Did you miss the part about not buying a WiiU because there was nothing in the catalogue to make it worth it? A single Zelda game, no matter how good, is not going to change that. What appears to be a rehash of the Wii ones definitely won't.
I'm not going to be a Switch just for this one game and I doubt I'll see any later additions to the catalogue that will make me change my mind. I bought a Wii for Twilight Princess, the Metroid Trilogy and Mario Galaxy, which was just about enough to justify the expense. The WiiU was unashamedly gimmick, there were no games to make it worth buying and unfortunately the Switch has gone even further down that path.
I'll just have to give this one a miss; not even a new Zelda game is enough to make me buy a Switch and frankly I'm all Mario'd out after galaxy took away most of what I liked in that series. The next time I feel a pang for Zelda I'll most likely just fire up Majora's Mask in an emulator, and in a way I think that's sad.
I do. I don't use it enough to get anywhere near my data cap and I'm not going to pay for Spotify, Apple Music etc.. Plus, I can listen to things besides music.
The ones that really get me are the Tyler Oakley ones with that irritating chirpy voice and oh-so-punchable face. I only seem to get them when I'm using 3G/4G but happily enough when I use the skip button on my car's steering wheel I can skip them entirely.
If that guy is the face of new media I want no part of it. He has the bearing of a children's TV presenter, which must explain why Disney are so keen.
I still have one of those, and a T39 (a much better phone). The drawback of making it so thin was that most of the working parts ended up crammed up at the top. It may be because of this, or for another design decision, that there was no room for an internal antenna so the T28 had a huge (even by the standards of the time) antenna sticking out of the top.
Still it was a really solid phone. Battery life wasn't great, unsurprisingly given the tiny battery, and the software was slow but they were quite clever in making the best use out of a three line display and that huge antenna made for good call quality.
The fact remains that you could stack two or even perhaps three iPhones and still be thinner than the T28. I'm not saying this is good or bad but if nothing else it's food for thought on how far the technology has progressed.
So how did Nokia candy bar phones with their black and white screens, ugly (by todays "standards") cases, and thick dimentions sell so well in 2002?
Because there wasn't anything else. Obviously. When the 8210 was released they couldn't sell them fast enough, and the USP of that model was... you guessed it, size. Same thing with the Motorola v66.
[Wikipedia] has a proven track record of demonstrably false articles messed up by random people.
The Mail has a similar track record intentionally created by a handful of deliberately chosen people and it's on paper which means, for reasons I don't understand, makes it more credible for most people.
Actually getting on the train isn't where people waste time. It takes ten times as long to find the ticket you need to buy from the dozen or so alternatives with slightly different names and wildly diverging prices (that are all nevertheless exorbitant) as it does to walk through an automated barrier.
I had to travel from one end of the UK to the other recently and - this still baffles me - it would have cost about a third as much to fly from Newcastle via Paris to Exeter then back again than it would to get an off-peak return ticket for the train. I'd have probably had more leg room to boot. If I still had a passport I'd have been very tempted to accidentally miss my connecting flight. Think about that for a second... an international flight was significantly cheaper and only marginally longer than taking the train. Something about that just seems fundamentally broken.
And yet, after all this, one still has to have the train actually turn up; in the case of Southern Rail this is not a safe bet. If - and that's a big if - this ticketing system reduces the prices then I'll give it a try but the train companies do not have a good track record (sorry!) when it comes to refraining from bleeding their customers dry. Something similar already works quite well on buses and the Tube so who knows? I'll try to contain my amazement when the whole thing falls flat on its face and people go back to having to use price comparison websites to find a ticket without needing a mortgage to pay for the blasted thing.
There's more than just the fuel. I'm not saying the comparison is correct, but you need to account for things like the engine as well. Electric cars have motors instead of an engine, but they are much smaller as well as lighter than an ICE engine and a lot of the ancillaries (alternator, radiator, braking system etc.) can be reduced in size or removed entirely in an electric.
