Wow, you're the first person I've seen that suggests the president should be picked by an even more skewed electoral college than we have. Taking the side that the candidate up by six points should be losing.
Yeah, it's a solved issue for a drip coffee maker, I still don't think it handles the instance of a kettle.
Though, maybe a drip coffee maker with no grounds would be a good way to achieve the result of correct temperature hot water when I walk downstairs.
I'd rather have smart lights (or a second switch next to my bed), but I can definitely see a (small) value in being able to tell my kettle when to start from any room in the house. Especially the bedroom.
It'd mean coffee four minutes earlier in the morning.
For coffee it's cool to just set the time, because if it sits for some time it's no biggie, but for tea (or if you use a French Press or Aero Press), where the kettle will eventually become cool, and need to be reheated.
I'm not trying to claim it's some earth shattering breakthrough, but having a kettle of perfect temp water when I walk down stairs is exactly the type of mild convenience I would hope IoT provides 1000 different little ways a day.
Do I need it? no. Will it mildly improve the quality of my life? yes.
I really wish they stuck with Gnome2, and kept it going.
You know, the desktop that Sun invested real UI research into.
That seems like it would have given the best shot at achieving their primary goal.
I really liked Gnome 2 though, the first time I booted into it, it was like, this is nice, all my takes at the bottom, and menus at the top. no wasted space like the OSX dock.
I think "could've" is probably best, both phonetically and conveying what's said, but could of is certainly closer than could av is closer than could af.
But I guess part of the problem with phonetic spelling is that it's regional...
OK, the $100 can make sense I suppose, I never really cut the cord, so I may be bad example (I simply was didn't have the money for cable, and then slowly added services), but still.
I don't believe that cable loss exactly equals customer savings, there must be some people that also subscribe to a service or two.
And yeah, streaming is way better than dealing with cable. Slow clunky navigation, large annoying boxes.
The numbers seem way off (and prove false) in the summary.
If the average cord cutter saves 104/month, then the cable companies are losing more than that (as the average cord cutter is at the very least paying for one replacement content provider).
I currently pay 102/month, 65 (internet), 12 (hulu), 10 (netflix). I'm contemplating dropping netflix and HBO, and to watch thos shows with people I know (I do that primarily anyway). With Cable, I'd be at a similar price, Internet + Very Basic cable (broadcast channels) + HBO, around $95.00, add in netflix, I'm at $105,Hulu has some original content I like, but I would probably not pay for it just to avoid ad on new content, and just stop watching Casual and Difficult People.
So effectively, I save nothing nothing not having cable, but I don't have to deal with a remote, or their stupid box, or navigating their miserable on-demand, and I get recent broadcast fad free.
I suspect the typical person saves $25/month dropping cable though (having only one of netflix, hulu, hbo).
The TV adjustment seems pretty reasonable to me (if we're talking year on year).
I suspect towards the end of CRTs availability, sticking with 27" CRTs would have resulted in larger negative inflation, not less. In reality, nobody was replacing a 27" CRT with a 42" Plasma at that price increase within a year.
The reality is that TVs have overall been getting less expensive or holding fairly steady.
1996, TV is 490 2011 dollars, or 340 nominal cost, in 2011 it's 319.
in 77 a TV a discontinued 25" TV was nominally $530.
TVs have been roughly the same nominal cost, or slightly negative for much of the time since their inception (not as extreme as that -7% from the BLS page, but it's not fair to pretend they went up 400% as you imply either.
that 27" CRT was replaced either for a very cheap CRT, or a roughly the same nominal price 32 inch flat-screen.
I assume all mid range consumer Wi-Fi will within the next year.
I purchased a ubiquity access point to do this, it's actually pretty cheap of you already have a router, and the long range was enough that I don't need a second one anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that's true, I think very easily either of them, espiacialky trump, could pull a plurality.
If everybody voted for who they wanted, I'd bet 35% trump. 30% Johnson. 25% Hillary 10% Stein.
The electoral college favors trump..
Wow, you're the first person I've seen that suggests the president should be picked by an even more skewed electoral college than we have. Taking the side that the candidate up by six points should be losing.
There was no power button?!
that's just idiotic
And we're not even getting the enriching experience of reverse engineering the kettle to make it work with an Echo.
Clearly a lot.
Yeah, it's a solved issue for a drip coffee maker, I still don't think it handles the instance of a kettle.
Though, maybe a drip coffee maker with no grounds would be a good way to achieve the result of correct temperature hot water when I walk downstairs.
I'd rather have smart lights (or a second switch next to my bed), but I can definitely see a (small) value in being able to tell my kettle when to start from any room in the house. Especially the bedroom.
It'd mean coffee four minutes earlier in the morning.
For coffee it's cool to just set the time, because if it sits for some time it's no biggie, but for tea (or if you use a French Press or Aero Press), where the kettle will eventually become cool, and need to be reheated.
