0
stringlengths 9
22.1k
|
|---|
This video reminds me of a story I heard when I was a kid. I grew up in Trail, BC, Canada, a town dominated by Cominco's smelter. A smelter needs filtration systems, so the story is about a guy who sold little rings that were used in filtration. Ideally, these rings would pile up randomly, so that they'd catch as much contaminant as possible. Poorly designed rings would stack up like little chimneys, and the contaminant would pass straight through.
So, the story goes, one salesman spent a great deal of time learning to throw the competitor's rings, apparently at random, while having them stack into neat little chimneys. He'd make his sales pitch, throwing the competitors rings, and then his own, showing how randomly his own piled up.
Whether it's true or not, this story makes me very wary of videos like this one, which seem just a little too scripted. Real life isn't scripted, and I rarely know exactly what sequence of gestures I'd need to make to accomplish a certain task. How well does this tablet work in that environment? Does it still seem like a productivity boost, or does it leave the user struggling to accomplish basic tasks?
What I'd like to see is a video of a trained user entering a novel situation. |
From my reading of the Code, it really has nothing to do at all with hacking devices. By section 342.1 and the reference to section 430, it refers to services or intent to render a device inoperable. So yes, it's illegal to hack your xbox to use xbox live for free, it is not illegal to do so to play 'backed up' games.
I think the RCMP officer(or perhaps the law) is missing the difference between a computer, computer program, service and product.
Hacking a device that one owns is within the rights of the individual so long as the device is fully paid for(eg. unlocking an iphone after your contract is done)
Modifying a program is a bit different because you deal with copyright law, but if there is no intent to distribute you're fine there. The trick is that SLA's and ELA's are 'contracts' which you break.
Obtaining a service for free is obviously illegal, like getting a white satellite dish and tuning it to whatever signal with the free to air cards and all that. This is reasonable in my mind. But these people don't seem to be guilty of that.
I think what they want to get him for is illegally reproducing and distributing a copyrighted work. The games and the modified code on the device firmware. |
The iPod is the one that gets me. Boy the FA's love to harangue passengers listening to iPods. An iPod has no "off" switch so by their own logic you can't turn it "off". Second, a Nano uses an amount of electricity not that much greater than a digital watch.
They also tell you to turn off anything that can "receive a signal". I've been tempted to bring a 12" length of copper wire on board. Oh noes - it receives a signal!
Anecdote: One time I was flying and had earphones in, but not attached to an iPod. Bitchy flight attendant made me remove them as a "safety" issue - it was soo important that I hear the safety briefing. I just put in a pair of foam earplugs instead. |
Natural Evolution, yes.
However, that happened long ago. Evolution is a mechanism of adaptation to a changing environment. Our species is dominant because we've shifted our adaptability from:
A genetic level, how most animals and their "instincts" work, and were adaptation is only possible across many generations of natural selection.
To an intellectual level, were adaptability is much more rapid. If you notice your behavior isn't being effective, or you discover a more effective one, you change it and pass on that change to your children when you teach them. They in turn improved upon them iteratively.
That's why humans don't really have as much in the way of "instinct" as most other animals do. We have to learn pretty much everything as we grow. |
First of all, I'm not arguing that Skype is "the Google killer", I never said that.
What I am saying is that Google's proprietary platform (and monolithic development practices) are a big problem. I think that view is echoed in the article which talks about how difficult it would be to integrate a (frankly pretty ubiquitous) third party network application.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see a huge developer ecosystem around The Google Platform. Android yes, but not the core infrastructure.
The Google core business depends on those "Fuckloads" of servers running pretty much without fault. Opening this private network up to random shit from some third party who just learned sockets two weeks ago and wouldn't know a memory leak if they saw one probably isn't something you would want to do - And for good reason!
That means to maintain quality Google has to do pretty much everything itself which is, in plain terms, a pain in the ass!
The strength of Microsoft on the other hand (and others to varying degrees) is that it has been very successful in getting millions of developers more or less on the same page. People might piss and moan about the Windows/Azure API, but hey it works pretty much. It is widely adopted, well documented and understood. Sure, maybe it doesn't scale as well as a dedicated platform, but who cares.
As far as Google Voice.. well yeah, it's something I guess. I'm sure a lot of people use it, but I wouldn't call it a major Skype competitor. But I digress, again my point is not about Skype, but a general issue with the Google platform. |
Like that no it's a scare tactic.
What some people are sort of trying to explain is what's happening on the back end of your ISP. It also depends on what country you're in.
There have been some issues with ISPs wanting service providers that run on top of their networks to pay up or pay more. What would then happen is that the service might have to raise their rates depending on the outcome. Right now bandwidth caps are the bigger threat to hosted services. ISPs are having a hell of a time trying to get groups like Netflix to pay up. There are also issues with favoring their own content that would make for good lawsuits. So ISPs just slap us with a cap limit so we can only download/stream so much content. Netflix has already talked about lowering the quality of their HD streams.
It’s not feasible for ISPs to charge people for the website they want to go to. Since most of us could get around restrictions like that in a matter of minutes.
Also on the flip side of the coin the government wants to be able to control what web sites you’re allowed to visit or even shut off the internet depending on the bill. Since many of the politicians on both sides are on the take from the MPAA/RIAA. And both Obama & Biden have people in various positions that are openly in the pocket of these big companies.
One of the best ways to fight this is to support local ISPs aka the little guy. If you’re area has DSL Extreme then you can go with them. Wide Open West is a great cable internet provider. My family are dumping AT&T and moving to these different services because they’re still unlimited. When you dump your ISP make sure to tell them it’s because of the poor service & bandwidth caps. |
Is this really a possible outcome
Sort of, but not like the image portrays. This image has been around a while and is meant to make you think exactly that, but it's bending some facts to be effective. The truth is more complicated.
From [the Wikipedia article on NN in the US](
> On December 21, 2010, the FCC approved new rules banning cable television and telephone service providers from preventing access to competitors or certain web sites such as Netflix. The rules would not keep ISPs from charging more for faster access. Republicans in Congress plan to reverse the rules through legislation.[[25](
That's what's up right now, but Republicans may change that.
Party lines and ideals in this case have confused an otherwise genuine debate. There are many reasons why this image might scare you, but you may also side with certain conservative stances if you saw them. For example, the ability of network providers to effectively manage their networks is hindered if they cannot impliment any Quality of Service methods and much treat all legitimate traffic equally.
Tiered Internet
You'll note the part that said "charging more for faster access." This is where this image gets to being a bit true. It is the concept of a "tiered Internet," and the worry is that costs will be passed to consumers.
The Comcast/Netflix tussle gets mentioned a lot in this case. Comcast is not fighting Netflix directly, as they do not have any business together, but rather to Netflix's ISP, Level 3, and is an issue of [peering]( Netflix pays Level 3 for their bandwidth and they're out of responsibility as a content provider. Comcast has a beef with Level 3, saying the bandwidth is an unfair abuse of peering agreements, since Comcast must deliver content to their customers at extremely high cost to them with no gains unless they charge their customers more . See where this ends up relating to the image?
Comcast has also recently taken bandwidth throttling methods against BitTorrent, resulting in a lost class-action suit against them, which was resolved with Comcast saying they would take a protocol-neutral stance after 2008. Comcast is the largest communications network in the world, and they have publicly lost a battle to tier the Internet in the existing system, and that's worth noting.
NN vs. Net Admin
We're still debating what is and isn't relevant to neutrality in regards to how networks are managed. Many solutions have upsides and downsides. For example, file transfers need good burst bandwidth to deliver content in a timely manner, but the age of the delivered data is not generally as important down to the second, so you don't need low latency, whereas time-sensitive traffic such as VoIP, multimedia streams, and gaming traffic all need low latency. It is argued that we are forcing network inefficiency by demanding equal treatment of content that is unequal by design. It seems regulation must get rather technically savvy, or otherwise generic enough to allow flexibility.
Problems like this are why many network engineers and administrators fall on the side of anti-regulation for now, as much of the proposed and attempted regulation is not comprehensive to the needs of operating successful networks, which shows an inability or unwillingness for government to understand what they're regulating.
Antitrust
There's also a completely separate angle to all of this, and that's antitrust. Much of the issue and distrust (so to speak) that the public is growing is due to "Big ISP" acting as both content providers and network providers, giving them incentives to bully out competition or to favor themselves within their network.
Given the climate this has created, and the [allegations of astroturfing]( it's extremely difficult to trust what anyone proposes as a solution without thoroughly examining how it maintains an air of fair competition.
Some who focus on this as the underlying complication, such as [Al Franken]( believe antitrust action is the best method. |
Because this guy is the sort of person who felt that an article that took 7 minutes too read was long enough that he felt the need to complain about the author writing "too many words", so he sympathized with the |
Well, I guess I could use some negative karma. Here is the opposing point of view. I will say up front I am a U.S. patent litigation attorney. I have represented clients on both sides of this issue. Overall, I am in favor of having a patent system (and not just because my job depends on it).
In my view, the statement "Patents are gumming up smartphone innovation." can be translated into "Our inability to copy technology created by others prevents us from making phones with all of the neat features we would like to include at an affordable price."
Like many discussions there are two sides to this story. Imagine you invest significant time and resources into creating some clever phone feature. This feature is lust worthy. After it becomes widely available, no one is going to buy a phone that doesn't have it. You invested a lot in creating this feature, so you are going to want a return on that investment. Without some sort of patent protection, your return on that investment is going to be minimal. People will reverse engineer or otherwise duplicate your innovation. Most of the time, the cost of them doing this will be less than your cost (it is easier and cheaper to build something if you have a working example to show you that it is possible).
The lower NRE (non-recurring engineering costs) for your competitors means that they will be able to undercut you on price (you have to recoup your greater initial investment). But wait, you say, "I will have a time to market advantage in which to gouge customers to recover my costs." Unfortunately, this does not work that well. After a few times, the customers learn that they only need to wait six months for the competitors to release their copy and prices will fall.