Most of these jobs will be construction work actually building the plant. Many of those will be workers who already have a job in construction but now have a juicy contract to look forward to, and the remainder will be labourers whose jobs will only last until the plant is finished. Throw in a handful further up and down the supply chains if you're feeling generous.
Job creation figures are the last statistics that one should be taking at face value.
A business is not obligated to subsidize your choice to work a low paying job.
Of course they are, because otherwise the taxpayer ends up doing it.
Uber is for college students who want to make extra money running people around.
To drive for Uber in the UK you need to be a) 21 or over, which rules out anyone who isn't in their final year or hasn't already graduated and b) own a car registered in 2008 or later. Not many cash-strapped students drive at all much less in a new(ish) car.
If you're sinking all your time into a low paying job instead of an education then that's your problem.
No, it's society's problem. Some people are never going to get anything better than a minimum wage job, not out of idleness or other moral failing, just because that's the limit of what they can do. Don't pretend that there's always a choice involved on their part. Either we as a society make employers pay a wage that people in that situation can live on or we accept having vast numbers of people on state aid. Whichever one we opt for, the public end up paying for it.
If a person is genuinely learning/training for most of their day then the odds are that they're already on state aid or they aren't a breadwinner.
To pre-empt your likely rebuttal, let me ask you a rhetorical question: do you really think anyone would do the sort of work that pays the minimum wage by choice? They're usually very shitty jobs, sometimes literally so.
This is why Uber is very interested in autonomous vehicles.
A company wants to automate its workforce. I'll try to contain my amazement.
Those people working 40 hours a week being silly are going to find Uber force them to work only 20 hours a week or put them out of work completely.
Why? The only reason to have twice as many drivers working half the time (that I can think of) is to reduce the average wait time for each fare and to increase the number of short journeys you can cover in a given time, but you lose some of that extra profit by doubling your per-driver overhead. Smaller (i.e. barely profitable) companies sometimes have to reduce their workforce when minimum wages are increased, but something tells me that Uber isn't one of them.
Your pay is based on productivity per hour. Not simply showing up per hour.
Being paid piecemeal is the exception, not the rule. In cases where it is done the pay per unit is calculated so that an average worker will usually end up receiving at least the minimum wage anyway. No-one is advocating that people be paid for simply turning up for work; if a salaried or hourly paid employee doesn't pull their weight you warn them, give them a reasonable chance to improve and then sack them if they don't.
What sort of DBMS are they using that doesn't notify the admin when a table is nearly full? What sort of client are they using that doesn't tell the user when an attempt to write to a DB fails?
It puzzles me that so many expensive premium phones expoxy in the battery...
Because glue takes up a lot less space than removable fasteners. It's the same thing that makes laptop screens such a monumental pain in the arse to work on. Next question?
People already have a computer in their pocket, as suggested in the first sentence. Besides a universal I/O bus, what does this offer? Why not just create a universal expansion port for cell phones? The market will be far larger there, instead of creating another entry into the home-brew computing line-up.
Batteries (and screens) take up a lot of space that one could otherwise use for more useful things. Still, I can't see what problem the Compute Card (or phone docking, for that matter) will solve; if you're going somewhere with a free KV&M there's probably already a computer there.
Why would you want to carry around a computer that you can't use on the way?
Slashdot Mirror
It seems you're concentrating so much your diatribe that you aren't even bothering to note who it is you're replying to.
Don't bother writing any more replies on my account; it's not worth the effort of sifting through them for an actual point.
Did you miss the part about not buying a WiiU because there was nothing in the catalogue to make it worth it? A single Zelda game, no matter how good, is not going to change that. What appears to be a rehash of the Wii ones definitely won't.
I'm not going to be a Switch just for this one game and I doubt I'll see any later additions to the catalogue that will make me change my mind. I bought a Wii for Twilight Princess, the Metroid Trilogy and Mario Galaxy, which was just about enough to justify the expense. The WiiU was unashamedly gimmick, there were no games to make it worth buying and unfortunately the Switch has gone even further down that path.
