0
stringlengths 9
22.1k
|
|---|
in most situations, it is terrible people (the buyers) who manipulate the resolution center that are actually to blame for "ruining ebay/paypal" it is not paypal themselves. paypal most of the time have no choice in the matter but to side with the buyer. as long as you are clear about what it is you're selling or what goods/services you offer, you shouldn't run into any problems. it takes two to tango. be an honest seller and you'll get honest buyers. and obviously, be wary of those with less than 10 feedback. i've made over 250 transactions on ebay/paypal and a very minute scale of those transactions have actually resulted in problems. headaches? sure. but enough reason to stop using the services entirely? No. PayPal is not evil. Ebay is not evil. People are idiots, assholes, and evil terrible things.
paypal will give you rules about what you can and cannot sell. you dont actually have to abide by their stupid, "scary" emails. be discreet about your transactions.. tell your buyers they'd get a better deal if they send gift payments. it works most times. then again, i'm always 100% honest with buyers and very communicative |
I had the same issue, a few years ago, Paypal locked my account because they wanted to "confirm that I was the owner of the account" because of this, it was perma-banned. Whenever I tried to confirm I was the owner, they sent me to the transaction center and told me to follow the tasks there. Except there was one problem, THERE WERE NO TASKS. I e-mailed them and even told them about this error, and the only thing I got back was, "Go to the transaction center and follow the tasks." Went as far as to call them about it, they said the same thing again, I tried explaining that there were no tasks and they were just so confused. Long story short, i said screw you, forgot paypal and used Google checkouts. |
Anonymous" in this operation is controlled by the CIA. Days before this happened, the government warned of "cyber-attacks" that were imminent. How could they know they were going to be attacked?
If there was something to these Supreme Court files, Anonymous would have just released them unencrypted. There is no point in delaying unless your juicy material is really just nothing.
If you actually attempt to download these encrypted files you'll find it would take hours because the way it is formatted, even though they are simple text files. They could have easily distributed them in a RAR, but they are meant to waste the time of anyone who is trying to download them. |
What language is this? I'm only asking because I'm working how
(*MyPatendedFunctionPointerCall (MyPatentedAnythingParameter);
works.
I know that in C you have structs and use pointers to functions to create an "object", but you still use a method in the traditional sense e.g. method(parameters). I see that you have parentheses around the input, but don't understand why you have it around the method name itself. |
Google processed over 5 million searches in the 120 seconds I |
I'm well aware of the story. The whole crux of the article is that the authors want to make it legal to do exactly what Sony did. However they don't go into any analysis of the feasibility to do so. I imagine if it was legal to do, that companies would start cranking out "legal" ransomware, that only paying customers would have to deal with. |
I think it might be a principle thing. Until now you couldn't sue because you didn't know that you were affected by the NSA even though you figured you were. Now we know that all verizon customers are because of this. PRISM came to light in what? 07-08? But because you didn't know what data was going though there you still couldnt sue. Sadly I don't think you can sue someone in criminal court, so you have to set a cash amount and run with it to get more data up and to the people. Granted at 3 billion dollars the government could just go, fuck this we settle and pay out without accepting fault, but doing so opens a pandora's box of class actions / personals until the verizon customer base is exhausted. |
AES is the most commonly used, which is also generally what the US government uses. If they could easily break it, I doubt they would be using it.
Services like Skype use AES-128 encryption (allegedly), and the US government became upset they couldn't eavesdrop on Skype. A few years ago, Microsoft bought Skype, and centralized all the relay's in a Microsoft datacenter. NSA created PRISM, and now they can just access the raw data instead of worrying about encryption! They have negated the need to crack encryption to spy on people for the main part.
AES Encryption isn't broken, but the Public Key Infrastructure usually handles the keys for encryption / decryption is broken. Cracking AES keys would take a huge amount of computer power we can't even really comprehend. If the NSA is capable of cracking AES, you can bet that it's ultra expensive for them to crack. In order for the NSA to have something much "better" then current consumer computers, they would need to invest a lot of money to build more powerful components then company's such as Intel, Nvidia and AMD. |
I will be putting up large posters to spread the word in densely populated areas, as well as contributing my art to corporate buildings such as banks, Wal-Mart's, and charter schools.
There are too many people who know little to nothing about what is going on. There are too many people that fear the law to disobey it. Wal-Mart and J.P. Morgan Chase will have no problem paying for some new paint. Someone will be paid to cover my art, so it will provide a job; as I will not be leaving ugly paragraphs of scrawled text on walls.
If anyone would like a copy of the poster format, I would be more then happy to share. More people need to be doing proactive things to stop this, whether you work or not. I don't care if you have to wake up at five, and go tack up posters for an hour before work in the morning; If I can do it, you can too.
Too many Americans are complacent about the things that our government is doing. Turkey rioted over a park demolition. A park.
How many parks, and forests has the US shut down or logged?
How many public schools will they shut down, and replace with charter schools?
How many people have no idea of the effect that charter schools will have?
Reddit has thousands of users, and if each one of you shared your opinion, and spoke up; telling them that "This is NOT ok with us." Then we CAN and WILL get something done. Screw the naysayers telling you to wait until "it" starts to participate.
It needs to start somewhere, and I'll do it all myself if you wont help me. "I have to work tomorrow, maybe ill do it on the weekend." is just a bullshit excuse that you give yourself because you are lazy and complacent; If you have to contribute to your cause on your commute then do it. I ride the ferry nearly every day and it will be a great place to spread the word; as I will be ordering, printing, copying, and distributing thousands of posters.
And as a note to the people who see almost everything: You will be judged for your actions. I do not fear you; for you are cowards, and cowards will never succeed. |
Executive privilege still exists, the courts just found it didn't apply in Nixon's case. Also, and more importantly, presidential immunity is different than executive privilege. Executive privilege simply means the president is permitted to keep certain documents/dealings private, allowing them to resist a subpeona or court order to reveal that which qualifies under executive privilege.
Presidential immunity, on the other hand, deals with the President being immune to civil suits for actions committed as part of his duties as President. Clinton unsuccessfully tried to argue this applied in the case Paula Jones brought against him for sexual harassment. That was easily distinguishable from this case though in that this will most definitely involve an aspect of his role as President. |
Long story short, Former IT Guy/CIA/Dude with high level of security clearance, saw a lot of disturbing things related to massive scale worldwide warrantless wiretapping being done in the name of "National Security" so he went public in a British interview setting off mass recriminations and saber rattling across the globe.
This is yet more fallout. |
Bingo. Using encryption is pointless with PRISM. The government isn't wasting their time listening to network traffic and attempting to decrypt everybody's messages. They've already "legally" compromised the host. You can encrypt all your communications with Google, but Google is then turning around and handing your search history over to the NSA. Its like sending a message to a friend in Morse code, then having the friend transcribe it onto a piece of paper and hand it to the authorities. |
1 - most sites don't even have an encrypted version of your password, they only have a hash of it. a hash is one-way, encryption is two-way. meaning, with encryption there is a key that can reverse the encryption, with hashing there is no key to reverse it. the only way to 'decrypt' a hashed password is to generate hashes of random password guesses until you get a hash that matches. this really doesn't affect your point, but it's an important distinction. what does matter is that using something like PGP to encrypt the text of your e-mails in the first place, then the method in which the e-mail server stores/transmits the e-mail doesn't matter.
2 - any half-way decent anti-virus software will detect a keylogger on your system. the heuristics of a keylogging program are easy to detect.
3 - many encryption software is open-source, this makes it pretty damn hard for anyone to put in any kind of backdoor.
4 - the fuck? |
This very statement is why we lose the war... It's worth 20-30 minutes of your life.
Spend some time educating yourself and knowing how your rights are being violated and perhaps you will be infuriated and more likely to do something about it.
Even if THIS lawsuit dies a quick death as it likely will.
EDIT: |
downvoted for the phrase "whiny moron .... " and the conclusion itself is based on the questionable assumption that those calling for revolution are in a democracy, since men like Plato thought no more than 5000 men could form a democracy. You had me with you (for an upvote) untill the |
It's a paradox because of the overblown expectations of constant filming, and privacy concerns in general, when Glass users themselves are the focus. I mean, that's pretty straight forward. Your response is a good example of that: the camera is only on for split seconds upon specific command, which is a far cry from just walking around filming everything. Given how limited the battery life is, the reality of the usage scenario is that you rarely take pictures of things that you wouldn't have stopped to pull your phone out for, and certainly not just random people in public at any time at all. |
No]( [they]( [can't](
Quarkslab claims they can read iMessages using a "man-in-the-middle" attack, and then conveniently says they are working on a tool that will shield against these types of iMessage snooping attacks.
Hmm, how convenient . . . |
iMessage is the same black box it's always been.
So, right in paragraph 1, he clearly tells us that he has no concrete info to go on.
> This seems almost too good to be true, which in my experience means it probably is.
Supposition, not proof.
> The particulars of their choices make a big difference when it comes to your privacy.
Choices which the author freely admits he doesn't know . But that doesn't stop the guessing . . .
> The biggest problem with Apple's position is that it just plain isn't true.
Bold statement.
> If you use the iCloud backup service to back up your iDevice, there's a very good chance that Apple can access the last few days of your iMessage history.
"A very good chance"? Really? That's his "proof"?
There's "a very good chance" that someone you know will die in a car crash, yet we all still keep on driving . . .
> Taking Apple at their word
Which is all he can do, since he admits he has nothing concrete to work from . . .
> leaves us with two possibilities
Which he then just makes up, based on more wild guesses. And then "proves" with a proposed "experiment".
> Now go to an Apple store and shell out a fortune buying a new phone.
Yeah, no bias here at all . . .
> if I could do this experiment, then someone at Apple could have done it too.
Again, more baseless supposition.
