the performance of a pair of 60GB drives in RAID-0 vs. a single 120GB.
That said, the primary factor in SSD speed is the number of controller channels that can be connected to the flash chips. For an example, see pretty much any review (like this one). Because of this, smaller drives always have lower performance. Even crossing manufacturers/lines can only rarely make this untrue, as a doubling of size doubles the channels, so the flash on a smaller drive would have to be more than twice as fast to make up the difference. And although you are correct that SLC is faster than MLC, it's not twice as fast.
So, if you can find a larger drive that costs less in total dollars than a smaller drive (and it is possible...there are a few 120GB drives that cost less than 60GB drives), in every case you will get astoundingly more for your money, as you get more storage and more channels used on the controller, which gives you more performance.
You could, for example, send all links on one page and have that be signed.
Since we don't know exact details, it's possible that the official wording was something like "each link has to be individually approved".
Even if that wasn't the case, with 400 or so new links per day, that would be 5-8 pages depending on font size, margins, etc. Sure, the powers that be could just rubber-stamp the process without actually reading and investigating each link, but then what happens when one of links is an issue (points to porn, material copyrighted by big media, etc.)? Before, they could just write it off as a mistake by some low-level web coder. With the signature of the vice-chancellor on it, it pretty much becomes officially endorsed by the university.
When the constitution was ratified, the militia was the only defense that the United States had, and all able bodied men were expected to be ready to serve.
Now, whether the militia is the intent of the second amendment is a question that we have been asking for a long time now. The wording of the second amendment is not particularly clear on that.
And yes, I know that this opinion is not popular on a site as conservative as slashdot.
I don't see where you wrote any opinion.
It's a fact that the definition of "militia" at the time of the writing of the Constitution was radically different from what we think of today. A modern day wording might be "anybody who is eligible to be drafted into the military". With the 1770s definition of "militia" in mind, the proposed change in TFA really means nothing. "Militia" was just everyone who wasn't presently in the army but could be if needed.
It's also a fact that the wording of the 2nd isn't as clear as it should be, and likewise that we can't be 100% sure whether the "militia" part was intended as a comment or a limit for the right.
Even if it was a limit, though, with the definition of "militia" at the time of the writing, it would limit to something like any male older than about 14. Since that time, women have been defined as equal to men in most ways, and since they can serve in the military, and we treat 14-year-olds as children instead of adults, the current definition would be something like "any person 18 years or older". And, since "regulated" meant "trained" at the time of the writing, we end up with:
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is on network TV, so it's available for free for anyone willing to connect an antenna to their TV.
I record OTA using an HDHomeRun, so I can skip commercials pretty easily.
43 minutes of show. Plus 6 (count 'em) 2-3 minute commercial breaks when you see four ads back to back.
Granted, that's only about 28% (when TV is 36%).
Your math is wrong. Both examples you give have 17 minutes of ads in an hour show, which is 28%.
So if Hulu isn't any better than regular network TV, no wonder nobody uses it.
Besides, these days the price difference often isn't actually very large anymore, once you add the cost of shipping.
I always have plenty of stuff in my "buy it when I get a chance" list that I never pay for shipping from Amazon.
I used to wander through a lot of bookstores and book sales from colleges/charities/etc., but I don't any more, since I can pretty much always find exactly what I want by searching Amazon. In addition, I don't have to puzzle through the bookstore category system to figure out where a book might be. A great example of this is that I pretty much like everything that Isaac Asimov has ever written, but finding it all in a bookstore is painful. On Amazon, it's a simple search for his name.
I'm reminded of Mark Cerny's thoughts on Atari and how arcade machines were run. It was completely brutal. Kill player in 3 minutes. 2 1/2 minutes was better.
Games where everyone always died in 3 minutes didn't get repeat players and lost new players because of word of mouth. You have to have at least some people who can play for a while to entice other players to spend their money.
Back in the day, Pole Position was one of the few games with a real limit to the amount of time you could play. Sure, there were a lot of games that could kill you in a few minutes, but those same games (Joust, Pac-Man, Tron, Robotron, Defender, etc.) could easily be played for 30 minutes on a single credit if you were good, and many hours if you were very good.
Today, a likely reason for the demise of the arcade is because there are very few games that offer the chance of a long play time. Many games have fixed times or are simply too hard to allow long play.
I assume you never need to drive a rental car then
I have yet to find a rental car that didn't have adjustable mirrors. Do rentals where you live have fixed mirrors?
Once I adjust the rental car mirrors in exactly the same way (to avoid seeing the car), I don't worry about them again, as there are no other drivers.
Google Chrome has a feature (or used to, I haven't used it for a while) that allows you to selectively block Javascript by domain. I find this to be a better approach -- everything is whitelisted by default and you selectively block the ones you don't like.
Malware writers like this approach, too, as it makes you more vulnerable to drive-bys.
NoScript requires a one-time click to allow a domain. I don't find this to be much of a burden. If it is for you, you can use "Allow all this page", which will permanently allow JavaScript for every domain the current page references.
IMHO these websites are examples of bad design . Good design should fall back to plain html/css with ideally, minimum loss of functionality
Yeah, but then you wouldn't have to whitelist the JavaScript to see the content and get all the advertisements too. Working as intended.
Most sites don't serve their own ads, so I can generally allow the site itself without getting ads. And, since NoScript has a "temporarily enable..." choice, I do that and only permanently enable sites that I use regularly.
For example, I allow slashdot.com and fsdn.com, but googleadservices.com, google-analytics.com, rpxnow.com, and doubleclick.net (which are all included into the /. pages) are all set to "untrusted".