You make prediction, a projection of how satisfied you will be with a future purchase of a new Tesla model, based in part upon current owner's experience and reviews of prior Tesla models.
When Consumer Reports advises its readers on what to expect their satisfaction with a new Tesla model will be, influenced by what Consumer Reports values in cars and other products they report on, they are "making stuff up"?
I see these "Hate has no home here" yard signs in a liberal/Progressive college town.
If half the population hates Mr. Trump, that means this homeowner is signaling to people-in-the-know that he supports President Trump because he is against hate?
Unless you are providing your own Tesla Wall or shutting down your operations when the wind stops blowing and the sun isn't shining, your "share" of Green Power cannot ever be more than, say, 20 percent of your total consumption. Or whatever other percentage of intermittent power can be placed on the Grid, without compromising its stability in the absence of grid-scale storage or some serious "demand management" in terms of customers using electricity when the intermittent sources are online.
Certainly claiming 100% Renewable Power as one local grocery store does is a fiction. "Oh yeah, renewables only account for 5 percent of power production but I am paying for Green Power so my share comes out of that 5 percent."
What if everyone signed up for Green Power? In the absence of grid-scale storage or management of customer loads, the theoretical limit to the amount of renewable power, on average, is much less than 100%.
If Amazon or Google was able to regulate their demand to match the amount of renewable power generated, I would say they are on to something and doing something worthy of praise. In the absence of Google shutting down servers when the wind stops blowing, Google is just blowing hot air.
on a "car you've never even touched and which nobody has had on the road for any length of time, and is based on an entirely new platform from a manufacturer's previous vehicles."
where your office is on a hallway with tiled walls and linoleum floors, and where the sounds of slamming doors from classrooms, offices occupied by multiple grad students and a conference room with a particularly balky door SLAM, SLAM, SLAM seep over the transom through the false ceiling for the A/C retrofit.
Classroom instructors insist on closing their doors -- actually, I would prefer to hear the ah-ums of the disfluent instructor teaching multiple sections of a required technical writing course or the stentorian voice of the guy teaching 20 bored grad students clumsy separation-of-variables methods to describe plasma waves under unrealistically simplified geometries to the SLAM, SLAM of students leaving and reentering those classrooms during a 50 minute class period to take bathroom breaks. And then when class lets out, there is a burst of SLAM, SLAM, SLAM, SLAM because pushing the door against the damper to activate the feature to hold the door open is beyond the skill level of Engineering undergraduate students.
Working evenings or weekends is not any better because students claim the classrooms for their study groups by closing the doors, and of course one member of the group has to leave for a bathroom or snack break every 10 minutes, multiplied by the number of classroom on that hallway - SLAM, SLAM.
Every once-in-a-while someone from Facilities comes to adjust the ancient door closers to make the slam phase less energetic and to lube the ancient door knobs and bolts to quiet them, but I guess they go out of adjustment. The door nearest me has had a closer replaced with a modern version with adjustment instructions on the Web, but it requires a special sized Allen wrench that I don't yet have; the ancient closers the size of fire hydrants are a complete mystery as there are no adjustment instructions on the Internet, and there is a sense that if one "went at" one, a screw would come loose and a puddle of door-closer oil would form on the linoleum.
I would welcome a tree house, a dark, windowless (and quiet!) basement, anything over this.
Slashdot user Tablizer will vehemently disagree, but there are some domains that are a natural fit to OOP. GUI programming comes to mind. In a sort of corollary to Greenspun's Tenth Law (Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp.), any attempt to implement a GUI framework with structs and functions contains an awkward, clumsy and ugly implementation of an OOP language and runtime. Think of straight C programming to the Windows API after Charles Petzold's books or think of Gnome under Linux.
Some people actually prefer C-language Windows API programming to the travesty that is C++ programming in Microsoft Foundation Classes (MFC), which combines OOP with generic programming (C++ templates) with you-can't-touch-this automatic code generation. I think part of what is wrong with MFC is the "M" part (Microsoft). Every organization seems to promote a certain coding style -- think of the stodginess of IBM, the Berkeley neck-beard influence on Unix, whatever attributes SUN contributed to Java -- and Microsoft has its own quirks. The other part is that the Windows API itself with all of its "handles" as references to objects maintained by the OS, along with the ability of the OS to call back into application code to modify or extend the behavior of such objects, is a kind of OOP. This OOP is a Cargo Cult version of what Bill Gates saw on his visit to PARC where he must have been awed by what he saw yet didn't quite intellectually grasp, especially with respect to the underlying software scaffolding and infrastructure to make it happen. Even so, this deal with the "window handles" is an OOP that has a serious impedance match to the C++ OOP, and the Dune-novel plans-within-plans-within-plans of abstraction layers in MFC are an attempt to get the two OOPs to fit.
