Indeed -- if I had to buy some version of Windows today, I'd buy Windows 7. It works, and the UI is pretty reasonable. XP is old and no longer supported. 8 is ugly and I don't want to learn a new UI. I would make the same decision regardless of whether I was planning to upgrade at some future date.
As long as the answer to that is "Fossil Fuels" (and particularly, coal), then we are doing nothing but trading one smoke-plume for another.
One thing electric cars are accomplishing is adding a layer of abstraction to the power. Sure, lots of electricity comes from fossil fuels, but that can change. The same car that can be charged by electricity produced by fossil fuels can also be charged by the solar panel on my roof.
Take out your smartphone and type it there. If you're trying to do something that takes more than a couple clicks on a smartwatch, you're doing it wrong.
Exactly! I was an early adopter of the Pebble. Now people are asking me when I'm getting an Apple Watch. Why should I replace my Pebble when it already does everything I need? It provides me notifications. If I want to do anything more complicated, I'll take my phone out of my pocket.
Comcast offers me $1 less per month if I bundle Internet with basic cable. I never use the basic cable. So I'm counted as a TV subscriber even though I don't need or want it. So I suspect the count of TV subscribers is inflated.
I had a similar deal for quite a while. They changed their pricing scheme last year, so it's finally cheaper to get internet without cable. So I guess that means I just recently cut the cord, even though I haven't actually had a TV plugged into the cable for several years now.
When I move (geographically) from one monopoly zone to another, I switch providers. This means I've used the same provider for over 10 years, but not consecutively.
I think tattoos are stupid. That's why I don't have any. I can say this for a lot of things other people like. I don't understand why someone would do it, but as long as nobody does it to me, I'm not bothered by it.
The ultimate hipster struggle is real!
Since when do hipsters care about whether their fashion is actually functional or not? Having a watch that doesn't fully work may be more hipster than one that does.
Umm, that would defeat the whole purpose of using them. Reduced weight of not carrying paper means less fuel, more savings.
If you carry the paper as a backup, then why bother as there will be no savings in fuel or paper.
So before the iPad, did they have a single paper copy? Or did they have more than one, for backup purposes? If they had multiple copies, then replacing all except one with an iPad would be a valid way to save weight, but still have a reliable backup.
This is a fail because they could have continued to carry the physical copy of everything needed as a Plan B.
I did not see any information about whether or not the still carry a physical copy as a backup. If it were up to me, I would do just that. And since the physical copy is the backup, not the primary, I would not begin a flight unless I knew that both my primary (iPad) and backup (paper) were both available and working.
If there was any chance that the victim didn't believe that you would return all the data, then they would not pay.
I'm not so sure of that. As a victim, you are aware that you have about 0% chance of getting your data back if you don't pay the ransom (unless you had a good backup setup somewhere). So you pay because you believe your data is important enough to justify the risk. This is similar (though nowhere near the same level) as someone demanding a random because they kidnapped your child. You already are well-aware that they are not trustworthy, but you really don't see an alternative.
Now, I do agree with your other point. If news was out that people paying the random did not get their data back, then I'm sure a smaller percentage of victims would be paying. But some would still pay, because their data is important enough to them that they hold on to that small hope that they might get it back.
The 80's predicted cable would expand to thousands of channels. Hyper specific channels so at any one time you could find the exact programming you desire and keep your eyeballs glued to the screen.
I think all this packaging is exactly why we don't have such channels (on TV). If all channels were ala carte, then there would be motivation to produce the sort of content that each group of people want. Instead, everything is grouped into packages. This prevents individuals from making their preferences known with their wallets, thus the programming we see is the drab sort of thing that appeals to as wide an audience as possible.
Have we solved all human rights issues so we now moved on to grant animals personhood?
While I'm not disagreeing with you, I really dislike this question. Have we solved all problems on Earth that we should start exploring space? Have we solved all problems in America so we should start developing a foreign policy? Have we solved all problems in physics that we can now move on to chemistry?
Simply put, we don't have a clear queue of problems, and probably never will. And even if we did, not all problems can be solved faster by having more people work on them, so it will always make sense to be working on multiple problems at a time.
Hardly proof, but in Asimov's Foundation series, the Encyclopedists were setup on a resource-poor planet. This caused them to develop highly efficient technology, including things like pen-sized nuclear reactors. The point I'm making is, if we were hit with disaster, we will find a way to re-build, but we may end up building things quite differently than before, depending on what resources are available. No matter what, it'll suck for the first few generations, but assuming we survived, it's at least plausible that we could come out better for it in the future.
That's all well and good, but servers tend to have rules requiring mixed case, letters, numbers and special characters. These rules make passwords more challenging to remember. I can remember horsebatterystaple easily enough, but will quickly forget H0r$eBa77ery$7aple
"Marriage" is a word describing a union of a man and a woman, removing them from their parents' households and joining them as the foundation of a new family unit. This word, and the corresponding words in other languages, have been understood this way for thousands of years.
I'm not a part of my parents' household. Does this mean that for me, "marriage" is impossible?