Datasets:

jkruk
/

tech-data

Dataset card Data Studio Files Files and versions Community

Split (1)

train · 13.7k rows

0 stringlengths 9 22.1k
actually no; you are wrong. Resistance is not tied in any way to voltage/current intensity. It is determined by the length , area, material of conductor. Losses on the conductor are determined by the resistance, and current passing trough it. So , to reduce power loss trough a conductor you must either decrease it's resistance(too expensive) or increaze voltage so that the amperage decreases and thus power losses.
it is what will matter to the users of the device I agree, it matters to a large swathe of unimaginative and uneducated users. I read an amazing comment by a die-hard android user who "got an iPhone and hated it.... until he loved it". He talked about how he used to spend his time tweaking live wallpapers and procrastinating over versions and shit like that. Not just USING the thing. If you're not in an App, and you're holding your phone - there's something wrong (messaging and calls are apps). For people who want "A PHONE" that "DOES SHIT", fine, for people who DON'T WANT A PHONE - they want a phone THAT IS INVISIBLE and just gives them the apps and things they do on it - they'll see through this. There are some information paradigms that humans need. I'll give you an example to show I am not talking out of my ass: In context switching, showing an animation (swiping) between two apps let's the brain understand and prepare the new context for mental modeling the new app. As you swipe, zooming out a LITTLE, also can improve that sensation (but if the animation is fluid, you don't need that). So, just like as we walk from one room to another, we forget what we are doing, just like when I cmd-tab away from fullscreen terminal to fullscreen chrome, I might forget what the fuck I am supposed to be programming, but getting back there will help my poor, stupid, idiotic human brain to catch up. We're human, we're weak, even our greatest thinkers are extremely disabled when it comes to being able to think.
This brought up a very interesting realization in my life. I grew up in a smaller town in Idaho. I left the area when i turn 23 - ish, but i have been traveling a lot and living in different areas in the last 3 years. I can flat out say that nothing changes in Idaho, when I grew up there in the 90's the area was stuck in the 70's , also the same business with the same people are always there. I have had a bit of a difficult time adjusting to places that change very quickly, for some reason it makes me sad. I think it is human nature to be uneasy about change.
Ok so the link I posted was a good review I found and linked to but the real message is this. I put a brand new out the box note 2 in the defender and the phone is now scratched in two ways. The screen has scratches from grit and dirt which has come in under the built in screen protector through the home button hole which gets between it and the screen increasing the risk of getting a grit scratch as it is constantly sandwiched between the layers and never gets brushed away. The second scratches are on the edge of the phone bezel where it is in contact with the phone there are fine scratches all on the top side of the edges of the phone bezel where it is coming in contact with the inside of the case. Not sure if any of you will care but I am super pissed and I think others will be when their $500+ phone gets fucked up by the case they paid $40 for to protect it against this very thing. I felt otterbox should suffer for making a crappy case and others should be warned. I have contacted the company with my complaint to do and will post their response. I wasn't going to post about this at all until I spotted the scratches on the screen but those made me super pissed. I kept my last phone without a scratch on the screen and no screen protector for 3 years before it got scratched this i have been using for a few weeks.
Lets examine what a dealership does, shall we? You buy your car from them, with a mark up. True, though its probably less than you'd think. And this is about as far as people get when they look at this issue, though maybe you've put more thought than the average person into this topic. People have a tendency to overlook the other aspects of dealerships. Lets start with vehicle repair. A dealership employs a team of trained mechanics and provides them with a place and some of the tools needed to work on aforementioned vehicles. Not only that, but it provides the opportunity to get specialized training from the actual car manufacturers, training to say... safely work on fully electric cars. Now, these mechanics could very well jump ship and work for NTB or Lamb's, or any of the little oil-change mechanic places around, but then we come to another issue- parts. Where do car parts come from? The auto manufacturer, of course, unless you're talking some sort of aftermarket part. Who do the automakers ship these parts to? Pretty much no one aside from the all hated dealerships. If you have work done at one of the little oil change places, guess where they're getting their parts from. Correct, dealerships. Now one has to ask, why the hell don't they just ship the parts directly to the consumer? Its stupid, I have to agree, but then again if you dig a little deeper you find a bizarre concept known as warranty, and along with it fraud. When you get a new car you should have a warranty- if, say, your factory battery bursts into flame and melts you can tow it on over to the dealership you bought you car at and they'll fix it! For free! In fact, they basically eat the cost of the parts and labor in hopes to be reimbursed at some later point in time by the automaker. To get this reimbursement the dealership MUST send proof that aforementioned battery exploded due to factory defect. How? Simple, after prying out the crusty slag and replacing it with a new battery, they send the crusty slag back to the automaker, who in turn decides if its their fault or not. If they decide it is their fault, done deal, if not... well, your dealership just swallowed a few hundred bucks on the low end, tens of thousands on the high end. Simple fact of the matter is the consumer cant really be trusted to do all this in a satisfactory manner. See, the actual selling of cars is an almost comically small part of a dealership. If a dealership sees any profit at all, its from their service department, and that's actually a pretty big if in current times. Now I say all this without even questioning the logistics of say, shipping a working and charged vehicle to an individual's residence with the assurance that if something is DOA it can be replaced in a timely manner by a skilled technician. I really do wanna know how Tesla intends on pulling that off without a 3rd party on location, but that's not the point. The point is that there are many aspects of the car business that people overlook.
Well, it was getting pretty progressive for a long while and now we're subject to Republican ironsights in order to turn it's blue lean into a red one again.
Anyone who wants to understand how and why the car dealer laws got onto the books the way they are really needs to read up on how Ford and GM treated the dealers in the early parts of the automotive revolution. Both Ford and GM would regularly force the dealerships to buy models that weren't selling, or threatened to revoke their contracts and give them to someone else. This put the dealer in a terrible position, because now he has to pay for these cars that just sit on the lot and eventually gets sold to fleet companies at a loss. The reaction was to lobby the local state governments to give the dealer the local monopoly on selling cars so that Ford and GM couldn't make good on their threats.
Germany tried that yet with the [ CargoLifter ](
It' a diminishing returns issue too. We've already spent time and money setting up the infrastructure to stop the easy stuff, buying guns, building walls, hiring soldiers. The problem is every official is constantly trying to figure out what they're going to do next year to help the world become more secure. the incremental gains we're getting now are just the result of a wide scale success. Furthermore, each security official is aware of all these new technologies they are creating and the question they keep asking themselves is, if the technology can be created to save even one more life, isn't that their job? The problem is the death from a terrorist attack is so much more concrete then deaths resulting in malnutrition, or lack of education, so it's a much easier justification for congress to spend and quantify the good that they're doing.
I'm favorable for the automatic driving cars but also very cautious at the same time. I enjoy driving and I do not want that right to drive freely taken away from me. But what truly scares me and what I highly doubt anyone is actually taking into account is how these cars are maintained. I work in a repair shop and I see cars that come in that are very poorly maintained, and downright dangerous. It's bad enough as it is today that a lot of people don't pay attention to their car's "health" and neglect it while self-driving cars I think would only encourage that. You'd be amazed at some people's stupidity when it comes to regular maintenance, even so much as to never change the oil in their car. Self-driving cars could easily give these people the idea that the car does everything automatically. I honestly wouldn't put it past them to think that way. Then you have the other end with people who don't know what they're doing try to do their own repairs. They're going to screw something up, ruin the entire system, and endanger everyone else because of their shoddy job. Sure you have it now but I imagine a lot of electronics are going to be involved in a self-driving car and those are very easy to break, and are also well known to fail often on many cars. For the short-term (<50,000miles) I would imagine everything would work perfectly fine but once you start to go over, that's when you typically begin to start seeing failures in components. This really boils down to the owner and how the car is taken car of. I've seen a Toyota Sienna come in with over 200,000 miles with a brand new everything. The car looked brand new, and I've seen cars with 30,000 miles come in with broken struts, wheel bearings, sway-bars, etc.
