Toyota is not nicer than Toyota. VAG cars are unreliable heaps of electrical failures, just like a Chrysler.
Sure they are, or are you saying a Yaris is as nice as a Camry?
Yeah, if you want something that will be in the shop extracting one to two thousand dollars out of your pocket every few thousand miles, by all means, buy a high-end Audi, BMW, or Mercedes.
I've owned the latter two, and if you take them to the shop for everything, yes, they will cost you more, but it's not every few thousand miles by a long shot. You can DIY for about the same as other vehicles, even a few classes lower.
You'll have less maintenance problems with an F150 than you will with any of that German shit you mentioned. There's a reason why the F-Series is the most popular vehicle in the world.
Except I don't want to drive a 12 mpg bucket of soon to be rust with all the excitement of a horse drawn carriage, unless, of course, I spend as much or more than one of those aforementioned imports. And honestly, I don't recall a well-running F150 above 75K that wasn't a constant source of repair work. They'll run without all that work, but not well. I personally didn't own one, but have several friends that do. The highest mileage one was around 120K.
I have bought German cars, so I well know what that's actually like — nowhere near as rosy as you suggest.
Perhaps I've just been lucky or by working on them myself, avoided some of what you've experienced? I'd say less than $2K spent across 100K miles excluding tires is not an unreasonable amount, on any of my last 3 vehicles. 100K is, admittedly a magic number, because that's when a whole slew of maintenance items come due, all pretty close together. If you combine them all, and DIY, you'll come out the other side for less than $2K and a weekend's work, resulting in what should be another 50+K of relatively maintenance free driving if you don't track your car (excluding oil changes). If you have the dealership do it all, well, let's just say it might be enough to pay for a new car.
Like Stephen Hawking....good think they didn't listen to you...
Stephen makes his own decisions and chooses to continue at this time. Perhaps the better response would have been "determine the possible outcomes and ask whether she wants to continue with any of those, or pull the plug." Unless it is put out there as an option, some may not be able to make their will known.
Considering I've had 3 Ford escorts in my family and none made it to 90K due to mechanical issues, I call BS. Granted, none were from this millennium. which only goes to show how a brand can ruin itself for a very very very long time. In fact, the last "good" ford I recall was an 88 model, with a drive train from Europe. None of the Ford's made since 2000 interest me except for the Ford GT. Do you have $200K you can spot me? I'm good for it, certainly!
That's awesome for you and you're lucky. What was the gas mileage on that one? With domestic, you usually get 1 of: cheap, efficient, reliable. You got reliable, and I doubt it was cheap for its time. If you get 2, you've hit a home run.
FYI - I haven't touched a Toyota V6. Their V8 is pretty decent, but the stage 1 catalytic convertors were replaced about 9 months apart under the 8/80 required fed warranty. I fully expect to hit at least 170K with this vehicle as is. I've driven 2 others near the 200K mark, one with the original turbo still functioning well, although lag had noticeably increased. I've had 2 GMs, one to 45K with little issue (mostly under warranty) swapped for a newer version that went to 80K (3800) and started having issues. Those were not a single repair type issue, but the beginning of a long series of problems due to their choice of coolant. Glad I ditched it after the first repair.
Some people have never opened a hood (excuse the gp). What's funny is my first 2 vehicles were 7x year models, neither made it to anything near 100K. And that's in miles, for others that are posting. Hell, only one made it to 100K km. I've owned/driven multiple cars from every decade since from every major manufacturer out there, and quite a few across the 100K mile point. GM's 3800 was still a major engine at least up to 2000. It's a major POS, from an efficiency standpoint, although it does keep on trucking, at least through 80K. I have a Toyota V8 with at least 250HP and torque to match. It gets 18 mpg in the city and has been as high as 27 on the freeway, although normally it's closer to 24 (SUV). GM gets they claim 15 except we have 10% ethanol, so it's probably closer to 11 for them in city driving.