I'll just have to give this one a miss; not even a new Zelda game is enough to make me buy a Switch and frankly I'm all Mario'd out after galaxy took away most of what I liked in that series. The next time I feel a pang for Zelda I'll most likely just fire up Majora's Mask in an emulator, and in a way I think that's sad.
"For life" doesn't necessarily mean "for long".
I do. I don't use it enough to get anywhere near my data cap and I'm not going to pay for Spotify, Apple Music etc.. Plus, I can listen to things besides music.
The ones that really get me are the Tyler Oakley ones with that irritating chirpy voice and oh-so-punchable face. I only seem to get them when I'm using 3G/4G but happily enough when I use the skip button on my car's steering wheel I can skip them entirely.
If that guy is the face of new media I want no part of it. He has the bearing of a children's TV presenter, which must explain why Disney are so keen.
I still have one of those, and a T39 (a much better phone). The drawback of making it so thin was that most of the working parts ended up crammed up at the top. It may be because of this, or for another design decision, that there was no room for an internal antenna so the T28 had a huge (even by the standards of the time) antenna sticking out of the top.
Still it was a really solid phone. Battery life wasn't great, unsurprisingly given the tiny battery, and the software was slow but they were quite clever in making the best use out of a three line display and that huge antenna made for good call quality.
The fact remains that you could stack two or even perhaps three iPhones and still be thinner than the T28. I'm not saying this is good or bad but if nothing else it's food for thought on how far the technology has progressed.
So how did Nokia candy bar phones with their black and white screens, ugly (by todays "standards") cases, and thick dimentions sell so well in 2002?
Because there wasn't anything else. Obviously. When the 8210 was released they couldn't sell them fast enough, and the USP of that model was... you guessed it, size. Same thing with the Motorola v66.
Sabine Schmidtz is the lady you're referring to. I'm sure I've mangled the spelling.
As memory serves she did the aforementioned lap in a Ford Transit.
Did you? That must explain all the glowing praise I read here about US TV providers.
[Wikipedia] has a proven track record of demonstrably false articles messed up by random people.
The Mail has a similar track record intentionally created by a handful of deliberately chosen people and it's on paper which means, for reasons I don't understand, makes it more credible for most people.
Guess which one I think is worse.
I do wonder why the scientific temperature scale isn't logarithmic...
Because that would make the really fundamental things like the ideal gas law unnecessarily complicated.
Actually getting on the train isn't where people waste time. It takes ten times as long to find the ticket you need to buy from the dozen or so alternatives with slightly different names and wildly diverging prices (that are all nevertheless exorbitant) as it does to walk through an automated barrier.
I had to travel from one end of the UK to the other recently and - this still baffles me - it would have cost about a third as much to fly from Newcastle via Paris to Exeter then back again than it would to get an off-peak return ticket for the train. I'd have probably had more leg room to boot. If I still had a passport I'd have been very tempted to accidentally miss my connecting flight. Think about that for a second... an international flight was significantly cheaper and only marginally longer than taking the train. Something about that just seems fundamentally broken.
And yet, after all this, one still has to have the train actually turn up; in the case of Southern Rail this is not a safe bet. If - and that's a big if - this ticketing system reduces the prices then I'll give it a try but the train companies do not have a good track record (sorry!) when it comes to refraining from bleeding their customers dry. Something similar already works quite well on buses and the Tube so who knows? I'll try to contain my amazement when the whole thing falls flat on its face and people go back to having to use price comparison websites to find a ticket without needing a mortgage to pay for the blasted thing.
There's more than just the fuel. I'm not saying the comparison is correct, but you need to account for things like the engine as well. Electric cars have motors instead of an engine, but they are much smaller as well as lighter than an ICE engine and a lot of the ancillaries (alternator, radiator, braking system etc.) can be reduced in size or removed entirely in an electric.