This is a extremely important issue for me, I'm a professional racecar driver (I'm not going to say which one hence the throwaway, I'll hopefully be doing a AMA once my race season ends some time next year) and cars are a huge part of my life every day involves me driving somewhere, training for racing, looking at cars in my free time studying videos of cars working out turn entry's exits and apex's and pushing cars to there limit to try and be the perfect driver, but sadly being human I'm not perfect and have had some big crashes, maybe robot cars are the solution that will save life's and slowly take over motorsports? I hope we can cut the road toll to zero but in the process I'd hate to lose the opportunity to experience the great feeling you get from being in full control of a car, whether its going at 5 or 500mph, I have a lot of suggestions where both robot cars and human controlled cars can co-exist but iv typed to much already.
You're mistaking the technology of today for the technology of tomorrow. Expert systems are going to become the norm in practically every situation where complex or high-speed decisions need to be made, and you'll think it's suicidal to have your cancer diagnosed and a treatment regimen selected by just a human doctor rather than having the expert system that can weigh every recorded case of your type of illness against every form of treatment used for it as well as your specific physiology give its 'opinion' and outcome probabilities.
Right. There have been times when I've seen deer running through a field and getting ready to cross the road. I saw them getting close, so I prepared and slowed down. A Google car wouldn't see that coming. I've also seen kids playing basketball in a driveway and the ball started bouncing towards the street, so I slowed down and prepared to stop. There would be a lot more collisions with a Google car and more injuries/deaths from it. Did anyone think about how a Google-driven car would react during/after a collision? Would it keep going? Would it pull over onto the shoulder or would it just stop in the middle of the road? How do I get the insurance information from a Google car (assuming it wouldn't just hit and run) and how would it know how long to wait there for me to get the info? If there's an ambulance coming from 10 cars behind, would a Google car see the flashing lights, hear it, know where it's going, and know how to get out of the way safely? If firefighters are stopping traffic and asking for donations, how much would a Google car give (that one was a joke)?
Assuming that this suit does not get tossed out immediately, this would be terrible news for the internet as a whole. User-submitted content can be leveraged directly for profits, but it can also be used contextualize and improve existing data. Who gets to make the determination of which sites profit directly off their users, and if they do, how is the relative worth of each user determined? Not to mention the legal nightmare that comes with employment. "I wrote a reply to your article, now legally I'm entitled to benefits" I'm sure there are successful sites that can kick back some profits to.their user contributors, but it seems like such an easy system to game. To prevent abuse, you would need to have people curating the content and screening for substance, which restricts the community as a whole and puts unreasonable burden on smaller sites. Do we want online forums to be dominated by 'gold farmers' spamming irrelevant drivel so they can profit? That would destroy a good community overnight. Perhaps a system similar to YouTube is what is meant. High volume contributors could be contracted for profits based on their content's success. But not all mediums can so easily determine which revenue came from where. Taking Reddit as an example, if they were to kick back a bit of money to us, how would it be done? Most upvotes threads/comments earn money? Can't be done fairly. Reddit's APIs are too open, it's not feasible to stop abuse without severely harming ease of use. If you get Gold, you must have made a valuable contribution so you get money? This has the awkward side effect of basically making Reddit a money transferring institution. (I pay money to Reddit, you get some back. Money transfered, just with a large fee) Now, Reddit legally has to be regulated like a bank. There is no easy way to do this without screwing up a perfectly good service. Finally, since when did people get the right to demand money for volunteer work after the fact? I volunteered for a food bank, pay me. He spray painted some pretty graffiti that makes some people notice your restaurant, pay him. If people want compensation, that needs to be negotiated up front.
That's absolutely untrue that things will even out in 20 years. Space is fucking hard. It takes a lot of knowledge and experience to be successful. 60 years of experience is the difference between NASA sending dozens of successful missions scattered across the galaxy and the Chinese struggling with a lunar rover. NASA failed the first 5 times to get to the moon. It takes time. This engineering knowledge is not freely available. In fact it's tightly controlled by the US. Science and results are shared. The engineering much less so. Even orbital navigation is not easy. NASA has expressed concern that without continued funding for complicated orbits on some of our spacecrafts the skill will one day be lost to the agency.
The coffee was 180-190 °F. Additionally she originally wanted to settle for $20,000 but McDonald's offered $800. She made the offer to settle several more times, and a mediator suggested $225,000. McDonald's refused. It went to trial and a jury awarded her a total of over $2.7 million (calculated by awarding her 2 days worth of coffee sales form McDonald's). the judge reduced the total to about $650,000. It should be noted that the temperature of the coffee is hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns in 10 seconds. Like, going-to-the-hospital-to-get-skin-grafts-because-I-can-see-the-muscle-tissue-in-my-legs kind of burns..... Also, McDonald's still serves their coffee at 190°F, as do most places, despite numerous lawsuits. In fact, it is the recommended temperature by the leading coffee lobby group. Some coffee connoisseurs would argue that the flavor is destroyed a that temperature, so its not the norm for non-commercial coffee service.
I support net neutrality and Title II classification. There, I wanted to make sure everyone understood where I was coming from when I said: The article got a lot of details correct that so many others seem to be fucking up. It makes a number of points, some of which I agree with, and some of which I question. \1. There is no Net Neutrality today. We do not want the FCC to give up on passing new Net Neutrality regulations. The existing ones were struck down by the courts as unenforceable without reclassifying ISPs as Title II Common Carriers . We do not currently have Net Neutrality guarantees. \2. The ISPs would be happier with no Net Neutrality regulation [i.e. now] than with Wheeler's proposal. This I question, but it seems plausible. Obviously, what we want is good Net Neutrality regulations, but if it's between the existing regulations and the proposal, it's actually a toss up. If they leave the current regulations in place, the FCC could always try enforcing them on a different aspect of the regulations that haven't been explicitly tried in court, but I don't anticipate that ending well for the FCC. Regardless, it could make ISPs hesitant to push their luck. On the other hand, the proposal has some really poor, ambiguous language against tiered internet that is handled 'too unfairly'. So, the regulation might be deemed by the courts to be enforceable, but it would be hard to actually get anywhere trying to apply that garbage. In the end, I think the article is right that the proposal is better than no regulation at all (which is what we would have if we "stopped" this proposal), but we haven't yet given up on fighting for stronger regulation with Title II. I don't think the article gives the complete story regarding the Netflix-Comcast deal, but I don't have the facts at my disposal to dispute it.
Just x-posting my impressions from another thread: It sucks. Action is ok, but being PG-13 hurts that part of it pretty badly. Worst visual effects i have seen in a long time, too. Aside from the cast, it's direct-to-dvd quality at best. As for Ronda, her acting is as bad as you can imagine, but she's pretty hot in her red dress/glasses combo. Gina might not win in their fight, but she's certainly better-suited for the screen. All in all, it was enjoyable enough, but it was all over the place. Story was non-existent, action was hampered by rating, editing was all over with some terrible cuts, and my god that cgi is bad. Keep an eye out for any scene with a helicopter being especially bad. Best part of the movie is Antonio Banderas. When is the last time that sentence has been uttered? Ever? Also, Harrison Ford's part was a throwaway part, but he made me laugh pretty hard at one point ("what language is he speaking"). /u/GovSchwarzenegger was awesome but also not in it enough. He throws out 2 good old school catch phrases, which made me grin pretty hard. edit/addition: Mel Gibson was pretty good, but like most of the good parts of this movie, was under-utilized. I also love Mel Gibson, so maybe I'm biased. For what it's worth, I think he's the best bad guy of the 3 movies. Final fight of the movie with him was a big let down as well. Super anti-climactic.