I have had various sports cars all with over 200HP that run between 30 and 40 on the freeway, roughly 20-25 in the city. Domestics are nowhere close to any of these ratings. Their engines are all shit, and we won't even get into a discussion about the quality of the rest of the vehicle construction. If I want cheap and reliable, low end Toyota or Kia. If I want something slightly nicer, either Toyota or VW. If I want something high end, Audi, BMW, Mercedes. If I want high end but lower maintenance because I can't/don't want to do it myself: Lexus. If I want a rust bucket that will run 200K, an american SUV/truck might do it, but it'll cost me in maintenance and gas and it won't be trouble free. It won't go much further unless I drive a lot more than average.
It's not the imports that are killing the american car industry, rather the fact that the american car industry is still stuck in the 60s with bandaids to deal with new efficiency requirements. Maybe if they could look past the next quarter, and actually focus on their customer, they might produce a decent vehicle. Of course, they'd also have to ditch 99% of their dealers, and possibly their current brand(s)
I have yet to see a belt that requires fancy tools (I don't buy those cars, can't work on them) A belt won't last the life of the engine, for sure, but neither will the rest of the car. I have yet to kill an engine. The rest of the car? More than once.
They also have some fantastic engines. The down side is everything else.
Fantastic engines? Compared to what? Ford Escorts or a 90s Hyundai? Fantastic engines would be those 4-cylinder Toyota, Subaru or Honda engines that run efficiently for 200K miles, or diesel engines from mercedes or volvo that can go 500K. Not some 70s style inefficient powerplant that reliably falls apart pre 100K in some way and requires half a rebuild at a minimum, provided the rest of the car is still functioning.
I've owned and driven quite a few cars into the high mileage territory (i.e. ~200K) and the 3 domestics I had didn't make it to 80K without significant trouble. To be fair, the absolute worst was a Renault, needing significant engine/transmission work at 50K. I currently have 2 that are about to cross 100K, one will need a valve cover gasket replacement when the spark plugs are done as a non-standard maintenance piece. I suspect both of these will cross 200K without a problem. Neither is domestic. At this point, I'd need to see a reliably reported $0 maintenance cost over 100K miles domestic at least 20% cheaper than an import's price for an equivalent vehicle before I'd even consider it. That means all maintenance covered for 100K miles, except tires, and maybe brakes, although several imports cover the later also for 40-50K.
Sorry, not so simplistic: there are websites out there with data still from the dawn of the web. That's well over 20 years ago. There are also all the "public records" type sites, that contain information even older. Those would be what I'd consider appropriate.
As for you putting up such a web site, they should go after you then, if it's libel. If not, well, you're shit out of luck if it's true. Just my opinion. I'm not sure how this particular decision acts on "currently" published items. If the site is taken down, then Google would be responsible for removing said references. (Do recall, they do cache a lot of pages) At one point even wayback results came up, but they dropped that pretty quickly.
There's a simple short answer, Google will need to keep the history of said piece, and then deal with it appropriately. It's the price they must pay, or anyone really, who deals with historical documents. The difference with electronic documents when you're the scale of Google is that the cost of storing all documents is less than only storing current documents, so they cheaped out. If this was being printed on paper, someone would be cutting out all the deadwood. 20 year old bankruptcy filing documents? Axed and so on. Google just serves it all up. All that's happening here is that now there's a statement that these types of documents should fall to the wayside, and that's not a bad thing honestly.
Note that some convictions are time-bound in various situations, like job applications. Others, like pedophilia, will place you on the sex offenders registry, so they actually don't need to be excluded entirely, although perhaps sandboxed results after a certain time period. After all, while a general search for someone probably shouldn't have a 30 year old conviction on it, if you were searching for local sex offenders and their history, then it probably should. Context matters, and currently Google does not pay attention to this concept of context at all.
Building on that, going into "historical" mode might allow deeper searches, but these should be discouraged for general searches primarily because documents are still available, but perhaps shouldn't show up unless a concerted effort is made to search for them, perhaps via a different entry mechanism and a throttling control.
