I've got a Mac Powerbook 180c ... the first colour screen laptop in the world ... which runs Photoshop v2.5 and Microsoft Word v4 with 2.5 MB of installed RAM, running System 7.5, a contemporary OS to Win95. Everything works except the batteries (NiCads) so it has to be plugged into AC all the time. It networks with my contemporary laptop and desktop ... making things like access to Floppy Disks on modern hardware and software possible.

But, yeah, two and a half megabytes of RAM is enough for a pretty modern OS ... MacOS didn't change much from System7.5 to OS9, save for new hard disk formats that better supported larger drives.

A local firm, International Road Dynamics, has been manufacturing and selling a product that does exactly the same things as this product does, for 35 years.

https://www.irdinc.com/

The "Little People" can use each and every investment strategy the "ruling class" does. Even with $20 a month you can buy Apple, Alphabet, or any stock regardless of it's share value with investment brokers who buy pooled fractional shares on behalf of their clients.

You can purchase mortgages at that same rate (or whatever you can afford), purchase gold coins or physical ounces or fractions of ounces of gold and hoard them under the kitchen floorboards. You can even own the mortgage on your own home once your equity and your investment pool become equal, and pay mortgage interest to yourself.

The "Little People" who fail to educate themselves are the ones whom the "ruling class" will outclass when it comes to investments. So, the path is clear ...

Cryptocurrencies have zero potential to "revolutionize the banking system" because Banks are the only mechanism to create debt, and bank debt creates money out of thin air. Bitcoin, et al, are specifically crafted to never create money out of thin air once created, and can only create money by introducing a new currency, which doesn't really work (it's no different than creating a new publicly traded stock ... it simply converts conventional currency into another speculative form) thus the money supply can never grow in a world without conventional banks. To "revolutionize" the banking system by a switch to a cryptocurrency would be to doom said economy into recession.

Exactly. You ALWAYS sell when the price doubles, because that secures a 100% profit PLUS recovers your initial investment. With the other half still invested which has effectively cost you nothing (we don't count the profit because profit is the entire point of investing), speculate away.

Using your numbers, buy ETH @ $300, sell half at $600, and if you were dumb enough not to sell half again at $1200, at least you doubled your money if it later falls to $0

Of course there are other strategies besides selling at 2x your investment, but regardless, you should ALWAYS set a profit value (maybe just 10%, depends on what you're investing in and why) where you will sell some or all of your investment.

You make a good point.

It is much more accurate to say that real-world flight training prepares you for flight sim training rather than the other way around.

With a "real" airplane, takeoff is trivially easy (throw the power to her, she will fly if not overloaded), climb out is a bit tricky but with no obstacles like high hills in your way you can just be conservative and pull that off as well. Straight and level flight, assuming you have nowhere to go, is also easy. If you have a destination, that complicates things a bit but since you can trim out and take your hands off the controls, you've got some time and both hands to deal with that if you know how.

Landing. Now we are talking the hard part. No sim I've ever seen replicates the real-world feel of landing an aircraft. Judging distance both in the air and to the ground is way more difficult than you might imagine if you've never done it. Landing takes practice, that's why touch-and-go's are so commonly performed and practiced with a Flight Instructor. Ground effect can surprise and eat up your runway length if you are not familiar with the aircraft you happen to be flying; its different for every type.

Then there's the radio chatter, which you will not understand if you're not familiar with it, and by that we mean hearing it and understanding the words being spoken, not the format or who is speaking (another aircraft, ATC, etc).

It sounds like gibberish if you're not familiar with how aircraft radios sound. Being on the right channel, and switching channels, is beyond someone who is unfamiliar with it, but maybe a sim could teach you that.

Every successful flight involves takeoff, climb, cruise, descent and landing. The last two are the ones that will kill you.

The kind that carry purses, wear backpacks, carry "green" re-usable shopping bags. What kind do you hang around with?

Nope. You need to login with password 'superadmin'

The company CEO's password is 'superuser'

and the backdoor is 'superroot'

The backdoor to the backdoor is 'superNSA'

and the hidden directory is 'superKGB'

You can rob the company blind of its virtual currency holdings with the username 'superwallet' or just empty the conventional bank accounts with online password 'superbanking'

Here's a topical observation for you.

Women don't put anything in their pockets. Ruins the look of whatever they're wearing, and they care about the look of whatever they're wearing.

Men use pockets to put stuff in. Lo and behold, the phone fits in the pockets designed for men's clothing.

Equal does not mean identical.

