If you want more concrete examples, look at californias handgun safety certificate. It started out as something you'd probably have been all for (and even something I don't have an issue with in theory): In order to purchase a handgun you had to pass a written test and then demonstrate knowledge of safe handling to an instructor. Once that was done, you paid a small fee to cover the administrative costs and received a lifetime card allowing you to buy a handgun in the state of californiA.
As long as gun control advocates such as yourself ignore abuses like this, you'll never make any headway in convincing gun owners to agree with "sensible" regulation.
And therein lies the problem: any reasonable discussion gets drowned out by the screaming on the fringes of both sides. As a gun owner, I am in favor of reasonable laws that could keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have access to them. Unfortunately, there is too much money and political power at stake to allow a reasoned discussion
I say could, BTW, because no law is 100% effective, and would need to be adjusted based on its impact.
I hope they quit supporting the idea of every nut job having a gun.
Only if every auto accident is an argument to ban automobiles...
And automobiles have requirements in order to be able to drive one, includingbregistration, licensing and mandatory insurance. Improper operation, even minor ones over time, result in loss of your license. Seems it would be reasonable to apply some similar constraints on gun ownership.
Trump may be many things be he isn't a Republican. The Republican Party was a convenient tool for him to use for his own ends; but in the end he only cares about what is best for Trump, the Republican Party or anyone else be damned. If destroying the Republican Party enables him to get the adulation he so desperately craves he'll be the first to toss on gasoline and light a match.
Whatever you can say about Trump - one thing he is not and has never been is a religious conservative.
Exactly, if anything he is the antithesis of one; he is a real estate promoter and uses the same style as President as he did pushing real estate. Unfortunately, while it worked fine in the New York real estate world and during the election it has caused, and will continue to cause, problems for him as President.
Snowden appears to be arguing that she should be able to use a necessity defense; i.e provide justification for her acts and thus not guilty of a crime. That generally, IIRC, requires you to prove that you 1) acted to prevent a great harm by doing a lesser one; 2) you had no legal way to prevent the harm; 3) the danger was imminent.
If you can't prove all 3 the courts won't let you present that defense; so the prohibition in this case is not unique. What is different is Congress decided to codify it's prohibition into law rather than rely on the common law. Under those circumstances, I would think SCOTUS would defer to Congress and uphold the law since it is a codification of common law.
Independent of the rightness or wrongness of he actions; I would guess she would have a hard time proving all 3 criteria were met. Any harm had already passed and there was no imminent danger of it continuing, and she had a legal means to raise concerns. The reality of the situation appears to be she was pissed over the election and decided to do something; an act of civil disobedience that resulted in her arrest.
Probably the one Trump voters will start with when they realize the jobs aren't coming back, their benefits are being cut and they'll lose their health insurance all; but at least they've done their part to "Make America Great Again." One of my favorite lines was the Congressman from Alabama that argued against the ACA by asking why should healthy people pay for people who make poor lifestyle choices; while representing a state that is leading or near the top in obesity, lack of exercise and smoking. He needs to tell his constituents that they'll lose benefits and pay more because they made lifestyle choices that are bad.
If the middle man adds value (some do), I don't think that OP applies. Sometimes middle men are high value because they do the things you suggest (aggregate a group of customers and get them a better rate, for example). Many middle-men add no value. The example given was real estate agents who charge 6% to put your house on MLS!
Ed
I would say realtors destroy value by encouraging selling at the low end of the market. The ads I get from them soliciting listings brag about how fast they sell homes. Simple economics dictates things sell faster the cheaper they are, and the commision incentivises faster sales. An agent may only get an extra 600 dollars if you get an extra 10000; so getting the several thousand dollar commission quickly is better than a few hundred extra a month or two later. Their goal of getting paid as fast as possible runs counter to the seller's of getting the highest price. Freakenomics had a chapter on that topic.
Middlemen that add little to no value and do nothing but take a cut are a net drag on the economy; thankfully these tend to go away because of market forces, such as when travel agents stopped getting commissions for selling plane tickets.
Middlemen can reduce transaction and search costs, and thus add value. For example, a knowledgeable travel agent can explain the pros and cons of various cruise lines so you can pick one that meets your needs and not have to pour over reviews and take a few to see what you like. They can also bundle products to get you a cheaper total cost than buying each separately; or get bonus and upgrades. Similarly, hiring a general contractor instead of subbing all the work yourself adds costs but saves time and helps ensure quality work if you get a good general contractor. If you know what you want then middlemen are an unnecessary cost; but are not always a net drag.
