0
stringlengths 9
22.1k
|
|---|
Okay, the amount of nerd bashing in the news is just tiresome, regardless of whether or not someone made bad mistake.
When you piecemeal a project out, integration problems are bound to happen. This didn't directly give anyone access to any personal information. They would still need to answer 3 security questions. It's making the assumption that everyone in America has a twitter account linked to the same email they used on the site, consisting of things like "Oh, it's Tuesday, time to reminisce again about my first pet, twinkies the cat!" It's a minor flaw that has been fixed, making this some serious FUD.
The last problem that people were out for blood over was a login server crashing. Each dev met their specs supposedly, but the gov't wanted users to be logged in to view any data about pricing. This bottle-necked the site through the permissions system. That's exactly the kind of thing that happens when you split a project out and have the Government making arbitrary demands that only show up on integration. Combine this with the fact that loads were genuinely way above expectations, and why wouldn't servers topple? It's like buying a Civic and blaming Honda when it doesn't seat a dozen people comfortably. Good, scaling website design isn't trivial. Google has a lot of great engineers to be able to accomplish what they do, and their services didn't get a hundred million hits on day 1. Having all the servers in the world doesn't mean your programs can use them unless it was designed for that.
More than this specific incident, I'm just getting sick of people 'blaming nerds' whenever things don't work. If you don't understand the technology then don't lash out irrationally at people who are subject matter experts. It's like alternative medicine. When a problem comes up that the user can experience but not understand, the subject makes about as much sense as magic, so they start turning to magnets and 'all natural herbs' to cure things because they obviously know more than doctors do. They googled it on the internet, and "the google" told them ginsing cured heart problems. No sense still taking these heart pills anymore, because their side effects are unpleasant. And people who know a little html, made a blog on wordpress, and think that's the same as making a platform to serve a hundred million people without having full control over larger design decisions? That's exactly what I mean.
I'm no objectivist here, Atlus doesn't shrug, and you can't give people a free pass for this. Whether it was an integration issue or developer oversight, yes it shouldn't have happened. But it was promptly fixed and there was already a secondary form of (okay, not technically) security behind this. The people CNN is targeting with this article are people mad at a generic abstract concept that they generally don't understand. They're being told they've been victimized and threatened by some mysterious unknown, and that is scary. You know what? Technology can be downright terrifying. I can't even imagine what the elderly must go through when being pushed into a world of smartphones and CT scans. How about airplanes and pacemakers? You have to trust people you've never known to protect things critically important to you. Medicine has been fighting with this for a long time itself and there is no good answer. Society relies on the interdependence of people with specialized knowledge and skill, and the average person you meet in public makes that seem horrific. Far scarier than any Halloween costume. |
There's a lot of overhead in hiring an employee. Not to mention paperwork for termination of a worker.
By hiring a company on contract, the workforce is completely flexible to the operational demands (ideally). So that's when staffing companies step in, take over all that "HR" stuff, and take their cut from the worker rates.
Example from experience: I was working through a staffing agency, and I was being paid 14/hr. My permanent worker colleagues were making roughly 20/hr. So the company I was working for was easily pulling in 6/hr from my work...assuming they didn't mark up my rate because of their agreement.
So |
It's hard to express these ideas in short articles like this one, and she's not the best person to do it. I'm not either.
As I understand it, the problem isn't just unemployment, and its not that people are being devalued. It's in fact the opposite - that people are now valued instead of their skills or majors.
She's right that its a post-production economy now. Trillions of dollars flow in and out of the global economy through financial dealings. These financial processes, often times computerized and taking place in fractions of a second, don't produce anything. The production and accumulation of capital has become fundamentally de-linked from physical production of goods. This has led to a few minor problems.
The production of goods - which requires skills, and sometimes a major or focus of study - is no longer what is valued. Instead, your time becomes the commodity. You are paid not because you need to produce, but because you need to consume . What is needed to ensure economic liquidity in a post-production society, where wealth is created through financial automations, is a revolving cycle of debt and consumption by as large a consumer base as possible. As long as you are spending, especially on goods that don't require human labor to produce, then money can be extracted from your purchases through the global financial system.
Think about the value of a company like Facebook. It's a social network. It doesn't produce anything, other than a basic medium with which you can communicate. But it is heavily monetized because by capturing a chunk of your social life, it can successfully monetize your non-work time. It can encourage consumption, sometimes subtly (through friend recommendations) and sometimes obviously (through trashy ads), while you are doing what used to be a non-economic activity: hanging out with your friends. It's making billions of dollars and paying thousands of employees handsomely precisely because it exists outside of the traditional production economy.
Modern political organizations - governments - have relied on the stability and prosperity of global financial markets. This used to come from the increased production of natural resources, often times necessitating an educated workforce that was properly trained and adequately appeased. But now, with the global financial system increasingly reliant on automated financial processes, an educated workforce is no longer an economically necessary institution. Whether you can build a bridge or flip a burger, your government only needs you to buy an iPad and take out a mortgage.
You can see how debt is an effective method of control in this scenario, partially explaining why student loan debt has become so pervasive. How do you keep an educated workforce in jobs that no longer stimulate them, don't produce anything, and are fundamentally just 40-hour time-sucks that enable excessive consumption? You enter them into legal contracts that bind them into a certain amount of economic consumption each month, in the form of a loan repayment, thus ensuring they are forced to participate in this system. Even if they see its bullshit, and even if they want to produce something, regardless of its economic valuation, they can't. They're trapped in a cycle of consumption, paying for the time they spent gaining the skills they no longer need.
This is not some nefarious plan instituted by a World Order, and I doubt it was a conscious development. It's just a natural consequence of a free-market system that promotes eternal growth in the face of diminishing natural resources. Economic growth has to come from somewhere, and people happen to be the fastest-growing natural resource on the planet. |
were they lying about the permissions? didnt sound like it to me, and i'm pretty sure android programming doesnt even allow that.. If someone didn't read the permissions, this is a learning experience. Defending yourself against this something that comes with our connected world. Computer users know that they aren't really the millionth user, the nigerian prince is lying, and windows doesnt ask you for a credit card number to remove viruses. Not giving a flashlight access to your permission is one of those things. It's not like its the quagmire of the apple EUL. At most you only have to about 10 lines of text, and the important ones are listed at the top. |
blacklisting permission breaks apps sometimes, and can cause issues.
For example almost every game wants to know your phonestate (so it can mute/pause itself for incoming calls) but if the average user reads that as "this app is going to monitor my calls" and opts out it makes android look unstable when their game doesn't automatically pause like it should.
Android's main competitor allows developers to do pretty much what ever they want without asking the user nutin'. Android also has to keep developers interests in mind (for example linkedin's nasty contact scrapping app) |
With a $1,000 genome, you can get a person's unique DNA sequence.
With this comes about 2-3 TB or data, depending on coverage and quality.
What does it mean to me?
For about $10,000, currently, you can get 100x coverage sequence. This means that on average, every single nucleotide in your genome is covered 100x times. After this, computational biologist will align your genome.
Alignment takes a long time, depending on the coverage. Usually, a large computer cluster is used. Every single nucleotide chunk, which can be from 15-1,000 bases long, has to be aligned to the human genome. Since the human genome contains about 3 billion base pairs, and you are trying to figure out where a small 100 base pair slice fits, it can take a while. Add in mutations, SNPs, slice variants, and other factors, you have a very lengthy process.
Once you have finished sequencing, you have to view the data.
[See this picture.](
It shows the output of some RNA-Sequence data (Same as DNA sequencing, but a lot less data, as its RNA only, and more useful for protein expression.)
Under .bam coverage, it shows a scale of 0-300. This means that this particular gene, RPL28, based on the chart legend, had up to 300 fragments cover an individual nucleotide, somewhere in that gene.
Based on information like this, you can actually visualize gene mutations, splice variations, and gene expression.
Bottom line is, for example, in cancer, you an look at cancer-specific genes and see what is wrong in those genes. Knowing what specific gene mutation, or what gene-pathway is affected, can change the medicine you need. |
Candy Crusher was a totally different style of video game and CandySwipe definitely does not infringe on Candy Crusher unless you allow them to trademark just "Candy" anything.
CandySwipe was uniquely different than Candy Crusher in game and in name. There is no confusion.
King released a 100% clone copying images and sounds from CandySwipe and they called it Candy Crush.
Crush and Swipe are different, but when you look at their game is 100% a clone of CandySwipe then it shows they are purposely infringing on CandySwipe with the name "Candy" anything. They could call it "Candy Fucks" and because it is a clone of CandySwipe they would be infringing on CandySwipe.
Candy Crush then buying an unrelated trademark "Candy Crusher" does not mean they can magically steal "CandySwipe" trade mark.
It all comes down to the how smart the judge is with technology.
If these were story books then CandySwipe would win hands down, but if the judge just sees "Video Game" without knowing that just like how books are drastically different so are video games then it is possible King can win. |
Google automated, systemic email reading is very different. Take the Educational account snooping recently the subject of a lawsuit against them. The TOS say 'we wont snoop', yet they then file financial documents that disclose they are in fact tracking students to create advertising and marketing profiles.
This case is somewhat more like the Google snooping case where a specific set of individuals were fired for snooping on people's Gmail for personal reasons.
Here, MSFT read -- for official, transparent, non-personal reasons -- the email of a single individual. why? they've already said that it would be impossible to get a warrant to search yourself, that they knew this from existing precedents. they disclosed it purposefully and a matter of business.
And, they used the same TOS clause that ALSO lets goolg,e apple and yahoo do they same thing.
But. Here, we see them realize 'Hey,a system of internal warrants are necessary to keep individuals from abusing this". This will prevent the malicious type snooping as described in the second golly snooping instance. |
You can start with the Communications Act of 1934 and work your way forward. |
i'm not trying to be mean but, this has been posted before with a different source:
here are some of the comments:
I hope that doesn't link to my LONE post. |
You, me, everyone using Reddit, and the internet in general, stands to benefit.
More specifically, if you are paying to use any internet based service, (for example: streaming anything) it won't matter how fast your internet is, if the providing company isn't paying for access to the "fast lane" then you might not be able to smoothly stream the content you are paying for.
