workers will need to work for 30 hours a week, instead of the usual 40 to 70 hours,
It's right there in the first sentence. They acknowledge that people work more than 40 hours a week, and this program aims to experiment what happens if they only make people work 30 hours a week. Of course, if you usually work 60 hours a week, you're probably used to doing 10+ hour days, and you could easily complete the 30 hours of working in 3 days. 3 Days on and 4 days off would be a pretty nice schedule. I would probably go for this type of thing given the chance.
For those who don't want to do the math, there's a 8760 light hours in a light year. So the furthest craft from earth is only 0.2% of the way to the closest star.
This is what my biggest problem is. The only options $300 installation and free 5 Mbps service, or $70 a month 1 Gbps service. The first option is too slow, even if there is no monthly bill, and the second option is more than I want to spend for internet. I would love a $40 option even if it was only 50-100 Mbps. 100 Mbps would be enough to have 4 Netflix Ultra HD 4K streams going at the same time, or just have everybody on HD 1080p streams and still have plenty of bandwidth left over. Giving me 1 Gbps internet does not give me any noticeable internet service than giving me 100 Mbps except when I see the bill at the end of the month.
I'm not sure about the high end DSLRs, but at the low end point and shoots, they seem to be the best from what I've tried. They turn on very quickly, focus quickly, and take the picture when you press the button. That last camera I bought from another company was a Nikon point and shoot, and it was a very bad camera is those respects. I've bought 4 point and shoot Canon cameras (1 for each person in my family) and they have all held up very well. Long lasting even with the kids handling them, and they take great pictures without a lot of fuss. I find it interesting that you are quick to point out how bad Canon is without offering any information about who makes better cameras.
The thing is, that if you have money, and you manage it properly, it will just grow. How much wealth is somebody allowed to accumulate? 5 million? 50 million? 500 million? 5 billion? 50 billion. Once you reach that first number, you can make a lot more money simply by making smart investments with your money.
Bill Gates made his money because he owned a lot of stock in a company that started out small and became very big. Unless you seize the stocks that he has, there isn't really much of a way to take that wealth from him. You can tax the sale of those stocks, but that means fewer people will invest because they are unable to realize any gains from investing the money. Do we want to dis-incentivize people from creating the next Microsoft, or the next Amazon, or the next Apple? The fact that you can become ultra rich creates an incentive to build these large companies up from the ground, creating new products, and creating new jobs for the rest of the people.
The problem is that even if I had an unlocked bootloader, I'd still be relying on a third party, CyanogenMod, to provide me with updates. Google needs to fix things so that I can get updates directly from them, without relying on CyanogenMod, Samsung, or whoever else. Google can't stop you from installing Android, but the Google Play services that include the App store are not a part of the open source Android platform are under their control. They could make it a requirement that anybody installing the Google Play Store on the device allow Google to push updates to the phone.
Compare this to desktop machines though. Microsoft of Ubuntu or whoever makes your OS can issue updates. As soon as those updates are made available, you can update your desktop computer. You don't have to wait for HP, Dell, or anybody else to allow you to make that update to your desktop computer. Why can't phones work the same way? When Google updates Android, I should be able to apply that update, and the manufacturer of the device should have no control over whether or not that update is applied.
The problem with the old games that you had to beat all the way through without losing X number of lives is that they could only be so long. Maybe 3 or 4 hours of play time at most. Imagine a game like Super Mario Galaxy which might require 20 hours to beat even with unlimited lives. Imagine every time you lost too many lives you had to start all the way over from the beginning. How many people would beat that game? Almost nobody is going to replay 19 hours every time they die on the last hour of game play. Either you give people a way to get unlimited lives in the first couple hours of gameplay, or you make it so that lives only count within individual stages. If you don't do something like this, then games become unbeatable for all but the people who want to totally devote their life to a game. Even most of the people I know who played Mario 1,2, and 3 never beat any of them without resorting to warping, which brought the play time down to about 30 minutes.
There's a setting on every phone I've had to not use data when roaming. I just leave it turned on all the time. There's no knowing when you're going to pick up a network you don't expect on your cell phone. I live in Canada, and it's quite common to pick up US networks when I'm too close to the border and the coverage on the Canadian side is weak.
Personally I wouldn't mind that either, but then I would also want at least 5 HDMI ports, which almost n TV seems to come with. Think about it. DVD/BluRay player, Game Console, Cable Box/PVR, Roku, and 1 free cable to plug in an ad hoc device like a laptop and we are already at 5 devices. We should probably have 7-10 HDMI ports just to ensure we never have to move the plugs around. My current TV only came with 3 HDMI ports and they are being occupied with game console, Cable PVR, and DVD player. Good thing it's a smart TV so I don't have to rely on another box to stream from plex or accept a MIracast stream from my tablet.