For hotels to actually be successful in clawing back the business from travel sites, they're going to have to be willing to take that 30% commission that they were giving the travel sites, and give it to the traveler as a discount.
The are actually yield managing so those sites simply represent additional marginal revenue so giving up 30% isn't so bad to fill a room that might go unsold. If the drop rates across the board tehy'd lose too much money since everyone would get the discount.
From my experience, the hotel industry got much worse following the rise of these reseller sites. They suck up rooms and hold them, hoping for a better deal. That makes it harder to find rooms, and their policies are always worse. It wasn't long ago that any hotel wouldn't charge you if you canceled the day of your reservation. That's getting harder to find, since these sites lowered expectations.
The concepts isn't new, consolidators have been around a long time, they were just hard t find and often solid inventory through travel agents; which helped agents get good deals for clients and unloaded excess stock for hotels. The rise of sites, as you point out, made this worse as it became easy to find these deals. Hotels still can sell these rooms as tehy haven't sold them to the site, just made them available at a specific rate and if the room goes away before the site books it then so be it; at least that's how I understand most of the sites work. I generally find better rates on the hotels' site anyway, or on Amex or Costco a you point out.
Indeedy, but words that carry certain expectations are not permitted in advertising.
I guess the question is does laptop imply a physical keyboard or merely a size and the ability to type even if it is a. Irtual keyboard that has relocated the typing surface to the screen?
it is now illegal to grow mango and dandelions as well as a plant called the “thunder god vine." Raids on houses with dandelion infestations are expected to commence forthwith; with inhabitants potentially facing "growing dandelions with intent to distribute" for larger infestations. Right to Life organizations hail the new laws as a great step in protecting future unborn Republicans.
If public comments matter this much, that's a clear sign these rules shouldn't be made by a small unelected board. Rather they should be made by the public, by having elected representatives pass a law.
They do, then punt enforcement and rule making to an agency.
Add in the ability to add an Intel processor and the XENA emulate all the Mac ROMs; as well as run Windows. Then you might just have a machine with wider appeal, especially if you could get better than Mac Pro perfomance at 2/3 or less cost.
That's the real killer - who wants to pay $50 for a movie; even if yo have a nice theatre setup? Sure, some people may but I doubt it will be enough to be profitable. Merely making the movie available at the same time doesn't replicate the theater experience.And before commenters get all snarky about people talking, texting, etc. in theaters do you think it will better at home?
First, this system's price is for those who already spent $30K+ on a theatre setup, so they are only targeting the few people who have a really nice set up already.
Exactly - a very small market that probably will not be enough to sustain a business.
Second, $50 is not a lot of money to see a movie. With ticket prices already around $12 per person, that's only a little over 4 tickets (and most people who build theatres at home seat 6-8 in two rows). Add in parking, gas, snacks, etc, and you're looking at a good $60-80 for a night out with the family. If you have a few friends over for dinner and a movie, $50 is cheap to watch the latest movie as it hits the box office.
It boils down to "What percentage of the movie going population go to see movies in the theater, especially the first weeks, for the experience? You aren't going to get the same experience at home as you do in IMAX or even just a big screen. For some its a relatively inexpensive night out. Will such a setup replace the experience and entertainment value of going to the movies? I have a decent home theatre setup, as do many of my friends, but we still go to movies, even tehough we could afford the $50, because it can't match the total experience. It'll have to be a lot cheaper to become any sort of larger market product, and studios have a vested interest in the current system to risk upending it.
And yes, you get nice comfy seats as well.
And texting/chatting is far better when you know everyone and can shush them or chase them out of the theatre. Or pause the movie and then shame them in front of everyone. And if you're that guy that can't get rid of his FOMO and ruining the enjoyment of the movie for everyone else, you'll probably find yourself invited over to watch movies less and less.
In some ways it does get easier but in others it is harder when friendships and relationships are involved. I can see where people would decide to pass on watching with someone who chased them out, shamed them, embarrassed their friends by such actions, or constantly stopped the movie for whatever reason.
Personally, I would love to get such a unit. But I don't have a dedicated theatre room, nor can I afford the unit itself
That's why I think it will be at best a very small niche product with limited growth potential where t some point the revenue form movies isn't enough to sustain a business. If studios decided to cut the price significantly or wanted to make movies available at a premium on release day they can already do that via iTunes, Amazon Video, cable, etc. That they don't tells me they don't see it as a smart business move. Studios make money off the early ticket sales and theaters rely on concessions. While losing say 10% of the box office take but making it up in online sales may not seem to matter to the studio, it could mean the difference between a theater being profitable or not. If theaters start to close, studios lose the other 90% of the revenue from a release (not to mention the buzz that brings people in, demand for merchandise, etc.) ; money that is not made up by the $50 buyer; so studios in the end have a vested interest in keeping theaters in business.
7. If he manages to get past all the above unscathed: the cost per movie view will likely be higher than a theatre because of #1 and #2; who the hell wants to pay that for a movie shot to be seen on a theatre-sized screen? Sounds like a ripoff.
That's the real killer - who wants to pay $50 for a movie; even if yo have a nice theatre setup? Sure, some people may but I doubt it will be enough to be profitable. Merely making the movie available at the same time doesn't replicate the theater experience.And before commenters get all snarky about people talking, texting, etc. in theaters do you think it will better at home?
File all the patents you want, buddy, it'll get you nowhere.
According to info from TheVerge and Wired, Alpha Go used to draw "4,402,836 MWh" counting both the computing nodes and cooling.
That number seems to be Google's total power consumption for a year, not AlphaGo's. To put that number in perspective it would be 4.4 GigaWatt-hours, roughly the total output of 4 large power plants running at full power. If AlphaGo was consuming power at that rate, minor changes in power draw would have large implications for grid stability as plants try to ramp up and down to match demand with output.
This would allow anyone to flood Congresscritter's voicemails silently as well; all you need is to get their number and be on the same provider. No hangups, just long missives they would have to go through until they block your number. They would no doubt spoof, use various numbers, or use unavailable as their number Seriously though, how is this a free speech first amendment issue? I have no obligation to provide them with a platform for their speech, and my phone is private property where the first doesn't apply. What is needed is an app that can read VM and auto delete robo calls. Fight stupidity with technology, because fixing stupid is a no win battle.
This is why there needs to be a change in the law. It should be unlawful to take the results of publicly-funded research and lock it away behind the paywall of a private company who contribute nothing.
Pass the law, and publish-behind-paywalls-or-perish will perish overnight. Well-behaved replacements will emerge. We know this is possible, as the open access movement is already making some progress.
While that is true, the way universities reward publishing needs to be rethought as well. Given the relative ease, vs paper, to make research widely available, universities could form consortiums to handle the editorial side; especially since many of their faculty probably already are doing peer reviews. The challenge would be to get everyone to view these new journals as prestigious as the old ones. There is no assurance tehy would be free, however, as some universities do provide their research journals for free while others make serious money from them. When I was in grad school, the university insisted we were not allowed to sell our case books as they only licensed the content which prohibited resale. In reality all they could do is stop us from advertising them on campus bulletin boards; but they were worried their license fees would go up if they allowed resale. As for "doctrine of first sale" a lawyer I talked to at the time (I was writing an article on it) said it is not cut and dry and depended on the terms of the sale; and at any rate they could forbid advertising them for sale on campus.
Why would you do that, considering that pneumatics (rubber tyres) wear out very quickly and you can't do anything meaningful while driving? Besides airplanes, Europe uses trains extensively, since steel wheels on steel rails last a long time and the traction can be easily electrified and run off hydro dams or nuke plants essentially for free, while pax peck their laptops, smartphones or books. It doesn't make sense to bridal carry your car coast-to-coast when you can easily rent one for the "last mile" if needed.
We have trains where the population density is high enough to support their operation, such as on the east coast; even then many lose money. Air travel is much more popular for other trips since a train would take all day when a plane might only take a few hours.
Those calculators have no network connectivity so the amount of data that the calculator company gets is limited. If you buy one at a campus bookstore it's possible that the store passes along some demographic info.
The TI doesn't but per TFA: the TI-like Desmos online calculator...access via a smartphone, tablet or any other connected device is a different beast altogether.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want more concrete examples, look at californias handgun safety certificate. It started out as something you'd probably have been all for (and even something I don't have an issue with in theory): In order to purchase a handgun you had to pass a written test and then demonstrate knowledge of safe handling to an instructor. Once that was done, you paid a small fee to cover the administrative costs and received a lifetime card allowing you to buy a handgun in the state of californiA.
