Re: The Ecclestone Effect
So Max is in charge of it now then? ;)
1806 posts • joined 26 May 2011
So Max is in charge of it now then? ;)
I'm glad they cleared that up!
One thing he seemed to say is that perhaps if you have one genuine license but another machine without one you may get a break on the cost?
There does come a point where enough is enough with upgrade costs, especially when the benefits are sometimes tenuous or fabricated. The free upgrade from 7&8 to 10 is most welcome, especially if 10 is as good as 7.
If it could be done in a manner to reduce potential abuse a household license \ family pack (they did this with office iirc) might get them more converts. Get Windows and Office for the whole household for a sane fee.
Thankfully you obviously haven't bred yet!
Stop being so bloody sensible!
IIRC you can actually do something similar with streaming. You could add your dvd to your streaming library (for a small fee) and then upgrade to the HD stream for another couple of dollars (about 16 pence). I think it might have been on flikster? Not quite the same as physical media and greatly reduced bitrates, but a similar concept.
Given we cant even get the buggers to replace scratched media at a sane cost I don't hold out much hope, but I think you are right about an exchange program driving up adoption.
Please remember you are dealing with a culture with different attitudes towards some things. Storing waste there, digging into the summit to put in the tanks, that is an issue in itself. It might not seem an issue to a western mindset, I totally understand that, but to the people who actually own that mountain it is a huge issue. Breaking ground had cultural significance, from planting kalo with an o'o. Honestly it's hard to explain, I don't to be condescending but it's an entirely different culture so what you think might be the issue could not be.
There are environmental concerns but mostly it is cultural. Yes leach fields would be worse, but they are banned here now anyway (unless that law was revoked). The act of digging into the mauna to store trash is pretty damn offensive. That the agreement to limit the telescopes was repeatedly ignored by the very people who drew it up is just typical of the mentality of the proponents. Their word is worth nothing. They will just take what they want.
The scale of the impact is an interesting point. It is 'only' 1.8 acres of building. There are preserves up there but the people who own the land want the entire summit preserved add the entire summit is sacred. It's like building a small brothel in the Vatican and saying oh its only a small percentage. Then floating a blimp 180 for above the Vatican with a picture of a growler and a pair of knockers on it . This telescope will have a noticeable impact on the skyline due to its height. A constant reminder for those living there that money buys anything, legal or not.
If they wanted to show goodwill they would have offered to remove the broken telescopes up there. It's just cheaper to build on virgin ground.
The government did offer Hawaiians a chance at 'tribal' status but it was turned down. There were two main points, 1- it would mean relinquishing sovereignty. Whilst the Americans are he and in charge there is a fairly solid legal argument that they didn't ever do it legally, via conquest, or treaty etc. They actually used a joint resolution of Congress which cannot affect land outside the borders of the US, so there are some valid questions. I don't see it resulting in a sovereign Hawaii but they do.
2- nation with in a nation is more technically nation under a nation. Any laws passed by a tribe are still subject to overturn by the federal government.
Personally I think the future lies in a compromise, others don't. I do think it's not right that Kanaka should have to protest building on their own land. You'd never get away with doing it on Christian is Muslim land.
As regards the comments about idols, many kanaka were converted, many adopted both religions and some just kept quiet and kept their beliefs which is why it still exists today.
Just some a few corrections to your post.
1- there are 3 5000 gallon tanks. One for water, one for waste water and one for chemical waste. The are also another two 25000 gallon tanks for the fire supression system and a 2000 gallon tank for diesel. You need to read the EIS.
2- the ownership is actually quite important. The land is owned by the people protesting up there. Along with about a third of all land here it is ceded land, held in trust by the state until the Hawaiians form their own government. The same state who lost a $600 m lawsuit over mismanagement of that land. If it was federal that wouldn't be the case.
3- the elevation does matter. It has an impact on the skyline. This is something protected here, we changed some safety railings and had to do a change of elevation permit as they were 2 inches taller (still about waist height) yet they get a free ride on 180 feet?
