Comment Re:simple solution (Score 1) 141
That will not work, Microsoft is protected by the DOJ. They have Government deals.
Sony was under that false impression, too.
That will not work, Microsoft is protected by the DOJ. They have Government deals.
Sony was under that false impression, too.
Didn't Sony just lose a lawsuit over the same thing? Why would Microsoft think it could get away with it? Whether the "flaw" was intentional or not, if people purchased an RT tablet with that feature enabled so that they could install another OS, then removing that feature cripples it from the intended purpose. Furthermore, since support from Microsoft on the devices is about to expire, what would be the reason to do this other than to force consumers to upgrade to a new device? While that might be a valid business reason, it should only apply to devices purchased going forward, not retroactively.
Can anyone say class action suit?
Still, if I want to send a smile face,
is not suitable to power wifi or bluetooth devices
What?! Are you telling me I can't scavenge enough power from background RF noise to broadcast a signal stronger than the background RF noise?!
Actually, you can do this, just not in real time. For instance, you can scavenge the power and store it in a super-cap and then use it, but probably only for a very short burst. Think of it as an air compressor running a tool that utilizes more cfm than the compressor can produce. The compressor fills the tank, the tool drains the tank and then you must sit and wait until the tank refills to use the tool again. Not necessarily practical if your needs are great, but certainly doable.
We could have introduced a new gay character, but he or she would have been primarily defined by their sexuality, seen as the 'gay character,' rather than simply for who they are, and isn't that tokenism?"
By their own admission, they can't introduce a credible gay character would be defined by something other than their sexuality, so instead they change an existing character to be gay, is the epitome of tokenism. Not only is it tokenism, it is insulting. As anybody who is LGBT would tell you, their sexuality isn't a choice. Evidently it is for the writers of Star Trek and it can be changed at will. Instead of a victory of the LGBT community in having a a main stream movie with a viable identity beyond their sexuality, they will have a token gay by taking an established character and making him gay.
In short, regardless of the success of the movie, this will be remembered as the movie where Sulu is defined primarily by his sexuality. The very thing they said they were trying to avoid. Then again, maybe it isn't tokenism and simply hypocrisy.
I like this idea because it suggests that in a hypothetical multiverse, across an infinite matrix of alternate realities, we are all LGBT somewhere."
So, what he is saying is that sexual preference is not something one is born with? Until now, thought has been in alternate universes, differences between who we are and who we would be elsewhere was based on circumstances. If we are born gay or straight, then if in an alternate universe we have a different sexual preference, we wouldn't be we, would we?
It took about 10,000 a year before they started to look into seatbelts. About the same 10,000 a year before DUI was cracked down on. So why a single one for Tesla? Oh yeah, the Luddites here hate Tesla or progress.
10,000 out of how many cars on the road? There is one confirmed death out of 12,000 Teslas. There were 27 out of 2.2 million Ford Pintos. Seems that statistically, a 71-76 Ford Pinto which had a kill ratio of 1 out of 81,000 was a much safer vehicle. The current air bag investigations are an even better ratio.
I'm just trying to get my head around this, somebody got killed in a car with new technology and the technology might be the cause, but because it is Tesla, they should get a pass? That's your argument?
Because we are going to spend millions investigating Tesla for a single death. It's silly and a waste. We don't do that. There are 30,000+ deaths a year, if we investigated them all to the extent we are investigating the Tesla death, we'd bankrupt the country. So ask the question again, but without the blinders on.
So, how many people need to die before it is worth investigating?
Prisons are full of people who didn't "intend" to violate the law.
The removable storage would be in addition to what was built into the phone. Storing pictures, music, etc. wouldn't be a problem at 95MB read.
Highway fatality rate with current cars, in the US is 2 per 100 million miles. So, he is saying that a Tesla will cut that number in half? That's a pretty bold statement. In addition, in most states, fatalities occur more often in rural areas, than urban. How many farmers are going to drive Teslas? Finally, in 2014, there were approximately 32,000 highway fatalities. It would take 30 years to reach the 1M mark they eliminated all of those fatalities.
The total deaths in Teslas, per million vehicle miles is still lower than "average" my a large margin. So investigating deaths in a car unusually safe seems like a witch hunt and a waste of time.
The total deaths in airline crashes per million miles travel is still much lower than average by a large margin and yet we investigate those. Why should automobiles be any different?
straight forward? Not really. But lets say that it is.
Where are all of the fatalities? They are on HIGHWAYS. They are not in cities and suburbs where you drive less than 40 mph and have airbags all around.
As such, if we were only looking at high speed roads i.e. highways, the average rate would be closer to 1 fatality / 20-45 million miles.
That would be easy enough to check. Statistically most accidents are within five miles of one's home, which makes sense because that is where most driving occurs. What you are saying, however, is that most fatal accidents occur on highways, even though that is a minority of total accidents (albeit, there is overlap between highway and home radius for many people).
Just look at the accident fatalities for a given state for several years and see where they occurred. A more thorough study would also look at the type of accident, because it is likely that no matter how good a Tesla is, it won't be able to prevent accidents where physics come into play, such as inclement weather or the semi that doesn't stop in time or even the person who cuts across lanes of traffic to take an exit when those lanes aren't clear.
Actually, you don't need to do anything. Musk is the one making the claim. He should provide the peer reviewed research proving his statement. Otherwise, it is just self serving marketing hype.
Sooner or later, maglev trains will achieve speeds over 500 mph. They'll never break the sound barrier (which is Hyperloop's promise), but, economically, they do not have to. One cannot justify the expense, at this time, to create a hyperloop to make a mere 300-mile trip in 30 minutes.
The current technology could already produce a maglev that could achieve speeds well over 500mph. The problem is not the technology but the effect of the sudden acceleration and deceleration on the average person. I don't see how the hyperloop will change the physics on the human body, but who knows, maybe everybody will put on a g-suit before the thing departs.
Is it a surprise that overclocking the card causes it to draw more power than it was designed for? Is it a surprise that as designed it is close to the limits of the power specs of the bus? It seems the problem isn't the card, but forcing the card into a configuration that it wasn't designed for. Here's a car example - back in the day, when they had distributors, you could manually changed the timing to improve performance. However, if you advanced the timing, too much, you could damage the engine. Is that the fault of the distributor, the engine or the person trying to "overclock" their car?
Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.