Appropriate regulation would be to restrict ISPs to only providing connectivity services to the end-user. No ownership of content or other services of any kind. Much like electricity providers cannot also run the grid unless they're a monopoly. No one can realistically compete with them since if the generation costs for the competition are undercutting the grid provider's price, they can merely up the access fees. Regulate them there, you say? There's far too many shenanigans going on with GAAP to have that come out any differently under regulation, and far more opportunity for corruption and fleecing.
Otherwise we have plenty of home grown talent, and the H-1B program exists to suppress their wages. I assure you that most H-1B's are very far from the best in their fields.
No, it doesn't. The H1-B program specifically forbids it as a tool for lowering wages, and even has provisions permitting civil and criminal suits against those who do use it for that purpose. Most H1-B recipients get paid about the same rate as everybody else.
While that may be the intent of the program, I can assure you of the following truths:
a) H-1Bs are frequently fresh out of school or still in grad school kids (ie, far from the best and the brightest in the IT field anyways)
b) Many H-1Bs are paid significantly less than their US peers.
I have seen both instances with several companies I have worked at and had contracts with. You can spew all the legalese crap about the program you want, it doesn't change what's actually happening one iota. The net effect of H1-B programs is to artificially lower pay in the US, at least as far as IT jobs go.
Actually running and recording for this purpose shouldn't eat batteries that quickly. We're not talking requiring HD video here. As for turning them off, no issue there either, however, if the officer does not have video, his statements have no value in and of themselves without other corroborating evidence. The officer has no excuse for not having video evidence of what he says happened. The video should also have a running encrypted audio/video stamp applied in camera, to reduce the ability to edit the video. The video and audio themselves should also be encrypted, for various reasons.
This is a history lookup, not a search result. No need to go outside your own browser, much less your own computer. For this reason I don't use chrome, and I turn off autosuggest on everything that can be turned off. I also don't use Chrome except for testing or to connect to Google. Frequently clearing all cookies helps as well.
Honestly, the omnibar setup may be the final stroke that blacklists all google addresses at my firewall. I've already been considering it and only having 1 machine proxy for google on intentional searches only. The price we pay for privacy and security.
By "failed", you mean "been lobbied against", "been bribed".
By "failed" I mean failed to achieve their goal of a competitive market.
It's quite simple: you supply the same carry service to everyone, end of story. Your own service is carried? Fine. If it degrades service, it degrades everything: your whole ISP business becomes slow because your in-house Hulu has too much traffic, so people start switching out of your ISP, and then they find you're as slow as NetFlix on the next guy over so they use NetFlix.
Hmm, the next guy over. I'm still looking yup, still looking damn, it's a 51K modem line.
Remember: the problem is Comcast throttling or charging Netflix specifically, or Hulu specifically, or Google specifically; it's not that their entire ISP business is non-viable and thus people are flocking to Cox. Remove this middle ground: either their shit works or it doesn't.
No, the problem is Comcast extorting money so that even if their own crappy services don't make them money in the content arena, other people's better services will. It's Comcast applying the troll under the bridge tax. What's worse is they're doing it on taxpayer subsidized cabling.
Incorrect, unless you'd like to come up with the first ever fair regulations in this area. So far everyone that has ever tried this has failed. (Feel free to point to a success story)
There is no link between water pumped into the ground for extraction and drinking supply. None What So Ever.
Except, of course, when you dig a well. That water ends up one way or the other in the surface water supply. Or via springs (fed by underground reservoirs) Or are you one of those that believes the "No Smoking" sign in restaurants creates an impenetrable smoke barrier between the smoking and non-smoking sections? (Water does not have the same properties as oil, so whatever kept the oil locked in may not work with water, forgetting for the moment that we're cracking all that rock that holds the embedded oil/gas.)
Why should we nationalize ISPs? In our case, the ISPs are not behaving properly because the regulations give too much and take only what the ISP does not care about. Try appropriate regulation.
