While games are among the things you can pirate on TPB, there isn't much to do with games here. Though with regard to his wife...I'm pretty sure that's a mail order bride situation, only due to the circumstances of avoiding incarceration he came to live in her native country. You can see the details of their marriage arrangement in that documentary called TPB AFK, and it's apparent that he paid a sum of money to be able to marry her, and she doesn't really seem *that* fond of him in any of the shots that she's in.
I don't think mail order bride situations are all bad mind you. I've met a few of the women in such a situation, and they seem to prefer their present situation WAY more than what they had prior to the arrangement. One of the ones I knew used to live in the Philippines, and she told me how she almost died there when some Islamic activist ended up suicide bombing a bus that she luckily happened to be late for. That, and she was dirt poor there.
That was hardly a Republican shutdown. That was mainly because both parties decided to stand firm and refused to compromise. If you want to argue that just one party is at fault, then I wouldn't even say it was a specific party, but rather the Obama admin in particular. It kind of went like this:
House: Here's the budget, now it just needs to be signed by the president. President: I don't like this one. I refuse to sign it until it's written the way I want it. House: Well, this is what we're giving you, it was done in accordance with all laws, and like it or not we're not changing it.
I'm just going to be flat out, brutally honest here: The party in charge rarely, if ever, changes things in such a way that causes you to lose your job. Unless you operate a business where a specific law changed that outlawed your business in some way, then you aren't going to lose your job.
Fuck, I had a job that I lost shortly after Obama took office and the Democrats took the house. As much as I hate both of those facts, it would be incredibly stupid for me to blame my job loss on that.
Actually a LOT of corporations have been trying to push for nuclear power, but NIMBY and Greenpeace types have done a lot to prevent it from happening. Had it not been for politicians, we'd have built more nuclear plants by now.
No I'd say that the incompetence is on the part of the voters. They believe in voting for the lesser of two evils. E.g. in their heads the vote for one guy is a "no" vote for whoever else is likely to win. This is such a stupid idea it's pathetic because they don't pay the fuck attention to the fact that they're literally saying "yes, I want this lesser evil to be in power", but it's the choice they make nonetheless, and the rules of democracy stipulate that you have to live with it, good or bad.
I don't think that's for a lack of trying though. One of the first things he tried to do when he was in office was ban Fox News from the white house, but because all of the other news organizations stood with them in solidarity it couldn't reasonably happen. His administration was also extremely aggressive at trying to make Snowden's life difficult (his passport was revoked within minutes of his name being attached to the leaks.)
Nah, all the major search engines would have to do is show a judge and/or jury just how bad of a failure go.com was, and therefore why Disney has no business either running a search engine or setting rules for one.
Actually market forces are probably going to cause that to happen anyways. In order to be a destination country for whatever tasks, you can't just be cheaper, you have to be MUCH cheaper.
India is coming pretty close to hitting a threshold where the only work that will be outsourced there will be work that you just can't have done anywhere else (the US is currently such a country; a lot of foreign companies outsource work to the US because they just can't find the appropriate labor sources elsewhere.) The only thing is India doesn't specialize too well.
China does on the other hand. When their labor becomes too expensive, specialized tasks will have to be done there. Two things they do very well are textiles as well as making rapid changes to cheaper technology products on a massive scale. Steve Jobs famously mentioned how the later just can't be done in the US; for whatever reason the US just doesn't have the infrastructure and/or knowledge for it (Although a handful of people may have the knowledge, you need a LOT of people to have the knowledge in order for it to be effective.)
Cheap labor has a way of migrating though. During the 50's through early 80's, the "cheap" destination for manufacturing was Japan. Late 80's through today is China. I'm predicting that Vietnam will soon replace China, and afterwards some other emerging economy will replace them. (Note the distinction between emerging economy and developing one. Former communist block countries being emerging, traditionally poor economies being developing. Emerging economies often have the benefit of having derelict infrastructure available that could be re-purposed.)
Blaming lead for all of it is extremely misleading. The fact is that the rate of violent acts has been going down all over the world significantly over the last millennium.
For example, it used to be that every year one European country was declaring war on another one, and each time these wars lasted 10 to 30 years, sometimes 60 to 100 years. Nowadays wars are rarely declared, and it's extremely rare that they'll last 10 years.