> If Apple ceases to be honest it may be possible to run a man-in-the-middle attack and silently intercept iMessage data.
And if your bank ceases to be honest, it may be possible to steal all your money from your account.
Should we all suddenly go drain our bank accounts and hide the money under our mattresses, just because some random guy maybe thinks banks aren't trustworthy?
Of course, you'd have to walk, since we've just "proven" that cars aren't trustworthy either . . . |
As a guy who studied networking for 2 years, any network can be easily secured by making a few small changes to your gateway router.
Now if you could get your employees to stop fucking downloading Trojans by bypassing our filters and accessing websites that are not allowed at work (ie ALL OF THEM), that'd be great. |
Another big difference is the way an LCD works is the panel has a backlight. The backlight shines through "windows" that are tinted in order to change the color of each pixel. (think of the window and the pixel as the same)
So on an LCD, the quality, and the contrast of the overall picture is only as good as it's backlight. There is 1 light, and a million little windows.
On a plasma, the window is the light. And your not trying to change the picture by taking that 1 light source and change it's color by passing it through a filter. You can directly change the light source itself. Which gives you much better contrast, and a much better picture.
I used to sell high end TV's years ago at a high end retailer. We had Pioneer plasmas that were upwards of 20K a pop for a 50 inch. (those were the best)
When ever you go to a box store and go TV shopping.
Do not watch animation. There is a reason they show animated movies on TV sets, and that's because a shitty set will still make a cartoon look good. Watch basketball or football if you can. Something with a lot of detail to it, something that you know. (everyone knows what a basketball game looks like)
When picking out a tv. Watch them all on black and white and play with the contrast. Typically speaking, the TV that looks better in black and white is going to look better in color.
IMHO, |
People here are not talking about the amount of frames the tv can process but the time it takes a pixel to change output, and the time delay between input and display
Virtually every LCD monitor has a pixel output fully capable of keeping up with a 100hz refresh rate. Unless the monitor is cold there is no one on the planet that can tell the difference in output rates at that refresh speed. It is physically impossible. At 120hz and higher LCD's noticeably lag with the output, but almost nothing uses a refresh rate that is faster than 100hz. The time delay difference from input to display between the two types is so small (like maybe 1 to 5 ms) that any perceived difference would be due to subliminal suggestion. The assumption that the LCD would perform poorly lending itself to the observation that it is. Again, anyone who claims to be able to tell the difference is a liar. Humans can't even observe anything with a time frame of less than .033 seconds without electronic help so anyone who claims to be able to observe an .004 second difference in input and output speeds is a liar.
You are all getting caught up in wives tales here.
>Also no xbox games will benefit (and i don't think any at all use) 120FPS, there would be no point as the maximum display output on the 360 is 60hz.
It's 120 hz, not FPS. Excuse the mistake if I made it.
>when you are talking about 120-240hz in tv's, this is to do with the motion interpolator they use, which adds terrible input lag regardless of display format (you need to hold back frames to interpolate)
All TV's refresh at 60hz, though those with monitor capabilities can up it to 120. As far as I know only a few high end CRT's can go to 240. I once owned one of these in a 21 inch model. It costs over 2 grand for it, but I was lucky to win it in a contest. Max resolution was 1600X1200 at 120hz and 1024X768 at 240hz. Not bad for 1999, really. Top of the line at the time.
Seriously. Plasmas have the advantages true black and not having a true native resolution (so things don't look pixelated on them). But for all intents and purposes, the difference in display rates between plasma and LCD is a non issue at the current refresh rates that are the standards. Both easily outrun the refresh rates that are tossed at them today and thus such differences are unnoticeable in real world applications, even gaming. |
But he gets money from Panasonic, working for them. Like he said. |
As a jaded outsider here, all I see is when a corporation in America wants something quashed, is they literally jump up and down and yell "Freedom" and "The Big Bad Federal Government wants to control you", throws a fistful of money at lobbyists and any opposition dissolves because:
a) The federal government department in question has neither the funding or manpower to fight the corporations; and
b) People seem to believe and push bullshit like this that is contrary to their interests because the somehow mistakenly believe that having government regulation is somehow worse than being "free", but raped in the arse.
Source: Used to work as an investigator in a fed gov department in another country that regulated the telco industry, which was one of the slimiest industries I have ever seen. They would literally do whatever they could to break the law and when caught, would stop that one particular thing (because we could only issue notices in the first instance before starting court action) and then do the next thing that was almost exactly the same.
If you show a history of being able to be trusted, you wouldn't need regulation. However I think it is fair to say that the telco industry in your particular country has categorically not shown that. |
You know what's funny? I predict that Google will play the hero and ignore, at least to some degree, this overturning of net neutrality and stand as a sort of last bastion for free internet access. Why do i think this? Because it's a smart business decision. I don't romanticize Google in the same way a lot of people seem to. I see them as a very sensible corporate entity. They are making long term investments, investments that i believe will rocket them past all other competition and into obscene amounts of power. What happens at that point is completely up in the air but the ride to the top will be an amazing sight to see. |
Stacking" the court, if you're using the colloquialism, is normal:
Since conservatives and liberals seem to have similar lifespans, theoretically it works out that if every President stacks the court when possible, you end up with a semi-non-insane court.
"Packing" the court is not:
When you pack the court, you add justices where previously there were no open spots, circumventing, well, everything. This is unusual and did not fly. |
When a packet is actually sent over a wire or fiber-optic cable, that's when it's been already unloaded from the buffer and it's no longer lingering in a tube. Fact is, there is an existing issue on the 'net with routers having too large of buffers but not fast enough of processing power & bandwidth to handle the data in those buffers, but with a large enough buffer packet loss won't appear to occur; latency will simply increase.
This is why the tubes metaphor doesn't work. The buffer issue is a known problem; newer technology focuses more on small, fast buffers and most traffic that requires low-latency returns is prioritized, so long as it's not using heavy bandwidth.
In this way, an overwhelmed router will simply drop packets, allowing other routers using smart algorithms such as BGP, to send traffic on other paths, solving the issue entirely. Check out - look up the BGP AS numbers of some large ISPs, and you can actually watch the re-routing of traffic occur. |
While I agree that limited liability allows an individual to act in a more risky manner, I do not feel that without ample regulation there would be the capability to pursue the outcomes in an anarcho capitalist society. in other words - they may not be explicitly granted immunity, but due to the lack of being capable of holding them accountable, they would not be able to be held accountable.
The idea with anarcho capitalism is that the workers would feel unsafe and leave. There is no regulation to protect them, but they are free to leave and seek employment with someone who does.
If the contract does not explicitly guarantee working conditions, it would not be something that could be sought through the legal system because it would not fall under contractual obligation.
Waging legal efforts through tort would be no better. Without a legal system that says what is, and isn't, harmful behavior it is left to each case. A person with an expensive lawyer would be capable of putting forth a defense that is much more likely to be successful than the person who was harmed, has little money and now has to figure out how to pay a lawyer.
Regulations in the united states are put into place because they outline where things become a problem. Tort legislation still happens, and it is bolstered by the definitions. If something is deemed unsafe, and the company should have known, they should be liable. It is much easier to pursue and a lawyer is more willing to take on a case for a portion of the victory money rather than actual money because it is more clear cut.
I agree that the businesses who violate safety regulations, both against their workers and consumers, are not facing steep enough penalties. But to believe that the anarcho capitalist's view of "the market would work it out" is faulty in that people, right now, consume goods and work in conditions that are unsafe and problematic to their health.
Instead of heading towards less regulation, we should be headed towards more . These are things that need to be clearly outlined, and the senior staff needs to be held more accountable. If the shareholders were not held legally accountable, but still saw a strong enough destruction of their profits, they would hold the senior staff accountable - but they do not. The legal and monetary ramifications for disobeying regulations are not significant enough to deter the corporation (in this case, an actual incorporated entity) from doing wrong.
The best way to think of it is, would you say that bringing a murderer in and saying "you're going to pay a fine of 100 dollars to this family that you killed" is enough? The reason I say 100 and not several hundred or even million (which is the case when a company causes a death by their actions), is because 100 is more likely comparable to the income of the murderer when scaled down.
If, instead, we levied harsher penalties - including possibly shutting down the company all together and revoking their incorporation, they would be much more interested in safety. The problem is, when does it become a matter of destroying the company and when is it a matter of not knowing, and thus letting tort go through?
Well, that's a tough question - and the legislation coming out is clearly in favor of the businesses right now. So it is even tougher to say, but that is the role of the government. To protect its citizens from all threats, foreign and domestic. That means from the corporations and businesses who would seek to make a buck off the back of the worker or at the cost of the lives of its customers. Jack in the Box suffered a great monetary loss when they had children die, but they still exist, and they still make money, just not as much. So what should have been its fate? |
I completely see where you're coming from, bar the implied sympathy to capitalism.
We both, however, have different understandings of what communism is. I would say that the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, and wherever else could be named in such a way, were/are not communism.
Communism is, despite what Stalin revised, stateless. Communism is the point ar which the productive capacities of society are all geared towards the prosperity of all people, all of whom are equally and maximally emancipated. No bosses. No presidents. No masters. That is the communist utopia that is the dream.
Even the Bolsheviks dreamt of such a utopia. The path they chose to take to reach such an end is where I, and many other modern communists, would diverge.
The Bolsheviks and many other groups have sought to reach communism through what is often termed Leninism, á la V. Lenin. This, generally speaking says the following: We want communism, but the present constitution of the world stands in our way. We recognise that states and governments are great vehicles of history, so we will seize them for ourselves and then use them to pave the way for the completion of the revolution by unifying our strength, bringing productive capacities under our control, etc. This will help spread the revolution to other states and peoples who will do the same. Due to the administrative centrality of states, we will have to delegate power to a few people to run the state in the interests of us. Thus the vanguard party is born. When the time comes however, the vanguard party and bureaucrats will relinquish their power that they so benevolently held, and the communist utopia will arise.
