I'm actually in a similar boat and I agree--I see no overwhelming reason to replace my watch for the moment and I'll see what unfurls in the smart-watch realm. About the only time I seriously miss having a watch is when I'm bicycling and that's mostly due to an issue with my GPS-based bike computer.
Exactly. This is basically Mercedes FUD.
"Well, yeah, I suppose the Teslas are nice cars and all but what if they break down? What if Tesla goes out of business? Who will you find to fix your $80,000 car then? If you're in the market for an electric car, you should probably wait until next year when we'll have our electric cars out and you can take it to your trusted Mercedes mechanic rather than having to deal with some fly-by-night company..."
By the way, I took a look at the B-class Mercedes. It may just be me, but I'm not a big fan of the Tesla Model S' styling. That said, the Mercedes B class is just plain ugly.
It was first photographed by the Cassini spacecraft on 31 December 2004. It was first photographed by any spacecraft in 1981.
Hey, somebody has to take pictures/video for the rest of us...
I was thinking of the line from the summary "into orbit." They didn't say which orbit. Mars? Earth? Sun?
Step 1: Drop Atomic Bomb on Mars.
Step 2: Collect money when pieces of Mars enter into Mars orbit or Solar orbit.
I dunno if you could get a nuclear bomb to Mars for under $250,000, so I'm not sure there's a "Step 3: Profit!" here.
You don't have to go that far--just move to Liechtenstein.
I know what surprised me is the implied attribution.
So I grab a pretty picture of people eating cookies and put it on my website where I advertise my home-made cookies. We can debate whether that is theft or not.
What's surprising is that the person in question is a photographer and, therefore, it's implied that the pictures on the website advertising his photography business are pictures that he took.
Personally, that's where I have the issue. Not so much in the "stealing" of images but "stealing" the credit for those images.
Regardless of what some advocacy organization says [...]
Actually, as of late, they haven't been passing. Again, you have to stay up to date. There are a bunch of legacy laws that need to be overturned, granted, but you're not seeing any new laws banning gay marriage in the last year or two--the last ban was back in 2012.
But the reality is that the majority of US residents are still somewhat negative about gay marriage.
Nope. Gotta stay up on the news...
That said, I agree with you about splitting the two. In an ideal world, that would be the way to go. Unfortunately, I could imagine a lot of people suddenly being upset that their government sanctioned "marriage" suddenly has become a government sanctioned "civil union."
They'll hire someone locally to tow your car out to California so that they can then impound it.
Seriously, one of the great things about SF and NYC is that you don't need a car! There are plenty of transportation options. Hell, even a cab isn't too horrible in the city.
This is not a question over whether or not what the NSA was doing in the past violated the constitution, but that what they are doing right now violates the constitution.
The question is whether or not there is a reason that a final ruling has to be given right now.
How is what the NSA is doing affecting you right now, such that they have to stop immediately? How will a, say, 1 year delay affect you? During that year, are you likely to be deprived of your life? Liberty? A large amount of money?
No? Then it's probably worthwhile to let the system work the way it was intended.
My mom sure isn't going to be wrestling 00 gauge charge cables into a connector.
Years ago, they had these things called "Gas Station Attendants."
First, I don't imagine that Malaysia Air is paying that $50,000,000. Malaysia Air is out the cost of a Boeing 777 and probably some death benefits. But I'm sure those things are insured. On the other hand, Malaysia Air would have to pay for this tracking system.
Second, I'd point out that the last big "disappearance" (i.e., nobody immediately knew where it crashed) was in 2009--five years ago. And it's not like it's that common that airplanes crash and are not found within a few days. So you're spending money on the off chance that an airplane of yours crashes somewhere difficult to find. You'll probably spend that money for 50 years before you ever take advantage of the system. So, yeah, it's not really worth it to Malaysia Air.
Third, let's say you add the trackers. You spend the money year in and year out and, eventually, it comes in handy. So what? You can look and say, "Yup! The plane just crashed in the middle of the Indian Ocean!" Now what? You're still out the plane. You're probably not going to have much for survivors on a plane that crashes in the middle of the Indian Ocean. It's not going to make a difference in your insurance premiums. You're adding costs for basically no benefit.