The entire mountain to is sacred. The hawaiians have been protesting the building on their own land for decades. Whilst there are altars and specific sites within the summit area that doesn't mean somewhere without an altar isn't sacred. In the part they may have been beaten and some may have been paid off but hopefully this time will be different.
Sadly the tmt is huge, much larger than anything up there. 18 stories tall and a 5 acre footprint (plus grading area ) with giant underground storage tanks for toxic waste. There isn't anything like it up there, most are 3 to 8 stories (keck is 8). It is also being built on virgin ground, new access roads are being constructed and graded over the original dirt tracks used to survey.
I am pro telescope, just not with it being there. They had the option to remove broken telescopes and reuse that land but opted not too. They could have trucked waste out but opted not too. They could have presented a decommissioning plan and put funds in trust to cover it but they opted not to. Haleakala has a new facility going up, dkist?, which isn't attracting the same opposition for many reasons.
Honestly that is not the case. This protest is the straw that broke the camels back. For decades maoli have been treated as second class citizens, devoid of rights. Their burials have been exhumed by bulldozer and dumped on the side to make way for hotels and malls. Their sacred sites have been mined for runway material, used as toxic dumps and practice battlegrounds. They have been evicted from their own land because despite being promised that their land would inure to their heirs as originally intended found that whilst the state constitution protected this, it was overruled by the US constitution.
Tell me that if I took a bulldozer to a christian cemetery there wouldn't be an outcry, yet repeatedly the same happens here and it's viewed as nothing. A developer locally was trying to build a house on top of a heiau (temple) which contained several important burials. Most were marked and they were not allowed to go near those (they don't own the land where the burials are but do own adjacent plots) but they ignored this and apparently they found 'chicken bones' which they threw into the ocean removing any proof. Tell me how you would feel if that happened to you? It happened to my family a couple of years ago. So if you find people less reasonable than perhaps you might expect, please consider there may be reasons.
I have no doubt that the kanaka maoli have benefited from the shield provided by the US government. However, they have also suffered, been beaten in schools for speaking their language, kicked off their own land, deprived of water for farming only to be offered to buy back the very same water at grossly inflated rates, humiliated and thrown into poverty. Organisations that are supposed to benefit them work against them, time and time again they find themselves having to fight all the way to the supreme court, to win and still find that the judgement is simply ignored locally.
So does this seem like an overreaction in isolation, sure I can see that, but in the context of the past 200 years it is a massive under reaction. If the people behind the project and the people that came before them had acted with any decency things would probably be different. If people had honored previous agreements, had cleaned up after themselves etc, then perhaps there wouldn't be this protest. Also please remember that on one side of this are paid PR specialists, media ad buys and slush finds. On the other are hard working individuals that just want to coexist and be respected. This is just the chickens coming home to roost.
heh I'll let you go and tele Lanakila and the others up there they are from the mainland :)
Funny you should mention the GMO issue. The papaya is one of the few examples where the use of GMO is pretty justified. The issue we found here is the GMO's were indirectly killing reefs and turtles. You also have to understand this is set against the backdrop of the legacy of the plantations. Our aquifers are still polluted by the fumigants, pesticides and herbicides used by the cane and pineapple industry over the past century. The majority of the 'anti gmo' protesters were against the bribery, the lack of transparency, and the dangers not specifically from the GMO aspect but from the fact the GMO was fone to promote tolerance of high levels of herbicide and or production of pesticides by the plants themselves.