Also consider that if you lived in Boston during some time of the 1500's, you were liable for getting your head lobbed off by one of the various native tribes. During some time of the 1600's you were liable for getting accused of being a witch followed by a violent death including but not limited to crushing, drowning, or burning. During some time of the 1700's you risked being drafted by the crown to fight against the revolutionaries, and the crown's soldiers often met pretty violent deaths until they left. During some time of the 1800's using fighting words were enough to permit somebody to legally murder you, or you might become the victim of a lynch mob.
And the rebuttal to that is that's why we have money. Money is really only worth whatever the owner and the seller think it is worth. It's a store of value whose owner is given the exclusive right to do whatever the hell they want with.
Money doesn't clothe or feed the poor, rather it is just as an incentive for somebody else to. Money doesn't cure any diseases, rather it is just an incentive for somebody else to.
The alternative is communism where somebody is forced to, in many cases against their will.
We are all subsistance farmers without business and profits.
That is 100% true. Before business and profits, 95% of the world's population were farmers. And that is the way it would still be had it not been for business and profits.
Then what the fuck is your point? Honestly two posts ago you did nothing but attack this whole thing because you were against the idea of it making a profit.
Absent several technological breakthroughs that are each tantamount to magic - this technology doesn't scale to cheap, useful, access to space. It's pretty much limited to being a thrill ride.
No, this is just yet another problem that needs solving. Like somebody else mentioned earlier, you used to have to be pretty wealthy to be able to afford privately owned automobiles and airplanes. At that time, everything you just said applied to those as well.
I know it's the "hip" luddite/social justice thing to talk about making everything cheaper is a race to the bottom that only costs the common man his job and such, but the truth is that whole concept of being a race to the bottom itself is such a lie to begin with it's pathetic. If that notion was even remotely true, we'd have a global 90% unemployment rate by now seeing how long ago the industrial revolution was. Things being cheaper makes them more accessible to all.
Weren't the massive insects due to extremely high atmospheric O2 content?
Not exactly. The prevailing theory is that the bigger ones died off due to an ice age, and that they could grow large in today's environment, but they don't because they'd be easier prey to modern birds.
I remember those exploding Nokia phones. I think that was probably Nokia's best design ever. Not for practical reasons, but every time it happened it made you and everybody else sure that your phone was ruined, only nothing bad ever happened to it, and all of the witnesses were reminded of the Nokia brand in spectacular fashion.
I don't think it's a blue/red issue. I mean shit, look at Al Gore, if there was a list of everybody on the planet sorted by personal carbon consumption, he'd probably be in the top 1%. I don't care how energy efficient his 20 bedroom house or his private jet are; both inevitably consume a LOT more energy than your typical person's luxuries. What annoys the fuck out of me about this whole thing is how everybody talks up and down about how everybody else needs to conserve, but they conveniently think they themselves are the exception. So people like dipshit come up with carbon credits; aka indulgences.
The fact is nobody, including Mr. Alarmist himself, is willing to give up their conveniences. Although my own carbon consumption is probably pretty damn low (I ride my bike...everywhere, mainly because I just want the exercise though) I don't make any kind of effort to keep it that way. I don't really see any convincing reason why anybody else should either. Here's why:
In a small contained lab environment we can sit there and measure how much of a greenhouse effect different gases have, but historical data doesn't even so much as show a correlation between greenhouse gases and climate change. One of the coldest periods in Earth's history for example also had the highest known levels of atmospheric CO2 (which was about 30 times what we have now.) It doesn't appear to harm ocean life, plant life, or land animals either as during one of Earth's "greenest" periods in history we had 20 times the present atmospheric CO2, really fucking massively sized insects, dinosaurs, and more. The arguments therefore about acidifying the ocean are therefore crap. Other data suggests that rises in atmospheric CO2 follow rises in climate, not the other way around (ironically Al Gore used one such chart to argue that CO2 followed rises in temperature, but just looking at the chart you could easily see it was the opposite.)
As for global warming itself, it could be fully or partially man caused. I don't know, but again, I don't think it's a problem either way, so I don't really give a crap. Japan suffered a drought in the 30s before we had any notion of global warming. Today if all of the climate models were correct, water should be like gold there, yet they have plenty of it. Likewise, this whole story is a load of crap.
