About 1/3, according to statisticians.
About 1/3, according to statisticians.
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.
Well, they're both solutions. But they run afoul of questions. Which users benefit most from each solution? And if someone benefits most from the massive battery with conservative display and processor specs, can you sell it to him?
I'll tell you right here that I'd much prefer LG's approach, but I'm an engineer. I think about my requirements differently than most people.
And your point would be?
If you're a woman in the top 1% by income. If you're a man in the top 1% it's 88.8 years.
If you're middle class you live about 78.3 years if you're a man, which is big step up from 1980, probably because of smoking. If you're a woman you live 79.7 years, a decline of a few months since 1980.
Now if you're a poor your life expectancy has declined since 1980, to 76.1 for men and 78.3 for women.
So here's the picture: if you're rich, medical advances since 1980 have increased your expected lifespan by about seven years. But those advances haven't had any effect on middle class lifespans. If you're poor you apparently are having difficulty paying for medical care at all, which is not surprising because health care costs have consistently outpaced inflation since the mid-70s. If you're a working poor American health care inflation meant you basically screwed by the 2000s: you were too rich for Medicaid, to poor to avoid medical care.
One more thing: US has a GINI coefficient (measure of income disparity) of 45. That's the highest in the industrialized world, and much higher than it's low point of 34 in 1969. Basically all of the income growth sicne 1990 have gone to the top quintile, in fact the lion's share to the top 5%. People at the 80th percentile by income and below have seen basically zero income growth when adjusted for inflation. And since health care inflation rises faster than inflation, it means 80% of the the US has seen a cut in its disposable income.
Why single out one cause, when there's obviously many.
Take food. I live near a supermarket that is probably three times the size of the one my parents went to, but the produce section is smaller, the meat and dairy sections about the same size. The surplus acreage is taken up with cheap, calorie dense, no-preparation convenience food.
Or the fact that Amercians spend more time in cars than they used to, on average over 290 hours a year.
Here's another interesting fact: research shows that the portion size you choose is positively correlated to the size of the package you serve yourself from; this doesn't happen consciously, it's just that a cup of cereal from a 9 ounce box appears like a lot more than a cup of cereal from a 21 oz box.
The huge sizes are driven in part by an attempt to cut down on trips to the grocery store. American home kitchens are the largest in the world, and most of that is needed for storage because we don't do very much food preparation.
So if there's a single root cause it's the pursuit (sometimes failed) of efficiency; we have the wealth to try to reduce labor and time spent doing things, but our bodies are designed to spend time doing things.
Actually the number of Mexicans in the US has been dropping for years. That's because for years US politicians have been intent on turning us into a low-wage, non-industrialized nation run by and for an economic elite.
What's there to choose? They might as well go home.
The problem may be the while Garcina Cambogia causes 30% more weight to be lost, 30% more of zero is still zero.
If that's what happens anyway it's somewhat problematic to use the word causes -- unless it's a different 30% in each case that would have happened otherwise. It's a bit like Woody Allen's the Great Roe: "A mythological beast with the head of a lion and the body of a lion, though not the same lion."
people need to defend themselves.
there are hostiles out there that want to do us harm, either now or perhaps, later.
these hostiles are GOVERNMENTS and CORPORATIONS.
no one speaks for us, the individual, anymore. both those bad guys want to do us harm and do not have our best interests at heart.
its time for a revolution. seriously, its over due.
and if those treasonous corps and govs get punished by mobs, I don't think I'll lose any sleep over that
"Thank heaven for startups; without them we'd never have any advances." -- Seymour Cray