>"How Will Rising RAM Prices Affect Laptop Companies?"

There is nothing special about laptops in this regard. This is affecting laptops, desktops, servers, and will affect phones and other devices as well. We are all screwed.

I was thinking about updating/replacing our hundreds of Linux desktops at work that are now approaching 10 years old (yes, we can do that with Linux) next year. Now I am thinking that isn't going to happen :(

I am glad I decided to get an AMD Radeon card. I used to always use NVidia (although I don't game) and got tired of jumping through hoops. When I built my last home system (Asus/AMD) five years ago, the MB had no on-board video. So I just reused my old cheap fanless NVidia.

But last year, I needed better hardware video codec support, so I was looking to update the card and was annoyed, because I really don't need much of a card and wanted something cheap and fanless, and nothing suitable was available. So I went with an ASRock AMD Radeon 7600 RX 7600. Not fanless, and not that cheap ($250), but works great under Linux. No fuss, no proprietary drivers, no video issues. Ironically, when I test it, the fan is off almost all the time (so I wish they made a slower version and with a large passive heatsink).

[quote]Fuel taxes aren't usually a percentage, and that's part of the problem.[/quote]

Yeah, I realized that was a mistake in my posting (someone else pointed it out). I never paid it much attention.

[quote]A fixed 18.4 cents per gallon means a lot less today than it once did.[/quote]

True, they should have built in some index for inflation. I wish my paycheck had that....

>"Even with a physical inspection that records the odometer reading, the odometer does not indicate where the miles were driven. 90% of then could be in another state which would deprive that state of revenue"

How is that any different from gas tax? I can fill my car in another state and put all the miles in a different one. For most, it won't matter, due to averages.

>"You can have a fixed tax, let say $0.5/L. Problem solved."

Yeah, that is true. In fact, I think that might be the way it works. Never paid it much attention. So a big fat "duh" on my part ;)

>"Gas tax is far less easy to cheat compared to odometer reading, however."

I don't think either would be easy to cheat. There is a lot of security in the car around the odometer (for obvious reasons).

>"So as long as there are less than 10% EV on roads, I think gas tax is the best solution."

For now, it will probably be OK. But the states are already hammering EV owners. I have been. I now have to pay a fat annual EV tax based on the "average miles driven by EV owners", which is incredibly unfair, since I drive under 2,000 miles per year and the "average" person is something like 7,500. Sigh. And this is DESPITE the fact that the state ALREADY has my odometer readings, because I live in a state that requires annual inspection and that information is keyed in and submitted by the inspection station.

>"Some may drive little or at all, but all of them rely on goods and even services that traveled over those roads. Roads and bridges benefit every tax payer."

Of course. But the benefit is certainly proportionally larger to those who drive proportionally more. As far as goods, the transportation cost is baked into the prices consumers pay.

I am OK with a blend, which is kinda what we have now. We tax the machine, we pay with general taxes, and we pay with use taxes (right now mostly fuel tax). My issue is when EV/HEV greatly disturbs one of those three legs and what replaces it is just more general taxes and registration/personal property taxes. It becomes overly punitive to those who need to drive, but not much. I would rather see tolls used than yet more vehicle fees or general taxes used. But I see that is a privacy killer and route disrupter. Which is why an odometer-based fee seems to make more sense, as long as it can be done without decimating privacy.

>"Not a very exciting future is it?"

No, it isn't. And it scares the crap out of me for what it means for both privacy and freedom. We are right on the verge of a disaster. Once more of these systems are interconnected and AI gets involved, it will be a type of mess that most people can't even comprehend. And I am not sure we can put that genie back in the bottle.

That is true. The only two ways I can think of that respects privacy, would be a visit to a DMV or some type of inspection place, or even just dealers who could be registered to take readings. The other would be with a sealed, network-connected device that plugs into the ODB port temporarily, just to take and forward a reading (date/time/VIN/odo). They could make other options available AS AN OPTION, for those who don't care as much about privacy- like manufacturer supplying the info (since they all spy on cars now).

>"A gas tax was in many ways the perfect (as perfect as one can get) tax. You paid into the road system (all of it) according to how much you used it."

Agreed. It mostly worked. But it doesn't work at all with EV's, and less effectively with HEV's, and gets out of whack for others when fuel prices swing (because road maintenance cost doesn't swing with fuel prices; and the tax doesn't change, it is just a percent per unit of fuel, regardless of the fuel price).

>"This, of course, only works if the vast majority of traffic use gas (which increasingly is no longer the case)."

