Yes, but in science, we don't believe in things pending their refutation. If that's the standard, I suspect you also believe in the giant squid of Pampanelle who has infinite appendages, and rapes you for eternity if you don't sing the sacred song each morning. You haven't proved he doesn't exist, right? You really ought to start singing...
The universe, and nature are majestic in their own right. Stop cheapening them by implying that they couldn't exist on their own. They do, and that's really freaking awesome.
And any god who hides evidence of his existence to 'test the flock' or for any other reason, is either a douche, or he doesn't exist. As it stands, the universe looks exactly the way it would look if God doesn't exist. The theists continue to assert that either God set it in such a motion that it would look exactly this way from the beginning, or that he actively takes a part in our daily lives but then covers up the effects.
If I've read my recent physics correctly, 95% of the energy in our universe is in a form we don't know much about (dark matter/energy). If a sufficiently advanced civilization could harness that, they are likely going to do something to target that, instead of star light.
In general, it doesn't work worth a darn to get other drivers attention. The exhaust sound goes out behind the bike. You just let everyone you've passed know that they've been passed by a motorcycle. Everyone in front has no idea you're coming.
Not the case. My BMW displaces 550cc per cylinder (similar to the Harley), and they muffle that exceptionally. Harley riders are a bunch of dudes that want big loud bikes.
An EMP capable of taking things out at a range large enough to down an air campaign would be equally effective against manned fighter jets, which also rely on equally advanced electronics, and would also probably take out most of your own infrastructure within range.
This is absolutely not true. Jobs released a lot of dogs, and a lot of dogs that weren't ready. iCloud? Ping? iPhone 4 antenna? Please take off the rose colored glasses. This was a failure by Apple, absolutely. But let's not hearken to the good old days where no wrongs were made. They never existed.
I was thinking the same thing. It seems companies like Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon could pioneer in these areas. I imagine the saved electricity cost would more than make up for the development efforts.
And hopefully you have no assets or presence in the US. Because while they may not be able to easily get the data in the Grand Caymans, they'll be able to make the rest of your life hell.
By the same logic, if citizens carry personal responsibility when acting individually, why do those responsibilities disappear when they act collectively? Why can't we garnish wages of shareholders when a company goes bankrupt to pay of creditors or pay judgements?
Unfortunately, there has been a pretty steady anti-intellectualism and anti-ivory-tower-education mantra that has been gaining way too much steam. I wouldn't look to government to raise higher-education funding.
The state college's you paid for generally had taxes pay for between 60% and 90% of their operating income. Today, most state institutions are something between 10% and 20% funded by taxes. Students are paying a much higher share of college.
Similarly, it's the people entering the medicare and social security roles that are supporting things like a medicare voucher program but only for people who aren't about to retire. i.e. I can get medicare, but cut my taxes so I can keep my money and the next guy can get screwed.
I'm not saying it's you personally, but there are a lot of people of that generation who are all for cutting government services for things they either received their benefit for or keep the services for things they will get benefit for, but cut it for everyone else after.
It sounds like losing your ass, and then doubling down and pumping a bunch more money in to buy up the assets after bankruptcy, which is really risky. It assumes no one else would swoop in and get into a bidding war to try to offer creditors a better deal and you get nothing with the money you spent so much time putting together.
I've put together a plausible scenario based upon the really vaguely written press release. I have no inside knowledge of the situation. If you know more, please correct me.
It sounds like an original investor held shares in OnLive(1). He lost all of his original shares of OnLive(1) just like everyone else. Rather than pump more of his own money into OnLive(1) and remain saddled with debt and overhead, he chose, along with others, to put the company through the bankruptcy process. Remember, he paid his own money to help start and run the company. He has no obligation to continue to support it personally.
He then used his own money to found OnLive(2). He used his own money in OnLive(2) to purchase the latent assets left in OnLive(1) and then proceeded to offer jobs to employees from OnLive(1).
So, it doesn't sound like all the investors in OnLive(1) divested the employees, kept their own shares and started over after screwing over the staff. It sounds like investor(s) bootstrapped a whole other company with a whole bunch more of their own money and bought the assets of the shell of the original company.
Also, we need to evaluate rewards. Marissa Meyer had a 300 million dollar personal stake in the game. I hate when leaders say, "I don't ask anything more of my employees than I do myself." That's because you make a couple thousand times what they make.
How about this, buy both. I read PDFs and color text books on a tablet (iPad) and I'll read linear content (novels) on the iPad if it's the only thing I have with me. But I far prefer linear content on an e-ink ereader. It's much nicer on the eyes and the battery lasts a really long time.
If the budget restricts, pick one - tablet is more flexible, but not as enjoyable to read on (in my opinion), or ereader if you like to read linear content like novels, linear non-fiction, etc.
This is in the current TOS. Some early buyers have pulled the TOS from 2006 out and it apparently reads differently, particularly with regards to arbitration.
I read through the thread on their forums. Jason Hoffman, the guy currently at the top of the org chart claims they've received new funding and they are starting to get scrutinized for the liabilities on the lifetime accounts by financial auditors. They are now offering 5 years of one of their other packages or a full refund of the original price. It still reeks and they deserve to get hit with a strong lawsuit.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but in science, we don't believe in things pending their refutation. If that's the standard, I suspect you also believe in the giant squid of Pampanelle who has infinite appendages, and rapes you for eternity if you don't sing the sacred song each morning. You haven't proved he doesn't exist, right? You really ought to start singing ...
