When Atari brought about the 1983 video game crash with its terrible business management, it left a void which would be filled by bedroom coders working on platforms which weren't originally intended to run games. Armed with micro computers of the period – such as the Apple II, Commodore 64 and ZX Spectrum – these wide-eyed youngsters created some of the most daring and original titles the industry has ever seen; there were no rules, so they wrote them. These are just a few of them:
The 1980s – The Bedroom Era" Then in the next "The 1990s – Shareware Takes Over", which really wasn't quite 1990, but early 90's. The article claims there was a gap in indy development with the NES and Sega, and it wasn't until "real games" came to the PC.
On a highway, the car 2 lanes away could likely go to the shoulder, making space for the car one lane away, making space for the car that needed space.
This could likely be done in time for the car that needed space (let's say to avoid a huge object that wasn't properly strapped down to a truck bed, something that theoretically could be unavoidable, even within the parameters of conservative driving).
If I'm driving down the highway, with my safe following distance, and for example, a car falls off a car carrier, I'm likely to swerve to avoid it, hoping space just happens, or, if it doesn't, I glance off the car and everyone starts to stop, rather than hitting a stationary object, I glance off a car going about my speed, then get hit by one that's slowed down.
This may not be right, or even safest, but it is likely where my instinct would take me. on most highways, if the cars talked at the speed of light, and were all autonomous, space could be may, even if it did need to cascade multiple lanes away. Though, perhaps not, because if all cars are autonomous, they should probably be inches away, or even attached.
I'm not Google's customer, I am their asset (my use of their products is how they make their money), they have some vested interest in me for that alone (after all, they are paying for me to have the car apparently). It's not like customers are always treated better than assets.
Well, I choose to buy a beer at a bar fairly regularly, is that horrible unethical? certainly better things could be done than me drinking a beer in the company of acquaintances.
When action becomes a requirement, I find you start getting into people trying to control others to do the right thing as the logical extension.
I'm not really trying to argue, but would like a good response, as i struggle with issues along these while trying to maintain sanity in my daily life (not like hyper emo, over-struggle, nor does sanity ever really escape, just something I ponder and feel some guilt about at times, I went with the Unitarian prescription of donating 3% to charity and not actively being bad).
Studies show (primarily focused on car security, with areas that have lots of lojak ) that increased rate of capture greatly reduces theft, which is a public good. It's not that one phone really matters, but the increase from 0 to 5 percent capture rate on theft of an item over $500 would reduce the overall theft rate.
Currently the leaf is 29k, it'll be interesting to see what Tesla actually ends up with, and where Nissan (and others presumably) are by then, but I would expect a 10k price difference still.
It's also a way to offer some level of job security in a field with rapidly changing local demand, a field that pays decent, but many of the benefits come in long-term job security and stability.
My ex was a teacher, and tenure was a big deal, the state often would change funding levels, laying off close to 10% of staff (we watched student:teacher ratios vary from 25:1 to 30:1 while class sized got smaller). Without tenure there was no way to plan on staying in the same area for even the middle term.
I think that's a little extreme (1,000,000 unearned), but agree in principal.
I was pretty upset that the "tax the wealthy" bill was called such, to say that earning $250,000/year makes one wealthy is absurd. Those people will likely become wealthy at some point, but they hardly are wealthy when they start.
I'd say wealthy means you have enough to be getting 6 figures after reinvesting to match inflation, and millionaire would be someone with over 1000000 liquid and disposable.
I imagine it would start to hit a gray area, certainly they can't use their gmail info, because they'd be an insider, but it could be argued that searching could be insider info. I think they'd have a hard time doing it legally.
I assume things were invented, because people were bored. Life is boring, there's only so much leisure one can tolerate with nothing to do.
From that comes creativity and inventiveness, and here we are now.
My friend volunteered in the fringes of Zambia, and they were farmers with nothing but time too, the natives had long absurd greetings, and walked with a slow shuffle, just to fill time.
The Egyptians got bored, and built the pyramids (an early example of a society that managed to get a healthy diet farming).
In the end though, I think it comes to population of the tribe, you choose to hunt gather with 50-200 people, unless God is backing you (such as the old testament), my civilization of 500+ people will crush you. Game theory and non-optimum equilibrium or something...
I agree with your second quote, if there was an active campaign to prevent his right to say what he wants, the people that contributed to it would be assholes.
But customers get to chose who they do commerce with (businesses don't necessarily, fortunately personhood doesn't extend all the way). The customer base did not want him running the organization, and by searching in the search-box, we are all the customer base (that are users).
The issue isn't his beliefs, it's his active attempt to limit the rights of others for no reason except for either religion or he thinks it's icky (I haven't heard any other excuses from anybody, but perhaps he has a different reason).
