0
stringlengths 9
22.1k
|
|---|
As I added people from work I made a work group that couldn't see anything, and later added a "christians" group on top of that. It's still annoying as shit to check and make sure whatever post is filtered to who I want to see it. And then even if I would normally show something to everyone, I have to think about what my "real" friend might comment on it, and whether that will be inappropriate. And then one of my cousins who is pretty cool and I had in the normal group slips something to my parents that lets them know they can't see everything.... (yes this actually happened. My parents have an opinion on how many cats my roommates keep, so when they got another I hid it from my parents to avoid the bullshit. Cousin brought up the cat and drama ensued) Or something's tagged. Or I post from mobile and forget to check. Or or or. |
The problem of Facebook is its popularity. Recently we've (or at least I've) heard & experienced several articles of employers who want to look at Fbook walls, schools that want passwords, work cultures that encourage people to connect, profile scapers that make a business out of it, IRS+facebook+many others who have demonstrated that once you post something, its public info in some way or another even if your profile is private. Parents, teachers, employers- everybody wants their hands in people's Fbook digital life, and the loss of privacy equates to loss of good content that hasn't been scrubbed for public value. I'm all for an open world, but with people scared to share good content under their own names just because everybody's got their paws in that cookie jar, I come here instead. |
Let me google that for you]( |
It greatly depends on your interests which subreddits you will like. I will suggest a few that I like.
/r/AskHistorians
/r/askscience
/r/DepthHub
/r/Foodforthought
/r/Futurology
/r/humor
/r/NeutralPolitics
/r/nottheonion
/r/offbeat
/r/ |
I'm old as fuck but even I am starting to skip over youtube links, as my attention span can't handle a video over 15 seconds in length, something that vine is doing better. It's messed up and has a long term consquence on how we digest information, especially journalism, but I'm so addicted to novelty, that a 30 second youtube vid has me skipping wadsworth constant style until i get to the meat or |
Well, not only that but Samsung likes to leave in a lot of the AOSP images and carrier specific icons through out the entire device! For example, the SystemUI (which is the app in charge of your status bar) will have icons for AT&Ts 4G icon, Verizon's icon, GSM icons on CDMA carriers, CDMA icons on gsm carriers, they kind of use a universal app for all of the icons and then change the XML/smali accordingly. There's a TON of unused images inside the SystemUI that could easily be removed and same goes for the framework-res and twframework-res.
You top this off with AOSP code. They have some in place that's for the drawable images via the status bar for AOSP and then they have another one that's for the Touch wiz version.
But you're absolutely correct. There's some badass apps that are still based on Gingerbread that I use. And some not so good. Most apps are updated to take advantage of the xhdpi assets. |
The thing I've noticed most that Microsoft blundered on was the idea that they could force people to change the way they do things, instead of giving people what they wanted. "I would like to force my computer to run on Metro and I hate it when programs are easy to locate under an organized start button!" Said no one ever.
They figured their influence over the market would outweigh the responsibility to cater to a customer's wants/needs. |
They're spammy/scammy and of poor quality. I have no problems with ads that actually provide me with information about a product I may like. Amazon is great at this. I'll do some product research and table things for a while. Later on Amazon will remind me of my search with additional related products... the ads save me time! It's great!
I have a Pandora account. I almost exclusively listen to metal. Why the fuck does it show me ads for country and rap- two genres that I have never listened to and hate. What the fuck guys?
I watch video game streams live during the day at work. For a long time the ads were exclusively laundry soap commercials. Either they think nerds need to wash their clothes more (they do, but not THAT much) or they think that people watching live streams during the day are the same demograph as people watching tv during the day. Soap ads. Idiots. (There were also video game ads, but for the most part they were completely ignorant of their audience.)
"Retargeting" ads or whatever they're called are stupid. I visit a site once, by accident, and ad services think I'm a target for retargeting. Ok, I can see the value in a startup trying to acquire those precious repeat visitors. However, there needs to be a threshold. One hit is not enough. One session is not enough. It's a fluke, I'm just passing by. Leave me alone.
I don't even use adblocks or adfilters because I don't feel like spending energy on them. It's not a big deal because I have a built-in adblock filter for 99% of ads. My eyes tune in to the meat of the page. I'm one of those Reddit users that doesn't even see the sidebar. "Oh, text/blocks on the right side of my bigass widescreen monitor... must be ads." I can't tell you how many times I've been navigating the internet with someone and ignored useful information because my brain filtered it out as an ad- probably because it was in some shitty font or in a common ad spot. I've also taken to googling for things that I see ads for if I'm interested in them. Fuck those clicks. Yes, I realize this harms the ad ecosystem but I'm really just sad that the internet doesn't know me better by now.
Which brings me to Facebook: The part of the internet that I actually have used socially. The ads on Facebook are the most retarded and obscure things around. They're about as bad as junk email spam. This is partly my fault as I don't tell Facebook anything significant about me. It probably doesn't even know my age (though for a while I was over a hundred years old!). However, it should be smart enough to figure out what I like based on my friends. "Oh you are friends with large number of people from Iowa. Here are some ads/discounts for sportsware that shows your Iowa team spirit." Nope. How about discounts to food places where I live? Remove termites from my home? I don't own a home and you should know that because the address I typed into Facebook has an apartment number. What a waste of money for the termite removing company dudes... Are ads just a bubble? Do they seriously work? Maybe they prey on less tech-savvy people? |
I just picked up the galaxy gear watch and I have to say, I really do enjoy it. When I was talking to the Samsung Rep at Best Buy, I asked about the return rate.
He said the number one reason they are being returned is because the employees do not set the watch up for the customer. He informed me that he makes every effort to set up every gear watch that is sold out of that particular best buy.
Its not hard to set up, BUT.... you have to pair with NFC and make sure watch is attached to base and you tap the phone to the base, not the watch. It took me a few minutes to figure this out. |
And those posts would be right. Dollars to doughnuts the 'iWatch' might look a little prettier, have the same functionality, and a higher price point but people will still wharrgarbl over the fact that it's made by Apple and is therefore superior. |
Commenting because I am prob the only one here who actually owns one - I can liken it to surfing the web on the Moto Razor in 2005 - its a glimpse into the future, but its just not there yet. That being said, the potential is clear once apps are developed for it. The battery life is actually a lot better than advertised (its usually at 85% at the end of a day). The notifications are not fully fleshed out (Google now, for example, just says "check phone") so not useful as such, but will come over time. Best three features: Camera (I can take a picture in less than 1 second), Reply to texts via voice (which works surprisingly well even in noisy conditions) and answering calls on the device (you hold it to your ear or you can talk into it like Dick Tracy. For the vast majority of folks, I'd say wait till Galaxy Gear 3 - but if anyone remembers when the first iPhone came out, there were NO APPS - just what Apple/Google developed for it. Give it time. One app in particular that shows the potential is Vivino - it lets you scan wine labels in store with the camera and gives you tasting notes and prices. Other apps over time - like keeping track of billable hours - will surely make this more useful. |
I'm calling bullshit.
First of all its the inquirer
Secondly and MOST importantly its BEST BUY. No one shops at best buy AND best buy doesn't let you return anything.
Smart watches are still a stupid product. |
People can get perfect and complete information if the source has agreed to release perfect and complete information about what you're wanting.
This is only true if you ignore a lot of real barriers, like education, skills, and time limitations.
You also have to assume that they will comply with their end of the contract. For reasons I covered earlier, this is not always a sane assumption.
> Would you sign up with a company that has a track record for abuse? No. Would a company break your EULA if it knew it'd lose customers and any financial gain from breaking the EULA? No. Do companies do it? Sure. But they go extinct, replaced by businesses who honor their EULA.
Again you assume perfect and correct information. This is a world in which companies routinely rely on misinformation and disinformation. It's usually called marketing.
In reality, people do it every day.
> Name one company or industry in which suing is an upside.
Apple has faced lawsuits and criminal investigations over some of their practices. They knew it was coming. It didn't stop them.
The music industry routinely sues the shit out of its customers.
> Then don't agree to give your information to the parties with no real way to check what they're up to, if that's what you're looking for. Problem solved.
That would make it impossible to do business with anyone. So much for your vaunted transparent contracts.
> And the beauty of it? If you don't trust Amazon, you don't have to give them your information. Amazon will know nothing about you.
They can just buy it from one of many companies that makes a business out of selling personal data.
> Give an example. I'm asking because I've yet to hear of a company who's business model relies on selling user information that they didn't agree to in the EULA.
Spokeo comes to mind. In general, they're called "Data Brokers". You can find a short list here:
They do exist.
> That's the problem and the point of the entire article, if you were paying attention.
And it wouldn't be a problem if they didn't create an attractive target. Plus, there's no lack of people who aren't law-abiding and who also want that data. No amount of government staying away is going to change that.
> Again... the problem isn't the data. And companies chose to collect the data (key part here, please pay attention) that we chose to give. Period.
Read the above about data brokers. Then say this again.
You will, of course, but you will still be wrong.
> Would love for you to provide such an example of a company (government doesn't count) who violates their customers privacy whenever they want.
Facebook is a good starting point. |
I worked at a local Uno's when these were beginning to roll out there (left in Oct 2011 so they had been around since probably about Feb/Mar 2011)
The first few months there was a HUGE backlash against them. The fact of the matter is, these types of restaurants are patronized by a certain group of people that are highly resistant to change especially when it comes to technology: the elderly.