Im sure some Leninists today would take issue with the nuances, but that's the jist.
This was the logic behind the communism you referred to. And, as you also noted: shit didn't work and resulted in misery and authoritarianism. The people put in charge turned out to be in it for themselves, and out of such central administration arose philosophies such as Stalinism and the Juche philosophy of North Korea which claimed that communism could exist within a single state, and demanded the sickening idolisation of singular figureheads.
This was not communism. The allure of communism had been used to legitimise the horrific rule of a privileged few, which was exactly the sort of tendency that was so criticised for being so tied to capitalism. The communist project had failed. Long live free market capitalism! Viva la John Locke!
Or so, that's where so many accounts end, citing the triumph of capitalism as the only way, often when still acknowledging its evils (which is another post or 900 in itself....).
Communism, which zeal really picking up pace in the 60s-70s, went through a transformation; a rethink. The horrors of capitalism have only intensified - where is our world where we work together for mutual prosperity and emancipation?!
This has led to many different answers, most (if not nihilistic) of which could be summed up with: FUCK OFF LENIN!
The party form is disregarded as a useful model by many. Lots of discussions over coffee with anarchists are had. The anarchists try not to smirk and say "Bakunin fucking told you so". Many communists start wearing blacks next to their reds. In May 1968, the French take to the streets, take factories and get really fucking angry. In Italy similar events happen under the banner of "AUTONOMIA!". Through these and similar experiences communist philosophy is reborn, and libertarian-communism; anarcho-communism and this-is-what-it-meant-all-along-communism are terms that are used to distinguish from the old communisms of the USSR and similar. Some use the word Autonomist to emphasize thr heart of the communist project: autonomy; political, economic and social autonomy; in a word: freedom.
Communist thought, whilst still often termed Marxism, is moved away from its dogmatic routes and is informed by thinkers of more critical traditions. The Frankfurt School, Situationists and similar creeds shine a focus more on social oppression, highlighting such facts as that we create our own oppression. We are the other half of the capitalist relation of domination. Not to blame us but to make us realise that achieving communism is not a mere change of management or of where we buy our fruit and veg from: it is a change of ourselves.
And then some people start interpreting Foucault into Marxism and....fuck, I won't even get started on that poststructualist mindfuck.
The crux of the matter of social change is revealed: Who do we want it to benefit? Us; all of us. Who needs to bring about the change? Us. Not a party we delegate control to, but us, in our everyday activities, interactions; semiotic exchanges. To quote John Holloway: We are the crisis of capitalism.
I won't go into different nuances of newly thought approaches to the problematic of achieving communism, except for the use of one word that I think captures the renewed heart of tge struggle for autonomy: communisation.
Communism is a process, an ongoing process. It is something we can all enact not only against the capitalist swine who take the surplus-value we create and use it to fatten themselves and the politicians who make such a world possible, but also against ourselves; ever critical, ever deconstructing. There is no longer just the labour movement, there is feminism, there is postcolonialism, the struggle of disabled peoples, the struggles of transgender folks, indigenous stuggles, and a multitude of other struggles which we all have our part in recreating everyday.
Thus, the project of communism is the project of overcoming ourselves. We are constituted by.our relations with one another, by the roles we enact. The capitalists, oppressors and enemies of emancipation and autonomy cannot exist without the opposite, antagonistic subjects in contrast to which they exist. I still like the word proletariat and think it can pretty well be used to refer to these subjects. And I use it to say that the goal of the proletariat is to destroy itself. Destroy itself and thus destroy the oppressions which it holds up. Destroy itself to leave behind a multitude with the ability to rule itself not as one, but as many.
That is communism.
Now, I fear I've gotten sickenly post-modern in my no doubt flawed explanation, but Im tired, have been typing this out on my phone, and just started my birthday in my timezone, which are all somehow excuses. So: |
To be fair, MTV's programming before reality television took over was extremely low cost as well.
Showing Music Videos? MTV wasn't the one producing that content. They just played whatever the record companies sent them, usually gratis.
Game shows? MTV wasn't exactly known for offering deluxe prize packages. These shows were very low cost.
Even stuff like TRL had the cost of... what? A studio space in NY and Carson Daly's salary? Super low cost compared to scripted shows. |
Television is, by far, the most artistically interesting video medium right now. Quality comedy seems to be limited to one or two bright spots but serialized dramas have never been better. AMC, HBO, Showtime, and even some "network" shows are showing that the quality of televised content can match and surpass that of movies. |
The reason it's a minus to cable is that it shows that cable companies are desperately clinging to an outdated business model. Last night, I couldn't find an album I wanted on bittorrent, so I went to Amazon. Lo and behold, 5 minutes and $10 later, I was listening to the album. Amazon charged me for it, but gave me a better option that bittorrent.
Cable companies aren't doing that. They want you to watch TV the same way your parents did in the '80s. |
The problem is that it was not a choice presented to the user, it was "accept our new system, or you can no longer participate." There are many who do not wish to use Google+ at all. Ignoring that group, there are many more who do not wish to link a Google+ profile with their YouTube comments/account. |
You may "hate this fucking mindset", but it's absolutely correct: you're the one who can't see past your own self-entitlement. Use another service, or quit bitching about it. Google didn't make the G+ involvement decision out of thin air; there's money in it for them somewhere. If you can't understand that a company has the right to want to make more money where possible, then you just don't understand how the world works. ("Whahhh, they want my name ....whahhh"; people like you sound like freaking babies when you bitch about something so silly...). |
True in the short term, but in the long term if nobody's actually buying why would the advertiser continue to advertise?!
I work in display advertising, and CPM (cost per Mille, or thousand "adverts" served) is a dying way of paying providers.
The only way it's cost effective is if you can directly see cash results from having served those ads, unless you're purely interested in brand awareness/promotion (which is more difficult to measure).
Online display advertising is moving much more towards an affiliate model, where people are only paid when somebody purchases.
THE BOTTOM LINE: True, YouTube advertisers still pay right now, today, for every ad shown, but if everyone turns off Adblock but doesn't buy then all of a sudden their stats will go from 1 purchase per 1,000 views to 1 purchase in 10,000, and they'll start asking why they're paying per view. |
Wait, are you on the same internet that I am? Have you seen YouTube comments!?? At least the comments on reddit don't involve saying "Fuck you", "I hope you die, go kill yourself", or some mass spam like "Bob", "If you don't post this you will die", and "Come like my channel and watch my vids that have nothin, literally nothing to do with what you just watched." |
Um, what? Their products are widely used and well received in the business space.
Plus, windows 7 is arguably the best OS available right now.
Oh and the windows phone has an arguably better user interface than any other un-modded mobile OS. |
False analogy...
There's nothing wrong with government regulation on exchange services, and no intelligent BTC user is trying to prevent certain parallels from being drawn between bank services and BTC exchange services. When you decide to use an exchange service you have already given up the anonymity and zero-regulation perks of BTC.
What people are drawn to about BTC regarding lack of government regulation is that Bitcoin itself is not regulated by any government, and can't be. Exchange services are a different matter entirely. |
Except it doesn't do that in practice. In practice you need an intermediary to exchange money with someone. If you don't use an intermediary the person could just take your Bitcoins without giving you a product or cash and there is nothing you could ever do about it. Worse off, the intermediaries are not regulated so they can screw you over at any minute and you have no recourse. Worse than that, if we attempted to regulate transactions or the intermediaries we would necessarily remove everything that was good about bitcoin in the first place. |
That is a far more appropriate setting for a Keurig for sure. I still wouldn't use one for that. Every Keurig I have used (3) was about a 5 minute process to make an 8 ounce cup of strong coffee, using the refillable insert. So 20*5=1hr 40minute coffee line.
And if they using the pre-packaged kind, that is some money to go through for a regular get together, considering a regular size cup of coffee takes 2 or 3 of them at like 30 cents each for the good ones. Certainly out of my price range for casual get togethers.
I don't have a dog in the printer fight. I can count the number of times I need to print something every year on one hand, including for work, and I work in IT engineering. Maybe your printing needs are greater. I used to know a guy that backed up his email to hard copy. Who knows.
For my printing needs, I go to to the local ship and print, where I can get full color glossy laser on heavy stock, from a $5,000 printer I don't have to own and maintain, for a very reasonable price, or black and white basic laser for next to nothing.
But I stopped having a printer at home when it started costing me $30/mo., just to have the option to print something. This reduced my yearly printing costs from $360/year to something probably more like $3.60/year, if I were to count it.
So, no, I am not trying to make the case that these things are pointless or stupid, they are just practically pointless and stupid for everyone to have. You probably don't need it, it probably doesn't provide any real value in your day to day existence.
I know I am ranting at this point, but meh... Too fucking much want these days and not enough need. Everyone "needs" all the latest hidden-subscription model bullshit to feel normal. Materialistic circle jerking.
They took a 10 minute per pot process that costs about $1, for premium coffee, and they turned it into a 5 minute per cup process, that costs about $1, and requires a special machine. Given time and opportunity, they will walk even further in HP's footsteps and there will be different types of cartridges for different tiers of makers, the cartridges will have expiration dates, when they cease to work, etc. etc.
EDIT: ADDING RANT |
iWork spreadsheet/presentation software lags behind office, but have you tried Pages? It's way better than Word for most applications. I've used both extensively, and I've done timed comparisons of content creation in each. Pages is about a 15% productivity boost, which is a big deal when you're talking about spending days on reports that are hundreds of pages.
