The PC did have EGA by that point (16 colours from a selection of 64). This does only give 4 shades for each channel though, which is a bit limited. 16 bits per channel looks a bit ugly by today's standards but it does allow more flexiblity and hand drawn images can look pretty good.
Exactly. The reason they neither confirm or deny everything is because it makes everything equally uncertain. If they only said it about things they wanted to keep secret then that would reveal what they want to keep secret.
I'm no patent lawyer, so maybe I'm not up on the jargon, and maybe "Systems, methods, and vehicles for taking a vehicle out-of-service" means "detecting if someone is drunk", but the link here and in the article seem to point me to an unrelated patent.
If it measures parameters such as location, phone angle, typing accuracy and so on, and works out a probability score based on that then it is far more than an idea.
I have no idea if this is the case or not, but I presume it is.
No one but ultra-geeks and collectors were exited about those toys.
True, but there are a lot of these, and they tend to be adults with a pretty substantial disposable income, so they'll buy a lot. And there are a lot of toy ranges - Lego, Funko Pops, Branded versions of board games - so they can make a reasonable amount from that. Toys R Us had overheads to deal with and small margins. Disney gets a cut of the profits essentially for free.
Disney paid cool 4 billion for the franchise. A completely safe long-term investment in index funds will bring 5-10% annually. Therefore, Star Wars needs to bring 600 million to 1 billion every year to be on par.
Don't understand your calculations here. Surely this is just $200-400 million equivalent.
Why the need to use force to prevent the other 250,000 people who want to from buying one?
All people are asking for is clear information that the product will spontaneously catch fire and burn the house down. If people want to buy a product that does this then they are still able to. I'm not sure why people would want this though.
I agree. They are not ultimately and finally responsible, but any losses incurred here by Amazon is a claim by Amazon against the company that produced the faulty product.
If the fault turns out to be from a component, they buyer is not expected to track down the supplier of the component, or worse their supplier. It is generally the case though, that the buyer has a claim against the seller.
It didn't function as intended. By design it was meant to activate when someone said "Alexa"; which the user didn't. It was meant to start sending an email when the user told it to send an email, which they didn't.
It wasn't a doctored video. Just a bad quality video.
Go outside at night to a lit street similar to the one where the accident occurred. You should be able to see things some distance away pretty clearly.
It's surprising how much leeway the US police have in this sort of situation. I'm sure this would be considered manslaughter, or even murder in most of Europe. In Europe, police are expected to consider other lives - including that of the suspect - to be pretty important. Mere perceived risk is not enough to justify lethal force.
The article isn't clear about what the plan is. If this is a single component and the idea is to use dozens of hundreds of them as a power station, I can see how it's useful. Otherwise, it seems substantially less powerful than the existing installed plant mentioned in the article.
That is often useless without other software, be it X, apache, language interpretors or whatever. But we only generally care about the core of a system. For example, we focus on the CPU of a computer. We focus on the core reactor of a nuclear power plant.
Specifically it's a reference to the Global Gag Rule", which censors discussion of abortion in the medical context. I don't see evil in the word abort. I am a little confused about what you think this says about me. You seem to be reading a lot into this. Do you not think that the rule is an anti-abortion measure?
You do know that words can have different meanings?
Yes. That is how the joke works. The point of the joke is to make a political comment about aborting babies. The reason Stallman wanted to keep it in is because he feels the political comment is important.
You're not under the impression that the joke is about the abort operation are you?
There is a consensus. If you want the joke to remain then create your own branch with the stupid joke there.
Is it really an essential political statement that the project should be supporting? Does this mean that if IO support glibc, I'm also obliged to have specific opinions on abortion in a country I have visited twice? How about gun control? Nuclear power in Germany? Funding for colour blindness assistance glasses in the Polish health system?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. 4 bits per channel. 16 levels. Silly mistake on my part.
The PC did have EGA by that point (16 colours from a selection of 64). This does only give 4 shades for each channel though, which is a bit limited. 16 bits per channel looks a bit ugly by today's standards but it does allow more flexiblity and hand drawn images can look pretty good.
I had no idea commercial C64 games were still a thing. Any links?