I've had people ask to have them taken away, put them on other tables, put them on the bar/counter areas, put them under their tables or find some other way to get rid of it. The Ziosk was just used to order dessert and re-order drinks, as well as pay bills and play games at the time I left (its since expanded to ordering apps, entrees, and everything else since then) but people still didn't want to use it or learn how to use it.
Aside from the elderly people fearing that the 1960's horror movies of the robots taking over our world was becoming a reality, a lot of people found it cute and wanted to pay on it once or twice, or order dessert just to see what it was like, which lead to a massive headache for both the restaurant: the staff and kitchen and the patrons themselves. Unless you have safeguards built in There Is A Lot of Room for Abuse
Some people I've seen have written that patrons can't get mad anymore because they typed the orders in themselves. Well what happens when you're not paying attention to what you order, or the choices you want aren't as easy as giving the order to a person. One of the first things that stuck out was the drink re-order feature. I felt like I was being a Buzz Killington but these restaurants, including the one I worked in, cater to people that are looking to come in and drink, in a lot of locales these are some of the last places open. What is stopping someone from ordering 5 margaritas, or 10 volcano desserts and then when they show up to the table having the person say they don't want them after all.
In the beginning, parents would plop this down in front of their kids in hopes of some peace and quiet. However once you are out of the games section, the rest of it is dotted in bright ads featuring delicious looking pictures of food and desserts, not a weekend went by that some kid didn't end up ordering X number of desserts because they weren't sure what they were doing. We were able to catch it after a while but this can be a colossal pain in the ass to the staff on a busy night.
Going off of that was the abuse of the drink re-ordering that scared me the most. Anyone that works in a restaurant knows that these businesses live or die on their ability to serve booze. Places that are unable to serve because of liquor violations can lose upwards of tens of thousands per day because of this. On a busy night the server for that section might be busy with something else and with drinks piling up on the service bar (the part of the bar where the bartenders make drinks for the restaurant), the manager or other servers will grab the tickets and bring the drinks to that table. Without knowing if they've been carded or not, the server could plop the drink down and unknowingly serve an underage or intoxicated patron. Depending on the state you live in, if something happens to the patron or another person as a result of their actions while intoxicated, the server as well as the restaurant can be held responsible and liable. This is something no one wants on their conscience as it is far easier to manage drinks as well as who is drinking, someone could slip in after the server has already left and had their friend order them up a drink (I have tons of stories about this), than by leaving it in the hands of the machine.
Aside from the ability to order enough booze to send you into an alcoholic coma or desserts to bring your blood sugar up to 400, there is also the whole paying ability on the machines as well. Each Ziosk/Tablet will have to be specifically assigned to a particular table for obvious reasons, the number of which is typically indicated in the top corner in tiny print. However as mentioned before, they tend to get moved around a lot, and on a busy night, although the best effort is made they can end up on the wrong table. So what happens when the machine for table 36 ends up on table 35, and table 35 trying to leave in a hurry with 2 screaming kids swipes their card without really looking. A royal clusterfuck. Unless you tether these things to the table, which I see as unlikely given the fact that a lot of tables have to be modular and some people aren't going to want to deal with them, then these types of mistakes are going to happen, mistakes which in some restaurants can take money right out of the pocket of the waiter.
Let's talk about the machines themselves. Obviously right away you have to have a wireless network installed and functional in your restaurant in order to take full advantage of these things, any sort of hiccup and they become expensive decorations. The ones we had were maybe 8 inches across by 5 inches high with a stand that kept it about 8 inches off the table. They are bulky (you could probably bludgeon someone to death with it). They have a nice little screen which is easy to manage and a run by a battery which can easily last 16 hours and has to be put back in it's little recharging station at the end of each night. Fun to play with and easy to use, the main drawbacks are obvious. If these things gets dropped you are out a good chunk of change (I was told they were $800-$1000 each). The other drawback was one that goes off a point I made earlier, parents plop these in front of their kids in hopes of entertaining them. Junior doesn't know they can't be rough with these things and I've seen kids color on them with crayons, digging so deep into the screen that they have to be replaced, pouring drink and dropping food all over it, and even stabbing it with a knife and/or fork. We were told by the rep from Ziosk that in every other store he's put them in none of them had ever broke or needed replacing. We managed to break about 5 in the first week.
Oh! Also if the paper for the receipts is put in backwards, as people will tend to just sort of shove it back in there after the door holding it falls open (which it will, repeatedly) then the paper coming out will be blank! It can only print on one side of the paper meaning we have to find someway to reprint the whole receipt complete with customer copy where they can sign as is mandated in some places by law. Hope you're not in a rush to catch that movie.
On a personal note, I did find these helpful in many situations. In many restaurants waiters are being saddled with more and more work and in some situations cannot get to every table when need be. The fact that people could pay whenever they were ready made having to fight over 3 or 4 terminals for a whole restaurant a God send and it definitely increased ticket sales by showcasing our desserts and drinks. However I see this as another step towards the decline and eventual end of the dining out experience. While some people still do the cell phone game where everyone has to put their phone in the middle and whoever picks it up first has to pay, there are still lots of times, any waitron can tell you, that you will see a group of friends or couple that will come in and not say a damn word to each other the whole time. They have their eyes glued to their phones or tablets or whatever else and this seems to just reinforce that habit in kids with games that are geared towards them. Yes Mommy and Daddy might need a little quiet time and think this is the way to do it, but all it does is reinforce anti-social behavior. Dining out used to be about going out as a family and talking and laughing and having a good time while someone else does the cooking and dishes, but in a lot of ways it now seems like a going through a series of motions, one in which the laughter is replaced by silence or the background sounds of the restaurant while we stayed affixed looking for connections on our little 4x4 screens. |
No, you didn't just blow my mind. I already addressed this. Having to maintain updated paper menus in addition to the tablet app would cut into the potential cost savings that the tablets provide.
|One chain is doing it first.
Once again you run your mouth without knowing what you are talking about. Chilli's started this months ago. Next time read the fucking article and save us all a bunch of time.
|Old people are going to have to deal with it.
Spoken like a true basement dweller. Old people don't "just deal with" shit. They take their money elsewhere.
|You're saying it is less secure to have a swipeable pad
Yes, I am. One waiter with a card scanner can steal a few dozen cards a night. One wireless box vacuuming up numbers can steal every card used in the restaurant. Also, in this case, the attacker has the tablet in their possession. Reflash with a custom ROM and you can steal data from dozens of restaurants.
|That said, fewer minimum wage jobs
And here you show your complete ignorance of the subject matter. The base pay for wait staff is low, but their overall pay is far more than minimum wage. Working as a waiter is one of the few relatively high paying jobs available to young and/or uneducated people.
I don't fear change, I fear idiots like you who are gobsmacked by every new technology. You spew bullshit like "tablet cloud cloud tablet cloud tablet cloud" and then proceed to sell my clients useless shit, thereby making our entire profession look bad. You then have the audacity to accuse me of being a Luddite, when really I am just better at making sure that there is a demonstrable need for a technology before selling it someone. |
clearly you've never done the eating alone thing. everyone knows you're probably there because you didn't have someone to eat with, and worst of all you know that even if you're telling yourself it's not that, you know it's true.
and so then the waiter comes by and you say boring normal waiter things, and then they smile, and you smile, and you feel slightly less disconnected from the world. |
They have a sticker on the glass with all the ingredients they offer. One of the nice things about Subway is that you can get the sandwich however you like it. Most people appreciate that. I like fresh spinach instead of cellulose water lettuce. Most people don't. Sorry you don't like thinking about what you want, but it's what keeps me coming back.
If you want a regular BLT, you obviously know what you want on it so just say it and move on. Why the agony over all the offerings you don't want anyway? |
I think my first time eating Chili's was when I was like.. 8. I thought "oh boy the place is named Chili's, and I LOVE spicy food! This is going to be awesome!" And then they proceeded to tell me that even my parents could not order me food off of the adults menu, and that I was relegated to shitty mac n cheese and that stupid re-heated square pizza bullshit. This was in Hawaii, dunno if that makes a difference. |
In some states. Here in Washington im pretty iffy about leaving 15% tip because it doesn't make a ton of sense. They make minimum wage which is $9.19 PLUS tips, which makes them earn around $14-$15 per hour. More or less on busy/nonbusy days. I can't even find a warehouse job (which I have over 4 years experience in now) to pay me $12 per hour. I work a delivery service now where my only income is tips, seriously, tips are my only income, and guess how much im making? close to 12 bucks an hour. If I made minimum wage on top of that I would have no real motivation to finish school. Fuck those whiny waitresses and waiters that bitch that they only got a 2 dollar tip for a 20 dollar order ON TOP of their hourly wage. |
Then again, of course these businesses are saying they won’t use the tablets to replace employees. Announcing layoffs along with the tablet move would be begging for a backlash.
I remember watching a TV news story very long ago (long before 2000) during a recession. The story described how many of the jobs lost to unemployment, during the recession, were "gone forever." The story came with a graphic that listed how many thousands of jobs had gone away from each of a number of different categories. As a Computer Science student at the time, I looked at the list of categories and suspected that all of those jobs went away forever, because computers took over those jobs.
A few weeks later, as I watched the evening news again, the reporter announced that Sears had decided to install a network of point of sale computers. The story focused on the innovative idea, similar to how the story about Applebee's talks about the innovative idea of using tablets. Point of sale computers seems ubiquitous now, but remember it had to start sometime. Sears used to have a system of paper processed transactions, with lots of jobs behind the scenes to manage, store and process all of the paper-based transactions. The reporter also announced that Sears planned to lay off thousands of workers during the transition. The very workers who had all of those jobs that went away. Sears didn't try to hide it.
