Re: Wireless
By that calculation, Google reckons it is worth $40 per xbox.
Both figures seem a bit extreme, really. It'll be interesting to see what the judge thinks.
943 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Jun 2009
Very interesting project, but the use of a user-owned smart phone smacks of gimmick.
The idea of plugging in an unknown, untrusted, uncalibrated, user-owned piece of hardware as a primary navigation device for a car terrifies me. The opportunities for error are endless, even discounting the massive and very real opportunities for malicious use.
If the car has enough navigation power to get to you, it must already have redundant systems, so that argument is out of the window. Why not store all these preferences as a small, standardised text file which you can "squirt" automatically as you approach the car?
All that said, gimmicks are sometimes an interesting way to explore what's obviously an interesting concept, so long as they don't take it too seriously...
Simple answer: Ts&Cs are not enforceable.
Longer answer: in UK law, as with most other jurisdictions, contracts are only enforceable if a number of conditions are met. These include, from memory:
1. The contract is legal
2. Both (or all) parties to it fully understand everything in it
3. No clause is "unfair"
4. A contract cannot be a one-way-street, ie it cannot be used to enforce a gift or similar.
Of these, 4. is satisfied (the user gets use of the website), 1 is probably ok (there's nothing illegal about broad licences), 3 is questionable in the extreme and 2 is demonstrably false.
No company, anywhere, ever, has managed to enforce a shrink-click license, for exactly this reason.
Wow. That's a leap of logic.
80%* of daily journeys are under 50 miles, and a 50 mile range will cover 91%* of all daily miles (even those 54 mile journeys are mostly covered, after all).
Also, it's got a small engine, since it's backed up by a hybrid system.
So, it's more like a prius than a hummer, but one where the first 50 miles have no local emissions.
(* figures from thin air for the sake or argument, but not far from wrong)
Yeah. Maybe his dad's best mate, who was due to meet him at the pub that evening. Maybe, when he got to the pub, Mr Chambers wasn't there. So maybe he could send a message that said
"Get to the pub now, beer's getting cold. Do I need to firebomb you out of your house?!"
There, about the same level of seriousness. I reckon I can figure out how Paul would react. He'd ignore it.
The Iranians displayed a complete, undamaged drone, explained how they brought it down, and revealed other bits of on-board info including mission data, past service history etc to prove their point. And tellingly, the US has not denied that what the Iranians say is plausible/possible.
The simplest conclusion, therefore, is that they did, indeed, bring it down as they say. Any other explanation is currently not as likely. Remember this is a nation on the brink of independently developing nuclear weapons, with a very high level of technological expertise. It's worth taking what they say very seriously.
Two conclusions:
1. Whether or not it's possible to encrypt GPS usage so that it cannot be spoofed, the current US attack drones don't do so.
2. On-board data stored in the drone's computers is obviously not adequately encrypted.
Neither of these conclusions are surprising, since the whole point of drones is that they can be developed and deployed quickly and cheaply. But I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a fast scramble in the US to sort out their encryption.
"Global Warming" refers to overall _global_ temperatures, not local weather, which leads to more extremes. The weather we are experiencing in the UK exactly fits with what is expected. The confusion between weather and climate is one reason why it is normally now referred to as "climate change."
Uh... Or you could put an 8.0 litre W16 mid-chassis, throw in some radiators and ramp up the map to 1,000hp, like Bugatti did. That would be fun, too, right?
Unfortunately it's not the car on review, which is a small, city, petrol. As a commenter above has already pointed out, this is an extremely good economy for this type of car.
Reading a review of a car and then saying "why didn't they..." and coming up with a completely different concept is a bit, well, giraffe.
Are you all for real? Is it that hard to see the difference in intent between a site which indexes _everything_, including the occasional pirated content, and a site which aims so specifically to index pirated content that it is, well, named after it?
I don't want to assume commenters here are as thick as mince, but let's re-state that, just in case.
The law takes intent into account.
There, can't get much simpler than that. That's why there's different crimes for killing people - accidentally, in self defence, in a moment of rage or because you don't like them, they all carry different sentences.
Can someone just clarify how it is possible that a single private entity can be worth $14 per person (including every man, woman and child in every developed, developing and 3rd world country)?
I thought a good rule of thumb used to be that a company should be valued at about what it's expected to make in profit over the next 10 years.
Eddie may be wrong, but Lewis' maths is pretty bad too.
It's bad practice to round numbers during working, and then use those rounded numbers.
7 kWh per 1000 litres, 6p/kWh, 167 litres per person per day, and 8M people equates to £204M, not £176M. It's perfectly acceptable to round to one significant figure during your presentation, but not during your working.
It's a minor point, but repeatedly rounding numbers in your favour does not look good when you're trying to make a serious point.
Sum:
7[kWh] * 0.06[£/kWh] * 1000[liters] / 167[litres/person/day] * 365[days/year] * 8e6[people] = £204,808,800/year.
Actually cynicism aside, that's not what the report tells us at all - it says many people use their computer for consuming (not creating) much of the time. Hence when they want to create, they will use a different computer. Hence, towards the bottom, he says desktop computer sales will actually increase.
The point is yes, for content consumption, you don't need a full PC, you don't even really need a laptop. But for creation, you probably need more than a laptop. Seems sensible to me.
Yes, very much - in fact the figure is in the article :) This is due to higher security, less social interaction (meaning more staff and more stressed inmates), higher costs of appeal, etc etc. Remember also there will be a very long time (often 15 or more years) between initial conviction and execution.
I read the figure phrased differently somewhere a couple of years ago, but I think it costs about $1.5 million more to execute an inmate than to jail them for life without parole.
Just a note. My local coal-fired power station (Killroot, Northern Ireland) is about 35% efficient. The other 65% comes in as fossilised black stuff, and leaves as world-warming clear stuff. The most modern and efficient coal plants are about 60%.
45% of something free is, by most metrics, better than 60% of something not free.
Killroot generally runs at about 25% capacity so, if by "efficiency" what you actually mean is "capacity," the picture looks even bleaker.
I understand some folk don't like the technology (it's more expensive and, shock horror, isn't how we've always done things) but please, PLEASE inject a little bit of brain-power and understanding before you spout off this sort of nonsense.