It's entirely possible that the higher CO2 we're seeing is yet another rise following a climate change that we had no part in. This already reminds me of how not more than five years ago, the "scientific consensus" was that eating food that contained cholesterol causes your blood cholesterol levels to go up. Now we've found out that you can eat all of the cholesterol containing food you want and it doesn't do diddly to your blood cholesterol levels. Instead that's something decided by your liver which we can now control completely using statin drugs. Simple solution. Whoda thunker?
And by the way, the arguments for stopping climate change so that we can save the economy are also incredibly stupid and self defeating. We have not, even one time, seen a case where climate change has caused long term economic damage. At the very worst bad weather has caused localized destruction that is, in every single case, completely recovered within a decade. Meanwhile we have seen on well more than one occasion where stupid economic decisions cause global long term collapse. Hurting the economy for what is probably much ado about nothing is therefore pointless.
Possibly. It seems the new CEO is himself far more in touch with modern software development, whereas Ballmer was basically just a salesman. But I think what is probably more important than that is that Stephen Sinofsky is gone. Apparently he was a total dick, made a lot of unilateral decisions, and was actively hostile against anybody who suggested any big changes.
IMO somebody like him would reject OneGet (probably suggesting to use the Microsoft Update system instead.)
Moreover, in many states it may be illegal to offer a discount, since there are laws forcing prices to remain the same
It's not a law requirement so much as it is one of the terms of Visa/MasterCard/AmEx/etc. They don't permit merchants to give discounts for other forms of payment, or place surcharges.
Or they didn't, to be more precise. Case law in 2013 invalidated those clauses, and now in at least 40 states, merchants may surcharge transactions, provide discounts, and/or discriminate in any other way they choose against a given payment method.
Most merchants will choose the discount approach though (often with a general price increase on everything they sell) as a lot of customers will get annoyed with "hidden" charges, but love discounts.
Though I could see a day where walmart et al would offer discounts for using CurrentC, and if/when widespread adoption ensues, stop offering said discount and simply surcharge credit cards instead.
to which Firefox and Chrome and all could have been ported
With the annoying stipulation that they aren't allowed to be set as the default browser. In Windows RT, IE is hard coded as the default, just like Safari in iOS.
In fact if you look at the whole RT setup from a distance, it's pretty blatant that Microsoft wanted to just flat out copy Apple's mobile model. Problem is they apparently missed the memo that Google had already outdid Apple in that arena, and did so without using a walled garden, making it appeal to both power users and casual users, becoming a vastly more popular platform in the process.
But it seems that Microsoft found out the hard way that being way late to the "casual users only" game just makes you become distant second to somebody else who themselves is already a distant second, making their mobile effort amount to practically nothing.
Though judging by how Microsoft handled it's last shot at arm, it may shoot itself in the foot instead...again.
I think Windows on Arm could have worked well, but Microsoft made the incredibly stupid decision to only allow it to run under the RT platform, and worse is that it was forced under a walled garden.
Tesla's keyless design seems to work well enough so far.
Tesla owners are some of the most satisfied car owners in America, and now they have one more reason to love their Model S: They basically never get stolen.
In the last three years just four of the luxury electric cars have been stolen, MarketWatch reported. Three were reported stolen last year, none in 2012 and only one was stolen in 2011.
It's not like they are too rare for thieves to get their hands on. At least 20,000 were sold last year alone. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says cars are stolen at an average rate of about 3.56 thefts per 1,000 vehicles produced. The Model S, however, squeaks by with a 0.15 per 1,000 theft rate, making it the least-stolen vehicle in America. The second-lowest theft rate is that of the Hyundai Tucson, with 0.40 thefts per 1,000 vehicles, according to the Highway Data Loss Institute.
All that technology makes the Tesla tempting, but ultimately too difficult to steal. The Model S doesn't have any locks to pick, since the car opens and starts only when its corresponding key fob is near. Sure a thief could go to the trouble of hacking the car, but once they had it there isn't much they could do with it. Most cars are stolen and parted out in chop shops, and there simply isn't a market for additional Tesla parts.