Of course there's still a reasonably healthy C64 demo scene and the C64 mini has its fans, so I guess this is not that great a surprise.
You mean I need to buy a RAM upgrade just to play this game!? Damn!
Exactly. The reason they neither confirm or deny everything is because it makes everything equally uncertain. If they only said it about things they wanted to keep secret then that would reveal what they want to keep secret.
I'm no patent lawyer, so maybe I'm not up on the jargon, and maybe "Systems, methods, and vehicles for taking a vehicle out-of-service" means "detecting if someone is drunk", but the link here and in the article seem to point me to an unrelated patent.
If it measures parameters such as location, phone angle, typing accuracy and so on, and works out a probability score based on that then it is far more than an idea.
I have no idea if this is the case or not, but I presume it is.
And they're not suggesting they won't pick you up. they developed the technology. They might as well benefit if others find a use for it.
This sort of device is expensive! It doesn't grow on trees!
True, but there are a lot of these, and they tend to be adults with a pretty substantial disposable income, so they'll buy a lot. And there are a lot of toy ranges - Lego, Funko Pops, Branded versions of board games - so they can make a reasonable amount from that. Toys R Us had overheads to deal with and small margins. Disney gets a cut of the profits essentially for free.
Don't understand your calculations here. Surely this is just $200-400 million equivalent.
All people are asking for is clear information that the product will spontaneously catch fire and burn the house down. If people want to buy a product that does this then they are still able to. I'm not sure why people would want this though.
Why do so many people think that basic consumer protection is some sort of onerous burden?
I agree. They are not ultimately and finally responsible, but any losses incurred here by Amazon is a claim by Amazon against the company that produced the faulty product.
If the fault turns out to be from a component, they buyer is not expected to track down the supplier of the component, or worse their supplier. It is generally the case though, that the buyer has a claim against the seller.
The guy shot someone else. Now, either it was murder, or it was self defence, and that is something that will have to be determined by a court.
The fact that he happened to violate company policy seems to be irrelevant to this, and is a separate matter to be dealt with by the company.
It is quite possible. In this case, a packet sniffer would tell you how much data was being sent back.
The idea that probing a negative is impossible is weird.
It didn't function as intended. By design it was meant to activate when someone said "Alexa"; which the user didn't. It was meant to start sending an email when the user told it to send an email, which they didn't.
It wasn't a doctored video. Just a bad quality video.
Go outside at night to a lit street similar to the one where the accident occurred. You should be able to see things some distance away pretty clearly.
It's surprising how much leeway the US police have in this sort of situation. I'm sure this would be considered manslaughter, or even murder in most of Europe. In Europe, police are expected to consider other lives - including that of the suspect - to be pretty important. Mere perceived risk is not enough to justify lethal force.
True. Although the F-15 does have a reasonable amount of body lift.
Still, probably worse than the small loss of lift on the 777X with folded wings.
The article isn't clear about what the plan is. If this is a single component and the idea is to use dozens of hundreds of them as a power station, I can see how it's useful. Otherwise, it seems substantially less powerful than the existing installed plant mentioned in the article.
Well I would have gone, but I heard it was a bit of a bust. Nobody turned up.
That is often useless without other software, be it X, apache, language interpretors or whatever. But we only generally care about the core of a system. For example, we focus on the CPU of a computer. We focus on the core reactor of a nuclear power plant.
Specifically it's a reference to the Global Gag Rule", which censors discussion of abortion in the medical context. I don't see evil in the word abort. I am a little confused about what you think this says about me. You seem to be reading a lot into this. Do you not think that the rule is an anti-abortion measure?
Yes. That is how the joke works. The point of the joke is to make a political comment about aborting babies. The reason Stallman wanted to keep it in is because he feels the political comment is important.
You're not under the impression that the joke is about the abort operation are you?
There is a consensus. If you want the joke to remain then create your own branch with the stupid joke there.
Is it really an essential political statement that the project should be supporting? Does this mean that if IO support glibc, I'm also obliged to have specific opinions on abortion in a country I have visited twice? How about gun control? Nuclear power in Germany? Funding for colour blindness assistance glasses in the Polish health system?