Maybe the practice is different in the USA or wherever you're from, but in my experience brand dealers sell used cars of any marque as long as they're decent cars. If they're not, they'll pass them on to other dealers or auction.
Then there's the breaking scandal of the pork-barrelling of a new digital access control for the door to a Washington Hotel. They've called it Watergategategategate.
On the same theme, why does eBay constantly show me examples of goods for sale that I've already bought? I'm not likely to buy another oscilloscope, go-kart, steam iron or whatever - I already bought one.
They'll soon have the replacement for Top Gear (rumoured to be called "Gear Knobs" heheh)
But actually that's all I have ever heard about Amazon's TV service. Maybe that's because I live in Australia and it's not available here, I don't know. But if it is, and I've just not heard anything about it, that's a massive failure on Amazon's part to market to people who could potentially be interested.
It's a badly and lazily written summary. Moore's "law" doesn't specify any limits, but for a while Moore's law hasn't held true because of some unforeseen physical limits of the current silicon technology we use.
This new technology may or may not deliver what it promises, but if it does, it will be a resumption of Moore's law, not breaking it. If anything, Moore's "law" was broken several years ago by the existing technology not living up to it.
I put "law" in quotes because it's not actually a law, just a prediction, and a rather wishful one at that.
...and Crystal plummets out of sight in 3...2...1...
Me, I'm a bit miffed that I finally upgraded my iPhone 4S to iOS 9 so that I could install an ad-blocker, but then find that the 4S doesn't support ad blockers because it doesn't have a 64-bit chip. I have no idea why an ad blocker would require that. Some claim it needs high performance, but that doesn't make sense - surely blocking an ad reduces the performance required to display a page? Don't get it, seems like Apple just arbitrarily decided that ad blocking needs a modern device as an upgrade driver.
Trivially? No. But any encryption can be defeated eventually, by trying all possible keys. It's just that could take so long the universe will have died by then. So not "real" time.
Not at all. He's quite right. Jobs was important, but simply wasn't the technology guy. It's got to the point where you ask young people (10 year-olds, say) today who Steve Jobs was, you'll quite often hear laughable stuff such as "the inventor of the computer".
Without Jobs, Woz's designs would have been brilliant one-offs. Without Woz, Jobs would not have had anything to make a company from. So both were needed to create Apple. As Jobs said, "Great Artists Ship".
Thanks for making my point - for some it's black and white; if we can't have black we must have white. If we can't have unfettered capitalism we must have a "massive restructuring" and go 100% with full-blown communism. No-one, least of all me, is advocating that. A SENSIBLE mix where capitalism does what it does well, and central planning does what it does well can and does work. Look at countries like Denmark - the vast majority have a comfortable and pleasant way of life without massive unemployment, violence and social upheaval. Sure, each person has to pay a little more tax but the kicker is that tax doesn't just benefit a few already rich plutarchs, it benefits everyone in the form of schools, hospitals, transport and so on. Capitalism really doesn't do those things well - countries that have tried to follow that ideological model are in some serious strife, like the UK. Profit cannot solve every problem.
Anyway, we're hardly talking about a massive restructuring. So far it's been a slow piecemeal drift. If the change to sustainable were speeded up 10 times you'd hardly notice the difference. And if you're right (unlikely), and the threat is imaginary, then you've made a better world for nothing I suppose.
Consuming a gallon of fuel to transport one human being 30 miles is a ludicrous waste of resources. A personal vehicle that could achieve the equivalent of 200 miles per gallon is perfectly feasible right now with no new technological breakthroughs. The only thing that would have to shift is the perception that you need to be enclosed in 2 tons of steel.
Do you seriously believe that switching to LED bulbs and driving a car that gets only 29mpg (which is terrible gas mileage in reality, only relative to your other gas guzzler does it seem reasonable) will achieve anything? Even if every single person in the world did this, it would make no effective difference.
The real waste is at the front end, where power is generated, and the only fix for that is "top down" legislation to force the providers to do something about the emissions and inefficiency. And that pretty much has to be dictated because industry has shown time and time and time again that it won't regulate itself if left to its own devices.
Some things simply cannot be solved by laissez faire capitalism. In fact it creates many problems, which is obvious to anyone willing to open their eyes for two seconds. That does not mean that the solution is the opposite, a totally planned central economy, but a sensible mix of the two. The knee-jerk reactionary repugnance to anything with even the mildest whiff of small-s 'socialism' is seriously damaging. It damages the health and happiness of every person, and now it is seriously damaging the planet. Nothing is black or white, perhaps a little subtlety should be given its chance. People have been sold the right-wing view for so long now they've forgotten what the middle ground even is. Centre-right policies are seen as far left, which is ridiculous.