One of the problems that OOP addresses is the one encountered by deep module hierarchies in imperative-style programming. In a prompt-user response style of console-mode user interface that used to be common before GUIs took over, the code side has called so deeply into a sequence of function calls that the software burps on some unexpected user response. There was some name people gave this, I remember something like the "Cuba Lake effect", but I see nothing on a Google search as the discussions of this took place in Dr. Dobb's Journal long before the Internet became popular. OOP supplies a solution to this in the form of facilitating up-calls or call-backs or whatever-you-want-to-call this back up the hierarchy. A worker can ask his boss a question if he gets stuck. In the absence of an OOP like C++ or Java, you end of simulating this by populating your struct with function pointers to make the up-call.
This business of object class hierarchies where you have an Animal parent class, a Mammal subclass and Dog and Cat subclasses of Mammal, and that they each inherit and modify the Poop() method from parent class Animal to do their business, that the domains addressed by software systems are organized that way is the nonsense part of OOP. The real world doesn't have such neat hierarchies of structure, and to force OOP on that requires such awful things as multiple inheritance that can become ambiguous, interface inheritance that can require duplicating code, object composition that can be clunky in forwarding so many function calls, or something that probably already exists in Common Lisp (Greenspun's Tenth Law!). Me and many others have backed away from (deep) inheritance hierarchies and moved in the direction of object composition, but the tons of statements forwarding function calls is so tiresome.
Much of the article made sense because I have devoted the last 20 years of my life trying to realize some benefit from writing software in object-oriented form.
To a non-code writing lay person, or even to me if I had been unfrozen from suspended animation since the mid 1990's, the article is pure gibberish.
The article appears to only superficially deal with OOP in the form of message passing (Smalltalk and Objective-C to some degree) and what passes for OOP in the form of C++ and Java. This is the software side of the difference between the Xerox Alto and the reproduction of what Steve Jobs thought an Also was all about in the form of the Lisa or the original Macintosh.
Perhaps what we call OOP is a kind of Cargo Cult version of what was created at PARC? That it recreates the forms of the American military occupation of the South Pacific islands without being the WW-II American military? The Wikipedia article doesn't even begin to get into this.
The Carbon Cycle is well understood. Of the CO2 emitted by human activity, half of that ends up in the atmosphere, the other half ends up in sinks. Half of that half goes into the ocean and the remaining half of that half goes into the soil.
The reservoir capacity of the ocean is vast, orders of magnitude greater than the atmosphere. What prevents all of the CO2 from diffusing into the ocean is 1) the equilibrium of atmospheric and ocean CO2 follows a non-linear roughly 10th-power relationship owing to the chain of chemical reactions by which CO2 is "dissolved" (rather chemically bonded into soluble carbonates) and 2) there is a finite rate of mixing of the surface ocean layer with the deep layer. This model of the ocean along with some assumptions regarding the cycling of carbon between the atmosphere and the soils on land gives an accurate trace of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from about 290 ppm at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution to over 400 ppm today. It also predicts the carbon isotope concentrations along with the seemingly short lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere from the rapid extinction of radioactive C14 from atmospheric H-bomb testing that (mostly) ended in the mid 1960s -- this has to do with the non-linear absorption of CO2 by the ocean, which exchanges CO2 molecules at a high rate but resists requires greater changes in atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 to shift the chemical equilibrium. This may seem counter to intuition, but this is well understood P-Chem.
Even though only half of the CO2 emitted by humans ends up in the atmosphere on account of the sinks, just about all of the increase in CO2 is the fault of humans. That is, unless there is a natural source of thermally stimulated emission of CO2 that needs to be taken into account.
It is perhaps not widely known, but there is a large fluctuation in the year-to-year increase in atmospheric CO2. The fluctuation is of comparable magnitude as the human contribution that is believed to be much more steady -- we have boom and bust cycles in industrial output, but the variations are not quite that much.
