So let me get this straight rich gits with chauffeurs get priority over everyone else because why, why the fuck, why?
Because "people being chauffeured around" represent such a small proportion of rush-hour traffic that basing a decision around this particular concern would be far more emotional than pragmatic.
There is the rub. They knew they were doing something wrong and did it anyway. They knew they were brewing coffee too hot as they had been warned several times before. They brew hotter so more flavour is extracted and less ground coffee needs to be used.
You aren't even a coffee drinker, are you? NONE of this even has to do with the BREWING temperature, so your conspiracy theories about saving money are irrelevant. It's the hold and serve temperature.
McDonalds claims their customers like the coffee at a higher temp (175-180) since they often commute and don't drink it for a while. The trolling lawsuits claim that's too hot too spill on your genitals safely. I'd agree with the latter, though also with the former. But that means I try not to spill hot coffee on my genitals, and if I do, not to blame the person who made the coffee, but my own clumsiness.
Similarly, I also don't blame knives for being "too sharp" when I drop one on my foot or lasers for being "too bright" when I shine one in my eye.
The manager of that McDonald's refused to pick up 50% of the initial ER bill.
The problem is, THIS is exactly what patent trolls rely on! You are saying even if they felt like they didn't do anything wrong, they should just pay a lesser fee to avoid a possibly larger one after litigation.
This woman had 3rd degree burns because she was 78 years old, in a car, and spilled a cup of 180 degree coffee on cotton sweatpants that she couldn't remove in 30+ seconds. That SUCKS. But on the other hand I (and most people) brew coffee at > 180 degrees at home every day and manage not to soak cotton sweatpants with it to cook our skin for 30 seconds. Because hot coffee is not intended to be pressed up against the skin for 30 seconds. It's intended to be sipped slowly.
McDonald's got fucked in this lawsuit because they were an arrogant megacorporation. Which I have to say, I don't pity them much for. But I also don't think the lawsuit made much sense.
Shill or no, his post was a very unfair criticism of the study.
Well, if I'm a shill, I am very poorly paid. I have noticed a lack of bees in my yard this year, too. Usually they would be all over the cherries and early bulb plants. But I have also noticed that it is cold out, except for one nice day where (surprise) the bees and wasps came out to play. The weather has since returned to "highs in the low 50s" and the bees seem to be chilling out.
And the unusual weather has nothing to do with it?
Given that Microsoft seems to be investing heavily in Azure, I'd wonder exactly how they plan to beat AWS. AWS had some new machine learning algorithm added a month ago; Azure doesn't have that. Either way, however, is a win. If Microsoft's making some fatal mistake with their new business model, then maybe they'd go bankrupt and help the industry by going open-source before death. If Azure stays where it is or ranks up in usage with its SaaS model, then there'll probably be some interesting competition between them two and Google with large user bases. Either way, there's competition, which will (almost) forever spiral downward prices and upward capabilities.
The scary thing about Microsoft is that they have at least 10s of billions of dollars in the bank. They will likely never go bankrupt, but I'm not sure they'll ever make money in computers again if the Windows/Office gravy train ever comes to a halt.
Back when IBM executive predicted "the world will probably need six computers", the main computing model was a mainframe at a distant location and time share on it via (overpriced) telephone lines and VT-100 terminals. Eventually workstations appeared and the move was to get off the mainframe and do local computing. Then came along Sun, "The network is *the* computer" and diskless workstations that would boot into an X-11 display terminal off a distant server. Well, PCs came along and desktop became powerful enough to run even fluid mechanics simulations. Then came high performance computing, and now the cloud.
A bigger machine in a far away place always had the cost advantages of the economy of scale. Everytime there is a jump in connection speeds and bandwidth some customers found it cheaper to "out source" computing to a remote machine. But eventually the advantages of local storage and local computation adds up. So let us see how long this iteration lasts.
The difference is that we still have really strong clients now and use the back end mainly for storage and some computation. It's not very comparable.
The other difference is that the technologies in use today make the "cloud" pretty much infinitely expandable, unlike a mainframe. Amazon has petabytes of storage and adds more continuously.
There was no formal declaration of war, yet few would claim that it was not a war. That was my point. I'm not sure why Article I can be used to justify the bloodiest war in our history, but not the wars in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, etc.
You just listed an Article I power of congress.
I see you still cling to a 19th century definition of "war". Shall the troops wear little white gloves and felt feathered hats?
You said "a processor that was introduced 7 years ago" when it clearly has no such thing. If you meant "a brand that was introduced 7 years ago", then so be it - but it totally changes your dismissal of that portion of the laptop: few people will care about the age of the brand.
There is, officially, a war in Pakistan - the same authorization that congress gave Bush the power to invade Afghanistan also gives authority to wage war in Yemen and Pakistan (and anywhere else even tangentially related to 9/11). It's a very broad authorization, now being used to bomb ISIS. Whether it is a good idea to pass such an open-ended war authorization is another discussion - but it is all "official".
I don't think anyone here is worshipping him, just acknowledging a very generous act.
He's a my way or nothing sort of guy.
Eh, I think by giving up all rights to the Star Wars movies so someone else could continue the story pretty much disproves that theory. I'll give you once doing that he has said he doesn't want to be actively involved in it any more.
Until they break ground I wouldn't be surprised if the locals rezone to land to permit his original studio plan
He's already said he has retired, so he doesn't NEED a new studio any more. To quote: "I'm completely confident that Disney will take good care of the franchise I've built. At the same time, for me, I look at it as I'm investing in Disney, because that's my retirement fund."
There is a history of philanthropists working hard to amass their fortune and then working hard to distribute it - and once they reach the next phase they really focus on it alone. In fact, to quote Andrew Carnegie, his dictum was "To spend the first third of one's life getting all the education one can. To spend the next third making all the money one can. To spend the last third giving it all away for worthwhile causes."
Depends on what level of x86 you're wanting to emulate. I have a copy of RealPC Classic (or maybe it's SoftPC Classic? I can never keep it straight), which emulates a 8088-level PC on a Macintosh Classic. I've successfully run Windows 3.0 in real mode on it, for certain values of run. There are also versions of SoftWindows that run on 68k; I'm pretty sure I got Windows 3.1 going on one once but can't remember. It's been a long time.
Probably the craziest thing I've done recently is get Mac OS X running on a 68k Mac via PearPC running in 68k Linux. Took literally days to boot.
Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker
