I guess I'm not considering lighter smokers (and not RTFA), I could totally see the money swaying a few a pack a week smoker and I know a couple of them (I'm skeptical that they're being honest with how many they actually smoke, but that doesn't matter when calculating what they think they spend).
Also, someone that buys by the pack may not see $6/day as $180/month, so $100 up front may help.
Also, if they self report, lies/truth bending are a thing. Like, if I were to lose $300 for saying I bummed a smoke at the bar two weeks ago, I'd never admit it, but if it was to test the effectiveness of vapes, I'd be completely honest.
Lastly, I'm really skeptical they used good vapes. I tried to quit with vaping twice, on tiny lil things, the worst. But a 100w modbox with all day battery, and all day tank did the trick (don't use even close to 100w, but those are the ones with the all day battery).
Aside: I think Europe's 2ml tank law is a big mistake, it will make it much harder to step down nicotine (whenever I step down nicotine I go through tanks quickly for a few days, it's a pain, but I've done it five times and soon I'll be at zero), and even when at a nice balance, kind of be a pain. I don't see the point of 10ml bottle limits either, but actually think the required testing is OK.
Comcast buys the original, but keeps it as a separate entity (keeps the shares as existing, not giving a portion of Comcast shares to the company's shareholders)
21st Century Fox still owns X-men
It's likely why the deal is structured that way even.
It depends on how this effects investing, since they aren't really making money, but this should reduce their burn rate significantly.
If a driver makes $12/hour (I feel I read that's what they make after accounting for other costs) it'll take at least 2 years for a self driving car to recoup the cost of a full time driver (a self driving car could in theory replace 2+ drivers though). That's assuming around 20k mark up for the car (which I suspect is low).
Sure, a company with a reliable self-driving base fleet may have some advantages in costs, but I'm not sure how much. In exchange, they will have a harder time attracting drivers for the busy times, insufficient coverage during those times, or have to eat the cost of unused capital during slow times.
Self driving cars will likely be the future, but until the tech (1) exists, and (2) is quite inexpensive it will have a hard time competing with a ride sharing company that doesn't spend that R and D money.
Uber and Lyft both are going to face a serious crunch soon though if the economy keeps as it is, it will be more and more expensive to get drivers as they have more pressure to break even. The increased rates will eat into their edge in cities with functional cab services, and relegate them to areas such as small/medium sized cities, suburbs, and non-Manhattan New York.
I'm sure there's money in that, but not enough to support their massive valuations, and they'll really need to start getting profitable fast to keep alive rather than selling a dream that they pretty much just shut themselves out of.
I hope ride sharing exists, they really filled a need in my area that was unmet by the cab industry (actually showing up when you called for a casual ride was a game changer here).
I don't think Comcast really knows how to run a film studio either, which means there likely won't be many synergies.
I think it's defenive though, they don't want Disney to have Hulu and use it for Disney streaming. It would really weakened them vs Disney if Disney had a content distribution network and decent streaming service (Hulu is worse than Netflix, but better than. HBO in the quality of the app IMO, and Mike's above other random streaming services).
With that in mind, Disney would be a fool not to match/beat Comcast.
Get the X-Men back into the Marvel fold, and have a platform for their streaming service.
With Disney, Hulu would be super relevant to families with children, and likely eat into Netflix/have more double purchases. They also would have a lot of power over Comcast if they have another way to monitize casual watching of their content.
As a Hulu subscriber, I'd also rather Disney than Comcast (don't want either), as Disney has a vested interest in not being beholden to Comcast for the "channel flip" dollars.
I agree with your basic premise, but if it's as easy and realistic as people claim, it will be so prevalent as to not really even be seen as a problem for the victims I suspect (maybe I'm naive and optimistic, I'm willing to accept that).
Today, I'm sure it would be horribly traumatizing, but in a decade I suspect it will culturally be along the lines of someone claiming to have slept with you that hasn't (bullying/harassment, not assault).
600 MB vs 150 MB (good quality MP3) or 300 MB (FLAC) is pretty significant in the era of portable players.
I use a streaming service now, but when I was ripping my disks that was a fantasy. I wouldn't be shocked if my HD was only half a TB even (I forget), but my player was only 30GB. Only 60 CDs is a lot more limiting than 240.
How is it that you find new music then if you don't mind me asking?
I had a pretty dead patch of music discovery between college and streaming services, which is the main reason I switched from my library to a subscription (I had a subsonic server before getting spotify, then google music).
The gaps in the catalog of both can be frustrating, and baffling, but I've sideloaded a few hundred tracks that helped close them for me.
