Narrator: "Football.. Or baseball?"
Deion Sanders: "Both!"
Narrator: "Convenience... Or death?"
Narrator: "Football.. Or baseball?"
Deion Sanders: "Both!"
Narrator: "Convenience... Or death?"
(And the answer to your question is, "All of them except Nevada, IIRC.")
There are literally hundreds of things YOU do on a DAILY basis that are over million times more likely than your note catching fire and FAR more dangerous.
In case you missed it, those things--unlike the Note 7--have not been the subject of a government-backed recall. This means, (a) if your Note 7 causes a fire, you're liable to get sued into oblivion, and (b) if you try to sell or give it to someone else, you're subject to criminal penalties.
This is the reality; any discussion of other things being more (or even less) dangerous than the Note 7 is completely beside the point.
I own my apartment, and all my neighbours own theirs.
Nice way to slip in your off-topic agenda, BTW.
More like side scrolling temple run?
The Atari 800 version of Aztec Challenge circa 1983, perhaps?
(Not to be confused with the completely different- and better-known- Commodore 64 game released under the same name, oddly).
To me it's more that everyone is running to low-input stuff. Puzzles? Complex control sequences on simple control schemes? No, running and jumping and controlling your movement is too much for today's tiny brains; learn from the Wistar rat: put one button in front of a signalling stimulus, and train them to press it at the appropriate moment to receive a reward.
Oh good grief. That's how bonds work.
Amen. That's exactly what I thought when I read the details of this (non-) "story".
The US government has chosen to offer these bonds for its own reasons. One might argue whether the government should be raising money this way, but they (presumably) chose to do that and offer enough of a payout to make it worth investors' time and money.
As you said, that's how it bloody works! Apple just happens to be one of the companies that has taken them up on that.
There's plenty to criticise about Apple, both with their overpriced, walled garden devices, and how they manage their tax (dodging) affairs, but to contrive their investment- and ignore everyone else's- in government bonds that are specifically *meant* to work like this as a "story" is obvious clickbait BS.
It depends on if they emulate it by translation and shadowing, or by interpretation. Software translation is rather fast, but not native-fast. To get native-fast, you have to go native.
I've been suggesting an accelerator chip (maybe even off-die) that decodes x86 instructions into the internal RISC instructions stored in the ICache, but people keep telling me it's impossible because... they're stupid. Modern x86, x86-64, and ARM chips all read instructions in their ISA and translate to an internal CPU RISC ISA, to the point that x86-64 chips actually translate x86 instructions to take advantage of around 60 hardware registers thanks to having not just twice as many GPRs (16!), but those GPRs being 64-bits wide (32 GPRs), plus the EBP, ESP, and EIC registers being 64 bits wide and only validly addressing a 32-bit address space (3 more registers). Multiple instructions hitting the same memory won't just work on cache (fast), but will actually load that cache line to register (extremely fast) and operate a series of instructions there--even out-of-order instructions.
No doubt the instruction decoder would be large-ish, and access to its own (I4) cache would prove a performance boon if that cache is kept consistent with actual RAM. Nevertheless, it should be roughly-trivial to produce a CPU chipset that can execute both x86-64 and ARM64 code, in the same way it's roughly-trivial to produce a CPU chipset that executes both x86 and x86-64 or ARM and THUMB. These aren't simple tasks by any means; but the fact is we routinely create chipsets which execute an ISA, and chipsets which execute multiple ISAs, and even chipsets which execute old ISAs while automatically leveraging internal facilities such as registers available to new ISAs (which isn't impressive when you think about OOE, parallel execution, and branch prediction). x86-64 is related to x86, but only at face value; they're different instruction sets, just like ARM and MIPS are different, and it should be fairly easy--not cheap, mind you--to wedge x86-64 in with ARM.
Depends. Higher range requires higher transmission power. So, for the one using the BT device, you'll get less interference from other devices. Until they all upgrade to BT5, of course.