I just don't engage with advertising, because I do feel I have better things to give my attention to. I run Ad Block, Ghostery on the web, I mute ads on live TV, I skip ads on recorded TV. If an ad is unavoidable (e.g. live radio stream), chances are good that it will trigger a channel change.
If I want some product, I'll research it myself. Advertising is very unpersuasive. In fact it's likely, in my case, to have the opposite effect, especially if it's unsubtle, repetitive and annoying.
I accept advertising exists as a way for content production to get paid for, but that really reflects the lack of imagination of the prevailing business models. We are in a transitional period - I beieve that in future there will be more subscription and pay-per-view based stuff and that will slowly edge out advertisment funded content. So make hay while sun shines advertisers, because people are turning away in droves.
People really think like this? Really? I'm sorry for you. Somehow, you've been brought up to be a sociopathic moron.
Life is better when people cooperate and look out for each other. That's what has made the human race so successful as a species. If that's not your experience, again, I'm sorry for you. However, if you expect people to look out and care about you, then you have to look out and care for them, at least just a little. And in the modern world that means that you pay taxes.
You might feel that your taxes are not well spent, or that they only end up in the pockets of the corrupt, or the already well-off. That's obviously bad, but it's not the fault of taxes in themselves. Maybe you should stop voting for idiots and corrupt politicians, and do something to ensure that your taxes are used equitably.
But if you disagree with the whole premise, then that just means you're as greedy and selfish as they are.
Well, you could build an app with the same interface, features, etc. Sure it's more work, but that's where the money is. At some point presumably you have to put food on your table and a roof over your head, and ideology doesn't pay the bills. I don't like the idea of selling out any more than you probably do as a matter of principle, but my wife and kids need feeding and clothing.
Surely it wouldn't be beyond the collective wit of the internet to set up a parallel surveillance system targeting judges, politicians and others involved in dismantling these freedoms. After a couple of months of having their every private movement made public I suspect they'd change their outlook.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the practice is different in the USA or wherever you're from, but in my experience brand dealers sell used cars of any marque as long as they're decent cars. If they're not, they'll pass them on to other dealers or auction.
We bought a Holden (GM) car from a Toyota dealer.
Yes, when a customer trades in a Chevy, they'll put that car on sale.
So your analogy is silly.
Solid, Liquid, Gas and Plasma.
WTF metal, insulator and 'magnet' have to do wth it is anyone's guess. Agree, fail.
Don't do business with Sony or any of its subsidiary companies?
Then there's the breaking scandal of the pork-barrelling of a new digital access control for the door to a Washington Hotel. They've called it Watergategategategate.
I bet it's not as black as our Mam's Black Pudding. One day she made a Black Pudding so black, even t'white bits were black.
:)
And if you get that reference you must be as old as me
Aeroplanes. The use of aircraft in war has basically driven every other development, refrigerators included.
On the same theme, why does eBay constantly show me examples of goods for sale that I've already bought? I'm not likely to buy another oscilloscope, go-kart, steam iron or whatever - I already bought one.
Useless.
They'll soon have the replacement for Top Gear (rumoured to be called "Gear Knobs" heheh)
But actually that's all I have ever heard about Amazon's TV service. Maybe that's because I live in Australia and it's not available here, I don't know. But if it is, and I've just not heard anything about it, that's a massive failure on Amazon's part to market to people who could potentially be interested.
I'm barely aware it exists.
It's a badly and lazily written summary. Moore's "law" doesn't specify any limits, but for a while Moore's law hasn't held true because of some unforeseen physical limits of the current silicon technology we use.
This new technology may or may not deliver what it promises, but if it does, it will be a resumption of Moore's law, not breaking it. If anything, Moore's "law" was broken several years ago by the existing technology not living up to it.
I put "law" in quotes because it's not actually a law, just a prediction, and a rather wishful one at that.
...and Crystal plummets out of sight in 3...2...1...
Me, I'm a bit miffed that I finally upgraded my iPhone 4S to iOS 9 so that I could install an ad-blocker, but then find that the 4S doesn't support ad blockers because it doesn't have a 64-bit chip. I have no idea why an ad blocker would require that. Some claim it needs high performance, but that doesn't make sense - surely blocking an ad reduces the performance required to display a page? Don't get it, seems like Apple just arbitrarily decided that ad blocking needs a modern device as an upgrade driver.
Trivially? No. But any encryption can be defeated eventually, by trying all possible keys. It's just that could take so long the universe will have died by then. So not "real" time.
Not at all. He's quite right. Jobs was important, but simply wasn't the technology guy. It's got to the point where you ask young people (10 year-olds, say) today who Steve Jobs was, you'll quite often hear laughable stuff such as "the inventor of the computer".
Without Jobs, Woz's designs would have been brilliant one-offs. Without Woz, Jobs would not have had anything to make a company from. So both were needed to create Apple. As Jobs said, "Great Artists Ship".
It makes a grown man cry.