After observing this result in the market a few times, wise competitors focus on cheap manufacturing and quick reverse engineering. Soon they run the innovators out of business and innovation dries up.
The patent system lets the innovator exclude competitors from copying your invention for a limited period of time. Right now in the U.S., you can (with a few technical exceptions that aren't worth explaining here) practice virtually any invention known to man in 1991 (and many known shortly after that date).
The biggest problem with the existing patent system is that many of the patents that get issued really are not that inventive. They issue because people pay patent agents and attorneys money to get issued patents. The prosecutors (the label for the procuring agents) are good at their job - they find nuances that the prior art does not explicitly show and focus the examiner's (patent office employee who decides if a patent should issue) attention on these subtleties.
As a result, many of the patents that issue are "thin" meaning they contain little innovation. In some cases, the subtlety that got the patent past the prior art may have been necessary or even a known best way to make the prior art work. The person disclosing the prior art may not have bothered to mention that preferred method of implementation because attention was focused elsewhere and it wasn't really germane to his issue.
It costs millions of dollars generally to bust a patent in litigation and there is an omnipresent risk that the journey won't understand the technology well enough to understand why a particular patent is not very good. As a result, many defendants settle cases even when they should prevail on the merits, in the interest of risk management.
In my experience, there is no external factor that makes a particular patent more likely to cover something truly inventive as opposed to some marginal improvement over the prior art. I will pick on IBM now, because they received the most U.S. patents last year. Some of IBM's patents are much more inventive than others. In my view, a sizable number of the patents IBM receives probably should never issue because they represent such a negligible improvement over what is already known. I can't quickly identify which IBM patents are good though (and some of them really are very inventive).
I think the main improvement the patent system needs is improved examination. To some extent, I think the examination could be improved by requiring the patent applicant to describe the prior art in his initial application and specifically identify what he has improved relative to the prior art. The examiner could then focus on determining whether the point(s) of novelty was(were) known. |
While the clarification is helpful, the distinction between the two is quite important. A lot of occupations listed in the article to describe decline of the "creative class" are content distributors rather than content creators. Business models reliant on old ways of content distribution are no longer as viable as they used to be.
It is funny though because the author quotes such people as Chris Anderson (editor of Wired , entrepreneur behind DIY Drones ), a successful representative of the new creative class and calls them overly optimistic. There seems to be a misplaced expectation throughout the article echoed in the quote from Allison Glock ("Wasn’t the Internet supposed to bring this class into being?") that makes members of this creative class into some kind of passive recipients entitled to technology's benefits. This expectation completely overlooks that information technology is itself simply a tool, and tools are mostly beneficial to those that actively use them with proficiency. |
Technically, Steve Jobs stood on Niklaus Wirth's shoulders. The original Mac OS, not unlike Windows, was implemented in Pascal rather than C. Steve left Apple in '85, well before Mac OS was ported to C++ (OS 6, released in '88, was still written in Pascal).
I wouldn't ascribe NeXT's "hidden" success (hey, they got bought) and Apple's subsequent success to C either: the distinguishing part of their platform has always been the Smalltalk end of Objective-C, which would have worked just as well with something like "Objective Pascal" (I mean Smalltalk objects on Pascal with a true message send syntax in the language, not something like this ).
That said, why should the success of someone who shaped our world like Dennis Ritchie did be measured in relation to how much Steve Jobs got out of it? Oh, of course, because that gets clicks. Fucking ghouls. |
I actually read about a pilot mentioning why this continues to be enforced, and it had nothing to do with radio signals. The main point was that passengers need to not be distracted during the safety briefing as well as during the most dangerous times of the flight, take off and landing. |
This is why we can't have nice things. Stupid people force everyone else to deal with their nonsense, which does nothing but waste our time:
I accept the terms and conditions
Do you want to view only the webpage content that was delivered securely?
Do you want to allow the following program from an unknown publisher to make changes to this computer?
You must be 13 years of age or older to enter this website
The cookie setting on this website are set to 'allow all cookies' to give you the very best experience. If you continue without changing these settings, you consent to this - but if you want, you can change your settings at any time at the bottom of this page.
Caution: Hammer - Do not swallow
Do not [stop the proceedings with idiocy](
We need less prompts, not more. |
i think this is quite a hard subject to have a discussion about. because there are enough people that think the tracking should be disabled (with the obvious privacy reasons), but there also a lot of people that wouldn't mind it being enabled because it personalizes their internet experience to the extent that advertisements might actually be kind of related to what you like. |
Tablets are a far smaller niche, once the hype is past, than desktop computers. And smart phones in no way compete with desktops -- they replace older cellphones, they replace pocket calculators, they replace maps, GPS units, thesauruses, dictionaries, hand-held gaming devices, mp3 players, and PDAs. When you decide to edit your family photos, write a paper, do serious research, or play Starcraft 3, you go to a desktop. Tablets have cannibalized the netbook, which I also said and still hold are propelled by hype and half-thought attraction to low price-points.
Laptops/notebooks compete with desktops, but a laptop is essentially the same hardware, scaled down. Tablets and smart phones are qualitatively different, and will NEVER replace desktop, for simple ergonomic reasons. Not unless there is a quantum leap in human-computer interfaces, that is.
The simple fact is that one can be far more productive on a multi-monitor desktop with ergonomic chair, mouse, and keyboard than one can ever be on a tablet or a phone. Tablets and phones are useful tools, but a desktop is like an entire shop.
The wii did not replace people playing FPS on the Xbox. It went after a different market segment, and now that the hype is wearing off, they are branching into older markets by proposing more "classic" controllers for the type of game that serious gamers were already playing.
And as far as anecdotes go, my mostly tech-illiterate mother has decided to toss her notebook. What is she replacing it with? A smart-phone, a tablet, and a desktop. |
i'm studying a field closely related to the desktop publishing revolution, and i have to say, the classes focus an awful lot on steve jobs, and barely mention gates.
different people will approach the topic differently and history will slowly alter how we look at it, but i think it's just ridiculous to say jobs will be forgotten in 50 years. apple doesn't have the market share microsoft does in PCs, but everybody knows what apple is, most people believe they innovated a lot of their mobile products, and virtually everyone i know has a highly polarized opinion of apple and the accuracy of that idea that they are visionaries.
if we were looking forward a couple hundred years, maybe i'd think jobs might be started to look like faded ink on the pages of history. but in 50? some of the kids using ipods now will barely be senior citizens then; jobs' legacy won't die that fast. |
I guess I should have made it clear that I was responding to this:
>If Apple had won the OS battle of the 90's, people like me wouldnt have a PC since it would cost $4000 for a mediocre hardware.
In my hypothetical future the only way for Apple to have one the OS battle of the 90's would have been with the clone manufactures because with their penchant for high profit margins, they never would have been able to capture more then 50% of the computing market. I'm right because it's my hypothetical future alright?
Good book suggestion, I have both Apple Confidential and Apple Confidential 2.0 on my bookcase at home. I disagree that it was horribly managed for for the first two decades of it's existence, the Apple II and it's variants were very successfully for 10+ years. Apple was merely poorly managed as evidenced by the Apple III, the co-development of the Mac and Lisa and the failure to really capitalize on either of them in a large scale way. Horribly managed would have been a company like Thinking Machines. |
So while deviantArt, or Dadotart, advertizes itself as favoring a distribution approach "for the art community", their policy is still a pretty liberal one. I am especially referring to the part about "interested artists who might not necessarily be represented by established community organizations."
Now I'm not trying to sound polemic here, but you would think that there are pretty good reasons why those "interested artists" are not represented by "established community organizations". Those reasons would include, let us be honest, the so-called artist producing works that show neither good technique nor good composition nor good overall reasoning.
Of all the "artworks" I have seen on deviantArt so far, the main bulk was lacking even the most basic techniques like light-dark contrast or color theory, let alone fundamental art and art history knowledge. You cannot be an artist, and you cannot situate yourself in the real, professional art community if you do not know what was considered art in the past, and what is considered art now. At the end of the day, an artist has to eat and pay his rent just like every other human being - and if you want to sell art, you should be able to identify art. A formal education helps a lot, but even if you cannot afford one, you should get yourself informed.
Aside from the professionalism issue, the community environment in dA is absolutely toxic when it comes to criticism, which prevents the artists from identifying and improving on their weak spots, which in turn prevents them from improving their skills in the long run. The dA management has done nothing to remedy this problem, and the guidelines that do exist are not enforced properly. This, together with the professionalism issue, serves to create an environment that is not at all beneficial to the forming of creative and competitive artists. Yes, dA might be a fine enterprise with a high turnover of canvas prints, printed posters and tshirts, but judging from what I have seen so far they do not even sell actual art , neither do they seem to provide the means for the artists to do so. In every case where the artist was selling his own paintings, they did so either by their own homepage, or by commission via email or private message.
Communities like [conceptart.org]( where the members comprise many professional artists and where the users are actually positively encouraged to offer accurate and constructive criticism as well as advice on techniques would be far better suited for the task of formulating guidelines than some run-of-the-mill manga fan-art creator.
Speaking of fan art, Angelo Sotira from dA mentioned the following earlier:
>Fan art of Manga characters, for example, is a primary method of attracting young artists in to the arts. From there skills are sharpened, growth and development occurs, and artists graduate from exactly this type of fandom in to BEING the artists who design and illustrate these characters.
Even if this were true, there is still the problem that the dA community by design fosters a fandom environment where criticism is unwelcome and where young artists are unduly idolized by their peers. This in turn may discourage them from straying from their style and trying out new media. Manga characters may be a start for young artists, but they might also turn out as a dead end for the career if the aspiring young artist does not grow out of drawing them fast .
Just a few weeks ago, I have been talking about a similar topic with a good friend of mine. Some years back, she was sitting in the selection panel of an art university that handled the student applications. She told me that the committee had several instant exclusion criteria, one of which was fan art, or Manga-related art. People who would sent in a portfolio containing fan art or Manga-related art would get rejected instantly, on grounds of lacking both originality and style. This, however, is exactly what dA fosters. |
Farhad Manjoo: I think we’ve mentioned it before that if you are going out with someone and they don’t have a Facebook profile, you should be suspicious.