No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.
Pretty sure it's phrased that way to cover resignations.
I'm more curious about who the alleged employer was that pressured him out? OK Cupid? Random People on the internet? People that are clearly the employee side of the relationship?
I'm pretty sure that if electrics had double the range as gas cars, people would not complain about charge times (500-600 being reasonable for a modern midsized car last I checked). As it is they are instead half that distance.
When I drove home from Nashville in a car with a 350 mile range, a one hour fill time would have turned a long day travel into a two day trip (2 or 3 fill-ups over 11 hours), I was young, and aside from gas stopped once for food at a rest stop, the electric, assuming optimal location of chargers, would have added 20% to my travel time. 1000 miles on the other hand changes everything.
Also, the 300 mile range is at 55MPH, at 70 (legal or 5 over on much of the long haul drives) you're down to 240 (my 350 was at 70MPH).
Using the non topped off charge technique at a super charger gets you 170 per 30 minutes charge, take out the 20% for actual highway speeds and you're at 140 for 30 minutes charge, that 30 minutes for every two hours driving, a far cry from 8 hours for 16 hours.
Keep in mind that a standard wall outlet take 60 hours to charge current capacity, a 240 40A one takes 9. A standard charge station, so we're still a ways away from charging double the capacity in the 8 hours when traveling, but certainly 8 hours for 1000 miles would work.
I don't think Buzz was a turd, as I said, we used it a lot.
Wave on the otherhand absolutely was. I really wanted to be able to use it, to collaboratively post in a discussion style thing, with threaded responses.
It's biggest flaw was they didn't integrate it into mail, Waves should have sat like conversation threads, and bumped back up to the top when updated. The everything real time would be the second.
I think each step has gotten worse. Google plus is exacty what I don't want in another service, in that it's connected to everybody.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what we read the same article:
When Atari brought about the 1983 video game crash with its terrible business management, it left a void which would be filled by bedroom coders working on platforms which weren't originally intended to run games. Armed with micro computers of the period – such as the Apple II, Commodore 64 and ZX Spectrum – these wide-eyed youngsters created some of the most daring and original titles the industry has ever seen; there were no rules, so they wrote them. These are just a few of them:
The 1980s – The Bedroom Era"
Then in the next "The 1990s – Shareware Takes Over", which really wasn't quite 1990, but early 90's. The article claims there was a gap in indy development with the NES and Sega, and it wasn't until "real games" came to the PC.
On a highway, the car 2 lanes away could likely go to the shoulder, making space for the car one lane away, making space for the car that needed space.
This could likely be done in time for the car that needed space (let's say to avoid a huge object that wasn't properly strapped down to a truck bed, something that theoretically could be unavoidable, even within the parameters of conservative driving).
If I'm driving down the highway, with my safe following distance, and for example, a car falls off a car carrier, I'm likely to swerve to avoid it, hoping space just happens, or, if it doesn't, I glance off the car and everyone starts to stop, rather than hitting a stationary object, I glance off a car going about my speed, then get hit by one that's slowed down.
This may not be right, or even safest, but it is likely where my instinct would take me. on most highways, if the cars talked at the speed of light, and were all autonomous, space could be may, even if it did need to cascade multiple lanes away. Though, perhaps not, because if all cars are autonomous, they should probably be inches away, or even attached.
I'm not Google's customer, I am their asset (my use of their products is how they make their money), they have some vested interest in me for that alone (after all, they are paying for me to have the car apparently). It's not like customers are always treated better than assets.
Well, I choose to buy a beer at a bar fairly regularly, is that horrible unethical? certainly better things could be done than me drinking a beer in the company of acquaintances.
When action becomes a requirement, I find you start getting into people trying to control others to do the right thing as the logical extension.
I'm not really trying to argue, but would like a good response, as i struggle with issues along these while trying to maintain sanity in my daily life (not like hyper emo, over-struggle, nor does sanity ever really escape, just something I ponder and feel some guilt about at times, I went with the Unitarian prescription of donating 3% to charity and not actively being bad).
Plagiarism is legal, unless it rises to fraud.
Studies show (primarily focused on car security, with areas that have lots of lojak ) that increased rate of capture greatly reduces theft, which is a public good. It's not that one phone really matters, but the increase from 0 to 5 percent capture rate on theft of an item over $500 would reduce the overall theft rate.
Bars in the seedier parts of Brooklyn would do the same thing.
I want a personal experiance.
I like my Google cards on my phone, I like ads for things I am shopping for from smaller companies I've not heard of.
Yes, thank you.
I agree 100%, I see ads of things I actually want, from brands I don't know.
The google cards on my phone are great, finding information about products I searched for, and news updates about subjects.
The personalized experience is fantastic.
