Could be a reference to Michael Jordan
Could be a reference to Michael Jordan
The TV adjustment seems pretty reasonable to me (if we're talking year on year).
I suspect towards the end of CRTs availability, sticking with 27" CRTs would have resulted in larger negative inflation, not less. In reality, nobody was replacing a 27" CRT with a 42" Plasma at that price increase within a year.
The reality is that TVs have overall been getting less expensive or holding fairly steady.
1996, TV is 490 2011 dollars, or 340 nominal cost, in 2011 it's 319.
in 77 a TV a discontinued 25" TV was nominally $530.
TVs have been roughly the same nominal cost, or slightly negative for much of the time since their inception (not as extreme as that -7% from the BLS page, but it's not fair to pretend they went up 400% as you imply either.
that 27" CRT was replaced either for a very cheap CRT, or a roughly the same nominal price 32 inch flat-screen.
Your point stands to a point, but it's not quite as extreme as you imply it.
Good to know.
I was pretty sure they did, but wasn't certain.
I ended up only needing one access point once I got my ubuquiti anyway (I get excellent coverage in my small house now, and the front and back yards).
I believe apple airports do this.
I assume all mid range consumer Wi-Fi will within the next year.
I purchased a ubiquity access point to do this, it's actually pretty cheap of you already have a router, and the long range was enough that I don't need a second one anyway.
This makes no sense, I dont recall 27 inch tube TVs screens ever being that cheap, and now a 27 inch flat screen is closer to $100.
I need more context to understand what you're saying.
Why? I'd rather they stop paying for towers and let me stream.
Post one: You can cancel immediately with no penalty
Post two: If the riders cancels five minutes after...
These two are in agreement, I don't know what is wrong
Well, I bet they could include the imaginary sales as profit, then the piracy as loss.
It'd kill their margins though.
Yeah, I suppose you're right.
Specifically, proper change handling techniques (count up from sale to total given) would make it not an issue.
Much like with decimal currency today.
They shouldn't even need to do math, just count.
Shockingly recently IMO.
Says the guy that defends inches and feet, because I can divide feet into whole numbers by quarters or thirds, but still, imagining the average counter person being able to give change for things such as "£10-7-6" paid with a £20 note is hard for me.
Thinking about it, it definitely seems like fair use to me.
Format/time shifting is a fair use case, the amount of work copied is only part of what determines fair use.
Because the cost per passenger of a bus driver is far less than the cost per passenger in point to point transit.
Kids already do this, and throw rocks from overpasses.
Fortunately, most humans, even children, aren't horrible people, and it's rare.
Do you really think a kickball thrown onto a busy highway won't cause an accident already?
I'm actually alright with that for something that is intended to be used as a reference point to test codecs and distribution.
Though, I suppose arguably re encoding it could be seen as violating ND.
Considering the summary implies that Hulu, etc. can use it as a demo of the quality of their streams, but the NC definitely prohibits that (promotional demo for a for profit service is definitely commercial use), the summary is just stupid.
The ND may or may not apply to reducing the size by encoding (it could either be fair use, or alteration, depending on interpretation), in the context it's being presented, NC is definitely more limiting.
Alphabet can't put it on youtube, as it's a commercial service. A person can put it on YouTube, as long as they aren't participating in the revenue sharing, and a DMCA notice would have to be respected.
NC clause is hardly given away though.
Machines that have broken down will work perfectly when the repairman arrives.