Word's main advantage is customizability and programmability, but those can work against it when you're dealing with large documents. Yet with small documents, Pages is superior because it's a WYSIWYG. The formatting and layout are far superior to Word. |
I love Reddit for this very reason. Not only am I personally learning more about this problem quicker than I would before (TV doesn't seem to cover Caution: just a guess maybe cause they are owned by a company that has skin in this game), but hundreds of thousands if not millions are too. A better educated population is a great thing.
Judging by the tech sub, people and companies are getting amped to fight what might have happened with little commotion years ago. Gotta love this online community. |
Well first off I never said they owned your network I said they owned their network which you pay them to connect to, that is your peering agreement you pay them to send data through them and they send data to you if you configure your firewall to let that data in or if you initiate the connection the data comes in. Second their rates are listed as "up to" they make no guarantee that random website X will deliver said advertised speed just that you can achieve that speed and pretty much you can obtain that speed if the service you are connecting to has that much output. If I am hosting a website on DSL then no matter what Verizon does you won't get 75mbps from my server, it's physically impossibly. Verizon's job is to make sure their network and your connection through THEIR network can maintain the advertised speed they have no control over who Netflix connects through to reach Verizon's network which is where the slowdown is occurring.
If I am paying Verizon for internet and setup a server to host content I have to pay Verizon to get the speed I want even if it's to another Verizon customer who is also paying for internet. You need to start thinking of Cogent as another customer of Verizon's because that is how it works, alternatively Verizon is also a customer of Cogent but they pretty much don't care that much about sending data to Cogent so Cogent has to pay Verizon in order for their customers to get the adequate bandwidth. So in reality everyone pays each other either directly or indirectly for bandwidth on each other's network. So Netflix pays Cogent for a certain level of upload/bandwidth as per their agreement, and Cogent then has an agreement with Verizon for data going to their network and at what speed it should go at, so if Cogent is paying for 10mbps when it tells it's customers they can get 100mbps out going then they are being dishonest and they need to renegotiate with Verizon. I think the problem here is that you are thinking about this in terms of requests vs raw data being transmitted. Verizon customers are sending to Netflix a very small amount of data in the form of http requests, but they are getting back GBs of data from Netflix. But you as a customer have to pay for both upload and download and as far as Verizon sees Cogent is just another customer with a larger network who needs to pay for the data they are uploading just like you would have to if you ran a server on their network. And the real bottom line is no where in the Verizon contract do you have a service agreement about Netflix speed at all, you may have a service agreement with Netflix but as I said that is on Netflix to fulfill not Verizon. Verizon is selling you a speed on their network that they can control so if you are sending data to other Verizon users that have sufficient bandwidth then you will get that speed. Are you going to complain to Verizon if the guy you are paying money to for storage has his servers hosted on dial-up? NO you complain to the guy you are paying money to for his service because he is fucking up by hosting his server on a shitty provider. You just conceptually aren't understanding how this works. Think of Cogent like a larger version of you they have a larger network but still have to pay Verizon for data uploaded and Verizon has to pay them for data uploaded, but as I said Verizon only generates 1/100th the data Cogent does. So Verizon negotiates either for Cogent to pay them more or they restrict their data so it's at parity, and that is fair in terms of peering agreements. And at this point you have to remember that Upload is what big companies pay for where as consumers pay for Download, so Cogent sells Netflix this idea that they can upload X amount of their data at a price and it's cogent's job as per their contract to guarantee that level of data and part of that is making sure their able to send it to their peers which is exactly what they aren't doing. Netflix needs to realize the dichotomy of the factors at play here. And like I said every website at one point deals with this, most see it and go yeah this makes sense we need to pay for the bandwidth we need and if we guarantee a certain level of service then we need to make sure we have a good enough network structure to make sure we can deliver that level of quality. So someone like Facebook will pay for a connection to every ISP if they have to or they will pay more money for an ISP that can actually deliver what they promise. Having excellent peering agreements is something that quality ISPs advertise to business partners and it is something that every network engineer knows to look for. Going with Cogent for your network is like trying to run your servers off of some 6 year old pentium 4's if you are Netflix, it just doesn't work. Cogent is the cheap solution for startups before they grow, or for people that don't have large speed requirements, and it's always been that way. |
Except you don't understand how peering agreements work and those are the route of this issue. Cogent is a shitty provider and that is Netflix's ISP Cogent likes to use Verizon to transfer a ton of their data to other places including non-verizon customers, so Verison throttles Cogent's data because they are assholes that don't want to pay for all of the data they use. So all Cogent traffic get's throttled because they are assholes, and on top of that Cogent over-sells their capacity, they say they can offer greater total throughput than they can in reality which is another part of the problem. So what Verizon is telling Netflix is that Cogent is a POS so they should use either a better ISP that doesn't do the shit Cogent does and therefore they won't get throttled or pay Verizon to directly connect to their network. It's really pretty simple and that is how the internet works. The exact same thing happened with Comcast with the exact same solution. The difference here is that Netflix is still routing data via Cogent instead of via the Verizon connections they are now paying for. So |
Like I said you have no idea how peering agreements work or how NAPs work. People complaining about issues they have no understanding of and Netflix takes advantage of that to make you think Verizon is the bad guy. Not all of the data sent to Verizon's network goes to Verizon's customers, Cogent uses Verizon as a way to get data to people outside of Verizon as well and because they do this and don't pay enough money for the amount of data they send over Verizon's network they get throttled, and in general Cogent is much slower than other ISPs that Netflix can be using. So |
Gah!
This is dumb. Verizon is kinda right. And kinda wrong.
Yes, this is correct. Netflix has saturated its links to COVAD.
Why?
To have this installed:
What is it? A content delivery system.
The trick is Netflix wants the same arrangement that Akamai has.
Which is free rack space & power.
Akamai arranged this when bandwidth was expensive, and rackspace & power were relatively cheaper.
Verizon doesn't want to give them the same deal, as it no longer benefits both parties.
The Comcast deal with Netflix was simply this.
Netflix installs their CDN in a meet me room, pays for the rack space & power & the Ethernet connection to Comcast is free. |
The mass of the vehicle isn't the only factor in determining crash worthiness, maybe you figured that it went without saying but the extra mass added by the materials used to create crumple zones and like features is there for safety. If you had a 600 lb. car and crashed it into a wall at 65 mph the occupant (with current automotive restraints) would likely suffer much more injury, possibly fatal, than in a regular car because the rate of deceleration in the lightweight vehicle would be at a much higher G than the normal car. The human body couldn't take the high deceleration over a short timeframe of such a vehicle without sustaining injury. |
This is a science experiment not a car. Solar "cars" have been a staple of engineering schools for years and it's no surprise that each year is record breaking as the manufactured panels and motors that these students have access to become more and more refined and efficient. News that would be more groundbreaking would be if new solar "cars" plateaued and weren't better than their previous incarnations. |
Can't wait for the downvotes....
Comcast was telemarketing me while I was a customer and robodialing my cell phone and leaving automated messages. I called and bitched at Comcast and told them this was illegal per the FCC. They dropped my bill to $44.99 over a year ago. I own my own modem and don't have TV |
I have TDS. I have what they call their "PONS" connection, I have no idea what that means, but it's a fiber connection. While no one I talk to has any understanding that they could be offering Gigabit speeds, they do offer 100Mbps right now for ~$45/mo. But you need to buy the package deal that includes a land-line (for the only reason to pad their bottom line because despite what they have trained their CSRs to say that is no early reason that a fiber connection requires a landline) and IPTV (which would be nice if we watched TV for anything other than Packer games and tornado warnings). all in all comes out to ~$90/mo. Still a ton less than what Charter charges in these here parts.
Speaking of which when I called Charter to cancel, the rep used the exact, and i mean word for word exact same lines that the now infamous rep form comcast used. i really wished I recorded that conversation. And for two competitive companies....wait what am I saying, there's no competition. For 2 different companies to use the same tactics and lines that means there has to be someone out there selling a "guaranteed customer retention" program to these companies.
As for TDS's 100MB services. Well the "modem" (and I tried many times to convince both the sales and install guy that it's no a modem, please stop calling it that) they require you have is an actiontec 1000(something something). And it's not bad save for it does not allow for DNS passthrough. meaing is you point a domain name back at your home IP you ain't accessing squat with you domain name while on your home network. But it's got a nice interface, good DHCP server, nice port forwarding rules, remote access, etc. It's no DD_WRT, but it's not too bad. The wireless is good, although being the basement required me to have a wifi bridge upstairs. And oddly enough nothing connected to the wifi on the actiontec can communicate to anything connected to the wired connections. So i turned the wifi off on the Actiontec and just with the bridge for wifi in the house.
Speeds I get are ~90 to 99Mbps wired, and ~40 to 60Mbps wireless (not bad considering the glut of wifi interference in my area.
The connection has been real solid for the 4 months that I have had the service.
Other than having a serious issue with TDS's billing a few years ago (back before they had 100MBs and were only offering 10), I would recommend to give TDS a try if you are in their service area.
wow that turned in a wall of text. |
Fidelity Communications.](
~~They're available in 5 different states. (MO, AR, LA, OK, TX)
When I googled their url I noticed poor reviews, so I don't know about other areas, but ours is alright. Everyone that I've spoken to (that has it) has said it's the best that they've ever had in this area, and I agree.
Pros:
Great customer service. Seriously, they're always nice and have offices open with the state that answer calls during the day AND a call center available. So let's say that your internet goes out randomly, and you call. You'll be connected to the local office first, and then, if no one answers, you are AUTOMATICALLY forwarded to the call center where you can elect to participate in a "spot saver" option, that saves your place in line, and calls you back when someone is available.
