0
stringlengths 9
22.1k
|
|---|
Seriously though, why are so many people un-impressed? Of course it's not without it's flaws. But from an artistic standpoint, in my opinion, this is incredible.
The headline says that the video will blow my mind, describes it as a kind of revolution in the CGI realm. It stayed on Reddit for several hours, giving some kind of legitimacy to the headline. I know quite a bit about 3D modeling and rendering, so I finally watched it, and it absolutely isn't mind-blowing, and additionally it's quite long, very slow paced, with a music that gets boring quite fast, and abuses blur, depth of field effects, and artificial "analogical defects" that are quite a bit cliché.
Had this video been described as an awesome one-man project, with a word of warning about its length and its quietness, my reaction would have been immensely more positive. |
Well, technically speaking, IE8 does implement a helluva lot of security features over IE7, and especially more than IE6 (god, that thing was sliced up like a block of cheese with so many holes).
Back when it was announced, it was the "speediest" of the browsers (but was quickly outpaced- Microsoft needs to do something about freezing the features/ improvements in their releases, something Ars . And it has private mode, XSS filters, phishing blockers, protected mode (in NT 6.x)....
Yes, IE8 still has ActiveX. Yes, all other browsers have these features and more. And yes, new empty tabs take a helluva lot of time to load...
I'm not trying to say IE8 is better than any other modern browser, because it certainly is not. But just saying that "it's still as insecure as ever" is a little bit misleading, isn't it? Microsoft has had a better patching/ vulnerability record for IE8 than most other browsers in terms of quantity of holes (albeit, other browsers patch faster ). Firefox, for many [studies]( !!PDF Alert- also, really old report!!, have been [shown]( to have more vulnerabilities discovered than IE8.
NOTE: I do not agree with the testing methodology that more vulnerabilities discovered = insecure-- rather I think that just means its easier to find holes (and the subsequent patching record means that it's quicker/ easier to fix). Mozilla . Thus, Microsoft patches more slowly (hopefully, in exchange for quality of the patch); though I am sure that the behemoth leaves many patches unattended to because being that large of a corporation, "some vulnerabilities can be ignored"... Cost benefit analysis?
But most of all, I think this is good competition. From all sides, Microsoft is being attacked. Web, desktop, operating system, productivity apps (office), mobile platforms, and so much more. The laws of competition are finally working against the behemoth, and we can see the results.
Windows 7? I think its their best operating system to date (2nd goes to NT5.x, maybe Windows 2k, slight maybe for Windows XP). It really is nice... IE9 previews have also shown MS's efforts in regaining some of their market. Office and the risks they're taking with the UI (ribbon- with so much love and hate from both sides) shows a bit of originality. |
Well but the way the internet generates discourse can actually be pretty strange if set in the right context.
I for one wondered how discussions about the last wikileak video concerned first and formost the initial engagement, and the pros and cons of that, sidelining 2 big other questions, partly about the distinction between the initial engagement vs the arriving truck, but completly ignoring the last part, the engagment with multiple hellfire missles. |
An arbitrary entity could certainly build such a piece of hardware/software to translate incoming/outgoing sms at the carrier-carrier interfaces to another format. My carrier for example has a web->sms gateway that you can send text messages through to their customers.
Any north american carrier surely will not build a device with the cross compatibility and lowest cost routing that you're looking for, because what business willingly chops their bottom line in half, when the vast majority of their customers are too technically illiterate to understand what could have been done instad? |
Just got a Kin TwoM, it no longer requires the data package and I have a very basic 250 message text plan with verizon.
My complaint is why should I be forced into using a data plan with smart phones when I could just as easily use wifi? I don't want to pay 15-30 dollars extra a month on top of voice. |
Oh man, you'd be a dream to deal with. I worked with L&R (Loyalty and Retention) a lot, and your situation would've made you an A Segment, which I'm surprised they let you cancel without a fight.. (by fight, I mean trying to suck your dick to get you to stay..) I hate to say it, but you probably dealt with a bunch of douchebags with egos or something. I'm a b seg, and I'm late every month. (I hate telus, but not the service itself.. but the company, because I worked for them and they raped my soul directly from my body.) and my plan's pretty decent.. I've been with them since they were clearnet though, so I think that was probably the bulk of it.. They tried to bring up my payment history, but I countered with, 'Didja get paid? Didja get extra money for no more cost to you since I don't get a paper bill?'. sometimes you can work your way around them, even if you're being douchey. (I'm kind of a douche. I wasn't overly nice. This time around, they tried to charge me a 'swap fee', which means that they had to enter my ESN into smartdesktop. Which, since I worked there, knew it required NO EFFORT WHAT SO EVER, other than typing the numbers down. That's it. and they wanted to charge me 25 per phone! I was like 'Fuck that, I ain't paying to stay a customer.' and they ended up not charging it to me! blah. They give so much shit to so many people that don't deserve it. Whomever you're with now though, just try and keep that in mind too. If you are in that type of situation again, try to cancel and negotiate. If you get no where, call back in a couple of days. If you get no where again, then the place sucks, but odds are you'll get somebody who wants to do their job.
holy wall of text. |
What is this "lack of unanimous support BS?"
Let's be clear on this.
If you are not an American, YOU WILL ALSO BE AFFECTED BY SOPA/PIPA. The vast majority of websites that you use every single day (including Reddit) are hosted in the US on US servers. This gives the US Government the ability to take them down (Reddit included) simply by making a copyright infringement claim. Reddit would not even have to host the material. Simply linking to it is enough to get taken down.
Other sites that could get taken offline permanently - Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, Youtube, Yahoo, Imgur, etc, etc...
These sites will have no recourse. They will not be notified or given the opportunity to remove the material. Once the claim is made and confirmed, the directive is made to block the DNS and issue a takedown order for their host and/or ISP. There will be no due process. There will be no method to dispute the decision. The action is permanent. If you are an American, use this time to make some phone calls to your reps and reach out to the whitehouse to send the message to the president to not sign this bill. Spend some of it with your family or friends. Go play some XBOX or PS3 - get some quests done on Skyrim. There are plenty of things to do with your time (including impressing the boss with your sudden increase in productivity).
Further, venture capitalists have started to come out against these bill, stating that they will stop providing capital to new web start-ups for fear of loosing their investment so easily. The risk will be too high. This will destroy web innovatio
If you are not American you should be screaming just as loud as Americans to stop this bill and contribute in any way that you possibly can - including the support of a major blackout to send a message. 12 hours is much better than permanently. |
Will vouch. What happened to the nuclear facility in Iran was incredibly difficult to achieve and depended on intimate knowledge of one particular PLC manufacturer's code and the flooding of a specific virus to almost one-third of Iran's computers in the hopes that it would find a single sneaker-netted machine. You can bet your socks that was some high-level government-funded shit. |
Um. You want to get a gravitational field... by adding more mass to your spaceship...?!
You're aware that in order to create a 1G gravitation field, you need mass of around 6 septillion kilos - that's 6x10^24 kilos? We know this for a fact, because we live on such a spaceship - it's called [the Earth](
Using "stable island" elements isn't going to substantially change this. For one, it's really not clear that they'd be denser than the stable elements in the periodic table today. Greater atomic weight does not automatically translate into density - the densest stable element, osmium is denser than plutonium they aren't going to be hugely more dense than known elements - it's unlikely they'd be even twice as dense as osmium. |
Wow. I have no words. I can't believe people are bitching about this.
>I don't think I can support such practices anymore. As much as I'd love buying a slew of artificially overpriced accessories again, I'd rather start looking for an Android phone.
I facepalmed so hard. You can't support what practices? Technological advancement? And guess what, if you buy an android phone, all your shitty iphone accessories ain't gonna work either. |
Pfft as if it would hurt to keep those few unused pins. If they were adding something for extra functionality it would be somewhat justified, but since they are only taking old stuff out I can only conclude that they do it for money only. (Even if there is an adapter, it will probably be way overpriced as always.) |
So, uh... why'd you link a paper that quotes an [article]( and a [researcher]( who didn't author the paper you linked?
Google's retort, RE the cookie (after removing it upon complaint):
>"The Journal mischaracterizes what happened and why. We used known Safari functionality to provide features that signed-in Google users had enabled. It's important to stress that these advertising cookies do not collect personal information."
The original paper you link keeps quoting their experimental browsing to see what cookies they collect, and that all were collected without signing into anything. But they go on to discuss Mayer who obviously didn't take such preventative measures. |
Facebook privacy violations could affect my day to day life. An employer might not hire me because of a post I made years ago. Private companies can contact me in order to solicit me. Before you say "then don't post that stuff" it shouldn't matter if I put my profile to private.
That said, government surveillance however unethical will probably never really affect me. I am not a threat to national security and I don't ever plan on becoming one. If the government wishes to read my text messages about how much I like pizza or what porn I watch then let them. There's nothing they can really do with that information. |
the price of the stock had the anticipated performance of the iPhone priced into the stock. The stock price going down is more of a correction since it did not perform as well as analysts had expected.
Also, the iPhone comprises almost half of the company's sales, so not meeting market expectations on iPhone sales is a large indication that demand has plateaued. |
Your numbers are a little misleading.
First, this is market share based on units shipped, not units sold. This really isn't an accurate reflection of the actual consumer market share.
Second, this is worldwide market share, which includes many markets that Apple is not actively making an effort to compete in like most of the developing world and many parts of Asia. In these places the cheapest phones hold the market share, so Apple does not make an effort to compete there. They focus on regions that can afford luxury goods.
In a market they do actively make an effort to compete in, the US, they actually increased their market share from 44.9% to 51.2% in 2012 (
So they have over half the market of US smartphones, with only one line of iPhone competing against literally hundreds of cheaper Android phones. They are doing just fine. |
ITT: lots of people haven't a clue how stock prices work, what investors look for, or indicators of corporate health.
Quick points (and I have no position on AAPL - strictly an observer):
Everyone knew Apple's revenue would go up, as would unit sales. The market's growing, and so is Apple. Those numbers went up a little less than hoped, hence some disappointment. The delta is what matters.
That is not a sign of trouble at Apple. It still made, and sold, a crapload of stuff.