I'm not trying to claim it's some earth shattering breakthrough, but having a kettle of perfect temp water when I walk down stairs is exactly the type of mild convenience I would hope IoT provides 1000 different little ways a day.
Do I need it? no. Will it mildly improve the quality of my life? yes.
That's cool, you keep it on your bedstand?
Actually, Being able to tell my kettle to start heating as soon as I wake up would be useful.
You can't do the that for a document taped to a last known address either, or an ad in a newspaper.
Those are both accepted for various things after good faith efforts for more direct contact fail.
This case will likely go undefended, a judgement received, and then that person won't be able to have US assets.
In the end, it'll just be feel good.
The total bar height was the same as a KDE default bar or gnome panel from the last time I tried gnome.
Lack of accountability is valid, but I also think overblown, I used compiz as a window manager though.
I really wish they stuck with Gnome2, and kept it going.
You know, the desktop that Sun invested real UI research into.
That seems like it would have given the best shot at achieving their primary goal.
I really liked Gnome 2 though, the first time I booted into it, it was like, this is nice, all my takes at the bottom, and menus at the top. no wasted space like the OSX dock.
I think "could've" is probably best, both phonetically and conveying what's said, but could of is certainly closer than could av is closer than could af.
But I guess part of the problem with phonetic spelling is that it's regional...
Because nobody would say "have" in that situation, they'd say " 've"
the word "of" has it's own issues, but one at a time.
Because they're trying to unfuck our spelling by making it phonetic.
And it's could've if you're writing conversationally (IMO).
Also, pretty sure GWB was into his blackberry.
I do think I recall president Clinton being the first to use email.
I love that there's 3 different whole points to buying from google.
Clearly everyone had different reasons.
For me it was:
1) Stock Android
2) Price
3) root for the early versions, but adding screenshot to the OS reduced that for me
4) Custom ROMs
In that order.
Chicken and pork are fairly sustainable (when measuring both water and co2 per gram protein), both in line with efficient vegetables.
Red meat is the real environmental disaster.
OK, the $100 can make sense I suppose, I never really cut the cord, so I may be bad example (I simply was didn't have the money for cable, and then slowly added services), but still.
I don't believe that cable loss exactly equals customer savings, there must be some people that also subscribe to a service or two.
And yeah, streaming is way better than dealing with cable. Slow clunky navigation, large annoying boxes.
The numbers seem way off (and prove false) in the summary.
If the average cord cutter saves 104/month, then the cable companies are losing more than that (as the average cord cutter is at the very least paying for one replacement content provider).
I currently pay 102/month, 65 (internet), 12 (hulu), 10 (netflix). I'm contemplating dropping netflix and HBO, and to watch thos shows with people I know (I do that primarily anyway). With Cable, I'd be at a similar price, Internet + Very Basic cable (broadcast channels) + HBO, around $95.00, add in netflix, I'm at $105,Hulu has some original content I like, but I would probably not pay for it just to avoid ad on new content, and just stop watching Casual and Difficult People.
So effectively, I save nothing nothing not having cable, but I don't have to deal with a remote, or their stupid box, or navigating their miserable on-demand, and I get recent broadcast fad free.
I suspect the typical person saves $25/month dropping cable though (having only one of netflix, hulu, hbo).
Could be a reference to Michael Jordan
The TV adjustment seems pretty reasonable to me (if we're talking year on year).
I suspect towards the end of CRTs availability, sticking with 27" CRTs would have resulted in larger negative inflation, not less. In reality, nobody was replacing a 27" CRT with a 42" Plasma at that price increase within a year.
The reality is that TVs have overall been getting less expensive or holding fairly steady.
1996, TV is 490 2011 dollars, or 340 nominal cost, in 2011 it's 319.
in 77 a TV a discontinued 25" TV was nominally $530.
TVs have been roughly the same nominal cost, or slightly negative for much of the time since their inception (not as extreme as that -7% from the BLS page, but it's not fair to pretend they went up 400% as you imply either.
that 27" CRT was replaced either for a very cheap CRT, or a roughly the same nominal price 32 inch flat-screen.
sources:
https://theawl.com/how-much-mo...
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cp...
Your point stands to a point, but it's not quite as extreme as you imply it.
Good to know.
I was pretty sure they did, but wasn't certain.
I ended up only needing one access point once I got my ubuquiti anyway (I get excellent coverage in my small house now, and the front and back yards).
I believe apple airports do this.
I assume all mid range consumer Wi-Fi will within the next year.
I purchased a ubiquity access point to do this, it's actually pretty cheap of you already have a router, and the long range was enough that I don't need a second one anyway.
This makes no sense, I dont recall 27 inch tube TVs screens ever being that cheap, and now a 27 inch flat screen is closer to $100.
I need more context to understand what you're saying.