You may not have heard of this fluctuation, but NOAA's Carbon Cycle Guru Pieter Tans certainly knows about it. He attributes it to the effect of temperature changes on the rotting of fallen leaves and other litter in the tropical rainforests. He claims that the leaves that fall are very quickly rotted away, releasing most of their carbon back as CO2 into the atmosphere. His claim is that owing to the rapid decay of dead plant matter under tropical conditions, the reservoir is small. It accounts for the correlation between temperature and increase in atmospheric CO2 (called "net emissions), only occurring over short time windows. This correlation exists over longer time scales, but matters get fuzzy because human CO2 has ramped up over a time of gradual warming.
Were you to believe Pieter Tans (yes, believe as much of this is based on modeling assumptions), there is minimal effect of decades-long increase in atmospheric temperature in driving CO2 emissions from the soil -- the decades-long increase is all attributed to the decades long gradual increase in industrial emissions with minimal contribution from warming of soils. Were you to regard NOAA's top Carbon Cycle dude as wrong, that increasing temperature drives a positive feedback of CO2 emissions over longer times than the year-to-year fluctuations seen in the atmospheric CO2 "Keeling curve", which TFA does, you would have already seen the effect on atmospheric CO2 because the climate has indeed been warming for most of the 20th century -- it has been warming, has it not, that is, unless you are a Climate Change Denier?
If contra-Pieter Tans Head of the Carbon Cycle Section at NOAA the long term temperature trend is stimulating CO2 emissions from the soil in a positive feedback, there must be a countervailing negative feedback in the form of a commensurately higher absorption of CO2 by plants, an absorption that is sens
"Sputnik burned up on 4 January 1958 while reentering Earth's atmosphere, after three months, 1440 completed orbits of the Earth,[1] and a distance travelled of about 70 million km (43 million mi).[10]"
In our esteemed Slashdot colleague's homeland, orchards are an important part of the economy and relieve stress by making a healthy snack always at hand. Yes, you indeed had better get your grove in place, and you want the soil down packed (but not too much) so the roots for the newly planted trees can get established.
This is a tree analogy to a car, but Elon Musk had better heed that lesson.
Is this sort of like the whole community of Delphi Pascal users who have cut themselves of from whatever Embarcadero is selling and are still using Delphi 7?
They were forced, forced, I tell you. They would have much preferred to use a console version of JCL, but nooooo! They had to learn PC-DOS/MS-DOS.
Yeah, yeah, Slashdot blah blah Unix (Linux didn't yet exist). DOS was pretty much a clone of TOPS-10 or any of a number of Digital Equipment Corporation OS's from the standpoint of the commands. The story was that young Mr. Gates stole online time on a PDP-10 timesharing service to become proficient in coding.
I used PDP-8, PDP-11 and PDP-10 computers in school as well as my first engineering job out of school, and DOS was a very easy transition once I hacked that drive letter thing. Unix/Linux, not so much.
This is like Dr. Evil who held the world hostage to his Evil scheme, that is, until he was paid . . . one . . . million . . . dollars! Number Two had to take him aside to explain that a person having been in frozen suspension since the 60's might not be aware that one million dollars is not really all that much money taking inflation into account.
So this device cuts "soot causing carbon emissions" by "thousands of tons", "slashing fuel consumption by 10%"?
Such suggests that the emissions are in the tens of thousands of tons and nines-of-thousands-of-tons of that awful "soot causing carbon" is, what is the correct word, still "spewed" into the atmosphere?
Slashdot is "News for Nerds" and presumably many of us have technical backgrounds where we understand that a 10% improvement can be significant were it combined with other such improvements, but can we be spared argument-by-a-large-number?
Yes, the Surface has fans -- if you leave it on long enough or launch a compute-bound program, you will hear this hissing noise that sounds like a bad speaker but is actually the fan.
Slashdot Mirror
You make prediction, a projection of how satisfied you will be with a future purchase of a new Tesla model, based in part upon current owner's experience and reviews of prior Tesla models.
When Consumer Reports advises its readers on what to expect their satisfaction with a new Tesla model will be, influenced by what Consumer Reports values in cars and other products they report on, they are "making stuff up"?
I see these "Hate has no home here" yard signs in a liberal/Progressive college town.