The big news (but not the only news) was that the company's margin got squeezed. Badly. Again. Apple's huge advantage for years has been its amazing margin on top of its throughput. That's eroding.
That could be a sign of trouble. Investors don't like shrinking margins, no matter how much you sell. You can grow revenue all you like, but if less of it is going to profit, that's bad, not good.
Apple is hugely healthy in the short term. No one thinks otherwise. Massive cash balance, huge revenues, popular products.
But (some) investors think long term. Diminishing margins are one sign of less long term strength. Product obsolescence is another, and only the most rabid fanbois don't think Apple is, if not falling behind, at least no longer leading the way it used to. Those investors are disappointed.
Disappointed investors does not imply that the company is in trouble. Don't sweat the stock price too much. |
There may be aliens who abduct and probe rednecks. There may be the Antichrist. There may be ghosts of dead aliens that cause all of mankind's problems.
But until you give me proof it is real and exists, all the "May be" In the world doesn't make it true. |
It amazes me that people still don't understand that the only fuck given by the vast majority of politicians is to be re-elected. They will bend over backwards for you in most cases if their seat in threatened. You can argue that they care about the money they might be receiving but that only comes with the seat and the power it provides.
Everyone gets all worked up about the Presidential election but in reality its the house and senate that are fucking the country over with bullshit bailouts and Bill of Rights defying legislation. I've been saying for years that what American needs is a good old fashioned corporate restructuring to get the point across to our "representatives" that we elect them and give them the PRIVILEGE of being public officials. The house and senate are positions of public service not positions of entitlement. |
Or maybe it's how you personally interpret the truth. Think of this: I post an atheistic comment on /r/atheism and I get some upvotes. Now if I take that comment and post it on /r/ Christianity I'm likely to get downvotes. It's largely who you say it in front of that determines the "truth" as you call it. And people have another name for it. Opinions.
You mentioned queen and dubstep being good in a derisive manner. But it's music, literally one of the most diverse forms of entertainment out there. It's like me saying all football and soccer suck. I don't like it, but millions of others do and equally as many don't like it. |
If you think you'd need that, you're just as ignorant as he is.
Hell, a 12 year old kid who's a decent shot could hit one of those little remote controlled drones with a .22 rifle if you let him pop off several shots.
Also, they have this wonderful invention now. It's called fucking bird shot. You know, for birds. |
There are a lot of reasons to get rid of patents in drug R&D.
It promotes R&D into "me to" drugs. Wasted Money, little benefits to customer.
Less sharing of knowledge between scientists. Results in more failure, more wasted money, slower innovation.
It results in the US subsidizing the development of much of the world's drug development which isn't fair.
It burdens scientists and makes it harder and more expensive to do research.
Lots of huge discoveries that have saved millions of dollars have been discovered in basements or small labs.
The FDA process plus patents creates an insurmountable barrier to entry that destroys competition. Results in more expenses for patients, less products, stifled innovation.
And then there are the obvious moral and ethical issues of the high prices being unaffordable for sick or dying patients. |
Sure, they might. Let's have the IRS investigate to make sure that the rules (as I understand the requirements, a certain majority percentage of the money being exempted from taxation must not be spent in politics or political activism) are being followed properly.
IRS investigations are not costless for the organizations involved. An investigation means that any money donated to that organization simply cannot be spent as efficiently as it would be if the IRS did not investigate. If the IRS happens to target a specifc type of non-profit for investigation then they can essentially make donations to that cause less effective. Its a form of political manipulation.
>In the wake of the Citizens United, there was such a massive influx of "Tea Party" groups or "Patriot" groups seeking possibly illegal tax exemption that it would be downright foolish NOT to investigate further.
Again you are using the word 'illegal' in a very redundant way. They were seeking tax exempt status and the IRS determined whether or not they could legally obtain this status. The IRS' decision making process for denying them the 'legal' status is what is under question. There is nothing illegal about requesting the status.
>There would be zero investigation of these new liberal groups in the same manner.
I think that is highly dependent on the nature of the liberal groups. If the president or political party with the most influence over the IRS doesn't like those groups, then yes I totally agree that the IRS would increase their investigations of those groups. Which is exactly what I think the problem is, I don't care who is being targeted by the IRS, my original point was only that people and organizations CAN be targeted by the IRS. If you accept that point then we really aren't in disagreement.
>Surely you can see, given the information we have, that the reasons conservative-sounding groups were more often targeted is simply because there were more OF them. Are you pretending that, given limited manpower, they shouldn't investigate the most obvious possible offenders? That instead, they should "be fair and equal" and for every conservative-sounding group they need to investigate a liberal-sounding group just because, even if there are many more conservative-sounding ones?
Fair and equal doesn't mean investigating a bunch of liberal organizations. My favorite option would be getting rid of the IRS, but if they have to exist then they shouldn't be able to be used as a political weapon by the party/president currently in power. They should either investigate all organizations equally, or if they don't have the man-power to do that then they should use randomization to conduct investigations.
I think you are forgetting the key point that these investigations are costly for the organizations involved. If that was not true then it would be a little less bad for them to be as "efficient" as they want about catching potential violators. This would be the street level equivalent of cops stopping and frisking every black person because the ratio of black people to other ethnic groups in prison is higher. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy (more black people will be targeted thus ensuring that they remain the dominant 'offenders,' which will justify their targeting even if other groups are just as likely to be offenders.)
It is incredibly difficult to be compliant with IRS rules if they don't want you to be found compliant. And the fact that some people within the organization might have had a political bias against certain organizations means that they will be less forgiving of minor rule violations then they might otherwise be. Go take a look at the size of the US tax code and tell me that it is a simple matter of determining whether or not someone is properly paying their taxes. |
You get nothing but a phone. It's basically a pre-order that allows things to exist that otherwise wouldn't. Theoretically things on Kickstarter and IndieGoGo can't exist normally because they can't secure investors. With the help of crowdfunding you get to enjoy a product that never would have existed as long as you sacrifice the opportunity cost of your money. |
Well, I need to blow about 5 hours out the wazoo, so I'll get right on this! Immediately: It runs either the custom Ubuntu mobile environment, or Android. If you grew really attached to Carrier-specific features, do note that Samsung's utilities are tied to TouchWiz, so there is a small effort at replacing them without it, such as Gnote. So, it's at least just as good as Android right out of the gate :P
Sapphire is an extremely hard material. Mark wasn't exaggerating when he said you would need diamonds in your pocket to scratch it. (Shattering is a different story, but, this is a start) It's a clear, transparent material, and quite hard to manufacture.
Two, you get 4GB of RAM and 128GB of storage space beat out the current Note II and will likely be on par--if not better than--the Note III, which is Samsung's biggest and highest performance device. They plan to wait until the project is funded and the phone body, sapphire crystal, and batteries are already manufactured to pick out a screen and CPU to put in it. So, not only are you covering the R&D costs on a premium phone, but you are getting the best possible screen and CPU at that point in time. We're talking CPU's they just figured out how to pull together into a cohesive mobile platform. Aside: CPU's take more than a year or two to develop, so they've probably already talked to the manufacturers and know what will be ready to manufacture by the time they want to ship phones out.
They're also shipping it with a high quality modem and antenna, so everything from the tower to your phone should be perfect.
Ubuntu gives you a great deal of power over all aspects of the OS. It has a great many programs and utilities, that you will now have access to on the go with your smartphone.
All in all, this is a premium device for Ubuntu and Android users, and Canonical's attempt at polling the public demand for an Ubuntu mobile phone. |
Everyone in this thread needs to calm down. In no way are advancements like these going to stop scientists from doing research to understand collapse disorder and help native bee populations rebound.
Also, this is not in any way tied to GMO-crops, many crops of agricultural importance, be they GMO or non-GMO, depend on bee pollination. Maintaining and in the future increasing crop production while maintaining cost is dependent on bee pollination, or a suitable proxy.
This serves as a POTENTIAL safeguard in the case that we either cannot recover bee populations to where they once were, or we simply need to supplement native populations to increase pollination and crop yield. |
Fuck that shit. Phones and tablets should be just like PCs. Known hardware quantities that any coder(s) worth their salt should be able to load their operating system on (yes, I know baseband is still an issue... why? Because we give carriers way too much control).
Let me also take a step back and say that it would be nice if SDKs for official OSes worked in more languages. That's only loosely related to your comment, but lord, it would really open the marketplace up to a lot of developers. I don't know why vendors force programmers into their world.
I imagine smaller devs have a problem with portability, due to the .net/java/obj-c thing they have going on. A developer should be able to use their language of choice to make an application no matter the OS. It's not like they can't support it.
*except perhaps ff OS, since I believe it's all web-language based (applications). Perhaps a native method would be possible, but I'd understand this particular OS having an aversion to it. |
Most auto dealers actually own multiple dealerships and don't make that much money on new car sales. The majority of income is used cars and service. If someone like Honda didn't sell to a single dealer for a week, the dealer could probably almost stay in the black (this happened when the tsunami hit Japan the other year, cars were few and far between).
The big thing the dealers need is the name. People who are looking for a used X will go to that dealer first. People who need their X car fixed will often take it straight to that dealer. Most importantly, people who buy/lease a new car, will bring it back for service and to upgrade to a newer model from the dealership they bought from.
Car dealers are afraid that if Tesla can sell without the middle man, then why can't Ford, or Honda. Then, when they're selling new cars, why not add a service station and used cars. Now why would Ford let you use their name on your dealership when they have their own? This would cause the end of the "franchise local dealer" and the millions of dollars of profit would go with it. |
I saw it was proposed by Patton, but I can't find the amendment anywhere, and its kind of pissing me off. The original bill seemed to be a reasonable topic (I'm not condoning or disapproving of the original bill), but the Tesla crap is blatantly abusing legislation to sneak bullshit addendums into bills. Fuck any congressmen that does that, regardless of intentions--bills should not include irrelevant topics. |
When you are not a citizen and are visiting a country, you're rights are always limited. They can do whatever they want to you and its between your countries ambassador and their State Dept. There may also be certain agreements existing between the two countries that detail the process of what to do when someone is arrested or accused in another one's country. You can basically be charged with trafficing drugs at any point, with no evidence, and held as a prisoner without a trial. Because you are not a citizen of that country. This is why embassies exist. |
there should be something place from straight up BUYING the elections through millions of dollars spent on ads
The problem here is that you are making a huge leap. Buying an ad is ultimately buying transmission rights for your voice/message. The likelihood that it influences an election is immaterial to the fact that it is a speech act. It is paid, but consider whether this actually matters.