Only a FUCKING FAGGOT MANGINA could possibly come to this conclusion.
This is no different than proclaiming:
"Only those with plucked eyebrows and jersey shore tans can be considered normal."
or
"Only those who have spent more than 80 this week playing console games can be considered cool."
or
"Only those who eat salads from McDonalds can be considered healthy."
or
"Only those who wear Nikes can play basketball." |
Farhad Manjoo: I think we’ve mentioned it before that if you are going out with someone and they don’t have a Facebook profile, you should be suspicious.
Only a FUCKING FAGGOT MANGINA could possibly come to this conclusion.
This is no different than proclaiming:
"Only those with plucked eyebrows and jersey shore tans can be considered normal."
or
"Only those who have spent more than 80 this week playing console games can be considered cool."
or
"Only those who eat salads from McDonalds can be considered healthy."
or
"Only those who wear Nikes can play basketball." |
Here's a question...
Why the fuck does it matter if someone chooses to have a facebook account or not?
Like who the fuck even gives a shit about what other people choose to do?
This is the stupidest shit I have ever seen. Facebook sucks and if people don't want to have an account I don't blame them. I don't personally agree with Facebook tracking me and spying on me and giving my personal information to the government. As far as I'm concerned once people move on to the next thing and away from facebook I'll be right there with them. |
I've never had a Facebook in my life, and it really bothers me that people actually think this.
Does the fact that I want to get to know the guys I date over a cup of coffee rather than a Google search make me too old-fashioned to deserve to have dates at all?
Does it make me "underly attached girlfriend" when I don't feel the urge to clutter my boyfriend's Facebook with "luv ya babeee <3333333"? I tell him in person.
Look no further than [r/facepalm]( if you want to see what's wrong with society. Young couples make every hiccup in their relationship publicly known - why I would want anybody to know that we had an argument is absolutely beyond me - and they almost seem to post in a different language. Let me ask you something. Do you really want to consider me a serial killer because I didn't post what I had for breakfast for the whole world to see? Would it make you feel a little more secure in my presence if I told you that this morning, I had French toast, and tonight's dinner is going to be lasagna?
I understand that Facebook is, at its best, a tool to keep people connected who normally don't see each other. But the way I see it is this: if I want you in my life, chances are you're already there, and if we're not close enough to talk in person about our relationships or our plans for the weekend, there's probably a very good reason for that.
That said, I love reddit. I met someone on here that I knew in real life five years ago and had lost contact with, and by fluke, I recognised his username and we had a lovely chat. I understand the joy of reconnecting with someone you haven't talked to in a while. Now I have his Skype name and email address if I need him or have something to share, but I don't see notifications of his life every day. When we talk, we have much more to talk about for that reason. |
He was talking about [this]( post and others in the thread that say Forbes should be deligitamized for this article. Even though it clearly didn't advocate for treating non-Facebook users like pariahs, a bunch of people in this thread only skimmed it, saw quotes from other articles they didn't agree with, and decided Fuck Forbes . You were right obviously, but he was questioning whether that really matters at all considering the post is completely innocuous. |
Get off the grid? Are you kidding me? I have done this. I went backpacking in SE Asia for 4 months. It is relatively easy to get off the grid. However, the moment you get back to Society the convenience of living "in the grid" are amazing. I like my ATM card and I like my facebook friends, because get this. They are my friends! Oh guess what, if you work and have a W2 you are on the grid as well. I wish you luck finding some land to farm your lifestyle out for the rest of your life. You should probably get on that after you get off the internet.
Now I am not saying I approve of all the data mining that happens using social media and how important those devices have become. But I will say that besides some photos and the occasional joke I throw up as a status they are going to have to dig a bit harder. |
The only reason I liked my married name was because I was the only one in the entire world. It was so easy to find me, and as an author thats kind of important.
My maiden name isn't quite as exclusive and it's slightly frustrating, but not worth keeping the married name. |
I guess my attempt at making the token humorous reddit reply didn't quite take. |
Ok, I'm going to sum up how most people in the real world think. I've grown to love the mob mentality reddit has sometimes (aside from r/atheism) however, the way reddit thinks and the way most people think are quite different. (Don't worry, it's a good thing)
No Facebook Account? Assuming you are under 30 years old.....
Must not have had too many friends....
Probably doesn't like people.....
Lonely, emo, weirdo
Not social, so probably not very fun to be around
Did he/she do something bad and need to delete their account?
Are they in re-hab?
Probably not successful....
etc. etc.
The list could go on. It's a bunch of bullshit because personally I hate Facebook. I would love nothing more than to delete myself from everything and move to Fiji, live on a boat, and give scuba diving lessons to hot tourists. But, sadly, it's just the way it is. People judge other people for tiny things like not having a facebook and attribute that to tons of stupid shit that may or may not be true.
Facebook, however, can be a good networking tool for recent graduates and people looking for work. Since I am one of the youngest/few kids from my business school to work where I currently am, I get alot of messages from current students asking for advice. I am always happy to help them out and give a good reference. Facebook can serve as a good way of keeping in touch, and if you're unemployed, reaching out to alumni. However, if you don't have one and you're in college, people are going to think you're not social, and thus, a terrorist or something lol. |
Guess what? Fuck "Forbes" and fuck you all. I hate facebook and all the social websites. I wish I was 30 in the 70's so talking to another person would be face to fucking face without all the retard-ready emoticons and illiteracy that even a dog would shit on. Way to go humans! In a few tens of years we will implant dog tags ourselves inside of us so the power can "take care" of us. I sure hope human kind changes dramatically or a fucking meteorite destroys us all so we stop infecting this magnificent universe with idiocracy. Just imagine if human kind would be able to fly to other planets freely! We would probably start writing down "rofl pwnt" on them and start trading them like trading cards. In the end facebook will fuck you up anyway, after 90% of the world's population will own facebook accounts, they would probably vote on a law that makes you create your own facebook account, like an online-id, but owned by a third party that will send ads into your brains while you sleep. And everyone would fucking vote for that shit because people are fucking retarded. Especially with facebook's wonderful rules. Once you create your account, IT'S FUCKING THERE FOREVER. Your ip that was used all the fucking time, your location you name and pics. And if the government wants that shit, facebook just gives em the juice. In the end there will be 10% that will fight and die for freedom and the fucking zombies will kill and rape them. |
The largest one is that she says one out of three people are primarily introverted, so obviously there's a problem with the extrovert-centric world.
The flaw is that this means that two out of three people are, in fact, extroverted. This means that more people are extroverted. Unless we want to have 2 school systems, which would not be good for America's budget, we want to dedicate resources to the majorities. Yes, the introverts have to do less work. But if the world was mainly introvert-centered, the extroverts, a larger percentage, would struggle.
I agree that we need more introverted projects, I do. She gives good reason for that. But she basically says that the primary focus being on extroverted projects is wrong. And that's wrong. Most post-school projects, you know-the ones we all do for jobs daily, require working in a team. I.e. extrovert ideologies. Its just the way the world works. |
I can tell you exactly what's happened here, and I hope you and everyone sees it. The other news agencies who were covering the landing (using the same NASA footage) entered the ENTIRE broadcast as an asset in the content ID system - either because they're too lazy or incompetent. Content ID only does one thing - it matches content with other content. Its remarkably good at it (and in this case, too good.)
The thing that you have to remember is that the DMCA was written before "streaming" tech was even around. Thanks to the Copyright lobby, the DMCA (and the landscape of copyright enforcement at tech companies in general) is dramatically skewed in favor of content owners.
Whether it's YouTube, Vimeo, LiveStream, or Ustream - tech companies aren't in a position to make calls as to whether something is fraudulent or protected under "fair use" or "fair dealings" doctrines. This can ONLY be decided by courts. So, unfortunately, the legal climate is such that companies are much more willing to take content down than give the MPAA / RIAA / Viacoms of the world an opportunity to gain foothold in terms of litigation. |
Fuck youtube, they werent' some innocent little middleman 5 years ago when they had nuts to actually host decent content. I don't see why they think they can pull that card now just because they're bending over backwards against their original business model and willingly taking "content provider" cock up the ass. |
Dude this is ALL speculation so how can you even come to any of these conclusions?
They're all based on nothing, it's not even hearsay because you're legitimately making everything up as you have no actual information from megabox. |
Dude this is ALL speculation so how can you even come to any of these conclusions?
They're all based on nothing, it's not even hearsay because you're legitimately making everything up as you have no actual information from megabox. |
I have crazy ideas about how I am going to release my music, but this a load of BS even for me and I am super into creative commons. I think a balance b/w allowing others to use your work within the CC licensing protocols and still being able to generate revenue from the traditional copyright is presently the way to go. Also self publishing is simply a must. You need to own your work.
Marketing is expensive and there is no real way around that. Gorilla marketing strategies for independents are still not as effective as just having large amounts of cash to buy massive amounts of ad space. One: radio spot; billboard; article in any major magazine from Rolling Stone to VICE; TV spot on anything; appearance on a YouTube web show; all these can dramatically affect album sales, and piracy for that matter. As an independent you need to be a musician, publicist, marketing strategist, event planner, distributor, web master and more. It's a big job and not everyone is up to it. It can be a bunch of fun too. For me I love independent distribution. Custom packages, freebies. Things that make it extra nice for those who put down money.
As far as piracy goes every musician needs to come up with a method of dealing with it in a way they feel comfortable with. For example maybe you simply give your album away and ask for donations. See how that goes for one album. Another method some people might be more comfortable with would be to offer a free version of your album at one bitrate, and have the paid version be a FLAC file or something lossless. Perhaps you offer is a free version, an iTunes-CDBaby-Whatever paid version, and a vinyl version you personally distribute that has the highest profit margin. So there are three potential ideas that involve putting yourself out there more than building a moat around your music. I do agree with the general idea that this article highlights that giving out, or setting your artistic creations free, is genuinely a better principle than hoarding or over protecting them. That's if you want exposure. Many artists do not want that so protecting their IPs will be the way to go.
