Ok... but that's not the question he was asking. He said would you pay $1000 for a DVD player that was guaranteed to last 20 years from NOW, not would you buy a 20 year OLD DVD player that still worked. And the answer any sane person would give is "no" simply because in 20 years, DVD isn't likely to be relevant anymore. By then, everyone will have moved on to Bluray++.

The point (I believe) he's trying to make is that there's a trade-off between durable technology and price. If people were willing to pay massive amounts of money for technology that lasted 20 years, companies would be making them. But since people count on technology being obsolete after relatively short periods of time, they'd rather pay $100 for a player that will last 5 years that can be tossed out when upgrades come along or cheaply replaced if they should break.

When you're building something designed to go as far into space as it can before breaking down, cheap, fragile technology just isn't an option. A lot of money was put into making sure Voyager would be as durable as possible, because when it breaks down, there's no going out there to replace it.

You mean like when Microsoft pushed into consoles? I'll grant you the original Xbox wasn't that strong, but you'll be hard pressed to find a gamer that doesn't have an Xbox 360. Maybe Microsoft isn't as pathetic as you think.

If Google just sticks to what they're doing, they'll just stagnate and ultimately fall behind. Trying to enter other markets is how these companies grow themselves. Sure there's going to be failures, but you can't have success if you're not even trying.

Ok, what exactly does the word "bonus" mean to you? If it was just a given that you were going to get a bonus, why not just include it in the regular salary? While I'll grant you that a bonus should be tied directly into the success of the product you're working on, I don't know what Google's internal structure is like. It's possible that everyone actually does have some stake in the success of the +1 feature.

So... he got pulled over for driving too perfectly? Isn't it illegal for an officer to pull you over without a single valid reason? And no, suspicion you might be driving drunk because you're driving perfectly isn't a valid reason. This is exactly the kind of stuff that makes me distrust all officers, when you can't even have the peace of mind that you won't be pulled over even if you're doing nothing wrong. I'd be talking to a lawyer if that ever happened to me.

As a side note, that also removes all pretenses that such a low limit is to deter drunk driving. If people just over that limit are still able to drive well enough to "avoid suspicion", are they really too drunk to drive? Or is it just all about the money at this point?

Social Game Maker Zynga’s Market Valuation Tops $5.5B
http://www.cnbc.com/id/39869254/Social_Game_Maker_Zynga_s_Market_Valuation_Tops_5_5B

Who's laughing now?

doesnt look like stars to me

hunter2

Uh, yeah. You obviously have no idea how the zodiac symbols were really decided. Western astrology has always used the tropical zodiac which is based on the four seasons, instead of the sidereal zodiac which is based on the location of the sun in the various constellations. I don't know how you'd think it doesn't have anything to do with seasons anyway, I've known that since at least middle school. Leave it to the self-righteous to ignore any actual facts or history.

See also: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/13/no-your-zodiac-sign-hasnt-changed/?hpt=C2

It would seem you are wrong: http://www.macinstruct.com/node/89

Well sure, but without pennies and nickels, how are you going to give me change for my quarter?