Say, for example, I am passionate about french fries. (I mean they are fucking delicious, right?). So, I feel the need to share my love for french fries with the world and go down to the Washington DC mall and tell everyone that comes close to me that I love french fries. (Other than looking like a crazy person), this is clearly me exercising my free speech. I am going (physically) to a specific location and using my voice to share a message.
But, lets extend the argument. Is it still me exercising my free speech if I use a microphone? It is still my personal voice, but I am transmitting it over longer distances . Similarly, what if I record my voice and play it at some other time ? These are all clearly free speech. And, what if I want to go further? So, I contact a TV station and pay them to broadcast me saying "I love French Fries and endorse this message." Is this still free speech? I am now paying someone for the service of relaying my voice over long distances and times.
So, it seems to me that there is no problem with the distance and time of me exercising my right to free speech. Similarly, is it still free speech if I pay a voice actor? I would argue that it is.
Finally, does it really matter what I am saying? Just replace french fries with vote for XYZ. Does it suddenly become non-free speech when the content of the message changes. This is a serious "thought police"-esque proposal. You've already mentioned that violent/-ce inducing speech is prohibited. But, there is already a considerable challenge in comprehensively defining violent speech and all of its fringe cases.
So, what is it that you find problematic? The distance, time, cost, or message? I find it doubtful that you have a problem with the first two. There is a clear basis for the third's legality; paying for the right to transmit a message is integral to modern human communication: mail, email, the internet, television, radio, and telegrams.
It seems that you have a problem with the content of a given speech act. And, this is problematic because it spawns a bunch of really hard questions.
How can we guarantee that only the speech you disapprove of is banned?
What is preventing you from extending this ban to other mediums? Can you ban paid print advertisements? How about non-paid advertisements? Should I be able to stand on a corner and shout "Vote for XYZ"?
Who decides what is misleading? Social scientists routinely argue about credible sources and research methodologies.
So..., if you're really suggesting that we start disecting people's |
I actually agree with both you and the others on this. On one hand, almost all companies have money as the primary concern and because Google is a major corporation they have the ability to sway politicians and politics in general for their benefit, so they do. It is basically understood that most all companies with the ability to lobby do, and nobody should be surprised that Google does as well. It's good buisness strategy. HOWEVER, that doesnt make it right. I disagree with lobbying because it just seem a little too corruption-y for my taste. It seems underhanded and really takes the point of democracy away from the people and in to the corporations. Thats my piece. |
The long and short of the "RELAY" and "RELAY EARLY" tagging attack was as follows:
Normally TOR nodes (entrance, relay, and last hop) are intended to be compartmentalized such that they only "know" enough information to perform their specific function in establishing a connection between a client and a hidden service. This is accomplished by separating the respective roles of entering the TOR network, locating a hidden service, and setting up a "rendezvous" between the hidden service/public service and the client. EG the entrance node knows someone is connecting to TOR, but not what they want; the relay node (in this attack acting sort of like directory for TOR) knows someone is requesting a particular hidden service, but doesn't know who is requesting it; the last hop node knows to set up a "Rendezvous" with a particular site/service, but doesn't know what client is showing up to that rendezvous.
In this attack, if 2 of the attacker's controlled nodes were selected as the entrance and "directory" relay nodes, respectively, the relay node used control messages in TOR protocol headers (RELAY and RELAY_EARLY) that the network normally uses for traffic control to send coded messages back to the entrance node about what service was being requested. By correlating entrance information that "Jim set up a TOR circuit from 1.2.3.4" with these coded messages from the relay that "Someone made a request for abcdefgh12345678.onion", the attacker could effectively figure out "Jim at 1.2.3.4 made a request for abcdefgh12345678.onion", thus deanonymizing the user accessing a hidden service. |
Invest in companies you think have long term potential and then forget about it for a few years. Tesla is way overpriced right now especially with this new press release, you'd be buying Hugh. At the same time, if they somehow manage to pull a hat trick and dominate by ushering in a new Era of electric cars than yah you'll make a lot of money.
The problem is that if Tesla makes electric cars the new norm (a big if), competition will soon flood in and the value of Tesla will go down. Tesla is trying to head that off by offering their technology for batteries for free in hopes that their batteries will be the new standard, hence handing them the market down the road. |
Firmware/vehicle updates remotely to add features that would otherwise be impossible in a traditional ice car
Are... Are you retarded? The drivetrain/powerplant has nothing to do with creating updates for firmware.
> 3rd row seats in a non hatchback sedan
That's because the roofline slopes all the way back to the spoiler. Which makes it ugly.
> retracting door handles
I'd rather have a door handle that works, please.
>internet access within the vehicle without the need for a phone to act as a modem
If you even consider that important, then why don't you just put a hotspot into the car, or wait for newer models that have it.
> a usable interface to control all aspects of the vehicle
That's not their innovation.
>ability to start the car and either cool or heat using an app
Why would you want to control the car by reaching into your pocket, instead of using the controls literally right in front of you?
>more storage space
Than what? The Tesla has "a lot" of space because of its ugly design.
>best crash test rating ever
Not if you want those 3rd row seats, buddy. Anyone sitting there is at least going to lose their legs. And it only achieved a high rating on the NHTSA, not the IIHS. It scored the same as an Audi A6. And Audi has more perfect scores than Tesla, with various models. |
I've noticed that Verizon tends to magically "round up" when it comes to how much data I've used. My first couple of days on verizon, I supposedly managed to blow through 2 GB on my 4GB data plan. I know exactly how much data I was using, also compared it to how much my iphone says I was using (< 100MB). I had started my contract during the middle of the month, so I figured it was them just "correcting" my data usage to match the billing cycle. But I called them to confirm, spoke to an "engineer" who insisted that the data usage report from verizon was correct. So according to verizon I blew through 2GB in 2 days. To be more specific I managed to go through just shy of a 1GB on my 20 minute drive to buy groceries while streaming some music. Do the math on that and you'll find that's pretty damn hard to do while streaming music. |
You're getting those texts because you have usage controls on your account.
I kept getting robocallers and random texts, so I added the controls and blocked the numbers. I started getting those texts after I hit 1gb. I was still able to use data after I "used all [my] data." Turn off useage controls and they will disappear. I regularly hit 60gb on my phone and don't get any of the texts anymore. |
I'm grandfathered into the AT&T unlimited data plan. I have called well over 20 times complaining how if my contract says unlimited 4G internet, they're in breach of contract due to 4G being the connection of speed and LTE being the hardware they use to achieve that speed. 4G is the speed at which the data is sent. When you throttle my data speed, it's no longer 4G and they're not living up to their end of the agreement. They play ignorant every time and pass me on to a supervisor who always just ends up hanging up or saying oh well buy our new packages offered and you won't have this problem. |
Whoa, wait, what?
I've been on Windows for 2 decades and hated OSX. Metro is what pushed me to finally hate Windows... and I bought Vista. Vista may have sucked for bugs, but it didn't make a desktop OS difficult for power users (besides the bugs).
Microsoft tried to impose the crappy Metro UI/UX on desktop power users. When I had to pay $5 to get Start8 to get a normal start menu after paying $60 to just add the Metro tiles that I never used, I decided I was done with Microsoft. 8 minus Metro is really just 7... with maybe a Service Pack. 8.1 is a service pack. The added features were negligible for a desktop user.
Microsoft completely forgot about desktop users and think everyone wants a touch screen. I tried the touch screen deal on a laptop. It's too forced.
Is the stability and performance great? Sure. But that's generally not why people upgraded their Windows in the past. 95 to 98 was a major update. 98 to 2000 was INCREDIBLY different. 2000 to XP was even more different with tons more functionality. XP to Vista/7 changed even more many more added features for desktop users.
7 to 8 added almost no value for a desktop user. If anything, it hindered the user experience unless you installed something like Start8. Once Start8 was added, the difference between 7 and 8/8.1 with Start8 is almost non-existent besides some Service Pack-level fixes and performance updates. Think about XP. Then XP SP1. Then XP SP2. These Service Packs were on the level of added features and fixes on the level of 7 to 8 (without Metro) and especially 8 to 8.1
So no. If they want to bring me back, I hope they trash the Metro UX (realize UX and UI are not the same. UX is how you interact with the system and your process. UI is how something looks. UI's can change 100 times theoretically and not change the process in any way). I don't mind if the design/UI has elements of it (it is pretty), but it should be a UX that is made for keyboard and mouse. The touch interface should be a separate edition of Windows. This is what Microsoft use to do with XP, with Media Center Edition. There was no reason to get MCE if you weren't setting up a media center.
It pained me so much as a long-time Microsoft/Windows fanboy to say that Apple has it right with OSX/iOS differences. OSX is much better for a power user now as Apple realizes desktop/laptop usage has a different use than mobile/tablet, and they should operate differently. Microsoft needs to realize this with Windows 9. We aren't there yet that we've figured out a "single OS" UX for all form factors. |
I agree with a lot of that list. I do believe that 95 was a fantastic OS for its time and vanilla Windows 98 was bad. Only with the release of OSR2 did 98 stop sucking. Well, relatively. They were still overall awful operating systems.
I also like Windows 8. It's a fantastic OS that suffers from an identity crisis. Under the hood, it's a step in the right direction from 7: It boots faster, is more stable, and runs faster. It's like a Mercedes: You know that it's a marvel of modern engineering under the hood, but fuck is it ugly. |
The point is that just "mixtures" and "combinations" of elements are not molecules, there's a lot more to it than that.
I used the carbonic acid and the polyethylene terephthalate as examples of two molecules that are although made of the same elements, are radically different. Molecules are defined by the structure of their chemical bonds. Mixtures and combinations couldn't be farther from the truth. |
all bills of this size get amended.. just like large software is going to have a lot of updates. The right pretend this isnt true. Bush's medicare plan D was "flawed" and had to "be amended" because you cant predict all the ways it will be abused and holes, until something is put in practice. you can find a ton but often there are overlooked things.. just like major software. |
The ACA was a series of laws that gives more power to individuals that have health insurance. I.e., no lifetime max, cannot drop a person in the middle of treatment, cannot deny a patient based on pre-existing conditions, and no more "snake oil" policies where people were paying for something and not getting any coverage when they needed it.