Still - and I will finish on this - artists really need to self-publish. Your art/music is all you'll ever make that is really worth anything for a long period of time. Simply put you create an asset when you write a song, and all artists need some type of IP asset to make a living. If you simply hand what you make over to others then you are left with nothing. 5 pts or % is what your left with from your 100% creation. I know what studios pay for so please don't respond with "but studios pay for the yada yada". I know fully well what they pay for. Still does not equate to 95% of the overall creation. That's the scam truth be told.
Why do we think these corporations want to own what musicians create so feverishly? Because the music is potentially the only valuable aspect of the entire business endeavor, especially if you happen to create a hit. That one song is worth so much money for so many years. Licensing and payments from BMI and ASCAP from one hit alone could make your life much more comfortable, or the lives of many people at the corporation who own your work.
Who is behind all the protection of music more than the artists who don't even own their own works? It's the big corporations withing the music industry that are pissed that "their" assets, are now being stolen from them! Although funny in an ironic sense this is no excuse for piracy. Basically don't take it out on the musicians.
Just my general thoughts on these subjects. |
Christ, it makes me sick to see you guys pouring money into this.
Granted Wikipedia is a good resource (mainly for references to legit sources), especially for college students... Or in my case, settling arguments via smartphone.
However , this kind of money could do SO much more on a smaller scale (ex:
Info & education is going to be free / affordable no matter what in the digital age. There is no stopping it.
Universities are increasingly offering free or affordable online classes from top-notch professors.
We have way too many over-educated, under-skilled 20-somethings right now. I think we need to be taking better care of our teachers on the lower levels.
$1,000 would go a loooong way for a teacher who pays out of pocket for basic supplies in a lower income elementary school. |
It's because we have a lot more land. And the vast majority of our land is actually usable, not like Canada or Russia or Antarctica. And we only have about 315 million people, not 1.4 billion like China for roughly the same amount of land area.
Not only that, having large pieces of land also drives down construction prices. Need a bunch of wood to build your house? In some areas of the country it's as cheap as the cost of an ax. Just chop down a bunch of nearby trees.
Having large properties also means places like concrete factories can better utilize economies of scale. And since land is cheap, it's cheaper just to buy 20 machines that can produce y amounts of finished goods like concrete or nails, than to buy less machines, because of space, that cost double or more (more efficient models say), yet produce 1.2y if that, then deal with downtime of 10% rather than 5%.
The only big cost problem would be transportation, but our fuel taxes are low, our highway system is great, our cargo train network is actually not that bad either, and our seaports are plentiful, so it probably costs us less for us to ship something 1000 miles than it'll cost most countries to ship it 300 miles. |
So you're saying they have nothing to do with their current situation??
No, I'm saying it's not simply black and white, literally. "Black people won't help themselves" is a deliberately ignorant statement because it puts a blindfold over reality. I was hoping it wouldn't boil down to that.
>Blacks only hanging out with blacks and Asians only hanging out with Asians
> Whites are the only ones not segregating.
Another ignorant statement. First, white people do intentionally segregate themselves. It happens all the time. Whitey will leave when their territory is being encroached on just the same as ever. You wouldn't believe how many people called me crazy for moving into a black neighborhood (or maybe you would).
Why is this? Class. I'll get to that soon.
Minorities suffering from de facto segregation suffer because they lack upward mobility, they can live in an inner city black neighborhood because it is cheap as an investment (from the property value collapse during white flight) or because their circumstances have never allowed them the opportunity to leave. How many middle class blacks live in the ghetto? Very few. How many integrated into the suburbs? Most.
What is the underlying cause of this class difference? A tradition of state sponsored racism. The legacy of slavery.
> There are plenty of other groups that were treated the same way
No there aren't. There are no other groups that were treated the same. Not one. That statement is the most ridiculous thing you've said and demonstrates a clear and present danger to your ability to understand anything presented below.
"Oh but slavery was over 100 years ago," you're saying, "They've had 60 years of white schools and 40 years of integration." Yeah, and how many generations do you think it takes to catch up in terms of education and opportunity when just 4-5 generations ago your family was legally mandated to be illiterate, 4-2 generations ago they were thrown to the fringes of society and completely discriminated against, and only just the last two generations had equality from the get-go?
You might not think it would take long, but I imagine you're looking at it from a middle class standpoint. How long does it take when you have near zero mobility? Neither person A's parents or grandparents were very educated, never made much money, and don't encourage A's education because such situations tend to perpetuate themselves. To make matters worse they live in a bad area with a bad school filled with other poor kids with ignorant families (thanks to white flight after school desegregation). Let's also remember that this is America and our entire culture looks down on education. Ghetto culture more-so because none of the cool or powerful people in that area are educated. So to gain acceptance person A joins a gang. Or just drops out. Or whatever, the point is A is born with more disadvantages than you could possibly have ever had by birthright because of history.
> 1) Broken/non-married families and absent fathers not setting good examples for their children (the stats show that < 50% of African-American families have fathers that actually stay around)
A symptom of everything above.
> 2) Women having kids at a young age/without a way to support themselves.
See above.
> 3) A culture that looks down on education and success.
See above the above.
> Things like these can't be changed through legislation.
This is the only thing you've said right. |
You're correct that jobs will be created, but incorrect regarding the source of those jobs. There won't be much of a change in the number of people required to support the automation, compared to the additional products that are currently impractical to build today due to the production costs. As stuff gets cheaper, there is more ability to customize and optimize for the same price. |
Not really... Sure child-labor is a terrible thing and the only positive outcome would be less of it. These manufacturers let them create it because it's cheaper. They are letting robots do the work because they are even cheaper. |
You can produce 10x the amount of stuff with those 10k workers + robots.
That's how capital works. Sure escavators can do the work of something like 100 guys with shovels. But it also allows us to build much bigger projects quickly. And that is what happened, we didn't have permanent unemployment because we put those hundred guys out of work. We started building bigger and better things.
Ok so say you're building widgets. You used to have 10,000 people wroking on the assembly line. Every time you release an improved version of your widget you're paying the robot maintenance people to retool and upgrade your robots.
You're competition is going to be improving their widgets more often to get an edge on you. So now you have to improve yours at a similar rate. This increases the workload for the robot maintenance guys.
Eventually we get to the point where we have just as many working on updating product design, and improving the robots to be able to build those updated designs as you currently have working on the assembly lines. There is a lot of work in developing new products.
Sure if everyone in the world wanted to live exactly as they do now, and never want new products, just food, shelter and simple clothing, your scenario would be correct. But people do want new products, they want new styles, and new features. And that's what people will be working on. There will be a shift from assembly line work to design, fashion, and marketing.
This isn't anything new. New technology has always been improving capital allowing us to produce more with our labour. This has never resulted in a permanent loss of jobs. |
We dealt with a firm that my predecessor hired to implement a system for one of our businesses that is Indian owned and 100% Indian coded. About half of the work is done here and the other half in India.
The system doesn't perform basic functions for its intended use and has numerous mathematical errors in calculations. When we tried to get them to correct them they couldn't figure out how to do it. All reports are generated in PDF (and formatted in a way that makes data extraction almost impossible) and when we explained it needed to be in Excel (which is even listed as an option) they couldn't make it happen. As we asked for changes we found one coder would make a change and save it then another coder would upload his changes to a different part of the system and overwrite the changes of the first coder.
We then decided to hire a SQL expert to help us build an interface to extract the data and make the system usable and she found that the tables were such a mess it was virtually impossible. The same data would be stored multiple places but it didn't appear it would automatically update in every location until certain functions were performed.
The system couldn't be used to manage deal flow because the interface was so clumsy what should have been a data entry job required someone very confident in their computer skills. Fields were out of order from standard usage (City, Zip, State for example) slowing usage. It was simply too crappy to roll out to our business partners. Of course it turned out that didn't matter because when they said "web based" they meant assuming we let brokers VPN in to our network.
At the end of the day we have a fairly expensive database that we can't use for much more than tracking payment histories. |
The Android platform is everything that is wrong with the software industry, condensed into a mini-drama. Feature creep explosion, versioning hell, and a complete lack of focus on incremental updates to long-term user functionality or old buggy services. The RAM just fills up with crap because they took away user-control of processes, and the ability to close a process. |
It's not unfeasible IIRC they've "rewired their systems to make this work" to put it in laymans terms. I'd have no issue with this if it was simply OPT IN for everyone already on an internet connection, if they wanted a simple way to monitor what you get up to online if Snowden leaks are anything to come by it's quite obvious they can already do that.
I think there should be a national filter but it should be opt in, you're right it's up to the parents to control what kids get up to online. But lets be honest kids can get round most software based filters easily, and some parents/adults find using a computer hard anyway I doubt they'd be up for downloading or knowing what kind of software is best. That's why blocking it at an ISP level is good, all they have to do is tick boxes and it's all done for them.
In terms of how Reddit responds to this I agree with you, this isn't a way to monitor what people get up to they can already do that etc etc. |
Yes! Finally!
The more annoying shit facebook does, the sooner people will jump ship for something else. I don't even care what. All it took was for Rupert Murdoch to buy Myspace and people fled like rats from a sinking ship. And while Murdoch is a scumbag, there weren't any major changes made at the time. Facebook makes announcements like this....guh, it feels like every quarter, and people still stay there. WTF? |
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding on how electricity is used and paid for.
Lets say you have 100amp service to your home at 120v (common US Residential service). That equals 12kW service.
If you used all 100amps for entire month you would be billed by the power company for 8640kW/h of Electrical Usage.
Now on Internet Bandwidth your "speed" can be considered your "amp" service for power.