If the company you are paying for stream service(s) does pay for access to the "fast lane" then their input costs have gone up and their profits have gone down. All companies with shareholders, which are most of your major internet based companies, are responsible to "increase profits for the shareholders". In order to maintain profits the companies will have to increase revenue generation. This will be done primarily through increasing the cost of services for the end users.
Your big cable companies are pushing for this because they are losing cable subscribers to internet alternatives (such as Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu Plus, etc). It is a way for Comcast and Time Warner to increase the costs to provide services for their competitors, while encouraging people to keep paying for cable (due to the increasing costs of their competition). Cable internet after all is provided primarily by cable companies.
Making the whole situation worse is the fact that a former cable industry lobbist is head of the FCC. Is he protecting the interest of the People? Or of the companies that fattened his pockets for years? |
Also worth noting that AOL users have had, and still have some of the better "anonymity" online by default. This isn't their goal, but it is an interesting side effect. Basically when you're connected to AOL your traffic exits via their servers. I'm not saying you can't track people back, but your incoming IP will always appear to be an AOL server, not the actual client making the request.
I know this because I work with internet shit, you have to tip toe around dealing with nasty stuff originating from AOL users because if you do a blind block on an IP that is an AOL IP you essentially block every user that happens to be using that exit hop on their network that is headed to your service. |
You could stop using those companies. Stop being their product. If enough product disappears from their inventory, they cease to exist and the abuse eventually stops because no company will want the reputation of invading user or customer privacy because they won't be a company for very long if everyone leaves. |
I wouldn't be surprised to see this flop simply due to the lack of style from [Amazon's Brand]( (really...on a phone? [EW!]( It just doesn't look pretty and Amazon has never tried/had to look like that until now. [Their website]( feel isn't stylish at all. When people buy a mobile phone, style is one of the biggest factors and its existence totally relies on brand development
Apple ( with 45% of the mobile market share in 2013 do that. They've actually done quite the opposite discarding style for functionality.
According to [the article I posted above]( Samsung has 26% of the market share. Like Apple, and really all mobile phone companies, Samsung has pursued a [sleek/modern style]( Though it is not as strong as Apple's brand, they've successfully created that image while Amazon hasn't.
To top it all off, Apple iPhone and Samsung Galaxy consumers are notoriously loyal to their brands. This leaves Amazon trying to compete for 34% of the market share. As if that's not bad enough, if LG, HTC, and Motorola's combined market share of 18% is removed, Amazon is competing for 16% market share. Although, it will be respectable if they can obtain that entire 16% from smaller manufacturers, they lack the brand development and technology development experience to effectively do so. (You could argue Kindle Fire, but the tablet market and mobile phone market are very dissimilar)
Although Amazon customers are loyal to the brand and can depend on them to have everything from A→Z, they've developed strong loyalty to other companies for their phones. Unfortunately for Amazon, I don't think their consumer loyalty will transfer from experiences and well developed mobile companies to the virtual Wal-Mart of the internet. |
There was a few discussions on Reddit a few months ago that seemed to confirm that PIA was indeed actually collecting plenty of information on its subscribers and deliberately lying about it.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
I think using a non-US based VPN service is probably a safer solution because they would not be subject to law enforcement requests to capture all traffic, get a copy of any private keys, etc. For non-US VPN services, the NSA and company would most likely need to hack into the service itself and install monitoring software or turn on logging options. |
Here's the thing. People seem to eat the Netflix propaganda straight up and I understand that the situation is shitty in USA but Internet has been about exchanging data and there for more or less self regulating. Netflix does not do this, they BROADCAST and eat up all bandwidth. So bottle necks will quickly be exposed and the normal way of this is to set up peering points for free or a small fee depending on traffic flow. All other service providers do this, Netflix try to avoid it. Bandwidth is a limited resource and needs to be handled like on. Net neutrality is important and we need a more honest debate:
Let the mindless downvotes begin. |
I'm all for net neutrality, but things are not as simple as depicted in the comic.
Yes, it's true that your drivelane (the copper wire or fibre to your house, or the waves in the air) can handle much bigger bandwidths than are used/provided by the ISP. It's like having a kilometer- (or mile)-wide drivelane and you're being allowed to use only 5m of that width.
But the bigger picture is that it doesn't end at your driveway. Your city streets and your highways have to be built, repaired and maintained too for you to get you where you want to go. Increased traffic requires bigger streets and highways, more traffic lights and safety measures, more roadworkers and bigger machines, and more overhead. In internet terms, more (and faster) traffic through an ISP requires a larger, more complex and more advanced IT infrastructure, more personnel and overhead, and more investments in laying cable and 3G/4G equipment.
If more and more people start using data-heavy services, it's no surprise that the ISPs start pondering on methods to recoup their investments, and that's where I start to be on both sides, really.
I'm not commenting on the situation in a particular country or the Verizon stance, and I am not aware of the cost vs. revenue numbers for ISPs in general. YMMV. But I am not surprised that faster internet and more data is more expensive. |
EDIT :
My point is that the reason the HiveMind wants Net-Neutrality legislation is ultimately because they are resistant to the idea of people paying extra for faster speeds, mostly because in the current market mechanism created by state & local governments this could conceivably lead to the government-created & enforced monopolies abusing their market positions to price-gouge & effectively threaten termination of internet service for those who don't pay-up.
The data usage / traffic shaping / throttling analogy shows that
historically all bandwith has not been treated equally - users or businesses unable or unwilling to pay for a higher monthly data cap would have to restrict their use in line with what they paid for or pay extra once they exceeded it. I.e., in practice, their browsing speed drops to zero once their monthly data cap is exceeded.
in an un-distorted market ISPs can price-discriminate by imposing limits on the quality of service to different segments of end-user & the pressure of free competition both ensure that a perfectly acceptable minimum level of service will exist & that the quality of that minimum level of service (at the lowest price point) will increase over time.
I wouldn't quite say this is perfect:
'Net Neutrality' is NOT the way the internet has always worked all along. Until a few years ago (in the UK anyway - not sure if this applies in the US, but we don't have any Government-enforced local monopolies so have actual competition) it was standard practice for ISPs to segment their plans based on data limits. Each ISP would commonly have 2-4 plans. One very cheap with a ~2Gb monthly data limit "for people who only check email", a medium one "for people who surf the web daily but dont want to stream videos or download music" & an "unlimited" (or that plus one with a ~50Gb data limit, at different price points) "for heavy users / people who want to stream & download").
"Unlimited" plans were always subject to a 'fair usage' policy so that bittorrent speeds were throttled during peak times to avoid overburdening the network (at the time when infrastructure wasn't mature enough to handle the massive throughput, so your browsing speeds could actually be slowed down by lots of downloading) & if you consistently d/l'd more than ~100Gb per month for 2 or 3 months in a row they'd warn you to reduce your usage or they'd drop you down to one of the cheaper plans with a lower data limit.
Surprisingly, people other than grannies sending emails don't want their data usage capped or shaped - especially when they have paid £5 per month more for an "unlimited" plan.
Gamers & torrenters obviously gravitated to the ISPs which didn't impose the above limits & when data costs dropped & streaming & legal downloading was taking new market entrants started pushing their "Totally Unlimited" services which offered the fastest possible speeds with no fair usage policies or traffic shaping.
In a huge shock to the Reddit Hivemind, in a (largely) unregulated market where consumers are free to choose what companies to buy from, corporations profit by being better at meeting the needs of a given consumer segment than their competitors. So, as soon as it became evident that there was untapped demand for genuine unlimited broadband, these services became available. They were noticeably more expensive at first, but when it was clear that they were very popular more people entered the market, competition increased & price came down as speeds went up.
Now almost all UK ISPs offer plans with no data limits on them, tho some do traffic shape & are priced accordingly but this is well known - ISPs actually acknowledge bittorrent use & some market themselves specifically to people with high monthly data usage.
During all of the above, broadband through your phoneline in the UK never went higher than ~£20 per month (even when they were price discriminating with data limits).
While acknowledging the non-existent competition in the US ISP market, it ignores the fact that these monopolies are created and enforced by local, state & federal governments.
It essentially describes a problem which was created by ( TAUTOLOGY ALERT ) corrupt politicians selling favours to special interests & suggests that a solution should be designed by the same people who broke the system in the first place & that these people should maintain the status quo but layer some additional rules & regulations on top of the existing set of monopolies & kickbacks. |
Isn't the root of these problems corrupted regulations? It was the state and municipal governments that made the deals which allowed these monopolies-by-area. Maybe just trash those regulations and strictly limit the FCC's power. Let smaller companies compete to bring better service to the big and small towns, including rural areas. OR let municipalities build their own networks to serve their needs. |
You also have no idea whats been gained, and more importantly at what costs. You can assume in either the positive or negative direction, ut either way its an assumption. So until they do release more results all we know is that there is no proof that has any real significant benefit. And since we know the NSA is smart they should already be aware of that.
So this begs the question why don't they release more results?
If they're so effective there should be more no name terrorists arrested and tried shown on the news to garner support for the NSA.
But there isn't, and historically when the government hides information, its involved with legally controversial actions that are probably very illegal with little to no logical justification. Look at the CIA activities since WW2 for more proof. |
I guess you didn't notice I said nothing about unenlightened or disliking it
I am excited to see people disliking something for irrational reasons, because if everyone was only excited about a new technology without thinking or understanding it's pitfalls and/or abuses, we would never be able to anticipate and correct it's problems before they become a problem
the technology of distributed and trust-less transaction ledgers resistant to outside influence by individuals or a group of individuals is an astounding example of actually thinking about problem(s) and realistically trying to find a solution, and that is just scratching the surface of the technology
but just like people irrationally hated the horseless carriage, there will forever and always be people who choose to be irrational rather than educate themselves when it comes to any new technology, I can only hope you choose to be educated and do the simple of thing of ignoring bitcoin as you only see it, and learn about the technology |
Does that give him the chance to go outside, take a piss, eat something and then get back on the stand? Always wondered how that works with filibusters.
senate rules have lots of quirks etc but |
You need to understand why you are voting in the first place. If your vote is about how best a candidate will serve you exclusively (your race, sex, religion, profession, etc...etc..), than you are not voting for what is best for the country, but what gets you the most privilege in a shared society.
To put it more succinctly, a comparison can be helpful;
Democrat
Favors gay marriage, and pushes to get it accepted on a federal level.
