It's not the bandwidth, it's the packets per second.
It's not the bandwidth, it's the packets per second.
If you can not accurately describe the global warming scientific criticism, you are just another partisan ideologue.
If your "criticism" of global warming science requires you to invoke Hitler, it's probably not me that's the partisan ideologue here.
It is the behavior which is the problem; not the the target.
Vandalism is a problem, indeed, but you still can't call it bullying unless the target has feelings. Bullying is kiddie grade terrorism.
He does have a point in that anything owned and operated by the general public tends to be maintained to a lower standard than anything owned and operated in an industry which has rigorous maintenance standards and penalties for not following them, such as the airline industry...
Nobody is trying to sell flying cars to the mass public- yet? I hope not, too. The flying cars which will actually be overhead any time soon will all belong to corporations, possibly the ride"sharing" companies, maybe taxi companies. Maybe Google, or Amazon, who knows.
Even with private aircraft and pilots, the pre-flight walk rounds can take more time than the flight - precisely because it is necessary to ensure some level of safety.
Well, it's going to be a whole lot less necessary with aircraft which resemble nothing so much as a scaled up R/C quadcopter. Presumably most of them will be at least octocopters, with at least one design which is supposedly going to be in the air immediately using a four-boom octo design. They're all solid state and have only a handful of moving parts, and wear of bearings can be measured using microphones. Batteries will be continually monitored (as in, 24x7x365) and evaluated by software so that their condition is always known. Any component which seems the least bit iffy will be swapped out (trivially) so that the aircraft can be restored to service.
I still don't look forward to seeing them overhead, I think that there are better solutions. But maintenance is actually the least of my concerns. I'm more worried about allowed areas, flight paths, fundamental hardware and software design issues, etc. The hardware is actually pretty simple, but that doesn't mean people won't get it wrong. The software is not simple, and there's lots of room to botch it.
If flying cars are available the defenses will be useless.
They already are, if that's what you mean by useless. It's already possible to practice flying in simulation, then get some manuals and learn how to actually start up a plane, then stroll onto an airfield someplace and steal one since so many of them have basically no security.
You won't be allowed to control a flying taxi manually, and they will be totally dependent on their computers to fly so you're not going to be trivially overriding them from inside the cockpit.
Most stuff on youtube isn't worth a dime any way... Hateful or not.
I don't know about most stuff. I find the tutorials on how to do stuff around the house pretty useful when the washing machine won't drain. Also, there are some rare clips of musical performances from years gone by that are impossible to find anywhere else (Bill Evans Quartet playing in someone's living room in Finland comes to mind)
But the videos advertisers are running away from are the ones where some guy in his mom's basement is looking into a camera and telling you his Very Important Opinions on why bitches are ruining video games or something.
If you read some of the AC comments above "The blacks have lower IQs. FACT!" you get an idea of why the entire YouTube jackoff culture might turn off people with money to spend (advertisers). I'm not sure it's fair to blame Google or YouTube for the fact that the advertisers choose to look for other avenues.
By the way, here is an excerpt from the Bill Evans video I referenced. For jazz musicians and fans, this is like finding the Dead Sea Scrolls. Eddie Gomez is especially impressive on bass.
He also doesn't like them because his company, The Boring Company, wants to provide a competing transportation solution.
He also doesn't like them because people will report on that, and then people will talk about his boring company. It's extremely profitable dislike.
On the other hand, I agree with him. Adding more air traffic is inefficient at best.
On the third hand, there's probably plenty of places where tunnels won't work. That's not a reason not to build tunnels where they will work, but we still need something which handles those situations. I still like elevated PRT.
Fine by me: less advertisements.
And less money to jackoffs who make the videos. It's win-win, I agree.
They can provide a subscription service
YouTube does provide a subscription service. YouTube Red.
I've been test-driving Google Play Music as an alternative to Spotify recently, and subscribing to Google Play Music includes a subscription to YouTube Red. It's nice to not worry about ads or anti-adblock measures from YouTube any more. It's a couple of bucks a month and for people who watch a lot of YouTube, it's pretty reasonable.
Question to the advertisers: Where are you going to run your advertisements that has at least as many eyeballs as youtube? Let that sink in for a moment.
You have the choice between not advertising or advertising. You can be lucky Google cares enough to cater to you needs.
But the wealthy told us that if we gave them all of our money, they would create jobs!
Seriously, the element missing from your story is that they're spending people's retirement funds on this shit while the one-percenters are literally just sitting on cash that could be invested in such business ventures. Didn't they tell us that's what they were going to do with the money? Invest it, and create jobs?
The last military contract I worked on -- a number of decades ago -- was a system that ran on a computer built to military standards using discrete transistors -- none of those fancy IC things. It was nowhere near as powerful as the PC-XTs in our office. But it would run equally poorly in the Arctic in January or the Middle East in July. And the computer would probably survive being inadvertently dropped off a truck by some high school dropout then run over by the next two vehicles in the convoy.
Sure, but for the price of maintaining an antique, you could probably put a more modern computer in every pocket...
The Democrat party lost because their leaders as a whole are the worst corporate tools that there has ever been.
What? And also what? The republicans are much worse. Much, much worse. Democrats occasionally try to help people. Republicans only try to help corporations. It's true that the Democrats lost because their leaders are corporate tools, but calm your hyperbole there, son.
Frankly, Scarlett, I don't have a fix. -- Rhett Buggler