When I saw that second story about Sears, it confirmed my suspicions about the first story. Now get this; the administration in power at the time had campaigned on a typical conservative political economic platform about how cutting taxes for the wealthy leads to jobs creation. When I saw these stories, I thought about how the tax cuts likely led to many of those jobs lost to automation. If not for the tax cuts, maybe the big corporations would have required more time to build the capital necessary to make the massive transition to automation that took those jobs away forever. Maybe some of those people who lost their jobs could have retired doing those jobs before the transition happened. Yes, new jobs came out of the technology sector to do the automation, but many jobs went away forever too. |
My biggest pet peeve is having to wait to pay my bill when we are done eating. I always tip well but that's the surest way for a server to inch their tip down a buck or two if it takes 5 or 10 minutes to bring the check and cash me out.
Usually I tip 20% because the math is really easy. And I think wait staff doing a proper job deserve it. I will still give this tip if something goes wrong outside their control (like if they are really busy) and they've assured or explained the situation do us. I don't demand perfection, just a little courtesy.
If the service falls apart horribly at the end of the meal like you mentioned, I might bust out the calculator for the 15%. They either have to bring the check in a reasonable amount of time after we're clearly done, or at least offer us more beverages/additional product.
There are of course lesser tips I might offer, but it's usually reserved for particularly silly things, or unusually bad service during the meal. Lets say it was a long delay between every interaction with the wait staff the entire meal and the place is empty and they aren't the cook.
If there is some horrible problem with a dish: like say they bring an appetizer after the entres are complete (it has happened, and I've complained) and its still on the bill (we're not going to eat it, we finished our meals). I will do the math right on the receipt where I've subtracted the cost from the tip. |
The action one can take is essentially rendered moot for many people. People outside the US cannot directly influence that governments decisions. So people from outside the US can sign up to this website, but as soon as it comes down to getting names on paper for a petition, anyone outside the US cannot be considered.
However, if someone from these organisations branched out and approached communities globally, then a citizen of the UK, can create a petition asking for net neutrality, a person in France can start their petition for their people, Germany can begin asking for a hearing and investigation to take place in the Bundesland offices, an Italian can take the lead and gather folks to demand action in Rome. But the danger now, is that it's disorganised, so thousands of branched groups might form, but they can be dealt with and ignored, because they don't communicate and have a direct leader.
Essentially what I'm saying is, they should one of these websites setup for everynation, with a link to contact their local politicians. They haven't made this accessible to the 'one' outside US borders.
Also, I don't give a fuck what anyone says, making memes and sticking a hand over your facebook profile page with #STOPTHENSA on it isn't going to do shit. |
I have a better idea: Permanent government embargo. All participating websites should block connections from any gov't IP address.
It is insulting that they think they can enjoy the internet while undermining it at the same time.
No Google searches, no Yahoo news, no food delivery from Seamless, no more campaign tweets or Facebook fundraising pages, no restaurant reservations from OpenTable, no analyst research on Wikipedia, no Reddit AMAs from Senators, nothing. If you want to use the internet, respect it! |
FYI, when you pay for cable, you're not paying for the broadcast channels.
In recent years, with plummeting ad revenues, etc. the broadcast networks are looking for new revenue streams.
So they charge cable and satellite companies "re-broadcast" fees. It's why you occassionally see little wars break out, and cable/satellite company takes a channel off the air. A network, such as NBC, will want an exorbitant rate per viewer for the right to "re-broadcast" their network. The cable/satellite provider comes back with a counter. And if they can't meet in the middle by their deadline, the channel comes off the cable/satellite provider network. They typically renogotiate these rates every few years.
The ironic thing is this is broadcasting that is SUPPOSED to be free. But they see people paying for the content and want a piece of the pie.
So the cable/satellite company either eats that, or passes it onto you as what it is. A broadcast TV fee, charged by the Broadcasters, not the cable/satellite provider. It gets passed straight onto the broadcaster. |
It's to charge and let the customer know that the broadcasters are now charging for retransmission. It's not entirely the fault of TWC. |
Where do you think ESPN should make their money from then?
Everyone wants a service with no advertising only action and for free. Oh and can't forget it better be in HD cause any less will be bitched about.
$5.50 for a network as large as ESPN with the insane coverage they have seems cheap, and usually they're in the "sport" package that you have to opt in for. |
Upvote for awareness(I really don't care about karma)
This happened to my family also. They increased our bill by $10 per month, so we complained and threatened to leave. We ended up saving $50 PER MONTH and we got Starz for free. |
I would love if anytime a company advertised a product for $19.99, you could walk in with a $20 and walk out with it.
Why don't you? Seriously, say, "It's marked at $19.99, here's a twenty, you can keep that penny." If they go along with it, great. If not, don't buy it. We don't need all the things we're told daily that we need. This post is about cable fees, I haven't had cable in over two years. I'm not walking aroung my hovel wearing tissue boxes as shoes and keeping a family of birds in my foot long beard. I just don't have cable. And I don't miss it. Must See TV? Seriously, they're trying to get you to believe that you Must See these shows. The best shows you're not watching (I can't remember where this is from but I think it's from a magazine)? Who cares. I have Netflix for when I just want to relax and be passively entertained. I costs less than $9 a month. I have absolutely no intention of going back to paying seperately for everything that has to do with cable (X for cable subscription, Y for the box (not a one-time fee but monthly), Z for hidden fees inbedded in the subscription fee (but seperate, and added on) plus anything else they can charge for. |
Being left with 75k after taxes sounds a lot better than being left with 17k. So no, it's not fair for the little guy. You skim from the top first. That's fair. Nobody has a god given right to earn without restriction. We do have a right to expect support from our fellow countrymen in times of need. Nobody should go bankrupt while someone else ships hundreds of thousands out of the national economy and into off shore accounts. In short, the teddy of us have a right to it being pit back into our economy. That money belongs to an employee as a wage. |
Holy shit. This happen to me a few days ago. On hold for an hour before talking to dumbass. Asked why they increased my bill and still provide shitty service. Connection drops every day for 2 weeks. Their automated BS tells you not to bother since they're fixing it right meow!!! For 2 fucking weeks bro?
Arggg any ways. I ask Dumbass why bill goes up, his response was, sir your promotion is over. So I replied with: So you're going to increase my bill for no reason? I kept saying same crap over and over for an hour then ask to speak to retention.
Told them IMA cancel since I'm a paying customer and the promotion only works for new ones. They apologized and say he'll try to lower my bill from 56 to 34. ( I was paying $34 originally but increased to $44 after 6months for UP TO mofo 20mbps)
So dude comes back after asking supervisor but says he can only do $44. I'm tired of talking to dudes for 3hrs. So fuck it. I'll take it. Don't even talk to GF for that long. Dam bastards. |
I'll explain this to the best of my knowledge using the company I work for. Lets call it company Z. Z makes a lot of money, but the current stockholders want more profits. So, Z implements plans in the structure of the company to save pennies in every direction. They end up posting higher profits, but in reality are doing the same amount of business or less. Those stockholders sell off to the new stockholder.
The new stockholders of company Z want the same thing, high stock prices. If Z can show that their stocks consistently rise from year to year (regardless of the amount of business) then people get interested. Well what if company Z's employment base are tipped workers? Z decides that it is within their rights (as long as the tipped employee is still making minimum) to garnish the tips from the tipped employees and give them to the other half of the employment that does not receive tips. So, they can now pay the non tipped employees less since the tipped employees are covering the net loss with their tips. Since Z is no longer paying the majority of their workers minimum wage (the employees are still making minimum) they save dollars/hour for each employee now not being paid as much. So, they again post record profits (regardless of business). The new stockholders now sell to the future stockholders.
This continues until there are no more corners to cut (assume business has stagnated or dropped). The company stock plummets b/c the company can no longer cut internal corners. There are a couple ways to combat this. Charge more for the services, or sell parts of the company that are not as profitable. So, through all of this you have inflated stock prices b/c Z has artificially increased profits. You can argue that slimming down the company is a good thing and it's not really artificial, but it stills masks the true problem: the business isn't as good as it was.
Eventually, the corners and the slimming can no longer happen b/c the company Z is a former shell that it used to be. It is on the verge of collapse b/c the future^3 stockholders are wanted higher stock prices but there is nowhere for more money to come from other than an increase in business. But the company has gutted itself and left itself defenseless if the business does not come. So, the newest stockholders take the monetary hit, as well as the company.
Also I'd like to add that company Z in this case is currently in "sell the not as profitable" part of this situation. |
Once again, no phone can even possibly be secure without rearchitecting the application CPU to baseband processor interface and opening up all firmware code for public inspection.
Does it protect your privacy better than other phones in some ways? Possibly. Does it provide any meaningful assurance of privacy? No. |
Still, this would be a much better way to blow trillions of dollars than all the bullshit space trip to Mars crap. |
No problem. I'll try and shed some light here by comparing Facebook to what is considered to be by many their biggest competitor (and most companies) Google.
Googles first acquisition was UseNet which had an archive of I think roughly 500 million discussions, then they went on to buy Blogger in 2003, only their second acquisition yet still, they were after a database/userbase. After Blogger they got Picasa, something along the likes of Instagram.
It wasn't until 2009 that Google founded "Google Ventures" which basically allowed them to seperate Google the search engine and adword company with Google the "we buy everything" company. Since 2009 Google Ventures has aquired or invested heavily in about 200 different companies, spanning from mobile applications to the health industry.
