Doesn't Uber and Lyft rely on..... people who own cars?
Doesn't Uber and Lyft rely on..... people who own cars?
The VW TDIs could easily meet the emission standards without compromising fuel economy and performance. All they had to do was add in a urea system to chemically destroy the NOx. Lots of other automakers do this. The didn't because it adds $400 or so to the cost of the car.
There's no "vs." here.
But then would have something in writing indicating you were directed to write some debugging code as requested by PHB. I don't code but am an engineer. I don't do anything that I would not want the whole world finding out about it. If the PHB asks me to do something that could be misinterpreted, or that I feel "smells not quite right", I either discuss not doing it or document everything in writing. If they tell you to do it anyway, then it is time to get a new job. Nothing, *nothing* is worth risking your integrity.
If you are a younger engineer and reading this, please, take it to heart.
When I saw the headline saying "to the entire US" I was thinking that can't be right since they don't cover anywhere near the entire US right now. I'd love to have either DSL or cable at a not-so-remote area I own, but am out of luck with either.
I have had verizon DSL at home for about 10-15 years now, but am thinking of getting cable (just for internet, I use the antenna for TV). Verizon I think actually *wants* people to drop DSL - they use to advertise 7 Mbps to me, and now they say the best they can do is 1.5 even though I pay for "up to" 3 Mbps, and I live two blocks from the CO (yes, I know it is line distance that counts, but I am close on that as well). They don't want to do copper wire anymore.
That was a quote from the article, not the editors. And the article was written by a Brit, not an American.
That said, Airbus is no upstart. Not only has it been around a long time, it is a merger of other firms with even longer histories.
And, if you set it up the way I do, sends you an e-mail, so if you are like me and use lots of e-mail (I hear the young-un's don't use it so much any more), you can easily reply with an e-mail.
Works great. Not sure what's so new about this.
No, don't have a monopoly run it. But also don't require every ISP to lay their own fiber. Do what they do in Sweden. And no, it is not some communist/socialist monopoly. They have a single entity lay the fiber, but then let many, commercial, ISPs compete to provide the service over the fibers. It works great and is less expensive than what we have here. And Sweden is not that densely populated.
Yes, I am worried about the entity (whether it is gov't or a regulated commercial entity) that lays the fibers getting out of hand with their tariffs, but overall, it would seem to provide the best opportunity to get the US out of third world status when it comes to internet access.
My kingdom for mod points!!
Scientists don't "believe" period.
Scientists look at the universe of observations and develop models that best describe those observations. If other observations come along, they adjust the model. If the model can be used to develop predictions, they look for those predicted outcomes, and if different outcomes happen, the model is changed.
Evolution is the best model to describe a huge volume of observations about species. Scientists don't "believe" in evolution.
The movies are still DRMed.
This is so incorrect, and I see your are on your way to be modded so that nobody will see this. But I will respond anyway since I don't have mod points today.
Net neutrality does not in any possible way prevent you from buying a faster download speed. You pay commensurate with your connection to the backbone. For example, Google or Netflix pay a lot more than $50/mo to connect to the internet to pump as much into it as they do.
What net neutrality says is that a provider can't cause one source of information to *not* be sent out at the given rate you paid for. So if you paid for a 50 mb/sec connection, and Netflix is pumping bits into the system a terabits/sec (for example), the provider can't arbitrarily send you (i.e. throttle netflix to), the consumer, only 3 mb/sec unless Netflix pays extra. If you paid for 50 mb/sec, you should get 50 mb/sec, not just from select sources.
How people can be against that is beyond me. Maybe because they thought net neutrality is about how you describe it. Which it isn't
You carry the same amount of alcohol whether you carry the dehydrated stuff or a bottle of grain alcohol. Actually, the dehydrated stuff is heavier since you also are carrying the polysaccharide to which the alcohol is adsorbed.
If you want to get drunk in the woods, you need the millions of molecules of C2H5OH which weighs the same no matter if you bring it in pure (well, the 95% azeotrope probably) or adsorbed to sugar.
Right. Because chanting "you can hang them from a tree" is more or less equivalent to calling a white person a cracker.
Note, the above is sarcasm, which usually doesn't come through on the internet.
I was thinking about this the other day. I tend to wonder if it would make sense to completely immunize companies from lawsuits over failure to provide adequate steps to prevent a terrorist and state-sponsored attacks as long as they comply with any direct government instructions and regulations.
The US used to do something like this, specifically cover insurance over a specific (high) limit in the case of a terrorist attack. But it was just killed by a single republican member in Congress: Congressional Roadblock Upends Market for Terrorism Insurance even after it was passed 93-4 by the Senate and 417-7 in the house.
The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.