Very few of the employees I've dealt with have had the "company kiss ass attitude". Sure, they still do the whole "did you turn it off and on again" bullshit, but the technicians and customer service people usually don't sugar coat bullshit. If something isn't working, they get on it to get it fixed (at least to the best of their abilities). All the employees I've asked said that they enjoy working for the company, but agree that some of their shit is stupid. Like making technicians wait on the same call center line as the clients. (Come on... they're trying to fix your clients shit. Give them their own line...)
The prices/speeds are decent. Not going to lie though... if google fiber came to town I would leave in a quarter of a heartbeat.)
They're timely. From the call backs, to the house calls, to the outage repairs, we're never left waiting and wondering what's going on. They almost always have an automated recording explaining the outages when they happen, and have it fixed in roughly the time they say they would. The callbacks happen in less than 30 minutes, and the techs are always on time or slightly early for their appointments.
Cons:
Parts of the grid(?) in our town DESPERATELY need to be replaced/decently repaired. They took over several years ago, but have only patched issues. While most of the town doesn't experience this, we live near the train tracks, and our internet glitches when the trains go by quickly. It's usually just a little annoying, but sometimes it can be a real pain in the ass and take forever to find a connection again.
I don't know if it's them throttling it, or just the shitty grid, but our speeds dip sporadically. It happens kind of randomly, and maybe once or twice a month. Sometimes more, sometimes less. And usually only for a short time.
*When we paid for the highest speed we almost never had a problem with the trains. Throttling still happened, but we hardly ever noticed. (We had to pay $100 a month for this to happen, so that sucked, but it was nice being able to use the internet without any random disconnections.)
Both issues occurred prior to them taking over our service area, which's why I'm positive that the grid needs to be upgraded. |
I had to call Sonic once because a phone jack in my old apartment died and my internet was taking a dump and I just wanted to youtube the cats like I normally do. I called and got through to someone in a couple minutes, they were helpful diagnosing what was what and said they had to run some tests and would call back. They actually called back, let me know the outside line was okay and it was some hardware on my end. They gave me some options to try and I ended up moving my modem to a new jack. They called back the next day and said it looked like my problem was solved and they could increase my speed because the new jack was so much better than the old one. |
But shit heads on the physical world are easily caught by police and are less likely try to send potentially dangerous things to peoples houses via mail.
Should I remind you of the people who are "swatting" streamers. Imagine how easy that would be if everyone on the internet could find their address in seconds.
The real world isn't anonymous like the internet is. Speaking of, there are many people who had to go into protective services because of harassment and death threats just because someone posted their address on 4-chan's /b/ |
That would be like asking "What happened after you took that baseball bat to the bee hive? We're the bees pissed off and swarming?" |
I tried to get through it all... |
Except you'll have to deal with Sprint. Who is consistently rated the lowest in customer service. You'll drop calls left and right, texts that appear sent, aren't, and every month or so you'll get hit with a random charge for an incrementally increasing amount of money until you notice, then you'll have to take an extra 45 minutes to 3 hours bouncing around their shitty phone auto directory explaining to the seemingly 1-5 real people that tend to their service lines that you never bought that game or app or roamed in just the wrong spot, so that you don't get stuck paying for their version of gouging. |
OH MY GOD WITH THE FUCKING UNLIMITED DATA. You are throttled because you only pay 30.00 a month for your data plan. On a limited plan you would only get 3GB for that much per month. You are throttled because if you use more than 5GB per month you are getting WAY more usage for way less money. AT&T also has mobile share plans that are 9/10 less expensive than your old unlimited plan AND gives you more full speed data AND right now they are doing a double your data promo (30gb for the price of 15 etc). Unlimited data on the kinds of devices we have now is NEVER going to happen. They use data for EVERYTHING and yes, if everyone with unlimited data had no throttle limit it WOULD congest the network. AT&T gives priority speed to the customers that DO pay for all of the data they use. Most people commenting here have absolutely NO idea how much money it costs to get that episode of South Park to play on their phones. When you pay your bill, pay for your data, you are paying for tower maintenance, the salary of the guy who fixes the tower, the taxes AT&T pays to the Feds, salaries of customer care and tech support reps, contracts with Apple and Samsung so that you can get that newest device the day it comes out, space on the mobile network so that you can read and downvote this comment on your fucking AT&T phone, countless jobs and equipment and materials. They really could have completely expired Unlimited Data and forced everyone into a measured data plan, but they didn't. They let you keep them and gave you and option for something better but for some reason all of you think there's some kind of magic in having an unlimited plan. Hear this. If you use more than 5GB a month and you refuse to move to a plan that fits your usage better AND is less expensive, you have absolutely no one to bitch at about this shit but your own stubborn ignorant self. And there goes my karma. |
As someone who works in Sprint customer care I know that they pretty much have to be the cheapest in order to compete. Between the network that while they say is complete still needs a lot of work and the difficult customer service experience.
While their current in progress upgrade (Spark) has a lot of potential to reduce dropped calls and give greatly increased data speed it has so many downsides as well. For one, the "Spark Turbo" data speeds are once again the slowest top speeds of any carrier and retain wimax's terrible building penetration so you wont be able to experience the speed if you live in anything but a tent... It will help greatly with dropped calls in most areas though due to utilizing the 800mhz frequency for voice which should give both better range and building penetration. The main downside to spark though is that not a single Spark supported device actually supports simultaneous voice and data...
The customer service though. That is another story. Most issues with the customer care are not even directly the fault of agents (though a well trained and nice agent helps properly explain what can actually be done to customers) but in the fact that most things that a lot of things people request just can't be done in our system at agent or even supervisor level. Plus their push to self service has caused even more limitations like the fact that most reps can't even activate a phone which is really bad because being a CDMA carrier it requires a swap in our system. This forces the customer online and in many cases just upsets people. |
I guess I am on the opposite side of the fence when it comes to this old plan. I needed tethering and I needed a lower bill. I got rid of the 'unlimited' plan years ago. Currently I have three phones on a 10 (now 15 GB) Mobile Share plan. One phone is an old Nokia so no internet use there. But between my wife and I, we struggle to try to even reach 5 GB of use each month. Everywhere we go we are on wifi. I stream music going to work because I hate talk radio. I have clocked speeds of over 40 Mbps and uploads up to 20 Mbps. I have watched Netflix or VUDU and still have not used that much. |
This article is mostly false.
LTE devices are throttled at 5GB where 4G devices are throttled at 3GB. AT&T currently has a system in place that throttles 4G devices in congested areas but has not applied this technology to LTE devices because of the differences in how the device processes data (supposedly).
About 4 months ago, I started having problems with throttling on my unlimited iPhone 5s. I thought I'd be a smart-ass and say "Okay, you want to limit my unlimited connection, I'll suck down as much as I can" and started streaming Netflix nonstop. That's when I discovered an odd problem with my phone... it's backwards when it's throttled. That is to say that the throttling is not designed to limit speeds on internet surfing or email but only on streaming services. I found this out because I called them about it.
(Please keep in mind that if you contact AT&T, do not be a douchnozzle... the people you are talking to are more likely to help you if you don't treat them like trash. They are, after all, people like you and me)
I called support 6 months ago the first time I was throttled after having received a text message saying I would be throttled about 2 months prior. One text message. That's it. You only get one warning. Ever.
Pissed that my unlimited connection would be limited, I kept the text message as reference. I brought this up when I called support because, you see, support says you get a warning. "What good is a warning 2 or 3 months prior? I have things going on in my life so that warning is pretty much useless." The rep really couldn't argue with it. The first and even sometimes second rep you get if you manage to get it transferred or "escalated" tend to believe that you get a warning each month you're about to go over... you will need to educate them because this is just what they've been told.
After realizing that they couldn't do anything for me, I was escalated. Being nice this time paid off because that woman stayed on the phone with me for about 30 minutes exhausting all possibilities. Finally she had to admit defeat and tell me that there was just nothing she could do. I expected this (there is actually a department to handle this exact problem, if you can believe it).
I did not threaten in any way. I did not say that I would cancel (in terms of accounting, there seems to be a split between wanting to get you to cancel/change your plan and keeping someone who's been a regular customer for that long. Do NOT let them change your plan, you'll never be able to get it back.). I received a text the next day asking for my level of satisfaction. If you get this, TAKE THIS SURVEY! I gave the rep highest marks for professional and polite behavior and praised her for trying while giving the lowest marks for satisfaction. At the end of the survey, you are given an opportunity to say anything... a response. I put something along the lines of "I'm not happy, the rep was stellar, but my problem was not solved. Please contact me back as I am willing to work with this."
A few days later, I received a call from some higher up who wanted to fix this problem. She knew the system inside and out and worked with me to get this resolved. After doing the normal tech routine (reset your settings, turn off your phone, etc). I explained that I can stream netflix all day long but surfing the internet is impossible and started netflix while I was on the phone. She analyzed the traffic and seemed puzzled. You see, my phone was throttling normal nonstreaming connections and letting steaming connections through at full throttle (netflix, spotify, etc). Keep in mind that my LTE device has a 20 MB/S pipe but it's less than 500kbps when throttled. I said "I don't need 20 meg per second. If you were to keep my connection and 3 meg per second and never throttle me, we'd never have had this conversation." (Suggest a solution). Apparently, I was the first to tell her this because most people want rollover bandwidth or more or some such nonsense. "It's a phone, not a media center, I really don't need that much." Nothing they can really do about that. It still didn't fix the problem. "Look, just keep my phone throttled until you can figure this out." (Work with them) The person on the other end was shocked. You see, most people just want their stuff turned back on and fixed and I was the only person to ever say "Keep it throttled while you do what you need to do."
During this conversation, she shared with me about how the throttling works (as I've already shared here). Granted, the company view of "unlimited = limited" is a bunch of horse manure (you don't tell a kid to take as many cookies as they want and then punish them for taking more than 5 cookies... that's abusive and I used this analogy... the rep was stoic and understood but stayed the line on the hair-splitting semantics).