If half the population hates Mr. Trump, that means this homeowner is signaling to people-in-the-know that he supports President Trump because he is against hate?
Unless you are providing your own Tesla Wall or shutting down your operations when the wind stops blowing and the sun isn't shining, your "share" of Green Power cannot ever be more than, say, 20 percent of your total consumption. Or whatever other percentage of intermittent power can be placed on the Grid, without compromising its stability in the absence of grid-scale storage or some serious "demand management" in terms of customers using electricity when the intermittent sources are online.
Certainly claiming 100% Renewable Power as one local grocery store does is a fiction. "Oh yeah, renewables only account for 5 percent of power production but I am paying for Green Power so my share comes out of that 5 percent."
What if everyone signed up for Green Power? In the absence of grid-scale storage or management of customer loads, the theoretical limit to the amount of renewable power, on average, is much less than 100%.
If Amazon or Google was able to regulate their demand to match the amount of renewable power generated, I would say they are on to something and doing something worthy of praise. In the absence of Google shutting down servers when the wind stops blowing, Google is just blowing hot air.
on a "car you've never even touched and which nobody has had on the road for any length of time, and is based on an entirely new platform from a manufacturer's previous vehicles."
Yeah, yeah, it's just a metaphor, but it speaks volumes with respect to thought processes.
where your office is on a hallway with tiled walls and linoleum floors, and where the sounds of slamming doors from classrooms, offices occupied by multiple grad students and a conference room with a particularly balky door SLAM, SLAM, SLAM seep over the transom through the false ceiling for the A/C retrofit.
Classroom instructors insist on closing their doors -- actually, I would prefer to hear the ah-ums of the disfluent instructor teaching multiple sections of a required technical writing course or the stentorian voice of the guy teaching 20 bored grad students clumsy separation-of-variables methods to describe plasma waves under unrealistically simplified geometries to the SLAM, SLAM of students leaving and reentering those classrooms during a 50 minute class period to take bathroom breaks. And then when class lets out, there is a burst of SLAM, SLAM, SLAM, SLAM because pushing the door against the damper to activate the feature to hold the door open is beyond the skill level of Engineering undergraduate students.
Working evenings or weekends is not any better because students claim the classrooms for their study groups by closing the doors, and of course one member of the group has to leave for a bathroom or snack break every 10 minutes, multiplied by the number of classroom on that hallway - SLAM, SLAM.
Every once-in-a-while someone from Facilities comes to adjust the ancient door closers to make the slam phase less energetic and to lube the ancient door knobs and bolts to quiet them, but I guess they go out of adjustment. The door nearest me has had a closer replaced with a modern version with adjustment instructions on the Web, but it requires a special sized Allen wrench that I don't yet have; the ancient closers the size of fire hydrants are a complete mystery as there are no adjustment instructions on the Internet, and there is a sense that if one "went at" one, a screw would come loose and a puddle of door-closer oil would form on the linoleum.
I would welcome a tree house, a dark, windowless (and quiet!) basement, anything over this.
Woz is still with us?
Slashdot user Tablizer will vehemently disagree, but there are some domains that are a natural fit to OOP. GUI programming comes to mind. In a sort of corollary to Greenspun's Tenth Law (Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp.), any attempt to implement a GUI framework with structs and functions contains an awkward, clumsy and ugly implementation of an OOP language and runtime. Think of straight C programming to the Windows API after Charles Petzold's books or think of Gnome under Linux.
Some people actually prefer C-language Windows API programming to the travesty that is C++ programming in Microsoft Foundation Classes (MFC), which combines OOP with generic programming (C++ templates) with you-can't-touch-this automatic code generation. I think part of what is wrong with MFC is the "M" part (Microsoft). Every organization seems to promote a certain coding style -- think of the stodginess of IBM, the Berkeley neck-beard influence on Unix, whatever attributes SUN contributed to Java -- and Microsoft has its own quirks. The other part is that the Windows API itself with all of its "handles" as references to objects maintained by the OS, along with the ability of the OS to call back into application code to modify or extend the behavior of such objects, is a kind of OOP. This OOP is a Cargo Cult version of what Bill Gates saw on his visit to PARC where he must have been awed by what he saw yet didn't quite intellectually grasp, especially with respect to the underlying software scaffolding and infrastructure to make it happen. Even so, this deal with the "window handles" is an OOP that has a serious impedance match to the C++ OOP, and the Dune-novel plans-within-plans-within-plans of abstraction layers in MFC are an attempt to get the two OOPs to fit.