If you have say a 25Mb/s connection with a 300 GB cap per month. That is 2400 Gbits or 2,457,600 Mbits
If you could max out that 25Mb/s connection you would consume 90,000 Mbits per hour or 2,160,000 per day.
So you would consume your "cap" in about 1 day, now in the real world would would never be able to sustain that connection probally so you would get a few more days out of it but it would be essentally like the power company cutting off your electricity at 288kW/h of usage. |
I agree that the changes are sometimes difficult, especially when they make the YT experience different than what I was used to. But I think a larger point here is that YT is probably getting more viewers with the disintegration of cable television. I can't tell you how many people I know have told me that they spend hours watching one YT video after another. We have friends, and they do "music video marathons" now that last hours and serve as a drinking game with their friends (i.e., if you see a members only jacket, you have to drink, and so on). So I'm guessing that YT is trying to prepare the platform for waves of new viewers, seeking free content, to replace or supplement their television. |
I agree with what you said. The first half of his message, I agree with. Android is on a range of price points on a range of OEMs. Windows Phone is on a range of handsets on effectively one OEM. Of course Android will grow faster. The second half of his message, i don't agree with.
See, he uses unit sales to say that Android growing much faster than Windows Phone, but uses market share to say that Nokia were better with Symbian.
He combines Windows Phone flat growth and Symbian dropping growth to make it look like Symbian was massive, and Nokia was wrong to destroy it. He uses the graph to say things like "[Windows Phone growth] is growth that was acheived by a massacre of the biggest installed base of loyal customers this young smartphone industry had ever seen."
He doesn't show unit sales of Symbian and Windows Phone here because that would disprove his point.
He doesn't post unit sales of Symbian relative to unit sales of the rest of the market before 2010, because that would show that Symbian was dieing and that would disprove his point. |
Your stock price determines the cost of doing business. If the price drops too low it raises your borrowing costs. Even companies like Apple with billions of dollars in the bank need capital occasionally for day to day operations, and a lower stock price raises the cost of borrowing.
The cost of borrowing is determined by something called the capital asset pricing model (CAPM). This uses the beta of the company's stock (basically to measure risk) and their leverage (basically a ratio of debt to equity). If the stock price goes down, the equity value is decreased, increasing the leverage of the company, increasing the borrowing costs. Furthermore since the debt to equity change makes your company more "risky" existing investors demand a higher dividend to compensate for the extra risk. |
Couple of things. Moving fiber to the node does improve speeds as it reduces the distance between the DSLAM and the DSL modem. Hardware advances allowed at the dslam for up to 25mbit per pair wire, and pair bonding but it was critical to reduce the distance in order for this to work (FTTN). With this additional bandwidth IPTV (uverse) was now possible (3-4 HD channels simultaneously at 6mbit per channel, whilst permitting you to still have enough bandwidth for internet ensured by QoS.
Technically (while I personally believe the price should be lower) the pricing is still in line with other DSL offerings (even from non competing markets), but the pricing is just shoved to bundled packages in order to encourage triple play subscription (phone, tv, internet).
Current fiber prices (where not heavily subsidized by google) are roughly $2000/mo for the physical connection alone with bandwidth prices being charged on top of that and even then in some cases copper wires are still used and bonded together using something like an [aktino](
The last mile isn't really the problem right now, even if every house had direct fiber it doesn't solve the gigantic contract battles going on between ISP's and CDN's (content distribution networks). |
Buzzfeed works by pushing out bullshit lists to targeted demographics.
'10 reasons you know you went to new york state' if your IP shows you're in the NY area
'8 reasons UCLA is the bomb' If you're from that area.
And they split their information into multiple page tabs to get reloads to get more add revenue. It is a figurative (almost literal) money treadmill that you are powering for them.
They get demographic information from quizzes to feed you more bullshit lists to target more ads at you to get more money.
The lists are totally arbitrary as well. The numbers don't even matter. They don't consistently have 'the top 10 reasons' or anything like that it's always whatever number the asshole who wrote the list ran out of ideas at.
When you see shit like 'Why x is the best restaurant on earth' and you know damn well the person who wrote that hasn't been to any restaurant outside of their own city you will begin to question the quality of that website at last on a sub conscious level.
They fit in the same category as bullshit like The Chive. |
The point of the raspberry pi is to be a static hardware platform for learning, if you want to get you're software to do more, you can't be lazy and hope that the upgrade cycle will make your shit code run faster. you have to refine your code to work with the limited hardware, this is where you learn to be a ninja coder.
look at static platforms from the 1980s, check out demo-scene today of people still developing demos for these old machines, you'll find FMV video players, 3D rendering with bump mapping, full audio mixers and a whole load of other stuff you couldn't imagine running on that old gear.
give people a challenge and they'll do amazing things. |
im hearing 2 things... first, this is all completely speculative and your subjective opinion on what may or may not happen. you have zero actual data to back up any of your assumptions.
secondly, youre basing future behavior on current technology rather than future behavior on future technology. |
And I'm not trying to sway the conversation here or beat a dead horse, but with isp's trying their hardest to stop high speed internet from reaching the general public due to "load" on their infrastructure and general greedy money grabbing, unless there's widespread adoption to fiber speed (30m+) it will be hard to stream 4k.
I have two homes now. 35mbps fios in NYC and 100mbps fiber in Seattle, both symmetric. I can direct stream my 1080p high bitrate mkv (10 GB files, with DTS audio) via Plex media server without transcoding from NY. If the file is about 20gb it would start stuttering in some scenes due to its high bitrate. I doubt I can do this without at least a 30m line. Imagine how much more bandwidth you would need for 4k media without crazy compression causing massive quality loss and keeping high quality discrete multi channel digital sound.
So, |
Apple has never had to deal with Payments, and especially the customer service around payments at scale before. My hunch is Apple is in for a rude awakening.
Almost all of these cases are due to PayPal's fraud detection where they freeze accounts due to suspicious or fraudulent activity. There is nothing evil or malicious about what PayPal is doing, they are trying to protect the money of both the buyer and seller. There is really no incentive for PayPal to freeze or hold funds. They are not a bank and cannot hold those deposits or make interest off of them.
I'd say that almost all of these cases are just as sensationalized as the NYT article. If I'm looking at a company that can protect my money from fraud or loss, PayPal is far more trusted than Apple. Apple has simply never been in this space, thus they clearly state they are not gathering this information (eg. "We don't know what you buy"), because honestly, they just can't handle it.
I think the NYT advertisement is a little sensationalized by PayPal, but not for the reasons listed. It's because Apple does not even attempt to gather/store the information thus the security of said information is not really in question. Granted, I'd be concerned about a fraudster using my Apple pay to buy things, but since Apple is not the payment processor, you would be covered under your standard CC fraud protection through whatever payment processor the merchant is already using. I think that's missing here is any incentive for the merchant to adopt Apple Pay/NFC other than possibly convenience (maybe saves time at checkout?).
With that said, PayPal could use some improvement in their processes for accounts freezes and issue resolution, but it has significantly improved over the years, and for every person you see that has had issues, there are many more than absolutely love the service that PayPal provides. Like Kleenex or Coke, "PayPal me" has a meaning that goes beyond the brand name.
When you look at this stuff, you really need to understand the intent and the incentives for the business. It's in PayPal's best interest to make the customers happy and protect the customers as much as possible. The only incentive PayPal has for freezing an account is to protect either the buyer or seller, or to comply with regulatory requirements (eg. People under the age of 18). Granted, improvements can be made in how they handle it, but PayPal is clearly not the bad guy that some people make it out to be.
Apple on the other hand, is in a completely different space. They are purposefully not gathering the payment information, not processing the payments, and not assuming any of the risk or liability associated with the payment. They are merely providing a service to connect your wallet with a pre-existing payment processor .(which oddly enough, could still be PayPal on the back end). Now if this takes off, and Apple Pay is the key piece in the middle, you better believe they're evaluating opportunities on how they can capitalize on the payments pie (which is big $$$) whether through data insights, or processing the payment themselves, or some sort of key partnership where they take a cut.
I think there is just a lot of misinformation in the payments industry, and PayPal has a PR problem. |
Businesses invest for two reasons: They think they can extract profit through growth, or they think there is an asset which is not valued correctly.
(there's a third reason, which is that you can buy something and then affect the value of it - like a 'pump-n-dump' penny stock scam, or a number of classic con artist tricks, but these are not underpinnings of a stable economy.)
One of the biggest threats to a business is not being able to accurately measure risks. These risks can be mitigated by having common measurements of value, assets, and liabilities. Entering into an agreement to purchase something or sell something, when you can't get a good picture of the other party's financial position, increases those risks greatly.
Auditors are annoying, time-wasting, nosy people - until you're trying to find out, "does company X actually have the assets it claims to have, and does it have unencumbered title to them". Stable currencies - dollars, euros, sterling - all have very well-defined values; they are a proxy for any asset.
There's no doubt a market in trading bitcoins or the like, but it's much more like the high-frequency trading market, with penny stocks - there's a lot of doubt about whether you're buying something that has any actual value, and even if you're just playing the price differences, the track record of the currency is dubious in the long term.
Over a very long term, there may be other currencies coming and going, but the bank down the street feels confident enough in the almighty dollar to make 30-year agreements based on it, with a small margin made possible only because there's a universal assumption that the value of that dollar is going to be the benchmark against which fluctuations in other currencies will be measured.
( |
And I don't really see a downside of putting a small amount of your discretionary wealth into an investment which will become deflationary. |
I got a windows 8 laptop almost two years ago, and I have to say I love it to bits. 8.1 made it even better. It takes a bit of getting used to, but I find it so satisfying being able to swipe the charms up, and searching for what ever I want. It feels so much smoother and more natural than doing the same search process with Windows 7. My biggest pet peeve is the tile menu, and how unreliable my internet connection on start up is. When I pull it out of sleep mode or turn it on, it recognises the internet connection until it's logged in. Then it drops it for a few minutes whilst it "refinds" it. |
I just got finished using a Windows 8.1 system at work and I didn't really notice any difference in usability. The layout is slightly different, but stuff is in the same places and takes the same steps.
