In this case, the alleged bribes that they are looking at are in the form of significant (i.e. doubling the total square footage) of his home. Not something that you can just disappear with a few weeks, or months, notice. At least, not without being very obvious about it, and raising just a bit of suspicion. I would be surprised if they did not have his house under at least minimal surveillance during that time period.
The car sharing franchises already exist, at least in some of the larger US cities. (For example: http://www.igocars.org/, http://www.zipcar.com/). I'm not very familiar with them- i-go was just getting started when I lived in Chicago, and where I lived, public transportation was more convenient, and the fees were high enough that for as much as I would have used one, I could just rent a car from a regular rental place when I needed it. All that this company would have to do is partner up with some of the existing companies, and maybe provide them with some marketing brochures and the like.
Isn't that the car that pretty much disintegrated in a 40 mph crash test? I'd spend 9K for a small, efficient car to get around town (if I was looking for a car in that category- I probably won't be until my '04 Corolla dies, which I expect is a long ways off yet), but not if it's going to kill my entire family the next time I get in an accident.
In the article they mention also including insurance (and possibly other things like Wi-Fi access, although I'm not sure how that would work) in the $100-$200 / month fee. If they can actually do that, then it's not necessarily such a bad deal. Of course, you're still paying for both the batteries and the electricity to charge them, so I doubt it would come out ahead of a fuel efficient regular car of similar size, but it may at least be close.
Personally, if I was looking for a small car to get around town, I might consider paying a small premium for something like this. But I already have a small fuel efficient car. The next next vehicle that my wife and I get will have to be a utility vehicle, with four wheel drive and towing capability, and the premium on environmentally friendly vehicles in that category is still way too steep for me (even considering tax credits that put hybrids at the same price as an equivalent non-hybrid.)
Or you could look at one in the store for about a second and a half, and think to yourself, "Huh. I wonder how one would go about changing the battery on this device, as it is completely sealed shut." Doesn't seem like that would take a genius.
If I'd said "Dude, it's about limiting the size of reaction/pressure vessels and the amount of reagents that can be smuggled in without having more than a certain number of people buying airline tickets within a certain timeframe, just chill out and toss the toothpaste", I'd probably still be in some black hole somewhere.
You'd also (probably) have been wrong. If they were really trying to limit the size of reaction/pressure vessels, you wouldn't be able to carry any container over 3 ounces onto the plane. As it is, I can carry as big a container as I like on the plane, as long as it's empty. Once I have it on the plane, there's nothing stopping what I can do with it so long as I don't raise the suspicion of anyone else on the plane. In my case, that equates to filling it from a water fountain and drinking it on the plane, but for somebody else?
While I have no sympathy for people who complain about having their nearly empty 5 oz bottles confiscated after being told umpteen million times that you are only allowed to have liquids in a 3 oz or smaller container, I suspect that the rule has more to do with preventing the people who are supposed to be watching the XRay machines from getting in an argument with a passenger about whether their 6 oz. bottle is half empty or half full than it does with limiting the size of the bottle itself.
Uh, don't forget to multiply the cost of the new LCD's by 650 as well.
The cost savings from upgrading to an LCD is going to scale just as linearly as the total cost is. Being in a 1000 person company doesn't suddenly give you new magic math that makes them more affordable... Other than bulk purchasing deals - that's the real reason you see companies replacing CRTs with LCDs. Most companies amortize their computer equipment over 3 or four years, so any computer hardware you have is likely to get replaced after about 3 years regardless of what shape it's in. And these days, it's a lot easier to do a bulk purchase of new LCDs than new CRTs.
But the way Monsanto is pursuing farmers right now would be like if the RIAA demanded you pay for a copy of a CD whenever someone listening to a song simply drove by you in his car with his windows open.
Believe me, if they thought they had a reliable way to keep track of that, they'd be doing it.
They also went off a runway at Midway Airport, Chicago, in 2005, which did involve loss of life (albeit not a passenger- see, flying really is safer than driving!) And they do cover most of the major airports in the US. I'm certainly more likely to fly on SouthWest sometime soon than QUANTAS...
. And so virtualisation will allow 20 Windows 98 instances on hardware required for a single instance of Vista without degrading the user experience.
That is of course assuming that you don't consider running Windows 98 to be a degraded user experience. Heck why not run Windows 3.1? You could probably run 100 instances of that for the same hardware requirements as Vista.