Basically what I'm getting at is Facebook is basically following Google's model, but faster. Acquiring Occulus might look like an odd fit but I believe it's Facebook trying to say "Hey, we can do this too" No one thought of Facebook as a company looking to invest in other companies.
Zuckerberg has this image of a nerd who's giant baby is Facebook and it's the only kid he'll ever love, but by buying Rift and buying it for a large amount of money/shares it's opens up a whole new world for Facebook as a company.
No offense but the media (and reddit) is making a massive spectacle about a bunch of geeks who thought the Rift was theirs and now the big bad wolf Facebook is going to fuck it up. Well, they won't, and they're going to do everything in their power to make it work, and work exceptionally well. Why? Because if they pull this off, they're not going to have to overpay for another app again just because they're not Google, if anything they'll start to be viewed on somewhat of the same level of Google, at least until they get a couple more acquisitions/investments under their belt.
If they do this right, every startup under the sun will now be looking to Facebook as a viable investor, which is going to open up multiple avenues for Facebook to generate capital/compete with Google. Until the Occulus acquisition "Google" was the name people thought of when looking and accepting venture capital, not anymore. I think what people don't understand is that Google and Facebook are very alike in the sense that they both make the bulk of their profits from advertising and it wasn't until 5 years ago that Google really started investing in other companies to diversify. |
It rests on the fact that WhatsApp has a huge database and information on those people within that database. This ives FB a larger/more immediate opportunity to connect advertisers with those potential customers. Oculus is newer technology that doesn't have this same potential just yet, and is more 'up in the air' in terms of what FB can do with it now. |
Downvoted for asking a question....
Keep it classy reddit!
Really, that depends. I'm not an expert but mainly it would be to learn, for fun. There may or may not be minerals and metals to mine on Mars, but it doesn't have any real benefit besides being a neat thing to do.... For now.
In the future, we will have to leave earth. Whether it's to mine, to explore, or to spread our population out, we will leave. If we don't, then it means society and technology for some reason degraded. So the benefit really, is getting ourselves to be ready for the future, before we need to. |
Imagine if they were the type of company that sells out and jumps in bed with Comcast/TWC (then again, if they were the type of company that sells out, they wouldn't be what they are today.) Google does have a motive here, but it's not to become an ISP. It's just that they're not going to let greedy ISPs like Comcast/TWC interfere with their core business (content delivery).
You absolutely nailed it IMO. Google isn't the company we should worry about, they only way to create better infrastructure because they want more consumers to access their products in higher quantities.
Google makes a lot of their money by ads. So if we access more of their products and reach them even faster , then they will make more money, even if we don't respond to these ads.
Google doesn't want to be a big ISP but I think that if they do not follow the unwritten protocols like joining the secretive clubs like the ALEC .
They are fighting for us. They still need to get into evil in order to straighten it out. Like a child that is misbehaving and the only way to stop it is to be mean by disciplining (spanking). Maybe that's not the best analogy but I think you get my point. When they get what they want out of creating an ISP out of themselves, they will most likely sell ALL of it to many smaller companies that will service and maintain this infrastructure they are creating so they will no longer be a ISP. |
What that horrible code does is try to "DoSomethingComplex" but if it fails, no errors are generated, the user nor the debugger know anything bad happened, it just acts like everything is all fine.
This code is the equivalent of someone standing wide-eyed in front of a huge oak door to a mansion, smoke pouring out the windows, shouting "EVERYTHING IS FINE, NO PROBLEMS HERE!" |
My workplace just outsourced a bunch of work to India, hired them as temporary foreign workers, and asked us to train them. We trained them for a few weeks and now they are back in India. I'm on another project now and can't wait to see what goes down once they start real work.
What has happened on previous projects my co-workers were on is exactly what you've described - they nod along during the training, but when they have to translate requirements into test cases and code it all falls apart from the language barriers. It usually ends up failing, then they try to bring back the people they fired to re-train them. Then in the end the trainees all leave for different jobs making the entire process moot and costing way more than just giving the Canadians or US workers a raise. |
India is terrible for quality workers
India has 1 billion people. Now, it may work out that they have more "bad workers" than America has total population, but it may also be true they have more "good workers".
Also if we are talking about immigrant workers, because of that barrier of immigration, anyone who might be skilled in IT could split like this: (my hypothesis)
Either they have high resources to surpass that paygrade and are not applying to a U.S. entry/low level job...
Or they barely had the resources at all to make it to the U.S. and their education/skills have a much higher variance than the U.S. workforce at similar wealth levels.
The "middle" may not immigrate because they could become low wealth in the U.S. instead of enjoying moderate success in India. |
You were lucky it got caught before the charge went through. Many aren't.
As for the "Bitcoin merely transfers the risk" - If Bitcoin were merely a consumer-hostile irreversible version of a credit card I'd say you have a point. It's not. It also DRAMATICALLY reduces the risk when used properly. Bitcoin is still young and admittedly difficult to use properly, but it has inherent properties that - once better consumer solutions are developed - make it much more secure than the existing system.
Why? Let's examine the nature of the secrets we use to spend.
Credit cards use an arbitrary 16-digit number as their secret, and they print it right on the front of the card. Every time you swipe the card a device functionally equivalent to a keyboard "types" your card information into the device it's been attached to. If that device is compromised in any way it's trivial to keylog card swipes. This secret is then passed around to a merchant service provider and several bank and CC company systems, which are also huge targets for fraud.
Revealing your secret in order to spend is bad.
Bitcoin uses a 256-bit ECDSA keypair. This means that your secret is never revealed, rather it is used to sign messages which can be verified by any party that knows your public key, which in Bitcoin's case is basically everyone. Since you never expose your secret to the merchant or any other participant in the network it can live entirely on some other dedicated device which is somewhat harder to compromise than your daily-use PC or phone.
The very first hardware wallets are just starting to come out, which allow you to safely store your bitcoins outside of your computer on a dedicated device similar to a European "chip & pin" style debit card. These devices store the keys, perform the signing functions - and do so in a way that's easy and transparent to the end-user.
Some, like the [Trezor]( are fairly expensive and offer a huge number of high-end security features. Those are great for storing large amounts. Others, like the [BtChip HW.1]( are quite inexpensive, a tradeoff for fewer features. For small amounts of coin they provide quite adequate protection.
Roll-your-own solutions still exist of course, but they're admittedly a pain in the ass that no one wants to deal with. |
said no small business owner, ever...
But Sony isn't a small business. Two comment's ago it was just called a megacorporation. Their business strategies will end up being different from each other. I mean Sony is a public company, they owe it to their shareholders to make as much money as they can. I'd find it hard to believe they could convince every shareholder that they need to spend a huge chunk of money into upgrading their security and take the drop in profits for the quarter. Even if it makes total sense in the long run. |
After hearing interviews of analysts and everyone involved leading up to the president's announcement, Sony actually did want to release it the whole time. The theaters were backing out on Sony because they thought they would lose customers if moviegoers were afraid to be in the same theater as the premier (think about crazy over-protective suburban moms on Christmas). Since Sony had so many theaters back out, it would be a really shitty half-premier, so they were going to delay it. Granted, Sony technically made the call to not show it at all on Christmas, but it was really the theaters that were being pussies. |
If someone hasn't pointed this out already, this is not the case. Due to the way they run their internet, you're logging in through their proxy. Consider everything you do monitored and tracked. With that said...
Here is what is happening:
You connect to their "internet," which is really just a network on the plane. Rather than a standard router to get to the Internet, all of your traffic is being filtered through a proxy. Because of this, the proxy need a Certificate Authority installed on it to forward the certs. If it was set up improperly, as this one was, it looks as though the proxy is the CA issuing the cert... Which makes it appear invalid. |
They are caching internet stuff.
Thet can't cache stuff if stuff goes through SSL .
So they create a fake cert for every site, performing a [Man in the Middle]( I don't know how they are implementing it, but it's usually done by creating a new self-signed cert on the fly for every new HTTPS site.
They say in their ToS that they are going to Man-in-the-Middle you.
Your web browser gives you a [HUGE warning]( that says "hey, you are probably being MitM'ed!!!".
You ignore that warning and click "Continue". |
More good info:
Gogo provides inflight Wi-Fi and digital entertainment to Delta, American Airlines, Alaska Airlines, Virgin America, US Airways and others using a dedicated air-to-ground network that GoGo says it designed in consultation with law enforcement.
The disclosure that GoGo voluntarily exceeded the requirements of CALEA appears in a letter to the FCC (.pdf) the company wrote in 2012. “In designing its existing network, Gogo worked closely with law enforcement to incorporate functionalities and protections that would serve public safety and national security interests,” Gogo attorney Karis Hastings wrote.
Although FCC rules “do not require licensees to implement capabilities to support law enforcement beyond those outlined in CALEA…,” Hastings noted, “[n]evertheless, Gogo worked with federal agencies to reach agreement regarding a set of additional capabilities to accommodate law enforcement interests. Gogo then implemented those functionalities into its system design.” |
I'm not really convinced it's snooping-related. It makes sense for them to be doing this with YouTube because YouTube is by default, which means none of it can be cached. But by doing it this way they can add in a caching layer to save bandwidth. |
doesn't help that people are unable to think critically about it.