As far as Grey's Anatomy goes, it plays on ABC in the US and CTV in Canada, both of which don't require cable. So for many people within broadcast range, the answer to the question is that all it requires is a cheap digital TV antenna.
Yeah, but at least you get an SD card slot (I think they skipped that with the S6). And a headphone jack. I'm sure Samsung is planning a UFS slot in their next phone, which will completely blow the iPhone out of the water. Apple really needs to start giving people what they want if they want to grow their market and start capturing die-hard Android users.
Updates are the exact reason I left Android and I'm not going back until the problem is fixed. My last phone was Android 2.3 when I bought it, and it was only released 6 months before Android 4 came out. I never saw a single update to that phone. And it was an LG with the Google logo engraved on the back, so you think that Google, or LG, or somebody would stand behind the phone and offer updated software. But nope. Not a single update.
If you're going to argue that it's for the public good, then we should really do it as a tax and have the infrastructure provided by the government rather than for profit corporations.
But really, how far do we extend out? Even roads are private roads once you get far enough out. There's just some spots that are too expensive even for tax dollars to service them because the population density is just way too low. I also really don't care that I don't have internet access at the cottage or in other rural areas that I visit. It's just not really a priority. I don't need internet access in the middle of the highway 300 miles for any settlement.
Very much agree with you on all accounts. To add more, it seems like the Android/iOS market has made it impossible to just sell a game outright without having any micropayments. Pokemon Go is a great game, but I'd rather they just charged $30 for it and developed a quality game didn't crash so much than try to do the minimum thing to get by and try to make money off micro transactions. But the market for phones games has basically painted itself into a corner where nobody can charge more than a few dollars for a game.
Sounds like a problem with the cable/DSL companies and there's nothing Netflix can do to help you. Seems like Netflix still wins over cable, because cable won't service you at all. Although for TV, you'd be better off getting satellite. Which would still have similar costs to cable as far as buying/renting set top boxes goes.
I guess that's kind of what happens when you live in a rural area. It is expensive to service things like cable, internet, and even things like electricity in rural areas. So you often end up paying more. It's completely understandable. As as city dweller, I don't want my bill going to subsidize those people in the rural areas.
An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of a vehicle without constant 'hands-on' control by a human operator being required. Autopilots do not replace a human operator, but assist them in controlling the vehicle, allowing them to focus on broader aspects of operation, such as monitoring the trajectory, weather and systems.
Except Tesla's system is designed such that it assumes your hands are on the wheel at all times, and you really can't take your eyes off the road for doing things like checking the weather. In a plane you most likely have plenty of time to do something if the auto pilot fails. Probably upwards of 1 minute unless you are landing or taking off. In a car, you're lucky if you have 3 seconds to notice a problem before correcting it because the other vehicles and obstacles are so close.
Netflix has pretty cheap hook up costs. Most people already own some kind of device that streams Netflix. If you don't already have something, you can easily get a Roku for $60. Compare that with cable. I've only just got an HD cable box because the cable company charges so much for them. $20 a month, or $500 to buy it outright for the model with the PVR built in. Even without the PVR it's $13 a month, or $300 to buy. I was able to buy an HD PVR box for $150 because they were clearing out the older models, but deals like that don't come around often.
Apple covers a lot of things with that 30% such as credit card processing fees. Payment providers usually charge a minimum amount on each transactions which makes $1.00 transactions very expensive. This isn't to say that Apple isn't making a ton of money off this, but that most developers see it as a pretty good deal. Otherwise you'd see tons of third party app stores popping up on Android where Google also takes their 30%.
Yes, because if you just buy a hard drive and put in in a drawer somewhere it will magically start working as a cloud storage service. I'm not saying if it's a fair price or not, but comparing a cloud storage service to the equivalent price of the storage they give you isn't really all that fair.
To start with, they would probably store it on at least 2 different devices to ensure that if the drive dies, that all your data isn't lost. So you're already up cheaper than the cost of the actual storage. Then they have to buy a backup power system including batteries and generators, because you don't want the service to go down when the power goes out. You have to buy actual servers to put the drives in. You have to pay for network and electricity services. You also have to pay people to develop and maintain the systems to support all this. After listing this all out, the fact that I could get 50 GB for $1.99 a month or 1 TB for $7 a month, or 5 TB split 5 ways for $10 per month on the family plan is actually pretty impressive.
Plus, a lot of movies on Netflix don't even have 1080p to begin with. Just tried testing this with "The Martian" and didn't understand why both Edge and Firefox were showing 720p. The only thing I could find quickly that had 1080p was "House of Cards" which is a Netflix production. It seems that there's a lot of content that they don't license in full resolution. The BBC Planet Earth series seems to only come in at 512x384. I'm in Canada, so YMMV.