8 years later (this seems to be the norm), a Republican comes in and introduces new legislation that overturns the former, now making all homosexual marriages null and void. This causes a divide in the country, as now all states are forced to adhere to a single party view.
Republican
Does not favor gay marriage, and pushes to get it banned on a federal level (bare in mind no Republicans are currently proposing this).
8 years later (this seems to be the norm), a Democrat comes in and introduces new legislation that overturns the former, now making all homosexual marriage legal. This causes a divide in the country, as now all states are forced to adhere to a single party view.
Libertarian
Favors gay marriage (or does not, it doesn't matter), but leaves the decision at the state level. Libertarian is replaced, and a fundamentalist Republican comes in (at a state level) and introduces new legislation to overrule what his state has already passed. This only alienates a segment of the populous of a single state, which on the state level, would be dumb, since it could cost enough votes to kill any election chances.
In the first two examples, you are still left with allowing a federal government (nation-wide) to dictate what a homosexual couple can do, versus the last option which would leave many states still allowing what others may have banned. Given how fickle we as a people are, I would rather it be up to the states, but that is just me. |
I don't understand why you linked Bernie Sanders voting record.
Because for the left-leaning on /r/eddit, he is being heralded as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
> Especially those 3, two aren't even relevant.
All 3 give expanded power to the federal government in regards to domestic surveillance or control of the populous.
> Moreover, Bernie is running in the democratic primary and Paul in the Republican. How can you say this isn't a party lines issue because of Bernie Sanders?!
See answer #1.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but most Republicans are the ones who are voting for surveillance. So by going against that, then it is a party lines issue. Regardless of what the Democrats or Bernie Sanders are voting for.
> Congress enacted the Patriot Act by overwhelming, bipartisan margins, arming law enforcement with new tools to detect and prevent terrorism: The USA Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House, with the support of members from across the political spectrum. |
You're right the framers did design the Senate.. but the senate was only a part of the overall design of the whole federal government. I'm afraid we removed almost all of the checks on the senate when the 17th amendment was passed.
House directly represents the people, Senate directly represents the state governments (elected by the people of each state) but accountable to the governor of each state giving the policy makers of the state input into the federal process (removed by 17th amendment), executive branch to administer the policies that come out of the bicameral process, and a court to ensure that it was all done by the letter of the law which governs the government (the constitution)
We've basically now got 2 house of representatives only one serves for 4 years so as to be more accountable to their districts voters, and the other for 6 years and really accountable to no one as long as they can pander to enough people. |
Rand Paul is a libertarian, well sort of.
As such while he wants to get rid of the patriot act, he also wants to get rid of a lot of things that aren't the patriot act. The fact that you or I agree with him on this particular issue doesn't mean we'd agree with him on other issues. |
Aren't a large number of Android phones locked such that a user can't update to the newest Android OS release.
They are not locked to the release. The manufacturer simply has not updated the Android that works on that phone.
Analogy:
Think of it as if Dell does not release Windows 7 drivers for that laptop. Sure, you may want to upgrade your laptop, but the drivers are just not there. It does not matter that the new Windows is out, you can not use it. (Well, that and Dell does not make it easy for you to try to install your own version of Windows, because they do not want complaints from all the idiots who will try this anyway.) |
I'm not disagreeing with Billy Boy here, but it's important to remember that when we're talking about generating energy from renewable sources, having a high efficiency is no big deal. With fossil fuels, we are happy to have increased efficiency at the cost of a more sophisticated system because we pay for our fuel. For renewables, we only pay CAPEX plus maintenance.
So if R&D was only looking into sophisticated systems with increased efficiency, it wouldn't help us at all compared to boring, cheapo renewable energy systems. If you knock up a crappy solar thermal system made out of recovered materials and it works with 1% efficiency, it might be far superior in $/kW than the fancy system with a 20% efficiency.
I'm sure Bill has taken this into account in what he's talking about, but it's something that people don't often grasp on Reddit.
Further, efficiency improvements in current energy consumption are not the be-all and end-all. If my air conditioner were more efficient, I could afford to run it longer! And even if you increased efficiency to its exact thermodynamic limit, you wouldn't improve things by a massive amount except in transportation.
(yes I'm aware that I'm banging on about efficiency and not really addressing the article directly, but it's an interesting side-point) |
Lol, so i present you with legal arguments and actual facts, and you return insults to prove you are right. Put that hat back on buddy, you are flat out wrong on both elections. I don't like it, I don't like him, but thats how our system works, and if you don't like it, change the system, don't cry like a child because you didn't get your way.
My guess however is, that you didn't vote in either, because cynics don't tend to contribute, just bitch, moan, and attack those who do. Put that tinfoil hat back on.
Edit here read.
Or |
A nationwide fiber to the home network is being built with government assistance in Australia, but is more and more being portrayed as a waste of money and will be scrapped when the current opposition regain government, which is an absolute certainty (put a billion on it).
The opponents argue that "how can you guarantee that fiber is the best technology, maybe something will be over the horizon that makes fiber obsolete, like next gen wireless" and "what will ordinary people want with all that bandwidth to do email and twitter" and "government shouldn't build infrastructure, private sector is best to do that." |
Here , and how many of those they complied with (likely because they were legally required to -- as a company, they have to follow the law in countries in which they do business).
There's also statistics on takedown requests, but it's semi-unrelated to your question. |
G+ is a place for me to be unmistakably me. In contrast, I'd never use reddit with my real name. They are different environments for different types of interactions.
Anonymous speech is important, but it isn't always appropriate. There need to be places where everyone is who they say they are and places where you can be anyone you want to be. I'm not interested in connecting with someone by their stage name on G+. I would on twitter or a blog.
G+ lets you hide everything but your name from the web. If all the web knows is that your name exists, where's the harm? It lets you carefully segment information to different groups. If all my boss knows is my work related posts, why does it matter if my real name is tied to my bar hopping/religious ceremony photos? |
i've always wondered what would happen if the reddit community elected a few people who gave forth all their personal info and showed true courage and humility so we could investigate and assure ourselves these chosen people are not corruptable. they are beyond corruption, they really do want to help us with our main goals. ie. "FIA" we then have them setup political parties and bank accounts, and begin using these chosen people as lobbyists on capitol hill. just like other companies do. except they'd push for what WE want. i'm pretty sure i can honestly and confidently say that for the most part, the people on reddit have a clear concious and mind when it comes to politics and internet usage and freedom of rights. we may disagree on finer points and details, but we all want to be free citizens whether on the internet or on the streets. would anyone step forth and allow us to judge them and research them and verify them and then they would promise to uphold our ideals and do what is right for the reddit community and then for the rest of the world. currently we're all talking alot and doing actions that only our generation feels comfortable with. protests in the streets and online. how about we dress some of our reps up in suits and goto capitol hill with pockets full of cash? |
If an artist agrees to the terms of uploading content, a contract is formed. It's been a while since law school for me, but I would think that maliciously and fraudulently interfering with performance of the contract here would be provable, as might be the more general tortious business interference. As for the contract claim, the individual artists might be able to creatively calculate damages, and the web host would easily be able to, when considering all of the artists this happens to in the aggregate. |
The only disadvantage here is that there are a lot of features being taken away here. For example, in Windows Live Mesh, you could sync two pcs without syncing to the cloud and there were no limits to how big the files could be or the overall storage space.
With the new SkyDrive app you can't do that, you need to upload it to Skydrive first. Also Mesh allowed you to not only browse files onto your system but it had a Remote Desktop Client built into it, this is also taken away with the new Skydrive app.
The biggest problem/change that SkyDrive made however is the fact that in order to sync everything to Skydrive, one has to go to the Skydrive folder. While this seems to be a no brainer at first, it creates a lot of problems for others. In Mesh, I could tell it to sync everything in My Picutres folder and every time I added more pictures, it would automatically sync them to the cloud. When one of my clients wanted a free way to backup her photos, all I had to do was tell Mesh to sync all of her photos in a certain folder and she didn't have to change the way she worked, she just continued to save her pictures in her My Pictures folder. The point is, this new implementation of SkyDrive will force her to change the way she normally works whereas Mesh did not. |
There is a campaign against this going on right now but unfortunately Ireland is a small country and we just cant seem to get the large numbers to raise awareness on a global level about this kind of ignorant law making. This was not properly debated in government and Sean Sherlock has ignored the people. Even going so far as to quoted as saying 'Call off the dogs' in reference to peoples opposition. A petition got 80,0000 votes in about two months in the run up to this being signed. That may not sound like much but Ireland only has a population of around 4.5million people and 80,000 is four times more signatures than the amount of votes that got Sean Sherlock into office. You can see the kind of bile directed at this man on his personal facebook page.
We are trying to get #resignseansherlock trending on Irish twitter but we just don't seem to have the pull needed to make that happen. Any help fellow redditors can provide would be appreciated. |
This really needs clarification.
Ireland did not just sign SOPA into law. The minister signed new legislation to bring Irish copyright law in line with the EU's. This legislation has been implemented in almost every other EU country, and no detrimental effects appear to have come as a result. |
Prior to 2003, managers who exercised only professional supervision of others (e.g. IT managers) were not considered supervisors. Subsequent to a Supreme Court decision, any person who basically has any managerial power is considered a supervisor. A supervisor is anyone who has power to hire, fire, reward, or punish other employees or anyone who has the power to effectively recommend such an action as long as any of these actions require independent judgment. Supervisors are not eligible to form or join unions. |
The name is well known and an obvious attempt to take advantage well known Hasbro name brand via free advertising.
That's not how trademark law works. You're allowed to have a name that's similar to another company's provided it is unlikely that the original trademark holder would lose business to the similarly named product due to the consumer confusing the two. In this case, no one is going to forgo buying an Optimus Prime figurine because a tablet with a similar name seemed like a better toy.
That's why the article says Hasbro is unable to provide any evidence of damage. For trademark infringement, there has to be evidence of damage in order to prove that consumers were confused by the similar naming of similar products. In this case, the name is very similar but the products are radically dissimilar, so there cannot be trademark infringement.
Regarding licensing of the work "Transformer," it wouldn't be strictly necessary due to Asus's advertising for the tablets having nothing to do with the Transformer IP. Furthermore, if Hasbro tries to make that argument now, years after the original Transformer tablet came out, a judge will rule against them because Hasbro did not sue before now. Hasbro gave implicit permission to use the Transformer name by not pursuing the matter. It's a pernicious requirement in intellectual property law that you must defend your IP in all cases or else you're assumed to have given permission. |
This is the dumbest thing I've seen on reddit today. Gold star. The fact that you have so many upvotes is very disturbing. Guess philosophy class let out early today.