"Oh nice 5MB/s, never mind the fact that:
5GB cap / 30 days = .1666GB/d .1666 / 24 hours = .00694/h .00694 / 60 mins = .0001157/m .0001157 /60 seconds = .0000019283 GB/s .0000019283 1000000000 = 1928 bytes / s
that's a grand fucking total of 1.9KB / second not 5 megs a second
about 3.4% of the speed of dial up |
I'll just shamelessly [quote myself](
There is an amount of horrible misunderstanding by people. They use the words:
> broadband companies should treat all Internet traffic equally
carelessly. If that were the wording, it would be very bad. Even [The Oatmeal's comic on Net Neutrality]( mixes up two very different concepts:
> all information must be treated equally
and later he (unknowingly) gets it right:
> all data, regardless of origin, must be treated equally
For those of you who don't know, the difference between these two phrasings is huge , and can lead to bad things if lawmakers carelessly use the first phrasing.
What you want to do is:
stop companies from favoring content from origins that paid them more money
or slowing down content from origins they don't like
or demanding some extra cash from an IP that saturating their network with traffic
You want them to be origin neutral.
What you don't want is to be traffic neutral.
There is a concept that has existed in the TCP protocol since its inception, it is the idea that some packets are important, or not important:
a voip packets needs to be delivered in 10ms-150ms
an e-mail packet can be delivered in hundreds or thousands of milliseconds
This idea of packet priority was even baked into the TCP protocol, having a priority flag. In 1998 it was redesigned as a [ Differentiated services ]( The idea is that there are different kinds of packets that necessarily have different priority on the Internet. This requires everyone to play nicely, but it is a feature used on LANs and WANs already.
The TCP protocol defines priority code points :
Class 1 (lowest priority)
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4 (highest priority)
Low Drop
AF11
AF21
AF31
AF41
Med Drop | AF12 | AF22 | AF32 | AF42 |
High Drop | AF13 | AF23 | AF33 | AF43 |
Almost no software (yet) supports declaring their Assured Forwarding priority. A typical priority ordering might be:
ICMP/IGMP
DNS lookups
VoiP (including Skype voice)
interactive shell session
real-time gaming
video conferencing video
interactive web-browsing - small packets (html, javascript, css)
interactive web-browsing - large packets (images)
interactive web-browsing - large packets (streaming video)
file download
POP3 (e-mail pickup)
SMTP (e-mail send)
background (non-interactive) downloads (e.g. Steam, Torrent, WoW content download)
torrent seeding
You would not like it if it took 6,000 ms for a page of text to load, simply because we blindly followed the rule that all traffic must be treated equally. You want to be able to surf reddit, while seeding your torrents.
Nearly every good router implements some form of [ Traffic Shaping ]( in order to make the Internet work they way you want it. They go to great lengths to try to identify traffic, and classify it into priority queues. From Cisco and Juniper Networks, down to DD-WRT, Tomato and Linksys, and OpenBSD PC based routers, they all do traffic shaping to make the web work good.
And ISPs try to do a lot of this grunt work for us; so we can browse the internet, while watching a streaming Netflix video. |
It explains in the image why you aren't allowed to use a cellphone on a plane; it's because it would break the network. The "cell" in "cellphone" describes the cells that basestations on the ground make up. In a city there are hundreds or thousands of [basestations]( Each basestation can only talk to a phone which is within a certain radius. If you go too far away from the basestation the signal will be too weak, or buildings will be in the way. The area where the basestation can hear your phone is the cell. Multiple cells can overlap, so your phone can talk to two basestations at once.
If you are high up in the air however, your phone can now be heard by many basestations, since there is nothing blocking the signal (a cellphone can be up to 35km away from the basestation). When many basestations hear the same phone, they all need to discuss who should handle your phone. Two basestations close together can do this easily, but if 100 basestations are far apart, that means a lot of data has to be sent on the network between the basestations.
Not only that, but in a plane you travel very quickly (up to 900km/h). GSM is designed to work with cellphones moving up to 500km/h (in anticipation of maglev trains). When the cellphone moves fast, the basestation will experience a doppler effect. If the doppler effect is too large, then the basestation can't understand your cellphone, and it would get confused. Even if it can understand your cellphone, traveling quickly means that you change basestation very often, and very quickly. The handover between basestations take a certain amount of time, but if you travel faster than that, a basestation will hand you over to it's neighbour, but by the time the handover is complete, you have moved on. This introduces a lot of work for the network. |
I think it's a good idea, if nothing else to reduce the weight that kids need to lug around.
My son is in the 6th grade. His world history textbook alone weighs over 1 kg. On "heavy" homework days, he has trouble getting his backpack up to his shoulders. Now, at the end of the school year, I see that the straps on his backpack have gotten frayed from the weight.
Then again, judging by the rough treatment that electronics get from preteens, I think he'd need a much more durable piece of hardware than an ipad. |
Wow.
While this lawsuit sucks in every way possible, I can't help but admire one thing: Oracle's brass balls. They're not just going up against Google -- a big enough entity in their own right -- but also every Android phone manufacturer, not to mention the telcos who are selling them. |
They prioritise interconnectivity and extracting the maximum amount of information out of you first, privacy, safety and basic common sense second.
For example, allowing friends to add friends to groups (that they may not even be aware of) means on average people are likely to join more groups, giving them more of an idea what sort of things any given user is into (and even: what sort of things users' friends think they're into), and which friends they share that interest with. Then if it appears it's being abused they stop you being able to add that friend to a group after it's already been abused.
Only allowing users to subscribe themselves to groups they find makes more sense, is less potentially-embarrassing and is just all-round better infosec... but it means they get less information about your interests, and don't get to link your friends to you by specific shared interests .
This user-hostile and arse-backwards set of priorities was graphically demonstrated when Facebook turned its privacy settings inside-out, putting users data at risk by default , and making users specifically opt out of having their data shared with the world instead of the other way around.
Basically, if you care about your users you protect them by default and let them relax restrictions when they want to. If, on the other hand, you're basically just a giant hoover sucking up every single possible scrap of information about your user's lives into one giant marketing database, you leave all the doors and windows unlocked and wide open (and as easy to cross-link as possible) by default, and then only make a token effort to close a small enough number to avoid PR shitstorms in the media. |
Only after 1000 cores or so, the diameter of the mesh, or the on-chip network connecting the many cores, will grow to such an extent that it would negatively impact performance, Mattson said.
That's false if you assume even a small fraction of traffic cannot be routed to nearby nodes. A 1000 core mesh-network requires a 32x32 mesh. Due to the nature of the mesh, the central nodes in the mesh become much more congested than the ones on the outside (this wouldn't happen in a torus, but that would require 2x as many wiring paths). Its like an amhdal's law like situation where if 10% of your network traffic happens to be "non-local" your network will crumble under the weight.
Networks this large have to impose heavy constraints upon applications in order to prove useful at all. Which is primarily limiting how much traffic each node is ever allowed to inject into the network or restricting nodes to only ever communicate with other nearby nodes. To do all this common current parallel applications (think Parsec benchmark suite) you'd have to do one of 2 things, both involving the OS. 1) Really just be using the massive chip for virtualization, treating it instead as multiple individual networks that just happen to be connected to each other when you need some I/O with the hypervisor or 2) Make the OS thread scheduler placement aware such that if you had many different processes, all the threads from the same process happened to be scheduled from cores close to each other. Making the OS thread scheduler able to handle this is harder than it sounds like. Since it would have to optimize for many things (how much memory I/O does this process demand, where do I place them with respect to distance from the memory controllers, how does this interfere with other processes I've scheduled, etc).
A much more sane approach than building a 32x32 mesh is instead to use clustering. Construct a block of 10 cores, all sharing some level of cache/scratchpad, and then have a 10x10 mesh connecting these blocks of cores. This still has many of the same limitations (you want local traffic to stay on the clusters and placement-aware thread scheduling by the OS would be nice), but non-local traffic would scale much better (would only have to contend with the non-local traffic from other clusters, rather than the "localized" traffic other cores were generating as traversing). |
ad distributor", e.g. DoubleClick, etc. I'm sure they give advertisers a matrix of options and tell them how much revenue they should expect for each. This probably highlights the interstitial ads as high revenue without putting enough emphasis on angering customers.
> if they didn't offer it as an option, advertisers couldn't buy it.
Yep, but the advertisers still opted in to being on interstitials. They probably even made ad copy specifically for the interstitial format. I don't think they deserve much blame though, compared to the publisher. |
The hardware would be able to brute force and break encryptions pretty quickly, if in the wrong hands.
The scale of Watson is nothing compared to what the NSA supposedly has beneath Ft. Dix. To give you some idea, the rumor is that when the NSA orders a new batch of super-computers to break encryption, the minimum order is an acre worth of computers.
And given the amount of cracking power that you can get from [a single board worth of ASICs]( or via [GPU-based computing]( Watson is really a very small threat in comparison. |
Isn't it weird that some "wav" group appeared out of nowhere (edit: not true, see this comment and that it will be opening soon (also was mentioned in the video.. strange). Well, it isn't that weird after all. We have a name for it. It's called marketing. |
The best part of the article was the end which basically went: |
Also, got many facts wrong, mostly the ages and years in prison. The shooter was 18 and 3 of them were under the age of 18. The shooter got 35 years in prison while everyone else got 20. This was over a year ago so I ask for your forgiveness if this gets more attention I will update the original posts with actual facts. I am and tired and drunk and did not feel like looking this story up as I did not think anyone would actually reply to me (this is a first).
There's more on story through various searches but from eye witness accounts the other 4 never actually did more than just step inside the door to yell/ask what was going on. The prosecution "proves" that they planned it and knew all along that this kid would chase him down and kill him.