What was found was that certain types of agriculture were resulting in high levels of nitrogen run off due to poor nitrogen fixation by the crops (resulting in higher levels of N fertilizer being used). This was then caused eutrophication of algae, killing reefs and causing an explosion of cancers in the turtle population. A lot of work is still to be done on the mechanisms and ruling out simple correlation rather than an actual cause (which could happen) but given the history here I think caution is understandable. Not everyone had that approach, some just hate gmo's, personally I think they have a place. I do think they have to be used with caution. The irony of it being Hawai'i is palpable. If it wasn't for the diversity provided by the maoli cotton (called Ma'o) the industry would on its knees. Whe mass plantations of cotton were hit by blight and insects it was natural hybridizing with Hawaiian cotton that provided a resistance. Normally Ma'o wouldn't be grown commercially, the spreadsheets say no, but it was the 'crazy hippie' kanakas that grew it for cultural uses that provided the answer. Moving to mono cropping of designed plants leaves you at the mercy of companies who charge crazy money for seeds. We grow up to 60 varieties of tomatoes (just as one example from the farm), save our own seeds at basically zero cost. We are narrowing it down to maybe 20 of the better varieties for sale but will keep rotating the rest through to keep valid seed. When we bought in some corn seeds we paid a fraction of the cost for organic corn as we would have done for GMO corn, we have the freedom to cross breed the corns and we can save the seeds, also no chemicals required. I do worry about the GMO corn crossing with our corn and finding myself on the end of a lawsuit. I'm personally not all that happy about the corn producing bt toxins (not something we use, although some large organic farms do). I'd like the choice and I'd like to know we can keep their stock isolated, something thats' difficult on small islands.
Plus some of it came down to trust. On the one hand you have farmers who pay for independent experts to check on their farming practices, on the other you have seed and chemical companies who pay politicians to pass laws to prevent people finding out what is happening on the farms. Which makes you suspicious?
It's disturbing to see how the world perceived what went on here with that. No doubt helped by news papers remembering which large chemical companies buy adverts in their papers.
How so? The kickbacks aren't going to the people on mauna o wakea? Also which telescopes were closed, there are broken ones up there but funnily enough the folks that built them don't want to remove them like they promised.
The barrels comment is spot on. Many wheels will be greased for many years to come from this project. There are lots of kanaka maoli who would always oppose a development like this, but many more who oppose it based on the conduct of the people proposing this project and the ones in charge of the previous projects. You can only break your word so many times before nobody believes you. Unless you are a politician of course. The delays etc might be benefitting contractors and the local portable lua company but not the kanaks on the mauna who are off work to protest.
The majority of the people protesting are being silent on this. They are torn between appreciating the show of support and the publicity and the fact that they are bound by kapu aloha. This basically means that they are required by a moral code to protest peacefully and with love and respect. They didn't ask for the support from anonymous. They haven't applauded it nor have they criticized it.
I don't think anyone believes the attack would do anything more than cause a few headaches for sys admins. What it did do is gain publicity for the cause.
Lanakila who has been speaking publicly about the cause has repeatedly stressed people must not be destructive in their protests. Go try and build the TMT on temple mount and tell me what reaction you think you would get :)
Again, this is exactly the misconceptions that cause problems to begin with.
Firstly the mauna o wakea is home to wildlife. The silverswords are amazing. It might be sparse up there but it also has a beauty in its own right, above and beyond the cultural importance.
Secondly, we spend plenty of time trying to keep invasive species out to protect what is already there. I can understand the idea of introducing and experimenting, but Hawai'i is fairly small. Many of its species are unique and also endangered. If this were not the case it would make sense to experiment, but past experiments have shown that all that happens is diversity disappears. Hosmer's grove on Haleakala is proof of that.
Thirdly, as I mentioned above, this is one of the most sacred sites to na kanaka maoli. Just being there without performing the correct protocol is viewed as improper. There might not be many kanaks left but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to say what happens. Technically this is actually their land. It just happens that the people mandated to manage it seem to have a habbit of collecting brown envelopes. Scientists have been building up there for decades, every time they promise it is the last telescope they turn round and need to build another and refuse to remove the broken ones. There are a few idiots who drive up there and get stuck, theres a shot last week of one of the tmt construction vehicles that ran off the road.