> The restart/shutdown button is hidden, because touchscreen devices have physical buttons to turn off the screen and Win 8 is not designed for people with mice/keyboards.
There is practically no difference between Win7 and Win8.1 here. Win7: Click "start" and then click "shut down" (or carat and 'log off"). Win8.1: Click "start," click the power symbol, then click "shut down" (or log off). One additional click isn't a big deal to me. I could see this being easier with a touch screen by just swiping in from the side, but on a keyboard I get it just as easy by pushing the "windows" button.
> There is no start menu...It doesn't work the way that most people expect Windows to work.
Again, I didn't see much of a difference between the two OSes, except the obvious change in layout. Win7: Click "start," go to programs, and see list of programs. Win8.1: click "start" see list of programs. Is it different? Sure. Is it a big deal? Maybe if you absolutely despise change or are just unable to adapt.
I have two older coworkers (late 50's, early 60's) who were recently upgraded to Windows 8.1 - for the first few days I would say there were some issues and some bitching, but after some time and some guidance the last couple of weeks have been pretty much back to normal.
> I have to troubleshoot basic usability on a near daily basis because Windows 8 is not intuitive as a desktop operating system for regular users compared to any previous version of Windows.
I have noticed that when our IT guys change something that there are plenty of issues and complaints afterwards. When IT upgraded these guys to Win8.1, he got the system setup, powered it on, logged in, and made sure Outlook connected to the mail server. After that, he left. No training, no guidance, no explanation of anything. I don't know what the situation is where you are at, but to get things cleaned up here I spent some time guiding them through the changes (I am not in IT, btw) after which it was pretty much how it used to be. A more involved approach isn't always possible, especially in large work places, but I think it does make a significant difference. |
As a principal engineer and hiring manager for several companies ranging from startup to fortune 10, boring healthcare to bleeding edge and super nerdy EA games, I don't feel the ageism crap that many people claim is so prevalent in tech is very true anymore.
The trend that I do see though is a failure to keep up from the old guard. True, everything that is out now has evolved from previous technology, but that doesn't mean you're even remotely qualified to work on the new tech. If you've restored classic chevys your entire life, that doesn't mean you would have a clue what the hell you're doing when it comes to working on a Tesla.
A real scenario that came in a few months ago was a sysadmin that worked at IBM up the road for two decades. He understood computer science inside and out, and had a command of c that was absurdly amazing. He had managed the severs as a senior engineer since before internet was even really a thing.
However, he knew precisely none of our stack. He didn't understand docker, any modern web technologies like nginx, databases such as mongo or nosql in general, any sort of modern front end compilation needs or that assets in the front end could even be compiled, nor any part of our toolchain. But of course as a senior engineer with that much experience he was demanding a 150k salary.
In short, he could have eventually been a stellar devops engineer. However, since he didn't bother to keep up with tech he's now a dinosaur and at his pay scale, we were able to pick up some of the top talent in the industry.
If we're looking to hire someone into a senor role, we're looking for a senor in that technology not to train someone. Either keep up, or take a lower position and learn the new stuff and work your way back up. |
When the competition (netflix) is giving a more legitimate option that clearly demonstrates that hulu's priority is the advertiser over the consumer (i.e. why don't they allow the consumer to pay a higher price and avoid ads when it is glaringly possible) then I find that situation illegitimate. These shows can get paid for if hulu just allowed an option at any price that would make it happen. What they don't want is viewers to get used to not having ads and don't want to lose that cash flow so they force the consumer to do something they don't want. I feel like people have a right not to be coerced so heavy handedly and can use piracy if that is the case. |
Looking at the numbers from last year, with streaming alone Netflix made (profit) $776,431,000 with an average of 49,814,000 subscribers during the year. At least one source claims it costs up to $4.5 million per episode for a Netflix show. Figure 58.5 million per season of a show (4.5 million per show * 13 shows per season). That means that Netflix could add 13 more original content shows per year and still make a very modest profit if their membership numbers remain consistent. They made additional profit on their DVD service as well, but that will probably be killed as soon as it's no longer profitable. Also, the 13 shows that they could produce per year would be in addition to the 17 shows they already have in production, since those costs are already factored into profit for the year. Of course I didn't account for some shows being cheaper, or any of their documentaries, miniseries, or special events that are currently available.
Also worth noting is that as a new customer $7.99/mo gets you standard def only, it's $8.99/mo for HD, $11.99/mo for UltraHD. The price point also changes how many devices you can watch on concurrently.
I will admit that I didn't find anything that says how much of the "Cost of Revenue" is actually production of shows vs. any kind of operating cost (lights, servers, HVAC, Private Peering, etc.), nor do I know how far in advance they are with funding the upcoming untitled shows and movies they've announced.
It's important to remember that all the content producers now that are selling rights to CBS, Fox, and the others broadcast/cable channels could just as easily start pitching directly to Netflix. |
ahhh, the military industrial complex. such a big farce that most of the people directly involved don't even see it. as a veteran I can honestly say that I do not feel like a single day that I served actually did any good for anyone other than a select few stockholders and politicians.
there is a reason that we have seen the rise of terms like, extended military exercise, operation of liberation, and I hate to say it; post traumatic stress disorder.
these terms are used to minimize the effects noticed by the general public about the war that we constantly bring to others front yards. don't get me wrong, ptsd is a real thing, and it is horrible, but calling it ptsd is a way of hiding what it really is and why it happens. 50 years ago it was called shell shock, but that was too vivid and real.
extended military exercise/engagement/operation/occupation, whatever the fuck, is just a way of allowing the general public to keep watching reality tv without thinking about the fact that we have been at war pretty steadily since the early 90s. if the general public doesn't think about the fact that we have been killing people halfway around the world for 25 years, it makes it easier to convince them that people hate us because of our freedom. we literally have flying killer robots. you call it a drone, I know better.
just imagine that you are 30 years old and live in some no name village in Iraq. now, you didn't ask to be born there, or have a desire to brought up in that environment. you only know what you've seen and been told. what you've seen is a foreign nation invade your country, fail at taking out your leader, and return a second time with more people, more weapons, and more hostility. you've seen soldiers drive through your front yard in a vehicle that costs more than you will likely spend in your lifetime, camping in your front yard, shitting in a box in front of your family, and they kill your neighbors before they leave.
so, when you have a family of your own, and can't find enough money to feed your kids, and have been living with a U.S. military boot on your neck for most of your life, how would you respond to the offer of ensuring that your family is fed and protected while simultaneously being able to extract revenge against the infidels who have destroyed your life? oh, but they hate us because we are free, and they are bound by Sharia law, they hate our iPhones, and that our women walk around half naked. the fact that anyone buys that pile of shit excuse is shameful. they don't envy our way of life, they look down on us for mocking their religion and way of life. they hate that we represent a way of life that goes against everything they have learned about the right way to live, and at the same time we are successful at keeping them held down to a standard of living that is slowly choking them to death.
we have been fucking up an entire region of the world with our military, followed by our corrupt businesses to help rebuild and liberate, for most of my life. we blow up entire towns because of a few "high value targets" and walk away with the mentality that we did the world a favor. the reality is, for every person we kill that was actually a threat to us, we only create multiple more people willing to die for the chance to blacken our eye. it's a shame that no one living today has seen a military engagement on U.S. soil. we have allowed ourselves to become so detached from what we do to other people, that we cannot fathom why they dislike us.
the greatest kicker of the whole thing? it has all been done for corporate profits. Haliburton, Northrop Grumman, simplex grinell, whatever they call blackwater now, all together make up a huge group of people who only profit if we are fighting someone. the sad part is, we have been doing it so long, that if we did actually stop fighting, it would hurt a lot of average American families. these companies who thrive on carnage have become so engrained in the economy, that there would be a noticeable spike in unemployment if we stopped ordering missiles and riles and flak jackets.
now, I dare anyone to justify to me how we can spend an incalculable amount of money every month on waging a war against an enemy with the equivalent of sticks and stones, but we cannot afford a UBI. people like Mitt Romney and Sheldon Adelson pay an effective tax rate around 12% (that we know of) and yet the government needs to take 25% or so of my 70k a year. it's all bullshit. but we slurp it up like turtle stew. |
The only reason it is secret, is that contract negotiations are almost always confidential because it allows all parties to negotiate/ speak openly without having to deal with how the public would interpret the extremely complex and technical drafts.
When all parties have agreed on a version of the treaty, it would go to their respective parliaments or treaty approval mechanisms where their would be opportunity for public oversight. If the President (referring to Obama) gets the "fast track authority" which seems unlikely, the ability for the public to review/ object to the treaty would be severely limited. |
Can someone give me the |
Yeah, no.
However, persistent identity online is intrinsically fulfilling for many young people as it grants them the illusion of emotional and intellectual proximity with their peers. Their false sense of fulfillment leads them to post more honest information about themselves and said information is generally widely available.
Let's put this in a scenario.
Say I meet a girl while standing in line for a movie. She is with friends but acts like she's into me nevertheless. We go in and watch the movie, separately. After the film is over, the theater is emptying and I see her leaving. I gather the balls to run up and ask if I can call her sometime, she gives me her number, things are awesome. A week later, I haven't called because I'm a ginormic pansy. My buddy who was with me when I picked up on this girl recommends we do some facebook recon. We're geeks so our altered social convention allows this behavior. A few name searches later, we find her profile, though she doesn't share her information with those who aren't her friend. My buddy gets this idea that he should send her a friend request, and should she accept, we can look at her information and pictures. Pretty good idea, buddy. He requests. 24 hours later, we're hanging again and we see she has accepted his request, no questions asked. We gleefully click through her albums in which no men exist and pictures of her friends abound. Lots of shoes, eyeballs, fenceposts, depth-free landscapes all unsharp-masked and sepia-toned in some shitty HP program. Disappointing, but whatever. Then we click on her Info tab. Rife with spelling errors and FucKEd uP cApITalIZatIoN. Uh oh. Favorites books include the Hobbit and... Twilight. Favorite movies are Gone With The Wind and What A Girl Wants. Hold on, we're in for some chop. A quick look at her Notes reveals she writes amateur poetry devoid of convention and structure. All wall posts are from her mom and an apparent family friend across the country. Best friend is apparently a sister.