This is not even remotely the same thing as modern gene-splicing. People have NOT, for thousands of years, implated jellyfish genes into food crops, and set them loose in the wild. Talk about comparing apples to oranges! You're comparing kittens to fireflies.
At first I downmodded you because this is very much an overrated and purely sensational statement, but I have a better idea; I'll just correct it.
You made two completely false points, but first I'm going to address the second one: None of these man caused gene splices have ever been "set loose into the wild." In fact not a one of them has ever been outside of a lab environment. This is all done just to understand how genes work in general, and isn't used for producing GMO food.
Now your first point has maybe about 25% truth to it, the rest of it is...well...bullshit. This been going on for a lot longer than thousands of years, perhaps billions actually. In fact you yourself are the result exactly the kind of splicing that you describe, and so am I, and everybody else. In fact the entire portion of our genome that gives women a placenta was embedded into our genome from some other animal. This happens in nature all the time, viruses are the main cause. The human genome contains some 100,000 gene sequences from viruses, making up some 8% of our total DNA.
Yet somehow in spite of that fact, the world hasn't ended.
As for GMO food...well...actual truth of the matter is that the genes "implanted" into plant DNA to make GMO food are synthetic. They usually consist of around 15 different nucleotides. They were developed under the study of proteomics, which is an entire field that is dedicated to understanding how proteins work, which includes knowing how to build them. The typical change is to prevent the plant cells from being able to absorb glyphosate, effectively making them immune to it.
Consider this: Given that there are around 15 (give or take) known and very specific nucleotides configured in GMO foods, when during natural reproduction, some hundreds of thousands of nucleotides are changed in unknown ways, why is it that you consider the GMO food to be more dangerous?
I mean that's an insanely stupid conclusion to draw. The only thing I can conclude is that the very wealthy, very high profit margin organic lobby is paying you an insane amount of money to go around telling people bullshit stories about frankenfood.
Slashdot Mirror
While games are among the things you can pirate on TPB, there isn't much to do with games here. Though with regard to his wife...I'm pretty sure that's a mail order bride situation, only due to the circumstances of avoiding incarceration he came to live in her native country. You can see the details of their marriage arrangement in that documentary called TPB AFK, and it's apparent that he paid a sum of money to be able to marry her, and she doesn't really seem *that* fond of him in any of the shots that she's in.
I don't think mail order bride situations are all bad mind you. I've met a few of the women in such a situation, and they seem to prefer their present situation WAY more than what they had prior to the arrangement. One of the ones I knew used to live in the Philippines, and she told me how she almost died there when some Islamic activist ended up suicide bombing a bus that she luckily happened to be late for. That, and she was dirt poor there.
That was hardly a Republican shutdown. That was mainly because both parties decided to stand firm and refused to compromise. If you want to argue that just one party is at fault, then I wouldn't even say it was a specific party, but rather the Obama admin in particular. It kind of went like this:
House: Here's the budget, now it just needs to be signed by the president.
President: I don't like this one. I refuse to sign it until it's written the way I want it.
House: Well, this is what we're giving you, it was done in accordance with all laws, and like it or not we're not changing it.
Government shuts down.
I'm just going to be flat out, brutally honest here: The party in charge rarely, if ever, changes things in such a way that causes you to lose your job. Unless you operate a business where a specific law changed that outlawed your business in some way, then you aren't going to lose your job.
Fuck, I had a job that I lost shortly after Obama took office and the Democrats took the house. As much as I hate both of those facts, it would be incredibly stupid for me to blame my job loss on that.
Enough of the partisan bullshit.
Actually a LOT of corporations have been trying to push for nuclear power, but NIMBY and Greenpeace types have done a lot to prevent it from happening. Had it not been for politicians, we'd have built more nuclear plants by now.
No I'd say that the incompetence is on the part of the voters. They believe in voting for the lesser of two evils. E.g. in their heads the vote for one guy is a "no" vote for whoever else is likely to win. This is such a stupid idea it's pathetic because they don't pay the fuck attention to the fact that they're literally saying "yes, I want this lesser evil to be in power", but it's the choice they make nonetheless, and the rules of democracy stipulate that you have to live with it, good or bad.