Well funded you say... but they won't be, not if this keeps up. The difference, is that this will break the movie industry; it won't break the music world. In the music world, it's the labels and the producers who get ripped off when you download a song, not the artist. The artists gets maybe a dollar per full CD sale, and that has to be split 4 or 5 ways depending on the amount of people in your band. Typically, that's a quarter a CD. The artist, losing that quarter because you downloaded his song isn't going to break him... the real money for musicians comes from watching them perform live... it comes from buying merchandise like T-Shirts. Truth is, it's almost good for music. Musicians don't need labels to promote or sell their album anymore, the internet, and social media are perfect for spreading the word, and music services like iTunes and Spotify will take your music all day long because it's mutually beneficial. Artists don't need big recording studios anymore, you can make a professional album, on your laptop, in your bedroom. So when you download a song, you take $20 away from a label that probably isn't doing much anyway, and a quarter away from the musician who would happily give up that quarter if you promise to spend $20 to come see them play the songs live, and also buy a T-Shirt. It's a win for the artists, in most cases. But movies don't work that way. You can't film a big blocksbuster action film in your bedroom. You need the big companies to get this job done. You need the stunt men, the special effects experts, the editors, the directors, the set crew, the sound guys, the composer, the mic operators, etc... you have to rent buildings, build sets, make costumes... you have to apply for permits, have safety crews on hand, and cover health insurance, food, shelter, etc... you need people to handle paper work, and others to answer the phones. You need people to sweep the floors and throw away the trash. You need script writers, and lawyers... the list goes on. When you download a movie, you take money away from all of those people and there's no way for those people to get that money back. They can't just sell you a T-Shirt or perform the movie live for you in every city in America as a way to make up for the loss on the initial release. They get one shot to make money at the theaters, and another shot when they sell you the Blue-Ray... but if you download they film illegally, they lose both sets of money and there is zero way to get it back. That's it... it's a loss. No money == no movies. You should pay for your entertainment, because while it's entertainment to you, it's work to somebody else... and we all deserve to get paid for our work. The mentality that they should work hard, and you should reap the benefits of their hard work without giving them anything in return is greedy and selfish; worse yet, it hurts the very entertainment market that you love and the end result is that both of you lose.
The real competition right now is between Spacex and existing launch service providers in Russia, Europe and the US. This has previously been a pretty seriously stagnant market, but Spacex seems to be doing a job of breaking into industry and giving the old-guard aerospace firms a run for their money. There's also a small amount of competition for ISS servicing contracts, though it seems like Orbital Sciences and Spacex are happy to coexist for now. There's also the literal competition in the form of NASA's Commercial Crew Program, but that's more intended to kickstart the private manned spaceflight industry.
I can't even begin to count the number of times I've been downvoted for saying this. There was a post about how some politicians were shareholders AND regulators of AT&T, Verizon, Comcast couple of days ago where OP was demanding change instead of going out there and enacting it. You won't change anything by writing Internet posts/comments all day because the people that are in charge don't care for Internet posts/comments.
IPViking is a security company. At it's basic level they have connectivity to tens of thousands of backbone points around the world. They can see where traffic is going and they know which traffic is bad. They collect and monitor about 19 terrabytes a day. Some details over here:
Uh. cool website but it's really just a novelty. 1500 - 2000 telnet attacks isn't shit for a medium size well admined server. The app has to be getting data from volunteers "of course" and you can't get shit if you're dosed.
The headline and content grossly oversimplifies this subject to make an easy point. Yes, end-to-end crypto on a web site is untrustworthy. That's because a malicious party could spoof the web site with a man-in-the-middle attack and replace the crypto code with surveillance code. [Security experts have been saying this for years, it's nothing new.]( But there are many other ways to achieve end-to-end crypto in a very secure fashion. You can use open source tools like the OTR plugin for Pidgin, or protocols like PGP, and have high confidence that only the intended recipient is receiving your messages. You can even achieve this in a web browser with an add-on (assuming the environment is sandboxed, ie. Chrome, and the add-on isn't executing any remotely-loaded crypto code)
The appeal of Keurig is that it perfectly makes one cup of coffee, quickly, meaning you don't have to brew an entire pot. I'm aware of those single cup drip gadgets that sit atop a coffee mug. With those, you still have to measure out how much grounds to put in the filter and how much hot water to pour in. Keurig's cups are pre-measured and the machine automatically uses the correct amount of water.
Executive summary: We are sorry you didn't buy as much DRM as we expected. DRM is not the problem, only the limited DRM coffee choice is the problem. We will make more DRM coffee type cups available and also make available a new reusable DRM cup at a cost of only $119.95.
There is a very good reason the firm wants to have a healthy, big, stock price. Especially if they need to grow, or invest heavily in research. For you, a high stock price means, "Apple stock is expensive... rich fucks." For the firm, a high stock price means, "Hey, our cost of equity capital is low, we can fund lots of cool projects with that." Why does having a low Equity Cost of Capital (ECC) matter? Take Tesla, healthy stock price, no operating profit. Now, if you were a bank, and Tesla asked you for a loan, what would you do? You'd want to secure it against physical assets, property, equipment, etc., anything that guaranteed you'd be repaid in default. But after Tesla maxes out their ability to take on debt, what can they do? Imagine you're an investor, Tesla asks you for money. Tesla isn't offering any collateral, it's all spoken for (by banks). However, if you put in now, you get a share of the profits later. Oh ho ho! Do you think your investment could pan out? Do you think electric cars are really cool, and will be a growth market in the next few years? Hell yeah, you want to be in on the ground floor, right? So you buy, and you encourage all your friends to buy. Tesla shares go up. ECC goes down. That means when Tesla wants to finance risky projects by creating and selling common stock, your shares won't get diluted as much. Don't believe me? Take a look at this: [Tesla's latest 10-K]( Under 'Financial Statements', click on 'Consolidated Statement of Operations'. If you haven't seen one of these before, it might seem a little non-intuitive to read. So I'll walk you through it. The three lines to note are 'Gross Profit', 'Research and Development', and 'Net Loss'. It boils down to this: Tesla made profit selling cars, about $880 million. Tesla spent $464 million of R&D. All together, Tesla lost $294 million. Now imagine, what if Tesla couldn't raise equity anymore? Tesla now urgently needs to make a net profit, in order to avoid defaults with creditors, stay solvent, etc. What would they likely do? Cut R&D, then lean on the expenses in SG&A and labor. Tesla would then show a profit, be able to cover interest payments, and become a somewhat stable firm. However, with no R&D funding, there would be no more advances in battery technology, or electric car design from Tesla. The potential to revolutionize the automotive industry would be choked off. And that's why a high price for TSLA drives the development of electric cars.
The Vue, and the 2.0 both failed because of arrogance. I only use refillable cups, the concept is great, but their efforts to further corner the market is why I hate Green Mountain and Starbucks. Instrumental in making coffee culture popular, Starbucks has destroyed Coffee by taking it in the direction of Folgers with everything on the shelves becoming a blend. They also bought a couple great brands and destroyed them. Torifazione (sp?) was an amazing Premium brand that was tossed to the wind. Starbucks also bought out "Seattle's Best Coffee" (aka Stewart Brother's and SBC). They destroyed the brand and we now have blends 1,2,3,4,5. What the fuck they are beyond darker as the number goes higher is a mystery. Green Mountain has destroyed choices for non-pod buyers as stores have gotten rid of loose bean displays and cut back on bagged beans/ground beans. I hate buying coffee these days.
Coffee is a want, not a need. If we lived in a world where crude oil were severely limited, coffee would be prohibitively expensive for most people. We'd instead consume locally produced foods only. As it is, we don't care. Coffee comes from across the seas for cheap. Grounds come in pods. Garbage goes away. Fuel is cheap, the environmentally kickback is minimal, and there's lots of space for trash.