The actual ownership is disputed, the observatory district is currently leased to UH by the BLNR which is a state entity. You may be getting mixed up with Halaeakala? which is a national park and federal. Mauna kea iirc is seeded lands so it technically held by the state until a Hawaiian government is formed. The dispute arises between the American view I mention above and the kanaka view that the USA never legally acquired the kingdom of hawai'i. Dr David Keanu Sai wrote a dissertation on the legality. What you believe is up to you, I just wanted to supply both sides on that point for anyone interested.
Wow some incredible ignorance there!
There are two significant areas of concern here over the building of the TMT. First and foremost there is a deep misunderstanding about the sacredness of the mountain. The summit (and others) are Wao Akua or basically the realm of the gods. It is not a case of only the area around an ahu (shrine) is sacred, but the entire peak is viewed and the literal home of the gods (Poliahu, Lilinoe, Waiau, & Kahoupokane). It is their mount olympus, viewed as an overlap with the heavens, a direct portal.
You can mock, you can point to the low numbers of 'believers' but how many followers does a religion need to have protection? Go try built the telescope on temple mount and see what reaction you get. Na Kanaka Maoli have followed kapu aloha, they have protested peacefully and have used every legal avenue open to them (and no illegal ones).
The issue they have come up against is the second point. Money, corruption and being held to account. An agreement was made after an extensive review process to limit the number of telescopes to 13 and keep them within a specific area. When #14 was proposed and people objected it was decided that Keck 1 and 2 were actually really just one after a few brown envelopes changed hands. Now they want to build number 15 and if you read the 2000+ pages of EIS (environmental impact study) and planning documents their sole justification for breaking their agreement on the limit is 'we have already done so much damage this won't be noticed'. Development was supposed to be limited, yet any agreement made is ignored as soon as it is inconvenient. How is that legal? You expect people not to protest that?
This is not an issue for 'a few natives' this has support from haoles and maoli alike. By far the biggest income to the economy is tourism, those tourists come for the beauty. Yet repeatedly that beauty is degraded as the expense of irresponsible development that is permitted only due to lobbying. The current governor has had his nominations for offices repeatedly refused due to them being lobbyists.
The argument is not against science nor astronomy, but about the cost. There are other locations for the TMT. It could be built with the VLT in Chile. This is just another case of bribery to cut some corners. If it went to Chile the bribes would go with it. There are inoperable telescopes up there which the operators refuse to remove. TMT is several times larger than any of the current observatories and would have a significant impact.
The name doesn't need to change, it just needs to be structured as a reverse acquisition. It was the same with NTL and Telewest .
As a consumer who has switched between amd and intel over the years I can see some sense in this. I just bougth an amd because it was i5/i7 speed for i3 pricing (in a sale). AMD has a place in the market, they are doing some interesting things compared to intel, but they dont have the scale behind them. The question for us as consumers is would an acquisition by Samsung leave them better able to take on Intel? Access to current generation fabbing would work for AMD and bring even better economies of scale for Samsung. Access to all the GPU tech would make for interesting moves in the ARM products from Samsung. If Samsung can get them for a sensible price it could work out very well for everyone, especially us. I can dream anyway!
True, but in fairness the military knew what they wanted, knew who to get in from, and how to implement their plan. Brussels on the other hand will have changed their mind about the spec 6 times, employed their half wit relatives as consultants, and blown most of the initial budget on junkets to Thailand and the other half on the then necessary penicillin.
Having worked for a company with a multi billion pound government contact (railway renewal) I can honestly say I have never seen people know less about what they want our need yet so willing to throw (other people's) money at a problem. It was so bad we ended up changing to a cost plus billing model because they changed their mind so frequently. Genuinely huge amounts of money were routinely wasted. I wonder if it would be the same if the shortfall came from their pension fund.
Sorry but seriously, you knock millions off a sale and don't have the reason for the discount documented in blood and witnessed?