While it's hard to believe they weren't there to rob him, I know two of the kids personally as well as their families and don't believe that they were there other than anything then to get high. Witness accounts state that they were all yelling at this kid in a "wtf" kind of way not knowing what to do. |
Hi guys.
One of the 'gang' members was my IT teacher at school and I actually did two music videos for him (also did work experience with him). This is not the sort of 'gang' you're all thinking of and he's actually a really nice guy. Very polite and kind and pretty much the opposite of what you'd expect from a rapper. Even more surprising he seemed to not spend any of this money he got, his house was modest at best. Although he did buy me pizza once, does that make me involved? oh god, I hope I don't get sent down. Anyway I don't usually have anything interesting to say on Reddit so this makes a cool change! |
I'm torn on this issue. In some ways private does equal better, because it's not at the mercy of non-scientific politicians changing direction every year, or adding requirements that have no real scientific value, or spreading out where things are built to bring in money to certain districts (and the cost of efficiency). Private industry does not really have these issues (sometimes there is misdirection due to crappy management though). Mind you this has nothing to do with who works at NASA, or NASA itself. The issue is that those who hold the purse strings make some pretty crappy decisions.
On the other hand, the problem with privatized space exploration is that the risk/reward ratio is way too low, outside of maybe Low earth orbit... and even then. What incentive does a private company have to send probes to the outer planets? On the low probability that it would find something to capitalize on, how long would it take before it was capable of turning a profit? |
Does anybody else think the White House petition website is the most fucking dysfunctional webpage they've ever been to? Every time I find a petition I want to sign, I try to log in, but it won't let me. In order to log in, I have to reset my password every time. Then the green button to sign the petition doesn't show up, so I click on the help button. It says to log back out, so I click on the "log out" button. Then it redirects me to a page that says, "Sorry, this page is down for maintenance.
So, every time I try to sign a petition, it says I need to log in, but every time I try to log in, it says I'm already logged in. GODDAMN IT. Fuck it, these petitions don't change anything, anyway. Even the White House said the main thing they've done is stimulate conversation, and anytime they get a petition they disagree with, all they have to do is write some bullshit explanation about why they disagree with it. |
Fuck off.
Throwing money at things like NASA does not accomplish anything. OP is "probably" young and pictures NASA as nothing but scientists and sci-fi fans. In reality, it is a business, just like anything; it has its share of sleazy d-bags, just like any other business.
Also, it's common for young "typical liberals" like OP to call for more money. Mo' Money == mo taxes. Mo' taxes == Big Gov'mt. |
All these arguments about not wanting to double NASA's budget are dumb. Everyone is comparing it to this other budget or this other fund blah blah. It would be quite easy to give NASA a budget they can do something with if most of the American budget wasn't spent on goddamn war! I'm not a hippy by any means and I do realize that war creates jobs but the entire 32 years I'm been alive I've seen nothing but war after war after war after war and the only conclusion to this is going to be the annihilation of our own species.
We NEED scientific funding for programs like NASA so they can develop the technology to get mankind off the planet and into the stars. I can write a paper on why science is more important than war but any retard should be able to see why. There are dangerous things in space that could end life on this planet as we know it (meteor) yet funding is continually being cut to fund our war on whatever country it is we are at war with now. We need to get our shit together and stop squabbling over petty differences such as "my god is better than your god". |
I suppose I bought a laser printer for the same reason I use an electric razor.
( |
Let's actually read the source material instead of getting our information from fox ne.. I mean, torrentfreak.
TF misquotes Hammond. The exact wording from Hammond is: (bolding is mine)
(Abstract) I exploit exogenous variation in the availability of sound recordings in file-sharing networks to isolate the causal effect of file sharing of an album on its sales. The results strongly suggest that an album benefits from increased file sharing: an album that became available in file-sharing networks one month earlier would sell 60 additional units. This increase is(sp) sales is small relative to other factors that have been found to affect album sales . I conclude with an investigation of the distributional effects of file sharing on sales and find that file sharing benefits more established and popular artists but not newer and smaller artists . These results are consistent with recent trends in the music industry
Read on to find the following (page 23):
"There is a belief in some segments of the music industry that leaks are good for artists and these views receive a great deal of media attention (Leeds, 2005;Wolk, 2007;Crosley,2008;Levine, 2008;New Musical Express, 2008; Peters,2009;Youngs, 2009). While it is tempting to cast the results presented here as supportive of this view, the implications of my findings are more nuanced. File sharing proponents commonly argue that file sharing democratizes music consumption by “leveling the playing field” for new/small artists relative to established/popular artists, by allowing artists to have their work heard by a wider audience, lessening the advantage held by established/popularartists in terms of promotional and other support. My results suggest that the opposite is happening, which is consistent with evidence on file-sharing behavior. In particular,Page and Garland(2009) study one year of file sharing globally and find that the top 5% of files received 80% of alldownloads. This pattern closely resembles the pattern for legal downloads, where the top 5% of files received 90% of all sales. Further,Page and Garland(2009) provide evidence that the same artists are popular with both legal and illegal downloaders. The similarity of demand behavior in illegal and legal markets is consistent with my findings that file sharing reinforces retail popularity for artists and therefore helps established/popular artists."
Disclaimers: Hammond is focusing on Album downloads, not individual tracks, and is also focusing on the effects of pre-release periods as a source of data. |
The point I was trying to make is that there is a fear of firearms in the US that a lot of people have. It's this fear that drives them to want to ban their existence.
Almost similar to banning drugs because of the effect they have on the mind and body. Almost similar to the banking if alcohol because it was evil and making men do crazy things. (Almost similar)
I'm not saying that reaching about their safety will drastically reduce shootings (but hey they might) but it will give us a better understanding of these tools. Which should, in theory, lead to the news, reporters, investigators, everyone involved in a shooting to evaluate what was the cause of it.
Maybe this is a bad analogy but consider a vehicle accident. Today if it happens, and let's say a person was injured or killed, the cause of it is the driver. Were they driving drunk, tired, emotionally, texting, distracted, etc. It's the driver who is looked at as the cause, not the car.
Why are firearms, and I'll even go as far as saying videogames, looked at so fearfully? It's the lack of understanding. We know, as a society, all about vehicles and their capabilities so we don't fear them. We, as gamers, know that videogames don't induce violence but its in fact a stresses reliever. What people don't understand in almost the same regard are firearms. They are not the cause but the people pulling the trigger.
Weapon safety will reduce accidents much like vehicle safety will. I'm sure those that have seen first hand a vehicle accident caused by drinking and driving won't do it. The same goes for weapon safety, at least in my head it does.
What the root of the people is that people are unpredictable and if in the right mind set, will use anything to cause harm to themselves or others. People are dangerous.
Sorry, I was rambling but the |
I think that this is to some degree a misuse of the word "printer." Just because the word printer is associated in our minds with putting ink on paper - it now sounds insanely cool to say that guns can be printed .
It wouldn't sound nearly as cool or revolutionary to say that guns can now be manufactured by means of additive manufacturing machinery. |
3d printing is not some magic technology. With a well equipped machine shop and a skilled operator it is simple to make weapons, there are even books showing how to do it. The issue is the resources required. I can't see 3d printers capable of working with high precision and difficult materials being within the price range of someone that can't already afford to produce them conventionally. |
All the lower receiver does is house the trigger mechanism. It's going to be a VERY long time until they can print an upper receiver. Uppers are where all the pressure and force come from. There is an immense amount of force going through the upper, as well as heat. There is also no possible way that a printed barrel would be able to hold up in comparison to a manufactured barrel. Manufacturing a barrel is incredibly difficult and needs to be extremely strong. |
The most important distinction, something I think people don't really appreciate is that while they look almost identical, the parts inside have some seriously different function to them. Without selective fire, the AR-15 became a regular semi-automatic rifle, just like any other semi-automatic rifle that no one cares about because they aren't black. With the auto-sear (and some other important parts) the AR-15 becomes capable of selective fire. While I don't disagree that they are the same BASIC rifle, one of them is legal and the other is almost exclusively military only or near impossible to find because of the existing assault weapon ban. |
In this thread people presume to know about manufacturing.
Also printing guns will be feasible when we master low cost advanced composites. Even then, just because you can print the parts doesn't mean youd be qualified to assemble it or even inspect the quality of the parts. Just because you hit print doesn't mean it'll be perfect, so you better know what you're looking at. Unless you don't mind a micro-fracture making your new toy blow off your face. |
It you have a machine shop, you have the tools that build those specialized tools.
A basic lathe and milling machine can do everything but rifle the barrel, and a basic rifling setup would only take a good machinist a couple of days to put together. |
A semi-automatic rifle reciever has a lot of moving parts and I'm pretty sure there is a good bit of assembly required before it would function. Not to mention the fact the just the reciever alone can't fire anything. You can't can't print the rest of the gun, especially something like a barrel. And let's not get into how difficult it would be for children to get ammo. It's much more complicated than "point and click and out pops a fully functional, fully loaded, fully automatic assault rifle that's ready to kill!" Kids would have a much easier time making explosives. |
Goddammit, The point about 1984 isn't about the technology. It's about the restriction of ideas and language. The futuristic surveillance society is the setting, not the plot or moral. If you want to quote a Luddite dystopian author, quote Bradbury not Orwell. Orwell's point is that euphemism treadmills like "nigger->black->African-American", "retard->mentally challenged->special needs", and "shell shock->war fatigue->PTSD" are destructive to society and can be used by norm entrepreneurs to control your thoughts. The "cameras everywhere" theme of 1984 is presented as morally neutral and just a sign that it's the future. You can disagree with Orwell (I certainly do on some issues), but don't misrepresent him. |
Ah, you see, that is a part of the careful crafting of my phrasing.