So I was interested in how long it takes to break even using a Keurig vs a Cone filter (single cup). I've never owned a Keurig or even used one so I don't understand why they are popular. I looked up costs: Keurig K130 = $50 Keurig Pods (per pod) = $.65 Cone = $5 Filter (per filter)= $.03 Coffee (per cup) = $.4 So these prices were based on some of the lowest costs I could find by doing a quick google search. Coffee price was based on a 1lb bag costing $10 and a couple websites saying you get about 40 cups per lb. So with these numbers A Keurig is about 77 cups to recoup the investment. A cone is about 12 cups to recoup the investment. This is just some quick math while I should actually be doing my work. I'm sure there is some more analysis that could be done and also I'm sure I screwed something up so feel free to let me know.
Lawyer here. You're technically correct, but I think people might misunderstand what you're saying. Corporate folks (e.g., the Board of Directors) absolutely do have a fiduciary responsibility to do what's in the best interest of the shareholders. This means that while they don't have to maximize shareholder value EXCLUSIVELY (they can, for instance, still engage in charitable giving on behalf of the company), for all practical purposes this is what they are supposed to be doing. The court in Dodge v. Ford came down the way it did because Henry Ford explicitly disavowed a profit motive, and said he just wanted to help his workers by paying them more. We were taught that the court actually really wanted to rule the opposite way, and if Ford had simply said that he also thought it would help the company it would have done so. But, in the simplest sense, Ford said that he was putting the interests of his factory workers above those of his shareholders, to whom he has fiduciary duties, so the court couldn't rule any other way.
Not really. Or at least, not in this case. Its summary included nothing about the stock drop, the CEO's quote, or the lower sales. You know, the interesting bits. The extended summary is good, but the posted
I could barely understand this blog post; the author should go back and add in a few commas. [This review from engadget]( was much easier to read and had a lot more content.
Most likely it has some sort of machine-learning/GA system that tracks various external inputs (outside temperature, time, persons who walk by/hr, etc) and varies prices according to demand trends taking into account price elasticity to determine the optimum price at any specific time to generate the most profit.
How old is your modem, is it docsis 3? How much hardware is between your computer and the modem? Two months ago I was convinced that Cox had oversold our neighborhood. At best all I ever got was 12Mbit down, at worst it went as low as <1Mbit. Cox sent a tech out. Dude takes one look at my modem and says "well there's your problem, this thing is ancient." He installed a test modem on the line and immediately we saw an extra 4Mbit on the test results. So I'm like, ok, that's a pretty minor speed bump, so after the tech left I started running packet tests against my modem to see if I could confirm what he said (I was his last house of the day, the guy clearly wanted to get done quickly). I discovered I was dropping 9% of all packets. That settled that, and I ordered both a new modem and a new router. Then, later on that night, I continued running the tests to see if it got worse later in the evening (I had seen a correlation with prime-time and slower speeds). I unplug my laptop from the ethernet to take it to bed, and switched to the wireless. My packet loss vanished. Switched back to the wired, packet loss came back. I took the laptop directly over to the router and plugged into the back of it, packet loss was at about 1.5%. After further testing I figured out that the netgear switch under my desk had gone bad and was dropping packets left and right. I replaced it, instantly my speedtest quadrupled. When the new modem and router arrived, my speed jumped from 13Mbit to 40Mbit (I'm only paying for 30).
For some clarification to this conversation you two are having: Monitoring internet download and upload speeds between the ISP hub and a localized computer(in your home) is extremely easy. Assuming no knowledge of how computers work, when data is transferred from computer to computer it is sent in Binary,commonly known as being 1s and 0s, but the 1s and 0s relate to electrical signal(power exists or not). When transferring large data over the Internet there is an enormous amount of 1s and 0s(for 1 megabyte there are around 8,000,000 1s and 0s) which relate to a change in positive/negative electricity. Any disruption of this signal relates to a data loss meaning your file doesn't work at all. To fix this the World Wide Web adopted the TCP protocol for transferring data, the reason being is that TCP ensures the entire file is downloaded(as transmitted) by sending a token back to the sender, telling them the data was received. In layman's terms, when you download a file your computer is continually updating the computer/server you are downloading from saying "hey, I got x data". The ISP hub lives between you and the sending computer so it handles both the request for data and the tokens saying how much data has been received so determining your average download speed is just a matter of comparing the two(download for a file from server Y began at 12:00 PM, took 1.5 minutes to download 500 MB, thus the download speed was approximately 5.5 MB/s). So as you can see, the processing is already being done, and I'd be willing to bet ISPs are already generating this data(wouldn't you considering how easy it is?), they just don't expose it to the general public because it would be really bad in comparison to the 'up to' speeds they promise.
Wow. I read 90% of the posts here. Some really great advice, but aside from one comment, nobody here has any HFC experience. I know both sides of this. Before I worked for a cable company, I was in the same boat. I finally got sick of it and became the squeaky wheel. I'd call every single time there was an issue. You shouldn't have to do that. You (all of you) have the responsibility of calling your MSO and letting them know that you have a problem. Be specific. Bypass your equipment. Borrow a friend's computer to test it - just so you have more info to give. (Yes, the provider should do this, but sometimes doing the legwork makes it simpler) Many cable companies have a policy in place to automatically escalate a customer concern if they call in x number of times within y number of days. Mine is 3 in 30 days. It never fails to amaze me that many people will call once as then complain about their service forever. (Not making that accusation, it's just an observation.) Drmengel, it sounds to me like there could be some sort of electrical interference in your area. Either that or the actives in the cable plant may be having issues with night-time temperature fluctuations. I can only assume you pay for D3, as the 10/1 ratio seems to be consistent across MSO's. Troubleshooting D3 can be a bitch, and often times the first tech they send isn't computer savvy. Depending on your area, the technician may have access to a whole suite of software diagnostics like Nyroc, Unifed, or others. I'm good enough now to be able to, from my desk in many cases, diagnose the problem before I even leave the office or route the call. Not tooting my horn, just letting you know the possibilities. If I'm right about your having D3, many of the modems indicate channel bonding with the uplink/downlink light changing colors after the initialization process. I.e. Change from green to blue. If yours ever reverts to green after the bonding is done that means you've lost your channel bond, likely from ingress of some kind. Usually frigging electrical in nature. We've seen neon signs that are on timers kill a whole node after it loads up enough. One more thing: It's RARELY THE MODEM CAUSING THE PROBLEM. STOP SWAPPING IT YOURSELF. We have signal strength meters that cost more than my motorcycle did brand new. Let them get used! Please. Apologies for the lengthy reply.
A few years ago I was convinced cox was overselling in our neighborhood. And for good reason -- I tested 2 modems, went on many people's wifi, and found I could get on a busy day a max speed of half a megabit with the 12mbit service they offered. After many techs confirming the problem, and finding the company denying any problem existed or even people reporting a problem (everyone I knew reported slow speeds), I knew they were in fact full of shit and demanded a year refund. I switched to DSL, and then they rolled out DOCSIS3 a bit later and oh my god it's good. The other tiers are still shit and they oversold them but they must've moved the DOCSIS3 people to a node which no one uses and I get full speed all the time. I found out later they're trying to impose caps to address their speed issues (you know, rather than just splitting the nodes and fixing their stuff just have people download less). What they're doing here is pretty illegal and a class action waiting to happen, but I had no damages since they refunded me so I couldn't personally sue.
To be fair, im not exaggerating. There was some noise on my line, and after the Tech came a fixed, he used their internal speed test to get that number. Granted it was at an off peak time and I live around old people so no one other than me and my roommates has significant traffic on the lines leading to our apartment building. I verified his speed afterwards with speed test, got the 40 as well.
I don't understand why people think government can't have ulterior motives just as huge mega corporations due. Sure, the essence of the government is to work for us, but everyone here knows that isn't always the case. So why assume that's what is happening in this instance, if for only because you happen to agree with it?