Actually it is very simple. Drop the gas/diesel tax completely, and tax based on annually-collected odometer readings instead, adjusted by vehicle weight. Problem solved. Most states collect the readings annually already with vehicle inspection. What I very much oppose is the government forcing people to put spy devices in their vehicles (in any form) that can monitor ANYTHING except distance.

>"Personally, I think road maintenance should come out of general tax funds. Everybody benefits from roads, directly or indirectly."

I don't, because it is TOO non-regressive. Those who drive little or not at all are overly punished. Those that destroy and occupy the roads the most (large commercial vehicles) would pay proportionally very little into the system.

I am not fond of tolls mostly because they now spy on peoples' movements (since toll stops/cash are rarely allowed now). And, like you said, it distorts road usage, flooding non-toll roads with extra traffic. But aside from that, they are the most "fair."

Personally, I don't understand people's obsession with most video calls. I push back on them whenever possible. I am just fine with a phone call. I don't need nor want to see your face, and you don't need to see mine. Nor do I need all the hassle and wasted time that goes with it.... almost every time the others saying, can you hear me? And I out out of sync? I can't see you, etc; plus long links, waiting rooms, poor connections, software problems, bandwidth issues, entering passwords, other technical difficulties.

It is almost a mass hysteria where I believe most people probably hate most video calls and yet everyone thinks everyone else wants and expects it.

I "get it" where video calls can be desirable for certain types of meetings. Ones where focus is family, interpersonal relations, emotional stuff. Or the examples of this article- court or job interviews. But for general or business calls, why do I want to "see" a salesperson, tech support person, or co-worker? I don't.

Oh, and while on this rant- what the hell is the purpose of these stupid, mostly or completely non-interactive "webinars"? Where you are supposed to be there at some prescribed time, that often interfere with your personal lunch time, to watch a talking head and/or listen to someone read through slides? Why are they just not recorded and posted somewhere? Or better yet, just Email a PDF of transcript/slides? I don't need audio narration.

Grrrrr.

>"You're basically advocating that everyone becomes a helicopter parent (and the ensuing "tiger mom", American spelling seems appropriate)."

Not at all. I am saying parents shouldn't throw unrestricted internet devices at kids. That isn't "helicoptering."

>"From my high school class, the worst drug addicts as young adults came from the strictest parents as teens. Those of us who dabbled in drugs and alcohol as kids were the least mal adjusted"

So, parents should give children access to drugs?? That is the social norm you think is healthy? Of course they are going to be exposed to the unrestricted internet every now and then. But that should be the EXCEPTION not the NORM. The biggest damage to children isn't just the exposure to concepts they cannot understand or appropriately digest, but also to the CONTINUOUS addiction to the internet BECAUSE many have unlimited access, everywhere, all the time.

>"the worst case scenario is that when you push them out the door at 18 having completely not prepared them for life out in the modern world"

1) I never said they should have zero access to the Internet. I said they should not have UNRESTRICTED access.

2) I mentioned whitelisting several times. That list can grow over time, and even flip to being a blacklist instead.

3) You can learn technology just fine with devices that do not connect to the internet.

>"Punishment, as an adult or a child should always be more about rehabilitation rather than punative."

I agree. And nothing I said or proposed has been punitive.

>"Judge Robert Pitman wrote that the statute "is akin to a law that would require every bookstore to verify the age of every customer at the door"

No, it is much worse. Because it isn't just a store, this is much broader than that. It is more akin to having a mall, and requiring every person to show an ID at the entrance, AND THAT DATA IS RECORDED, and stored, and linked, and shared, and later stolen and abused. AND you have someone follow you around everywhere you go there and take notes.

If you want to protect your children in the mall, YOU GO WITH YOUR CHILDREN and supervise what they have access to. It is not the job of the mall to parent your kids.

I don't want to live in a world where adults have to ID themselves to gain access to websites or app stores. I DO want to live in a world where parents (and their agents) do not allow their children to have unsupervised access to unrestricted, internet-connected devices. Give parents better lockdown and whitelist tools AND promote a new social norm that you can't just give a stock connected phone/tablet/computer to a child and walk away.

Yep, have had those set from the first version that came out with the silly "awesome bar" or whatever combined the two. And turn off the hiding of the full URL.

Agreed.

Maybe after being burned enough times, consumers will start to learn to research and ask questions first.

But I do believe that products for sale should be required to fully disclose all "subscriptions" and what features are dependent on them and costs on all marketing/advertising/box/etc.