Apart from those basic laws and protections which apply to ALL insurance policies, it also established an insurance marketplace, (healthcare.gov), which varies state to state. Some markets were better setup than others, and some states were more open to setting it up than others.
For example, in Iowa, I bought insurance after I graduated using healthcare.gov, and had a $600 deductible and a $78/ mo premium, $1200 max out of pocket per year. I can afford that policy.
The second year I switched providers, and now I'm paying $58/mo for $1200 deductible and $1200 max out of pocket, but all other basic preventive services are free, and specialists are $10 copay.
Another thing it did was expand Medicaid funding, but loads of red states are refusing the money, which is ultimately hurting folks in those states, because they fall between being able to afford healthcare and qualifying for Medicaid. The expansion was meant to increase the minimum wage earnings cutoff for qualification. |
You need user mass and a compelling reason to move. Myspace was a cesspool, and still is. Facebook was a significant improvement in every conceivable way. It was also exclusive which helped grow popularity.
An open alternative that simply copies Facebook offers absolutely no advantages unless you're a geek, and the people that matter aren't. Facebook also doesn't suck like Myspace did, and is significantly bigger, which makes it even harder to get people to move. |
Not really... a heart-shaped wave is a superposition of lots of normal waves of different wavelengths/frequencies. Suppose you had a pool where each of the required normal waves could in fact be present as a standing wave (or had the actuators around the edge set up to make it act this way). The period of the overall waveform would be the least-common-multiple of the periods of each of the normal waves making it up, and the amount of time that it would be recognizable as a heart would be about half the period of the highest-frequency wave. |
there are a lot dirty games that go one than simple link buying. Hell, that's pretty tame in google's book.
When you start hiding text in the background color, or building ghost pages, or submitting links into xss exploited pages (aka do an xss and put that in a link shorterner, now go submit that link to a non google search engine) That's when you have crossed into black hat.
EDIT: I intentionally left out what kind of content one would be injecting into the xss 'sploit because If you don't already know how to do this, I don't care to be the one to spread such a bastard technique. Anyone sufficiently technical/bastard enough should be able to figure out what the ??? step is. |
Why do you think science would be better off without religion?
Because, as superbaconman was saying, if you re-enforce the idea that "teachers are wrong" because of teaching evolution at school and parents dismissing it at home, kids won't want to believe anything teachers say. While it can be good to question things and discover your own answers, I think that this is largely detrimental to education.
Regarding your argument between "how" vs "why", I guess that's an opinion. I would argue that science provides just as much "why" as it does "how" in that science typically provides an explanation as to both how things work as well as why they work. For example, with a computer, there are many many layers of complexity, but science has explanations all the way from "Why does Windows do things slowly" down through all the software standards, the languages, the CPU architecture, the motherboard and all the protocols at that level, the hardware and design specs for all of that, down to the "why do electrons flow". About there, you get into the physical science of electricity, and if you dig deep enough, you can get to the "we don't really know -- because it just does" layer of things.
It's about at that point where you invoke discussions of existentialism, which might be the ultimate, or root, "why?" questions. As for those, science typically does NOT have an answer, and I could stand to have a respectful discussion regarding religion vs. theoretical science at that level. But really, it doesn't much matter to me what the answer is, as I can't change it. Since hard evidence and scientific proof is scarce within this domain, any guess is as good as the next, which is why I put as much stock in religion as I do in theories such as those presented in The Matrix . Since we really have no idea which is correct, it's funny to me that one unproven theory with no hard evidence is more popular than any of the many other unproven theories with no hard evidence, Matrix and TimeCube included. |
Geez, quit it, both of you.
My point was, don't scaremonger people away from Google. Give them facts that actually help them understand what Google can (and, I reiterate, cannot) do. That page will basically make people flip over the fact that Google is selling their proverbial bank account information... Essentially, give them facts, not smear campaigns, no matter how " |
Site optimization is the not the same as ad targeting. Simply put: Site optimization (what I do) is more like watching how people walk around in a store and arranging the displays to make their shopping experience better. Ad targeting (what I don't do) is capturing your behavior to serve you ads somewhere else. I find this often borders on creepy too and use ABP with a vengeance. |
I think the most important (and probably the worst) thing about this is the [Content Decryption Module](
They don't want DRM to be included in HTML5, they want an API that allows them to package their own DRM into what is effectively a browser plugin. It will probably be much more tidy than the current system of flash/silverlight, but it isn't really that different and the chances are the CDM will only be released in a binary format, which means some companies will continue to ignore Linux, and it probably won't work on your arm based phone either.
Why do they want it like this? Because if they just included some form of DRM in the HTML5 spec, then it would have to be something that all browsers could implement, which means anyone could implement it.
DRM only works if nobody knows the details of its implementation. If I know the details of a specific DRM implementation, then I can implement it myself in such a way that it looks identical to the server, but once I have the unencrypted video I can do what I like with it.
Edit: Clarity. |
Really Reddit 4,655 down votes, the guy has been hassled by minimum wage nobodies looking to start something with someone they possibly see as inferior (but who i think is bloody awesome, I mean c'mon augmented reality screwed into your skull that's awesome) This man should sue this particular restaurant, based on the evidence his "eye" captured. Personally I've been there they are not nice, but their coffee was good. |
Have you been to Paris before? Tons of people go to McDonalds. It's easy to order because all (if not most) of the cashiers speak English, and everything tastes the same as it does at home (wherever home is). It's the McD's promise.
So if you speak no French, going to restaurants is a hassle because you have no idea what you're ordering. |
My experience when I was there was that the Frenchmen were a bit rude and brusque in the fashion you would get going to, say, NYC; it's a big city and you can't make a personal connection to the millions you might see walking around. With two exceptions every time we had anything to do specifically with another person (I.e. ordering a sandwich from them, practicing French, on one occasion taking a photograph of the woman's dog) they were very personable and probably invested more time with my brother and I than a pair of tourists were worth. The two exceptions were a) my brother getting told very gruffly to speak English by a Turkish gentleman whose restaurant we were patronizing and b) my brother got mugged by an aggressive panhandler. I know very little about him but the tourist sections were oddly full of usually men who spoke worse French than I do but clearly made their living panhandling and avoiding the gendarmes. I think I got brushed off more in London and Edinburgh than I ever did in Paris.
On the whole I had a significantly worse experience in italy where I had someone refuse to serve me even with a translator in Florence and an extremely gruff man in I think Milan who pretty clearly did not want to serve tourists but accepted the money. |
Way to spread a false and ignorant stereotype. You had a bad experience because the guy was an asshole human being. Not because he was French. |
I was in paris this last week with my GF-who is french but african- and can confirm that most french are assholes in that city. I was almost mugged twice, but realized they were trying to pick pocket and handed them their asses ( to clarify guy/girl duo, guy would do magic and distract you while the other would go thru the girls purse or steal whats on the table.. this was at 1 am at a bar/cafe outside and me and my GF were jetlagged from the trip and were having coffee... they thought we were drunk, so when the girl did the laugh/shirtcover/pull of my camera and money on table, I noticed, and quickly Americanized the situation. Yelling pointing pushing and eventually throwing the guy across a plant pot, this happened 2 nights in a row. My girlfriend was assaulted for taking pictures outside a starbucks (the barista guy said no pictures and to get out of his city), in which case I had to kick the crap out of a starbucks employee for slapping the camera out of her hand and pushing her. Also at the same mcdonalds as OP the same week I was approached by these same assholes for being American and not speaking any french and depending on my "whore girlfriend" to get around their "beautiful" read ghetto as fuck: city. I ended up throwing my drink at Perp 1 and slapping him with the ketchup side of my sandwhich telling him he wasnt man enough to be punched, he had to "restrain he said" so he wouldnt get fired. Being the week of paris's independence the police couldnt give 2 shits about anything. That city is way overrated, overpriced, and worst of all, full of french people. I'm uploading all my pictures now to my FB account to see what Photo's I have of this incident as well. Edit ** : I'm 6'4 and about 235 of man muscle so I stand out pretty bad in midget land, might be why I was such a target for hostility. Will never go back, and if I do, hit first ask questions later.
** |
Just for those curious, the conversion screw up was with software on the ground, and has nothing to do with the Mars Climate Orbiter itself.
>The primary cause of this discrepancy was engineering error. Specifically, the flight system software on the Mars Climate Orbiter was written to take thrust instructions using the metric unit newtons (N), while the software on the ground that generated those instructions used the Imperial measure pound-force (lbf).
> "The MCO MIB has determined that the root cause for the loss of the MCO spacecraft was the failure to use metric units in the coding of a ground software file, “Small Forces,” used in trajectory models." |
TPB's sole purpose is piracy
I have a buddy who works with open-source software, and will download them through torrents because it's easier than carrying around and keeping track of 4 dozen flash drives. |
He is nominally a bail bondsman in the loosest sense that he has a license. He is also an idiot who is lucky that he is on an island in the middle of the Pacific which makes it harder for people to leave to even go to another Hawaiian island. It also depends on the state law as to who and how you are allowed to recapture fugitives. I call him an idiot because while he many nominally have the right to do it how he does, he does it in a stupid way and opens himself up to a big chance of civil and possibly criminal liability. [He was once charged for illegally arresting someone in Mexico]( Even a half way decent bail bondsman or bounty hunter would check and even alert law enforcement if they were arresting someone outside of their state. Plus they would know that it is illegal in almost every country in the world to make such an arrest. Even several states, Oregon for one, don't allow a bondsman to pick up a skip or they consider it kidnapping. This even includes driving to the state, the skip getting into the car willingly, then driving back to where the bond was issued. Other states don's allow extradition to certain states, but also don't allow you to pick them up like in Oregon.
The bounty hunting law that most bounty hunters and bail bondsmen use for their justification is a [Supreme Court case from 1872]( You don't want to be doing things relying on a case that is over 100 years old as your only safety margin.