Appropriate regulation would be to restrict ISPs to only providing connectivity services to the end-user. No ownership of content or other services of any kind. Much like electricity providers cannot also run the grid unless they're a monopoly. No one can realistically compete with them since if the generation costs for the competition are undercutting the grid provider's price, they can merely up the access fees. Regulate them there, you say? There's far too many shenanigans going on with GAAP to have that come out any differently under regulation, and far more opportunity for corruption and fleecing.
Also, if the company does well, you may get $20-$50K out of it. If the company does really well, you may get $100K.
I would suggest that the word may in those first 2 sentences needs to be boldfaced....They got, at most, $10000 (US dollars) out of the stock sale.
Having been through several startups at various levels, I can attest to a) always make salary the number 1 priority - salary is money in pocket. b) take whatever grants/options you can get, put them in an envelope, slip them into a file/safety deposit box with your employment contract, and forget about them until a sale happens or you're preparing to leave, because those are the only 2 occasions I've found it to be worthwhile. Startup stock is essentially a lottery, and like a lottery, mostly you're left holding worthless paper. Even founders don't always get a big payout even when the company sells.
My point, apparently implied but not stated explicitly enough was that "fusion" itself would be patented, not just the specific means of implementation.
If it was totally obvious and nobody had done it before as described in all of the claims in combination, why wasn't it patented already?
Fusion is totally obvious, and no one has done it before as a viable means of controlled energy production. When this is accomplished, it probably will be patented.
I use them as core system and work drives. However, I also backup my systems continuously, with a pair of HDs for each one. So even if something truly catastrophic happened, I'm 99.99% likely to only be down however long it takes to get a working system hooked up to one of the backups and do a restore. I have an old Intel SSD that's 3 years old now, and still going strong in a second laptop. The HD was dying in that one. All storage needs to be cycled periodically, if it lasts 5 years, you've gotten your money's worth. If you want truly long term storage, go for the 100 year tapes or optical media, although the latter has been somewhat flaky at the 15 year mark for me.
Slashdot Mirror
Toyota is not nicer than Toyota. VAG cars are unreliable heaps of electrical failures, just like a Chrysler.
Sure they are, or are you saying a Yaris is as nice as a Camry?
Yeah, if you want something that will be in the shop extracting one to two thousand dollars out of your pocket every few thousand miles, by all means, buy a high-end Audi, BMW, or Mercedes.
I've owned the latter two, and if you take them to the shop for everything, yes, they will cost you more, but it's not every few thousand miles by a long shot. You can DIY for about the same as other vehicles, even a few classes lower.
You'll have less maintenance problems with an F150 than you will with any of that German shit you mentioned. There's a reason why the F-Series is the most popular vehicle in the world.
Except I don't want to drive a 12 mpg bucket of soon to be rust with all the excitement of a horse drawn carriage, unless, of course, I spend as much or more than one of those aforementioned imports. And honestly, I don't recall a well-running F150 above 75K that wasn't a constant source of repair work. They'll run without all that work, but not well. I personally didn't own one, but have several friends that do. The highest mileage one was around 120K.
I have bought German cars, so I well know what that's actually like — nowhere near as rosy as you suggest.
Perhaps I've just been lucky or by working on them myself, avoided some of what you've experienced? I'd say less than $2K spent across 100K miles excluding tires is not an unreasonable amount, on any of my last 3 vehicles. 100K is, admittedly a magic number, because that's when a whole slew of maintenance items come due, all pretty close together. If you combine them all, and DIY, you'll come out the other side for less than $2K and a weekend's work, resulting in what should be another 50+K of relatively maintenance free driving if you don't track your car (excluding oil changes). If you have the dealership do it all, well, let's just say it might be enough to pay for a new car.
Like Stephen Hawking....good think they didn't listen to you...
Stephen makes his own decisions and chooses to continue at this time. Perhaps the better response would have been "determine the possible outcomes and ask whether she wants to continue with any of those, or pull the plug." Unless it is put out there as an option, some may not be able to make their will known.