I didn't say "liberate Europe again", rather I said "re-liberate Europe"
The former could be interpreted to imply that the original liberation was accomplished solely by the U.S. The latter phrasing leaves the question of "Who originally liberated Europe?" open.
For example, if China had single-handedly liberated Europe during WWII (in an alternate universe hypothesis) ... then Europe somehow funds itself again in shackles ... now it could be said "The U.S. must re-liberate Europe (as did the Chinese, before them)". |
Technology like this really bothers me but the reaction everyone has to it bothers me even more. Does no one realize that this kind of monitoring AI doesn't work for these kinds of systems? Let me break it down for you:
Assumptions:
Monitoring AI runs a test on behaviour and flags it as 'good' or 'bad'
The AI does 1 test per person per day and tests everyone in the area
If someone is doing something 'bad' then the the AI will flag them as 'bad' 99% of the time (ridiculous accuracy given the current state of AI)
If someone is doing something 'good' then the AI will flag them as 'good' 99% of the time (also ridiculous). These last two points are called the [sensitivity and specificity]( of the test
1 out of 200 people being monitored are doing something considered 'bad.' This might be a little high but I am trying to give the AI the best environment to work in.
Based on the numbers listed above you might think that this test is pretty damn good (the 99%'s have that effect on people). Think again .
Any binary test will always have the following two problems: false positives (cases where the person is falsely told they have the trait tested for) and false negatives (cases where the person is falsely told they do not have the trait tested for).
We are largely concerned with false positives; no one wants to be arrested because the AI screwed up
To calculate the likelihood of a false positive we use [Bayes' Theorem]( Using Bayes Theorem, we find that there is only a 33% chance that any person flagged as 'bad' by the AI is actually doing anything wrong .
To put this into perspective, imagine this nearly perfect system were to be setup in London, England (Population 14 million) . Using basic probability, the odds that someone will be flagged as 'bad' are 1.5%, which implies that 210,000 people will be flagged as 'bad' on a daily basis and 138,600 of the these people are actually innocent |
to flash a custom kernel on the device?
same reason why i rooted my 100% vanilla android phone months after i got it. |
The problem with Apple maps right now isn't a software problem, it is a data problem. My point about the Census effort was that it is indeed possible to mobilize a very large, decentralized workforce by giving the workers a territory and a limited set of instructions.
Many of the complaints I hear about Apple's maps have to do with lack of detail about businesses and other institutions. Sending out a workforce to fill in that detail (verifying addresses, place names, etc.) is pretty similar to what the Census does. |
That's why you don't run a company.
Depending so much on another company will only make things worse over time. Apple maps will only get better with time. Paying rent forever doesn't make good business sense. |
So many well-qualified U.S. technology workers are unemployed it isn't even funny. The rub here is that many of these well-qualified Americans are well-qualified because they've been in their field for a while--i.e., they are older (35+ years) Americans. Experienced people usually want higher compensation relative to people with less experience, but many of these unemployed people would be happy to be able to interview for any job in their field of interest--this is unlikely to happen as long as cheap foreign labor is widely available.
It is no accident that government data show that engineers holding H-1B visas are much younger than their American counterparts. These visas are nothing more than corporate welfare and enablers of age discrimination. Does anyone remember the story of [Darin Wedel]( from earlier this year? Darin is an electrical engineer, unemployed for three years, whose wife asked President Obama in a Google+ hangout if maybe we could curtail these unnecessary visas. As far as I can tell from Darin's [LinkedIn profile]( he's still not back to work.
Professor Norman Matloff of UC Davis has some excellent resources on the topic of H-1B visas [here]( and recently wrote a great piece for [Bloomberg]( on how software engineers will one day work for English majors. |
I thought we had put this past us.... guess not!
IE isn't given any special privileges on x86/64. Other browser makers can (and have!) made "Metro" versions of their browsers: [Firefox]( [Chrome](
As for Windows RT on ARM? No third party desktop software can run, and that extends to browsers. This is par for the course for mobile platforms - iOS is the exact same, and though Android is a bit more flexible (I believe), ChromeOS certainly isn't. |
Lets imagine for a minute that copyrights expired after 25 years. Would that mean that anyone could make a Star Wars movie in 2002? Technically yes but they couldn't keep it in continuity. The second and third film in the trilogy introduced new characters and elements into the story that would still be protected at the time. That means that a knock off Star Wars film made in 2002 could not include any reference to the Emperor, Lando, Imperial Walkers, Boba Fett, Yoda, Jabba the Hutt, or the fact that Darth Vader is Luke's father.
Even if you waited until the copyright expired on Return of the Jedi you would still have to deal with the fact that there are literally thousands of books, video games, comic books and cartoons about the star wars universe. Anything you tried to write would need to be cleared of any similarity to the other published works before it could be sold. |
This is hardly an excellent analysis of U.S. copyright law, as it is designed to be inflammatory and consolatory rather than actually presenting any of the counter-arguments which are nominally listed as "myths."
Yes, the purpose of copyright law is to promote the arts and sciences, and yes, this is not always accomplished by compensating the creator or rights-holder. However, many areas of copyright law have been created to address this, such as the fair use doctrine and compulsory license schemes congress has actually established. The theory behind the "Life +" schemes of coypright duration is that an author shouldn't have to compete against himself in his own market.
Example: you write "Dracula," and then 14 years later your work falls into the public domain. You are still creating books, but none of them have reached the same heights or recognition as Dracula, and since you can't profit off your original work you quickly run out of money and die a pauper, rather than continuing to try to create the next Dracula. Hyperbole, yes, but it is a legitimate rationale for ensuring a lifetime of profitability from copyright.
Additionally, the remix culture has not been quite as "retarded" as the report seems to indicate. Yes, anyone "sampling" music is typically a copyright violator, but it's been a notoriously un-litigated area of copyright law in America because so many people do it and it has become such a popular international phenomenon. Copyright law has not made America fall behind in the DJ scene, although I agree that it's silly that sampling is even technically a crime when it is so obviously fair use.
The number one solution to this nightmare, besides reducing the ridiculous "+70 years" duration of copyright, is in fact the punishment of false infringement claims and the expansion of the fair use doctrine to be more than a legal defense. So yes, this ridiculously biased bit of pandering to young voters to convince them that big government is doing nothing but wrong did get a few things right in the end. |
To clarify (my understanding at least), the comment you're referring to is speaking metaphorically. This is what I'm pretty sure he meant:
Similar to how physical property goes to the state to dispose of when taxes are left unpaid, the intellectual property would effectively enter the public domain. That just means that you couldn't sue anyone for damages if they reproduced the material you created and chose not to copyright. |
The author clearly also knows jack and shit about why the law is the way it is, as well as why we'd be in major treaty violations with the WTO if we went with their suggestions. (although I may agree with some of his ideas).
I'll do my best to explain what's going on.
Ok children, gather around to hear about TRIPS, GATT, and Berne, how they interact with the founding fathers and injustice by Queen Elizabeth the first.
Long ago, the US wasn't a major producer of books or other media. We were a market that bought abroad and had a few authors. We were also major pirates. The US is unique in that we had a very utilitarian view of copyright law. This is expressed in the Constitution. We got it from the British view at the time.
The British view comes out of Queen Elizabeth and her excesses. Patent law and Copyright law were once virtually the same. Letters Patents were royal grants by the Monarch intended to encourage foreigners to come to England to train English subjects in the foreigners’ trades.
The earliest known industrial patents were around for a few hundred years (1331) before one was given to a domestic worker (1552). But it was Elizabeth a few years later who really got the ball rolling. She started off with a rationale to give incentives to works of science. But she quickly used it as a tool to obtain cash and reward friends. The most infamous was a patent on all playing cards giving Edward Darcy the exclusive rights to make, sell or import playing cards. The courts held the patent later invalid, but the patent was really on the markings, the expressive content. The Statue of Monopolies was passed by Parliament to reign in the abuses of Monarchs in Monopolies.
Two exceptions existed relevant to our discussion. The first is the Printing Patent, the second Crown Guilds. The Stationers Guild had a printing patent and was a Crown Guild. The Stationers Guild charter gave them near exclusive control of printing in England. The Guild Charter gave them the 'Copy Right'. But the Printing Patent wasn't solely theirs. It gave the right to print either a single book, or a class of books (like law books).
Essentially the Stationer's Guild had a right they gave out for copies under their status as the royal guild, while you could get a separate right from the King. They merge more and more over time, but even under the Statue of Anne in 1710 they existed as separate and related rights.
The Statue of Anne is very influential to US Patent and Copyright law. (7 states used it as their law until the Constitution was written, the first act passed by congress on copyrights or patents copied the Statue as well). To the founders, used to that law, the difference between patents and copyrights wasn't very huge. South Carolina's Copyright Statue even called it a patent.
When you look at this view, it's clear that Author's rights has nothing to do with traditional American copyright or patent rights. It's a pure utilitarian trade. Our history reflects that for a long time. Copyrights were limited, originally to the same lengths as patents except for an optional renewal.
Copyright law in the US was lengthened a few times, from 14 with a renewal of 14, to 28 with a renewal of 14, to 28 with a renewal of 28. However, this was all done when the US wasn't a major producer of books or other media.
Now today, we're part of a global economy and part of the terms creating the World Trade Organization ( WTO ) in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ( GATT ) is what's called Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ( TRIPS ). The WTO has been a policy goal for the US since the 1940's. We want free trade. We want ways to deal with disputes, and we want to allow our products into foreign nations.