The bail bondsman or bounty hunter (depending on whether or not the state allows bounty hunters) has a limited time to bring the person into custody in the jurisdiction where the bond was set. The bondsman typically doesn't actually pay the money to the court, at least in my experience, until after this time has elapsed. As to the bounty hunter, typically the award is the fee that the bondsman was paid for the bond, which on average is 10% of the face amount of the bond ($100,000 bond would pay $10,000 fee). This means that while the bondsman may not make any money, he doesn't lose money either.
Now, most states, but not all, allow and almost encourage the use of surety companies which are just insurance companies. What happens here is that if the person skips and is not brought in to court in time, the county/state (I haven't had experience with federal because the rules tend to be much stricter and defaults can occur even if the person goes to court) goes to the insurance company. Then the insurance company gets seeks indemnity from the bondsman. The bondsman then seeks indemnity from the co-signor and/or bonded person. One of the ways that these insurance companies protect themselves is require a substantial deposit by the bondsman before allowing them to write, a pledging of assets with a security agreement, to write. They also typically charge somewhere between 3-10% of the fee charged to be placed in a build up fund. This fund is controlled by the insurer, and is used to pay for forfeitures if they occur.
Now some bonds are far better than others, so it depends on the specific case. Sometimes the person has money and/or property and the bondsman can be reimbursed. Many times however, the person is getting a bail bondsman rather than paying the fee itself because they can't afford to pledge the full face value of the bond. Again, this applies to my experience, I am not sure if some states don't allow personal bonding and require the use of a bondsman. So your odds of getting the money back are fairly slim.
Before, sometimes the bondsman could negotiate a reduction in the amount owed if the person failed to go to court. Lately though with all the budget problems, this is not happening at all and the courts are requiring full face value reimbursement. In my state, what happens when a forfeiture is paid, the prosecutors office gets 25%, the municipality that made the arrest gets, the county gets 25%, and the state gets 25%. It can change depending on the exact crime and type, but for the most part this is a good rule of thumb. Therefore, they have an incentive to get as much as possible. So basically, your bail bondsman is more of a risk assessor and insurance agent than someone who goes and hunts down people.
Hope this answers your questions, but if not, please feel to ask me any more you have or need clarification on any points. |
So as a long time user, do you mean you always upgrade to the newest suite whenever it becomes available? So you're paying a big chunk of money every few years, in stead of a small chunk of money every month. What does this change for you?
Or do you by long time user mean you're still using CS2? Well, if you upgrade that seldom, now is a good time to get the CS6 because it's great and still available as a "regular" license, and will probably last you for many years to come, when the business model may yet again have changed.
I can't believe how butthurt everyone is about this. You don't have to use the "cloud" as storage if you don't want to, or don't have an adequate interenet connection. And you install the software on your computer just like before. The payment program is great for people who don't have four digits to throw on a piece of software, and now others than large businesses or rich people can afford to not pirate it. |
Go to an agency. It is SO much better than in-house. You make your own decisions, you compete with other creative professionals, you can stand up for your ideas and sometimes be heard. There is an account service department that will fight with you, but they aren't your boss, and when the battle is over, they present the work with such authority that even the most pigheaded marketing director will at least listen.
I've worked both. My experience client-side was:
Marketing Director: "Ninja Raccoon, put this photo on the flyer. I took it myself and it is super low-res and the lighting is off, and it looks terrible, but you're a designer, so it will look professional when you place it in the layout... Because of photoshop... BTW, this photo is the most important thing on the flyer and we want it full page. And put this headline in "Derp, syntax and grammatical errors. Nonsense." Don't change it. I know it doesn't make sense, but since you are a professional, it will be smart when it's in the layout. BTW, this is the most important thing on the flyer. I want it to fill the whole page... I sent you a Word doc with the copy, it's 396 pages long-all bullet points! Neat, huh? I want it all in the front of the flyer. And it needs to be bold and 35pt minimum... And it needs to be all caps... And it needs to be in that cool font, papyrus! That will look awesome! But make it match our brand (meanwhile, the only brand-approved font for copy is Helvetica) BTW, it is the most important thing on the flyer. In fact, every word of it is more important than every other word, so make all the words the most important as each word is read, that's possible because you're a graphic designer!"
So I would do what they said and it didn't look awesome, ever. And I'd do alternative versions that were successful at getting across what they wanted to say (not being a prima donna, just using hierarchy of info, active wording, and some brevity, following brand guidelines, etc.)
I was always blamed for the bad layout's problems while the alternatives were never considered at all (they were considered, like, a mistake I made, or something.) Meanwhile, whatever the agency told him was best, he went along with, without question.
I've heard of client-side designers who actually worked with other creatives in an agency-like environment, except they only had one client, and they weren't pitted against each other in a constant design-off, and they didn't have to worry about the agency going out of business every. single. day. But if you say your soul has been sucked out of your asshole, then I think I can safely assume you don't have that kind of job.
If your job is in anyway like what I described, you would thrive in an agency. You work long hours, it is stressful, the stakes are high, but you have agency. Your thoughts and ideas won't go unchallenged, but they will have a fighting chance. You won't always do fulfilling work, but the terrible clients are just one client, as opposed to in-house where they are literally your supervisor.
Of course, I am assuming a lot. I could be wrong. |
You're an engineer? Do you use AutoCAD? I think Excel is a good enough replacement for AutoCAD because I don't use it. Also, Excel is an acceptable alternative to AutoCAD because if you need to use any features it doesn't have, you can just boot up AutoCAD and use that... See, in that way, Excel is very useful for drafting. If you disagree, that's just stupid.
Can you really not even see what I'm saying regarding the validity of GIMP as a Photoshop replacement? Or would that be admitting defeat or something? I'm sure there are a lot of tools you don't use in a lot of professions that aren't yours, but as an engineer, can you not at least appreciate the concept of there being a right tool for the job?
The entire world of print design is trapped in an Adobe monopoly. Yes, non-professionals like you can use free non-alternatives like Gimp and Paint for your hobby, but how does that have anything to do with this?
Are you seriously suggesting the solution for a professional who can't afford this "service" is to pay for it but only use it to "convert [documents] to RGB and back again?" |
I won't be buying a next gen console if there are any restrictions on used games.
I believe in the 1st sale. Once goods are sold to an end user the manufacturer does not have any say in it's use or transfer. Unless it's being used in a way that damages the reputation of the company or the user experience of other paying customers. They don't have a right to say that you have to pay $10 to play the game if someone owned it before you.
I haven't bought any games from companies that charge for online passes since they were introduced. EA dropped that recently so I might start getting EA games again.
When you pay 59.99 for a new game you should be able to do what you want. If you finish it in one week is the value of the game gone? Does the disc turn to dust?
Microsoft adding their own charge of $X to used game sales is like buying a 4 year old car and having the manufacturer demand $1500 on top of the used car price.
I won't be buying an xbox one and most likely won't get an PS4.
Yes I have a PC and yes I use STEAM. No you can't sell used games on PC. I haven't paid more than $25 for a game in years. I buy games that are a year old or more and get them on sale. When I buy a game on Steam for $4.99 I don't care if I can resell it because it wasn't a large purchase.
You can bet your ass that without used game sales that console games will stay at $59.99 for a lot longer than they do now. They won't have any reason to lower the price if you can't get it cheaper used 3 or 4 months after release.
I completely understand that the world runs on money. These companies are in business to make money. They don't really care about the games. As long as the games sell they don't care what they are about or who buys them. However when companies focus entirely on profits instead of their customers it eventually kills their business.
This is the last "console" generation anyway. Streaming games like GaiKai and Onlive are the future. There won't be any consoles or physical games. It will be run from your cable box. You rent a game for a certain amount of time and it streams your gameplay. When your time is up you can't play anymore. I doubt anyone will own games like we do now. When they company isn't making money on a game anymore they will remove it from their servers so it's not taking up space, server time or bandwidth from more popular games. The games will be nearly impossible to pirate. They will be located in the "cloud" and if you did get a copy it will be coded to run on server hardware and will shit the bed if you try to run it on your home pc. They won't need anymore DRM than to lock it down to hardware that you can only use in server hardware.
I think console gaming is over with PS3 and Xbox 360. This is the actual last console as we know it. The 360 is already changed into a "media" box. Games are small fries compared to TV watching audience. Microsoft wants the Xbox One to be a DVR and app box much more than they want to sell games. They can make hundreds of times the profit on tv and video apps than they can on video games. |
It's not that the keyboard/mouse controls are better, it's the extra options. With a console, you're pretty much going to use their controller and that's that. With PC, if a certain game plays better with a dual analog controller, go ahead and use that. A lot of games don't let you remap the controls, but that's a non-issue with a controller on PC. Or you can use the keyboard/mouse. Or you can use a combination of the 2. Plus with a PC you can set up macros. |
Because all politics aside, outside of the last mile the content senders pay for delivery. That's why web hosting plans have bandwidth fees -- hosting popular videos is relatively expensive.
When connecting to other big, big ISPs, "peering" is usually done for free with the provision that there's an equal exchange . If a network link is more or less balanced, you can presume that they're of roughly equal value. If a network link is unbalanced , then the sender is putting a disproportionate load on the receiver's internal network, and that usually demands compensation. Youtube-related peering is of course going to be one-sided, which is why Google's pretty proactive about having caching servers (themselves probably overloaded) as close to the viewer as possible.
Cogent is a "Tier 1" network with a sketchy history. They provide relatively low-cost bandwidth to places like Youtube, but that comes at a price: they don't have a good reputation amongst their networking peers, demanding fees when it's not appropriate. (For example, last I heard the IPv6 internet was still disconencted -- Cogent refused to provide free peering to Hurricane Electric, so a host connected only to Cogent still can't talk to one connected only to HE.)
In this case, the article specifically labels this a peering dispute. Time Warner can easily be indifferent to the nature of the traffic, if Cogent is trying to pull a power play.
( |
Fuck twc and atnt with their oligopoly. Just because they are the only companies most people who are forced to choose from, the companies think they can just give shitty customer service and slow inconsistent connection speeds at an assraping price... well I hope google fiber metastasizes and reaches my city so I can call twc and tell them to shove it up theirs for all these years of abuse. |
I had a semi similar problem. My desktop is two rooms away from the router in an apartment building. I picked up about 35 different wireless signals when getting 30% of the download speed I should be getting.