Currently the leaf is 29k, it'll be interesting to see what Tesla actually ends up with, and where Nissan (and others presumably) are by then, but I would expect a 10k price difference still.
The wrist! that's exactly what I was thinking, actually, I was coming to post with the exact phrasing as you.
it looked far lower impact than swinging a maul though, so perhaps the increased efficiency makes the wrist not hurt.
It's also a way to offer some level of job security in a field with rapidly changing local demand, a field that pays decent, but many of the benefits come in long-term job security and stability.
My ex was a teacher, and tenure was a big deal, the state often would change funding levels, laying off close to 10% of staff (we watched student:teacher ratios vary from 25:1 to 30:1 while class sized got smaller). Without tenure there was no way to plan on staying in the same area for even the middle term.
I think that's a little extreme (1,000,000 unearned), but agree in principal.
I was pretty upset that the "tax the wealthy" bill was called such, to say that earning $250,000/year makes one wealthy is absurd. Those people will likely become wealthy at some point, but they hardly are wealthy when they start.
I'd say wealthy means you have enough to be getting 6 figures after reinvesting to match inflation, and millionaire would be someone with over 1000000 liquid and disposable.
I imagine it would start to hit a gray area, certainly they can't use their gmail info, because they'd be an insider, but it could be argued that searching could be insider info. I think they'd have a hard time doing it legally.
And size.
A 10 inch tablet, with a good screen is a way more pleasant device than a 13 inch tablet, likely twice the weight and thickness, with a 2001 screen.
I'm pretty sure property exchange is no longer part of the marriage process, at least in the west.
Pray tell?
I'm skeptical that one exists that doesn't require procreative marriage.
And we'll just agree that "traditional" is the traditions of the post christian western world.
I assume things were invented, because people were bored. Life is boring, there's only so much leisure one can tolerate with nothing to do.
From that comes creativity and inventiveness, and here we are now.
My friend volunteered in the fringes of Zambia, and they were farmers with nothing but time too, the natives had long absurd greetings, and walked with a slow shuffle, just to fill time.
The Egyptians got bored, and built the pyramids (an early example of a society that managed to get a healthy diet farming).
In the end though, I think it comes to population of the tribe, you choose to hunt gather with 50-200 people, unless God is backing you (such as the old testament), my civilization of 500+ people will crush you. Game theory and non-optimum equilibrium or something...
People already were, for not just embracing their same sexiness, but allowing for open and casual relationships too.
Nobody cares.
I agree with your second quote, if there was an active campaign to prevent his right to say what he wants, the people that contributed to it would be assholes.
But customers get to chose who they do commerce with (businesses don't necessarily, fortunately personhood doesn't extend all the way). The customer base did not want him running the organization, and by searching in the search-box, we are all the customer base (that are users).
The issue isn't his beliefs, it's his active attempt to limit the rights of others for no reason except for either religion or he thinks it's icky (I haven't heard any other excuses from anybody, but perhaps he has a different reason).
No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.
Pretty sure it's phrased that way to cover resignations.
I'm more curious about who the alleged employer was that pressured him out? OK Cupid? Random People on the internet? People that are clearly the employee side of the relationship?
I'm pretty sure that if electrics had double the range as gas cars, people would not complain about charge times (500-600 being reasonable for a modern midsized car last I checked). As it is they are instead half that distance.
When I drove home from Nashville in a car with a 350 mile range, a one hour fill time would have turned a long day travel into a two day trip (2 or 3 fill-ups over 11 hours), I was young, and aside from gas stopped once for food at a rest stop, the electric, assuming optimal location of chargers, would have added 20% to my travel time. 1000 miles on the other hand changes everything.
Also, the 300 mile range is at 55MPH, at 70 (legal or 5 over on much of the long haul drives) you're down to 240 (my 350 was at 70MPH).
Using the non topped off charge technique at a super charger gets you 170 per 30 minutes charge, take out the 20% for actual highway speeds and you're at 140 for 30 minutes charge, that 30 minutes for every two hours driving, a far cry from 8 hours for 16 hours.
Keep in mind that a standard wall outlet take 60 hours to charge current capacity, a 240 40A one takes 9. A standard charge station, so we're still a ways away from charging double the capacity in the 8 hours when traveling, but certainly 8 hours for 1000 miles would work.
And many journeys where the endpoint is more than half the range.
I don't think Buzz was a turd, as I said, we used it a lot.
Wave on the otherhand absolutely was. I really wanted to be able to use it, to collaboratively post in a discussion style thing, with threaded responses.
It's biggest flaw was they didn't integrate it into mail, Waves should have sat like conversation threads, and bumped back up to the top when updated. The everything real time would be the second.
I think each step has gotten worse. Google plus is exacty what I don't want in another service, in that it's connected to everybody.