And if no one shows up to answer your call, email or letter, or even just the doorbell? You can have a defunct company that has to honor a warranty, but you can't make any individual show up to help you. What are you going to do to the company to force compliance? Fine it? Dissolve it?
Adobe didn't create Flash either. It was created by Macromedia, who was bought by Adobe.
IL had free rides to all senior citizens 2008-2011 costs forced them to cut it to just low-income seniors.
No, there are no free rides. What you mean is, "Illinois decided to have taxpayers buy rides for certain people from 2008 to 2011"
That's true. That's a continuation of when Ikea adjusted the shape of their boxes to stack three times as much stuff onto one shipping pallet, reducing the number of shipping employees involved by 60%; and when the shipping pallet was invented; and when the automobile and train replaced the horse and buggy; and when overland shipping replaced a large population of sailors, which happened after the old cold blast process that made 400 pounds of iron was replaced with a hot-blast furnace that could make 86,400 pounds of iron with the same amount of labor time.
We've been cutting back at the amount of work to do anything since we sharpened spears. We changed from stone to bronze and then to iron and steel; we created better tools; we got rid of artisans who take forever to make anything and went to assembly lines that use 1/8 as many people to do the same shit, and then to cellular manufacture that achieves the same in 1/12 as much labor. Better logistics, better management, new tools, power tools, and the like have continued to cut this back. Fertilizer and GMOs have eliminated nearly 100% of the labor used to make food over the past 200 years.
It's a beautiful forward march of progress, isn't it? The standard-of-living of all classes goes up as the labor required to make any one thing goes down; and the laborers working their full time to make those things--fewer they are--still have the same money representing the same labor-hours, even though to buy anything they don't need to induce the labor of so many labor-hours. They can then buy more things, and so do so, which is why we tend to stabilize around 5% unemployment even as we eliminate nearly all jobs that have ever existed.
Imagine what it'll be like when only 1/4 as many people are required to make Tesla cars. That $85,000 top-tier Model S will be replaced by something ludicrous for the rich folks, and the common man will buy something roughly equivalent to the top-tier Model S performance box for $21k. That'll be the car we drive, the car the working-man owns.
My point is that GDP-per-capita says what was produced; median income says how much people have to spend. If you produce $57,000 of stuff per capita and you have $52,000 to spend, guess what? That's more than $38,000 of stuff--the amount of stuff produced per-capita in 2000.
What I'm saying is $52,000 worth of stuff is more than $38,000 worth of stuff. Median income of $52,000 means you can buy $52,000 worth of stuff.
My point is that the median income remaining flat while that amount of income buys more and more stuff means you are getting richer; and we don't have a good indicator that shows what people can actually buy.
Median income in constant dollars is probably the best single number to indicate average income. GDP does not enter into that. Given constant income in constant dollars, it doesn't matter how the GDP changes.
Except that the median income in constant dollars has fallen by like $5,000 in the past 15 years, yet the amount of stuff you can buy with the current median income far-exceeds what you could buy with the median income 15 years ago.
The same percentage of the median income buys a car that's got more-complex technology like complex suspensions, electronic stability control, fuel-injected engines, power locks, bluetooth radio; that's a lot of complex, expensive shit that you could get in a high-dollar luxury vehicle a decade or so ago, if you could afford to spend 2-5 times as much for a car.
Each family spends a smaller percentage of their income on food now; and they eat out about twice as much as they did a decade ago, meaning they buy food and pay servants to cook and wait on them while they eat with less money than they previously paid to cook their own food.
Services like internet have exploded. In 1998, you would pay $35/month for 128K ISDN service, demarcated by a $250 ISDN modem; today you pay $83/month for 200,000K cable internet demarcated by an $80 DOCSIS 3.0 modem. That's 1,562 $35 ISDN lines. What percentage of the median $52,000 income is $54,687?