So I made a ghetto wifi extender/shield. My wifi dongle has a cord so I can control the placement. I got a bunch of aluminum foil and shaped it into a tall cylinder cut in half lengthwise. I made it 4 or 5 layers thick and taped it all together. Then I put the wifi dongle in it with the opening pointed at my router. My download speeds instantly maxed my actual bandwidth, and i could only see ~20 other networks. |
Texas (where I live) has a number of laws disallowing a manufacturer from selling their own product. Craft brewers just recently managed to get laws that kept them from selling their own product changed, so now we'll be seeing more brewpubs around here which means more money for everyone. Yay.
You see, most products are beholden to distribution systems that are already in place. For a company that makes beer (just to keep with the theme here) it would make no sense for them to try and horn in on their retail outlet's turf. The costs associated with operating as many retail stores as Anheuser-Busch has in their current distribution network would be absolutely astronomical, and you would never recoup the initial outlay.
This isn't true for auto dealerships.
It would be trivial for Ford, GM, or whoever, to come into the state and start undercutting their franchisees. Why would they do this? Well, it's more profitable for them. If everyone is buying directly from them, that means that all of the dealer markup instead becomes manufacturer markup. Yay! In fact, you're not going to get anything off of the MSRP. You're going to pay what they want you to pay and that's final. It would not behoove their competitors to lower their prices. By undercutting the other manufacturers all you're doing is indicating that your product is worth less money in the eyes of consumers. But does this matter? Well, yes.
You know how everyone complains about there only being a handful of ISP's, cable companies, and phone companies? Now imagine how much shittier it would be if you didn't have fifteen competing dealerships trying to sell you cars. No, you have three companies (keep in mind these laws were passsed in the 40's) that own practically every dealership. Instead of fifteen choices you have three masquerading as fifteen. There might be five Ford dealerships, but they're all owned by Ford. They all sell everything at the same price.
This is anti-competitive and anti-consumer. Neither of those are good things.
Whenever these laws were enacted the economy was poised to fucking explode. Auto manufacturers had become rich working for the government. GI's coming back from overseas had pockets full of combat pay. Men and women across the country had war bonds promising them a substantial chunk of cash in one lump sum.
It was a good time to start a business.
Many people did. Many of those were auto dealerships. In a move designed to protect fledgling small businesses, many states enacted laws that would not allow manufacturers to compete directly against these businesses. Why would the states do this?
Because it provides a net economic gain.
Instead of having one corporation that's probably not even in your state operating every dealership, you have a network of small businesses that directly impact the local economy. Instead of one corporation hiring in a handful of people to operate these places and taking most of the profit for themselves, these profits instead stay within the area. They are taxed locally. They are spent locally. By creating competition between dealers, you even create a better job market for salesmen as they can always demand more money from whoever they work for. This would be practically impossible if every dealership were owned by the manufacturer.
These are the reasons the laws were enacted. They were to protect small business from giant corporate assholes. This is still what they do. I don't see any circumstance where it would behoove any of the major manufacturers to try and overtake their dealership networks (it would be a fucking DISASTER in terms of PR) but that possibility remains.
Elon Musk has a pathological hatred of dealerships. This makes sense for a manufacturer of Tesla's size, but it doesn't for the larger ones. He's trying to position this fight as "Poor widdle electric car vs. BIG UGLY OIL" when in fact it's "independent dealerships vs their corporate overlords". The manufacturers would probably love for Tesla to be successful. |
I hate YouTube all together. It used to be a great place where you could upload creative and original content. There even used to be a community, actual people you could socialize and interact with, which was how most videos spread around the site.
Then Google came along and pretty much ruined the site forever. There is no longer a community, and it's no longer for original content. It's nothing more than bogus advertisements for media monsters to shove more crap at us. It's always been a site where anyone could upload anything to it, but you could find a good actual funny video here and there. Now it's just for schlock it seems. Plus, if you aren't making money off your views (aka: not giving YouTube/google any money) nobody is going to ever see your videos.
If you aren't making money, YouTube doesn't give a crap about you. Even worse, they're making options to censor people now!
I no longer get any views, and that upsets me cause I do have some original stuff I like to share, but it's just upsetting that They'll most likely go unnoticed. |
Warning: Tech stuff, hard to simplify]
I dealt a lot with that kind of stuff in Flash ( ActionScript3.0 ), and some things are not as easy as you would think. In AS3.0 it all revolves around the NetStream object, the tool Flash gives the programmer to deal with video streaming, things like play, pause, skip, volume, and how it behaves. You cannot reuse a NetStream object, you have to discard it before reusing it (which means losing whatever was buffered) and that's the main issue.
Because in a lot of case Youtube will have to ask for a different stream (link to the video), either because the quality is being adjusted to your connection (hence the need to fetch the appropriate stream/link) or because you skipped ahead you need to ask the server again for the video starting at that point (because unless buffered your cache doesn't have it). Both these cases will cause the local cache to be flushed, because you had to discard the NetStream object. That's a problem the old Youtube player faced (and most video players out there).
So why the new player behaves differently? Why does it reload even when you click back? The NetStream object offers two ways to play a video, either through a link (classic way), or through bytes (raw data). I suspect they use the raw data method because it allows them to save on bandwidth versus the classic way. And it makes a big difference, the appendBytes() method from the NetStream object used to inject the raw data has a big handicap, if you seek (try to go forward or backward in the video), it will discard anything buffered so far. And that why it keeps reloading. Don't ask me why it works like that, that is Adobe's decision...
I'm a bit rusty, but I remember experimenting with that exact way of streaming (raw data) three years ago, I could be wrong, but from what I can tell from poking around the Youtube player that's what it's doing. |
I installed this thing a couple months ago and it worked fine for awhile, but for the past month+ Firefox just wouldn't load any videos from YouTube (and only failed on YouTube). Finally disabled the add-on this week and I can watch YouTube videos again. I haven't figured out how to trouble shoot it from within the Center yet |
so the author does not understand what is happening. The author assumes the linked content is hosted at chilling effect, which is untrue. The DMCA request is hosted, which is perfectly legal.
They do not re-index those links, they index links to the reason they are not available. These links are given priority in order to make anyone searching for this content, aware that is has been removed by a DMCA take-down request. |
I hate adobe. They are either designing incredibly inept products, failing to protect users' information, or forcing third party software down your throat.
In the past, a flash update would let you uncheck the box for McAfee products... now? Nope. If, when prompted that there is an update to Adobe Flash, you hit update (which you will need to, because flash is an unbelievably inept piece of garbage), it will, without even telling you, or giving you any kind of option to say no, install McAfee security programs on your computer. This is unacceptable, and having to go to an online forum to download a version that does not have this software is unbelievable. |
There are so many flaws in this article that this isn't even funny. The key takeaway here is that when you take pictures with different devices in different conditions with different hardware and different settings, well, you obtain different pictures. |
The quote that struck me in it is actually something that I've been arguing about for a long time in respect to social relationships that are created through the internet.
>"Most individuals try to present themselves online the way they think society is expecting them to,"
The internet and the way it functions facilitates seeking out people who already agree with you. When you're on a dating website, you're seeking a romantic partner based on keywords. So, really, you get into the habit of "selling yourself" as however you wish to appear to be. Your photos, four sentence posts, and links to pictures of cats actually have nearly zero bearing on who you are as a human being. Your "likes" or your friends list won't tell me whether or not you're a decent person. The old adage "actions speak louder than words," really applies here.
If we go back in history and look at say, The Honeymooners , which was the first successful US television show, and look at the social relationships, we can see a huge difference. In this show, the main characters are not friends because they have the same interests, they are friends because they live in the same building. In the past we had this problem of geographical scarcity which forced people to become friends with their neighbors because they literally had no one else to befriend. You either got along with your peers, even if you were different, or you became a social pariah.
I feel like this is a huge part of why our society has become so divided and politicians don't work across the aisle anymore. Our entire world has been tailored so that if you already have a certain viewpoint, it takes very little effort to re-enforce that viewpoint. You have entire TV channels dedicated to conservative or democratic values. You have Google, which no longer gives you the same search results as everyone else, but will strive to give you results which are similar to what you've already clicked on, so if you're a hardened climate change denier, you're literally not going to be exposed to the information that might change your mind about it.
These new social mediums focus almost exclusively on keywords and photos, making these social connections some of the most shallow and pathetic in human history. |
You summed up most of why I got off Facebook.
What people don't realize is that you don't have to delete your account.
You can just make a friends only post with some other form of contact info, then make a public post saying "I'm not using Facebook anymore, but can be contacted by phone or email. Thanks!"
That way, you don't have to worry about anyone who already established Facebook as a means of communication getting out of touch, and going forward you can just tell people you don't use the site.
Here's the spoiler: nobody calls you that wouldn't have otherwise.
The flaw I could see in this would probably be "but what about long lost friends looking me up?!" but that doesn't really apply for my generation; if it does for yours, just make an email account for people to contact if they're a long lost friend, post it publicly, and check it every few months.
All of this sounds like a lot of work written out, but it will take maybe 2 minutes of your time to do, plus 45 seconds to check the email account every few months if you go that route.
Additionally, the points made at the end of this article are very good:
My rate of personal development has skyrocketed (or gone back up to baseline, depending on who you ask) as a result of getting off social media.
Everyone makes pretend that their lives are better than they really are.
You can't just go out for sushi. It's "OMG EVERYONE LOOK I'M EATING SUSHI THIS IS AMAZING."
You can't just hang out with people. It's "OMG @BLABLA @WOOWOO @KEVIN SO MUCH FUN WE HAVE SO MUCH FUN."
You can't just an award and be low-key proud of yourself. It's "OMG LOOK AT THIS AWARD (50 "likes")."
It reminds me of how all the fashion magazines are photoshopped. The standard is so high that it doesn't even exist as something that's attainable in real life. I think a lot of this is touched on in that article linked above but I haven't read it in a while.
Then finally for me, Facebook did the opposite of what it was supposed to do for my image; I'd post things when I was upset and angry, and end up having this big chain of upset/angry thoughts visible.
