Without copyright the gpl is bsd, open source harmony.
I don't think the amps change dramatically for the voltage, in fact I think the voltage is to save amps. I'm just guessing, but I bet a 40 amp dryer is so that it can run at 110. Though I don't really know, the dryers e had have been 110 and 20 amp, but really woulda benefitted from double the power (still, gas is king in overall wattage, one of the wins to city living ).
Not if you have a magnum
Did you even read tfs? It doesn't draw 1kw, it draws 1kw/hour, that little energy over the life of the car is practically nothing.
Just like when CDs came out, and Tapes, people replace the old media with the new, and people get a boost.
I suspect spotify will drag out the curve some, because the radio play side will pay more.
That's a silly sentiment.
If more and more album sales are replaced with the streaming, the royalties will go up.
20% (high typical artist take of a 20 dollar, so I'll assume euro too, CD sale) * 20 euros (high CD price) =
4 euros per album sail.
4 euro /
I wonder what the average use of a typical CD is, but I bet 150 hours is close, maybe a little high, but close.
Yes, cable is great. I like cable too.
Most households probably have it, because it's worth it for most everyone after a certain income level, but if one doesn't need a real computer, they are much more likely to be below that threshold of income.
People without a computer benefit more from a smart phone than those that have one. And if you are working poor to lower middle class, you likely will invest in a smart phone before cable, or broadband and a computer (I wouldn't, but I'm more of a techie than most people).
I am not saying cable is stupid to have, or without perks, simply that it is a luxury, much more so than a smart phone.
I was responding to the sentiment "Why would someone living on such slim margins buy a smartphone and its expensive data plan in the first place instead of buying a dumbphone? A lot of smartphone customers are paying $80 per month; I pay that much per year for my dumbphone.". I was pointing out that $80/month is high for a smart phone, and that if you don't have a computer, the value of a smartphone is higher.
For you and I a smart phone is pretty much a luxury item (I use mine some for work too, and initially that was a justification, but my work usage has stayed flat, and now about 90% of the usage is convenience / pleasure-use rather than needed work), I choose to invest in one, you don't, but it's not nearly as much a necessity as it is for someone without a computer and internet.
If your dumbphone is $80 / year, you don't use it that much, so I assume it's not a primary line. I am not trying to say everyone needs a smartphone, simply that those that are poorer need one more than you or I.
A smartphone does a lot of things 100% better than nothing.
Well there's more cars and less danger now, perhaps these features help?
Also, cars a lot more baller. I can't drive a carriage, or ride a horse, but people used to do that just fine.
OTA gets local sports, and Meet the Press though.
Do they have internet? Do they consider that a given?
My point is really that smart phones ARE in fact bringing people into the information age, the type of people that didn't have a computer because it was essentially a luxury (like cable) to have computer and internet. As time went on, not being able to buy online (saves money), e-mail (makes it a lot easier to get a job), and keep in touch in other ways (Facebook etc.) pulled people out of the mainstream. People on a budget get pretty decent return on investment from a Smartphone, because it's not home computer + internet vs home computer + internet + smartphone, the smartphone IS the computer. It has converged most of the fringe benifits of having a computer in the internet age (information and communication) even for those that can't afford a computer as a luxury and don't need one for work/school. Keep in mind that a lot of these people don't have access to internet at work either.
I just don't understand were the hate of people paying the extra for a smart phone with data plan comes from, I assume it's from people that take having internet, and a computer at home as a given, which, even today, leaves a lot of people behind (I'd bet home internet penetration in the US is about 66%, though I haven't lived in a poor area for 3 or 4 years, so things may have changed. I do know that people there getting iPhones was a big deal though.
It'd be heck trying to key a post like yours into a touch screen.
and many of my past posts would demonstrate you get nonsense frequently, not that a keyboard guarantees sense.
Besides, what's the good of having an e-mail address if it's hard to type an e-mail?
"we just reviewed your application, can you come in tomorrow for an interview", "you're bank account balance is at", those just off the top of my head. Short emails far shorter than this post are relevant often times, being able to get them demarginalizes someone. Just knowing, OK, if I go to the library now, I can type the long response to the email I've been waiting for. E-mailing pictures is useful too, e.g. take photo of damage, email to insurance company. Texting is a pretty relevant form of communicaton too, and even facebook, one is far better with a good phone, the other requires internet.
In addition, experienced Internet users tend to use services such as YouTube and Netflix that would quickly deplete the 5 GB per month of faster-than-dial-up Internet access.
Experienced internet users are generally at least middle class, and can afford a $400+ phone the insurance, and the $200 replacement if it breaks, I was commenting on the implication that a smart phone is a luxury, it's only a luxury if you assume home internet is a necessity (I put in low prices for that too), for me home internet, and a mid-end computer are an absolute necessity, my smart phone is mostly a luxury, but well worth the less than $3/day it costs me. The availability of smart phones for an extra $35/month ($300 contract price/24 + $25/month) was more relevant to the poor and lower middle class than to those with more money, because for the first time ever they had convenient internet access.
Do these people with a smartphone and no home PC also rely on free-to-air antenna TV
Yes, if you don't need home internet, and live in a city, why would you pay for TV? much MUCH cheaper to buy a playstation or xbox and a few games (used PS3 or Xbox is about 3.5 months of cable, a new AAA game is 1 month cable, or 2-3 reprinted as classic edition games), another month for an extra controller, and cable turns out to be expensive entertainment. When I moved out of home, just as broadband was becoming available (early 2000s), I paid $10 for dial-up internet, $30 for phone, forwent the luxury of a cell phone, and definitely wasn't about to pay another $60 for cable, we didn't even have decent OTA then. I am a media consumption junkie too, but video games are just way cheaper (I was taking a class too, so I needed a computer).
But you probably need a computer and home internet too (and have them).
Plenty of smart phone users have neither, and yet can't afford to be completely marginalized.
home phone $20 (I think) + home internet $30, so that's $50/month.
looks at Tmobile ($30/month + $.10 / minute over 100 minutes, unlimited texts, 5GB fast data) or Metro PCS ($50/month unlimited text and minutes, I forget how much fast network), the extra couple hundred dollars for a mid level smart phone (Nexus 5, iphone 5c for example) vs low end computer is well worth it and the same monthly cost.
That's assuming that all one needs a computer for is to look things up on the internet and have an email address, if someone needs a computer to write, or some such (for example they have school aged children) it obviously isn't a substitute.
You could argue library, but the advantage of having ready access to the internet is pretty big vs having to take a half day trip to get the access, and plenty of the working poor are capable of figuring this out and making a decision.
By optional I mean, can be turned off.
Interesting, because banning the fools sounds like a literal description of the majority of pro-guncontrol people's opinion is in the US.
Considering we don't ban the fools now, it sounds further left than current policy pretty much anywhere in the US.
Is that pro or con gun control?
I believe hair-trigger throttle is listed as one of the issues in TFS. I'd assume this means that keeping it at sane speeds around corners is part of the trouble (still don't think it's "too dangerous", it's not like their a common car, the impact is minimal.
Should probably have optional traction control though.