While this guy does rant on and on in the worst font color's available, he does raise on very good point: >Recognize a Cloud when you see it. Are you paying for these services? No? You are a sucker. You are giving people stuff for free. I pay for Vimeo and I pay for Flickr and a couple other things. This makes me a customer. Neither of these places get my only copy of anything. I run my personal email out of Gmail. Why? Because I don't want to be fucked running and maintaining my own postfix. I could (and still kinda do - it's just a relay now) but google does IMAP, webmail and spam filtering so much better than I ever could that using that service is a valuable investment for me. What scares me, is that Gmail is still free. I would gladly pay a couple bucks a month to have some kind of guarantee that it wont go away (or if it does that I'll have the chance to download my email first).
Unless you are running your own server in your basement (or you own a data center), you are using the cloud to some extent. The guy isn't even talking about the 'cloud', he's talking specifically about free "software-as-a-service"s. Free online service != cloud.
Exactly! Once apon a time I had an IMAP account and an rsync account hosted on servers somewhere I didn't control. This was cool and accepted by geekdom. Now I have an IMAP account and a Dropbox account "In the Cloud", and despite being basically exactly the same configuration as before, it's no longer considered geek worthy and instead I'm whoring myself out to corporate interests and at risk of losing all my data. Instead, I should get my own fiber optic connection, setup my own data server with my own servers and my own onsite generators, and my own offsite backup vault. Or, you know, I could just back my own shit up. Just like I did 10 years ago before "Hosted" got buzzword-fucked into being called "Cloud" and somehow in that process became uncool.
The attitude of "no bed of roses" is half the problem here. We're all getting used to it while the definition of public domain keeps shrinking. DMCA is an awful piece of legislation but it is no where near as disgusting as PIPA or SOPA.
I can see an exodus of US based domains and hosting from this, which is surely bad for the economy. Companies will have to decide if they want to be available to the 300 million people in the censored USA or the other 6 billion in the rest of the world.
I don't think using a foreign DNR or host would affect your susceptibility to this kind of blacklisting. Those domain names still have to be resolved, part of which is handled regionally, which is why when you purchase/update a domain name, the change doesn't happen across the globe instantaneously, it has to propagate to all the many domain name resolution nodes. Example: in China they block all kinds of sites regardless of where they are hosted.
Sorry but using this without someones consent or without a definate legal reason ( ie police ) is snooping. I have met enough wierd creeps who like to spy into peoples lives for thier own enjoyment or enrichment to ever condone a device like this. An rf signal detector or an EMF reader ( for the appropriate mobile frequency ) should help you find one of these if some creeper has put one of these on your car.
I would be in favor in boycotting PayPal entirely. As a mainstream alternative, Google checkout has about the same penetration I still havn't forgotten that PayPal voluntarily boycotted Wikileaks last year. More recently, PayPal thought it would be a good idea to decide what books people should be allowed to sell. They are becoming a leading example of corporate censorship on the internet. Some other alternatives
I'm local to the pub and I've tried to explain to everyone. This pub is infringing on someone else's creation. The name isn't theirs, the inside artwork is based on stuff that they don't own, they didn't ask for permission, the drinks names aren't even subtle puns they've just taken everything word for word. They are also profiting on all of this . I'm surprised it lasted this long and it's annoying me that everyone is trying to say that this is totally OK for them to have done and this is "property law gone mad". This is the sort of shit these laws are supposed to protect IP owners against. I don't agree with them going after the fan artist on DeviantArt or something like that but If I wrote a successful series of books I sure as hell wouldn't want someone else actually profiting off of my work without my permission and then claiming to be the victim.
I don't see how anything beyond life of the artist is even remotely reasonable. Unless you also disagree with the inheritance tax, can't we all agree that making one popular work of art shouldn't automatically create an art aristocracy in which you and your children have exclusive rights to publishing the content forever? Imagine getting sued for copyright infringement for not getting the rights to show a scene from Snow White in a non-academic setting twenty years from now. Literally, everyone involved with making any part of that movie will be dead by then. How could that be justified? What artist is being protected? At some point, Copyright is just an attempt to make an artistic work a commodity to be bought and sold like antiques at an auction.
My basic problem with most of this is that I've not seen any emperical information on the actual business-side of things. For example, the other day I attempted to look up how much the major studios (Time Warner, Walt Disney, Sony, Viacom, Comcast, and News Corp) make in South Korea. The claim I was trying to verify is that 70-percent of their earnings are stolen by copyright infringement (e.g. Internet piracy). No such numbers could be found. I did some pretty heavy Google gymnastics, and couldn't find jack shit, in terms of numbers. Similar things I'd like to know is how much do Walt Disney and these other companies make after the first weekend? After the first theater-run? After the movie has been available for purchase for a year? For five years? For twenty? I could just as well make random claims that 99-percent of the money Disney made off "The Little Mermaid" was made in the first five years, and that in fact, they wouldn't lose any significant income if the movie was completely open to the public in all formats with no legal restrictions.
Donation is just another word for legal bribe. In law school I learned that most of the ordinary financial practices that congressmen engage in would be illegal if any one else attempted them. Congressmen are exempt from all insider trading laws, and a handful of other white collar crimes as well, including financial disclosures during certain transactions. As long as lobbying is a commonly accepted practice and campaign financing continues to go unchecked, congress will never consider the best interests of its constituents.
The reason why people say that is because other companies are lets share, and Apple is like take-take-take=make and its mine and I own. Then they're like sue you for not patening the information.
This is where creating a larger power grid is better. As the grid gets bigger all of the fluctuations start to go away and everything smooths out a bit more. There still will be fluctuations in the power delivery but the grid can handle it if it stays within a certain percentage. I forget what number gets thrown around (I can look it up if needed) but I believe that it is around 20%. Part of the equation here is that power companies need to be able to compensate for the power usage going from very low to full tilt in a very short time to be able to be an effective company. They need to have a large power supplier that can deliver huge amounts of power consistently and efficiently while still having a smaller power supply that can deliver a smaller amount of power that can fluctuate with the usage. When wind is at or below 20% (may be a different number) of the total power supply, the variability can be controlled by the smaller and faster responding power supply.
I had an eeepc 7" I carried while hitchhiking around the US and Mexico few years ago. This little thing was tough! I sometimes even broadcasted streaming video to JTV while sleeping in fields outside truck stops. Once I dropped it in a river and just pulled the battery out for a few days to let it dry, it worked perfectly. It made it all the way to southern mexico with me before I put a knee on it one day on accident crushing the screen. But even then when I rented a small apartment there I bought a cheap LCD monitor and hooked up to it. Great little machines. I still have a 10" version I use for watching movies in bed. Sits perfectly on my chest.
TSLA has a market cap of $4.2 billion with a volatility of 46%. 46/16 = 2.9% average daily fluctuations. 2.9% of $4.2 billion is $121 million. So you guys are talking about 2.2% of an average daily stock fluctuation as if it's money falling out of someone's pocket. Even if all of this were significant, it would assume that every single shareholder sells every single share the minute the New York Times released their article.
As a 2-year IT person in my small-ass local high school...No, it probably wasn't the IT department's decision, we have bigger problems to deal with. Like keeping the computers usable, or fighting with our (obsolete as hell) website filter that stops users from getting into things they shouldn't....but also blocks such 'sharewares download sites lol' as the Mozilla download page, or Google Earth's download page. At least at the HS level, anyway. These kids seem to have a weird compulsion to rip off laptop keys, fish out the rubber bands from DVD drives (rendering them unable to open/close properly), and generally treat the school equipment as horribly as they can get away with. Hell, you know something's up when you've needed to replace more laptop keyboards (would have replaced the keys, but the connections were usually snapped to hell) than desktop keyboards, in a school with a three or four to one desktop/laptop ratio.