As long as gun control advocates such as yourself ignore abuses like this, you'll never make any headway in convincing gun owners to agree with "sensible" regulation.
And therein lies the problem: any reasonable discussion gets drowned out by the screaming on the fringes of both sides. As a gun owner, I am in favor of reasonable laws that could keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have access to them. Unfortunately, there is too much money and political power at stake to allow a reasoned discussion
I say could, BTW, because no law is 100% effective, and would need to be adjusted based on its impact.
Only if every auto accident is an argument to ban automobiles...
And automobiles have requirements in order to be able to drive one, includingbregistration, licensing and mandatory insurance. Improper operation, even minor ones over time, result in loss of your license. Seems it would be reasonable to apply some similar constraints on gun ownership.
Trump is a Republican.
Trump may be many things be he isn't a Republican. The Republican Party was a convenient tool for him to use for his own ends; but in the end he only cares about what is best for Trump, the Republican Party or anyone else be damned. If destroying the Republican Party enables him to get the adulation he so desperately craves he'll be the first to toss on gasoline and light a match.
Whatever you can say about Trump - one thing he is not and has never been is a religious conservative.
Exactly, if anything he is the antithesis of one; he is a real estate promoter and uses the same style as President as he did pushing real estate. Unfortunately, while it worked fine in the New York real estate world and during the election it has caused, and will continue to cause, problems for him as President.
Snowden appears to be arguing that she should be able to use a necessity defense; i.e provide justification for her acts and thus not guilty of a crime. That generally, IIRC, requires you to prove that you 1) acted to prevent a great harm by doing a lesser one; 2) you had no legal way to prevent the harm; 3) the danger was imminent.
If you can't prove all 3 the courts won't let you present that defense; so the prohibition in this case is not unique. What is different is Congress decided to codify it's prohibition into law rather than rely on the common law. Under those circumstances, I would think SCOTUS would defer to Congress and uphold the law since it is a codification of common law.
Independent of the rightness or wrongness of he actions; I would guess she would have a hard time proving all 3 criteria were met. Any harm had already passed and there was no imminent danger of it continuing, and she had a legal means to raise concerns. The reality of the situation appears to be she was pissed over the election and decided to do something; an act of civil disobedience that resulted in her arrest.
So, if that Walmart employee runs over a girl scout troop on the way delivering a package?
WalMart will be buying a lot of cookies...
In addition, workman's compnshoukd cover the employee as well.
What stage of grief is 'idiotic snark'?
Get on with it.
Probably the one Trump voters will start with when they realize the jobs aren't coming back, their benefits are being cut and they'll lose their health insurance all; but at least they've done their part to "Make America Great Again." One of my favorite lines was the Congressman from Alabama that argued against the ACA by asking why should healthy people pay for people who make poor lifestyle choices; while representing a state that is leading or near the top in obesity, lack of exercise and smoking. He needs to tell his constituents that they'll lose benefits and pay more because they made lifestyle choices that are bad.
I'd have settled for Jeff Foxworthy in a pinch, but Martin Sheen would be better.
I'd go with Ron White; he'd have the right combo of wit and snark to really make it work.
If the middle man adds value (some do), I don't think that OP applies. Sometimes middle men are high value because they do the things you suggest (aggregate a group of customers and get them a better rate, for example). Many middle-men add no value. The example given was real estate agents who charge 6% to put your house on MLS! Ed
I would say realtors destroy value by encouraging selling at the low end of the market. The ads I get from them soliciting listings brag about how fast they sell homes. Simple economics dictates things sell faster the cheaper they are, and the commision incentivises faster sales. An agent may only get an extra 600 dollars if you get an extra 10000; so getting the several thousand dollar commission quickly is better than a few hundred extra a month or two later. Their goal of getting paid as fast as possible runs counter to the seller's of getting the highest price. Freakenomics had a chapter on that topic.
Middlemen that add little to no value and do nothing but take a cut are a net drag on the economy; thankfully these tend to go away because of market forces, such as when travel agents stopped getting commissions for selling plane tickets.