Since your view seems to be popular allow me to explain to you kids what the problem here is.
>Governments represent their people and people should feel the repercussions of their governments' actions.
The govt does not represent their people. That's the common idea but it's not the reality. A great number of Americans did not want The War On Terror and it happened anyhow. Does anyone remember voting Yes or No for the WoTerror? Part of the govt was voted into power by some people, but nothing close to the majority of the population in many many cases. Politicians say what they want, get elected, then do whatever they want. Sometimes they are recalled but this is very rare.
The people are not in control of what "the government" does. This alone should negate the entire idea that "should feel the repercussions of their governments' actions".
>The idea that your government exists in a realm outside of your reach is dangerous, and is becoming all too common.
It's called reality. The govt DOES exists outside of your reach. If it was inside your reach the govt would be changing everytime the wind blows. The only time the govt is inside your reach is when there is an election. The other 364 days of the year the govt is very much outside your reach. You can write them, call them, hold a protest - etc, but don't expect much. |
Uhm
I worked as a mechanic/technician at NASA for 4 years. There are already stationary versions of this tool in existence. There's a reason why the machines I use every day don't move like the one in the video clip - they don't have to. You make a single bend, take the pipe out of the machine, reposition the pipe, then bend it again.
You don't need some crazy mechanical arm flipping people off as it does the job for you. |
I'm going to take this opportunity to start declaring that fully free markets are a terrible idea.
With or without monopolies businesses always find ways to make sure that they screw over the customers in ways not predicted in your Econ 101 course.
Sometimes they will offer choices that are beyond the customer's comprehension, so that the customer is unable to choose which product is best for him. This breaks "free market 101" assumptions and removes incentives to create a better product at fair prices.
Sometimes they use advertising to make the customer believe that the product is something more than what it is. This againg breaks "free market 101" assumptions and removes incentives to create a better product at fair prices.
There are multiple forms of collusions, that are difficult to detect and recognize that reduces competitive forces. These forms of collusions break "free market 101" assumption and remove incentives to create better products at fair prices.
And I'm sure that after spending hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars on the problem, businesses have found other ways to break "free market 101" principles in their favor.
And that is why we need entities that answer to the people to enact regulations to prevent businesses that successfully corrupt free market 101 principles from getting carried away.
Telecoms, have always somehow been able to break free market principles and operate in some form of oligopoly. Which is why we need to protect consumers from Telecoms on those issues that are critical to people. Fair access to the internet is one of those critical issues.
I support regulated free markets. What I mean by that is markets that are free in that they allow any new idea to be produced without government approval, but that is completely free and able to forbid any idea that are bad for consumers (such as forbidding charging differently for the same internet access (same speed, same quanty) based on the application that are used. |
Unless business systems start looking after themselves, tech support isn't going anywhere. If anything, all these so called skilled computer workers are going to generate a renaissance in support in environments where their fuck ups cannot be tolerated. Think highly locked down systems to protect the business from the employee's unauthorised usage.
When I worked in support it was very simple: people who needed freedom and were able to be trusted with it got it, and those that couldn't be trusted got locked down (and threatened with the sack. Part of the employment contract was a clause against misuse of systems. I cannot recommend that highly enough). |
The difference between Apple and Nokia is that for things like say, the speed at which Siri works, being sped up in the commercial is because they don't have the time to fully explain the story of a user's interaction with the service. Which, really Siri doesn't usually even take that long.
Where Nokia went wrong was to grossly exaggerate the quality of their camera so that the average watcher would think they could go out and film their very own day on the town in full HD that is smooth, despite the camera being shaken.
Also, considering the fact that most Apple commercials come with a warning on the bottom that say something to the effect of these speeds have been sped up, Apple's commercials really don't strike me as being misleading. |
You really are better off with separate devices, this type of tablet will be 'meh' at dealing with both productivity and entertainment needs.
I've gone through a Samsung Series 7 Slate with Windows 8/7 dual booting and my old LE1600 doing the same (ancient 2005 tablet PC), and can verify that Windows 8 style tablets are not particularly amazing as productivity tools (you'll find yourself docking it, pairing the keyboard, and thinking "Why the fuck don't I just have an ultrabook?"). As for entertainment, let's just say there is nothing currently in existence optimized for touchscreens that a mobile processor can't handle with more battery life efficiency. You can pump out maybe 3 hours of Netflix on these, while the Windows 8 RT tablets will probably double that time.
I'm not saying it's bad, but you won't be able to use it to excel at efficient content production, and you certainly won't be able to get better performance on things that currently exist with touchscreen optimization. Also, for you pressure-sensitivity-addicted artists out there, don't do it. I came, I saw, and I realized what an epic pain in the ass drawing on a tablet with multitouch instead of buttons can be. Go find a used LE1700 if you want to digitally draw on-the-go, and enjoy those buttons! The thing sells for like $300 now, it's more than powerful enough to handle drawing programs+pressure levels in Photoshop or Paint Tool SAI. |
I would strongly disagree with that. These people would not move such a huge factory to a country simply for being an English speaking nation. Plus, Irelannd's educated workforce is not educated in Tech. The "brain drain" in Ireland is how we refer to the fact that students came out of University with useless degrees. Or at lest degrees of no use in this country. A small minority of these were educated in tech. Also, people who work in these factories are trained in and require simple manual handling experience.
Also, as they ship the processors to factories in China and similar countries, I fail to see how it helps being among other tech giants. |
That story again?
>This guy[1] was months AHEAD on his payments They goofed, charged him fees totaling over $13,000, then foreclosed.
No, the bank received an incorrect document from First American Real Estate (a title company) regarding property taxes and adjusted their system accordingly. The error was never caught until 2010. During that entire time, Delassus (the victim) never made a payment on his mortgage . Now, some banks will tell you not to pay as they can't recoup cost later, which is fine. But any real estate lawyer (Delassus's lawyer was not a real estate lawyer) would tell you to set up a new account and place your normal payments into that account. This is specifically for the next portion of the story...
> This isn't true, he tried to pay but they refused to take any amount below the full $13,000
This is the only "scummy" part of this story (though it is 100% legal). The bank would not accept his payments because he was too far behind (as in he stopped paying his mortgage). Banks will usually work with you to reinstate your property if you can meet them in the middle (hence why any real estate lawyer worth their salt will tell you to save up back mortgage payments). Had Delassus done that, we wouldn't be talking about this.
>Why was he even in court when his lawyer could handle it? Wells Fargo tried to declare him incompetent. He had to show up to prove he wasn't.
100% bullshit. Directly quoted from the LA Weekly article:
>The night before, L.A. County Superior Court Judge Laura Ellison had indicated that she intended to side with Wells Fargo in a summary judgment. (emphasis mine)
That means that there is no legal requirement for him to be there. Summary judgments can be handed down with only attorneys present as this is not a criminal case and as such there is no legal* right for the defendant to face the accuser. So why did someone who, according to friends, was "very sick, and his speech was slurred — his illness, acting up." (note: the article glosses over an apparent guardian hearing though I'm not really sure how that relates to this case.)
The only reason this is even a news story is because the guy died from the disease he had for years ([Budd-Chiari Disease]( Although hindsight is 20/20, he should have hired a real estate attorney out of the gate, Wells Fargo should have worked with him to settle at a far better number than they did, and he should have never been in court that day. |
I think Window's biggest failure is in it's success. I remember the big rush to get Win95 and I think it was because Win 3.1 was terrible. Win 7 is...pretty good. Vista had troubles because XP was pretty good, and there were a few features that were confusing to people who didn't know what they were for ("I told you to launch the program! Why are you asking me if I want to launch the program?"). I have a roommate that works at MS and we've been buddies for a decade and a half now. I've had every version of Windows in the first week after launch for cheap. I'm not getting Win8 because I am happy with Win7 and feel no need to upgrade. |
Grammatically , it would seem that the first subject -- the O.R. co-founder -- was the one who was "trying to escape the police."
Maybe I read it without using "common sense." I read the title objectively, i.e. without bias toward the gang or giving the benefit of the doubt to the O.R. co-founder.
The title led me to guess that the O.R. guy was somehow trying to evade the police, and perhaps in an act of altruism and/or vigilantism, some gang members swiped him off the road during the pursuit.
What if it read: "Gang member killed by O.R. co-founder trying to escape the police" ? It would seem that the gang member would be the one trying to escape the police, wouldn't it? But that would conflict with your reading of the actual title, since it'd flip the police-evading subjects around.
Even "Gang member kills O.R. co-founder trying to escape the police" seems like the gang member would be the one doing the police-escaping, killing the O.R. guy in the process. |
Actually it's not. It has been a cause for profound bewilderment on my part how oblivious the united states on many societal levels are about the fact that they are NOT in fact actually the center of the world.
To have elected officials say (into news cameras no less) that "you don't need to worry we just spy on the REST OF THE WORLD" while apparently thinking that nobody else follows this shit-storm, or EVERYONE together will just take it in stride because... you know, America... is ... baffling.
Somehow they ignored having to pressure "allies" into joining the second Iraq fight economically, because quite frankly most of them wouldn't have joined in otherwise.
While looking like idiots to the world stage in cases like the "disability resolution" that was modeled after your existing laws as to not hurt your sensitive egos, just to not ratify it because your loons thought it was some kind of "new world order - nobody is going to tell us what we don't even need to change" BS.
Until now 90% of other countries could always join you because "well you aren't up against us, what do we care about "those"".
Now you basically said "yes, we are basically exploiting EVERYONE, and we don't care about what you think about it". |
It's sensationalist BS, most countries haven't set up their own internet backbone because its EXTREMELY expensive to install and maintain. Also the idea that other countries will create Facebook/Google clones is funny. China and Russia have ones because guess what? They speak a different language! It's a little hard to gain a majority market share in a country that doesn't want a foreign company having such potential influence and also trying to adjust to a different culture, laws and language.
Also it's not a coincidence that all the big tech companies are in the US. We invest heavily in tech, have some of the best Universities in the world and unlike China/Russia have few barriers for start ups. |
Yes. Don't believe a word of the U.S. Government. But believe the word of other governments.
