"Apple doesn't mine it"
Yeah, ok. Show me where/how you can guarantee that any more than anyone else who already has your data? Apple in this case *already has your data* without HealthKit. Apple is identical to google and facebook and every tech company that collects user data in this regards.
Not quite true. Bandwidth IS a finite resource. The cable to each DSLAM can only carry so much data per second. This is why you (probably) don't have gigabit speed to your house right now. As people consume more bandwidth, the providers need to upgrade the equipment. However, hopefully this will persuade them to actually upgrade, instead of looking at slow speeds as a bonus (Gee Netflix. Sorry things are so low, but for a low fee of a million dollars, we might be able to upgrade).
brains are usually grey. if these people have white matter in their brains maybe we just add dark matter and mix it together becomes grey. brains are grey anyhow
science.
Sirius isn't free, you pretty much have to buy the hardware too.
Also, 90% of their stations are outright garbage and far less personalized than Pandora.
At the same time, Pandora is ridiculous because it's treated more like a radio stream and less acknowledging basic functionality like "I want to play a song again" or "I want to restart the same song". Spotify is equally garbage in this regards as you are limited on the number of streams and the selection is limited. Google music is the next closest thing at $8/mo, but in reality it's no better as well.
Until you have a streaming service that doesn't have to resort to covers to play certain songs just because the big bad publishers think their music is so magically valuable (it isn't), we're going to be stuck with garbage solutions like this.
What isn't mentioned about every music streaming solution? None of them pay the artist *anything*, because this assumes artists actually get their tenth of a cent per stream. It's unlikely, because that's probably split 20/80 with their publisher, assuming they even get the money and that a publisher isn't somehow taking all the money from the artist who doesn't even work for them.
his posts are the disgusting type that make me feel negative about life and oh by the way hate slashdot.
it's likely he's created multiple accounts in multiple browsers and cycles them so that he has mod points ready to go any time he wants them
Everyone has lazy and unproductive workers. Why should any worker give half a fuck about his company if he can clearly see that even the CEOs are trying their best to milk it for all it's worth and then move on to the next corporation to pump and dump?
There is no work ethic left. On no level of the work force. What I see today in our economy reminds me in a stunningly way of what went down in the former communist countries. Same shit. Same mismanagement with the same disillusioned workforce, with everyone trying his best to waste as little energy as possible doing work, knowing that if he put in more all that would be his reward is more workload shifted onto him. Mostly because it just doesn't friggin' matter whether you try to work hard or whether you slack. Your chances for promotion are zero, your chances to get fired are not influenced at all by how you work. So why bother with anything?
There is simply no identification with your workplace anymore, and no faith in the ones steering the company's course.
And bluntly, whether you think your politicians are greedy, selfish idiots with zero qualification for their job and no well being in their mind aside of their own, or whether you think your boss is like this, where exactly is the difference between public and private sector?
can you find a good reason to bother treating your employees well? what's to say they won't just do what you're doing right now?
No, they fund things that have a military application, some of which are interesting. But it's not like the good old days, when they'd fund things that were interesting, regardless of military value.
If you're going to go around reading Wikipedia pages, you may as well finish reading them before citing them.
Here's what the very same Wikipedia page says, one paragraph after the one you quoted:
The ARPANET incorporated distributed computation (and frequent re-computation) of routing tables. This was a major contribution to the good survivability that the ARPANET had, in the face of significant destruction - even by a nuclear attack. Such auto-routing was technically quite challenging to construct at the time. The fact that it was incorporated into the early ARPANET made many believe that this had been a design goal.
The ARPANET was in fact designed to survive subordinate-network losses, but the principal reason was that the switching nodes and network links were unreliable, even without any nuclear attacks. About the resource scarcity that spurred the creation of the ARPANET, Charles Herzfeld, ARPA Director (1965â"1967), said:
The ARPANET was not started to create a Command and Control System that would survive a nuclear attack, as many now claim. To build such a system was, clearly, a major military need, but it was not ARPA's mission to do this; in fact, we would have been severely criticized had we tried.
Which agrees nicely with what I said in my earlier comment.
You then went on to say:
Also nobody was talking about WHY DARPA funded it.But it's good to know in your universe that's the only place with money.
No, they weren't the only place with money. But ARPA was founded in 1958, and it wasn't until 1973 that they were required to only spend money on defense-related projects. Before that, they had a habit of giving money to all sorts of interesting projects. JCR Licklider, an obscure, yet tremendously important person in computing history, wanted to build computer networks and was a higher-up at ARPA in the 60's. His successor was Ivan Sutherland, who should need no introduction, and Sutherland brought in Bob Taylor, who finally got a network funded and built. Since you like Wikipedia, here's a passage from Taylor's entry:
Among the computer projects that ARPA supported was time-sharing, in which many users could work at terminals to share a single large computer. Users could work interactively instead of using punched cards or punched tape in a batch processing style. Taylor's office in the Pentagon had a terminal connected to time-sharing at MIT, a terminal connected to the Berkeley Timesharing System at the University of California at Berkeley, and a third terminal to the System Development Corporation in Santa Monica, California. He noticed each system developed a community of users, but was isolated from the other communities.
Taylor hoped to build a computer network to connect the ARPA-sponsored projects together, if nothing else to let him communicate to all of them through one terminal.
When ARPA got out of the business of spending money on interesting work, the National Science Foundation was supposed to pick up the slack, but this never happened. While I can understand how some people might cast aspersions on projects that used military funding, even if they're not meant for military applications, the money spends well enough.
The initial internet was meant to be a military communication system that could operate when large numbers of links were destroyed.
No it wasn't; that's just an urban legend. The ARPAnet was a way of allowing researchers to share resources. Thus, a user in San Francisco could use a computer in Los Angeles, and wouldn't even need a new, dedicated terminal to do it. Its resilience has more to do with the poor state of telecommunications at the time demanding it, and certain design features that allowed for a useful combination of efficiency and flexibility.
As for why it was funded by DARPA, that was where there was money.
those are really good points
drivetrain losses, that's a damn good point.
I support them because nuclear, even though it'll never happen
I support them for this reason, even though we'll never go to nuclear.
... Sarah Palin.
but I can see Mars from my house!
If you think burning fossil fuels in an ICE at 25% efficiency is green, then keep on sending your money to the terrorists.... EVs emit less CO2 than ICE cars even if the electricity comes from dirty coal because there is much higher efficiency at all stages.
if by "much higher efficiency" you mean 40% vs 25%
then yes.
factor in transmission line losses (6%) and charging losses (10-20%)
and it's not so much more efficient.
With your bare hands?!?
