Sure, gold has some small intrinsic value. MUCH less than it's market value. So I should be more specific - MOST of gold's value is no more real than that of bitcoins.
The difference is that gold has that imaginary value for a lot of people and bitcoins don't. As you say, a history.
Google doesn't exactly make their up to the minute Git repository public. It wouldn't be particularly surprising if new versions of Android were to appear on Google/Motorola devices first, or if Google devices got to manufacturing just a little faster than others because Google knew what specs were about to be announced.
As I remember, in the past there were fewer ads, business was a more respected profession, and people were more excited by changing the world than in money. Intelligent discourse was more common too. Read an Archie comic from the 50s... the characters talk about words, definitions, puns. Not so much now.
Ditto. I've got a LowePro Toploader that carries my light travel camera gear plus some form of backpack to carry all the rest of the stuff, including a notebook if necessary. The camera bag can go in the backpack if necessary (but it hardly ever is).
I said nuclear decay, which is different than fission. There's no known process that affects the rate of nuclear decay - not heating or increasing density.
Fission (which the inventor specifically claims ISN'T happening), is a different matter. The only problem is, thorium isn't fissionable. Increasing density won't help. You can bombard it with neutrons to turn it into uranium, which IS fissionable, but you can't get neutrons from lasers (except ridiculously powerful ones). Usually if you want to use thorium as a nuclear fuel you mix in a neutron source. Other proposals involve using an accelerator to bombard it with neutrons.
If the free market works then incompetent management will be replaced. Or the company will go under to be replaced by one that hires competent management. Right?
It's hilarious how Slashdot likes to complain about Apple daring to charge for "minor" OS updates (it's only a point release!) but then gets all antsy over Linux moving to a standard major.minor scheme.
Corporate acquisitions generally cost MORE than the high bid price. So if you wanted to buy Apple or Exxon outright, the market cap would most likely underestimate what it would cost you.
How much it would cost to buy something is a very real estimate of it's value.
That must be the one without cheese (I've never actually seen one without). The one with cheese is somewhere between 700 and 800 calories, and I use almost exactly 1000 calories to run 10 km.
It's surprising to most people how much activity you need to do to burn off the calories in common foods. When you start running long distance, it's sometimes surprising the other way - there's no way I could face four big macs after a 30 km run.
You can't be serious. The yearly upkeep on my bike costs less than a single tank of gas for my car. All the rest is labor (which I do myself). Wheel truing is pure labor, and since there's no physical exertion involved has zero contribution to carbon footprint.
You mentioned gas for your car... did you also count in oil changes, insurance, routine maintenance, non-routine maintenance, cost of the car and the portion of your taxes that go towards road repairs?
Why is everyone so fascinated by the one little 400 miles estimate? That's assuming you already have a car anyway. The interesting part is that busses are so much worse than biking.
Slashdot Mirror
And Google too, apparently.
I think maybe we have different ideas of "open."
"Here's the source, have fun looking, but here's what you're not allowed to do with it" isn't.
So "more heavily policed" == less open. Thus the OPs point: some parts of Android are more open than others.
Not to mention there's a polarizing filter that ALWAYS blocks roughly half the light.
Sure, gold has some small intrinsic value. MUCH less than it's market value. So I should be more specific - MOST of gold's value is no more real than that of bitcoins.
The difference is that gold has that imaginary value for a lot of people and bitcoins don't. As you say, a history.
Like gold? All gold does is make it difficult to print extra money. Bitcoin does that too. Try again.
Google does seem to have become rather distracted by Android, which, after all, doesn't make them any money (except through ads).
In the meantime, people are starting to notice that they haven't been doing much with their search, and everyone else has caught up.
It gets Apple the top 10% of the market. Which seems to be exactly how they like it.
Because there are a lot of blind rabid Google fans with mod points.
At least it isn't insightful....
Google doesn't exactly make their up to the minute Git repository public. It wouldn't be particularly surprising if new versions of Android were to appear on Google/Motorola devices first, or if Google devices got to manufacturing just a little faster than others because Google knew what specs were about to be announced.
Google has a bit of a conflict of interest now.
No way. You're a stupid head. ;)
As I remember, in the past there were fewer ads, business was a more respected profession, and people were more excited by changing the world than in money. Intelligent discourse was more common too. Read an Archie comic from the 50s... the characters talk about words, definitions, puns. Not so much now.
I hear pool halls are a great place to find them. Also poker games. And Vegas.
Ditto. I've got a LowePro Toploader that carries my light travel camera gear plus some form of backpack to carry all the rest of the stuff, including a notebook if necessary. The camera bag can go in the backpack if necessary (but it hardly ever is).
I said nuclear decay, which is different than fission. There's no known process that affects the rate of nuclear decay - not heating or increasing density.
Fission (which the inventor specifically claims ISN'T happening), is a different matter. The only problem is, thorium isn't fissionable. Increasing density won't help. You can bombard it with neutrons to turn it into uranium, which IS fissionable, but you can't get neutrons from lasers (except ridiculously powerful ones). Usually if you want to use thorium as a nuclear fuel you mix in a neutron source. Other proposals involve using an accelerator to bombard it with neutrons.
If the free market works then incompetent management will be replaced. Or the company will go under to be replaced by one that hires competent management. Right?
It's hilarious how Slashdot likes to complain about Apple daring to charge for "minor" OS updates (it's only a point release!) but then gets all antsy over Linux moving to a standard major.minor scheme.
If you want to see real disgrace check out the list of countries that have executed juvenile offenders since 1990.
Then you can't claim they're not a gadget manufacturer but rather an entertainment business.
Apple sells entertainment so people will buy their hardware. Just like they sell software in a few key areas so people will buy their hardware.
Corporate acquisitions generally cost MORE than the high bid price. So if you wanted to buy Apple or Exxon outright, the market cap would most likely underestimate what it would cost you.
How much it would cost to buy something is a very real estimate of it's value.
I guess if you consider a stock price that (over reasonable time scales) is pretty much monotonically increasing as volatile, then sure.
Apple has been an excellent long term investment.
Apple makes most of its money on hardware. Their entertainment delivery business is significant, but very small compared to the hardware.
That must be the one without cheese (I've never actually seen one without). The one with cheese is somewhere between 700 and 800 calories, and I use almost exactly 1000 calories to run 10 km.
It's surprising to most people how much activity you need to do to burn off the calories in common foods. When you start running long distance, it's sometimes surprising the other way - there's no way I could face four big macs after a 30 km run.
Because incrementing by full version numbers gives them an excuse to break things at every release.
The summary says that bicycles are less than 1/10 as polluting as cars, and several times less polluting than even busses.
You can't be serious. The yearly upkeep on my bike costs less than a single tank of gas for my car. All the rest is labor (which I do myself). Wheel truing is pure labor, and since there's no physical exertion involved has zero contribution to carbon footprint.
You mentioned gas for your car... did you also count in oil changes, insurance, routine maintenance, non-routine maintenance, cost of the car and the portion of your taxes that go towards road repairs?
Why is everyone so fascinated by the one little 400 miles estimate? That's assuming you already have a car anyway. The interesting part is that busses are so much worse than biking.