So everything about it seemed like a really great idea that doesn't actually work.
I'm aware that a lot of this is stemming from me and my nature, rather than the site, but functionally the solution was to get off it.
You don't tell people to take responsibility for their actions/problems, then get mad at them for solving the problem in the way you wouldn't have done it.
I hate it when people go "oh well why don't you use it occasionally?" Yeah go up to a guy who had a drinking problem, then ask him why he doesn't drink occasionally... Oh you can and he can't? Good for you. Not everyone is you.
The reason why Facebook is meaningless for so many people is that
the flood of information / artificial life support of acquaintances takes away the effort required to make friendships and relationships special.
you can't avoid #1 because ignoring friend requests is this diss that people take personally.
I don't want the same ass people in my life my entire life. If someone wants to be in my life, they have to care. If I want to be in someone else's life, I have to care.
Otherwise wtf am I doing. Oh cool you went to Taco Bell last night. Good for you. Thanks for telling the world, Kevin from 10th grade English class...
I got an almost decade-known friend a birthday present a few months ago. Instead of hitting me up and going "thanks man, how have you been!" or whatever, he shouted me out on Instagram.
I don't use Instagram.
Since getting off of social media, I've put a ton of effort into staying in touch with people via text/email/etc.
You quickly learn who cares and who doesn't.
When we all have our PepsiCo caffeine IV drips and WALL-E hover chairs and Idiocracy television shows and 15,000 person Facebook Corporation soulmates ^TM Pokedexes and whatever other nonsense 40 years from now, I'm going to be outside, contacting the people I care about who bother to care back, walking around, breathing fresh air. |
I got rid of Facebook two months ago; after a gradual process of blocking obnoxious statuses, removing acquaintances and generally using it less. |
Just heard a story on the radio this morning (yeah ppl still listen to that; weird right?) about a boa fighting a crocodile for five hours before killing it, draging it out of the water, and swallowing it whole while people watched. When questioned about whether people felt safe swimming in that lake a lady responded, "I still feel safe swimming here, I might just send someone else in first." |
You're an idiot. Money buys outlets to affect public opinion for their constituency, it doesn't buy votes. Though lobbying will affect how they vote, that has just as much to do with how much they're exposed to them ( since they have the kind of money to be in Washington all the time, and therefore have more time to converse with the senators) as it does the pressure of campaign donations. Plus, these lobbyists know what the f*** they're talking about as far as the political process and the subject they're lobbying for, and since they're in Washington all the time they can relate to the Senators better. Add to that your dumbass voter apathy, and you get our current predicament. Writing to your senators en masse works. Reddit has proven that before. So do some fucking research, vote, and write to your goddamn senators. |
Now, as much as that would just be cool, imagine the downside.
Instead of having at least something resembling an opportunity to leave your current country, to move to or emigrate to a different country, where police powers, laws, courts, legal systems and protections are different than where you are currently.
Under a Citizen of the World idea, with no separate countries, all living under one central form of government - where do you move to when you don't like how your rights are trampled. Which other countries could at least put economic/social/military pressure on your EarthGov to back off or rethink their position? Or are you just going to build your own spaceship and setup shop on Mars?
Essentially, an EarthGov (one world government) is a monopoly like any other. And no matter how benevolent sounding at first, monopolies will always revert to tyranny.
Freedom of choice, to choose for yourself where you live (at least in realistic terms), who you choose to do commerce with, freedom to choose whom you wish to associate or love, which rules you choose to govern and protect you, are all dependent on having competition between separate entities. |
Yes, they could. However that is pretty unrealistic. Despite all the "scary evil corporations" that you hear on reddit, they simply don't work like that. Generally speaking, the Board of Directors only has the power to change the executives salary, which are publicly disclosed. It would be cake for a financial analyst trace "de facto" donations back to the corporation. Everyone just thinks the CEO and executives can do whatever they want in a corporation, but I assure you, they do not have the ability to just say "Give that person a 10 million dollar raise so they can donate it to a political campaign". The CEO isn't generally responsible for giving raises to begin with. |
For those wondering-- these are the reasons this isn't huge news;
Fusion occurs at temperatures around six times hotter than the sun (100 million Kelvin or so)
While this may be significant, it has been known and tested for a decent while now.
What you are reading about in the article is a deuterium-tritium injected reaction.
What we are working towards using in the future are deuterium-deuterium injected reactions.
Until we can achieve the deuterium-deuterium reactions, it is not feasible to commercially or industrially apply this technology to pretty much anything besides research.
The main objective of what is being done with concern to the article is simply the exploration of the most efficient means of containment for future endeavors in regards to fusion reactions. |
I'm not gonna bash your ideals, just wanna point out what you've said here is simplifying the matter too much. It's silly to blurt that the laws we make simply "will be" when we as a society create them; this is often not true as many laws go unenforced and/or are unenforcible (this particular law falls under one of those). It's also silly that you think we as a society really wish every law should come to pass--a lot of the time we don't have a hand in the law. |
Corrected the title:
>Google's driverless cars can only navigate City roads that have had every detail intricately mapped
The amount of misinformation and misunderstanding about Autonomous Car research in general, and Google's project in particular is mindnumbing. I'll post a few quick points for everyone who hasn't been paying attention:
A large part of Google's current efforts are based on the staff and research originally used to win the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge. There's a fantastic episode of NOVA about it. And that's what was capable with modified production vehicles 10 years ago.
The first Google autonomous cars that caught people's attention around 2011, and they'd already been in testing for awhile at that point. These are modified production vehicles that have a lot of sensors, including an expensive LIDAR setup.
These cars have driven over 700,000 miles autonomously all over California and Nevada by early 2014. Which has been almost entirely highway driving, and most of it hasn't used much if any additional mapping. Highway driving is relatively simple compared to city driving. Actually, a number of luxury cars now can almost drive autonomously on the highway now, and announced models will be even better.
Google's working on city driving, specifically around Mountain View, the first step in this project is extensive additional mapping. They released videos and demos of city driving, and with the addition of the mapping data, the cars seem to do surprisingly well.
Google has also started making a prototype driverless car for testing city driving. This is the little bubble car, with two seats and no pedals or steering wheel (although one might have to be added to meet new regulations). They've only made a few of these so far, and the total number is likely to be around 100, since they're for research only. Since this is the first car that Google's actually made (or had made for them) a lot of people are calling them "Google's Driverless Car" as if this was a production model they'd just launched. |
Morality is a psychological construct that varies based on wildly swinging factors such as society and religion on the large scale, and age or generation on the small scale.
Consequentialism* is the only factor that can really even be used as a standard.
*doing that which has acceptable and/or favorable consequences, or avoiding that which does not. |
After looking into it, you're both right and wrong. It would be violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act the way it's written, but in US Vs. Drew , courts ruled that due to vagueness, criminal charges could not be pressed for such a violation unless the site/software's terms of use specifically warns the user that they would be committing a criminal act, otherwise it would essentially allow companies to define laws for themselves. |
You could use forensics based on post times, pics posted, attached location, and writing style, but you'd only be guessing at best. The only way to do this reliably is to either hack the account (illegal, not recommended) or request Twitter. The 2nd option isn't very useful as Twitter is very supportive of anonymity and free speech and consequently also protective of its users' identities. You'll need a court order at the very least, but unless it's a violent threat that probably won't get anywhere. |
I live in a small town with a municipal ISP. It doesn't "compete" with other ISPs. It blocks them out. Suddenlink would love to come into the area and sell us service, but the city won't let him. AT&T is legally contracted out of offering service faster that 1.5Mbps to most of town.
So the muni ISP has a monopoly over Internet service that they have no incentive to improve.
In most other cities (like, the others surrounding me) the city has granted a single cable provider (Suddenlink) and a single DSL provider (AT&T) a duopoly. There is a more local ISP near me, but they are legally only allows to service businesses locally and residents outside of Suddenlink's area. There is basically a Suddenlink reseller outside Suddenlink's area, too. There is no TW or Comcast because they are legally blocked out by the municipalities.
A better solution to this would be legislation to block this collusion between the municipality and the ISP and keep the muni from keeping the pipe all to itself. ISPs should have fair and equal access to the poles and pipes to run parallel cables. I realize that cities grant access to a single company so that the city doesn't end up with 5 or 6 redundant ugly poles and holes in the ground all over town. I get that, but once the holes are dug, or once the poles are up, cities should not be able to legally block out other companies from using that infrastructure. But that, THAT, is the crux of the problem.
You may live in a city where the muni ISP does it right. That's fine. But for every one of those, you have a city like mine where the muni ISP charges twice as much as the neighboring town and puts your Internet service on your electric bill. Have a problem with your service? Have a dispute over your bill? Too fucking bad, we're turning your lights off and cutting off your water.
People are saying that building broadband is like building highways and railroads. It's not. Government-run broadband would be more akin to building railroads and highways and then having Amtrak be the only choice for travelling. Fuck that.
The cities should be digging the holes and building the poles, and we need fat pipes in those holes and sturdy poles - that's the part analogous to building a highway, but once that's done, the companies should be given fair and equal access to those pipes. At that point, those companies would be competing with EACH OTHER at the consumer level, driving price down and driving QOS up. |
Seriously this shit pisses me off so fucking god damn much. Rant mode activate!
Firstly google is its own company it can do whatever the fuck it wants. If tomorrow they wanted to just make every god damn link they fucking generate to be mother fucking meatspin.com thats thier mother fucking perogative seriously who are you to tell them how thier, yes THEIR MOTHER FUCKING SEARCH ENGINE THAT THEY SPENT MOTHER FUCKING DECADES PERFECTING TO RUN?
Its not up to you to decide what they do and do and how they do it. How about the other companies put forth something other than thier fucking filthy money grubbing god damn hands and thier shit stained noses, suck it the fuck up and act like god damn adults.
Seriously if google really just wanted to pull the biggest fuck you ever to the EU they could just up and move thier fucking mountains of god damn money to thier giant vault in the swiss alps wipe everylast mother fucking drive in all of the gay shit pile that is the EU pay all of thier emploees for a full fucking ten years so they can do what the fuck ever they want. Then and then burn thier fucking data warehouses to the fucking ground.
