Mine is a HP LJ 4000N. 17 years, 36000+ pages, and still going.
Here's a question: Would the black box tell you how many of these accidents would have happened even if there was no cell phone involved? If so, let's see it. (I honestly don't know.)
Given that driving using a mobile phone seriously inhibits your ability to concentrate on driving and that the main cause of accidents is driver error, its a very good assumption.
Far better than the assumption that they would have had the accident anyway.
Not necessarily. The report in question is an estimate based on previous studies, including one from 2005 which originally suggested the 1 in 4 number. That 2005 paper decided that cell phone usage was "associated" with the accident if the phone was being used up to 10 minutes before the crash. So in other words, an accident was counted if a driver had a brief conversation, hung up the phone, put it away, drove five miles, and then was hit by someone running a red light. It's pretty easy to see that this accident would likely still have happened without the phone usage. What's not clear is what percentage of the accidents are like this.
Isn't this based on a rather simple assumption that his desire to be the anonymous inventor started before he published the paper on it. What if, he or she had written the paper and begun work under their own name, and later regretted it and decided it would be best to not actually be in the spot light?
A fair point, but the name he goes by isn't Satoshi; it's Dorian. So, if he were starting work and not thinking about anonymity, presumably the work would have been published under Dorian Nakamoto. Instead, then, we have to postulate this weird set of events where he began work, but decided to use a name other than the one he uses everyday (presumably to hide himself a little bit), but which still can be traced back to him laughably easily.
Let me ask you a question: if we'd spent a bit more time polishing the site and then just set it live for 100% of users, do you think that would have gone better?
You do know that that wasn't the only other alternative, right? Looking back, might it not have been better to post a message *before* you started redirecting a sizable section of the traffic that said, "we appreciate the feedback we've been getting on the beta site, and we're working on implementing many of the changes that have been requested. We know that that there are still issues with several components of the site, but in order to get feedback from a larger sample size, we're going to redirect 20% of the users to the beta site as a trial for the next N weeks. After that trial is over, we'll go back to classic Slashdot while we continue improving our new design." It's called managing expectations, and would have had the added benefit of giving people a place to put the Beta protests.
Also, you keep saying that the comment system is being worked on, but your "Beta News" section doesn't list it under "what is not in Beta yet" as one of the "key areas being worked on." So, it's perhaps natural for people to assume that you're not currently as concerned about its problems.
Writing a program that solves a Calcudoku is pretty simple, actually. Hell, a 6x6 only has a couple hundred possibilities; that's a piece of cake to brute-force. I think right now you're more relying on security through obscurity -- it's not been broken because it's not yet used often enough to be a tempting target for a spambot creator.
Out of curiosity, in your version of history, when did Toronto become part of America?
But the minimum is 200 not 398.98 so the judge could have decreased it again by almost half. As it is, it just seems like the political cop out "I don't like this bill that I am signing and supporting..."
You're confusing two things here. $398.98 is the amount the judge granted as "disgorged profits" -- in other words, money that UMaple directly made off of MapleStory's work. In this case, it's only the amount of money they made from AdSense revenue.
But that's separate from the copyright infringment. The infringement penalties have nothing to do with any money that UMaple made; it's just a statutory penalty with mandatory minimums for each copy. That's where the minimums come in.
I thought the same thing, and was thus expecting that the first response from Tesla would have been "$40,000 is a completely ridiculous, inflated number with no basis in reality." But that's not their response. It's not even, "Yeah, earlier versions of our technology could have had this issue, but we've totally fixed it for the upcoming Model S and Model X versions". But no, the response we're getting from Tesla is more along the lines of "well, yeah, you need to keep it plugged in."
Which frankly makes me think that it's not a made up number at all.
A nobody claims that a billion dollar company doesn't know what it is doing.
Michael Stonebreaker is probably the best-known database researcher alive. He invented Ingres, the first relational database, and developed the core of what is now PostgreSQL. Since moving to MIT, he's continued to push some of the bounds of database technology.
Disagreeing with his conclusions here due to the success of Facebook is reasonable. But to call him a nobody exposes your ignorance, not his.
Exactly, not a land grab. On the other hand, you also have the BBC...
host -t AAAA www.bbc.co.uk
www.bbc.co.uk is an alias for www.bbc.net.uk.
www.bbc.net.uk has IPv6 address 2001:4b10:bbc::2
Um, the Think Different campaign started in 1997. The 1984 commercial was in, well, 1984. Do you really think that Apple kept the same marketing campaign for over 13 years, through two different upheavals of leadership?
My point was about the code pinkers and Cyndi Sheehan types who were protesting both wars and now can't be found anywhere.
Since Obama's inauguration, Cindy Sheehan has been arrested twice in front of the White House for protesting. She's demonstrated outside of his vacation home in Martha's Vineyard, and was doing the same on the streets of Oslo when he was getting the Nobel Prize. Code Pink is still protesting; I can easily find a reference to them doing so last Halloween in front of the White House.
Now ask yourself; is the problem with the protesters going away, or is the problem with the news media?
It's not that ITA doesn't search all airlines, it's that Southwest's agreements with ITA don't allow for cross-carrier comparisons.
Intriguingly, Southwest uses ITA behind the scenes for their flight searches, so you're still giving us money for the $88 flight.
Well under the current system they are either turned away or forced to pay some exorbitant amount.
Actually, under the current system they are turned away if their condition isn't dire. Otherwise, they get treated and billed an exorbitant amount. Usually they are unable to pay, so in most cases the hospital has to eat the cost, but they'll try to defray it by raising the rates that they're charging the insurance companies, which gets passed on to the rest of us.