I think the big failure is that "Smart TVs" just aren't quite good enough to replace the "TV sticks", or at least not at a competitive price.
Also, TVs tend to last a while. The four-year-old 55" Toshiba in my living room most likely has at least twice as many years ahead of it. Streaming services and their associated gadgets come and go much more quickly. Netflix or Amazon will probably be around for the long haul, but what about those other services you've never heard of that the average "smart TV" of today supports? Long before eight years is up, they're gone, and your TV's support for them is about as useful as an 8-track. It's better to farm this support out to gadgets that are easily replaced as they become obsolete.
As a simple example, an EMP would wipe all your gameboy/atari 2600 cartridges but the console hardware would still be working.
Would they? I could see flash, EEPROM, or EPROM probably getting wiped by EMP, but weren't mask-programmed ROMs more common back then? Would they also be vulnerable?
I only wish they had brought in power on an unpopulated header connector instead of on a usb connector which I'm going to have to desolder.
Two of the pins (+5V and any GND) on the 40-pin connector can be used to supply power instead of going through the USB port. That's what I did with my beer-fridge controller: power for the whole system comes through the barrel connector on the 1-Wire/I2C interface board in the middle of the stack.
Since when has an acorn been a fruit?
So basically the "old tradition" starts and ends with "Apple".
Acorns are seeds, which are produced within what are botanically regarded as fruit (even if, like the tomato, it's not exactly something you'd think of as "fruit" when you're looking for something to eat).
As for Apple, there were lots of Apple II clones back in the day that adopted fruit-related names.
and Nadella has been replaced
Any sources for this? According to Wikipedia, he still is the current CEO of Microsoft.
Right because somone who does not possess electronics knowledge can tell the difference between a PCB for a cheap electronic clock and one that is some kind of detonator.
The school officials, and the police, all asserted that they had exactly that ability, as none of them actually invoked a single procedure that they had in place for dealing with a suspected bomb.
Schools get evacuated on the basis of a single anonymous phone call which says there's a bomb in a locker. It happens on a regular basis. Yet when they had the device IN HAND, they very obviously made the determination that it was in no way, shape or form dangerous. They did not evacuate the school. They did not call in bomb disposal. The teacher kept it in a desk drawer for a fair length of time. The police transported the 'device' in the same vehicle that they used to perpshame Ahmed.
They didn't just believe it wasn't a bomb, they made a specific determination, at every level and at every point in the debacle, that it wasn't a bomb, and SPECIFICALLY CHOSE to not invoke the procedures that all start with 'If there is ANY possibility that there is a bomb, do this....'
Where are you seeing that?
I don't see anything like that on my system
I don't think they show up in the RSS feed either. I pretty much never go to
Being arrested requires that charges be filed.
Incorrect. You're 'detained' of the officer stops you for any reason. You're 'under arrest' if you don't feel free to leave, if the police transport you anywhere, or uses force to prevent you from leaving. The officer requires 'reasonable suspicion' to detain you, and requires 'probable cause' to arrest you, but it DOES NOT need to lead to charges. The officer can reasonably believe you were commiting a crime, then turn out to be wrong, or have new evidence come to light without it having been false arrest.
Your twenty minutes is plucked out of the air and meaningless.
Actually, it's a rule of thumb applied by the SCOTUS. Google it a bit and you'll find all sorts of case law, opinions, and the like.
TLDR: You can be 'detained' on suspicion. If you're not free to go, if the officer moves you, or if the officer starts calling in backup, drug sniffing dogs, and the like, you're under arrest. If he develops 'probable cause' to believe you've committed a crime, he can arrest you.
Ahmed was not detained. He was arrested. At no point would he have felt that he was free to go. Also, 'twenty minutes' seems to be the rule of thumb for how long somebody can be 'detained' before it turns into a de-facto arrest.
Ahmed was hauled off in cuffs, for zero reason. The American legal system specifically puts a dollar value on damages, as well as having the idea of putative awards. Ahmed deserves both.
"You need tender loving care once a week - so that I can slap you into shape." - Ellyn Mustard