Considering I've had 3 Ford escorts in my family and none made it to 90K due to mechanical issues, I call BS. Granted, none were from this millennium. which only goes to show how a brand can ruin itself for a very very very long time. In fact, the last "good" ford I recall was an 88 model, with a drive train from Europe. None of the Ford's made since 2000 interest me except for the Ford GT. Do you have $200K you can spot me? I'm good for it, certainly!
That's awesome for you and you're lucky. What was the gas mileage on that one? With domestic, you usually get 1 of: cheap, efficient, reliable. You got reliable, and I doubt it was cheap for its time. If you get 2, you've hit a home run.
FYI - I haven't touched a Toyota V6. Their V8 is pretty decent, but the stage 1 catalytic convertors were replaced about 9 months apart under the 8/80 required fed warranty. I fully expect to hit at least 170K with this vehicle as is. I've driven 2 others near the 200K mark, one with the original turbo still functioning well, although lag had noticeably increased. I've had 2 GMs, one to 45K with little issue (mostly under warranty) swapped for a newer version that went to 80K (3800) and started having issues. Those were not a single repair type issue, but the beginning of a long series of problems due to their choice of coolant. Glad I ditched it after the first repair.
Some people have never opened a hood (excuse the gp). What's funny is my first 2 vehicles were 7x year models, neither made it to anything near 100K. And that's in miles, for others that are posting. Hell, only one made it to 100K km. I've owned/driven multiple cars from every decade since from every major manufacturer out there, and quite a few across the 100K mile point. GM's 3800 was still a major engine at least up to 2000. It's a major POS, from an efficiency standpoint, although it does keep on trucking, at least through 80K. I have a Toyota V8 with at least 250HP and torque to match. It gets 18 mpg in the city and has been as high as 27 on the freeway, although normally it's closer to 24 (SUV). GM gets they claim 15 except we have 10% ethanol, so it's probably closer to 11 for them in city driving.
I have had various sports cars all with over 200HP that run between 30 and 40 on the freeway, roughly 20-25 in the city. Domestics are nowhere close to any of these ratings. Their engines are all shit, and we won't even get into a discussion about the quality of the rest of the vehicle construction. If I want cheap and reliable, low end Toyota or Kia. If I want something slightly nicer, either Toyota or VW. If I want something high end, Audi, BMW, Mercedes. If I want high end but lower maintenance because I can't/don't want to do it myself: Lexus. If I want a rust bucket that will run 200K, an american SUV/truck might do it, but it'll cost me in maintenance and gas and it won't be trouble free. It won't go much further unless I drive a lot more than average.
It's not the imports that are killing the american car industry, rather the fact that the american car industry is still stuck in the 60s with bandaids to deal with new efficiency requirements. Maybe if they could look past the next quarter, and actually focus on their customer, they might produce a decent vehicle. Of course, they'd also have to ditch 99% of their dealers, and possibly their current brand(s)
I have yet to see a belt that requires fancy tools (I don't buy those cars, can't work on them) A belt won't last the life of the engine, for sure, but neither will the rest of the car. I have yet to kill an engine. The rest of the car? More than once.
....whereas the TSA had the carte blanche in the name of Fatherland Security!
and yet you could always opt out. Don't be a sheep.
They also have some fantastic engines. The down side is everything else.
Fantastic engines? Compared to what? Ford Escorts or a 90s Hyundai? Fantastic engines would be those 4-cylinder Toyota, Subaru or Honda engines that run efficiently for 200K miles, or diesel engines from mercedes or volvo that can go 500K. Not some 70s style inefficient powerplant that reliably falls apart pre 100K in some way and requires half a rebuild at a minimum, provided the rest of the car is still functioning.