Smart phones. We have high-speed computers in our pocket that can get e-mail, stream music, play games, and do voice chat. Do you remember paying $600 for a Compaq iPaq with 32MB of RAM that used RAM as storage (yes, if you removed the battery, it wiped the phone!) in 2001? Do you remember it not having a cell phone radio? Instead you got that Motorola V3 RAZR for $350; and today you can throw $350 and get a cell phone with 64GB of storage, 2,048MB of RAM, and a 1080p AMOLED screen--and it's got four friggin' radios so you can do Wifi, Bluetooth, GSM voice, and LTE data simultaneously.
What the hell happened that our real income went down yet we became fucking rich as the Sultan of some backwater oil capital? How does that work? How do you sit on coal, turn it into diamonds, and get poorer?
Actually, outsourcing and importing for cheaper is part of what gives the poor a better quality-of-life. The unemployment argument is a red herring: bringing any trade jobs back incurs an added cost, which raises prices and thus eliminates other jobs. If those prices raise enough to diminish the newly-created jobs beyond the number of jobs lost, then you have a net-loss of employment; this means American workers producing trade-import goods would need to be paid little to net-create jobs.
Even then, the change is disturbing.
Right now, Men and Boys's Cotton Trousers and Shorts retail for an average of $14.97 per pair (this is a rough Google number, and is probably inaccurate; it's also the only factor that can be variable and still correctly-demonstrate the principle). The Chinese import cost is 6 cents per pair (40,000 pairs shipped in a 40-foot shipping container, at an import cost less than $1,300 from China to US), with the Chinese labor cost at $6.14 per pair (via the published total number of imports of MBCT from China PRC and the total cost of those imports at import time). The difference in import and price includes the domestic shipping (truck drivers), retailing (inventory associates, cashiers, managers), logistics, and infrastructure (power, maintenance, rent) involved in local sale, as well as the profits.
If we paid American factory workers above $18/hr to make MBCT, with a retail average of $14.97, we would lose total American jobs; if we paid under $18/hr, we would gain jobs. This is because the cost of MBCT would increase, and the total purchaseable goods would thus decrease, impacting the entire logistics chain of shipping and selling them, as well as reducing the number of factory jobs to make them; and the factory jobs recovered from China are added to the job market, offsetting this. If more jobs are lost than gained, you lose jobs in total.
That's not the issue.
Say you pay your factory workers $21/hr, the same salary as a GM line worker. The price of MBCT goes up from $14.97 to $50.57 (remember: $8.83 of that goes to American wages for cashiers, truck drivers, shelf stockers, and the like, with some carved out for taxes and profits; I'm assuming profit margins and taxes fall instead of increasing as well, instead of adjusting that $8.83 larger). Today, a $21/hr income lets you buy MBCT at 0.71 hours's work per pair. With $21/hr factory workers, they'd work for 2.4 hours to afford a pair.
If you pay them an $8.25 minimum wage, the price rises to only $25. Today, an $8.25/hr wage lets you work for 1.8 hours and buy pants; at $25, an $8.25/hr wage requires you to work for 3.0 hours to afford the same pants you're making.
If you think that sounds ludicrous, consider: before globalization, the median American household spent 12% of its income on clothing; once we started outsourcing to China, this rapidly fell to 4%. It's now under 3.5%--it's only slowly continued to fall since the great globalization revolution. That means globalization in fact decreased costs to 1/3 what they were.
Outsourcing your jobs to another country that does the work a hell of a lot more cheaply creates an enormous capacity to buy, but somebody has to transport all that shit you're buying once it comes off the docks. You can't sail a ginormous shipping friggate up the mid-western basin to Colorado. That creates local jobs. Even then, unemployment dips nice and friendly-like, but it gets buffed out as population expands to fill the abundance of jobs, until some factor of scarcity (job scarcity, food scarcity, etc.) creates an expanding population in poverty and slows growth. Likewise, a small loss of jobs slows population growth until it adjusts to fit its economy's capacity, and can have a profound effect on the size of the labor force.
I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it.