It seems all these DVRs require subscription and be tied to the internet. OK so I haven't surveyed the market, I don't subscribe to comcast DVR or Tivo as they all seem tied to the internet. My current DVR is the Panasonic DMR-E85H that functions just like the old school VHS but it has a harddrive, just press the button and it starts recording. It has a timer to set when I want to record (there's always some show or movie that plays during times when I'm at work or in bed). If I want to save it, then I can make a DVD. No, I don't pirate movies but I want to save them myself in case I want to watch again (and be able to use a different player), i.e. when TCM showed a bunch of Mamie Van Doren movies which they will never show again. However, it is NTSC analog and I have to set the cable box for specific channel.
It seems the Panasonic DMR-E85H (and the 75) was only on the market for a couple years then yanked probably because MAFIAA considers piracy a bigger problem than climate change, frugal economy, and terrorism. But wait! Aussie Panasonic has the DMR-BWT460GN, oooooo, looks real nice too. It's just like the SD models but this has huge HDD and Bluray. AC power is 220, USB to save files to external HDD and there is a RJ45 LAN jack to connect to a broadband router and get on the internet. It lists HDD info as recordable contents include mp4 and MPEG2. This beast covers every country except North America!
But then anything nowadays to record? Not often are old movies played on TV, outfits like TCM tend to show the same movies over and over (rare exceptions like the MVD movies). So is there anything worthwhile to record? For me I have no interest in football, Kardashians, etc. There is PBS, and on weekends CSPAN3 has interesting history programs. Late last night on CSPAN3 a program (I recorded it with my DMR-E85H) by Frank Capra made during WWII portrays Japan determined to rule the world through military conquest.
So you are worried about rich people in SV that attempted to bribe the candidate who would write the regulation in their favor in order to screw the US workers.
no, I was simply asking about what will happen with many of these companies. Regarding rich people, many SV residents that are getting pushed out because of high cost of living would be happy to see many such as Google, Apple, and FB leave the area.
Interesting article and one mention, “Market research later in Concorde’s life revealed that customers thought Concorde was more expensive than it actually was. Ticket prices were progressively raised to match these perceptions.” The other aspect "it was killed mostly because it was more profitable to operate a more conventional plane" is something I have to think about (that doesn't make sense but then most of us making money decisions do it for very strange reasons).
Back in those days, SST was the big thing. In 1960s there were people living who remembered reading in newspapers about first airplane flight. With extremely fast development of airplanes, it seemed only natural SST will be primary way of getting around the planet. Cargo will fly on the 747s.
However, I think overall SSTs simply don't scale up especially these days as it may be faster (and reducing 18 hours in coach to 9 hours would be very nice) but overall looking at cost, travel time to airport, time getting through security, etc. Maybe costs can be reduced, sonic boom more quiet (NASA is working on that, http://www.nasa.gov/press-rele... ). However, we also have the Internet so people on long flights are not incognito for hours on end. For executives and the 1%, subsonic private jets are more preferred (there are some proposals for SST "Learjets"*) as simply drive to airport, grab stuff and hop on the plane (don't have to unload carryons, take off shoes and belt, have TSA get all in a hissy fit when they find a partially filled water bottle). So for most people will SSTs save that much time? Regarding speed, even the military doesn't go that fast (if need to, that's what a missile is for).
Back in 1990s when NASA was investigating HSCT I talked with a NASA aero engineer old enough to have worked on SST development work. He said for HSCT (they changed the acronym because SST had bad connotations) to be successful the overall aircraft has to have seats same price as subsonic coach (otherwise companies and vacation travelers are not going to pay even a little more). To achieve this the aircraft has to be much more fuel efficient than Concorde (which flew on afterburners) and has to have about 250 seats (if less, then price per seat will not be like subsonic coach).
* "Learjet" is a generic term like Kleenex, Band-Aid, Xerox people use to call privately owned small jet transports. You all airplane buffs at airports watching a Cessna Citation or a Grumman Gulfstream take off usually hear someone say "oh look, there goes a Learjet!"
"Canada's new push to attract foreign tech workers..."
Reminds me when the Avro Arrow (at the time was the fastest flying fighter jet ever) and the Avrocar (a real flying saucer, and led the way to hovercraft vehicles) were cancelled. Prior Canada was the third largest aerospace power. It was said thousands of Canadian engineers moved to US along with German engineers that was a great boost for the US space program. Will they become a major contender? A Canuck Silicon Valley? A Canadian be the first to walk the surface of the Moon since Gene Cernan?
Any program which runs right is obsolete.