I don't think that's for a lack of trying though. One of the first things he tried to do when he was in office was ban Fox News from the white house, but because all of the other news organizations stood with them in solidarity it couldn't reasonably happen. His administration was also extremely aggressive at trying to make Snowden's life difficult (his passport was revoked within minutes of his name being attached to the leaks.)
Nah, all the major search engines would have to do is show a judge and/or jury just how bad of a failure go.com was, and therefore why Disney has no business either running a search engine or setting rules for one.
Actually market forces are probably going to cause that to happen anyways. In order to be a destination country for whatever tasks, you can't just be cheaper, you have to be MUCH cheaper.
India is coming pretty close to hitting a threshold where the only work that will be outsourced there will be work that you just can't have done anywhere else (the US is currently such a country; a lot of foreign companies outsource work to the US because they just can't find the appropriate labor sources elsewhere.) The only thing is India doesn't specialize too well.
China does on the other hand. When their labor becomes too expensive, specialized tasks will have to be done there. Two things they do very well are textiles as well as making rapid changes to cheaper technology products on a massive scale. Steve Jobs famously mentioned how the later just can't be done in the US; for whatever reason the US just doesn't have the infrastructure and/or knowledge for it (Although a handful of people may have the knowledge, you need a LOT of people to have the knowledge in order for it to be effective.)
Cheap labor has a way of migrating though. During the 50's through early 80's, the "cheap" destination for manufacturing was Japan. Late 80's through today is China. I'm predicting that Vietnam will soon replace China, and afterwards some other emerging economy will replace them. (Note the distinction between emerging economy and developing one. Former communist block countries being emerging, traditionally poor economies being developing. Emerging economies often have the benefit of having derelict infrastructure available that could be re-purposed.)
Blaming lead for all of it is extremely misleading. The fact is that the rate of violent acts has been going down all over the world significantly over the last millennium.
For example, it used to be that every year one European country was declaring war on another one, and each time these wars lasted 10 to 30 years, sometimes 60 to 100 years. Nowadays wars are rarely declared, and it's extremely rare that they'll last 10 years.
Also consider that if you lived in Boston during some time of the 1500's, you were liable for getting your head lobbed off by one of the various native tribes. During some time of the 1600's you were liable for getting accused of being a witch followed by a violent death including but not limited to crushing, drowning, or burning. During some time of the 1700's you risked being drafted by the crown to fight against the revolutionaries, and the crown's soldiers often met pretty violent deaths until they left. During some time of the 1800's using fighting words were enough to permit somebody to legally murder you, or you might become the victim of a lynch mob.
And the rebuttal to that is that's why we have money. Money is really only worth whatever the owner and the seller think it is worth. It's a store of value whose owner is given the exclusive right to do whatever the hell they want with.
Money doesn't clothe or feed the poor, rather it is just as an incentive for somebody else to.
Money doesn't cure any diseases, rather it is just an incentive for somebody else to.
The alternative is communism where somebody is forced to, in many cases against their will.
We are all subsistance farmers without business and profits.
That is 100% true. Before business and profits, 95% of the world's population were farmers. And that is the way it would still be had it not been for business and profits.
It's not national. Arizona realized how pointless and retarded the whole thing is 40 years ago, and hasn't done it since.
Can you produce a single, real, living person who believes your straw man?
Absolutely. There's this asshole:
http://slashdot.org/~AchilleTa...
I do not "attack" profits.
Then what the fuck is your point? Honestly two posts ago you did nothing but attack this whole thing because you were against the idea of it making a profit.
Absent several technological breakthroughs that are each tantamount to magic - this technology doesn't scale to cheap, useful, access to space. It's pretty much limited to being a thrill ride.
No, this is just yet another problem that needs solving. Like somebody else mentioned earlier, you used to have to be pretty wealthy to be able to afford privately owned automobiles and airplanes. At that time, everything you just said applied to those as well.
I know it's the "hip" luddite/social justice thing to talk about making everything cheaper is a race to the bottom that only costs the common man his job and such, but the truth is that whole concept of being a race to the bottom itself is such a lie to begin with it's pathetic. If that notion was even remotely true, we'd have a global 90% unemployment rate by now seeing how long ago the industrial revolution was. Things being cheaper makes them more accessible to all.
Weren't the massive insects due to extremely high atmospheric O2 content?