I agree to a point on the graphics. It makes more sense on an in than an i7 to me. Short of them actually putting discrete class graphics on die (then you have power / heat / memory bandwidth concerns) I felt the higher end chips either needed basic or no graphics. The current situation is kind of a halfway house, especially for desktops. I understand with laptops it makes a lot more sense. I'm probably in the minority as usual though :)
With a desktop is cheap and easy to throw in a graphics card. If a top end i7 is $300 and half the die is GPU, is that GPU on a level with a $150 discrete card? I'd rather have 8 cores and add a discrete card and upgrade it later if needed but 8 cores is a lot more money.
For too long they have just released incremental, minor upgrades. They haven't really produced anything earth shattering. They release i7's with huge areas of the die devoted to graphics that many won't use. When they do nix the graphics and add more cores they charge a fortune for it. If you want my money you need to do better than a 10-12% increase in performance.
I just built a new desktop after maybe 5 years with the old one. I went with the amd 8350, not because I am a fan but because the MB, SSD, RAM, antex case, psu, CPU and gfx card came to about $400 in a sale. It's not as fast as an i7, but for lightroom, coupled with the ssd, it's plenty fast enough. It has also saved me a fortune on the heating bill. The AMD isn't better but for the $125 I paid for it I don't have buyers remorse, it combined with an ssd made the better choice then even an i5 for the same total cost.
I respect intels play it safe approach with (mostly) regular release cycles but I think the lack of serious high end competition from AMD has allowed them to rest on their laurels. I would have liked to see them be brave and ditch an upgrade cycle since they keep slipping and bring forward skylake. I'm looking to get a tablet soon and I would love a goldmont chip to be in it but thats probably not going to be for ages. So I will wait, perhaps by then AMD will be using 16nm and be able to compete a little better?
Spending $700 - $1000 on a new desktop is a fairly serious commitment, if you want to get people to spend it you have to deliver a decent jump. It's too easy to look at what you have already and go it's just not worth the cost for a modest speed bump. ymmv
True. And any parent of older kids knows the grandparent is chuckling away to themselves thinking "they think a newborn is hard? Wait till the little bugger gets mobile, or hits their teenage years"
Jake is that you? Or shitpeas?
What I find the hardest to believe is that although our political systems allow everyone voting parity people can and do vote in regimes that are detrimental to their interests. Put simply the poor outnumber the rich but governments that serve the rich at the expense of the poor still get elected :(
I don't understand how do many people can abdicate their responsibility to think about who they are voting for because it might give them a headache and just vote for whoever their patents voted for or whoever their union told them to vote for etc.
It's not so much the number of vehicles as the type of data. They are likely to be sharing coordinates, velocity etc rather than video. The father away another vehicle is the less you would need to know about it. Using fairly high frequency transmissions over short distances (probably with line of sight, forming a mesh network) and lower frequency for longer distances would allow for efficent use of spectrum and avoid overloading. It's probably not something we are going to throw on tmobile's edge network, but its technically reasonable. Although I understand why it would appear otherwise. The best and the worst thing about high frequency spectrum is its limited range. The short range allows many more users of the same spectrum (although the same could be said for lower band spectrum if you tune down the transmit power) as you have to be a lot closer to be sharing the same spectrum.
There's always more jobs that can be created if employers are brave (or just not evil). I choose to take the money I would have spent on pesticides and increased seed costs and spend it on additional wages/jobs (rate varies but all significantly above minimum wage) which to be fair this style of farming needs. The outcome is organic produce which amusingly wholesales at the same cost as the 'conventional' produce (because I am not an absolute twat and charge a premium simply because I can, I get the difference back in volume). I am not going to be buying an aston for roaming around the farm anytime soon but it provides a comfortable living. Then again I am a farmer and not a CEO, I probably wouldn't last 5 seconds running a major company before the shareholders beheaded me. But basically it does come down to choice, I view my approach as sustainable, if I do my bit not to screw over the local population they will be in a better position to buy my produce. There's also a local collective of farmers who help new farmers get started, labour, loaning machines, teaching, seeds and slips etc. It makes sense, the more robust the local supply the more business we get as a whole because there is no longer the need to rely on imports for a reliable supply. Plus is just plain sucks to see land unused when we import food.