Slashdot Mirror
It's right there in the first sentence. They acknowledge that people work more than 40 hours a week, and this program aims to experiment what happens if they only make people work 30 hours a week. Of course, if you usually work 60 hours a week, you're probably used to doing 10+ hour days, and you could easily complete the 30 hours of working in 3 days. 3 Days on and 4 days off would be a pretty nice schedule. I would probably go for this type of thing given the chance.
For those who don't want to do the math, there's a 8760 light hours in a light year. So the furthest craft from earth is only 0.2% of the way to the closest star.
Looks like he won.
This is what my biggest problem is. The only options $300 installation and free 5 Mbps service, or $70 a month 1 Gbps service. The first option is too slow, even if there is no monthly bill, and the second option is more than I want to spend for internet. I would love a $40 option even if it was only 50-100 Mbps. 100 Mbps would be enough to have 4 Netflix Ultra HD 4K streams going at the same time, or just have everybody on HD 1080p streams and still have plenty of bandwidth left over. Giving me 1 Gbps internet does not give me any noticeable internet service than giving me 100 Mbps except when I see the bill at the end of the month.
I'm not sure about the high end DSLRs, but at the low end point and shoots, they seem to be the best from what I've tried. They turn on very quickly, focus quickly, and take the picture when you press the button. That last camera I bought from another company was a Nikon point and shoot, and it was a very bad camera is those respects. I've bought 4 point and shoot Canon cameras (1 for each person in my family) and they have all held up very well. Long lasting even with the kids handling them, and they take great pictures without a lot of fuss. I find it interesting that you are quick to point out how bad Canon is without offering any information about who makes better cameras.
The thing is, that if you have money, and you manage it properly, it will just grow. How much wealth is somebody allowed to accumulate? 5 million? 50 million? 500 million? 5 billion? 50 billion. Once you reach that first number, you can make a lot more money simply by making smart investments with your money.
Bill Gates made his money because he owned a lot of stock in a company that started out small and became very big. Unless you seize the stocks that he has, there isn't really much of a way to take that wealth from him. You can tax the sale of those stocks, but that means fewer people will invest because they are unable to realize any gains from investing the money. Do we want to dis-incentivize people from creating the next Microsoft, or the next Amazon, or the next Apple? The fact that you can become ultra rich creates an incentive to build these large companies up from the ground, creating new products, and creating new jobs for the rest of the people.
The problem is that even if I had an unlocked bootloader, I'd still be relying on a third party, CyanogenMod, to provide me with updates. Google needs to fix things so that I can get updates directly from them, without relying on CyanogenMod, Samsung, or whoever else. Google can't stop you from installing Android, but the Google Play services that include the App store are not a part of the open source Android platform are under their control. They could make it a requirement that anybody installing the Google Play Store on the device allow Google to push updates to the phone.
Compare this to desktop machines though. Microsoft of Ubuntu or whoever makes your OS can issue updates. As soon as those updates are made available, you can update your desktop computer. You don't have to wait for HP, Dell, or anybody else to allow you to make that update to your desktop computer. Why can't phones work the same way? When Google updates Android, I should be able to apply that update, and the manufacturer of the device should have no control over whether or not that update is applied.
The problem with the old games that you had to beat all the way through without losing X number of lives is that they could only be so long. Maybe 3 or 4 hours of play time at most. Imagine a game like Super Mario Galaxy which might require 20 hours to beat even with unlimited lives. Imagine every time you lost too many lives you had to start all the way over from the beginning. How many people would beat that game? Almost nobody is going to replay 19 hours every time they die on the last hour of game play. Either you give people a way to get unlimited lives in the first couple hours of gameplay, or you make it so that lives only count within individual stages. If you don't do something like this, then games become unbeatable for all but the people who want to totally devote their life to a game. Even most of the people I know who played Mario 1,2, and 3 never beat any of them without resorting to warping, which brought the play time down to about 30 minutes.
Anecdotes are fun.
Here's one. The only people in my highschool who used Macs seemed to be Jehova's Witnesses. There was about 5 of them. Very weird coincidence.
There's a setting on every phone I've had to not use data when roaming. I just leave it turned on all the time. There's no knowing when you're going to pick up a network you don't expect on your cell phone. I live in Canada, and it's quite common to pick up US networks when I'm too close to the border and the coverage on the Canadian side is weak.
Personally I wouldn't mind that either, but then I would also want at least 5 HDMI ports, which almost n TV seems to come with. Think about it. DVD/BluRay player, Game Console, Cable Box/PVR, Roku, and 1 free cable to plug in an ad hoc device like a laptop and we are already at 5 devices. We should probably have 7-10 HDMI ports just to ensure we never have to move the plugs around. My current TV only came with 3 HDMI ports and they are being occupied with game console, Cable PVR, and DVD player. Good thing it's a smart TV so I don't have to rely on another box to stream from plex or accept a MIracast stream from my tablet.