In any case, my phone is "odd" and throttling works backwards and I ended up getting a direct number to her, she unthrottled my phone for the rest of the billing cycle and suggested that I have Apple run some diagnostics on my phone.
In any case, this is mostly moot considering that there's quite a bit going on around their semantics on what unlimited means. Pretty sure that this will be changed within the next year as soon as all the legal red-tape is cleared out and someone says "Enough of your lying double talk." |
Hahahahaha
Not everyone browses reddit all day (as in, web browsing not specifically reddit) and latency only matters to a certain point before it becomes negligible.
Also, there is a huge amount of difference between 20Mbps (average residential speed) and 1Gbps. |
There are quite a bit of inaccuracies and conjecture in this article. This is (very) long and a bit technical. DISCLAIMER: If it is not obvious, I work as a DOCSIS engineer in the cable industry, albeit in a very small, independent, rural company that nobody has heard of.
Technically a 24 downstream bonded modem could approach gigabit speed in the download (~912Mbps with overhead taken into account). But this would be to one customer.
Cable internet is a shared medium, that would give 912Mbps to the entire node (usually a portion of, or an entire neighborhood, around 150-200 houses) If one person is sold a 900Mbps package, then they could singlehandedly max out the available bandwidth for the entire node. A more realistic 'max package speed' for a 24 channel bonded system would be closer to 250Mbps to have any expectation of people getting their provisioned speed the majority of the time (and this is assuming that there is a very low (under 5%) uptake rate on this package speed, and the majority of customers are running at more traditional 20-50Mbps packages.
People complain all the time about not getting their advertised speed, this is the reason. You can't have it both ways when looking at modem speeds. There is the technical limitation as to what the modem is actually capable of in ideal conditions, and there is the real world that has to take traffic engineering into account. This is also why companies like Time Warner limit your (technically) 152Mbps 4x4 (say a SB6121) modem to their 50x5 package.
This also does not take into account upload speed. It is great that cable modem manufacturers make modems capable of bonding 8 upstream channels. This would be awesome if there were 8 (usable) upstream channels in existence.
The physical characteristics of the fastest upstream available in DOCSIS 3.0 is a 6.4MHz wide 64QAM modulated channel.
The RF spectrum in north american cable systems is allocated into 2 blocks, forward (from the cable company to you) and return (from you back to the cable company). When cable TV was introduced it was one way, forward to your house, and used the VHF frequency range between 54 and 214MHz. This was expanded at the upper end to include UHF frequencies to add more channels.
At some point cable companies determined that it would be very helpful to be able to get data back from subscribers as well. This was allocated the 5-54 MHz range that was not being used by the forward already.
Modern cable systems now go up to 1000MHz (1GHz) in some areas, but they are still limited to the 5-54MHz range in the return.
DOCSIS equipment and specifications limits this return path from 5-42MHz. Low quality (and even background radiation from space and the earth itself) eliminates 5MHz to about 20MHz from being used for QAM modulated data (as this requires a very clean signal to work.) this limits us to 20-42MHz for upstream data.
Wait, 10 Meter HAM radio is at 28-30MHz, and a single piece of cracked insulation anywhere in the cable plant turns your entire system into a giant antenna, better stay away from there too.
This gives you room for a 6.4MHz upstream channel centered at ~23Mhz, ~33MHz, and ~38MHz, and then you are out of room. Three of these channels gives a max upload speed for the node at around 75Mbps. (NOTE: this requires an absurdly clean return path, to the point that most systems are running 4x 3.2MHz wide channels.)
The other issue with offering 24 channel bonding is a space issue on the downstream side as well. While the upstream is pretty sparse as to data (usually a signalling channel for your cable boxes is about all that is down there) Cable modems have to share forward RF Spectrum with TV.
The average cable system goes up to 750MHz, that gives 116 forward channels to work with. Each and every analog TV channel takes up 1 whole channel by itself. HD channels are limited to 2-3 per channel, and you can squeeze in about 15 SD digital channels into one channel space, and if their on-demand is using Switched Digital Video, then that takes up space as well.
"But there are so many channels that nobody ever watches, why can't you drop them to free up space?"
Without going into any details (as contracts are confidential) most TV channels are owned by one of several media conglomerates. Many times their contracts state that if you want MEGA CHANNEL A (that everyone watches) you also have to carry (and pay for) these 7 channels that nobody cares about.
Multiply this by a bunch of different groups, and to get the 10 or 20 most watched networks, you are required to carry hundreds of channels.
This is why you are starting to see some of the major players introduce "all digital" systems without any analog TV, it isn't a quality issue, it is a space issue on their end. This is slow to roll out though, as there are still a very large number of households with at least one analog TV, and still quite a few that have no digital TV's at all, most but not all HDTV's include a digital tuner in them. Nobody wants to try and convince grandma that she needs to get a cable box in order for her TV that has worked for 30 years to be able to keep working. |
This is a difficult debate...
Sure, things you buy should be free and all, however, modifications beyond the designed spec of mechanical equipment can be very dangerous.
And the main issue isnt even the fact that you CAN hack it, since other car mods are availlable too. The biggest issue is HOW you hack it.
An engine rebuild, tune-up, suspension mods etc. etc. are relatively hard to do. You not only need the required knowledge, but also a fairly expensive toolset.
With electronics, It'll be VERY easy to end up with consolidated pieces of hardware that take away all the difficult parts of hacking your ecu/computer/whatever in your car. See the ps3 hack, initially, it was a fairly lengthy process, but, after a while, the entire hack just became as easy as sticking in an usb drive.
Imagine some random ghetto dude stick a device in his board computer and load up whatever values or modifications he found on the internet.
These kinds of situations make it a bit too dangerous to allow everyone to do their own shit. Actually knowing which car is tuned and which one is not is practially impossible until something happens, so the gov't cant keep track of who did mods and who not. |
I sense dangerous half-knowledge...
There are 2 different types of modding the ecu in the article.
The first one is changing maps and curves to get the ecu into a more lean / rich fuel mixture and to get the software to behave different.
But: getting your own software to run on the ECU is a completely different thing.
For the first step, lets assume you have the software in source code.
Even if thats true, you wont be able to get a flashable hex file from that since you dont have the specialized tools to build it. And special in the sense of per-Manufacturer special.
Also, being able to work with the software takes you at least 6 months in professional training.
But then, even if you have access to the software, you dont have the knowledge to make a secure software. For example in Europe you need to be compliant with ISO26262, have ASIL-C or -D complicancy and have a documentated process for developing and testing. There is even more, but its NOT doable by a single person coding away on its own.
So your modded vehicle will be the unsafest thing ever driven on the road. And dont be fooled by information of casual modders that say they wont be able to detect the hack: Its possible, and so far we've had a success rate of 100% to detect if there was something fishy going on.
Also, from my experience, if you have software with custom parts in it, its not guranteed that it will run and or not do stupid things. Thats why prototype cars in that state of development are not allowed to drive on the road and need to have a pyhsicsl failsafe switch.
The next and last thing: Some parts of the car have the ability to destroy your engine in the blink of an eye. Drive the wrong powerstage at the wrong moment, and you engine is broken. And thats the good thing that can happen. If you have a bug that locks the acceleration pedal - it will accelerate uncontrolled and possibly kill someone. |
As someone that wrote a master's thesis on safety-critical software development in the automotive industry my opinion is that nobody should touch their car's software :-)
Context: Modern cars have about 70 ECU's, which is too many. This means that now multiple functions with differing ASIL levels are combined on the same ECU [1]. Which in turn means that you can fuck up a critical function like steering by messing around with functions that have low criticality. Automotive software has really high safety standards (at least in the west) and modifying it is akin to modifying any other safety critical part of your vehicle. It is forbidden for a reason: most people don't have an idea what they are doing and it endangers others . Remember the Toyota Unintended Acceleration deaths a few years ago[1]? That was a software failure. Most people are not even aware that their gas pedal is not connected to the engine with a cord anymore but just transmits the position to a computer. For some insight see the details of Mr. Barr's evaluation of Toyota's practices [3] |
The fact that you think that is a symptom of how ignorant you are. It's troubling how widespread contempt for expertise has become. |
No? The bot I replied to, the auto |
I personally prefer google play to Spotify. and I've used both quite a bit. What i really like about google play is aside from playlists you still get your classic library will all the songs you own. For a similar price to spottily it basically allows you to download anything from the store to your library, where you can then put it into playlists. (You don't need to have a song in your library to have it in your playlist) |
This is a good point I worked for a company that sold phones and they had a very good relationship with Verizon. Every now and then the Verizon rep would come by to train us and even they had no idea what they were talking about they were just there to give us free pizza and have us play stupid games that got people to sell more Verizon stuff. It totally worked at that store everyone pushed Verizon. When I asked questions about the network he said things like "I'm not a tech guy" he didn't even know what VoLTE was...
I'd like to point out it was not just Verizon though, the company itself would have training stuff every now and then and they frequently lied not because they chose to lie but because the guy who did the training had no idea what the fuck he was talking about because his job wasn't to know phones, it was to get us to sell.
Most of the people I know didn't know all that much about phones besides the basics we were taught and a huge majority of people lid all the time... I was straight up told to lie by coworkers because it "saves time." |
The people this guy talked to almost certainly aren't in sales and don't make commission. When you call in, you pretty much always go to customer service or tech support (tech support is trained to do everything CS does and more so calls can get forwarded if the CS queue is large). Renewing a contract, changing a plan, and must equipment purchases go through CS. Sales mostly just handles adding lines.
This is definitely just a result of poor training. To these reps, faster speeds = better internet = better whatever you want to do on the internet. So if you ask them if streaming will be better on faster internet, pretty much any rep will say yes and theoretically with enough devices they could be right.