Actually, Schweitzer held one of the [highest approval ratings of any governor]( pretty consistently throughout his time in Helena, and there's a big push for him to run for Baucus' Senate seat next year... but here's a funny personal story about [Schweitzer's Republican predecessor]( a Governor we ACTUALLY don't like to talk about: When I was in school, we took a 2-day trip to Helena to learn about how the state government works. Actually, it was a lot of fun, and is one of the few public school learning experiences that I remember fondly. The day we were supposed to go home, there was a big buffet set up in one of the conference rooms, and a number of long tables set up for us. My best friend was in a wheelchair, so we had our pick of places. Ever the eager beaver, I picked the spot right by the podium. So we all got settled in and started to eat, and one of our guides came out and thanked us for coming down, and introduced the then-Governor, Judy Martz. She came out and gave a speech about how government works and how great it is that we could be a part of it... but like many Republicans today, she couldn't do it without using a few conservative catchphrases. At one point, as she was explaining individual responsibility to us, she uttered the phrase "There are no free lunches," and left a couple of seconds of dead air. I, sitting no more than 10 feet from her, seized this opportunity to look up at her, point down at my plate, and say "This one was free." Needless to say, none of my teachers were happy with me.
Well ive been talking about our corrupt socioeconomic system and the dumbasses that run it/bend a knee to it for about 18yrs, most people were unwilling to listen because they didn't care about others, they were apathetic towards our collective well being or were just outright selfish and stupid and don't understand how our society currently works.
This happened to me a couple of years ago while my buddy and I were trying to cross over from Canada. It was pretty late at night, and this was during he transition from a drivers license to a passport as valid ID needed in order to cross. We got to the border and hand over the ID and after a couple of questions we were directed to have our car searched. They placed us in a room, inside of the garage where the car was visibile to us being searched. Two homeland security personnel came in and asked us for our ID again so I take out my wallet and I'm having a hard time being nervous and all taking it out so the man says "That's okay, I'll grab it for you" and takes my wallet and leaves the room with the other guy. I looked at my friend and he kinda seems pissed but I'm cool, I told him no big deal let's just get out of here before we end up getting arrested for nothing. I had no idea about the laws or anything about going to america and if you could be detained for hours or anything like that and I wasn't about to find out. The same homeland officers come back in the room and the same guy who took my wallet sees me on my phone and says "You can't have phones in this room" No problem, I hand it over and they leave again. Now here's the thing. When going over the bridge I had started recording because I thought for sure we were going to be denied and I was jokingly making video evidence of how stupid my friend was to think we would be able to cross at this time of night (it was 4am). Unknowingly and in my nervousness I had forgotten to stop the recording and it was running in the background on an app on my iphone. We were released and on the drive home I went to start a new video, as a "I told you so!" follow up to the video I thought I had previously made of us trying to cross. In the recording you don't see much, but you do hear the audio of them taking my phone, leaving the room, and then my iphone unlock click goes off. You hear one of the officers ask what they wanted to do with us and the officer replies along the lines of "if there's nothing here we'll send em back" He proceeds to look through my phone I'm assuming and then you hear the iPhone lock click again and they come back into the room where you hear me say "Hey listen, we just want to go back, we'll come back another time with passports" I remember feeling upset that they would do this, though I had no idea if they had the right to go through my phone. Obviously, something was weird since I didn't believe the whole "No phones in this room" idea as it wasn't exactly special. There was nothing in the room except posted laws about smuggling and the such. Anyways thats my story.
Synchronisation is not that hard part. Most multi-threaded applications just end up lock-stepped anyway. The hard part is efficiently splitting load over multiple threads. I can make two threads, one which does a hard problem and the other that puts out "multithreading woo hoo" to the console every second. That doesn't mean I've got multithreading licked.
Good things: Android: you can do everything, we have a lot of available devices. Apple: applications won't piss you off and slow your system (also real-time audio for applications) Bad things: Android: carriers can do everything too and put crapware on your device, also you're SOL if you don't buy a Nexus (but we still have a lot of devices!) Apple: you can't do everything.
The EFF have written extensively about TPP. A summary is here with many more articles linked in it.
I was in the military in the late 80s, working at one of those "secret" installations. The military sent its security unit to probe us. They sent cute girls to chat us up in the local bars, and rifled through the building trash (we had a massive shredder and were supposed to be shredding everything "confidential"...). After about a week, they called us in, and briefed us on our installation and what we did. They had just about every detail correct.
It's probably your isp. What alot of them won't tell you is that they use software on their networks that will throttle certain types of network traffic. They do this because people who illegally download alot will cause quite a bit of network congestion. The problem with the software they use is that it can't immediately differentiate exactly what the network traffic is. For example someone who uses netflix or world of warcraft, their traffic is going to look alot like p2p traffic which the software will immediately flag and throttle. Sometimes it will analyze the traffic and say well this is good and legit, open his line back up. Sometimes you have to call your ISP and bitch them out. They'll give you an excuse because they can't fix the problem without spending millions overhauling the network.
If you only reward success then you teach your team to only take on tasks that present obviously overcomeable challenges (ie, easy stuff). If you encourage them to take the big risks and face the big challenges then you are far more likely to either fail or come up with something nobody else has done before. Something unique and genuinely "new" to the world.
It seems like this would cause those industries to stagnate. A free market properly regulated by the government to promote competition allows for continuous innovation and advancements in each industry. Nationalizing an industry, even if democratically, centralizes power into one place, making it easier to corrupt, and providing a bureaucratic barrier to entry into the market, limiting competition. A nationalized industry has no incentive to improve. If internet was nationalized, after the initial boost, the people and government would lose interest, and internet speeds would fall even further behind. Everyone knows how slow the government is at getting things done, even when they're doing what they're supposed to. I prefer the alternative of simply giving the government enough power and authority to destroy monopolies and force a competitive environment. That way, the market really will work how it's supposed to, and we won't have to worry about partisan politics interfering in nationally owned industries. EDIT:
More like
There is something coming back to the community; they get the opportunity to access those toll roads. Assuming the installation is done well, it wouldn't harm anybody. The company is providing an opportunity that you wouldn't otherwise have, so there's no reason to punish them for it. In addition, toll roads are massive construction projects, so it makes some sense to pay a fee for inconveniencing the population with it's construction. The installation of fiber cables is no where near that scale, so to charge anything more than a very minor fee makes absolutely no sense. You don't get to punish someone simply for making money. This government installation tax/fee is completely disjoint and separate from two other issues I believe you are including: a) monopolies b) tax income. I already spoke about income. But if the installation creates a monopoly, that is an excellent reason for the government to intervene. And they wouldn't intervene with fees/taxes, they would destroy the monopoly. In addition, the installation tax/fee itself is potentially poor for competition because it creates a barrier to entry that smaller business may not be able to pass if the fee is too large.
I live in a Google Fiber city, but a lot of residences don't have it yet. Apartments are charged the $300 per apartment and most choose not to allow the access to save money. So, I'm stuck with other providers that still rape my wallet. I haven't has Internet other than on my phone for 3 years now.
I think the term "competition" has no meaning here. It is a Red Herring, because there is plenty of competition. It has to do with with governments signing exclusivity agreements, I'll concede that, but beyond this, there is a larger problem. We are reaching something of a peak in required bandwidth. 10 gbps will get you all the hi-def eye-candy you will need. For domestic purposes, this might even be overkill. If you can keep speeds artificially low, you can charge for "premium" services, this is where the money is. Once Internet is the end all, be all for communication, there will be no need for a bundle. They dug up the ground once, because there was money in it. There is no money in getting people all the Internet they will ever need. You can't charge Netflix extra, there are no premium plans. Google sees this. They are a content provider, and if they can't get that content to you, there is a problem. On the other hand, cable companies have zero problem watching you suffer as the bits struggle down your pipe. As well, these companies have cable packages that suffer as Internet speeds go up. It isn't competition, we are just asking the wrong people to do the job. It would be like asking a taxi-driver, to help increase the reach of the subway system. Why the hell would he? If people don't need your expensive service, you are out a lot of cash. As a network administrator, this just makes me so sad. This is the opposite of the direction I thought we were headed. It is like seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, then slamming it in reverse. Very disheartening.
u/Kalium's answer covers it mostly, but the way I like to look at it is this: You said earlier: > Aside from downloading massive files (like a game that might take 15 min. And how often does one download massive files?), what needs to be faster? Today, you don't download large files often because they might take 15 minutes. But if you knew that you could download a large file in 5 seconds, your usage patterns might change, and you might get into the habit of downloading lots of large files -- to the point that you don't even notice you're doing it, because it's become so much a part of your daily life (remember how it used to take > 60 seconds to load a high-quality JPG? But today the sites you browse feature lots of those, and you don't notice because it's so fast). Also, once content creators can trust that their audience (you) can download large files in a few seconds, they will be able to design sites and games to serve to you which would not be possible to experience (without unacceptable lag) today.