Since you decided to throw the constitution into the mix, how about the part where they are encouraging people to incriminate themselves in case they ever do decide to bring any of these people up on criminal copyright infringement charges?
I'll be damned if that doesn't sound like the dumbest idea I've ever heard for a web standard. We've had, what, 15 years of try to figure out what's the best way to handle "failure modes" for content that doesn't follow the spec. And now somebody's trying to write a spec to tell people how to not follow it. Gluttons for punishment, are we?
The problem with having date controls and tree controls built in is that we'd have to write our own most of the time anyway to make them match what the designers come up with. I already have to do it with selects and scroll bars (although thankfully not very often). And if you're writing an admin tool or some other sort of site where the design doesn't matter, use ASP.NET or something built for the task that has them built in there.
I'm not saying that these wouldn't be useful additions, but I'd much rather see the browser makers get up to snuff with the existing standards before they set out to screw up new ones. Honestly, if the existing browsers did a decent job of supporting CSS2 and the DOM event model, stuff like menus and treeviews would be no-brainers, anyway. And if they really are determined to go ahead with a new version anyway, there are a lot of bigger gripes that I have with HTML than the lack of a native date form element.
Their work is represented in web browsers every time someone uses the Canvas tag, Audio object, Storage API, and other modern features.
Which in the real world is practically never, considering that IE doesn't support any of them (OK, this isn't totally true. While IE doesn't support any of them, it does provide IE specific alternatives to several of them, so developers who really want to use them can use wrappers that will abstract the difference between the IE way and the "everyone else" way. Still, I haven't seen any widespread rush to take up any of these technologies.)
Oh yeah, and last I checked, Microsoft wasn't on the WHAT-WG, either. Of course, "last I checked" is quite a while ago, since it seemed to me like a pretty useless group without getting Microsoft on board. Maybe now something useful will finally come out of their existence, but personally, I'd rather see the existing implementations of XHTML firmed up a bit (mainly on IE) before we run off on another standards wild goose chase.
No, it's not a myth. I can go into Target or a number of other stores and find DVDs I am interested in buying for under $10. I cannot find CDs anywhere for under $10. The average price may be about the same, but the average only affects people who buy DVDs and CDs more or less randomly without regard to cost. If you wait to buy them until you find one that is priced at what you consider to be a fair price, DVDs are cheaper than CDs.
Slashdot Mirror
The WOW starts now!
I'm sure of it! Hasn't anyone else been paying attention?
In this case, the alleged bribes that they are looking at are in the form of significant (i.e. doubling the total square footage) of his home. Not something that you can just disappear with a few weeks, or months, notice. At least, not without being very obvious about it, and raising just a bit of suspicion. I would be surprised if they did not have his house under at least minimal surveillance during that time period.
The car sharing franchises already exist, at least in some of the larger US cities. (For example: http://www.igocars.org/, http://www.zipcar.com/). I'm not very familiar with them- i-go was just getting started when I lived in Chicago, and where I lived, public transportation was more convenient, and the fees were high enough that for as much as I would have used one, I could just rent a car from a regular rental place when I needed it. All that this company would have to do is partner up with some of the existing companies, and maybe provide them with some marketing brochures and the like.
Isn't that the car that pretty much disintegrated in a 40 mph crash test? I'd spend 9K for a small, efficient car to get around town (if I was looking for a car in that category- I probably won't be until my '04 Corolla dies, which I expect is a long ways off yet), but not if it's going to kill my entire family the next time I get in an accident.
In the article they mention also including insurance (and possibly other things like Wi-Fi access, although I'm not sure how that would work) in the $100-$200 / month fee. If they can actually do that, then it's not necessarily such a bad deal. Of course, you're still paying for both the batteries and the electricity to charge them, so I doubt it would come out ahead of a fuel efficient regular car of similar size, but it may at least be close.
Personally, if I was looking for a small car to get around town, I might consider paying a small premium for something like this. But I already have a small fuel efficient car. The next next vehicle that my wife and I get will have to be a utility vehicle, with four wheel drive and towing capability, and the premium on environmentally friendly vehicles in that category is still way too steep for me (even considering tax credits that put hybrids at the same price as an equivalent non-hybrid.)
Or you could look at one in the store for about a second and a half, and think to yourself, "Huh. I wonder how one would go about changing the battery on this device, as it is completely sealed shut." Doesn't seem like that would take a genius.
Ever heard of a Treo?