Not exactly. The prevailing theory is that the bigger ones died off due to an ice age, and that they could grow large in today's environment, but they don't because they'd be easier prey to modern birds.
I remember those exploding Nokia phones. I think that was probably Nokia's best design ever. Not for practical reasons, but every time it happened it made you and everybody else sure that your phone was ruined, only nothing bad ever happened to it, and all of the witnesses were reminded of the Nokia brand in spectacular fashion.
That wasn't rooted in climate change, rather it was the result of poor agricultural processes. Even your wiki link says so.
I don't think it's a blue/red issue. I mean shit, look at Al Gore, if there was a list of everybody on the planet sorted by personal carbon consumption, he'd probably be in the top 1%. I don't care how energy efficient his 20 bedroom house or his private jet are; both inevitably consume a LOT more energy than your typical person's luxuries. What annoys the fuck out of me about this whole thing is how everybody talks up and down about how everybody else needs to conserve, but they conveniently think they themselves are the exception. So people like dipshit come up with carbon credits; aka indulgences.
The fact is nobody, including Mr. Alarmist himself, is willing to give up their conveniences. Although my own carbon consumption is probably pretty damn low (I ride my bike...everywhere, mainly because I just want the exercise though) I don't make any kind of effort to keep it that way. I don't really see any convincing reason why anybody else should either. Here's why:
In a small contained lab environment we can sit there and measure how much of a greenhouse effect different gases have, but historical data doesn't even so much as show a correlation between greenhouse gases and climate change. One of the coldest periods in Earth's history for example also had the highest known levels of atmospheric CO2 (which was about 30 times what we have now.) It doesn't appear to harm ocean life, plant life, or land animals either as during one of Earth's "greenest" periods in history we had 20 times the present atmospheric CO2, really fucking massively sized insects, dinosaurs, and more. The arguments therefore about acidifying the ocean are therefore crap. Other data suggests that rises in atmospheric CO2 follow rises in climate, not the other way around (ironically Al Gore used one such chart to argue that CO2 followed rises in temperature, but just looking at the chart you could easily see it was the opposite.)
As for global warming itself, it could be fully or partially man caused. I don't know, but again, I don't think it's a problem either way, so I don't really give a crap. Japan suffered a drought in the 30s before we had any notion of global warming. Today if all of the climate models were correct, water should be like gold there, yet they have plenty of it. Likewise, this whole story is a load of crap.
It's entirely possible that the higher CO2 we're seeing is yet another rise following a climate change that we had no part in. This already reminds me of how not more than five years ago, the "scientific consensus" was that eating food that contained cholesterol causes your blood cholesterol levels to go up. Now we've found out that you can eat all of the cholesterol containing food you want and it doesn't do diddly to your blood cholesterol levels. Instead that's something decided by your liver which we can now control completely using statin drugs. Simple solution. Whoda thunker?
And by the way, the arguments for stopping climate change so that we can save the economy are also incredibly stupid and self defeating. We have not, even one time, seen a case where climate change has caused long term economic damage. At the very worst bad weather has caused localized destruction that is, in every single case, completely recovered within a decade. Meanwhile we have seen on well more than one occasion where stupid economic decisions cause global long term collapse. Hurting the economy for what is probably much ado about nothing is therefore pointless.
Possibly. It seems the new CEO is himself far more in touch with modern software development, whereas Ballmer was basically just a salesman. But I think what is probably more important than that is that Stephen Sinofsky is gone. Apparently he was a total dick, made a lot of unilateral decisions, and was actively hostile against anybody who suggested any big changes.
IMO somebody like him would reject OneGet (probably suggesting to use the Microsoft Update system instead.)
Moreover, in many states it may be illegal to offer a discount, since there are laws forcing prices to remain the same
It's not a law requirement so much as it is one of the terms of Visa/MasterCard/AmEx/etc. They don't permit merchants to give discounts for other forms of payment, or place surcharges.
Or they didn't, to be more precise. Case law in 2013 invalidated those clauses, and now in at least 40 states, merchants may surcharge transactions, provide discounts, and/or discriminate in any other way they choose against a given payment method.
Most merchants will choose the discount approach though (often with a general price increase on everything they sell) as a lot of customers will get annoyed with "hidden" charges, but love discounts.
http://www.cardfellow.com/blog...