Newsflash. Every single country in the world spies, and cooperates with each other. They will never admit it. Just as the U.S. Government will ever admit to its secret programs.
Propaganda article full of half truths.
> It may be hard for Americans to wrap their minds around this
Hate yourself americans. You are simple and "asleep" typical conspiracy rhetoric.
>You are living in that reality. The citizens of other nations are not. Their constitutions declare and affirm human rights that are specific to the 21st century issues.
So. America your constitution is insufficient. While other countries are good and just.
>Americans have have little expectation of general human rights
Americans do not care for the rights of others. You are selfish. Hate yourself.
> US has illegally breached their sovereign laws to spy on their citizens and businesses.
No other country spies. Only the villainous Americans.
>The United States can no longer be trusted, never, ever again.
Your government. The people in it. And the process is evil and corrupt.
>Potentially, that means every single soul on earth who uses electronic communication is being tracked.
Fear mongering. The all seeing eye of the Evil NSA is watching your emails and facebooks.
>they are well aware that their citizens have been caught in the illegal NSA dragnet.
NSA is the enemy. Not your domestic intelligence services. We are the good guys.
>This is a completely unacceptable act by the US -- just as it would be if the world's Internet backbone was located in Russia and Moscow was mining the rich personal data of every American citizen.
Who says they are not? Other foreign countries would dream of doing this to the world. You see Americans, your country is evil.
>The United States has inadvertently declared itself to be a rogue, predatory Police State.
...Speaks for itself
>European capitals demanded immediate answers from their US counterparts and denounced the practice of secretly gathering digital information on Europeans
How dare you America, thats our job!
>There were heated and outraged discussions at the G-8 summit in Ireland. Eric Holder was flown to Brussels for questioning by the European Union. When Holder left, they were even more outraged.
Feel the passion! The emotional fire of our anger towards you!
>the American Bubble has no awareness or perspective of how Edward Snowden's whistleblowing has affected the entire world and the future of its digital communications infrastructure
Americans are sheltered. You are incapable of feeling what we feel. We piety you.
> Americans think it is all about them -- but the fact is, the global community doesn't care how the US treats its own citizens.
Americans you are selfish. You care about nothing but yourselves.
>This is completely immaterial to the sovereign security crisis the world is actually facing as a result of Snowden's revelations
Our enlightened prophet!
>The administration hopes that the American public will be easily distracted
Poor Americans. You can't think for yourselves. Your government hates you.
>Personally, I don't believe that any elected figure at the Federal Government has the will or the authority to stop the NSA, even if that was a desired goal.
The NSA is completely rogue!!!!! They are the SS. The KGB!! They will murder you in your sleep. And your politicians are powerless against their wrath!
>If you are inside the US, it really doesn't matter.
You are small. Powerless.
>Internet traffic to the United States from Asia, Africa and even Latin America has been in decline
You see that Americans. Your country is doomed. Your government has failed you. And the world is abandoning you.
>That is, to quarantine this Orwellian infection to North America.
You and your people are an infection. A plague.
>That's what the world is talking about today.
Because no one hates you more than all of us. Too bad you are not in our country. Have fun with the one government in the world that spies on you. |
You need to declare yourself sovereign or leave the country then, unless you are ok with being ruled without consent. The authority isn't forcing you to live under it, so your inaction is essentially consenting to its authority. But with that consent you earn the right to take part in the process of building the government, in theory. |
why is this in technology?
anywho, I really think that in all, this has blown up in the faces off the people we trusted. It's funny Obama showed great remorse and supported the whole "Don't trend on our internet activities". He veto'ed the whole NSA Surveillance like bills (CISPA,SOPA, etc.) and won the internet's hearts.
Then this comes to surface and look at him. He's proven that he just as guilty and created the watergate of our generation. Our nation had developed a strong appearance as a defendant for it's people's rights. Once again two faced us and double crossed us.
We try to abolish dictatorship and in turns under our hood we are running on a dictatorship that pretty much proves our privacy isn't so private. They spied on all of us thinking we we're terrorist.
The U.S. used the word terrorist as an excuse as to why they probe. They indicate that with this NSA top secret shit, that they prevented 50 terrorist attacks. Have they shown us this proof? If they had please someone link me.
On one point: The U.S. says their against piracy and try to prevail over those who pirate things. If they've been using this illegal wire tap, are they watching all this illegal piracy going on and not doing something because they are illegally viewing this.
It's comes to light, that maybe there is no hope. No matter what this has turned into a censorship that has been developing all this time. We live in a country that our current debt is: $16,747,119,860,843.95~ and is increasing by the day.
Is this the reason why were at what we are currently in the economy? Has this secret operation put a burden on us and 16.7 trillion dollars worth the coverage for the supposed 50 terrorist activities that they prevented?
Why is our government sitting in their high table and defending them selves? Why is Obaman waking up on Air Force one/ in the white house in his footy pajamas drinking his coffee and acknowledging this probe as a justifiable action that is ugly mess?
Do I need to look for a job in another country across the pound in hopes to get a better hope in my privacy? I'm sitting her in America in debt, paying for a cellphone service that is being moderated along with my current rant on Reddit.
Like what the fuck? This land of the free bull shit has pretty much turned into the land of the shackles, we own you for ever.
/rant |
Nothing's happened yet and the drive reports as perfectly fine, all of those SSD-health check programs state that my drive'll probably last until 2017 at this rate.
This is only relevant to flash wearing due to writes. It doesn't say anything about any other internal components failing.
> Most of the complaints about SSDs came from the same people I knew who blew through a new hard drive once a year. They typically had their computers going through like, two extension cords or on an ancient power bar that wasn't designed to handle anything like a power outage or surge.
I had an OCZ Vertex 2 fail me in three months, and I had it running in an active PFC, underloaded, high-quality PSU (Corsair VX550) running behind a surge protector. It most likely failed due to OCZ widely known poor quality control. So not every SSD complaint is due to incompetence: it still isn't a completely mature technology, and not every manufacturer is as diligent in their QA as they should be. Sandforce controllers had severe bugs at launch, for instance.
> If SSDs have a problem, then it's something that will be overcome in the next couple years.
This is a naive generalization. Some of the problems are solved with more experience in development, others not so easily like flash cycles dropping with every node shrink. Each widespread issue should be examined individually instead.
> You never saw people getting bent out of shape that their floppies couldn't handle magnets, or how harddrives used to shit themselves if moved while turned on.
Those are actually not really comparable cases. Placing magnets near a floppy is something that will rarely happen, and can easily be avoidable. Moving an HDD was actually something crucial to the existence of mobile computers and (the now extinct) mobile high-capacity media players, so much that it was actually tackled and solved by HDD manufacturers. So technically somebody did 'flip their shit' about it, the manufacturers themselves.
> |
I don't get the interest in BitTorrent sync who would use this garbage? Just set up a linux server with full disk encryption, open SSH through your firewall, and then use Folder Sync for android to SCP sync your phone. There are hundreds of OSS applications for Windows/Mac that can sync those devices as well. I've done this for 6 years, not a single issue. Each device has it's own SSH key so if one is lost I can just drop the key and the device is locked out.
EDIT: Trolls gonna troll, I get downvoted for posting the best advice in this thread. |
As harsh as the game itself is, I've found the playerbase to be one of the most welcoming. It's kind of like a cocaine addiction. Everyone who does coke loves when other people do coke. Makes them feel better about doing coke. |
No! You do not buy GTX 770/780s or Radeon R9-290/290Xs to do Solidworks and AutoCAD! If it's a serious engineering build, it's Quadro or FirePro - the cards that actually have certification from the companies that write those programs. Xeons also enjoy a dominant market share, while they are a rarity in gaming rigs. No engineering department I've seen has run overclocked CPUs and GTX graphics. College students do, but they game in the evening more than they do CAD during the day. Maybe gaming cards work fine 90% of the time, but when the software costs as much as a gaming rig per year, you pay the extra to do it the right way.
The Titan's double compute blurs the line, as does AMD's GPGPU power in certain applications, but generally it's not hard to tell a working build and a gaming build apart (before the lights and crazy cases even). My build and the Optiplex I had at the last place I worked bear no relation.
One is an i7-4770k (on a waterblock) /GTX 760 and the other is a E6850 (Aluminum sink & fan) /Quadro 2000D. |
No that is incorrect.
Network such as ATT and Verizon runs 700mhz - 850 mhz - 1700/2100 mhz - 1900mhz networks (those two practically have all of the 850 spectrum) for the past 20+ years whereas Sprint and T-mobile never ran any sub 1ghz spectrum. Cellular 850 and the like (700/800mhz) have far superior building penetration and propagation characteristics compared to higher frequencies such as AWS / PCS meaning better indoor coverage and fringe coverage in the rural areas.
Sprint is currently running this:
PCS 1900 for EVDO 3G / 1xRTT - 1xAdvance
PCS 1900 B25 G block for 5 mhz FDD-LTE
-eSMR 800 BC10 1xAdvance voice/slow data (begin deployment 2012)
-eSMR 800 FDD-LTE (comparable to Verizon and ATT B12/B17 700/750mhz LTE) [began deployment dec 2013]
-BRS-EBS 2500/2600 Band 41 TDD-LTE
Tmobile runs
GSM 1900
WCDMA (aka HSPA+21/DC-HSPA+42) PCS 1800
WCDMA (HSPA+21/DC-HSPA+41) AWS 1700/2100
AWS 1700/2100 Band 4 FDD-LTE
Not to mention Tmobile sites seem to be broadcasting at less than full power which makes indoor coverage suck compared to other networks which run at full power.