Thanks for making my point - for some it's black and white; if we can't have black we must have white. If we can't have unfettered capitalism we must have a "massive restructuring" and go 100% with full-blown communism. No-one, least of all me, is advocating that. A SENSIBLE mix where capitalism does what it does well, and central planning does what it does well can and does work. Look at countries like Denmark - the vast majority have a comfortable and pleasant way of life without massive unemployment, violence and social upheaval. Sure, each person has to pay a little more tax but the kicker is that tax doesn't just benefit a few already rich plutarchs, it benefits everyone in the form of schools, hospitals, transport and so on. Capitalism really doesn't do those things well - countries that have tried to follow that ideological model are in some serious strife, like the UK. Profit cannot solve every problem.
Anyway, we're hardly talking about a massive restructuring. So far it's been a slow piecemeal drift. If the change to sustainable were speeded up 10 times you'd hardly notice the difference. And if you're right (unlikely), and the threat is imaginary, then you've made a better world for nothing I suppose.
No, you drive large death traps.
Consuming a gallon of fuel to transport one human being 30 miles is a ludicrous waste of resources. A personal vehicle that could achieve the equivalent of 200 miles per gallon is perfectly feasible right now with no new technological breakthroughs. The only thing that would have to shift is the perception that you need to be enclosed in 2 tons of steel.
Do you seriously believe that switching to LED bulbs and driving a car that gets only 29mpg (which is terrible gas mileage in reality, only relative to your other gas guzzler does it seem reasonable) will achieve anything? Even if every single person in the world did this, it would make no effective difference.
The real waste is at the front end, where power is generated, and the only fix for that is "top down" legislation to force the providers to do something about the emissions and inefficiency. And that pretty much has to be dictated because industry has shown time and time and time again that it won't regulate itself if left to its own devices.
Some things simply cannot be solved by laissez faire capitalism. In fact it creates many problems, which is obvious to anyone willing to open their eyes for two seconds. That does not mean that the solution is the opposite, a totally planned central economy, but a sensible mix of the two. The knee-jerk reactionary repugnance to anything with even the mildest whiff of small-s 'socialism' is seriously damaging. It damages the health and happiness of every person, and now it is seriously damaging the planet. Nothing is black or white, perhaps a little subtlety should be given its chance. People have been sold the right-wing view for so long now they've forgotten what the middle ground even is. Centre-right policies are seen as far left, which is ridiculous.
I just don't engage with advertising, because I do feel I have better things to give my attention to. I run Ad Block, Ghostery on the web, I mute ads on live TV, I skip ads on recorded TV. If an ad is unavoidable (e.g. live radio stream), chances are good that it will trigger a channel change.
If I want some product, I'll research it myself. Advertising is very unpersuasive. In fact it's likely, in my case, to have the opposite effect, especially if it's unsubtle, repetitive and annoying.
I accept advertising exists as a way for content production to get paid for, but that really reflects the lack of imagination of the prevailing business models. We are in a transitional period - I beieve that in future there will be more subscription and pay-per-view based stuff and that will slowly edge out advertisment funded content. So make hay while sun shines advertisers, because people are turning away in droves.
Take. Some. Mild. Antipsychotics
That's what THEY want you to do. Medicate so that you can no longer sense what they're up to. Big Pharma is in on this as well.
(Yes of course I am kidding. Or am I?)
Or milking it to death. Or maybe both.
People really think like this? Really? I'm sorry for you. Somehow, you've been brought up to be a sociopathic moron.
Life is better when people cooperate and look out for each other. That's what has made the human race so successful as a species. If that's not your experience, again, I'm sorry for you. However, if you expect people to look out and care about you, then you have to look out and care for them, at least just a little. And in the modern world that means that you pay taxes.
You might feel that your taxes are not well spent, or that they only end up in the pockets of the corrupt, or the already well-off. That's obviously bad, but it's not the fault of taxes in themselves. Maybe you should stop voting for idiots and corrupt politicians, and do something to ensure that your taxes are used equitably.
But if you disagree with the whole premise, then that just means you're as greedy and selfish as they are.
Well, you could build an app with the same interface, features, etc. Sure it's more work, but that's where the money is. At some point presumably you have to put food on your table and a roof over your head, and ideology doesn't pay the bills. I don't like the idea of selling out any more than you probably do as a matter of principle, but my wife and kids need feeding and clothing.
Surely it wouldn't be beyond the collective wit of the internet to set up a parallel surveillance system targeting judges, politicians and others involved in dismantling these freedoms. After a couple of months of having their every private movement made public I suspect they'd change their outlook.
Only if you go along with the military dictatorship's renaming; most ethnic Burmans don't recognise that.
For all of the rest of the world (except Burma, which doesn't count), the car weighs 636kg, and does 0-100 km/hr in 2.2 sec.