Very helpful, thanks!
Very helpful, thanks!
The thing is, unless you have seen everything you would possibly want to see in older movies available for $10, why would you pay $50 for the same home experience? Unless it's a movie you really want to see NOW it will make more sense to just get an older movie for now and wait for the price to come down.
For most movies, I'm content to wait for the DVD from Netflix. But for about 1 movie a year, I want to see it soon. I don't like the theater when it's busy, so I usually wait a couple weeks anyway. I'd definitely prefer my home theater to the cinema.
if you accidentally crack the screen, or if its backlight goes out or something, you wont be able to get a replacement for any money because they stopped making them 10 years ago, and without that screen you can't control anything in the car.
Heh, that was a (potential) problem with my 2003 Infinity, where the HVAC and entertainment system were on the same board. Very few of these cars were made, so it was $2k to get a replacement. But there's always a replacement somewhere.
but I'd also keep a good ol supercharged V8 around for weekends
Does anyone even make them any more? Superchargers seem to have fallen by the wayside as the engineering on turbos got better for low-RPM power. All the fun sports cars are V6s or heavily-boosted 4-bangers anyhow. It's the high RPMs that make the drama, far more than actual power.
I have never owned any device made by Apple (and some phone number forever). Any other guesses? That would have been massively helpful had it been correct.
Any idea why I don't get text messages (on my Android phone) when my not-tech-savvy elder relatives with iPhones try to text me? Is this some iMessage thing?
Who is asking for this?
Certainly not the security guys. I like the fact that an SMS is not some Turing-complete language in which malware can be coded - unlike PDF, PS, Word, etc. Even as simple as it is, phones still get it wrong, but it's no where near as bad as PDF.
Some high-end cars are built not to wear out in that way. Any part made of rubber will fail eventually and need replacement, of course, but high end cars with e.g. more than one layer of door seal just hold up better. One selling point of the Mercedes S-class is the the interior holds up well over time, even with kids and pets and whatnot.
The nice thing about an electric car is the minimal amount of drivetrain parts - there's so much less to fail due to age. No water lines or gaskets or vacuum hoses, beyond the odd closed-system engine cooler.
The interior might not be nice after 10 years (but then, Tesla interiors don't start out nice IMO), but the car will be reliable and the interior serviceable.
Most people rich enough to afford a new Tesla trade their car in every 2 or 3 years. So yeah, not long at all.
Many people who drive a Tesla trade their car in every 2 or 3 years, and from habits like that never become wealthy.
Most wealthy people who can afford a Tesla (just pay cash, not a big deal) got that way by not wasting money. The Model S seems to be setting down to having good reliability, finally. Seems like a reasonable car to keep for 20 years, with only the battery replacements as a significant expense.
Are you unfamiliar with the phrase "hand waving", or just being deliberately obtuse?
Science is about numerically accurate, falsifiable predictions. We need some of those in the Climate Change debate, but the science isn't there yet. Non-scientists like yourself, however, are happy to substitute hand waving (like a magician, hoping to distract the audience from the lack of substance).
It will be tough to make a switch now but doing so will make it better and in the long run less painful.
How much of a switch? What's the benefit of the switch? What's the cost of the switch? No matter how frantically you wave your hands, you're not providing numbers.
Sounds more like an example of http://example.com?query=chess... not returning a 404 error, and some clown firing off a takedown notice and collecting a bounty from the music publisher.
What I see in your post is "I don't care how many people are hurt, do what I say!" That's how you got Trump, just so you know. You can't dodge the question of minimizing harm to people, especially not by handwaving. Science or STFU.
Yeah, um...except for a 3 letter agency with a 10 or 11 figure budget or a Google no one has the money to devote this much CPU time to one attack. SHA-1 is still fine unless your worried about 3 letter agencies in which case you probably have bigger problems than just encryption -- problems like drones with missiles attached.
I can easily throw 1 million cores at a problem. That's 2.5 days to get an answer. My company would be pissed at me for wasting the resources, and would fire me, but I could do it. There are lots of people like me in the world.
Fun fact: a core-year on EC2 Spot generally costs less than $100. No clue how many cores you could get in parallel, but lots of organizations could throw $500k in IT spending at a problem, they just need to achieve something worth more than that by doing so.
I bet doing the same with an ASIC solution would be surprisingly cost effective if you had a lot of digital signatures to forge.
Those people aren't the Slashdot crowd, though. There's way to much "shouting general talking points" on Slashdot these days, when we'd all be better served by reasonable debate.
It is perfectly normal for science to yield contradictory results. That's why when you see a study reported saying taking Garcina Cambogia yields astonishing weight loss results you don't immediately run out to the health food store to buy miracle pills. It's absolutely routine for results like this not to stand up. The problem is that journalists are too ignorant of how science works to understand this.
The problem may be the while Garcina Cambogia causes 30% more weight to be lost, 30% more of zero is still zero.
Each new user of a new system uncovers a new class of bugs. -- Kernighan