How the network was actually deployed also matters so YMMV thanks to that as well. |
This isn't completely accurate. It depends on your perspective on the major carriers. Yes, Verizon has a larger and more ubiquitous footprint, but since AT&T was later to the game for LTE they are using newer technology like RRU's that provide a more powerful service. Also while Verizon focused on the larger coverage early on to provide the broadest coverage, AT&T built a much denser network that provides a better quality service in the markets they already have a large presence in and are growing out from there. |
I was living in Florida years ago when they had like 3 hurricanes that came up the west coast one right after the other. I'm assuming a bunch of Sprint towers were damaged, because after the storms were over, I could only get service in about a 3-square-foot spot at the end of my driveway. Anywhere else in town, it didn't work. I went to the Sprint office and tried to cancel my service, and they wanted to charge me a $175 cancellation fee. I didn't have $175, so I just had to pay my bill every month and got no service. Then after my contract was up (6 months later) I cancelled my service and they sent me a bill for a reconnect fee. I called them to find out what they were reconnecting, and they couldn't tell me, but wouldn't remove the fee. I never paid it. It's probably still there, in a dark and dusty corner of my credit history. |
Yeah... I had TMobile for 6 years and I just switched to AT&T because I didn't get a signal at all in my apartment... which is in Midtown OR at work which is downtown. I dealt with the bad cell service for so long because they had great CUSTOMER service and were always willing to adjust your plan, but about 6 months before they got rid of contracts they changed the policy so that if you changed your plan, you were agreeing to a new 2 year contract... They lost me over that. I got stuck paying $120/month for a plan I didn't need for the last 6 months I was there. |
As loooong time loyal fan and customer of T-mobile I had to cancel my contract with them earlier this year because I moved to Asia. They assured me that since I'd been with them so long (7 years) that it would be no problem waiving my early termination fees. All I had to do was show proof that I'm infact living in Asia. I followed all of their instructions for submitting the required documents. Unfortunately, they denied all three different types of documents that clearly indicated my new residence. I sent photos of my new ID and two different utility bills. In the end I was charged fot early termination and a months service fee (where there was no cellular activity). I stayed with
t-mobile for so long because they had always provided exceptional customer service. It's sad to see that they will now gladly pay off other companies fees, but can't even take care of their own long standing customers. |
T-Mobile does so have contracts, they're just not a contract in the traditional sense. They have what could be described as a device balance and that's what Verizon and ATT could pay off to combat T-Mobile.
You get a phone at a reduce or zero dollar rate and agree to pay an additional amount every month. If you cancel service you pay the remaining balance based off the months remaining of the 2 years.
That's a contract. They're not calling it one, but it's a contract. You're signing (either on paper in store, verbally over the phone, or with the click of a button online) an agreement with the company and if you break the terms of the agreement you pay out.
The only difference is that T-Mobile took most of the cost of subsidizing their devices out of their plans and give benefits to those that have their own device.
T-Mobile made a smart move though. They decided to present the information of their contract in a way that makes sense to just about everyone. They clearly break down the cost of the device over 24 months and make the math simple.
Don't get me wrong, I think T-Mobile is the smartest of all the US carriers in terms of both business sense and consumer appeal. However, if you think they don't have contracts then you're kidding yourself. They're option and fair contracts, but it's still a contract. |
I switched from AT&T in April. Paid $600 in ETFs. I'm now paying $125 for 5 lines with 250% more data and minutes vs. the about $138 for 2 lines. Family pays me $25/ea for the 3 extra lines of service - so I'm saving almost $90/mo. Beats the hell out of waiting 18 months for my contract to be up. Not to mention the $ family is saving for consolidating. |
Ex verizon employee here. T Mobile tried to pull this stunt way back in the day and it was awesome because all the people who switched over, realized they had the absolute worst coverage and then switched back almost immediately. I got triple my activation quota. My commission checks were thru the roof. |
I currently have T-mobile and since I have been with pretty much every carrier (most recently, Verizon) I feel somewhat qualified to say in terms of coverage, there are weak points and soft points in every network. T-mobile doesn't seem any worse than any other network and seems considerably better than Sprint to me.
Having said all that, I love the idea of transparency and if you're flush enough, you can buy a new phone outright and pay peanuts on your plan. If you don't have two nickels to rub together, like myself, you are stuck with a crappy handset that was on it's way out when you first subscribed 2 years ago and is now struggling altogether until you can afford to cough up the down payment on a new handset or buy it outright. So then, you come up with $350 for a nice new phone and bring it home and show your wife and rather than rejoicing and basking in the new baby Samsung/Apple's wondrous glory with you, she instead gives you a look that after years of matrimonial bliss, you instantly recognize as "I see you bought yourself a brand spanking new phone while I am still using the same phone that has had a cracked screen for the last 2 years. Prepare to be murdered."
Anyway, |
The thing is though, everyone knows how volatile it is. There isn't a single person that goes into bitcoin without at least knowing that the whole point of bitcoin is to jump in low and jump out high. Volatile markets can be lucrative, but I'd never depend on them for long term investments, and if I did, I'd at least know what I was getting myself into, and not calling a goddamn suicide hotline if I got fucked by some price drop. |
I can use a good example of mobile companies here in Alberta.
We have Rogers wireless, Bell mobility, and Telus Mobility as the three main companies. There are a few pre-paid services as well (though most owned are own by the 3 above). The companies offer the exact same price plans, at the exact same rates. They have a few small features that are different and different hand sets. ($50 for unlimited nation wide talk and text and Data plans going from $25 for 250 megs to $110 for 10 gigs)
There is no true competition between these companies.
Now we had had a new company called wind Mobile that is trying to break into the Canadian Market place.
Wind Mobile offers $39 for Unlimited talk text and data (though if you use more then 5 gigs they will slow down you data but not bill you any extra).
Wind Mobile is a much better deal the problem is they have a really small network. Though the more customer that they get the more money they will have to invest in a network and grow. The loss of customer to the big 3 will force them to change and be more competitive with wind. thus driving a more competitive market.
Also once other companies see that Wind is taking market share away form the big 3 you will get other companies who are will to fight for market share.this drives even more competition. Sadly most people don't want change, or they are ok paying double the amount to have a better network (most of the people live in a major city which is covered by wind but are scared the phone wont work the 1 or 2 times a year they may need to leave the city).
In short or |
but for me this was in the category of photographing someone in public".
For us Germans it is also in the same category. It's just that you can't pick up a camera and photograph people in public spaces here. You can get a prison sentence for up to a year besides facing civil action. The law was made when in 1898 two Paparazzi tried to sell pictures of dead Chancellor Otto von Bismarck and it naturally has lots of exceptions.
Sorry no good English source, but: |
Just because some vocal friends complain about gay marriage loudly and persistently every time they hear a rant on their AM radio doesn't make them right, nor does it make that a relevant warning flag.
Google news in particular is an area where you have to have especially good information literacy skills when reading discussions, because there's so much evidence of past astroturfing against Google:
"Facebook Busted in Clumsy Smear on Google
The social network secretly hired a PR firm to plant negative stories about the search giant, The Daily Beast's Dan Lyons reveals—a caper that is blowing up in their face, and escalating their war."
But surely it's just small blogs and such that are affected by this? Surely not any major sources?
"I received email from a CNBC Producer asking, essentially, if I had any privacy-related dirt regarding the Google "Social Circle" feature for a story CNBC was working on."
Do you think that the paid astroturfing against Google stopped because Facebook got caught? Microsoft is doing public ad campaigns against Google a couple times each year and Apple occasionally does it, too; do you think there's anything keeping them from doing private astroturfing?
Go back and look at Reddit discussions from when the Lumia Windows Phones were first being released, there were many where the upvote/downvote counts on comments were completely one-sided, and even neutral comments and questions were getting down-voted. The up-voted comments often had very similar styles and focused on the same features in the same way -- and not actually major features like the camera.
From those discussions, you'd think that Windows 8 would have been a massive hit and blown open the phone market while revolutionizing the PC OS. Obviously, that didn't happen. Reading between the lines and going beyond the astroturfed Reddit discussions, it was always clear that the reality was there were major issues:
If anything, the absolute one-sidedness of these Google discussions and the absence of any posts about their cool tech and the charitable things they do should maybe be a warning flag to you? Either that your information source is compromised, or that you aren't getting the whole story? |
Well I'll be the outlier here and say that I run a blog, and the best user response I've had yet is on Google+. People seem to think it's such a ghost town, but on Facebook my page never gets likes or reshares, whereas when I post on Google+ the same thing it gets +1s and reshares.
As a blog owner, it makes it really more worthwhile of my efforts to spend time building a fan base on Google+ (which is possible, many celebrities have hundreds of thousands of followers, if not millions), because people give me feedback for my posts and create buzz around it, which means more conversions and clicks to my blog.
I can go around on the Google+ Communities and post my things there, people reshare it and +1 it and it goes on, people then circle me and whatnot.
My circling rate on Google+ is a lot higher than on Facebook too, in pure nominal terms (more people Circle me per week than people Like my page), even though Facebook is supposed to have a shitload more active users.
Twitter well... I find it so un-user friendly that I don't even want to spend time posting stuff on there. I'll never know the response I could have had.
In other words, Google+ is the place to find subjects that interest you and meet people with the same interests. You probably will never get photos of your drunk friend, or photos of your other friend's wedding, but you will get a lot of content that you wouldn't get otherwise. It's worthwhile for me, and as it seems, for a ton of people too. |
Is this really a problem you are seeing? I was pretty sure I used this effectively yesterday and so to make sure, I tried it just now. It works still. Maybe it's a search setting. Dunno. I even tried putting in some random search in quotes and got the message nothing came up for that but if you remove the quotes here are the results... |
I grew up in a house that was 50% wood heated. I've split a lot of wood over the years.
For those who have, I'm sure they can relate. The initial split of the log is the difficult part (let's assume we are starting with an average 18" diameter oak log). For that task, a maul is needed to create those first cracks down the center. I doubt this invention will help with that (i could be wrong).
After that point, splitting with a regular ax becomes much easier. Usually 1 swing for an experienced person. Not a ton of effort if you properly use your tool. The downside to this invention is that without the "splitting ring" the pieces will go flying, and you will likely have to reposition the remaining log anyway. Also, loosening you grip will limit your control at the end of the swing. |
Because business is an emergent property of society which literally selects against morality. To view business in terms of morality is a critical flaw. If you want to deal with businesses, you have to deal with businesses on their terms, and that means eliminating the concept of morality itself. This is how I piss off capitalists and socialists alike: companies can't do good or evil. They are amoral entities. They're like animals.
If two football teams contended against each other, and one team suffered a 1. major hurricane in their city 2. a car crash that injured their star quarterback and 3. a large succession of losses previous to all that, is the other team somehow obligated to take pity on the second team, maybe take it easy on them? Of course not, and we would not expect them to. And there is no such thing as a "dick move" in sports, as long as you follow the rules. It's not a dick move to tackle someone when you really didn't have to, if it improves your teams' chances negligibly. You do all you can do to win.