There is certainly the potential for many new jobs to be created, but consumers do play a part in forcing change with their wallets. If you want more jobs, try and find ways to support companies that provide them locally. Over time there will be a flow from one industry to another but there should be some that are left largely untouched, and if companies know that outsourcing will kill their business then they won't do it. I haven't lived in the UK for a while but before I left I remember the start of a backlash about offshored call center jobs and companies starting to onshore the jobs and boast about them. Just start applying the same tactics. I honestly never understood the logic behind offshoring large swathes of staff because if you send 20% of your jobs abroad and 50% of other companies do, you just made 10% of the working population likely unable to afford your products and also put up taxes. They should work to strengthen then economy by creating jobs, rather than undermining it. But wtf do I know :(
So what does the A stand for?
True, I forgot about them. Although (not that it makes it any better) the scientists weren't beheading people that didn't agree with them (as scientists, the vast majority of them would have disagreed with their political ideology. I guess they probably would have disagreed with the master race ideas).
My point was contradict a scientist, publish a paper that disagrees with their work and the strongest you can expect is a snarky dissent and some stink eye at a conference. Many allegedly religious folks are a bit more serious in their response. Science doesn't warmly accept is fundamentals being challenged, but it does recognize that it is based on an evolution of ideas and if you can prove one idea over another it does succeed it. Can you say the same for most religions? Say you found a drawing of God by Moses in a cave somewhere depicting God as female, how do you think that would be taken?
And nobody in their right mind wants to be on the other end of some upset Tongans and Samoans! Get Sasa!
I can understand yield may be an issue with these screens, but the DPI isn't. It's lower than a 1080 5 inch screen. I think one big area holding them back has been chips that can drive that resolution smoothly within the tablet power envelope. We are only just getting to the point where top end mobile chippery can drive a UHD resolution GUI at acceptable framerates. There has been one pseudo sighting of a UHD Tablet running on a snapdragon 810 but we have no idea how goosed the chip was nor the frame rate involved as it was just playing video which ( assuming a hardware supported codec) is usually less demanding than playing a game or even navigating the standard launcher with the transitions Etc. I have noticed that with the same chips even the transition from FHD to QXGA to WQXGA results in a marked drop in performance, the former having half the number of pixels as the latter. Going to UHD doubles the pixels again. It's going to happen, the next tranche of chips can do it, but they are still just starting to arrive at the engineering sample stage.
Technically they can and do sell 'better' connections. Your cable connection is a contended service, in practice you can usually hit the advertised speed but that level of speed is not dedicated to you. If everyone in your neighborhood were to try and max out their connections at once nobody would get their advertised top speed. ISPs also sell dedicated connections, leased lines is another term, where usually your full speed is guaranteed 24x7 and you usually hey money back if they fail their SLA. On top of this you usually get better support, so if there is congestion slowing down your traffic somewhere on the ISPs network they will restore the traffic and if it is external to their network they will try and send it via a different peering partner to avoid the congestion. A hospital shouldn't be running off a home cable modem, they will be paying more and getting more (and probably utilizing redundant connections with multiple ingress points).
My apologies Donn, I wasn't directing my post towards you but towards Suri. He has zero credibility, one of his companies largest areas of business left is mobile network infrastructure, most of his customers are against any form of NN. He is basically shilling for his customers.
You are correct that traffic which originates on and never leaves their own network is not covered. How much of an issue this is remains to be seen, if it allows them to sell a fast lane by moving originating servers on network then that is a worry.