However, the US doesn't get everything it wants in negotiations. We wanted protection for our goods overseas as well as our media. So TRIPS is designed to add to these WTO talks a way to deal with IP across borders. Everything from counterfit goods to getting copyright protection on movies in other nations. The Berne Convention has been the big backbone of international copyright since 1886.
The Berne Convention is based on French theories of intellectual property, namely the idea that an author or an inventor has a moral right to his work. Needless to say the French (and other nations with a Napoleon derived copyright law) were the big backers.
TRIPS's big thing was making everyone obey Berne, thus adopting French copyright theory. In order to get any protection for US authors and artist (especially our movies) we had to agree to join Berne. Most things people don't like about US copyright come from Berne. Life plus 70 is the invention of Berne. Another 20 years was added later (and was a blatant grab for more years by a few rights holders like Disney). But, in order for US author to have any protection abroad, we had to agree to join Berne.
In exchange we got other countries to adopt our theory of patents as a utilitarian view, as well as trademarks. The US has also negotiated in many exceptions such as making the moral rights provisions of Berne be optional, as well as providing for Fair Use.
In essence, current IP law is the result of 70 years of negotiations. And we only really lost our way on Copyrights.
If we change our law to what the author suggests, we must leave Berne. Doing so makes us in violation of TRIPS, and thus GATT, and thus the WTO. Violating WTO agreements allows retaliatory tariffs on our goods abroad and allows all of our author's rights abroad to lapse.
So while I personally like the old law, We can't change the law without facing massive penalties with our largest trading partners. |
did anyone notice there is a one sentence |
As someone in the media industry: As much as you're being downvoted by the 'all knowing reddit community', you speak the truth that if you have a purpose as a company in media, you do NOT need to be using mac osx software, and if you are, you are wasting money. EVERY company I have been to uses linux for their means. Why? Unadulterated operating system allowing the same software you'd use on osx or windows, with more dedicated cpu and ram to the purpose. Why the fuck WOULDN'T you use linux? |
You work in the media industry... and every company you have been to uses Linux? I'm sorry, but this is the most laughable thing I've ever heard. Don't get me wrong, I love Linux, and my day to day OS is Ubuntu. But seriously?
Show me the NLE equivalent of Final Cut Pro, Avid Media Composer, Adobe Premier, or Sony Vegas... that runs on Linux. All there is right now, is the Lightworks beta... and that's shit in comparison.
Show me the graphical composition equivalent of Adobe After Effects, Autodesk Maya, Apple Motion for Linux. There isn't any. At all.
Show me the audio mixing equivalent of Pro Tools, Apple Logic, Ableton Live, Adobe Audition. I've never heard of any, but I guess there could be... as audio isn't my bag.
Show me the image editing equivalent of Adobe Photoshop on Linux. You've got Gimp... which... is no where close. It's great for most people, but most people don't need Photoshop. Professionals do though. |
Sometimes this is ideal, where if the program solely deals with input [and a pointer becomes null unexpectedly or a critical memory operation fails] that could open Pandora's Box if it kept running.
However, in a large program where protocol:// plays a relatively minor role, the more graceful way is to Raise a Exception, if possible; this way the more general code can decide whether the exception is important enough to quit, inform the user, or do nothing - usually depending more on the type of exception (memory issues are no joke).
If it's a critical enough problem, sometimes quitting is the only way to ensure no damage is done, no unexpected operations are performed, no further corruption occurs, no malicious code can be injected, etc. |
I've shared things off of Reddit with people over the past few months, when asked where I heard the story or found the pic I've always just said "oh just this one website" or yahoo, etc. in order to keep the small, creepy, interesting forum I use to entertain myself while taking a shit as is. W/O my SO or idiot co worker ruining a fresh page of unopened links for me during the morning dump. |
Sure buddy; keep dreaming. I am not impressed; you are not the only one with a big house on some land.
Do you even understand the concept of opportunity cost of money?
It's pretty apparent from your initial post and smarmy follow up you do not.
How about you go to your local community college, take finance 101 then give me a call so we can have a real discussion. |
Oh how cute. You must be the nouveau rich; you know, the kind that thinks they are the only successful person on reddit and creates an account for the sole purpose of rubbing your apparent success in others face.
Getting lucky running a business and being a successful investor are mutually exclusive. I am surprised some one of your supposed intellect can't grasp that concept; perhaps that's why it took 6.5 years for you to graduate college.
Here's a thought; most successful investors, can earn an easy 7% on their assets. Most successful investors will put that 400k in an investment, pay the bank their 3.5% and in 30 years have ~1m in investments plus a house that was paid for.
In addition to having more money in the long run, successful investors, also get to push a huge chunk of risk onto the bank. So, if home values drop by 50%; say your neighbor starts a large scale fracking op, a sink-hole opens or any number of odd ball things, you can turn the mortgage and keys over to the bank and say deal with it.
You, in your monumental arrogance, don't understand this simple investing concept; thus at the end of 30 years you'll just have a house.
Is your business really that shitty that you can't earn more than 3.5% on your cash at hand? |
It's not causing stability issues, and it's explicitly related to modifying the processor's internal clock speed that is affecting benchmarks.
Modifying other processor capabilities was possible in previous versions of the OS, yes, but they were not as stable as Win8 is proving to be with on the fly clock adjustment. Adjusting the core timing clock is something new in Windows 8, and is not being detected properly by benchmarking software. Hence, OP's article.
The point being modification of standard overclocking functions does not affect the internal timing clock. Explicitly modifying the internal timing clock is easier to do and can throw off benchmarks without being very visible.
This is why Win8 benchmarks are being heavily scrutinized, and not outright completely banned. Go re-read near the end of the article, they're talking about exactly this.
The feature added is Win8's handling of timing functions, and keeping it internal to the processor is almost always better than constantly polling external elements. This is partly how WinRT is capable of being used on different SoC's, at the kernel level they've begun to abstract out different elements.
Overall, this is an improvement. It decouples the OS from required external hardware. Extremely accurate timing is pulled from an external resource only when necessary, likely an NTP request on system boot. Because it has a side effect of letting unscrupulous persons submit modified benchmarks does not make it terrible, it just means that benchmarking software needs to get better about not assuming standard system setups. |
Sigh, I'm getting tired of pointing out the same things over and over so I'm going to keep this short:
it's the RTC, not the OS clock - Win8 keeps the correct time for you just fine
this really doesn't impact anything beyond benchmarking, and even then it only shows a 7% variance in the results if the proof provided in the article is correct
this is only an issue that comes up if you used a crappy piece of software to alter your CPU clocking (if you are changing the clock speed of your CPU to over or under clock it, you SHOULD be doing it at the BIOS level
this is a claim made by one company who got partial proof from another company - even the article author admits that they wouldn't understand : "HWBot doesn’t give specific details (presumably we’re talking really low-level kernel stuff here)..." |
Sigh, I'm getting tired of pointing out the same things over and over so I'm going to keep this short:
it's the RTC, not the OS clock - Win8 keeps the correct time for you just fine
this really doesn't impact anything beyond benchmarking, and even then it only shows a 7% variance in the results if the proof provided in the article is correct
this is only an issue that comes up if you used a crappy piece of software to alter your CPU clocking (if you are changing the clock speed of your CPU to over or under clock it, you SHOULD be doing it at the BIOS level
this is a claim made by one company who got partial proof from another company - even the article author admits that they wouldn't understand : "HWBot doesn’t give specific details (presumably we’re talking really low-level kernel stuff here)..." |
Did you actually read the article? Or were the words too big for you?
Of course everyone relies on correct time, but this issue only happens IF you used software to overclock your CPU instead of doing it (properly) through the BIOS. Here are some facts from this:
it's the RTC (hardware clock), not the OS clock - Win8 keeps the correct time for you just fine
this really doesn't impact anything beyond benchmarking, and even then it only shows a 7% variance in the results if the proof provided in the article is correct
this is only an issue that comes up if you used a crappy piece of software to alter your CPU clocking (if you are changing the clock speed of your CPU to over or under clock it, you SHOULD be doing it at the BIOS level)
this is a claim made by one company who got partial proof from another company - even the article author admits that they wouldn't understand : "HWBot doesn’t give specific details (presumably we’re talking really low-level kernel stuff here)..." |
It is not, in fact, an oxymoron. You're simply missing the overclocking terminology he injected into his comment. Running a 24/7 overclock refers to overclocking your computer to a set speed, and from that point onward running your computer at that speed.
This is a stable, usable overclock. Something that can be done either by a casual, or an enthusiast with Peltiers and giant air conditioners hooked up to his computer.
He was suggesting this, as opposed to a hardcore benchmarking enthusiast who overclocks to the extreme for benchmarking. These overclocks are not something you'd keep running, or even be able to keep running long, after you finish the benchmarking. Thus they are not 24/7 overclocks. |
I had no prior "Windows 8 training". I manage just fine. There is such little difference between the two operating systems that you can pick it up and run with it right off the bat. |
Correct me if I'm wrong; press the Windows key, type mouse and hit enter. Is the mouse control panel launched? Does the control panel appear at all in the results? I don't think so.
Launching anything other than applications using the Windows key is painful. In Windows 7 applications, control panels, files, file content, emails are all searched using that one button. No key combo, just one button. I find many operations take one click more under Windows 8. I like the speed of 8, but that aside I would go back to 7 in a heartbeat if it didn't require a reinstall. |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.