These are things which send me to the hills. I didn't even have to spend the $70 necessary on a decent date to figure out me and this girl are incompatible. Best of all, she doesn't even know my buddy, so he can just de-friend her and all evidence of my research is gone. |
In the last couple of years, a friend of mine at another startup here in Silicon Valley hired a "social media marketing" firm that employed msaleem--one of the (former?) top power-users on Digg--who is still quite adept at pandering to the Digg masses (ref: this current post:
My friend's startup literally paid to have msaleem coach them on how to create content--presented on my friend's startup's web app--that he could then submit to Digg as a power-user. He went through this exercise with them until their content got front-paged on Digg. Voila! "Influencer marketing." |
If you haven't seen The Social Network, I'd suggest you do. It touches upon this aspect. We are social creatures and when you successfully tap into that idea, it runs like wildfire.
A couple of years ago, the idea was genuine ... even facebook. But now that "social networking" has become a buzzword, everybody in the boardroom thinks it's their ticket to riches. Social networking is now ubiquitous.
I'd also watch the documentary Helvetica. In a strange sense, the history of that font somewhat mirrors what I'm talking about. When Helvetica came out, it was "the perfect font." It exploded and everyone used it because it was ... well ... "perfect." Then people come around to realize that no, it is not in fact the font to use in every situation and sometimes it's just terrible. |
I don't even remember Digg anymore. It's like that ex-girlfriend that wasn't so good to you but you kept with it because you didn't think there was anything better out there.
I had seen Reddit around for a year or so, little smiles, some small talk, but I just didn't see us going anywhere. But then one day I got a little frisky and called Reddit up, "Hey baby, let's give us a shot." So for a week or two we snuck around behind Digg's back, and though I'd always go home to Digg at the end of the day, my heart was growing enamored to Reddit. Then one day I didn't feel conflicted anymore, there was no doubt in my heart. I took Digg out to a new window all by ourselves and closed it for good, never to look back. |
I'm sure Digg is getting less traffic, but this story is no proof of it. If it were anything, it's proof that the new Digg is BETTER*. One of the main reasons for Digg 4 was because a small % of users and sites gets to the front page. So the TechRadar's not getting as much Digg traffic doesn't automatically mean Digg is getting less traffic, but it could mean that the traffic is getting divided more evenly among other sites, other (maybe less known) sites. Digg 4 is not Digg anymore, because everyone is not getting the same front page anymore. People choose who they "follow" (people who make the content, and people who find the content), and they get links accordantly. Personally, IMO, I think if I know who to "follow", I don't need Digg to help me find content, I would just subscribe to their RSS feed, but it's not my site, and I can use reddit. |
Gotta admit the comment is an attention-grabber which is an element that dictates the success of the posting.
Even if he did "steal" the comment. No big deal. Perhaps he had the same coincidence, like the other 42 people that voted it. Comment isnt extremely exclusive. When I was young around the times of modem I used to sneak and play Age of Empires II, careful not to wake my mother. |
Yes, there are costs behind the scenes that are attributable to adding and maintaining customer accounts.
I assure you, they could more than pay for ALL of their expenses without having to charge a single cent for text messaging, which piggybacks off of the already existing equipment they've owned and operated for decades.
Additional network coverage has nothing to do with txt, as calls and txts are sent over the same system. So the only thing that really determines network coverage is customers, as they're the ones with the phones that need the coverage.
Staffing Call centers, yeah, that's determined by number of customers, once again.
Brick and Mortar, or physical like us normal people like to say, stores are not affected by txt messages. They're once again affected by customers. You need customers to build new stores, which are maintained by maintaining/adding customer accounts and selling physical products, not text messages.
See what I'm getting at here? It is basically FREE for them to provide texting, and it's a service they very easily can provide for free, but why do something for free when you can do it for money? |
What's gone wrong is when Apple has been trying to take some of their learnings from iOS and use them in OSX. Some of them work, others are stupid. Disappearing scrollbars belong to the second category.
On a mobile or tablet screen, there's only one scrollable "viewport". When you scroll, the entire screen scrolls. Scrolling is also much more intuitive, you drag the content with your finger across the screen. With this inherent "feel" for the content and the limited screen real estate on a smaller screen, disappearing, minimalist scroll bars are an excellent idea.
On a traditional computer screen that's manipulated with a keyboard or a mouse you don't have this "feel" for the content in the same way. And on a desktop screen you'll have multiple windows that can each have multiple scrollable "viewports" anywhere inside them. If you then hide these scrollbars you can't see which parts of the page may have more content revealable by scrolling, and you end up with the "find the scrollbars" usability joke that you can see in the new Facebook, GMail, GReader, etc. Reducing the size of scrollbars can be a good thing though, as websites will often have content with even less available space than on a mobile. |
Hell, there are browsers for DOS out there. Regardless of system limitations, IE6 is so insecure that you would be masochistic to use it. There are a lot of web sites that won't render correctly on IE6 as well, its usefulness is limited anyway.
Given that you specify 64Mb of RAM, I'm going to assume this is a Pentium II or around there. Most web sites these days make heavy Javascript use, and that has made web browsing painfully slow even on my Athlon XP 1800+ with Linux. Also, IE6 would not be compatible with a lot of that Javascript code, either. |
As a personal computer I think they come around 50%. I work at my schools tech shop and we keep track of what type of computer we work on and it trends to be closer to a 60-40 trend. This also might be because if you can afford collage its more likely you can afford a mac so we tend to see more macs we also probably only see 1 in 20 xp machines but this is also because most the computers that come in are less then 4 years old. We really only get laptops. But that xp statistic doesn't surprise me because even though were sposed to be this tech fancy shop we have fucking xp machines with over powered hardware. Its bull shit we have 4gb of ram but are xp can really only use 2(or so I hear) and we are also forced to used IE8. We don't even get to use any other browsers but we ended up ... fuck this I'm ranting sorry bout that. |
I concur, whether we want to admit it or not piracy has dealt major blows to many fields. How much is the real question because not every pirated copy of anything equals a lost sale. Also for instance I've pirated many movies and if I like the movie I buy it, if I don't like it then I don't buy it. Not a perfect system but I wouldn't have bought the movies/games/music outright anyway, the economy sucks and I can't afford to just toss away money on garbage without at least demoing it first. |
I would say Apple has been at a level to be worth attacking for a very, very long time: millions of users, many of whom are old or otherwise tech illiterate, none of whom have antivirus installed, all of whom believe their computer is immune? Excellent target. Plus, you release one virus and you're suddenly on all the big news channels!
So I don't think you can chalk it up entirely to being unpopular because it isn't unpopular and it would be a good target. That's part of it, sure. However, I don't think that explains how the Mac went six years in its current form without a single major virus.
I do think the basic structure of the Mac may very well be more secure. That doesn't mean it "doesn't get viruses". Anyone who doesn't have antivirus is an idiot. And Macs are certainly safer even if they aren't more secure because they're less common. |
Point of semantics: Malware and Viruses (Virii?) are not exactly interchangable. Viruses are a subset of malware that spread between computers without any interaction from users. Stuxnet is a good example of a virus, where OSX.Puper (the most recent "Mac virus") is actually a trojan horse.
Now, given this, there are no known modern Mac viruses. In the 90's and early 2000's, there were viruses that spread via Word macros, and a few others that spread via floppies that I still have saved in my parents' attic. But there are not actual viruses for OS X in the wild.
Also, there are fewer actual viruses for Windows PCs in the wild these days. The vast majority of malware out there are trojan horses that go on to download other bits of malware, but actual viruses, which spread themselves with via networks and email, are more rare (primarily due to better security these days).
Operating systems CAN be more or less secure against VIRUSES, and OS X has always been fairly secure. OS X is more secure than Windows XP was, and given the fact that Windows XP had such a long run (and the general lack of other malware written for Macs), this gave rise to the perception that the Mac OS is more protected than Windows, and "Macs can't get viruses." Apple Marketing, of course, jumped all over this statement, and helped spread it around a lot. But if you worked for Apple, you would too. You'd be a fool not to. It's basic marketing 101. The reality, however, is that Microsoft, with Windows Vista and 7, has really stepped up their game in terms of system security, and Windows 7 is pretty much as secure as OS X.
As I mentioned before, Mac OS X is fairly protected from viruses. There's a number of steps Apple took to ensure this. The first, and most important, is that OS X allows code to execute itself without the user's permission. Software will not autorun from a CD or a flash drive like in early versions of Windows, nor will it auto run from your email client, or downloaded files. OS X also has layers of security that prevent software, or users, from doing things they are not supposed to. For an example of this, think of the "Delete system32" meme from 4chan. Windows XP would actually allow you to delete (or modify, which is what viruses are more interested in) the core operating system files without much of a hassle. OS X does not allow stuff like this, unless you take several specific steps to do so. (i.e. log in as root all the time) Viruses would have a very hard time actually infecting the operating system, because it would have to prompt the user for an administrator password every time it tried to change something. You actually saw this in the early variations of OSX.Puper; When the software was initially downloaded (via Java exploit, not an actual OS X exploit), it would prompt you for an administrator password before it installed itself. And people would enter it. This is not a fault in the operating system, this is a fault in the users.
This brings me to my final point. People are stupid. Very, very stupid. I can't really emphasize this enough. If you distribute an operating system to millions of people, they will always find a way to screw it up. As I said before, most malware infections on Windows these days start off from trojan horses. People install all sorts of random stuff on their computer, and are suprised when it gets infected. This is not a fault of Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, or Allen Turing. This is basic human stupidity. Or not even stupidity. It's ignorance. People have no desire to learn how to use their computer, so they do anything and everything possible. |
It was nice of you to point out the distinction, but I hasten to add there is a clear semantic disconnect between technical security professionals and the general public on the meaning of the word virus.