Middlemen can reduce transaction and search costs, and thus add value. For example, a knowledgeable travel agent can explain the pros and cons of various cruise lines so you can pick one that meets your needs and not have to pour over reviews and take a few to see what you like. They can also bundle products to get you a cheaper total cost than buying each separately; or get bonus and upgrades. Similarly, hiring a general contractor instead of subbing all the work yourself adds costs but saves time and helps ensure quality work if you get a good general contractor. If you know what you want then middlemen are an unnecessary cost; but are not always a net drag.
For hotels to actually be successful in clawing back the business from travel sites, they're going to have to be willing to take that 30% commission that they were giving the travel sites, and give it to the traveler as a discount.
The are actually yield managing so those sites simply represent additional marginal revenue so giving up 30% isn't so bad to fill a room that might go unsold. If the drop rates across the board tehy'd lose too much money since everyone would get the discount.
From my experience, the hotel industry got much worse following the rise of these reseller sites. They suck up rooms and hold them, hoping for a better deal. That makes it harder to find rooms, and their policies are always worse. It wasn't long ago that any hotel wouldn't charge you if you canceled the day of your reservation. That's getting harder to find, since these sites lowered expectations.
The concepts isn't new, consolidators have been around a long time, they were just hard t find and often solid inventory through travel agents; which helped agents get good deals for clients and unloaded excess stock for hotels. The rise of sites, as you point out, made this worse as it became easy to find these deals. Hotels still can sell these rooms as tehy haven't sold them to the site, just made them available at a specific rate and if the room goes away before the site books it then so be it; at least that's how I understand most of the sites work. I generally find better rates on the hotels' site anyway, or on Amex or Costco a you point out.
I guess the question is does laptop imply a physical keyboard
Yes. https://www.google.com/search?...
or merely a size and the ability to type even if it is a virtual keyboard that has relocated the typing surface to the screen?
No. https://www.google.com/search?...
While I agree with you Google isn't authoritative and can see an argument to the contrary.
Indeedy, but words that carry certain expectations are not permitted in advertising.
I guess the question is does laptop imply a physical keyboard or merely a size and the ability to type even if it is a. Irtual keyboard that has relocated the typing surface to the screen?
it is now illegal to grow mango and dandelions as well as a plant called the “thunder god vine." Raids on houses with dandelion infestations are expected to commence forthwith; with inhabitants potentially facing "growing dandelions with intent to distribute" for larger infestations. Right to Life organizations hail the new laws as a great step in protecting future unborn Republicans.
If public comments matter this much, that's a clear sign these rules shouldn't be made by a small unelected board. Rather they should be made by the public, by having elected representatives pass a law.
They do, then punt enforcement and rule making to an agency.
Add in the ability to add an Intel processor and the XENA emulate all the Mac ROMs; as well as run Windows. Then you might just have a machine with wider appeal, especially if you could get better than Mac Pro perfomance at 2/3 or less cost.
First, this system's price is for those who already spent $30K+ on a theatre setup, so they are only targeting the few people who have a really nice set up already.
Exactly - a very small market that probably will not be enough to sustain a business.
Second, $50 is not a lot of money to see a movie. With ticket prices already around $12 per person, that's only a little over 4 tickets (and most people who build theatres at home seat 6-8 in two rows). Add in parking, gas, snacks, etc, and you're looking at a good $60-80 for a night out with the family. If you have a few friends over for dinner and a movie, $50 is cheap to watch the latest movie as it hits the box office.
It boils down to "What percentage of the movie going population go to see movies in the theater, especially the first weeks, for the experience? You aren't going to get the same experience at home as you do in IMAX or even just a big screen. For some its a relatively inexpensive night out. Will such a setup replace the experience and entertainment value of going to the movies? I have a decent home theatre setup, as do many of my friends, but we still go to movies, even tehough we could afford the $50, because it can't match the total experience. It'll have to be a lot cheaper to become any sort of larger market product, and studios have a vested interest in the current system to risk upending it.
And yes, you get nice comfy seats as well.
And texting/chatting is far better when you know everyone and can shush them or chase them out of the theatre. Or pause the movie and then shame them in front of everyone. And if you're that guy that can't get rid of his FOMO and ruining the enjoyment of the movie for everyone else, you'll probably find yourself invited over to watch movies less and less.
In some ways it does get easier but in others it is harder when friendships and relationships are involved. I can see where people would decide to pass on watching with someone who chased them out, shamed them, embarrassed their friends by such actions, or constantly stopped the movie for whatever reason.