Well if you are not a US resident, I would do some research and see if your country has any preventative measures against ISPs regulating internet traffic. I can't tell you where the best source for this is, but the internet is a vast place, and you should be able to find some folks willing to help. The next step is to contact your representatives (especially if you don't see that there are measures in place to prevent traffic regulation) and tell them that you want to discuss your position on net neutrality. Make sure to mention that you are pro net neutrality, and that the current situation in America is a prime example of a country that is heading down a road that will lead to stagnate e-commerce, government sponsored monopolies, and limit access to one of the most important tools mankind has ever known. The best thing you can do to help is to make sure your country leads by example. If the US (at this point is seems more like when) approves this, it will then have examples to compare themselves to and they can see just how bad they fucked up. Hopefully falling behind the rest of the world in internet commerce will be enough to shake them awake and right their ways. For anyone else outside of the US wondering why they should care, there are two big reasons, I can think up off of the top of my head. One, is that if US ISPs are charging higher rates on internet businesses, they are going to pass that cost on to their US customers. As a result some businesses may take a huge hit to their wallets when customers can no longer afford their services. Even though the US isn't the only internet consumer, it is a fairly large one. Some businesses may struggle because of this. Second, a lot of start ups cannot afford this extra fee to remain competitive with the big dogs. As such, they are at a disadvantage in a large market, which little guys need all the business they can get if they want to survive long enough to get off the ground.
It's pretty telling that in these comment threads, very few telco workers come out and comment. The reason why everyone isn't outraged is that those of us who understand internet connectivity are also aware that Netflix is being unreasonable. They're promoting a truthy-sounding complaint that had no technical merit. And they're appealing to their end users, rather than their regulatory agencies.
I agree with you on the practicality of spending so much money on defense. It's ridiculous. That being said, it is an amazing feat of engineering to even get the damned thing in the sky at all, let alone with 20 tons of munitions. But the aircraft is still relevant in this day and age. Like I said, it's capable of dropping twenty tons of bombs on an enemy before the enemy even knows that it's there. Politics of the Iraq war aside, it was instrumental in the initial onslaught. Precision bombing in heavily defended airspace is something that only this plane can accomplish, since the F-117 was retired a while back. Granted, the likelihood of the USAF having another stealth bomber is extremely high, but we don't know of anything for sure. Cruise missiles aren't always useful because you generally know that they're coming and you can take precautions in the little time you have before they arrive. ICBMs can't be launched at a target because ICBMs have one purpose: to deliver nuclear warheads. Start launching those willy nilly and you could very well kick off the end of the human race.
How difficult is it to see successful business models and apply them to your field? Oh look, there is netflix we should use their platform...nah lets fuck them out of content or be too inept to create one of our own but lets blame people for wanting to view our content on different devices. Another example? Look what just happened to Aereo... why is Game of Thrones the most pirated thing on tv? Oh because we don't wanna innovate and reach another target market! Wait maybe I'm wrong, it's not like the media industry has a track record of doing this with new forms of media consumption or anything. Oh wait, they do! Look into what they said about VHS going to kill the movie theaters and referred to it as the night-stalker then later herald it as the savior to the movie industry. Look at what they did with tape cassettes...and CD and why you now pay so much to have recordable media because they are worried you're using it to steal...Look at what they said about MP3 players...and now look at the same arguments being laid against streaming online...
People who see a watch as a mere tool instead of a piece of fine art like us watchfreaks (JLC, Glashütte, ...) can settle for $100 to get a sturdy watch that will last for years, surely it isn't meant to be past on from generation to generation like a Rolex but neither is a smartphone/smartwatch. So $350 seems a lot for a watch but you should remember it does a little bit more then your average watch.
Contracts in general. Had a landlord that forbade me or my roomies from having any kind of alcohol or tobacco on the premises in the lease. (Tobacco... okay, it ruins the interior, can kinda understand that, but still a grownup.) One day he came in, did an illegal inspection while we were all at work and took a picture of the one lone beer in my fridge and tried to evict us for it (we signed a 3 year lease with a crazy, crazy good rent and everyone around us was paying almost double 2 years in, he just wanted to raise the rent a year early) The judge literally laughed him the fuck out of court. "You can't suspend civil rights of your tenants. They're not on probation or parole, and if they wish to possess legal amounts of alcohol on the premises they can." He ended up paying court costs and $100 in "damages" for rummaging through our things when we weren't home. That judge was a boss, also commended on us for our clean commode (a small crack in the lid was presented as "wanton destruction of property" by scumlord.)
Comcast can provided adequate internet service. They just don't have to for a reasonable price due to their monopoly status. The Internet is still good it's just over priced. If they did not provide what you signed for on the Internet side, they would invite a lot of class action and FCC trouble. On the home security side, they do have a good amount of competition. So they do provide it at a more reasonable price but they also will provide what they are contractually obligated to do. If they didn't they would lose a very big sum of money in this case and in cases to follow.
No, you don't. You can trust your friends because you believe you have good judgement but you can't trust friends of a friend because you don't know the criteria to be the friend of your friend. My friends are friends with terrible assholes and I'm friends with a person or two that they hate.
As a guy with an especially feminine name (hence the username to make clear my sexual identity,) you are dooming your son/daughter to an eternity of irritating corrections and paperwork mishaps. I didn't exist at a job that I worked at and was paid for for 10 months. 10 months! I was the guy from Office Space! All because they thought I was a girl that dropped out during training, so my actual W-2's were thrown away and hers were used. I have been sent to the office multiple times because the substitute teacher thought I was fooling around and covering for some girl during role call. Teachers had to leave notes in their books for me! I once was accepted to a Science Academy with advanced equipment and stuff I didn't understand at 7. Turns out it was an all-girl's academy. When I came back from Exodus during Basic Training, I got the results back from my drug test and was told in front of the entire company that I wasn't, in fact, pregnant.
Yeah, that one will fail. You can usually only exculpate out of ordinary negligence with a waiver. The thing is that it's not that easy to prove gross negligence, so most of the time if you litigate the waiver that only includes ordinary negligence will stand up. The lawyer who wrote that provision was probably thinking that he was preventing his client for being sued for the intentional torts of his employees. That often, if not always, happens anyway. The artful plaintiff's lawyer will still plead the case as a gross and ordinary negligence case, but you'll reduce the case's settlement value by arguing that it was an intentional unauthorized act of the employee and they should have sued the employee instead.
Comcast really is the worst, I was working at one of the call centers they barely paid and saw two very aloof support people trying to disable a malfunctioning alarm in the middle of the night, the alarm was creating a disturbance in the neighborhood as there was no threat or maybe the alarm was seeing into the FUTURE :-\| . The workers didn't have a clue what to do despite their slight amount of training on the systems and were trying to get advice from their supervisor who also had no clue, it was a very shoddy getup. This is the most dangerous gambit that these cable companies are running, pretending to know enough to run "security" for people creating a false sense of it, and ultimately leading to horrible tragedies like this. The call center typically frowned upon actual resolution of issues for fast call times, I'd end up getting calls from poor bastards that had called someone close to me and was told a story and let go.