QOS remains untouched, you cannot block, charge for prioritization or throttle data based on certain criteria but source neutral QOS isn't actually banned. Tmobile can also continue their capped service (once high speed data allowance is exhausted) based on what we know of the new rules. I think sprint might be ok also with their prioritizing data based on the type of subscriber plan (i.e. pay per GB has priority over unmetered\unlimited plans) depending on your reading of the word "services".
Apologies, removed my comments about Netflix as it was off topic in this particular discussion.
I agree with most of your post, however, do you not think motivation should play a part in the decision. Also just because people in the past 'got away with it' doesn't mean it's correct. This isn't a case like Manning, he wasn't whistle blowing to try and highlight a wrong, he was leaking classified information (of unclear importance) in return for sex, for no other reason than for boom boom. There was no greater cause, he was just trying to impress a younger lady and score some honey. That an officer in his position can be so easily conned when he has access to such privileged information is worrying. That he lied about it is probably the greater crime given the suggestion that the information wasn't top secret but rather personal notes.
I don't think an example should be made of him purely because of his rank, but nor should he be let off lightly because others in the past have used their political connections to secure a lighter sentence. Continuing an injustice does not make it any less unjust.
As to his sentence, honestly without knowing exactly how much potential trouble it may have caused it is hard to say where on the scale the punishment should fall. He has no doubt been disgraced and this will affect his personal life as well as future earnings. The man is a disgrace and betrayed the men and women he was sworn to serve and when caught brought further disgrace by attempting to lie about it.
Or perhaps banister?
Jane Lambert of NIPC? Iirc she's actually a barrister (not barista as her actions would suggest). Sadly she is entrenched and unlikely to go anywhere soon. This is just typical attention seeking behavior.
Apologies if I am being over simplistic about this but wouldn't the appropriate path have been to mirror all .tp over to .tl then after a period drop .tp? Running the two in parallel with different domains is just asking for trouble. I understand the desire for the change, but it shouldn't actually affect who has what domain name, just the suffix at the point you terminate the original.
They should probably buy dish as well then, or just save the money for the 600MHz auction. Tmo is good but they need nation wide low band and they will need more spectrum in s couple of years, less if they keep up this growth rate coupled with the growth in per sub data use.
Quite a few things. I have a few games that are 2-3 GB each. Offline terrain maps run about 10 GB for the Island. Music, videos etc. Books is a huge one, I have loads for work which take up about 23 GB.
I'm probably highly abnormal (what's new) but I can see others using far more than me just with music and videos.
Yes, that along with the climate and also the chemistry of the battery and many other factors. The point being if the battery is non removable then if its 9 months or 14 (and age does play a part as well), it's still a brick at that point whereas if it is replaceable then it is down to whatever else goes terminally wrong first which can take some time. There's no reason not to expect a phone to last 3-4 years, but the battery is not likely to be all that useful at that point, it's already going to be suffering half way through that time. Perhaps it's the yorkshire in me but I don't see the point in trashing a $6-700 phone after a year to 18 months because a $30 part that could be replaceable isn't. Especially when the trade off is just making an already thin phone 1 mm thinner.
Thats true, although I am keeping in mind support for tmo's newer band 12 lte. I'm not really after the s series, more worried about them screwing with the note series as that is what I had planned to replace my current note with :( I could just about forgive the loss of the replaceable battery and sd card slot if they did something stunning like made it fold out into a tablet.
As for build quality, just basic better than some chinese bodge job of a reference design with whatever rom kind of makes it start. Samsung, HTC, Nokia, etc all make phones that are well built both hardware and software. Some not so top tier manufacturers seem to be including some headline features like gorilla glass but with second rate quality control (as demonstrated by my niece's never ending saga of how her latest random name brand phone has died yet her ipod thing has survived forever).
Thanks for the suggestion, I was thinking of something like that for my works phone. For my personal phone I was looking for something with higher specs than that, or at least I will be in a couple of years when its time to replace my note. There's no reason the note shouldn't last 3-4 years with a couple of battery changes. Screen burn is likely to be its biggest issue. Additional band support is likely to be the only real incentive to upgrade before then. Project ARA (or whatever its called) could make this even less wasteful in the future.