But from the chat screenshot, it seems like the guy was baiting the rep into speaking about something he doesn't know much about, who have the standard faster = better line, while also admitting that 50 mbps is perfectly fine as well.
Doesn't seem like the rep was trying to lie, especially since he almost certainly wouldn't benefit from the upsell. He just got baited into giving the same line pretty much any rep would give when asked if faster would make streaming better. Which makes me feel this guy probably did the same to the other two reps he spoke with to. |
I know most people are talking about FIOS service but i think my story is semi interesting. At least for me. So i'm still on a plan with my mother and her phone broke. So she goes to verizon to get a new phone. They are doing the whole deal blah blah (i'm not there) and they ask her whos number is * (my number). And she says mine and the guy goes WOW he uses a lot of data oh wait he has unlimited still. We need to change that immediately. And my mom doesn't know much about these things but just said absolutely not don't change anything. So the entire time instead of helping my mom about the phone they kept trying to get her the get rid of my grandfathered in unlimited data plan. |
I'm ready to rant.
I had verizon DSL for over a decade. It was fine but download speeds became unbearable after becoming a computer science student. Having to download virtual machine files and operating systems for different classes each semester. I got spoiled with on campus 75-100Mbps. So I convince the family to upgrade to FIOS. We go with the Quantum 50Mbps. And boy was it great downloading gigs at a time.
Then I go to watch a YouTube video. I use them hundreds of times a day for a solution to lots of problems and to learn from how to videos. Now with DSL I could select a 1080p video and give it a minute or so and watch it. I incorrectly assumed with such blazing fast internet I could watch any YouTube videos. No. I was wrong. In fact YouTube streaming was almost entirely stopped. It would only load 240p or less. I wish I was joking. I wish it was all a dream. It costs a bit more money than DSL. How can this be? I call Verizon.
I was told that certain sites like YouTube and Netflix have high demand. And will throttle certain connections. I said, "so you're telling me it's YouTube that's stopping me?" And I was told yes it's youtubes fault. I told the man the only thing that has changed in this 24 hours is my "upgrade" to fios internet from DSL. He again assured me there's nothing he could do. I said, the videos will not even load. It is extremely frustrating to be cut off from such a vast source of knowledge. I told the man, "you're telling me that the only reason I upgraded was to be able to stream videos from YouTube and Netflix without having to worry about buffering and I ended up paying over twice as much for having those same capabilities taken away?" I was told yes. I said I can't believe you don't see a problem here.... |
As someone who worked as a manager in a.call centre and did a LOT of quality monitoring. Yes, it's not that hard for the call centres to have monitored that many calls in a week. (4 recorded/reviews per week, per employee. A team of 15 employees to review. It adds up quick)
BUT, how much can you do? How much can you improve? The employees don't give a shit (80% of the time) theres sales targets to be met, and theyre more important to your boss. So making sure those employees do 'the right thing'? Spoiler- they don't and the most I could do as quality control was talk to them about it, only to have it happen again next time I monitored them. |
I hang out with a massive bunch of authors. Many of them insanely talented (not all, but many), across a mix of genres. This is EXACTLY what most of them are doing. Setting up publishing collectives, self-pubbing/indie-pubbing, all sorts of things. Still working with the big name publishers if they can (the up front money is good) but, quite frankly, it's like the writer community of the world woke up last year and went shit, we KNEW the big companies were fucking it up. We - and lots of other people - were telling them they were fucking it up. And they continued fucking it up... hang on... we have ebooks. And POD/lulu/createspace/small publishing companies willing to do medium sized print-runs for cheap-ish. And Amazon listings. And easier access to ISBNs and distributer listings. And more info through the internet on book design/formatting/promotion than we did even last year. And we have each other to swap ideas with. And learn skills from. People who have mad editing/proofreading/design/insight skillz.
We don't NEED them anymore.
I could link, right now, to a dozen great writers who have been left out of mainstream publishing for whatever reason (Not quite what the big guys think will sell/there's already someone on our books similar; worse, but similar/the GFC screwed us - we're cutting our list/Yes, dozens of industry people have said they like it; but I don't and I'm head of acquisitions so die, dreams, die/We were gonna publish, but the guy in charge of your project moved jobs/ etc, etc, etc...) And authors are basically doing it on their own. Self-publishing has kinda stopped being 'vanity' publishing and has morphed into indie publishing. Of course, this is very, very tough and few people make money out of it. (Hell, almost no-one makes money writing anyway - mainstream or not). But really great writers are actually getting stuff out that would have been ignored in favour of another vampire/zombie/celebrity memoir cash-in two years ago. And many of them are doing quite decently. And doing good looking books, too. We just help each other with proof-reading/editing/formatting/promotion (this only works when people are brutally honest. Luckily, most of the people I know are violently, cruelly honest).
All of them seemed to come to the same realisation in the past six-to-twelve months. There's been an explosion among my most talented friends of indie-publishing. |
Life , liberty, pursuit of happiness"
Also, the death penalty can be very expensive, even though many people assume it's very cheap because "the drugs are cheap" (there are a lot more costs to it than the drugs).
Also, many deranged criminals WANT death, and in a sense we are giving them freedom by letting them die - IMO, it would be 10x worse to suffer in a cell for the rest of my life, realizing what I did was wrong. Death is an instant escape, whether you go to heaven/hell, whether there's life after death, etc. It is an escape regardless.
Last, but most certainly not least, since the discovery of DNA testing we have realized that we have killed hundreds of innocent people. And just because technology is better doesn't mean it doesn't still happen. |
For what products are you saying you're forced to use Steam and Steam only? I ask because many of the larger games are available for download at websites like Direct2Drive (which is now GameFly, apparently).
I see your point though -- these newer digital distro platforms like PSN and attempting with its end user agreements and Origin are causing real problems with how they view the data users are downloading (only buying the use of the product, not the product itself). This could go on for ages for why the gaming industry is moving in this direction, but it's basically comes down to one thing: DRM. Steam is pretty much an invasive form of DRM that users do not notice in the short-term.
What I think you're asking is what they'd consider unreasonable, because that would pretty much be devs throwing their products on the internet and hoping each user is honest enough not to post the game on a torrent site or copy it to 50 other PC's. I'd love to live in a dream where that idealistic economic argument of "the users who pirate wouldn't buy it in the first place!" would act itself out positively in this situation of unregulated distribution, but that is not the case and developers and especially publishers understand this. |
While I agree it does sound unfair can we really expect KickStarter to hire staff or create technologies and/or involve law enforcement because someone is being stalked and creating spam? Just as its not the fault if the person that is being staked, it's not the fault of KickStarter to devote additional resources to solve this personal problem. |
I can't speak for everyone but to me...
I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and I will again,
Unless Ron Paul is on the ballet.
I had the idea to make a viral video as a message from liberal America to the republican that basically says if you don't make Ron Paul your nominee then its four more years!
This video is however is a great point, what is our plan B?
Obama. |
Or if Hollywood just made more movies that everyone wanted to see. A lot of stuff I download is because IDK if I want to pay $10 to see it in theaters or not.
Also, if I download a copy of a movie that is coming out or has come out on DVD/BluRay and I like it I usually go buy it. The alternative is what? Renting it? OK sure, but Netflix, redbox, and Blockbuster already paid for the copies of it and the rights to rent it out, so I'm just not giving THEM my money. The movie studios already made money off them, and if they provided a quality product will also make money off me buying it.
Oh, PLUS I'm in the Navy so when I go on deployment and I'm floating around at sea for 9 months at a time, I'll have an external HDD stocked full of movies I downloaded because I like them (so probably already own them) but don't have room to bring my entire massive dvd collection onboard the ship with me. |
Just because the film makes a lot of money in the box office DOES NOT entitle thieves to steal it. Obviously, if you regularly steal things, you would want to try and find well-constructed argument to justify your immoral behavior. At the end of the day, intellectual property is what allows everyone from a movie studio to Apple to a middle aged man in his garage with a patent to provide CONSUMERS WITH BETTER SERVICES. In reality, us people who don't steal media should find and castrate people who do, because all it does is limit the capital (and incentives (profit)) for the "corporate assholes" to create a better product for us. Not to mention it is a burden on pricing. We have to pick up the slack on you getting a free ride.
So, by stealing you are compromising the welfare of all consumers of media in future products. Not to mention artificially inflating the prices of a product in an otherwise competitive market. So fuck you. |
Just because people don't click on them, doesn't mean they are not effective. Magazine ads are not much different than getting a spot on a website. People are seeing your brand/product, just because they don't want to know more about it at that particular time, doesn't mean they won't think of you later. |
A couple of observations:
If the article describes the patent accurately (a big if, admittedly), it is very unlikely the patent will survive a validity challenge in court or before the PTO (Patent & Trademark Office). As others have mentioned, this idea is neither new nor nonobvious -- professors have been doing this, publicly, for quite some time.
But even if the patent survives a validity challenge, we can rejoice in the fact that Professor Dickbag will be unable to monetize his "invention." It's simple business sense: why would other professors (or their universities) pay royalties to Dickbag for use of his method? They won't; it's not like a professor diminishes the effectiveness of his teaching by choosing not to use (and not to pay for) an online discussion board tied to the course's textbook.
The only professors with an incentive to use his method are the ones using their own books in their classes. But that is a tiny market, and the royalty these professors would be willing to pay is negligible: these professors will never pay more to use the method than they stand to gain from it, which isn't much. For one thing, the professor-author doesn't make much for each additional textbook sold; most of it goes to the publisher. And it's not clear how many extra textbooks the method would even sell to begin with, as a lot of students are already buying new textbooks.
