It seems dubious that someone will get this right, without some serous change in the way solar energy collection works, energy transmission etc. The alternative always mentioned is that of having solar panels as a roof way over the road. So if we consider that as an alternate option.

For just the road surface it doesn't seem reasonable for building a solar cell into the road is ever going to be cheaper on build cost vs a very well established construction technique with no fragile parts, no need for flexible interconnects, salt, the severe abrasion from grit caught in tires of heavy vehicles etc. whilst training to allow light transmission to the active part, serviceability is a whole other problem with need to access panels/interconnects for repair - or enough redundancy to allow for individual parts to fail with the associated reductions in potential output. Remembering that closing a roadway for repair is expensive not just for the direct costs but the indirect costs of those using the roadway. When you add the "roof" over the transitional roadway, could solar in the surface be net cheaper considering all the maintenance costs etc. if it is I'd imagine it would be close.

On the positive side is the energy generated. A roof over the road is likely to produce more output: better angle to the sun, less problems with dirt, no blockage of light from massive amounts of abrasion, no blockage from vehicles travelling on the road (or stopped/parked on the roads), no blockage from road markings, repairs to individual failures are likely to be quicker (no road closure, so less downtime) as well as cheaper considered in the basic costs above.

Better than expectations != good. The initial costs would produce expensive energy based on the projections, so presumably the beating expectations still makes it expensive just not as expensive. The building costs were higher than a standard cycle way and it's needed various repairs over time. Maybe it's not failed beyond repair as the French one (or the Netherlands Road one), but that still doesn't put it anywhere near a sensible idea.

It's bad enough that we have 2^10 = 1024 = 1KB vs 1000 = 1kB what's it going to be with this? 1KT = 3^10 = 59049? 1kT = 1000? My harddisk will be nearly a 60th of the capacity I was actually expecting.

Not sure that's right. Linux first version was early 90's. OS/2 was available in the late 80's. Taking into account that Linux then would also be pretty esoteric. Redhat wasn't formed until later in 1993, so I doubt Linux was a sane option at that point. Windows NT was also 1993, so at that stage OS/2 would have been stacking up against 16-Bit windows on top of DOS, rather than windows as most people would recognise today, so stretching it a bit, but in reality neither Windows or Linux would have been that comparable to OS/2 in the very early 90s. Plenty of Unixes would have been available as alternates.

The article mentions the mainframe backend, but I think this was a big part of OS/2 at the time in some areas. TCP/IP as networking wasn't as pervasive as it is now, IBM was using SNA, and of course had good support built in with OS/2. So if you were relying on stuff like APPC connections to mainframe then OS/2 would have been sold heavily for such things. I can recall having windows libraries to act as an LU6.2 device in windows, so it wouldn't have been unique feature, but I would imagine buying mainframe from IBM and micro computer OS with built in support for such connectivity from the same vendor would have been a simple choice to make sure it all just worked and you had good support.

Would be good if you read the article you point to.

Data was stored on small 35 by 70 mm cards of stiff film known as chips ... Data was stored on small 35 by 70 mm cards of stiff film known as chips ... This resulted in about 4.7 Mbit of usable space in a 6.6 Mbit chip.

And your point is? Is a sewer tunnel somehow more or less complex than what musk has shown so far? Why are the costs not comparable based on what's been dug so far?

Of course meant MMU

Most Amiga's were 68000 with no MCU so no protected memory either.

Because of course we all know that filing of a patent means the "invention" will hit the market real soon.

And your point is? This was a discussion about if having many others unskilled serves any useful purpose. Those who are sufficiently versed in the tactics and strategy of modern war (which maybe some of these veterans) will know having a few guns with a larger number of relatively untrained, undisciplined civilians is irrelevant to the way a modern military fights.

You still see war as men running around pointing guns at each other. That's your problem. The grown men who run around playing pretend soldiers at the weekend, would have little or no impact on a real war.

And the price you pay for this fantasy of was being these raging guns battles is that you are enslaved to guns, are events like this.

I haven't laughed so much in ages, please keep it up. Ignoring your ignorance of history of gun controls, that you believe a modern war would be fought based on volumes of troops on the ground shooting at each other is the best entertainment I've had all day. Even more entertaining that you think the public american's experience of firearms is in any way related to the situations and skills required to fight such a war is going to be a massive win. Deluded doesn't even start to describe that view.

"any new Tesla delivered after October 15th might not ship before the beginning of next year."

To all those doubters as to Musk's genius he's only gone and invented a time machine, shipping cars weeks after they get delivered.

No not even close. It would be more like the RIAA deciding not to sell to those doing the "pirating" to prevent those people copying in future - which doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. Not a perfect analogy still but closer.

As to adapting I think I covered that. Sure they can change the odds etc. accepting the outcome is not that they'll ban a few, but effectively ban everybody by offering really poor odds or simply not be willing to take the bet from anyone. This isn't really in their commercial interest.

Realistically what else do you expect them to do?

They are a business intending to make money. As far as I know they don't have a bottomless pit of money so can't afford to just pay out and pay out and regulation which forced them to is simply likely to mean no bookmakers. Their sole tool is to attempt to balance the market between the winners and losers (whilst taking their cut) - this means controlling the people involved in some way, the only two ways I can think of are discriminating against those who are winning too much, or adjusting their odds to balance things off - the latter mechanism likely makes the deal unattractive to everyone (and may make them unattractive compared to foreign less regulated bookies), so certainly cuts their profitability possibly even to the point of not having a business.

Real betting exchanges seems to be the way to go, but it may well mean many can't place bets since no one is willing to lay them at the rates wanted to be worthwhile.