Honest question, who does a phone these days with a removable battery, SD card slot, decent hardware, and good build quality?
If this is a sign of what's to come with the next Note then there's no chance of me upgrading. Fast charging won't mitigate the loss of a replaceable battery. The real reason behind a fixed battery is it forces you to junk a working phone once the battery won't hold a respectable charge. I needed a new battery after about 14 months with my note. Easy and cheap enough to replace it With the note 3 but what about this model? A couple of hundred bucks to replace it? I bet their helpful answer is buy an s7.
Phones are already stupidly thin, well beyond it conferring any advantage beyond poser value.
Are you a farmer? Perhaps it varies state to state but inspections do occur without deaths.
You are right about gaps, not so much about the pesticides with organic. The rules are very strict, some larger organic operations use BT but we don't, it is allowed on organic as it is essentially an organic method of control although personally I don't like it. Various neem based sprays are all we have used, crop loss is minor so we haven't been pushed to look for anything else.
Regulation could be more effective and also less onerous for sure, but special interests will ensure that doesn't happen. There most certainly is proactive checking, especially with the new anti small farming laws.
Food is very heavily regulated at a federal level. Leaving aside the inspections and record keeping that goes along with being organic, we have to maintain comprehensive records of manure use and comply with new rules about time between use and harvest, as well as water and soil sampling throughout the year. This is on top of all the regulations governing slaughter , storage, transport etc.
Much of the regulation is requested by (paid for) by large agricultural companies to increase the overhead of smaller farms making them easier targets.
I can kind of understand the municipality issue. If I had invested money in building out a network I would be upset if a local government used it's advantages to undercut me. However, I have seen first hand how these companies operate, they do the absolute minimum and charge a fortune safe in the knowledge that is too expensive for any serious competition, hell they frequently didn't actually build their own networks but buy them from companies bankrupted by building them. So frankly if these odious little thugs are upset by the challenge then all the better. Free market types are always saying that the market will always adjust to ensure the best performance, municipal ISPs ARE the adjustment. If they had invested in a quality service with periodic upgrades and realistic pricing then there would be no public desire for a solution and therefore no political will to provide one.
Free market ideology only really begins to work when there is a sensible level of competition. The idea of PUC's regulating commercial monopolies is ludicrous, the companies just buy off the PUC and do what they want. Whilst capitalism is probably one of the better ideologies out there it does need a level of effective regulation or it just descends into robbery.
You could fix this overnight. Any patent used in a standard must be included in a patent pool. If you don't want to 'settle' for a share of the pool then don't fight to include your tech in standards. FRAND has proven itself nothing but a boon to lawyers paid for by us indirectly via increased costs passed on to us.
they have been awarded a patent but it is worth nothing until it is tested in court. The idea is (not sure I agree that it works) is that to keep the cost of patents down the process is fairly simple and virtually no serious verification is done. In theory that comes in court if there is ever a need, so patents that aren't ever challenged don't need to bear the cost of the verification. Sadly this allows for large companies to file for invalid patents then use their size the force smaller competition to cease competing. That and actually challenging them in court usually comes down to who had the most money rather than actual worth of the patent.
He didn't create a new concept, he did however increase the range of what could be done and make it a lot more feasible. Minor work could be fine in a dark room, dodging and burning, colour balance, even using vaseline on the enlarge lens to blur detail. To go beyond that required huge amounts of skill and time. If you wanted a tuck in a waist it wasn't just a minor tweak and magic fill, you'd pretty much have to print it (very) large, manually cut and draw then shoot your doctored image. It is possible (especially with e6 or slide film) to draw directly on slides, easier with an 8x10 than 35mm, but still requires an amazing artist. Any hoon can doctor an image now, just move a slider and click a wand. It's massively abused at all levels now unfortunately, it's the tobacco / star filter of the modern age.