So long story short, professors don't have adequate incentives to pay this guy for use of his "invention." Publishers have an incentive, to be sure, but they don't control the classroom. So Professor Dickbag will be unable to monetize his patent. And maintaining patents costs money -- there is a maintenance fee (thousands of dollars) due to the PTO every couple years. |
If the American public can sympathize with children and realize that their parents' failure as an adequate provider is in no way the child's fault, the textbooks could be subsidized with the government's tax revenue. But better yet, kill the textbook publishing industry by promoting GFDL books instead. Once that gets going, the publishers would be forced to cut their prices. If GFDL content ends up killing the for-profit publishers, who gives a shit about them. Convert classes to streamed video, a la Khan Academy or Udacity and kill the traditional Universities. Let the dinosaurs die, quality of education soar, and prices hit the ground. We're in the 21st Century FFS. 99%. |
The reason I hate all this piracy stuff is because I think it is total bullshit that people think they own knowledge and have the power to keep that knowledge.
I was once discussing to my professor the boundaries of putting citations on my paper. He claims that "any information I read anywhere that I use on the paper has to be cited or it's plagiarism."
I said, "what if I already have the knowledge and I don't hold the source in easily recoverable memory." He claimed that in that case you didn't need to cite.
Now, I'm all about giving credit where it is due to researchers and such, but when I read a book and learn things the knowledge I gain is mine now. I should be able to use that knowledge. The information had to have been discovered sometime who's to say that I'm not smart enough to come to my own conclusions and come to this knowledge by myself. |
Over the last 7 quarters at my school, I have not purchased one textbook from the bookstore. I have either purchased the international edition for about $30 as opposed to the $150 and above price. My other option was finding pdf versions of my books. In fact, one of my professors gave me extra credit for sharing the pdf version of my book last quarter. |
Pearson has pretty much already started doing this. I am required to use the textbook chosen by my department and use the online homework system which means all students in the class have to buy the online access code. They get it in one of 3 forms:
They buy the new textbook bundle and it comes packaged with it.
They buy just the online access code that gives them an online version of the textbook.
They buy an online access code that only gives them access to the homework.
I have put these in descending order of expense. Since my course has a lab, they also have to have a hard copy of the lab manual. So that means the cheapest way for my students to get their required course material is to use an alternate textbook site like Amazon, Barnes and Noble, etc to get the lab manual and then buy option #2, which will give them the textbook in digital format along with the additional study resources and the homework access.
Here are the pros: The additional resources are good and I believe if used correctly will increase test scores. The digital book software has a highlighter tool and a search function as well as adjustable font size. It is compatible with most tablet computers making it particularly portable and lighter than the standard textbook.
Here are the cons: You have to have internet access to get into the book, it is not a download. This means that portable tablet idea only works if you have a 3g enabled tablet and good wireless speed. Storming outside while you are studying, lights go out... screw you... even candlelight can't save you. Since I teach in a rural community in Indiana, many people in the area do not have access to reliable high speed internet. Most "country" internet is only barely faster than dial-up around my area and this doesn't make trying to use an online tool for a course better. |
Problem is even if Steam moves to Linux, are the devs going to port their games for the platform when it, quite frankly, has so few users?
You're looking at the issue the wrong way 'round. My most powerful box is Win 7, my "wintendo" simply because there is so little game support under Linux. If there was good game support for Linux, I wouldn't be on Win. Steam is the only organization I can think of that has the power and influence to push developers in that direction. |
I'm in New Zealand. Right now it takes a good year to two years before something like Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones comes on TV. Even then it is still only available on a rather expensive TV channel, Soho, which also entails purchasing a subscription to Sky TV which is riddled with ads and is priced astronomically high considering how lacking the channels provided are. The downloadable online content (legal) is also unavailable in my country until it is screened on Soho.
Even if I do purchase SKY and Soho channel they rarely put repeats on so I would have to change my schedule to be watching TV at that particular time to watch these shows (with advertisement as well). |
Last time i checked, it wasnt Google's job to do their bidding. It also isnt the governments job to make sure the MPAA/RIAA florish with business. Lastly: pushing the bill into other countries ISNT THE US' JOB |
Funny, I pay for the service and it certainly isn't at the lowest resolutions (quite high I think) and I've never really had a problem with lag.
That's not to say there are a few other issues such as the lack of titles for the service, but oh well. As far as paying a 'fee for a game I don't own', welcome to PC gaming, it's the same with Steam, Origin, and any retail box you choose to buy, you don't own any of those games and once they decide to stop the authentication servers you're in the same position. |
I'm very skeptical of the article as well. Time and time again, Apple has proven that it is willing to let competitors into the store if they agree to follow the rules. Amazon and Dropbox the biggest examples that comes to mind. Conversely, time and time again, Microsoft has proven that they are willing to fast and loose with the truth, especially when leaking stories to the media.
Now the rules of the App Store are favorable to Apple (30% of revenue, even recurring revenue), but as someone else has said on this thread those are the breaks if you are using Apple as the payment processor. (And Apple is going to be the payment processor for stuff bought within the App Store. I don't blame them for that.)
The way this article was written makes it seem like it is based on a Microsoft source that left out some of the details of the "revenue free" SkyDrive version Microsoft offered as a compromise. Especially since Apple doesn't pre-approve and pre-reject apps. It's not at all like Apple to say "even if you did X, we would reject it". Apple would just wait for the app to be submitted and then approve or reject it. |
Except that Windows (Phone) Store developer TOS allows app developers to use their own IAP/subscription services, they're not forced to use Microsoft's. There may be an exception for upgrading from free to paid, but I'm not entirely sure on that. |
Camera+ is a poor example, though. The developer guidelines specifically tell you that you can't repurpose any of the hardware buttons.
So TapTapTap (rightly) thought it would be cool to use the volume button as a shutter. They submitted a version with the feature, and Apple rejected it because it violated the rules.
So they then thought it would be a good idea to hide it in their code so that the Apple reviewers wouldn't see it, then on Twitter tell everyone how to enable it. Apple is very clear that hiding features as Easter Eggs is against the rules, and doubly so for features that themselves also violate the rules. So, Apple banned them.
The idea was obviously a good one, so they eventually allowed Camera+ back in the store once the hardware button was officially supported as a shutter. |
The extensive themes allow you to because they have all the respective tweaks built into them. The shitty ones yes.. They just change the icons, lockscreen, and basically just the look and feel of it. If you want more than that then you add each tweak you want on to these themes. Otherwise, you get dreamboard and download whatever dreamboard theme you want, which will change the entire user interface (launcher). I typically stay away from this and just add certain tweaks until I'm satisfied ( no theming), but it is becoming fairly impressive. Now, I really hate these types of videos with a passion but [here]( is a video showing some of the dreamboard themes I am speaking of. Though it is just a handful, and in my opinion NOT some of the best ones, but you must admit it is much more than you would expect. |
Edit: ended up replying to someone else thinking this started from a different point; too tired to care anymore
Also starting to doubt the article is even legit since every other source links to that same one which cites no official source |
That article is fucking long and the title tells me nothing that makes me want to read that wall of text. Who's going to |
I agree. You don't deserve all these downvotes. Piracy is wrong after all. The fact that companies charge too much for content (to pay all the middlemen) is used as an excuse for piracy but of course it shouldn't be. If everyone followed the Louis C.K model and charged according to content and provided content that can be acquired with ease then it would definitely cut down on piracy. I find one of the reasons I find myself pirating things is that I check netflix etc. and If I don't find it it's very easy to download it as a torrent. But I am rambling. |
Can someone |
I used to work there, so I'll chime in. I think you're right, but I also think that there's a long recovery process to hire back solid talent and undo a lot of historical thrash.
From the viewpoint of my still-remaining coworkers, there's more emphasis on reviewing and designing the products than there has been in over seven years. She's actively holding design reviews with relatively new VPs of design. Those strategic and aesthetic reviews simply weren't happening a year ago.
The updates to the front page and mail were actually in the pipe as she came on. I assume they were rushed to show that things were moving, when really they were lagging -- but everyone expects improvements as soon as a CEO is hired. After seeing five CEO changes at Yahoo, I know how long it takes to change direction, redesign, and deploy globally. (Longer than it should.)
There's more to say here about the Alibaba IPO, the change to the sales force into channels (rather than regions), the undo'ing of the matrix organization that the previous product SVP put into place, and many many more issues.
Long story short, after acquiring 10-15 small companies in the bay area they need to do the hard work of integrating them in a cohesive mobile strategy. |
but they absolutely necessary for innovation. It is impossible to launch an innovative product without the assurance that the hard work that you put into it is protected by law.
Except that there's no proof of that, and very obviously people start all kinds of companies all the time despite having no guarantee whatsoever that it will work out (such as restaurants and much more, and even in marketing) and that works out just fine. There's tons of innovation happing everywhere outside the patent system.
> You can't get people to coordinate on an effort unless there is incentive to do so.
That incentive would often be to be first or to offer the best product or service and thus gain a large market share. That situation is pretty much identical to all these other companies that doesn't typically spend their time creating patent-worthy inventions.
> As an engineer, I'm not going to spend my life working on a project if at any time, someone can take my results at zero cost and make profit out of it.
I can only imagine that there's millions of various shop owners and small business owners that would mock you for saying that. Most of them could face competitors pretty much cloning their business to 100% and all they could ever do would be to make sure they're still providing a better service/product.
> |
Ok, so I'm a foreigner living in Norway, and I've heard all about how horrible tran tastes from all the Norwegians that were forced to take it throughout their childhood. So I was ready for the horrible taste when I bought some (had some horrible joint pain for a while, everyone suggested tran to get rid of it).
BUT no one warned me on the consistency .
The consistency is that of thick motor oil (it's a lot thicker than olive oil), and does not disappear with a rinsing of the mouth with water. So not only are you stuck with that horrible fishy taste, but you have thick motor oil in your mouth with that horrible fishy taste. |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.