Last part for fucking up the eu because fuck those twisted shit bag old geezers who cant open a mother fucking excel page without harassing the intern that they dont even fucking pay just so they can just fuck up something that has MOTHER FUCKING NOTHING WRONG WITH IT. WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK EU LETS JUST PUSH ONE OF THE LARGEST COMPINIES IN THE GOD DAMN WORLD RIGHT THE FUCK OUTTA HERE FUCK TAX MONEY FUCK EVERYTHING BECAUSE WE JUST WANT NOTHING GOOD HERE EVER FUCK IT. LETS PULL A RUSSIA AND SALT THE FUCKING INTERNET EARTH.
honestly there's probably some stuff i missed because i start seeing red when i think about the stupidity of others in power. |
To be honest with you, I find myself pirating indie games more then ever these days. Since steam let so many games come through (which are mostly crap in my eyes, I hate unfinished games) im not quickly pulling my wallet anymore because I simply dont trust it. Same with me for movies. If Im not sure ill like it I pirate it and decide later if I want it. Sometimes I play a game for years before I buy it simply because I dont feel the need to support it till they actually finished the gamebreaking bugs. I have a pirated copy of DayZ on my computer (which is legal in my country) and ill be happy to buy it on steam once they get out of alpha/beta stage and I can play the game like it is supposed to be played. I dont want to buy an unfinished product because too many times we have been screwed over. As example my friend gifted me some game called fortresscraft. It was utter garbage and should have never seen the daylight. It was a horrible, shitty minecraft clone without the fun stuff from mimecraft. And that is why I pirate. I dont care if the person is rich or poor, if I dont trust it im pirating it first and see if your product is good enough. See it as windowshopping. You wouldnt buy a shirt without seeing it. |
Uh, you can "crack down" a little with widely-known public VPN services simply by filtering public IP addresses, but on a protocol level, you can't stop VPNs.
Imagine if I was in the UK and had a modem in the US. By some wild means, imagine that I was able to run a cable from that modem all the way over the ocean and plug it into my flat in the UK. Where would the traffic be coming from? The US of course, because the cable modem is there.
Now imagine that you made that extremely long cable into a more practical and managed connection by using the internet instead. Say you made the connection between the US and the UK encrypted (like logging into a bank's website). You are pushing the same traffic from the same source and to the same destination, just by a different method. This is a VPN.
An extremely long cable would make you look like you're in the US instead of the UK as the servers on the internet are communicating to a modem in the US. Where you run that cable and where you sit at your desk is your own business. A VPN is the same way: servers will connect to a US IP address in the US, then shuffle the data over the internet in an encrypted fashion. There really isn't anything fancy about it.
In fact, you can set up your own VPN if you feel like it. There are several suites of open-source and proprietary software to do this, and even several pieces of hardware that you can purchase and/or build to do the job. You simply cannot walk into a store that sells computer-related tech and not find some kind of VPN solution, be it by buying a router to coming home with a barebones box to install Linux and OpenVPN. And when you're in Australia next week, when you're connected to your own VPN, where does the data go to? The UK. Your VPN connection to Australia is for your eyes only.
So how is Netflix going to "crack down" on VPNs? Completely, you simply can't. That's the point. VPN stands for v irtual p rivate n etwork. The best they can do is go to the big VPN "services" that offer you VPN access for $10 a month or whatever, but this is a real cat-and-mouse chase. |
I'm going to play devils advocate on this one.
Despite the ludicrous regional system they have in place, as a business they are perfectly entitled to do it.
If I buy a Big Mac in the US, it's going to cost me more than if I buy it in China. Does that give me the right to demand the US one costs the same as the Chinese one, or worse still, steal it "on principle"?
By using a proxy, you are misrepresenting your location to get a service they have decided is not available in your region. Effectively you are committing fraud, even if you are paying for it. |
So already some posters are trying to defend this with the tired old "You wouldn't download a car" rhetoric.
I'm sorry but this line that pirating is stealing is complete horeshit .
First of all, let's get some fundamentals clear. The studios do not own their content. They don't own it. Anyone with a copy of it - the bytes and bits in the case of digital media - is an owner of that content.
What the studios (or if you prefer, the rights holders) own, are rights . These are rights in the form of copyright.
Now, where does copyright come from? It comes from us. There is no natural item of property known as a "copyright". Copyright is the creation of statutes. It comes into existence in the form of laws passed by Parliaments.
Ultimately then, the "rights" owned by the rights holders aren't so much as rights, as privileges granted by the people acting via its sovereign governments.
Now, if I grant you a privilege, it is also within my right to revoke that privilege. If you want to abuse your privileges - in this case, the right granted to you to license reproduction of your original works - then it lies within my right to deny you those privileges, or to deny you enforcement of those privileges.
So, if you want to invoke the privilege of having copyright recognised in our country (in my case, Australia), it is up to you to satisfy us that you deserve that privilege and haven't abused it.
One sure way of abusing that privilege is to not permit your works to be accessed in our jurisdiction at the same time and the same comparable price as you make it available in other jurisdictions.
In that case, you have no grounds for complaint if we decline to grant you copyright over the exploitation of your works in our jurisdiction. Equally, you have no grounds to claim the enforcement machinery of our state - the police and the courts - if the privileges you are invoking are abused.
Now, when the glorious day comes that the pirate party in this country takes the balance of power in the Senate, this should actually become law. If you want to enforce your copyrights, you must first prove to a court that your licensing in this jurisdiction was accessible and non-disciminatory. That's the price of getting the privilege of copyright.
Until that day comes, we are stuck with the current laws, which doesn't have this as a requirement. Well, one can simply say that Parliament is simply lagging behind the will of the people in this case, and there is no requirement in morality to observe an unjust law. |
Sure, but licensing affects everything including the production itself. Some shows aren't allowed to be shown in other countries no matter how because the music or whatnot has only been allowed to be used in said country. |
Lol, like always, this move by the movie studios is now going to encourage legitimate paying customers who want access to content unavailable in their country to resort to piracy.
Seriously, all you need is Google, a Chromecast (if you want to watch it on tv) and a VPN (around £2.99 a month) to get around blocks to streaming sites such as letmewatchthis. And that's not even including apps such as Popcorn Time and Showbox. |
you would waste a lot of that energy trying to synthesize diesel, so that is not a viable option. Storing energy with molten salts is one of the best solutions we have to store excess energy from solar power plants, and there are several other solutions for both solar and wind power plants. |
This technology has been around since 1925. Audi didnt do anything new.
>From the top comment in this thread:
>This synthesis of fuel is called the Fischer-Tropsch process and it's been known since 1925.
>Audi did not invent it. It's been used before by the countries that could not procure enough fuel by other means (i.e., Nazi Germany during WWII).
>Also, it's quite energy inefficient, meaning that you will spend way , more energy than you'll be able to recover when you burn the fuel. The fuel you make will be much more expensive than producing fuel from oil.
>(Emphasis mine)
> |
If the ship has a good dense source of energy then it can run the motor. The reason why electric motors are not used in many heavy mobile equipment like ships or earth movers is because batteries are not that energy dense yet. So powerful ICE must be used. Yes, the ICEs can be connected to a generator, which can then be connected to motors, but most of the time that's less efficient than having a direct drive and a transmission, so that's why engines are still used in ships. However, sometimes it is absolutely necessary to have a generator setup like this. Diesel locomotives use this because they need an immense amount of torque to move. If it was a regular direct drive transmission system, the RPMs would be way too high. Also, it would make sense to have a generator system as I said before if you are doing a hybrid system, like the Chevy Volt. |
My preferred environment is two monitors running 2048x1536, so I can have (up to) two 1024x1536 windows on each monitor - that's twice the height of 768 (i.e. 1024x768). Some programs I run at 1024x768 - even less for things like IM, but that gives me browser and email on one monitor (and the browser that size is... amazingly handy); text editor and other applications, IM, even widgets all visible on the other monitor... I still ran out of space - could fill three monitors - but it was nice. |
We-e-e-e-l, maybe not.
If a drive operates to CD specifications, it's IMO a good drive. If a drive operates with out-of-spec media, it's a bad drive.
Why?
Because I can only have recourse (return, exchange, &c) when a drive fails spec, not because it fails to read a disc made with an out-of-spec writer. This also applies to media: out-of-spec media (apparently) successfully written to, but which fails to be read is a failure of the media, not the reader.
A drive that operates out-of-spec, or with out-of-spec-media may be immediately useful, but only in the near-term. For once a drive writes out-of-spec, you haven't any guarantee of ever reading it. For a reader, it might be handy in one moment, but can lead to a false security: your out-of-spec reader reads it, but no subsequent reader ever will.
For longer term storage, archiving, &c, poor, out-of-spec readers, writers, and media only hurt.
No one, some years hence, can go to e.g. Pioneer, and demand an out-of-spec device, the better to read their out-of-spec backups.
It could be reasonable however, to presume reasonable procurement of "spec" devices to read "spec-written" media for some years to come. |
The Model T wasn't the first car, nor the best one. It was the most successful, because there is so much more to selling products than "I IZ FIRST!!!!!!!" or "I HAS 0.0992380283 MORE HP THAN U" |
They format and stick Win7 Professional on there along with office 2007. Mac users are required to buy a windows laptop but most Mac users usually buy a shitty windows computer, give it to the school to do crap on it, and then use their Macs at school anyways. I've been planning on dualbooting Arch on it but haven't gotten around to installing it yet. My desktop at home fulfills all of my non-school needs and my laptop is old and shitty anyway. To be honest it's only a mere hassle that occurs upon acceptance to the school. Especially since it was the only one I was accepted into..
Anyway I don't want to denounce the school itself in any way (aside from the issues above) because its IT department is lazy and incompetent. Wireless on our small campus is so bad that they gave every incoming student free 6 feet long ethernet cables and have ethernet ports in every study room and classroom. I don't even connect my android phone to the wireless because it's so bad (I've managed to stabilize the wireless connection on my laptop as much as I could by tweaking driver settings though). However, the faculty and staff and the curriculum is pretty good and does well to prepare its students upon graduation. To be honest, I'd say only 2 or 3 students who get accepted (class size around 150) are computer-literate enough to even be bothered about this so I pretty much blew this out of proportion for karma. |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.