Not always. Timex also recently released a reissue of their 1965 Marlin for $200 which is a manual wind watch, this time using a Seagull movement rather than what the original used.
They already are. Their web site claims that they're using a Swiss movement. They're silent on where the case and other parts are being manufactured, but I'd guess that the movement accounts for a good portion of the production cost.
I think that the work-around for this problem is an online tax filing service like that offered by Credit Karma, which like their credit score reporting service is supported by ad revenue rather than by charging a fee for the service.
This looks like Sokol version 2.0. A bunch of hoax papers designed to demonstrate the lack of rigor in what some of the Social Science journals accept.
I'd say "Stop using C and C++ already" or "Stop using null terminated strings already", but I recognize that those are not always practical solutions.
I do have some maintainability concerns though about the promulgation of numerous competing home-brew solutions to a near trivial problem throughout a code base.
What a wonderful series of articles! It does seem very heavily geared toward film photography, and while many of the subjects -- lighting, composition, and the like -- are timeless I suspect that today's beginning to intermediate level photographers will be much more interested in digital rather than analog photography.
As far as software related patents go, yes, there are so many patents granted on trivial or obvious techniques that the system seems to benefit lawyers and patent trolls to a much greater extent than it benefits the actual inventors.
I do see a need for patents on pharmaceuticals, where the costs of gaining FDA approval is much more significant than the cost of reverse engineering a generic version of a medicine. But software? No.
I had a similar experience: I could buy a steel water bottle cage for $12, or a nearly identical model made of titanium for a savings of a few dozen grams at the cost of an extra $60 or so.
This seems like an exceptionally silly expense for a device which is designed to carry two pounds of water around!
Just as SpaceX first showed that they could launch a payload to orbit, then showed that they could do it repeatedly; just as they first showed that they could land a booster, then showed they could do so dependably; just as they showed they could reuse a booster, then showed that they could do this rapidly and reliably.
First Tesla showed that they could meet their 5000 cars per week goal, now they have to show that they can do so repeatedly. I have a hunch that they'll do it.
So, MugShots.com posts mug shots, which are a matter of public record, but will remove them for a small fee. That's extortion.
But, the government posts judicial proceedings, which are a matter of public record, but for minor crimes will expunge the record for a small fee. That's a perfectly legal government function.
These two situations seem a bit too close for such disparate legal outcomes.
Deep breathing. That's covered my the meditation recommendation, but since a lot of people won't try the whole meditation approach I wanted to call it out separately. No training is required, just breath slowly and deeply while focused on the air moving in and out.
I think that another factor may be something I recently learned about called "the Ikea effect": the idea that a part of the attraction that people have for Ikea furniture, above and beyond the low cost, is that because they're required to assemble it themselves, the owners feel that they've put something of themselves into the furniture.
I can see something like this being a part of the audiophile attraction to these types of components: that every time the owner adds a new set of magic interconnect cables, magic power cables, or whatever, they imaging that they hear an improvement. In the end, they have a lot of themselves invested in their "rig", as they call them, and so find it easy to hear virtues that aren't really there.
From what I've read, GM is less confident about their system's ability to operate under as wide a variety of situations as Tesla's does. Yes, it operates in a hands-free manner, but does so only on well mapped uninterrupted divided highways, and even then it requires the driver pay attention. It does this by way of the IR lights and camera mounted in the steering wheel, which only allow the driver to look away from the road for a few seconds at a time.
Given the bad press that Tesla gets after any Autopilot driven accident, GM seems to have made a safe choice here.
The article is a bit light on specifics, but I hope that this (or something like it) comes to pass. I'm not convinced of the security of the current batch of biometric authentication schemes, but I have some confidence that the organizations developing this standard know enough about what they're doing to avoid the obvious blunders.
I wonder why a SpaceX Falcon-9 was singled out. Wouldn't any sufficiently large rocket have the same effect? And if so, wouldn't the Falcon heavy cause an even more dramatic effect?
I sure couldn't have reacted quickly enough to have prevented this collision. I'd expect the car to have better reflexes then I do, but given the little time from when the pedestrian first showed up on camera and the time when the collision occurred, I doubt that there was anything that the car could have done, regardless of the sophistication of its software.