You don't take Computer Science if you want to learn to program [languageName] . Computer Science is theory; and while you will use some programming language to explore the theory: it's not there to teach you a programming language. If you want to learn to program, there are plenty of college level associates degrees for that. Get ahold of Knuth's [The Art of Computer Programming]( three volume set. He didn't even bother with a real language; but made up a hypothetical assembly pseudo-code language in order to explore concepts, algorithms, and costs.
Mostly an obsolete technical reason. Network transfer speeds are always measured in bits, since that is easily concrete and measurable. Historically what a "byte" was wasn't always as clearly defined across hardware platforms, the definition solidified on the 8:1 ratio but in the grey mists of the past sometimes a byte = data for one character, which could be platform dependent. The use of bytes as number of characters is probably more approachable to the average layman, since we can think about characters in a document, book, etc. as a guideline. Bits is more of a low level concept, but one that when we are talking about thinks like transmissions over a wire, error correction and the like engineers need to worry about.
All of the default subreddits are full of clickbait articles with catchy controversial titles. Specifically people who use all, since they want a stream of pictures and can't read more then one sentence without losing interest. That's what part way through most comments you can make the point in two sentences and they wont read the rest of it. It doesnt even matter that I wear a banana peel around my erect penis while I watch HBO shows to get a realistic feel for the simulated sex scenes, no one will notice.
Actually, no. Neither Siri or Google are "always on", both require some sort of prompt, and nothing is transmitted until that point. There are numerous practical reasons behind this, power and data use being primary ones (firing up the cellular or wifi connection constantly would be a huge power drain). This is very easy to fully check on a rooted Android phone as you can check all network traffic with no external equipment. I've also checked this with iOS devices on wifi (with no other data connection). Of course what you say after voice recognition is going has to be sent somewhere, the processing power and storage (good voice rec requires a large database to handle all the different way people speak and say the same words) requirements simply prevent it from being done well on a phone. Not to mention that Google at least is continuously improving recognition. it's unfortunate that you and Tubal are getting so many upvotes for making factually incorrect statements. I'd post up packet capture logs but that wouldn't prove a negative ("you could have captured that while being silent!" etc).
Indeed, this is one of things (probably not the most important) which is so dangerous about the US government weakening computer security via backdoors and automated LE (law enforcement) access. Very important secrets end up on these weakened systems, foreign intelligence agencies that have penetrated LEOs or learned of the backdoors can use these same methods to spy on, to plan against and to blackmail powerful public figures. Even if US National Security people forced high level government actors to move to secure email, the problem doesn't go away. Children and partners of powerful government officials will mention secrets, such as which country their mother is flying to in a week, overheard conversations, etc... Or better yet root the mobile phone of some assistant of some important deputy director and turn the microphone on from time to time during business hours and see what you learn.
Its important to know, that in America, Grand Juries choose to indite people (go to trial) in literally 99% of all cases, EXCEPT when it involves police, then that number falls to less than 10%. Getting a Grand Jury to indite someone in the US, is just a formality. All it means is "there is enough probability of wrong-doing, that we should investigate". They don't even have to prove anything at GJ, unlike at trial where "reasonable doubt" and "burden of proof" and all that comes in.
I think you're seeing the ultimate accountability, public attention. Structural oversight would be nice, like a government body's job to police the police. But I think American history shows that doesn't work out good enough. Internal regulatory departments are quickly subjected to regulatory capture if they're not stocked with rubber stamps in the first place. Elected officials kowtow to police because voters trust cops more than they trust elected officials (because voters make poor choices, it's circular). The closest thing to an incorruptible oversight committee is the public at large. It takes quite a bit to actually motivate the public to overcome apathy and get outraged, unfortunately, but at least the public can't be bought off like the other forms of oversight can.
Sort of. Any attempt will be terrible because I'm not going to write 1000 words in this little box. -- [SPOILERS] Basically, it follows two time periods, WWII and modern day, that are connect by a number of threads. Math, crypto, wealth, and genocide being among them. It's easiest to talk about the family lines: Waterhouse -- In WWII Lawrence Waterhouse hobnobs with a lot of the crypto figures of the time including Turing and end up involved in a conspiracy involving German war gold. In the present time, Randy (Lawrence's grandson) gets involved with a startup and eventually stumbles across granddad's papers and finds a huge stash of war gold. He and his partner's start an electronic currency with it with the motivation of preventing future genocides. Shaftoe -- Bobby Shaftoe is a marine in WWII and works with L. Waterhouse in making random stuff happen in order to cover up the fact that the Allies have broken the German codes. In the present, Douglas helps Randy Waterhouse find the gold and provides the love interest in the form of his daughter, America (Amy) Shaftoe. Enoch Root -- Yep one guy is a line. He's around for both due to his extreme longevity. I can't think of much to say about him except that he's a force for good who's always there. There are lots of other very interesting characters which are probably howlingly stupid for me not to describe. Really, read the book.
You have to apply the Stephenson factor: 10^5 words, then you can say
Basically your CPU is merely made only as a middleman for information, another large CPU is used to process and render all the data you require and streams it to your cpu, this enables even the shittiest computers play the highest resolution your monitor can handle. As of now I do not know if lag is an issue, but I do think it will.
I don't shed much of a tear for record companies. I agree their bottom line is suffering because they will not participate in evolutions of the market. Also, don't musicians (as I suppose those are the ones brought up most frequently) make more money touring than from album sales? I mean, who wants to support a "musician" that won't tour for money? Plenty of artists give their music away for free- even smaller acts nowadays. They do what they love most to pay their bills- perform. Piracy isn't a good thing, but it has always been around as long as art-for-money can be traced and will always be around. It's funny because they act like it's suddenly some fucking epidemic. WAKE UP.
So, the lesson learned, or
I disagree. This train is actually a brainchild of German engineers (It's called Transrapid in Germany) and has been under development since 1969. Lines were planned to run from Hamburg to Berlin, and also connecting Airports with city centers. However, these projects were never realized and the maglev train you see in the video is its first commercial implementation. The reason for this is that while the concept is quite exciting, a real-world application is economically and environmentally difficult. From the outside, this thing makes about as much sound as a fighter jet. Also, you have to build the tracks, which are immensely expensive and damaging the landscape. There was a lot of popular resistance in Germany against these projects, and they were dropped because the price was constantly skyrocketing. The only reason why it was built in China IMO ist that over there you still have some adherents to the ultra-optimistic view of technology and progress that was prevalent in the 50s and 60s (and which led to such projects as the Concorde). Also, there's enough super cheap labor that lets you build those tracks at a lesser cost. A much more viable alternative to maglev trains are high-speed trains on conventional rails. With the Transrapid, the time saved between Hamburg and Berlin would have been around 30 minutes (1h versus 1h30 via ICE, if I remember correctly), at an incredibly high cost (economic and environmental). If you take a look at France and its TGV: you can go from Paris to Marseille in 3 hours. That's for a direct distance of 663 kilometers; you basically cross the whole country and arrive at the mediterranean faster and easier that you would with any plane. Now good luck with building and maintaining a magnetic track for that distance.
Estimating a 25cm (.25m) of blur while the trains pass at 860km/h (239m/s) means that the picture took around 1/10th of a millisecond. If the shutter was 2cm across then each shutter (above and below) would be moving at only 10m/s or 36km/h. Not that impressive. BUT the acceleration has to be very fast since the shutters are moving from rest.
You don't actually understand the economics of flying. It's gameover for the US, I'm afraid - you simply don't have the money (or desire) to replace your air transport system, even though you shortly won't actually be able to afford to operate it.
China will come back to it when it's ready. It's just moved into the magnet business, incidentally. And it's actually quieter than plenty of trains that are considered "normal", i.e. not high-speed. Not quiet , but quieter than you'd expect. It's also a lot smoother than many people here seem to believe.
The title isn't inaccurate, just ambiguous. This article is NOT about Twitter and Facebook displacing RSS. It's describing how Twitter and Facebook have reduced their support for RSS feeds, probably because they want you to interact directly with the site.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.