One of the problems that OOP addresses is the one encountered by deep module hierarchies in imperative-style programming. In a prompt-user response style of console-mode user interface that used to be common before GUIs took over, the code side has called so deeply into a sequence of function calls that the software burps on some unexpected user response. There was some name people gave this, I remember something like the "Cuba Lake effect", but I see nothing on a Google search as the discussions of this took place in Dr. Dobb's Journal long before the Internet became popular. OOP supplies a solution to this in the form of facilitating up-calls or call-backs or whatever-you-want-to-call this back up the hierarchy. A worker can ask his boss a question if he gets stuck. In the absence of an OOP like C++ or Java, you end of simulating this by populating your struct with function pointers to make the up-call.
This business of object class hierarchies where you have an Animal parent class, a Mammal subclass and Dog and Cat subclasses of Mammal, and that they each inherit and modify the Poop() method from parent class Animal to do their business, that the domains addressed by software systems are organized that way is the nonsense part of OOP. The real world doesn't have such neat hierarchies of structure, and to force OOP on that requires such awful things as multiple inheritance that can become ambiguous, interface inheritance that can require duplicating code, object composition that can be clunky in forwarding so many function calls, or something that probably already exists in Common Lisp (Greenspun's Tenth Law!). Me and many others have backed away from (deep) inheritance hierarchies and moved in the direction of object composition, but the tons of statements forwarding function calls is so tiresome.
Much of the article made sense because I have devoted the last 20 years of my life trying to realize some benefit from writing software in object-oriented form.
To a non-code writing lay person, or even to me if I had been unfrozen from suspended animation since the mid 1990's, the article is pure gibberish.
The article appears to only superficially deal with OOP in the form of message passing (Smalltalk and Objective-C to some degree) and what passes for OOP in the form of C++ and Java. This is the software side of the difference between the Xerox Alto and the reproduction of what Steve Jobs thought an Also was all about in the form of the Lisa or the original Macintosh.
Perhaps what we call OOP is a kind of Cargo Cult version of what was created at PARC? That it recreates the forms of the American military occupation of the South Pacific islands without being the WW-II American military? The Wikipedia article doesn't even begin to get into this.
The Carbon Cycle is well understood. Of the CO2 emitted by human activity, half of that ends up in the atmosphere, the other half ends up in sinks. Half of that half goes into the ocean and the remaining half of that half goes into the soil.
The reservoir capacity of the ocean is vast, orders of magnitude greater than the atmosphere. What prevents all of the CO2 from diffusing into the ocean is 1) the equilibrium of atmospheric and ocean CO2 follows a non-linear roughly 10th-power relationship owing to the chain of chemical reactions by which CO2 is "dissolved" (rather chemically bonded into soluble carbonates) and 2) there is a finite rate of mixing of the surface ocean layer with the deep layer. This model of the ocean along with some assumptions regarding the cycling of carbon between the atmosphere and the soils on land gives an accurate trace of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from about 290 ppm at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution to over 400 ppm today. It also predicts the carbon isotope concentrations along with the seemingly short lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere from the rapid extinction of radioactive C14 from atmospheric H-bomb testing that (mostly) ended in the mid 1960s -- this has to do with the non-linear absorption of CO2 by the ocean, which exchanges CO2 molecules at a high rate but resists requires greater changes in atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 to shift the chemical equilibrium. This may seem counter to intuition, but this is well understood P-Chem.
Even though only half of the CO2 emitted by humans ends up in the atmosphere on account of the sinks, just about all of the increase in CO2 is the fault of humans. That is, unless there is a natural source of thermally stimulated emission of CO2 that needs to be taken into account.
It is perhaps not widely known, but there is a large fluctuation in the year-to-year increase in atmospheric CO2. The fluctuation is of comparable magnitude as the human contribution that is believed to be much more steady -- we have boom and bust cycles in industrial output, but the variations are not quite that much.