Same with business. You don't grant the other side free shots; you block all of them. Even when the other side is the public in general.
The reason why morality can't be part of a discussion in business is because it's selected against. If you want to be in charge of a company, you have to be a certain personality type who can fire people and make difficult decisions without it affecting you. You go through business school where this is taught to you. You climb the corporate ladder and every step of the way you are in this culture. If you weren't part of this personality mind-set you wouldn't make it up in the first place. But if you even make it to the board of directors for Comcast and if you say 'hey, maybe we should be more competitive, let other ISPs in the towns we have on contract", you'd just be demoted or fired.
If any particular business were to do something that would be a concession to the public or a competitor, the competitor would seize on the opportunity and make money off it and eventually drive the "nice" business out of business. The effect definitely worsens as you get more competitive.
Ethnics and business do not belong in the same sentence. This is why we need third-party regulators who are separate from business making the rules and calling fouls. It sets up a clear objective boundary for when a business trangresses the competitive play. It's like a referee for a game. |
Comcast CEO Brian Roberts has donated $76,000 to Democrats since 2006, compared to $13,500 in contributions to Republicans. He’s golfed with Obama on Martha’s Vineyard, served on the president’s Jobs Council, and appeared at a number of White House meetings on business and technology.
Throughout the 2012 cycle, Comcast employees donated more than $465,000 to the Democratic National Committee, more than $300,000 to the president’s reelection campaign, and $178,050 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, according to Center for Responsive Politics data.
([source](
Comcast Corp. is the largest cable operator and the largest home internet service provider in the United States, providing cable television, broadband Internet, and telephone services to residential and commercial consumers.
Profile for 2012 Election Cycle
Top Recipients
Recipient
Total
From Indivs
From orgs
DNC Services Corp
$415,329
$415,329
$0
Obama, Barack
$328,128
$328,128
$0
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte
$133,450
$103,450
$30,000
Republican National Cmte
$120,250
$90,250
$30,000
National Republican Senatorial Cmte
$103,375
$73,375
$30,000
Romney, Mitt
$95,566
$95,566
$0 |
Being able to watch someone type a rudimentary sequence of characters into a computer is not hacking.
Saying otherwise just shows you've not gone to the trouble of educating yourself. |
There's an actual mechanical fan inside the ring, which is spun by a motor in the base. There are intake and exhaust ports at the front and back of the ring, all around the edges.
They're not really all that revolutionary.
The fan is actually in the base. There is not intake on the ring itself (unless you count the huge hole in the middle). The ring has an exhaust port at the front that jets air through the open ring which causes more air to be sucked through through - or multiply if you will. See xpftw's link for info. |
I suppose it's too much to ask for people to pay more attention to their surroundings. I drive a low car, and it's difficult to see past pickups and SUVs, but I do my damnedest to know what the next car (at the very least) is doing. I often see brake lights before my traffic neighbors, and start to slow down earlier than the two or three cars right in front of me. Even such a small warning is enough to prevent trying to panic stop, and perhaps running out of braking distance. (I won't claim I'm a saint on the road: I'm more than happy to tailgate for a variety of reasons. But I know the conditions ahead of the guy I'm tailing. When it gets crowded up there, I back off.) I keep an eye on traffic lights, and when they're way out ahead, on the pedestrian signals. When the hand starts flashing, I gauge whether I'll make it. If not, I coast to the light in neutral. Cars will start to pass me, and I get really weird looks: "Why is this guy slowing down?" Then I'm right next to them again at the red light. No one ever seems to make the connection. Just pay attention to what's around you. These things are incredibly easy to predict.
Really, this is a technological band-aid fix to a human problem, a disastrous lack of respect for the road. Cars will kill you, given the chance, and people have no idea how close they ride to the ragged edge of disaster. Runaway acceleration is a tragic example of accidents that can be prevented the instant things go wrong. Between the brakes (do it like you mean it, don't ride them halfheartedly), shifting into neutral, and the ignition key, there are three immediately available solutions that will restore control. I did it to myself, once upon a time, when I was 14. I started the car, holding the clutch, and neglected to put the stick in neutral before releasing the pedal. Idle RPM was more than enough to overpower the parking brake (old car) and I was suddenly lurching forward. The correct answer was to stomp both clutch and brake to the floor, but I turned the engine off instead, having traveled only a few feet, elapsed time about half a second. Just know what your car is doing for you, and what you can do to it. |
With the source, it's trivially unencrypted. And the source is in the torrent.
Sites are already doing analysis on the unencrypted passwords. I mean, it's DES, it's not hard to brute force:
Expect some major sites that store users' payment info to be brute force attacked with all of those logins soon, with the intention of purchasing goods en masse. |
Simple. The size of the areas that need to be serviced. Running fiber optic cabling is expensive. However, I think the government should get off its ass and offer massive startup grants for people who are willing to start an ISP.
Personally I'm tired of this cable/DSL bullshit. FTN (Fiber to the Node) networks suck. DOCSIS 3.0 is the best the cable industry can offer, but
your still limited by how many downstreams you can bond, and the best I see is normally 39Mb/sec per channel up to 4-10 of them bonded together. DSL is just as bad with the distance from the DSLAM affecting your speeds. Also as both use copper for their last leg to the home they're easily affected by ingress or "noise" problems.
Maybe they should also start offering grant money to towns and cities so we can start building MANs, which would be far cheaper than any other network as the MAN should be non-profit. |
A couple thoughts:
IBM has done something pretty nifty, with some obvious applications. I expect in a few years, telephone customer service will become a lot less annoying. The thing they were saying about medical records is probably true too. But I really don't think this is any sort of Turing test, or true AI.
Second, the real story here is not accuracy, but speed. That's the domain that computers usually excell at. Watson got first right of refusal on most questions by virtue of processing the clue, and his database of knowledge nearly instantly. Plus, that machine has a wicked thumb. They haven't addressed the buzzer system, but that's hardly surprising since this is shaping up to be an extended infomercial for IBM.
If I sound bitter, it's only because IBM chose such a provocative way to frame this. I love technology, and I'm guardedly excited about the prospect of true AI. But by framing as a competition between humans and machines, of course a lot of humans are going to feel threatened. Of course we're going to search for the flaws. |
Deep Blue only defeated Kasparov on paper the actual result of the match should have been a draw. In game 2 Deep Blue made two very uncomputer like moves 37.Be4 (strategic move refusing to take material advantage) and 44.Kf1 (The king has 2 places it can go, playing Kf1 gives black the option to draw the game by perpetual check, a clear blunder that even "stupid" computer programs will see and avoid).
After the 2nd game the score was tied 1-1 and Kasparov asked if he could see the log files of Deep Blue, so he could understand why the computer played the 2 questionable moves that it did, IBM refused. This turn of events caused Kasparov to become frustrated with IBM to the point where he didn't care if he won or lost against Deep Blue. "There was no game at game 6, because I didn't want to play". |
Please point to something in my posting history that suggests I'm a shill for Microsoft. Perhaps you'll find my postings complaining how RIM have lost their way over the last five years.
When I was shopping for a house last year Bing was a lot more useful than Google. For routing I still prefer Google. I'm sorry that I prefer a product that is different from your preference. |
I skimmed the 1st Circuit's opinion. The Court of Appeals didn't necessarily disagree with the judge that such awards could be unconstitutional. Its more of a finger wagging to the district court for not trying to resolve the case on non-constitutional grounds first. Courts are supposed to employ the "canon of constitutional avoidance" when possible to avoid deciding things on constitutional grounds. Admittedly, however, the tone seems to indicate the CoA might disagree on the constitutional issues were it forced to decide them itself. |
I didn't downvote you but calling it "M$" is extremely lame and tired.
Also a large Linux deployment in an enterprise environment is just asking for trouble. Linux is great and is much better than Windows is certain environments, but the same can be said for Windows. Paying an IT staff to support a Linux environment with Joe User at the wheel is wasting the same kind of money you claim to be giving to Microsoft. |
I think the basic problem with all these sorts of ponderings is a fundamental misunderstanding about "artificial intelligence". The "intelligence" produced by computers is far more meaningfully called simulated intelligence. But no matter how convincing a simulation may become, it remains a simulation. The holodeck may be utterly convincing, but ultimately it remains an illusion. The map never becomes the territory.
The thing that sci-fi such as Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica have dealt with would be better called artificial sentience . Here we get into the definition of what sentience truly is, which is a vast and slippery topic, but at the very least sentience is not a simulation of sentience. It is sentience itself, which we barely have any kind of understanding of at all. And it is absolute hubris to imagine that one could fabricate something of which one has almost no knowledge of.
But back to the original question, if we did somehow manage to make artificial sentience, then of course it would have as much right to life as any other sentient being. But the creature in question would by definition not be a computer (or at least not any kind of computer as we would understand the term today). |
This data is presented to make the look as bad as possible. It really isn't worth losing sleep over, IMHO.
>"45 per cent is spent finding and uploading the user's location with GPS then downloading location-appropriate ads over a 3G connection."
Emphasis mine
Everyone needs to know that GPS uses a huge amount of power. Use a power control widget to turn GPS on only when you need it. This will cut the power drain from ads by over 50% (I made that up, but the point is, GPS uses a ton of power).
Also, if the app you are using makes use of the data connection anyway, the battery drain from ads will then be negligible if your GPS is off.
Finally, what the author fails to address is that the power consumed by apps is only about 20% of all power consumed. The screen + OS + voice calls + radio standby account for about 80% of all power consumed. This data is from my phone (galaxy nexus, so the screen consumption might be higher than other phones) and I keep GPS off, so apps might use more energy if GPS is on. |
I believe that increasing NASA's budget without ensuring that they focus on worthwhile endeavors, like the upkeep and expansion of the International Space Station or cleaning up space junk. I understand that many great and useful inventions have been found in the quest for technologies to be used in space regardless of the exact purpose of the original research. However, I believe that the money would be better spent directly funding research that would directly benefit humanity rather than sending a man to Mars and hoping that we get useful information while doing something that is rather useless in itself. And before anyone says we need to move to space sometime, I may remind them that it would be easier to completely colonize Antarctica than get half as many people living on the moon. |
I agree that a business model such as the one you present would simply not be viable without the enforcement of copyright law.