The fear is that someone might swap out the pen for one with disappearing ink. That's why pencil is used.
As far as Grey's Anatomy goes, it plays on ABC in the US and CTV in Canada, both of which don't require cable. So for many people within broadcast range, the answer to the question is that all it requires is a cheap digital TV antenna.
Yeah, but at least you get an SD card slot (I think they skipped that with the S6). And a headphone jack. I'm sure Samsung is planning a UFS slot in their next phone, which will completely blow the iPhone out of the water. Apple really needs to start giving people what they want if they want to grow their market and start capturing die-hard Android users.
Updates are the exact reason I left Android and I'm not going back until the problem is fixed. My last phone was Android 2.3 when I bought it, and it was only released 6 months before Android 4 came out. I never saw a single update to that phone. And it was an LG with the Google logo engraved on the back, so you think that Google, or LG, or somebody would stand behind the phone and offer updated software. But nope. Not a single update.
If you're going to argue that it's for the public good, then we should really do it as a tax and have the infrastructure provided by the government rather than for profit corporations.
But really, how far do we extend out? Even roads are private roads once you get far enough out. There's just some spots that are too expensive even for tax dollars to service them because the population density is just way too low. I also really don't care that I don't have internet access at the cottage or in other rural areas that I visit. It's just not really a priority. I don't need internet access in the middle of the highway 300 miles for any settlement.
Very much agree with you on all accounts. To add more, it seems like the Android/iOS market has made it impossible to just sell a game outright without having any micropayments. Pokemon Go is a great game, but I'd rather they just charged $30 for it and developed a quality game didn't crash so much than try to do the minimum thing to get by and try to make money off micro transactions. But the market for phones games has basically painted itself into a corner where nobody can charge more than a few dollars for a game.
Sounds like a problem with the cable/DSL companies and there's nothing Netflix can do to help you. Seems like Netflix still wins over cable, because cable won't service you at all. Although for TV, you'd be better off getting satellite. Which would still have similar costs to cable as far as buying/renting set top boxes goes.
I guess that's kind of what happens when you live in a rural area. It is expensive to service things like cable, internet, and even things like electricity in rural areas. So you often end up paying more. It's completely understandable. As as city dweller, I don't want my bill going to subsidize those people in the rural areas.
Except Tesla's system is designed such that it assumes your hands are on the wheel at all times, and you really can't take your eyes off the road for doing things like checking the weather. In a plane you most likely have plenty of time to do something if the auto pilot fails. Probably upwards of 1 minute unless you are landing or taking off. In a car, you're lucky if you have 3 seconds to notice a problem before correcting it because the other vehicles and obstacles are so close.
Netflix has pretty cheap hook up costs. Most people already own some kind of device that streams Netflix. If you don't already have something, you can easily get a Roku for $60. Compare that with cable. I've only just got an HD cable box because the cable company charges so much for them. $20 a month, or $500 to buy it outright for the model with the PVR built in. Even without the PVR it's $13 a month, or $300 to buy. I was able to buy an HD PVR box for $150 because they were clearing out the older models, but deals like that don't come around often.
Apple covers a lot of things with that 30% such as credit card processing fees. Payment providers usually charge a minimum amount on each transactions which makes $1.00 transactions very expensive. This isn't to say that Apple isn't making a ton of money off this, but that most developers see it as a pretty good deal. Otherwise you'd see tons of third party app stores popping up on Android where Google also takes their 30%.
Yes, because if you just buy a hard drive and put in in a drawer somewhere it will magically start working as a cloud storage service. I'm not saying if it's a fair price or not, but comparing a cloud storage service to the equivalent price of the storage they give you isn't really all that fair.
To start with, they would probably store it on at least 2 different devices to ensure that if the drive dies, that all your data isn't lost. So you're already up cheaper than the cost of the actual storage. Then they have to buy a backup power system including batteries and generators, because you don't want the service to go down when the power goes out. You have to buy actual servers to put the drives in. You have to pay for network and electricity services. You also have to pay people to develop and maintain the systems to support all this. After listing this all out, the fact that I could get 50 GB for $1.99 a month or 1 TB for $7 a month, or 5 TB split 5 ways for $10 per month on the family plan is actually pretty impressive.
At least MS lets you put external storage into your devices. Not like Apple and Google with their iPad/iPhone and Nexus devices.
Plus, a lot of movies on Netflix don't even have 1080p to begin with. Just tried testing this with "The Martian" and didn't understand why both Edge and Firefox were showing 720p. The only thing I could find quickly that had 1080p was "House of Cards" which is a Netflix production. It seems that there's a lot of content that they don't license in full resolution. The BBC Planet Earth series seems to only come in at 512x384. I'm in Canada, so YMMV.