You may not have heard of this fluctuation, but NOAA's Carbon Cycle Guru Pieter Tans certainly knows about it. He attributes it to the effect of temperature changes on the rotting of fallen leaves and other litter in the tropical rainforests. He claims that the leaves that fall are very quickly rotted away, releasing most of their carbon back as CO2 into the atmosphere. His claim is that owing to the rapid decay of dead plant matter under tropical conditions, the reservoir is small. It accounts for the correlation between temperature and increase in atmospheric CO2 (called "net emissions), only occurring over short time windows. This correlation exists over longer time scales, but matters get fuzzy because human CO2 has ramped up over a time of gradual warming.
Were you to believe Pieter Tans (yes, believe as much of this is based on modeling assumptions), there is minimal effect of decades-long increase in atmospheric temperature in driving CO2 emissions from the soil -- the decades-long increase is all attributed to the decades long gradual increase in industrial emissions with minimal contribution from warming of soils. Were you to regard NOAA's top Carbon Cycle dude as wrong, that increasing temperature drives a positive feedback of CO2 emissions over longer times than the year-to-year fluctuations seen in the atmospheric CO2 "Keeling curve", which TFA does, you would have already seen the effect on atmospheric CO2 because the climate has indeed been warming for most of the 20th century -- it has been warming, has it not, that is, unless you are a Climate Change Denier?
If contra-Pieter Tans Head of the Carbon Cycle Section at NOAA the long term temperature trend is stimulating CO2 emissions from the soil in a positive feedback, there must be a countervailing negative feedback in the form of a commensurately higher absorption of CO2 by plants, an absorption that is sens
From Wikipedia,
"Sputnik burned up on 4 January 1958 while reentering Earth's atmosphere, after three months, 1440 completed orbits of the Earth,[1] and a distance travelled of about 70 million km (43 million mi).[10]"
Cars are operated like that in South Florida . . . all the time!
In our esteemed Slashdot colleague's homeland, orchards are an important part of the economy and relieve stress by making a healthy snack always at hand. Yes, you indeed had better get your grove in place, and you want the soil down packed (but not too much) so the roots for the newly planted trees can get established.
This is a tree analogy to a car, but Elon Musk had better heed that lesson.
From 2016, 2015, 2014 . . .
Is this sort of like the whole community of Delphi Pascal users who have cut themselves of from whatever Embarcadero is selling and are still using Delphi 7?
Compiler errors, dude. Lots and lots of compiler errors.
Source Flint.
Rich in trace elements.
(from the grandparent post)
They were forced, forced, I tell you. They would have much preferred to use a console version of JCL, but nooooo! They had to learn PC-DOS/MS-DOS.
Yeah, yeah, Slashdot blah blah Unix (Linux didn't yet exist). DOS was pretty much a clone of TOPS-10 or any of a number of Digital Equipment Corporation OS's from the standpoint of the commands. The story was that young Mr. Gates stole online time on a PDP-10 timesharing service to become proficient in coding.
I used PDP-8, PDP-11 and PDP-10 computers in school as well as my first engineering job out of school, and DOS was a very easy transition once I hacked that drive letter thing. Unix/Linux, not so much.
You must be new around here!
This is like Dr. Evil who held the world hostage to his Evil scheme, that is, until he was paid . . . one . . . million . . . dollars! Number Two had to take him aside to explain that a person having been in frozen suspension since the 60's might not be aware that one million dollars is not really all that much money taking inflation into account.
So this device cuts "soot causing carbon emissions" by "thousands of tons", "slashing fuel consumption by 10%"?
Such suggests that the emissions are in the tens of thousands of tons and nines-of-thousands-of-tons of that awful "soot causing carbon" is, what is the correct word, still "spewed" into the atmosphere?
Slashdot is "News for Nerds" and presumably many of us have technical backgrounds where we understand that a 10% improvement can be significant were it combined with other such improvements, but can we be spared argument-by-a-large-number?
Where I live, internet service is pretty pricy unless bundled with cable.
Yes, your total bill is less if you leave out cable, but the "get you coming and get you going" to pay a large monthly fee whatever you choose.
Shoe-polished dried turds as jewelry is actually a thing -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Are you nervy, irritable, depressed? Tired of life?
Keep it up!
https://www.bing.com/videos/se...
. . . to find out what's in it?
Yes, the Surface has fans -- if you leave it on long enough or launch a compute-bound program, you will hear this hissing noise that sounds like a bad speaker but is actually the fan.