You'd also (probably) have been wrong. If they were really trying to limit the size of reaction/pressure vessels, you wouldn't be able to carry any container over 3 ounces onto the plane. As it is, I can carry as big a container as I like on the plane, as long as it's empty. Once I have it on the plane, there's nothing stopping what I can do with it so long as I don't raise the suspicion of anyone else on the plane. In my case, that equates to filling it from a water fountain and drinking it on the plane, but for somebody else?
While I have no sympathy for people who complain about having their nearly empty 5 oz bottles confiscated after being told umpteen million times that you are only allowed to have liquids in a 3 oz or smaller container, I suspect that the rule has more to do with preventing the people who are supposed to be watching the XRay machines from getting in an argument with a passenger about whether their 6 oz. bottle is half empty or half full than it does with limiting the size of the bottle itself.
POP3's past is grim. It's future should have been dead long ago...
There are people who turn their computers off?
Uh, don't forget to multiply the cost of the new LCD's by 650 as well.
The cost savings from upgrading to an LCD is going to scale just as linearly as the total cost is. Being in a 1000 person company doesn't suddenly give you new magic math that makes them more affordable... Other than bulk purchasing deals - that's the real reason you see companies replacing CRTs with LCDs. Most companies amortize their computer equipment over 3 or four years, so any computer hardware you have is likely to get replaced after about 3 years regardless of what shape it's in. And these days, it's a lot easier to do a bulk purchase of new LCDs than new CRTs.
I don't. I still use the parallel port.
So basically the situation would be unchanged.
Believe me, if they thought they had a reliable way to keep track of that, they'd be doing it.
They also went off a runway at Midway Airport, Chicago, in 2005, which did involve loss of life (albeit not a passenger- see, flying really is safer than driving!) And they do cover most of the major airports in the US. I'm certainly more likely to fly on SouthWest sometime soon than QUANTAS...
That is of course assuming that you don't consider running Windows 98 to be a degraded user experience. Heck why not run Windows 3.1? You could probably run 100 instances of that for the same hardware requirements as Vista.
Since you decided to throw the constitution into the mix, how about the part where they are encouraging people to incriminate themselves in case they ever do decide to bring any of these people up on criminal copyright infringement charges?
I have it on good authority that it will look just like the iPod shuffle, but, get this: It will also be available in brown!
I'd be even more surprised if they actually ended up doing a halfway decent job of it.
I'll be damned if that doesn't sound like the dumbest idea I've ever heard for a web standard. We've had, what, 15 years of try to figure out what's the best way to handle "failure modes" for content that doesn't follow the spec. And now somebody's trying to write a spec to tell people how to not follow it. Gluttons for punishment, are we?
Yeah, and it works even better if a and b are Objects.
Is that before or after considering that a permanent employee usually costs the company at least 50% more than a contract employee at the same salary?
The problem with having date controls and tree controls built in is that we'd have to write our own most of the time anyway to make them match what the designers come up with. I already have to do it with selects and scroll bars (although thankfully not very often). And if you're writing an admin tool or some other sort of site where the design doesn't matter, use ASP.NET or something built for the task that has them built in there.
I'm not saying that these wouldn't be useful additions, but I'd much rather see the browser makers get up to snuff with the existing standards before they set out to screw up new ones. Honestly, if the existing browsers did a decent job of supporting CSS2 and the DOM event model, stuff like menus and treeviews would be no-brainers, anyway. And if they really are determined to go ahead with a new version anyway, there are a lot of bigger gripes that I have with HTML than the lack of a native date form element.
Which in the real world is practically never, considering that IE doesn't support any of them (OK, this isn't totally true. While IE doesn't support any of them, it does provide IE specific alternatives to several of them, so developers who really want to use them can use wrappers that will abstract the difference between the IE way and the "everyone else" way. Still, I haven't seen any widespread rush to take up any of these technologies.)
Oh yeah, and last I checked, Microsoft wasn't on the WHAT-WG, either. Of course, "last I checked" is quite a while ago, since it seemed to me like a pretty useless group without getting Microsoft on board. Maybe now something useful will finally come out of their existence, but personally, I'd rather see the existing implementations of XHTML firmed up a bit (mainly on IE) before we run off on another standards wild goose chase.
No, it's not a myth. I can go into Target or a number of other stores and find DVDs I am interested in buying for under $10. I cannot find CDs anywhere for under $10. The average price may be about the same, but the average only affects people who buy DVDs and CDs more or less randomly without regard to cost. If you wait to buy them until you find one that is priced at what you consider to be a fair price, DVDs are cheaper than CDs.