Though I could see a day where walmart et al would offer discounts for using CurrentC, and if/when widespread adoption ensues, stop offering said discount and simply surcharge credit cards instead.
to which Firefox and Chrome and all could have been ported
With the annoying stipulation that they aren't allowed to be set as the default browser. In Windows RT, IE is hard coded as the default, just like Safari in iOS.
In fact if you look at the whole RT setup from a distance, it's pretty blatant that Microsoft wanted to just flat out copy Apple's mobile model. Problem is they apparently missed the memo that Google had already outdid Apple in that arena, and did so without using a walled garden, making it appeal to both power users and casual users, becoming a vastly more popular platform in the process.
But it seems that Microsoft found out the hard way that being way late to the "casual users only" game just makes you become distant second to somebody else who themselves is already a distant second, making their mobile effort amount to practically nothing.
Though judging by how Microsoft handled it's last shot at arm, it may shoot itself in the foot instead...again.
I think Windows on Arm could have worked well, but Microsoft made the incredibly stupid decision to only allow it to run under the RT platform, and worse is that it was forced under a walled garden.
Tesla's keyless design seems to work well enough so far.
Tesla owners are some of the most satisfied car owners in America, and now they have one more reason to love their Model S: They basically never get stolen.
In the last three years just four of the luxury electric cars have been stolen, MarketWatch reported. Three were reported stolen last year, none in 2012 and only one was stolen in 2011.
It's not like they are too rare for thieves to get their hands on. At least 20,000 were sold last year alone. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says cars are stolen at an average rate of about 3.56 thefts per 1,000 vehicles produced. The Model S, however, squeaks by with a 0.15 per 1,000 theft rate, making it the least-stolen vehicle in America. The second-lowest theft rate is that of the Hyundai Tucson, with 0.40 thefts per 1,000 vehicles, according to the Highway Data Loss Institute.
All that technology makes the Tesla tempting, but ultimately too difficult to steal. The Model S doesn't have any locks to pick, since the car opens and starts only when its corresponding key fob is near. Sure a thief could go to the trouble of hacking the car, but once they had it there isn't much they could do with it. Most cars are stolen and parted out in chop shops, and there simply isn't a market for additional Tesla parts.
http://autos.aol.com/article/o...
This is not even remotely the same thing as modern gene-splicing. People have NOT, for thousands of years, implated jellyfish genes into food crops, and set them loose in the wild. Talk about comparing apples to oranges! You're comparing kittens to fireflies.
At first I downmodded you because this is very much an overrated and purely sensational statement, but I have a better idea; I'll just correct it.
You made two completely false points, but first I'm going to address the second one: None of these man caused gene splices have ever been "set loose into the wild." In fact not a one of them has ever been outside of a lab environment. This is all done just to understand how genes work in general, and isn't used for producing GMO food.
Now your first point has maybe about 25% truth to it, the rest of it is...well...bullshit. This been going on for a lot longer than thousands of years, perhaps billions actually. In fact you yourself are the result exactly the kind of splicing that you describe, and so am I, and everybody else. In fact the entire portion of our genome that gives women a placenta was embedded into our genome from some other animal. This happens in nature all the time, viruses are the main cause. The human genome contains some 100,000 gene sequences from viruses, making up some 8% of our total DNA.
http://phenomena.nationalgeogr...
Yet somehow in spite of that fact, the world hasn't ended.
As for GMO food...well...actual truth of the matter is that the genes "implanted" into plant DNA to make GMO food are synthetic. They usually consist of around 15 different nucleotides. They were developed under the study of proteomics, which is an entire field that is dedicated to understanding how proteins work, which includes knowing how to build them. The typical change is to prevent the plant cells from being able to absorb glyphosate, effectively making them immune to it.
Consider this: Given that there are around 15 (give or take) known and very specific nucleotides configured in GMO foods, when during natural reproduction, some hundreds of thousands of nucleotides are changed in unknown ways, why is it that you consider the GMO food to be more dangerous?
I mean that's an insanely stupid conclusion to draw. The only thing I can conclude is that the very wealthy, very high profit margin organic lobby is paying you an insane amount of money to go around telling people bullshit stories about frankenfood.
(Isn't drawing silly conclusions fun?)