I've found it to give me a wide variety of options (probably not as broad as your lists, but across many genres of things that I like (a few types of "alternative", a few rock, a few hip hop, a few EDM, and some classical, I almost always like the lists, and often discover something new)).
It's I feel lucky button does a really good job of making a coherent list I want, unlike when I had Spotify and it was always very similar.
Maybe not for you, but it certainly does a decent job of broad taste.
I really like the ability to side load music too, that's helped me fill some gaps.
You'd probably be better served by Spotify if doing anything though, it has a more social aspect to the playlists and you'd likely be able to find something interesting there.
Google Play Music already does this, and it's great (time, location, past activity for time and location), the addition of covers and live bringing it to YouTube sounds excellent. The last YouTube music wasn't so good, barely (if at all) better than using plain old YouTube to find things.
It was how they integrated the curated playlists from the company they purchased before launching Play Music. At work, suggests playlists designed for focusing (no lyrics) or with radio edits for example.
That's my point. The DVD business is a HUGE portion, maybe even 50% of their profit.
I'm kind of surprised they aren't pushing it, though it's likely cheaper to run it as it shrinks than if they grew it or maintained it (as DVDs break, if customers reduce they don't need to replace them).
The streaming business is purchasing a lot of content too, I'm curious how long they depreciate the cost for, because it's quite possible that the streaming side is actually cash-flow negative and operating money comes from the DVD side.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, detoxing from alcohol is terrifying (haven't done it, but I've acompanied a couple friends through it).
It was every bit as bad as the heroine scene in train spotting.
Casual/social smokers too maybe?
I guess I'm not considering lighter smokers (and not RTFA), I could totally see the money swaying a few a pack a week smoker and I know a couple of them (I'm skeptical that they're being honest with how many they actually smoke, but that doesn't matter when calculating what they think they spend).
Also, someone that buys by the pack may not see $6/day as $180/month, so $100 up front may help.
Also, if they self report, lies/truth bending are a thing. Like, if I were to lose $300 for saying I bummed a smoke at the bar two weeks ago, I'd never admit it, but if it was to test the effectiveness of vapes, I'd be completely honest.
Lastly, I'm really skeptical they used good vapes. I tried to quit with vaping twice, on tiny lil things, the worst. But a 100w modbox with all day battery, and all day tank did the trick (don't use even close to 100w, but those are the ones with the all day battery).
Aside: I think Europe's 2ml tank law is a big mistake, it will make it much harder to step down nicotine (whenever I step down nicotine I go through tanks quickly for a few days, it's a pain, but I've done it five times and soon I'll be at zero), and even when at a nice balance, kind of be a pain. I don't see the point of 10ml bottle limits either, but actually think the required testing is OK.
I smoked a pack a day, and ended up using a vape (a mod box, not a little stick thing which has failed me in the past) to quit.
I save far more than the money they're talking about, and actually quit.
People buy a carton at a time, $100 isn't really much more than just quitting rather than buying a carton.
Thanks, it made sense NBC would have a studio, but I couldn't think of one.
Should have googled instead of weasel words I guess.
Can't Fox the entity still exist?
Fox spins off a second company
Comcast buys the original, but keeps it as a separate entity (keeps the shares as existing, not giving a portion of Comcast shares to the company's shareholders)
21st Century Fox still owns X-men
It's likely why the deal is structured that way even.
Is Uber profit crazy?
they don't seem to be doing it right if they are.
It depends on how this effects investing, since they aren't really making money, but this should reduce their burn rate significantly.
If a driver makes $12/hour (I feel I read that's what they make after accounting for other costs) it'll take at least 2 years for a self driving car to recoup the cost of a full time driver (a self driving car could in theory replace 2+ drivers though). That's assuming around 20k mark up for the car (which I suspect is low).
Sure, a company with a reliable self-driving base fleet may have some advantages in costs, but I'm not sure how much. In exchange, they will have a harder time attracting drivers for the busy times, insufficient coverage during those times, or have to eat the cost of unused capital during slow times.
Self driving cars will likely be the future, but until the tech (1) exists, and (2) is quite inexpensive it will have a hard time competing with a ride sharing company that doesn't spend that R and D money.
Uber and Lyft both are going to face a serious crunch soon though if the economy keeps as it is, it will be more and more expensive to get drivers as they have more pressure to break even. The increased rates will eat into their edge in cities with functional cab services, and relegate them to areas such as small/medium sized cities, suburbs, and non-Manhattan New York.