Personally, I would love to get such a unit. But I don't have a dedicated theatre room, nor can I afford the unit itself
That's why I think it will be at best a very small niche product with limited growth potential where t some point the revenue form movies isn't enough to sustain a business. If studios decided to cut the price significantly or wanted to make movies available at a premium on release day they can already do that via iTunes, Amazon Video, cable, etc. That they don't tells me they don't see it as a smart business move. Studios make money off the early ticket sales and theaters rely on concessions. While losing say 10% of the box office take but making it up in online sales may not seem to matter to the studio, it could mean the difference between a theater being profitable or not. If theaters start to close, studios lose the other 90% of the revenue from a release (not to mention the buzz that brings people in, demand for merchandise, etc.) ; money that is not made up by the $50 buyer; so studios in the end have a vested interest in keeping theaters in business.
7. If he manages to get past all the above unscathed: the cost per movie view will likely be higher than a theatre because of #1 and #2; who the hell wants to pay that for a movie shot to be seen on a theatre-sized screen? Sounds like a ripoff.
That's the real killer - who wants to pay $50 for a movie; even if yo have a nice theatre setup? Sure, some people may but I doubt it will be enough to be profitable. Merely making the movie available at the same time doesn't replicate the theater experience.And before commenters get all snarky about people talking, texting, etc. in theaters do you think it will better at home?
File all the patents you want, buddy, it'll get you nowhere.
Yup.
According to info from TheVerge and Wired, Alpha Go used to draw "4,402,836 MWh" counting both the computing nodes and cooling.
That number seems to be Google's total power consumption for a year, not AlphaGo's. To put that number in perspective it would be 4.4 GigaWatt-hours, roughly the total output of 4 large power plants running at full power. If AlphaGo was consuming power at that rate, minor changes in power draw would have large implications for grid stability as plants try to ramp up and down to match demand with output.
This would allow anyone to flood Congresscritter's voicemails silently as well; all you need is to get their number and be on the same provider. No hangups, just long missives they would have to go through until they block your number. They would no doubt spoof, use various numbers, or use unavailable as their number Seriously though, how is this a free speech first amendment issue? I have no obligation to provide them with a platform for their speech, and my phone is private property where the first doesn't apply. What is needed is an app that can read VM and auto delete robo calls. Fight stupidity with technology, because fixing stupid is a no win battle.
This is why there needs to be a change in the law. It should be unlawful to take the results of publicly-funded research and lock it away behind the paywall of a private company who contribute nothing.
Pass the law, and publish-behind-paywalls-or-perish will perish overnight. Well-behaved replacements will emerge. We know this is possible, as the open access movement is already making some progress.
While that is true, the way universities reward publishing needs to be rethought as well. Given the relative ease, vs paper, to make research widely available, universities could form consortiums to handle the editorial side; especially since many of their faculty probably already are doing peer reviews. The challenge would be to get everyone to view these new journals as prestigious as the old ones. There is no assurance tehy would be free, however, as some universities do provide their research journals for free while others make serious money from them. When I was in grad school, the university insisted we were not allowed to sell our case books as they only licensed the content which prohibited resale. In reality all they could do is stop us from advertising them on campus bulletin boards; but they were worried their license fees would go up if they allowed resale. As for "doctrine of first sale" a lawyer I talked to at the time (I was writing an article on it) said it is not cut and dry and depended on the terms of the sale; and at any rate they could forbid advertising them for sale on campus.
Why would you do that, considering that pneumatics (rubber tyres) wear out very quickly and you can't do anything meaningful while driving? Besides airplanes, Europe uses trains extensively, since steel wheels on steel rails last a long time and the traction can be easily electrified and run off hydro dams or nuke plants essentially for free, while pax peck their laptops, smartphones or books. It doesn't make sense to bridal carry your car coast-to-coast when you can easily rent one for the "last mile" if needed.
We have trains where the population density is high enough to support their operation, such as on the east coast; even then many lose money. Air travel is much more popular for other trips since a train would take all day when a plane might only take a few hours.
Those calculators have no network connectivity so the amount of data that the calculator company gets is limited. If you buy one at a campus bookstore it's possible that the store passes along some demographic info.
The TI doesn't but per TFA: the TI-like Desmos online calculator ...access via a smartphone, tablet or any other connected device is a different beast altogether.