Of course children are "at risk of robot influence. They are also at risk of Barbie and G.I. Joe influence, and in that case it's the children themselves making up the "influence". Playing with Robots means learning with Robots, because play is how children learn. They're also 'at risk of Ice Cream influence" and ... well ... everything they encounter, basically.

Was there someone who was under the impression that children were immune to Robot influence? Anybody?

MIssing footnote from previous post:

* A dozen indoor/outdoor municipal lifeguarded pools and about 80 non-lifeguared (two staff, but also indoor and outdoor playrooms and structures) municipal wading pools. An unknown number of private indoor and outdoor pools. Pop 230,000.

300 children drowning deaths over just a few months (summer) is an extraordinarily high number by my local and national standards. There must be more to it than just negligent parents using cellphones.

Canadian parents use smartphones as much as anyone in a first-world country. Below is a comparison with Germany

Note: I did not find specific data on children only in Germany, so we are comparing the news story's 300 over summer with Canada's annual numbers.

Format: Germany // Canada

Population (2018 estimate to Wed Aug 16)
82,315,335 // 36,992,745
Population Ratio:
2.22:1

Children Drowning Deaths Age 0~19
300 (?) // 68

Children Drowning Deaths Age 5~14
300 (?) // 17

**
Expected number of deaths in Germany with adjustment for equivalent population (2.22 multiplier) at Canada's rate:
Age 0-19: 151
Age 5~14: 38

Deaths per age group 5~14 by ype of waterbody:
Unsupervised pools, lakes, rivers: 16
Lifeguarded pools, lakes, beaches: 1

So obviously it isn't just parents on smartphones that is the root cause. Canadian children have massive opportunity to enter water ... more freshwater than any country on earth, and using my city as an example* numerous city swimming / wading facilities. So opportunity for drowning certainly exists. Germany should explore overall water safety issues that obviously exist rather than focusing on a somewhat sensationalist "cause" that may or may not be valid.

I'm not sure what motivated this comment, but Canada makes very inexpensive paper products because ... well ... we have the trees, and cheap electricity (not counting the incompetent idiots running Ontario ... you HAD cheap electricity but bungled and squandered that advantage all by yourselves) for the pulp mills and paper mills.

The US actually applies tariffs to Canadian paper products not because of unfair trade practices (the tariffs are routinely deemed invalid by the usual appeal processes, whereupon the US withdraws that one and a new one is imposed ... this has been going on for 50 years) but because all forestry in America is owned by small lot owners who simply hold out for higher timber rights prices. In Canada private landowners have to court forestry companies to cut their timber as the supply is virtually limitless. Public land is sold at prices commensurate with the private land rights prices, which the US claims represents a subsidy.

At least paper products are made from re-forrested land so quality is similar between Canadian and US made product. Not so with timber, where there is virtually no old-growth sources in America with some western states possessing the last stocks, on private land, with rights at high prices. In Canada there is still better than what-was-in-1800's-America levels of old-growth forest. Compounded with the Asian insect invasion of the last 30 years which has killed vast areas of the western Canadian forest canopy. That timber can sit for perhaps 10 years before it deteriorates and cannot be harvested, so there is tremendous pressure to harvest it all very quickly right now.

New-growth timber is less dense, partly because it's younger, like all trees would be, and partly because forestry companies prefer fast-growing species to re-forest the cut old growth timber species. That's fine, for most things, but some parts of a house require the strength and density of old-growth forest timber. Because the US cannot possibly harvest enough of this timber to meet demand for the US housing industry, they must import some from Canada. The tariffs on timber from Canada are simple price supports for US timber, both new-growth and old-growth. Given their druthers, builders would make entire homes out of old-growth timber, which the US doesn't really have much of. Thus the tariffs which are simply there to support an industry that has lost it's natural advantage and cannot get it back. Canada allows unlimited tariff-free imports of US lumber and pulp / paper products.

Although Canada would prefer to sell it's old-growth timber to the US, the Japanese and Asians (including China) are eager to buy what America won't, so the industry is doing fine, and lumber is cheaper in Canada than in America so our home construction costs are lower by probably about $10,000 per 1000 ft2.

Yes I think you could guarantee that. But not because of the reason you implied.

They could have been making commodity cases, selling for $50, and I guarantee that it would not cost $45 to manufacture one. Maybe $25, maybe $33, but almost certainly no more than that for a $50 product. So their "$450" cost would probably have been closer to $250.

If they were priced similarly to typical "luxury" goods (automobiles excepted, jewelry and clothing included) their cost would be more on the order of $160 for a $500 item.