For me, still one. I never use a hub when away from my desk, and always use one when I'm at my desk. Think of it as a docking station and that's pretty much my usage pattern. If I can get a thinner or lighter laptop by throwing away the "extra" ports, I'd leap at the chance.
I drove a 2011 Mercedes E class that did just that. I called them 'polite headlights'. I'm sure other manufacturers know how to do the same kind of thing.
Maybe we also need a HRAT, a "Human Rights Added Tax", which imposes extra fees based on things like human rights abuses, poverty wages, etc embodied in the production of a product, to provide a level playing field for countries with higher standards.
Or to provide more highly-paid jobs for designers of robots to perform the task without human labor.
You should be a little careful with ideas like that... you may end up hurting the people you're trying to help. In many cases, they'd rather have the crappy, exploitive job than starve while watching the machines do what they used to. The machines will come eventually, but taxes like the one you describe will accelerate the process. In general, taxes and other regulatory inhibitors that are intended to fulfill some social goal are viewed by the market as damage, and routed around if at all possible. That doesn't make them useless, but it does mean that you have to step very carefully.
water is necessary to life, while diamonds are not...
Doesn't seem that way when courting.
Courting isn't necessary to life, even though it may feel that way. And, actually, diamonds aren't necessary to courting, either. When I got engaged, I was poor and my wife had money, so she bought our rings, both of them. Diamonds are nice enough as long as they are only symbols. If they are more than that, you have a bigger problem.
I never understood this type of reaction. Yes, they are eating a boatload of calories through everything else, but at least they are cutting out a few hundred with the diet coke. Yes, it won't make them thin, but at least they are doing something to try and get healthier and possible lose a little weight, which they should be applauded for. You are probably the same type of person that goes to gym and tells people they should just quit because they aren't lifting enough weight or only doing cardio. The fact is, they are doing something, which is more than some people do and should be encouraged.
Oh please, one of the most common forms of self-delusion is to focus on one little thing you do that is contrary to your usual behavior or line you won't cross making you not such a bad guy after all. Like focusing on that your bacon-cheese, greasy meat and white bread tower drenched in dressing with lots of oil-soaked fries has a leaf of lettuce and a slice of tomato too. And you ordered a Diet Coke, it's not that unhealthy right? I guess some of them are honest with themselves, it's still a calorie monster just without the final topping. But I'm guessing a lot more are lying to themselves, I know I've been prone to do so.
1g of Xylitol is enough to kill 3 dogs in half an hour.
That is the oddest mortality unit I've heard in a long time.
You may not "need" the latest smartphone but at the same time, especially among younger people, you could almost say you need to have a smartphone capable of accessing social networks
See, here you're confusing two very different things. A shitty low end Android will let you access Facebook. The iPhone 6 will let you hang with the rich kids. Rich kids have expensive habits. Rich kids often have expensive habits to show off that they're rich. Our little fishing boat doesn't fit very well in a yacht club, am I now poor because I can't "fit in" with the millionaires? Sorry, but wanting to pose in an economic league you're not doesn't strike me as any genuine poverty. At least not severe enough to forcibly take my money to even things out.
It's my impression that pro players often get amateur players through bet sizing, if your call/fold response doesn't match the equity of your hand they'll pretty easily see that they can milk you for value or push you into folding. Or that the amateurs are bad at getting the maximum value out of their good hands because they give the pros easy call/fold odds. Of course there's a lot more to bet sizing than your own two cards, but you can't bluff properly without having a pretty good clue about what you represent having and making credible bets as if you had those cards. Pros are pretty good at smelling stories that don't make sense where you're betting on the turn/river like you have cards that you'd never play that way preflop/on the flop because they're usually a bluff. Or a very well disguised hand, but they'll sure test if you're capable of that.
Lol, angry gnussolini nerd. And the rest of the world with brains keeps not caring and happily uses Unity and Gnome-shell.
The rest of the world uses Windows and OS X on the desktop, Android and iOS on mobile and couldn't care less about Unity and Gnome-shell. Even Windows Vista got Linux beat on StatCounter. You can use the classic desktop paradigm that ~78% use (Win7 + WinXP + OS X + Vista), join the new touch paradigm with ~19% (Win8 + Win8.1) or you can go your own way. My impression is that they're trying to design a car driven by joystick because some UX designer thought it was better, what's tested and works is too boring.