I've owned and driven quite a few cars into the high mileage territory (i.e. ~200K) and the 3 domestics I had didn't make it to 80K without significant trouble. To be fair, the absolute worst was a Renault, needing significant engine/transmission work at 50K. I currently have 2 that are about to cross 100K, one will need a valve cover gasket replacement when the spark plugs are done as a non-standard maintenance piece. I suspect both of these will cross 200K without a problem. Neither is domestic. At this point, I'd need to see a reliably reported $0 maintenance cost over 100K miles domestic at least 20% cheaper than an import's price for an equivalent vehicle before I'd even consider it. That means all maintenance covered for 100K miles, except tires, and maybe brakes, although several imports cover the later also for 40-50K.
Sorry, not so simplistic: there are websites out there with data still from the dawn of the web. That's well over 20 years ago. There are also all the "public records" type sites, that contain information even older. Those would be what I'd consider appropriate.
As for you putting up such a web site, they should go after you then, if it's libel. If not, well, you're shit out of luck if it's true. Just my opinion. I'm not sure how this particular decision acts on "currently" published items. If the site is taken down, then Google would be responsible for removing said references. (Do recall, they do cache a lot of pages) At one point even wayback results came up, but they dropped that pretty quickly.
There's a simple short answer, Google will need to keep the history of said piece, and then deal with it appropriately. It's the price they must pay, or anyone really, who deals with historical documents. The difference with electronic documents when you're the scale of Google is that the cost of storing all documents is less than only storing current documents, so they cheaped out. If this was being printed on paper, someone would be cutting out all the deadwood. 20 year old bankruptcy filing documents? Axed and so on. Google just serves it all up. All that's happening here is that now there's a statement that these types of documents should fall to the wayside, and that's not a bad thing honestly.
Note that some convictions are time-bound in various situations, like job applications. Others, like pedophilia, will place you on the sex offenders registry, so they actually don't need to be excluded entirely, although perhaps sandboxed results after a certain time period. After all, while a general search for someone probably shouldn't have a 30 year old conviction on it, if you were searching for local sex offenders and their history, then it probably should. Context matters, and currently Google does not pay attention to this concept of context at all.
Building on that, going into "historical" mode might allow deeper searches, but these should be discouraged for general searches primarily because documents are still available, but perhaps shouldn't show up unless a concerted effort is made to search for them, perhaps via a different entry mechanism and a throttling control.
I'll repeat what I said earlier:
Appropriate regulation would be to restrict ISPs to only providing connectivity services to the end-user. No ownership of content or other services of any kind. Much like electricity providers cannot also run the grid unless they're a monopoly. No one can realistically compete with them since if the generation costs for the competition are undercutting the grid provider's price, they can merely up the access fees. Regulate them there, you say? There's far too many shenanigans going on with GAAP to have that come out any differently under regulation, and far more opportunity for corruption and fleecing.
Otherwise we have plenty of home grown talent, and the H-1B program exists to suppress their wages. I assure you that most H-1B's are very far from the best in their fields.
No, it doesn't. The H1-B program specifically forbids it as a tool for lowering wages, and even has provisions permitting civil and criminal suits against those who do use it for that purpose. Most H1-B recipients get paid about the same rate as everybody else.
While that may be the intent of the program, I can assure you of the following truths:
I have seen both instances with several companies I have worked at and had contracts with. You can spew all the legalese crap about the program you want, it doesn't change what's actually happening one iota. The net effect of H1-B programs is to artificially lower pay in the US, at least as far as IT jobs go.
Actually running and recording for this purpose shouldn't eat batteries that quickly. We're not talking requiring HD video here. As for turning them off, no issue there either, however, if the officer does not have video, his statements have no value in and of themselves without other corroborating evidence. The officer has no excuse for not having video evidence of what he says happened. The video should also have a running encrypted audio/video stamp applied in camera, to reduce the ability to edit the video. The video and audio themselves should also be encrypted, for various reasons.
So how many points do you get for that?
This is a history lookup, not a search result. No need to go outside your own browser, much less your own computer. For this reason I don't use chrome, and I turn off autosuggest on everything that can be turned off. I also don't use Chrome except for testing or to connect to Google. Frequently clearing all cookies helps as well.
Honestly, the omnibar setup may be the final stroke that blacklists all google addresses at my firewall. I've already been considering it and only having 1 machine proxy for google on intentional searches only. The price we pay for privacy and security.
