However, at some point I agree it might become obsolete. Just not in 2016. So there is nothing wrong mocking Apple for doing so. Apple also killed the floppy drive too early. I remember my college had a computer lab full of iMacs, each with an expensive USB floppy drive adapter. Just because everybody followed (since floppy became obsolete) doesn't mean Apple was right to do it so early.
That's a bold statement to come from the world's largest car maker. Automotive development cycles are long. What if they get it wrong and EVs don't prove to be universally applicable; for example because some can't charge at their homes?
If 80% of the people switch to electric, and the remaining 20% stick to combustion because they can't charge at home, do you realize what will happen? The number of gas station will fall. The offer of combustion cars will also fall. It will be a pain to drive a combustion car at that point. So most condos/apartments/parking lots will have to adapt one way or another.
Sure. But one of the parties in this equation is profiting off of the situation whereas I am not.
ou fail so badly at understanding economic concepts that it's not even funny.
If you purchase and use a car, it's because you have a benefit from it. Call it a "profit" or not, it doesn't matter. You use your car to go to work, to visit friends, it doesn't matter. You take a benefit from the car which pollutes. The corporation wouldn't have build it if there were no buyers. Therefore you are 100% responsible for the pollution associated to the construction and operation of the car, like it or not.
So explain to me how the responsibility of the pollution of all the farmers in California feeding all of those Chinese people falls on my shoulders when counting how much pollution a country makes?
It works both ways. China produce a lot of stuff which go to US buyers. Taking all that into account, the average US person emits a lot more greenhouse gases than the average Chinese. Like it or not.
Very few (1% I believe is the current accepted number?) people profit from these activities. Since I am not sharing in the profits, why am I being included the calculations for pollution?
I stopped reading right there. The answer to your question is obvious. Since you purchase/use the products of these "evil" corporations, maybe even you work for them, you are part of the pollution problem. No corporation pollutes for the sake of it. They pollute to create good/services for the consumers, which in the end are individuals one way or another.
It doesn't matter if you tax the corporation or the individual for the pollution. The result is the same. The polluting economic activity will reduce and less polluting activities will grow instead.
No matter the excuses, it makes the USA a part of the CO2 problem, not the solution. The USA is not in a position to criticize anybody (except maybe some heavy polluting persian gulf states), but especially not the EU.
You fall into the trap/fallacy. The car isn't crashed yet. What you are basically saying is that since we are going to crash, it's not worth it to try braking before we hit the wall. Some people even say we should accelerate and detach our seatbelt (emit even more CO2, sabotage every possible international agreement on CO2 reduction).
There are different types of crash. Not all have to be fatal.
It can't be reversed now even with major changes to carbon consumption (not that that would ever happen with both sides taking tons of cash from the energy lobbyists).
Nirvana fallacy. Just because a perfect solution doesn't exist doesn't mean reducing our CO2 emissions can't help. It might be too late to avoid a 2C temperature raise. But let's avoid a 5C raise. And if it's too late, then let's avoid a 10C raise.
It's a feature, not a bug. Not only the truck is doing more damage to the road, but also much more to the environment. One of the best thing that could happen to the world would be for the USA to trade its large SUV for compact cars.
Eliminate every single cent of tax funding for all roads, streets, highways and freeways. Make them pay for themselves. Put tolls on every Interstate, and every other freeway and highway. Charge people the minute they pull out of their driveway. No paved road without users paying for it directly. No use of roads at all, unless people are paying for it directly.
The best way to do that is not having tolls on every road (way to expensive to maintain and administer) but to have a much higher gas tax. You drive more? You pay more. Gas price should be at least doubled in the USA.
If everyone switch to an electric car to avoid the gas tax, then at least we will solve the pollution problem and we could then tax by the distance driven.
This is given you have cell phone service. You can be in airplane mode and use your GPS. How does your device know whether you can receive Galileo signals in airplane mode?
Many phones disable Galileo in software. So they use the extra signals when outside US territory, but disable it within US territory.
So they have to get an approximate location using GPS only first, and then, if you are outside US territory, can enable signals received from other satellites? Sounds like a PITA.
still, if the feature works as they says it does, it should be enabled from day one. Their algorithm is allegedly good enough to detect a "used" battery and reduce CPU speed only if the battery is used. Isn't it? Why does it always need to come from an OS update a year later? Why are they even maintaining a device white list which can "benefit" from this "feature"? It should be enabled for all devices and without requiring an update.
Why is this "feature" only included after they release the next model? A battery can't degrade before that, even if charged/discharged 10 times per day?
It was the cheapest I could find where I live. Fortunately, my credit card insurance covered the cost fully. But I was still shocked by the expensive price of these display repairs.
Slashdot Mirror
However, at some point I agree it might become obsolete. Just not in 2016. So there is nothing wrong mocking Apple for doing so.
Apple also killed the floppy drive too early. I remember my college had a computer lab full of iMacs, each with an expensive USB floppy drive adapter. Just because everybody followed (since floppy became obsolete) doesn't mean Apple was right to do it so early.
That's a bold statement to come from the world's largest car maker. Automotive development cycles are long. What if they get it wrong and EVs don't prove to be universally applicable; for example because some can't charge at their homes?