I'm sure there's money in that, but not enough to support their massive valuations, and they'll really need to start getting profitable fast to keep alive rather than selling a dream that they pretty much just shut themselves out of.
I hope ride sharing exists, they really filled a need in my area that was unmet by the cab industry (actually showing up when you called for a casual ride was a game changer here).
I don't think Comcast really knows how to run a film studio either, which means there likely won't be many synergies.
I think it's defenive though, they don't want Disney to have Hulu and use it for Disney streaming. It would really weakened them vs Disney if Disney had a content distribution network and decent streaming service (Hulu is worse than Netflix, but better than. HBO in the quality of the app IMO, and Mike's above other random streaming services).
With that in mind, Disney would be a fool not to match/beat Comcast.
Get the X-Men back into the Marvel fold, and have a platform for their streaming service.
With Disney, Hulu would be super relevant to families with children, and likely eat into Netflix/have more double purchases. They also would have a lot of power over Comcast if they have another way to monitize casual watching of their content.
As a Hulu subscriber, I'd also rather Disney than Comcast (don't want either), as Disney has a vested interest in not being beholden to Comcast for the "channel flip" dollars.
I'm not sure.
I agree with your basic premise, but if it's as easy and realistic as people claim, it will be so prevalent as to not really even be seen as a problem for the victims I suspect (maybe I'm naive and optimistic, I'm willing to accept that).
Today, I'm sure it would be horribly traumatizing, but in a decade I suspect it will culturally be along the lines of someone claiming to have slept with you that hasn't (bullying/harassment, not assault).
And if the issue is a piece of security software embedded in the equipment?
It sounds like it's a budgeting issue more than a capability one. They can't do it within their existing budget, not that they can't do it at all.
Especially the fact that it's low contrast, but it is the way it's been done for a while.
I don't know how long it took me to realize, but I noticed it months ago.
To the right of the title where they have been putting it for single source pieces for a while now.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/n...
No, that's what Firefox private browsing is for, duh.
600 MB vs 150 MB (good quality MP3) or 300 MB (FLAC) is pretty significant in the era of portable players.
I use a streaming service now, but when I was ripping my disks that was a fantasy. I wouldn't be shocked if my HD was only half a TB even (I forget), but my player was only 30GB. Only 60 CDs is a lot more limiting than 240.
How is it that you find new music then if you don't mind me asking?
I had a pretty dead patch of music discovery between college and streaming services, which is the main reason I switched from my library to a subscription (I had a subsonic server before getting spotify, then google music).
The gaps in the catalog of both can be frustrating, and baffling, but I've sideloaded a few hundred tracks that helped close them for me.
I find it less creepy to use that information to help me than to advertise, but yes, in a broad sense Google is creepy.
Music suggestions, good
Traffic alerts and alternate routes home 20 minutes before I leave work, also good.
I've not seen the live ones on play, but I definitely avoid them on YouTube.
I've had decent luck finding new things with I feel lucky and "similar to" lists, not so much for the radio.
I've found it to give me a wide variety of options (probably not as broad as your lists, but across many genres of things that I like (a few types of "alternative", a few rock, a few hip hop, a few EDM, and some classical, I almost always like the lists, and often discover something new)).
It's I feel lucky button does a really good job of making a coherent list I want, unlike when I had Spotify and it was always very similar.
Maybe not for you, but it certainly does a decent job of broad taste.
I really like the ability to side load music too, that's helped me fill some gaps.
You'd probably be better served by Spotify if doing anything though, it has a more social aspect to the playlists and you'd likely be able to find something interesting there.
Google Play Music already does this, and it's great (time, location, past activity for time and location), the addition of covers and live bringing it to YouTube sounds excellent. The last YouTube music wasn't so good, barely (if at all) better than using plain old YouTube to find things.
It was how they integrated the curated playlists from the company they purchased before launching Play Music. At work, suggests playlists designed for focusing (no lyrics) or with radio edits for example.
I agree.
That's my point. The DVD business is a HUGE portion, maybe even 50% of their profit.
I'm kind of surprised they aren't pushing it, though it's likely cheaper to run it as it shrinks than if they grew it or maintained it (as DVDs break, if customers reduce they don't need to replace them).
The streaming business is purchasing a lot of content too, I'm curious how long they depreciate the cost for, because it's quite possible that the streaming side is actually cash-flow negative and operating money comes from the DVD side.
They're erring on the side of caution, because they don't want lawsuits.
I think what you mean is "Management and Analytical Logging softWARE"
Because the:
1) have the power to do this relatively cost free
2) can say that "This comment is 100% definitely false".