The universe, and nature are majestic in their own right. Stop cheapening them by implying that they couldn't exist on their own. They do, and that's really freaking awesome.
And any god who hides evidence of his existence to 'test the flock' or for any other reason, is either a douche, or he doesn't exist. As it stands, the universe looks exactly the way it would look if God doesn't exist. The theists continue to assert that either God set it in such a motion that it would look exactly this way from the beginning, or that he actively takes a part in our daily lives but then covers up the effects.
They wouldn't need to, immediately after they make campaign contributions and get the law overturned.
Look at the little fiery spirals... did they use leftover fireworks as the explosive?
If I've read my recent physics correctly, 95% of the energy in our universe is in a form we don't know much about (dark matter/energy). If a sufficiently advanced civilization could harness that, they are likely going to do something to target that, instead of star light.
Matter-antimatter would be much more efficient, except that it takes a lot of energy to make the anti-matter.
In general, it doesn't work worth a darn to get other drivers attention. The exhaust sound goes out behind the bike. You just let everyone you've passed know that they've been passed by a motorcycle. Everyone in front has no idea you're coming.
Not the case. My BMW displaces 550cc per cylinder (similar to the Harley), and they muffle that exceptionally. Harley riders are a bunch of dudes that want big loud bikes.
An EMP capable of taking things out at a range large enough to down an air campaign would be equally effective against manned fighter jets, which also rely on equally advanced electronics, and would also probably take out most of your own infrastructure within range.
This is absolutely not true. Jobs released a lot of dogs, and a lot of dogs that weren't ready. iCloud? Ping? iPhone 4 antenna? Please take off the rose colored glasses. This was a failure by Apple, absolutely. But let's not hearken to the good old days where no wrongs were made. They never existed.
I wonder if the royalties that google imposed on map API calls was an issue?
I was thinking the same thing. It seems companies like Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon could pioneer in these areas. I imagine the saved electricity cost would more than make up for the development efforts.
Sure, just ask Julian Assange, or Kim Dot Com.
And hopefully you have no assets or presence in the US. Because while they may not be able to easily get the data in the Grand Caymans, they'll be able to make the rest of your life hell.
By the same logic, if citizens carry personal responsibility when acting individually, why do those responsibilities disappear when they act collectively? Why can't we garnish wages of shareholders when a company goes bankrupt to pay of creditors or pay judgements?
Unfortunately, there has been a pretty steady anti-intellectualism and anti-ivory-tower-education mantra that has been gaining way too much steam. I wouldn't look to government to raise higher-education funding.
The state college's you paid for generally had taxes pay for between 60% and 90% of their operating income. Today, most state institutions are something between 10% and 20% funded by taxes. Students are paying a much higher share of college.
Similarly, it's the people entering the medicare and social security roles that are supporting things like a medicare voucher program but only for people who aren't about to retire. i.e. I can get medicare, but cut my taxes so I can keep my money and the next guy can get screwed.
I'm not saying it's you personally, but there are a lot of people of that generation who are all for cutting government services for things they either received their benefit for or keep the services for things they will get benefit for, but cut it for everyone else after.
Let's even consider that they aren't malicious, but simply untested. It's a bunch of code that's possibly vulnerable to an exploit.
It sounds like losing your ass, and then doubling down and pumping a bunch more money in to buy up the assets after bankruptcy, which is really risky. It assumes no one else would swoop in and get into a bidding war to try to offer creditors a better deal and you get nothing with the money you spent so much time putting together.
I've put together a plausible scenario based upon the really vaguely written press release. I have no inside knowledge of the situation. If you know more, please correct me.
It sounds like an original investor held shares in OnLive(1). He lost all of his original shares of OnLive(1) just like everyone else. Rather than pump more of his own money into OnLive(1) and remain saddled with debt and overhead, he chose, along with others, to put the company through the bankruptcy process. Remember, he paid his own money to help start and run the company. He has no obligation to continue to support it personally.
He then used his own money to found OnLive(2). He used his own money in OnLive(2) to purchase the latent assets left in OnLive(1) and then proceeded to offer jobs to employees from OnLive(1).
So, it doesn't sound like all the investors in OnLive(1) divested the employees, kept their own shares and started over after screwing over the staff. It sounds like investor(s) bootstrapped a whole other company with a whole bunch more of their own money and bought the assets of the shell of the original company.
Also, we need to evaluate rewards. Marissa Meyer had a 300 million dollar personal stake in the game. I hate when leaders say, "I don't ask anything more of my employees than I do myself." That's because you make a couple thousand times what they make.
That's a feature. Those things are otherwise just in the way down there.
How about this, buy both. I read PDFs and color text books on a tablet (iPad) and I'll read linear content (novels) on the iPad if it's the only thing I have with me. But I far prefer linear content on an e-ink ereader. It's much nicer on the eyes and the battery lasts a really long time.
If the budget restricts, pick one - tablet is more flexible, but not as enjoyable to read on (in my opinion), or ereader if you like to read linear content like novels, linear non-fiction, etc.
They are currently offering refunds or 5 years use of a different hosting package.
This is in the current TOS. Some early buyers have pulled the TOS from 2006 out and it apparently reads differently, particularly with regards to arbitration.
I read through the thread on their forums. Jason Hoffman, the guy currently at the top of the org chart claims they've received new funding and they are starting to get scrutinized for the liabilities on the lifetime accounts by financial auditors. They are now offering 5 years of one of their other packages or a full refund of the original price. It still reeks and they deserve to get hit with a strong lawsuit.