However, there are an infinite amount of (mostly) unexploited business models which have the potential to be far more viable under copyright abolition (vs the status quo). Further more, these business models would serve the intent of copyright and patent law much much more effectively in a 21st century world.
WHAT?! Read on...
It is a common misconception that the intent of copyright and patent law is to protect creative content creators and inventors. This is not entirely correct.
Among other powers given, Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives congress the power to "Lay law to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Copyright and Patent law were created specifically for this goal alone. They attempt to further this goal through granting rights to content creators and inventors.
Copyright and patent law worked well before the Information Age. They have now become an incredible roadblock to the very goal, of promoting the progress of science and useful arts, for which they were created.
The Church of Kopimism would like to see new legislation enacted towards this important goal- this time by declaring all information to be public domain.
With patents and copyright lasting as long as they do, we see significantly LESS innovation than we otherwise would. Creators are content to sit lazily in the profits of non-innovative design, rather than forced to stay competitively ahead of other creators. T-shirts is not one of the most profound examples of the current failure of copyright law. But I'm sure you understand by now how these principals can be applied to virtually anything.
Now to make it obvious: Here are two t-shirt business models which drive innovation and the arts!
[
(Print other people's designs . After all, who wants your design when they can have anyone's - even their own ?)
[
(Come up with 10 top designs per week. This way the imposters won't be able to copy you fast enough.) |
It's a good question that requires a little background information. After Smith , the federal government passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as an attempt to undo its holding. Essentially, RFRA said the government couldn't substantially burden religious exercise even with rules of general applicability, unless the burden furthered a compelling government interest and was the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling interest.
The Supreme Court struck down RFRA as it applied to the states in City of Boerne v. Flores , 521 U.S. 507 (1997). It held that RFRA exceeded Congress's powers to enforce the First Amendment against a state through the Fourteenth Amendment. The actual legal reasoning behind the case isn't particularly important for our purposes here; the takeaway is that, on federalism grounds, Smith still stands as good law against the states.
But in O Centro Espirita (546 U.S. 418 (2006), for anyone who wants to read it), the Court held that RFRA still stands as a self-imposed restraint on the federal government . Since Congress doesn't need to work through the Fourteenth Amendment to impose restraints on itself, the problem in City of Boerne didn't apply. Since the Court found that Congress had no compelling interest in regulating the use of hoasca in religious ceremonies by the UDV (especially given that they, unlike Oregon, exempt the use of sacramental peyote of the kind at issue in Smith ), the Court held that UDV had to be given an exemption.
But there's the rub--the "file-sharing" religion is much more likely to meet the compelling interest test for regulation despite the burden. Whatever anyone's personal feelings about copyright laws, this Court would definitely hold that enforcing them is a compelling government interest, and is unlikely to find a less restrictive means than by enforcing continued copyright laws. For what it's worth, "least restrictive means" in most modern First Amendment cases (in a variety of contexts) doesn't mean that there is no hypothetically less restrictive means, but just that the regulations at issue aren't unreasonably restrictive vis-a-vis their goal. |
Yeah, it's called "Doing Business As," or DBA for short. Most jurisdictions require filing of some kind of DBA form just to make sure there aren't any businesses with the same exact name operating in the same area. The paperwork fee is typically anywhere from free to $50 for a one-time filing.
In my area, you're required to submit proof of business or intent to conduct business. My jurisdiction has a website to help find a unique name. That same site lets you view scans of everyone's filled out form and proof of business. A good amount of the time the "proof of business" is no more than lined paper with a business name and signature on it.
Technically anyone (over 18) can register a DBA and use it to sign checks, receive mail, etc. It's basically an alias for yourself. In the case of a partnership the DBA is an alias for both and either of the partners. In the case of a Corporation (eg. a church) one or more signers, or a method for electing signers, are typically agreed upon in a bylaw or constitution.
Similar to the lack of liability in a corporation, if you, or you and a partner, file as an LLC, you are simply a DBA signer. You have no liability to debts or damages of your LLC (under most circumstances).
Note: This is not legal advise and I am not acting as your attorney. |
I think it's absolutely false to say the quality and motives are the same or that they're morally equivalent. There are plenty of studies that show file sharers spend more on music. I think that's very good evidence that the motives are not at all the same. A lot of people already own a copy but don't have the knowledge or equipment to convert it to the digital form they want themselves. A lot of people are willing to shell out lots of money to see a band live but want to make sure they actually like the music first. A lot of people want to make sure they like the music before they buy the album. There are tons of different motivations for file sharing, there are different philosophies about how acceptable or unacceptable these motivations are, and there are business models that can support artists without making file sharing a crime. How viable those models are or aren't is certainly a conversation unto itself but it's narrow minded to pretend they don't exist and that everyone on the other side of the argument just selfishly wants to not pay up.
At the end of the day the conversation is about changing the rules and when your arguing with someone who wants to change the rules, accusing them of wanting to change the rules because they just want to break the rules is an unintelligent way to proceed. It's not a legitimate accusation, it does not explain why the rules shouldn't be changed, and it does not counter any of the arguments in favor of changing the rules. |
Test PAC, Please Ignore explains why their original Anti-Lamar billboard was rejected.]( |
I used to be the only kid in school that didn't have cable. People would talk about all of these tv shows and I would have no idea what they were talking about. My family finally got cable about 6 months ago and... I hardly use it at all. I only really watch two shows and only because the tv screen is larger than my computer screen. |
My fear is that on the way down it will just become increasingly important for news stations to have polarized overly sensationalized stories to keep people interested, actual educational content will completely go away as their target audience is the first to abandon the medium, and shallow, cheap to produce shows like Jersey Shore and Keeping Up With The Kardashians will be the future. |
Sounds very cool, but this is not what you would expect from the title of the article. The camera delivers exactly that, images of obscured objects, but it does have some drawbacks. The first of which is that a genetic algorithm (GA) is used to take the picture. This is a stochastic optimization method that can take thousands of iterations to converge. The second drawback of the method is that you have to know what you're looking for (e.g., you have to know that you're looking for an image of an 'A' in the article) to create a value function for use in the GA. Once you calibrate your camera using the GA, you should then be able to take pictures of anything, given that the system (lighting, camera angle, etc.) don't change. Well, this is what I've gathered from the article itself, I haven't read the paper yet, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. |
Well, I double checked and, barring a revolutionary cryptographic break, [AES would take more than 1 quintillion (1 billion billion) years]( Which is no accident, as [what we know as AES today was one of many candidates for that title](
Really, if you're curious, the wikipedia article is, as always, awesome :
Confusion and Diffusion
There is the primary concept in encryption of "confusion" and "diffusion". For example, if you take a sentence like "Hello, volper" and do a Caesar shift , that is (kind of) confusion because the original data is changed in some way. On the other hand, if you take this intermediate step "ZWDDG, NGDHWJ" and swap them in pairs (1 with 2, 3 with 4) you get ""WZDDN, GDGWHJ", that is (kind of) diffusion because the original data is moved around and only the last letter is unmoved. Both are really important for security.
So, how does AES do that? Well, the diffusion part is 2-fold with the ShiftRows step, which, as the name implies, orders the data into rows and shifts them to the right and wraps it around, and the MixColumns step, which, kind of as the name implies, orders the data into columns and mixes them up by... adding them as polynomials. That's kind of complicated. On the flip side, the confusion part is from the SubBytes step, which takes one byte and outputs another in a specific way, thus confusing the relationship between the plaintext, the key, and the ciphertext (the encrypted output). And SubBytes brings us the next important bit of modern cryptographic schemes...
Non-linearity
Another important concept for this scheme is non-linearity. I was always rusty on this point, but, basically, it's just to avoid linear attacks and change them. So basically, that's just a good protection against certain cryptographic breaks.
The important thing to note about AES is that the s-boxes are guaranteed, by our understanding of the mathematics of their creation, to be non-linear. Contrast this step with a similar scheme, [DES]( which is not guaranteed because the creation of its s-boxes are not so well understood and could, in fact, have a backdoor built in so that someone involved with the scheme's creation is able to crack messages.
Complexity
Final important defense against cryptanalysis is a defense against brute force. For every scheme (AFAIK), that's achieved through a large keyspace, the large number of possible keys that can be used. So, for AES, that's either 128-bit, 192-bit, or 256-bit. And, just to put this in perspective, 128-bits is probably somewhere short of 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 . Simply, this key is "added" to the plaintext and the intermediate round outputs (xor, specifically).
Altogether
So, where does that put AES? Well, let's do 128-bit. AES is a block cipher, so you have 128-bits of plaintext you want to encrypt, you have your 128-bit key, and you have the AES standard. First thing you do is add the key (rather, a number generated from your 128-bit key, but simpler to just say it's your key) to the plaintext; you're done with round 1... of 12. First real round goes like the next 10 do: SubBytes changes the bytes of this intermediate data around in a non-linear way; ShiftRows moves some bytes around; MixColumns mixes the bits of the data (think of it like adding a matrix); you add in the 128-bit key (generated) again.
Now, that progression is just one round (SubBytes->ShiftRows->MixColumns->AddRoundKey). Let's look at confusion: SubBytes confuses the relationship between the plaintext, key and ciphertext; like the Caesar shift, one thing is substituted for another and it's not just a matter of adding the key to the plaintext. Now, diffusion (and I like this part): In one round, thanks to MixColumns and ShiftRows, any small, 1 bit change in the plain text will affect several bytes; by 2-4 rounds (I forget), a 1 bit change in plain text will alter the entire intermediate data and, by the end, the cipher text produced will be wildly different. Which is why diffusion is really important for security; it makes it incredibly tough to tell anything at all about the original plaintext from the cipher text without decrypting the cipher text with the key.
This repetition is where AES drops slightly short, because doing this 10 times can be time consuming. Furthermore, it has to be used on 128-bit blocks at a time, as opposed to stream ciphers, which can be used on a progression of bits. |
can someone dumb down and/or |
95% coupling is still damn good even for small electrical components that are explicitly designed to couple power via magnetic fields. The transformers used in power supplies "wirelessly" transfer power over less than an inch and generally don't get 95% efficiency when you consider losses due to hysteresis and heat!
All the marketing material is really saying is something close to "Well, there's no law of physics saying you can't get >95% efficient in at least one degenerate case..." and not "We can actually do this in at least one circumstance, and here's how..." |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.