If you're going to drive don't drink at all, it's really that simple. Don't give people an excuse to try and drink as much as they can get away with.
Like the good man said, if you have to worry about drinking too much it's a sure sign you're not to be trusted when you do.
Since when has there been an award category for "deepest pockets"?
Bezos may want to win an Oscar, but until he actually makes a movie he never will.
Most of these jobs will be construction work actually building the plant. Many of those will be workers who already have a job in construction but now have a juicy contract to look forward to, and the remainder will be labourers whose jobs will only last until the plant is finished. Throw in a handful further up and down the supply chains if you're feeling generous.
Job creation figures are the last statistics that one should be taking at face value.
Uber drivers are self-employed contractors and the drivers are effectively small business owners.
Yes and Uber is a ride-sharing company, absolutely nothing like a hackney carriage operator...
A business is not obligated to subsidize your choice to work a low paying job.
Of course they are, because otherwise the taxpayer ends up doing it.
Uber is for college students who want to make extra money running people around.
To drive for Uber in the UK you need to be a) 21 or over, which rules out anyone who isn't in their final year or hasn't already graduated and b) own a car registered in 2008 or later. Not many cash-strapped students drive at all much less in a new(ish) car.
If you're sinking all your time into a low paying job instead of an education then that's your problem.
No, it's society's problem. Some people are never going to get anything better than a minimum wage job, not out of idleness or other moral failing, just because that's the limit of what they can do. Don't pretend that there's always a choice involved on their part. Either we as a society make employers pay a wage that people in that situation can live on or we accept having vast numbers of people on state aid. Whichever one we opt for, the public end up paying for it.
If a person is genuinely learning/training for most of their day then the odds are that they're already on state aid or they aren't a breadwinner.
To pre-empt your likely rebuttal, let me ask you a rhetorical question: do you really think anyone would do the sort of work that pays the minimum wage by choice? They're usually very shitty jobs, sometimes literally so.
This is why Uber is very interested in autonomous vehicles.
A company wants to automate its workforce. I'll try to contain my amazement.
Those people working 40 hours a week being silly are going to find Uber force them to work only 20 hours a week or put them out of work completely.
Why? The only reason to have twice as many drivers working half the time (that I can think of) is to reduce the average wait time for each fare and to increase the number of short journeys you can cover in a given time, but you lose some of that extra profit by doubling your per-driver overhead. Smaller (i.e. barely profitable) companies sometimes have to reduce their workforce when minimum wages are increased, but something tells me that Uber isn't one of them.
Your pay is based on productivity per hour. Not simply showing up per hour.
Being paid piecemeal is the exception, not the rule. In cases where it is done the pay per unit is calculated so that an average worker will usually end up receiving at least the minimum wage anyway. No-one is advocating that people be paid for simply turning up for work; if a salaried or hourly paid employee doesn't pull their weight you warn them, give them a reasonable chance to improve and then sack them if they don't.
What sort of DBMS are they using that doesn't notify the admin when a table is nearly full? What sort of client are they using that doesn't tell the user when an attempt to write to a DB fails?
And yet it'll still sell like crazy when it launches.
Like the Wii U?
If they do, I'll probably lose a couple of weeks to that when I pick it up.
I've got some good news for you: they made it point and click.
Or murderous robots from the future.
It puzzles me that so many expensive premium phones expoxy in the battery...
Because glue takes up a lot less space than removable fasteners. It's the same thing that makes laptop screens such a monumental pain in the arse to work on. Next question?
People already have a computer in their pocket, as suggested in the first sentence. Besides a universal I/O bus, what does this offer? Why not just create a universal expansion port for cell phones? The market will be far larger there, instead of creating another entry into the home-brew computing line-up.
Batteries (and screens) take up a lot of space that one could otherwise use for more useful things. Still, I can't see what problem the Compute Card (or phone docking, for that matter) will solve; if you're going somewhere with a free KV&M there's probably already a computer there.
Why would you want to carry around a computer that you can't use on the way?