How about winning over some existing, established markets before trying to chase the latest fad? And even if it's not a fad, open source never moves fast enough to be first because there's no overall leader. Sure you could slap Linux on a tablet like Microsoft did with Windows many years before Apple, but it won't work well until all the application developers feel having a touch UI is an itch they need to scratch. Sure we can have visionaries, but Jobs was a visionary with an army of developers to turn them into reality. A Linux visionary is a man with a powerpoint slide. Or actually a LibreOffice Impress slide, I guess.
If you want a "reliable" smart phone that doesn't need reset or suffer stupid ass software failures, get one of those $50 Samsung android smart phones. They are pretty reliable because they can't do much to begin with.
Huh? This makes no sense. If they're Android, they can do an incredible variety of stuff. Being low-end, they might not do it well, but they should run pretty much every Android app out there. If they "can't do much to begin with", they're not Android.
An analyst is generally not a person eating his own dog food, it's a person trying to sell his insight of the market to third parties as investment advice. What it means in practice is that you're trying to make a lot of statements that make you seem smart in hindsight but don't compromise your credibility when they don't pan out. Like in this case, if the Oculus Rift doesn't launch in 2015 this won't even be a footnote. If it does launch, he can point to this statement and say "Look, I wasn't sure but I had a hunch this would happen". You don't need to make any elaborate theories of stock manipulation, this is simply one analyst trying to pump up his own career.
Electrical bill is $14.95 a month because you have to pay the "fees"
To be fair, there *are* fixed costs to the power company in keeping you connected to the grid, in fact those costs are a fairly significant portion of the normal power bill. It's just that the current fee structure doesn't reflect it well.
By depreciating to zero in 10 years you're implying that a battery with 70-80% of its capacity is useless. That's hardly true.
This isn't stupidity, exactly, it's obstinacy. And actually, it's cognitive dissonance. Typically, when you see someone passionately arguing against their own best interests, that is what at fault. In this case, one of the people ranting against solar and storage is arguing that if this were a good idea, it would have been done already, because they want to believe that they are more intelligent than Elon Musk, every PG&E employee, and the majority of slashdotters who have woken up and recognized that batteries have gotten immensely better within our lifetimes â" and will likely improve just as much in the next thirty or forty years.
You use a lot of big words, I don't think you know what any of them mean. What I argue is that there's structural differences that makes this a better idea to to centrally than at home, regardless of how good or cheap the batteries get. If it's cost effective for you to store the power in a battery and use it in the daytime it's going to be more cost effective for them to store the power in a battery and sell it to you in the daytime. The very reason they sell it cheap at night is that there's no cost effective way to store the excess power for later, if there were the low night prices would go away. You're on the wrong end of the Dunning-Kruger effect here, buddy.
Scenario A: Google back when they initially developed Android ran into a design roadblock. They saw no way to solve the particular problem until one of the developers read a MS patent that solved their issue. MS is therefore paid royalties on their patent.
It's not about finding a solution. It's about taking what somebody has worked on, experimented with, done usability testing, put in a product and convinced the market to use and have a second company come in and say thanks for all the hard work, in a month we'll have a cheaper clone doing the exact same thing.
Scenario B: Google developed Android without ever having heard of any MS patents.
...and not knowing of any product using any of the MS patents, even if they were unaware it was patented and by who. Particularly in the same business, it's rather hard not to know what features the competition is advertising. It's certainly hard to prove you didn't know about them. Submarine patents are a different story, but for example when they made Android they probably couldn't claim ignorance of any features the iPhone had. Even the business requirements and feature requests can be "contaminated" by other products, it's not a feature you'd have added unless someone else had done it first.
Of course sometimes you get unlucky and develop the exact same solution, but that also means you're reinventing the wheel. Do you want a medal? Or you might feel it's obvious and widespread now, but was it that obvious when it was patented? Ten years ago is a long time in the tech industry, things that I go "well, duuuuuuuuh" to today maybe wasn't. If they were, I'd like to go back and redo my investments. I'm sure you all remember the warm reception the iPod get, boy was that right on the money...