What are you talking about? Title is a concept, not a physical thing. The state issues Certifcates of Title which prove that, as far as the state is concerned, you hold the title. The 'Certificate of' makes not one bit of difference. The state makes you surrender your 'title' because they are the official holder of the ownership record. You can't have two different entities claiming to be in control of the record.

And even if what you said made any sense, it doesn't change a single thing, because the bank doesn't hold the title in either case.

The State of New York definitely issues you the title when you buy a car, even there is a loan. If there is a loan the bank is listed as having a lien on the title, but you still have the title. When you pay off the loan you get a release of lien letter from the bank. You can then take the letter to the DMV and get the lien removed from the title. The only way the bank would ever get the title is by taking legal procedings against you.

Entirely, 100%, wrong. The title is in my name (not the banks). A lien is NOT the same thing as ownership.

Five years ago I bought a new car or $22K. I had a choice, sell some assets (stock) and pay cash, or get a cheap 5-yr loan (0.9%). I took the loan. Today, my loan is paid off, i still have the car, I also have not had to put any money into it, I could sell the car if I wanted, and my original $22K is now worth about $37K. Even if the car lost half its value (it didn't), I still have about $4K left. You, on the other hand, are out $700.

You may THINK you 'have better things to do with your money', but paying cash when cheap loans are available is just dumb.

I take it you don't understand the meaning of the words 'easily' and 'standard'. Kit cars basically start with a 'donor' car. Not exactly easy or standard. And why provide liks to both Chevy and Ford crate motors? They are just standard motors, right?

Also, learn the difference between may and will. Yes, there are certain situations where adding resources makes it worse. However, there are also situations (probably more situations) where adding resources makes it better. Therefore, the statement 'adding resources makes it worse' is false.

I have read it. What it says is that if you are time constrained, more developers does not necessarily speed up the process, and may lead to quality problems if you keep the same time constraints. It does NOT say that more resources is always a problem. Time is a resource, does adding time to a project mean it is going to be worse? Money is a resource, does hiring some top developers, and paying them accordingly, lead to a worse outcome? Good leadership is a resource, same question. Does having 10 people looking for bugs lead to a worse outcome than 1?

The Mythical Man Month only really discusses using more resources to shorten delivery time (doesn't work). It does not say more resources cause a worse outcome.

Well, chalk one up for electrics, I guess.

Tesla's working on automated full-service battery swapping stations. And apparently also on charging cords that can plug themselves in:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/1...

Robots of that sort already exist, so you can see the sort of thing he's probably referring to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

That's what the Amazon drones are for. The truck just has to cruise through the neighborhood. Meanwhile, small drone aircraft that it carries will work to carry packages out of the truck and to front doors. A human will still be needed for heavy or bulky packages, or for deliveries that have to be brought inside or where there's no convenient place for the drone to land to deposit them, but those packages and destinations can be separated from the others at the local depot, and all put on a smaller number of trucks, therefore needing a smaller number of humans. You won't need a human for every truck if you work out the routes each day based on the nature of the packages you've got and where you're taking them.

We might, say, start by collecting an international body of experts and ask them to look into the issue. Maybe they could periodically write reports, maybe on the physical science side of the issue, but also on the impacts of the physical changes. Just a weird idea, of course, but if we had started early enough, we might have had a first overview by 1990! And if we don't quite trust those experts, we could e.g. ask some national science academies to evaluate the issue.If they all violently agree, we might start to consider actions.

As for Africa: Sure, Africa has done so well in the age of "burn it like there is no tomorrow", so continuing in the same direction is obviously the right thing to do. Or maybe this is the most cynical propaganda meme I've yet encountered.

You might want to look at Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong. Science can never give us philosophical certainty, and many scientific theories are incomplete (i.e. "wrong" in the strict sense). But that does not mean that all are equally wrong, or wrong enough to be useless. Newton was superseded by Einstein, but is still good enough for nearly all practical purposes.

I read it multiple times. Still can't see the point.

While the system is running you are making backups and no data is being lost. If your SSD is powered off for an extended period it starts to lose data. If you have any sort of reasonable data management you would now assume the data on the SSD to be unreliable and restore the backups before it is used. What, exactly, is the problem? Or do you think 'bring it online and wait til someone complains before restoring backups' is a reasonable data management technique?

The bit rot happens when the drives have been powered off for an extended period. The backups are taken before the power is removed.

And of course all those poor nations and their people have done so very well during the last century of unrestricted carbon extraction and burning. "We must keep burning fossil fuels for the poor children" - I've heard that argument before, and it's either dishonest or stupid at a level that I find hard to fathom. Developing nations don't need more oil, they need a fairer economic system.

Apart from the fact that you "distinct memory" seem to be highly selective and not quite reliable, this seems to be a very weird example. Yes, we were destroying the Ozone layer with (primarily) CFCs. Scientists were warning that things would get worse if nothing was done about it. But for once, the world did something. In 1987, the Montreal Protocol banned most releases of CFCs worldwide. And about now we can see the Ozone hole slowly recovering. This is not a failed prediction, it's an example of regulation working and predictions coming true.