By "failed", you mean "been lobbied against", "been bribed".
By "failed" I mean failed to achieve their goal of a competitive market.
It's quite simple: you supply the same carry service to everyone, end of story. Your own service is carried? Fine. If it degrades service, it degrades everything: your whole ISP business becomes slow because your in-house Hulu has too much traffic, so people start switching out of your ISP, and then they find you're as slow as NetFlix on the next guy over so they use NetFlix.
Hmm, the next guy over. I'm still looking yup, still looking damn, it's a 51K modem line.
Remember: the problem is Comcast throttling or charging Netflix specifically, or Hulu specifically, or Google specifically; it's not that their entire ISP business is non-viable and thus people are flocking to Cox. Remove this middle ground: either their shit works or it doesn't.
No, the problem is Comcast extorting money so that even if their own crappy services don't make them money in the content arena, other people's better services will. It's Comcast applying the troll under the bridge tax. What's worse is they're doing it on taxpayer subsidized cabling.
Just checked - that would be at best less than 2 miles deeper, and in some cases less than a mile. So "miles" is an exaggeration.
Incorrect, unless you'd like to come up with the first ever fair regulations in this area. So far everyone that has ever tried this has failed. (Feel free to point to a success story)
There is no link between water pumped into the ground for extraction and drinking supply. None What So Ever.
Except, of course, when you dig a well. That water ends up one way or the other in the surface water supply. Or via springs (fed by underground reservoirs) Or are you one of those that believes the "No Smoking" sign in restaurants creates an impenetrable smoke barrier between the smoking and non-smoking sections? (Water does not have the same properties as oil, so whatever kept the oil locked in may not work with water, forgetting for the moment that we're cracking all that rock that holds the embedded oil/gas.)
Why should we nationalize ISPs? In our case, the ISPs are not behaving properly because the regulations give too much and take only what the ISP does not care about. Try appropriate regulation.
Appropriate regulation would be to restrict ISPs to only providing connectivity services to the end-user. No ownership of content or other services of any kind. Much like electricity providers cannot also run the grid unless they're a monopoly. No one can realistically compete with them since if the generation costs for the competition are undercutting the grid provider's price, they can merely up the access fees. Regulate them there, you say? There's far too many shenanigans going on with GAAP to have that come out any differently under regulation, and far more opportunity for corruption and fleecing.
Also, if the company does well, you may get $20-$50K out of it. If the company does really well, you may get $100K.
I would suggest that the word may in those first 2 sentences needs to be boldfaced. ...They got, at most, $10000 (US dollars) out of the stock sale.
Having been through several startups at various levels, I can attest to a) always make salary the number 1 priority - salary is money in pocket. b) take whatever grants/options you can get, put them in an envelope, slip them into a file/safety deposit box with your employment contract, and forget about them until a sale happens or you're preparing to leave, because those are the only 2 occasions I've found it to be worthwhile. Startup stock is essentially a lottery, and like a lottery, mostly you're left holding worthless paper. Even founders don't always get a big payout even when the company sells.
My point, apparently implied but not stated explicitly enough was that "fusion" itself would be patented, not just the specific means of implementation.
If it was totally obvious and nobody had done it before as described in all of the claims in combination, why wasn't it patented already?
Fusion is totally obvious, and no one has done it before as a viable means of controlled energy production. When this is accomplished, it probably will be patented.
I use them as core system and work drives. However, I also backup my systems continuously, with a pair of HDs for each one. So even if something truly catastrophic happened, I'm 99.99% likely to only be down however long it takes to get a working system hooked up to one of the backups and do a restore. I have an old Intel SSD that's 3 years old now, and still going strong in a second laptop. The HD was dying in that one. All storage needs to be cycled periodically, if it lasts 5 years, you've gotten your money's worth. If you want truly long term storage, go for the 100 year tapes or optical media, although the latter has been somewhat flaky at the 15 year mark for me.