GP also assumes you can convert one form of potential energy to another at or around 99+% efficiency. The rest of humanity would like to know how that works.
Where I live they only show up once a year, and they're scheduled visits.
Which is, you know, pretty great.
I'm kookoo for Cocoa Puffs.
Also consider how the materials for the batteries are sourced (emissions/energy cost to mine), where they're sourced (emissions/energy cost to ship), how they're put together (emissions from factory, energy cost), and where the entire vehicle is put together (emissions/energy cost to ship batteries to car factory). Is continuing to use older vehicles less and more impactful to the environment?
People who are totally against innovation in this sector tend to think all of these are worse than continuing to rely on dead dinosaur-based fuels. I think we need to push forward and research all options, including reducing individual demand for vehicular use through public transit, better civic planning, automated vehicles (which increase efficiency in the system greatly) among other options.
I'm a car guy and I desperately do not want to see organic fuels disappear because of over use or damage to the environment. I think converting to more efficient travel methods and shrinking work-to-home distances are ultimately the way to go. Having access to fossil fuels in the future will then be reserved mostly for folks who just want to have fun, like owning horses is today. I don't want to see track days go away, or being able to take apart and put back together an almost entirely mechanical engine. There's a certain mechanical hackery to it.
Cars as appliances need to move on from fossil fuels, cars as projects/things to hack shouldn't. If we continue to treat fossil-fuels as infinite and undamaging we're going to lose cars as toys and projects and things to hack. That's sad.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Just like the remote kill switch that was proposed in cars. This is a solution looking for a problem, and more over it's a solution that's ripe for abuse.
[...] you can stab them in the face when they reject it again.
An artful negotiating technique, subtle in its cunning.
AdBlock is something I've started installing for friends and family more as a way to block malware, than as a way to block ads outright. Poisoned ads (malvertising) account for a lot of malware installs. Just Google for iTunes or Firefox and the top ad results are malware infected installers.
Besides the incredible annoyance of ads in the slow downs they cause, they're also a dangerous pathway to malware and viruses. Common methods like embedding an iframe into a page that loads a script that targets a browser exploit to install something nasty (drive-by downloads), oneclick exploits, baiting users to download things, etc.
Ad networks—at least the slimy ones—don't care because they're getting paid.
I've been using REAPER for about 5 years now, professionally. It's cheap, works great, and there's no DRM beyond a registration code. I'd argue it's much more than a Swiss Army Knife, it's easily about 85% of ProTools is for my uses, and I can fake the other 15% without a sweat.
"NASA Boss Accused of Breaking Arms"
Das parts of NASA's loss of funds. You gots to break legs if youse wants to makes moneys.
Designers like myself have a hard time because so many people say it's, "photoshop for free!!11@omgwtfbbq," whenever a new release comes out. If people stopped making the absurd assertion that they're remotely comparable for most pro work, we wouldn't make a stink about it. But even the summary here is saying it's that good—it isn't. I would call it a decent tool, one worth spending time with, but it's not in the same league yet. It needs layer styles (which from the way most open source projects go, I can see them pulling off a far better version than Adobe currently does), better typography tools, nested files and other non-destructive techniques.
Just quit comparing them and we'll stop complaining.
Many companies buy check paper (complete with anti-fraud holographs, watermarks etc.), and then print on top of that using a regular laser printer. Being able to remove just the laser overprint.
That having been said, it wouldn't take long for the check paper companies to begin making check paper that will fail upon being introduced to the green laser field.
Government investing in private industry isn't exactly Bolshevik, now is it? But you'd rather attack people than ideas any day.
Well then, we agree in more ways than one: english is stupid!
Actually, JPEG doesn't lack ICC, or EXIF. Every camera that makes JPEG files embeds EXIF. Any suitable photo editor can embed ICC profiles as well.
I'll agree that the lack of alpha channel sucks, and that JPEG's lossy compression can be improved, but it's simply untrue that neither EXIF nor ICC can't be embedded. I do it all the time.
Randian thought and Objectivism works on the basic question of, "Is this good for me?" At it's core is selfishness, and quite a few people—from christians to secular humanists—find this selfishness repugnant.
Before you claim I don't know what I'm talking about, I used to be a Randian drone. It's a sick, inhuman mindset that places self on a pedestal above all others.