If everything about you appears to match your reported income (where you live, what you own, how many kids you have) then you may get away with them not noticing anything. If however they show up at your house and see $60,000 of pokemon cards, they're probably going to ask you to explain how you paid for them.
...how we would communicate directly with our loyal consumers.
does anyone else find this wording sinister? Like you're owned by Microsoft, a dehumanised "consumer", like suckling piglets, slavishly loyal to the teat that feeds you.
Given that the internet is never switched off, saying how much power it dissipates is just as informative and more concise than saying how much energy it consumed and over what period of time.
When I got my Galaxy S2 on 2 year contract, I worked out how much it would cost to buy the phone as cheaply as possible from somewhere outright, then pay for two years of service, or just go on a contract that included the phone for two years. The total cost was less to get the phone on contract.
I think the inner air cavities are being included as part of the volume in the density calculation, but the mass of the air in them is not, which is misleading.
but you STILL cannot buy a computer for the same price scale as the first Apple, Commodore, etc
What on earth are you talking about? A commodore 64 cost £399 in 1983 money. A PET wat £775. I can buy a Quad-core laptop for £275 in today's money. I can buy a tower for £150. For god's sake I can buy a raspberry pi for £30.
Where do you get this zany notion that technology gets more expensive as it matures? Bizarro world?
I recently upgraded to an S2 from this which i'd been using for ten years. I thought I'd wait until smart phones had most of the functionality of a laptop and at a ~£200 price point, instead of caning money on incremental upgrades every year on immature technology.
I have to say I love my S2 and it does everything I could possibly want, so it will probably stay in service for years until something geniunely compelling emerges, whatever that might be.
They aren't buff like that to entice females or gay males to play, they're buff like that as a kind of ego fantasy for the males that buy those games. They aren't sex objects.
I think that at some point, you just have to give up and accept that the analogy was too flimsy. Analogies should always be the absolute last resort, because they always have holes in them. Especially against a hostile opponent, who will willfully interpret every ambiguity in your analogy the exact wrong way.
Calculate the number of square feet this stuff will occupy to find out how much your "free" stuff costs per month
I understand what you're trying to get at, but this is specious reasoning. You pay $X a month for that space whether or not you keep junk in it.
Your logic only follows if you were specifically living in a house that size in order to store things, and you then threw away everything you didn't need in order to sell your house and buy a smaller one.
Throwing out your hoarded trash makes your house nicer to live in and has apositive impact on your mental health, but on it's own it doesn't save you money.
Slashdot Mirror
As in Jeff Bridges in TRON? That's what this laser beam thing reminds me of. (but you probably mean the bifrost from Thor)
If everything about you appears to match your reported income (where you live, what you own, how many kids you have) then you may get away with them not noticing anything. If however they show up at your house and see $60,000 of pokemon cards, they're probably going to ask you to explain how you paid for them.
Religion has been used for that excuse, yes.
But the notion that the universe is a simulation has not, which is the distinction being made.
i'm getting a strong image of you saying that with your fingers stuck in your ears.
developing theories or how life cam to be when we have absolutely no definitive way of knowing the original conditions is not science.
Why?
...how we would communicate directly with our loyal consumers.
does anyone else find this wording sinister? Like you're owned by Microsoft, a dehumanised "consumer", like suckling piglets, slavishly loyal to the teat that feeds you.
What kind of soulless monster doesn't love Mr Whippy?
Given that the internet is never switched off, saying how much power it dissipates is just as informative and more concise than saying how much energy it consumed and over what period of time.
Fukushima is the place that got levelled by a tsunami last year, not Hiroshima or Nagasaki that got nuked in the 40's.
You have to start somewhere.
When I got my Galaxy S2 on 2 year contract, I worked out how much it would cost to buy the phone as cheaply as possible from somewhere outright, then pay for two years of service, or just go on a contract that included the phone for two years. The total cost was less to get the phone on contract.
I'd love to read a detailed description of what all that maths is doing.
I think the inner air cavities are being included as part of the volume in the density calculation, but the mass of the air in them is not, which is misleading.
but you STILL cannot buy a computer for the same price scale as the first Apple, Commodore, etc
What on earth are you talking about? A commodore 64 cost £399 in 1983 money. A PET wat £775. I can buy a Quad-core laptop for £275 in today's money. I can buy a tower for £150. For god's sake I can buy a raspberry pi for £30.
Where do you get this zany notion that technology gets more expensive as it matures? Bizarro world?
Yes, but he isn't trying to pretend otherwise, which is the point that you're missing.
I don't understand why they don't just shuffle the deck after each hand.
I recently upgraded to an S2 from this which i'd been using for ten years. I thought I'd wait until smart phones had most of the functionality of a laptop and at a ~£200 price point, instead of caning money on incremental upgrades every year on immature technology.
I have to say I love my S2 and it does everything I could possibly want, so it will probably stay in service for years until something geniunely compelling emerges, whatever that might be.
They aren't buff like that to entice females or gay males to play, they're buff like that as a kind of ego fantasy for the males that buy those games. They aren't sex objects.
I think that at some point, you just have to give up and accept that the analogy was too flimsy. Analogies should always be the absolute last resort, because they always have holes in them. Especially against a hostile opponent, who will willfully interpret every ambiguity in your analogy the exact wrong way.
he posted today
God, I love watching some pretentious anonymous get make aspirations to entertainment value
????
*bag of wine gums*
Science of the 21st century will be less about discovering what we can do and more about what we can't
How could anyone possibly know that?
which fields?
it should have said "deployment" instead of "use"
Calculate the number of square feet this stuff will occupy to find out how much your "free" stuff costs per month
I understand what you're trying to get at, but this is specious reasoning. You pay $X a month for that space whether or not you keep junk in it.
Your logic only follows if you were specifically living in a house that size in order to store things, and you then threw away everything you didn't need in order to sell your house and buy a smaller one.
Throwing out your hoarded trash makes your house nicer to live in and has apositive impact on your mental health, but on it's own it doesn't save you money.