I only use Linux, but have an iPad3.
Was it a gift?
I only use Linux, but have an iPad3.
Was it a gift?
The only reason anyone should ever used iTunes is if they are forced to (they own an iPod or iPhone)
Owning an iDevice isn't the only thing that forces one to use iTunes. A lot of recording artists sell their music on iTunes but not Google or Amazon. Good luck finding, say, "Bück dich" by Rammstein; all you get on Amazon MP3 (U.S.) or Google Play Music (U.S.) are cover versions.
I'll go you one better. I'm okay with slaves being physically beaten, because it would be vastly harder to be a slave otherwise.
See? I can be as capitalist as you.
My alter ego questions whether things might not be better without 'getting a job' being viewed as inherently good, or worse, necessary.
Anytime someone brought in a kid suffering from a disease that could have been prevented by vaccination, I would first ask whether the parent was brain dead.
Features like keyless entry are apparently run by that computer and so it never goes into a deep sleep state.
That is an utterly unsatisfying explanation in a world with hardware interrupts.
A typical high end mobile phone with wifi and 3G connections and background sync is more like 1 or 2W maximum (averaged over a day, of course).
And they will wakeup from deep sleep if you press a button.
I do, however, happen to know people, like myself, who may well be interested in such an 'expensive' vehicle (my current car is a BMW7) , bur also have some real-life issues, like weekend homes, where they like to switch the power off,
While you're there? If not, take the car with you. If so, then install a small off-grid maintenance solar system. You've already got kooky habits.
streets in cities where they like to park for more than a few days without a handy power socket, etc.
You'd park a 7-series on the street for days? Not me.
I remain unconvinced, 1100w (per day - which I call when no one else does
I agree. The computer should sleep when not in use. That's excessive.
Welcome to the world of cars which are not astoundingly expensive. The 2000+ Astro will drain the battery if you leave the keys in the ignition. Apparently, so will the 1992+ Ford F250, and it doesn't even have a BCM! Nobody was sending techs 'round for those problems, either.
The problem with the 12 volt battery is exactly what caused all the problems with the review car that John Broder wrote about. Hmm, I guess Broder might not have been the big liar that Musk and his gang of fanboys painted him out to be.
Nope. This problem is with the car sitting still. That was a complaint about the car running out of battery precisely when it told the driver that it would, after he failed to charge it when it told him to. Broder is still a liar.
I'm certain this is absolutely pointless to say now, but most of those setups were designed so that spring pressure had to be overcome to close the lenses; that way, if the mechanism did fail, it *should* fail-safe to the open position.
Well, no. Not in the Nissan. Like most imports, the Nissan uses a worm gear motor to actuate the headlights, or at least, it did from the eighties to the nineties. It was true in my 1984 300ZX, and it was true in my 1989 240SX, so I'm quite sure it was also true in the 1986 Pulsar. The motor pack has an arm on it like a windshield wiper, and a short pushrod attaches with small ball joints. The best part of the whole thing is that on the top of the motor there's a small knob in the same brick-red color as the fuel injector harness connectors. If your pop-up headlights fail, then you just disconnect the electrical connector if necessary and turn the knob to raise or lower the headlight. Since it's a worm gear drive it takes quite a few revolutions, but that's not a serious problem.
That's just stupid. It won't hurt anyone to wait 20 seconds for the computers to boot up.
That's just stupid. Not only might it hurt someone, but there's a third way: sleep mode. Modern computers can sleep on truly wispy amounts of power. What kind of chip did they use, a Nacho?
This begs the question, is the fuel cell technology in fact less destructive than whatever would normally have been used? A typical high-end hobbyist drone today uses the very clean and recyclable LiFePO4 chemistry, which also has more recharge cycles than previous Li-Ion technologies. Fuel cells are often made of exotic metals in high-energy processes. Most fuel cells are hydrogen cells, and most hydrogen is cracked from natural gas in an energy-intensive process. I know that Protonex works with hydrogen fuel cells, but I don't actually know for a fact that this is a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle.
I suspect that this is in fact more energy-intensive than the drone would have been simply using batteries, and if you used a nice clean fuel, it's certainly more energy-intensive than it would have been to use a microturbine.
If you really want to fix the copyright mess, the only way is to get rid of copyright completely and replace it with [compulsory licensing].
This is already the law for a few specific uses of works, such as recording cover versions of musical works.
And of course zero revenue means zero cut to be paid.
And therein lies the difference: producers of "premium" works would BAWW that distribution without charge "cheapens" their works.
Each honest calling, each walk of life, has its own elite, its own aristocracy based on excellence of performance. -- James Bryant Conant