If 80% of the people switch to electric, and the remaining 20% stick to combustion because they can't charge at home, do you realize what will happen? The number of gas station will fall. The offer of combustion cars will also fall. It will be a pain to drive a combustion car at that point. So most condos/apartments/parking lots will have to adapt one way or another.
telegram still sucks, because it is based on phone number as an identifier
Sure. But one of the parties in this equation is profiting off of the situation whereas I am not.
ou fail so badly at understanding economic concepts that it's not even funny.
If you purchase and use a car, it's because you have a benefit from it. Call it a "profit" or not, it doesn't matter. You use your car to go to work, to visit friends, it doesn't matter. You take a benefit from the car which pollutes. The corporation wouldn't have build it if there were no buyers. Therefore you are 100% responsible for the pollution associated to the construction and operation of the car, like it or not.
So explain to me how the responsibility of the pollution of all the farmers in California feeding all of those Chinese people falls on my shoulders when counting how much pollution a country makes?
It works both ways. China produce a lot of stuff which go to US buyers. Taking all that into account, the average US person emits a lot more greenhouse gases than the average Chinese. Like it or not.
Very few (1% I believe is the current accepted number?) people profit from these activities. Since I am not sharing in the profits, why am I being included the calculations for pollution?
I stopped reading right there. The answer to your question is obvious. Since you purchase/use the products of these "evil" corporations, maybe even you work for them, you are part of the pollution problem. No corporation pollutes for the sake of it. They pollute to create good/services for the consumers, which in the end are individuals one way or another.
It doesn't matter if you tax the corporation or the individual for the pollution. The result is the same. The polluting economic activity will reduce and less polluting activities will grow instead.
No matter the excuses, it makes the USA a part of the CO2 problem, not the solution. The USA is not in a position to criticize anybody (except maybe some heavy polluting persian gulf states), but especially not the EU.
why would an individual or an entity get money for creating pollution?
I agree. Easiest/best way to cut emissions is to cut USA emissions.
The U.S. has already reduced carbon faster than the EU.
Wake me up when the U.S. has reduced carbon enough to get per capita emissions lower than the EU.
Let say I earned $100k this year. How much do I owe in BTC? Can I play the volatility at my advantage?
And this is why it is useless. If it can't be used to do an end run around a fascist government then it can't be used at all.
I agree, it is useless. That's why I'll continue to use my master card.
You fall into the trap/fallacy. The car isn't crashed yet. What you are basically saying is that since we are going to crash, it's not worth it to try braking before we hit the wall. Some people even say we should accelerate and detach our seatbelt (emit even more CO2, sabotage every possible international agreement on CO2 reduction).
There are different types of crash. Not all have to be fatal.
It can't be reversed now even with major changes to carbon consumption (not that that would ever happen with both sides taking tons of cash from the energy lobbyists).
Nirvana fallacy. Just because a perfect solution doesn't exist doesn't mean reducing our CO2 emissions can't help.
It might be too late to avoid a 2C temperature raise. But let's avoid a 5C raise. And if it's too late, then let's avoid a 10C raise.
It's a feature, not a bug.
Not only the truck is doing more damage to the road, but also much more to the environment. One of the best thing that could happen to the world would be for the USA to trade its large SUV for compact cars.
The problem with that is that some people drive a lot more than others. A flat fee per car is not a good idea to pay for roads (or pollution).
Eliminate every single cent of tax funding for all roads, streets, highways and freeways. Make them pay for themselves. Put tolls on every Interstate, and every other freeway and highway. Charge people the minute they pull out of their driveway. No paved road without users paying for it directly. No use of roads at all, unless people are paying for it directly.
The best way to do that is not having tolls on every road (way to expensive to maintain and administer) but to have a much higher gas tax. You drive more? You pay more. Gas price should be at least doubled in the USA.
If everyone switch to an electric car to avoid the gas tax, then at least we will solve the pollution problem and we could then tax by the distance driven.
Silicon valley was overpaid in 1997. We call that a correction. I bet outside Silicon Valley, tech workers are earning more.
This is given you have cell phone service. You can be in airplane mode and use your GPS. How does your device know whether you can receive Galileo signals in airplane mode?
Many phones disable Galileo in software. So they use the extra signals when outside US territory, but disable it within US territory.
So they have to get an approximate location using GPS only first, and then, if you are outside US territory, can enable signals received from other satellites? Sounds like a PITA.
so you really believe the A12X is as fast as the mobile Core i7 in most tasks?
How about they compress a a big file, or transcode a video file?
Sounds like Geekbench is a very badly written software that favors Apple's chips.
still, if the feature works as they says it does, it should be enabled from day one. Their algorithm is allegedly good enough to detect a "used" battery and reduce CPU speed only if the battery is used. Isn't it?
Why does it always need to come from an OS update a year later? Why are they even maintaining a device white list which can "benefit" from this "feature"? It should be enabled for all devices and without requiring an update.
Why is this "feature" only included after they release the next model? A battery can't degrade before that, even if charged/discharged 10 times per day?
Galaxy S8.
It was the cheapest I could find where I live. Fortunately, my credit card insurance covered the cost fully. But I was still shocked by the expensive price of these display repairs.