The word virus has a very technical usage to define a certain type of code as you pointed out. Unfortunately, the word virus seems to have evolved among the general public. Many users colloquially equate viruses with malware. As a result, when a member of the general public says virus, they usually mean malware.
While I can't link to a source to prove this schism, I did work in desktop support/repair for over 6 years, and I had an endless stream of clients who complained of "viruses" if there was malicious code on their machine. Of all of those customers, only 1 or 2 used the term malware. This usage pattern was often so prevalent in the vernacular that I had to use the word virus instead of malware in order to be understood. |
Point taken, but it's fairly safe to assume in /r/technology that when someone uses the word 'hipster', especially in a Mac thread, they're usually lumping the majority of Mac-users into some weird, pretentious, computer illiterate subspecies that I have yet to actually come into contact with, besides hearing about them on reddit. I just read between the lines too much, I guess. |
Can't you just rewrite the MBR? I remember that there is a command to rewrite n |
It is not so much Apple vs Windows as it is FootPrint Vs Footprint. The same thing floods over into the smart phone sector. Everyone you know and their brothers have a iphone. I am sorry, I am about to do the following, make statements without sources.
iPhones appear to be everywhere, but they really aren't. There may be 10 million in america but as of late 2010 they where no where over seas. Nokia was the number one seller world wide and it broke out like this.
2009
Nokia (symbian) (47 % of the world) [source](
Black Berry
iphone
Android
Other
I had to do a couple work presentations.
Once again, this was a couple years ago. With everything so mixed up and no one foot print taking hold there were no viruses for smart phones. But now the foot print has changed.
Andorid (59%) [Source](
Iphone [More sources](
blah
blah blah etc...
Now you are going to start to see that the Andorid is going to have a lot more viruses written for it.
I know a lot about this field because i am in this line of work. However, mobile security is hard to source because its written by a lot of crappy blogs or really shady websites. [Why the hell Kansascity.com is writing about virus on mobile devices is beyond me](
Anyways: |
However, a lot of those questions where based on the answers to other questions, so it wouldn't have been necessary to consider all 700 questions. For example:
Do you want to buy a new car?
If the answer to question 1 is "yes" then do you want to buy a sedan or a coupe?
If the answer to question 1 is "yes" do you want a sunroof?
If the answer to question 1 is "yes" do you want leather seats?
If the answer to question 1 is "yes" what color do you want?
That's five questions, but if you answer "no" to question one, then you only have to consider a single question.
The questionnaire the jury had to consider involved interconnected questions regarding the type and nature of infringement, but if they didn't find any infringement on a particular point (which happened for several Apple patents wrt to several Samsung devices, and all Samsung patents wrt to Apple devices) then the follow-up questions could be skipped. |
I was tempted to believe you until I saw Groklaw answer this question directly:
>Would all 700 have to be answered?
>Authored by: PJ on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 06:42 AM EDT
>Yes. If not infringed, you could skip
>subsidiary question. If infringed, there
>were more questions, not less. For example,
>if not infringed, then there was no need
>to calculate damages. |
should be the top comment, and you should put the last bit of summary at the top to make it more readable in the |
FINALLY SOMEONE WHO LISTENS. . . . hollywood you miserable fucks the reasion we download torrents is cause it is easy and watch what we want when we want some torrents i dont watch for up to a week or two later when i have time i cant just run to the shops and buy a $20 dvd sit threw 20 minuets previews warnings and other shit till i get to see what i want!!! i also bet you pirated movies on your vcr back in the 80s and made mix tapes from the radio, we doing the same shit you are just with better tech. |
What is this sorcery!?
My mum blocked the space channel when she was removing the channels we "don't use" (which included the three channels I watch exclusively), and either way they only played reruns from Tennant/Eccleston IIRC, so I just assumed piracy was my only option... |
Not at all ... our society needs to change in a way so that money is useless and we all rely on eachother as a community as a whole and not need a currency system to live .
This would be great. There is, however, one problem with that idea:
People are scum. People are selfish. People will not work as a community for the "greater good".
This is why artists, writers, directors, producers, poets etc need to be paid. No matter if the consumers are scum who don't want to pay, there should be no option. You either pay or you don't get the product, it's that simple. |
No, I did read the book, and I personally felt it was about absolutism, but after reading the article I figured that he simply conveyed something he didn't mean to by over dramatasizing and in the process touched on things much bigger than he intended. |
I used to read Gawker before realizing how awful it truly was. It didn't help that owner Nick Denton gave the finger to the commenters with the redesign which turned the layout to shit. Aside from the ultra uptight PC commenters (someone was called racist for saying a guy on the subway wearing a sombrero and playing a guitar for money was a mariachi), the site now games the system for more hits. You have to keep clicking to view more comments, resulting in 20-30 (possibly more) page views for one article. |
I agree, but I think that the industry has brought it upon themselves. They have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding when it comes to human psychology, which would be the real failure in their marketing strategy if not for the immense legal crutch that favors their side.
Trading is as much a human instinct as the needs for food and sex, and are so intertwined to be inseparable from these other two actions. We are social creatures, and we will pay money for products that we like if we feel that we are getting a fair trade. But when a company goes and says that filesharers are taking from them and how it is unfair, and then proceeds to take (by means of lawsuits) far more than is fairly deserved even if you do consider the filesharers to be stealing, you can see how that loss of respect is counterproductive toward making money off of the media itself.
But that is still not what they appear to do. What they appear to do is to use the lawsuits that they bring against fileshareres as another revenue source. This not only turns their customers against them, but it sets the precedent for future transactions. They are basically setting up a competitive relationship with their own customers, and then wondering where it went wrong.
I am not excusing the behavior of the never paying filesharers, as I believe both are in the wrong in their own ways. But I do believe that these companies caused their own mess, and are propped up by an overreaching copyright system that was agreed to by legislators who do not understand the entire picture, and pushed for by the lawyers who stood to benefit the most. |
A friend of my parents is an old taper who just loved the grateful dead. He records every concert he goes to either with his giant expensive microphones or his eyeglass mikes(if taping isn't allowed). I talked to him about three years ago and he was trying to explain how torrenting works. Turns out, he gives his tapes to a friend who puts them up on a public tracker for concert tapes. He buys TONS of cds, concert tickets, posters t-shirts ect. and torrents like someday he will not be able to get new music as well as inadvertently distributing concert tapes to the entire internet. |
I think you missed my point. I wasn't saying I do or do not believe you. I was looking for proof . A quote from the ToS is something like a proof, although it's not quite perfect. Saying "I did / did not do this" is obviously anything but proof. |
My IP address changes I don't use any of the services you mentioned except for reddit, youtube, and google docs. I feel that I use those sites enough that I have signed up for accounts with them, and am okay with them looking at the kinds of content I peruse on their service, and giving me ads they think are relevant back. I mean, I completely ignore them, but hey, go for it.
However, when I am tracked across multiple unrelated sites on which I've not registered an account or purchased a product from, and that information is sent to some central repository, I have a problem with it.
I don't actually look at steam's "ads" except during large holiday sales, wherein I generally just search for lowest priced games. I treat it more as a catalog of sorts. The only game I've bought outside of the very large summer/winter steam sales is Skyrim, and that was because it is a bethesda game and I've enjoyed their previous titles. |
While agree that there is nothing that forces people into piracy I still think that there are measures that could be taken to dissuade people from wanting to pirate movies and music. For example, I've been saying for the longest time that music should be released as soon as it's completed. In this digital day and age there is simply no reason to have an album fully recorded and then wait 3 months to release it. Doing that only people more of a reason to want to pirate it. Right or wrong, if it's there someone is going to take it.
Now the same could be said about movies and television. There is no reason that something should come out in America but then not be released in the UK for months. Likewise, there is no reason that a movie should be released on DVD or Blu-ray but not find its way to Netflix until months later. The fact is that anyone who loves the movie is most likely going to buy it when it comes out on DVD/Blu-ray. However, someone that has never seen the movie is not going to go out and do this. Therefore, the only thing waiting to release a movie is going to do is make people wait to see movie they otherwise would have seen sooner or pirate the movie. |
It's not just terrorism we are using this for and saving with our allies, for example Mega Video and the Australian government spying without warrants also. This is a huge power/freedom grab that's been building fast for a decade and now they're not even hiding it. Time to find out who in the government voted for this and vote in the next election for the person that will dismantle this in Congress and the White House.
If we find they are not catching hardly any terrorist and that it's mostly file sharers or illegal file sites then I believe we should find what percentage of actual arrests/busts are made for that and charge appropriately the industry for the extra service. Example would be 98% of the targets and time spent are for music and movie downloads, then the movie and music industry pays for 98% of the cost of running the program including salaries of the workers there, electricity to run the place and hardware wear and tear. The US government should not act as private security for these firms and if they are acting in that capacity like a private service the government should be paid like a private firm which means not running at a loss which would cost the taxpayer money. So I imagine the RIAA and the MPAA could add 50 million or so to the check they pay every year to the government "not deductible" so the cost is not passed on to the taxpayer if this ends up being a download monitoring program and they make relatively few terrorism busts like in the past few years. |
Did you also know that there is not an industry standard for measuring contrast ratio, so a company can use whatever they want to measure it and come up with whatever inflated number they want?
Source: [Contrast Ratio (or how every TV manufacturer lies to you)]( |
Has anybody tried this?
Does it support English language packs? (i assume it does as it is Linux based)
How limited are the features?
Does it spew political propaganda at you? |
why don't you "just" start one yourself?
If you have a couple of geek friends it should be pretty easy.
Find a nice place to rent and just start. doesn't have to be awesome and big and expensive at first. Just enough so you can sit around with people, showing your projects.
Next step would be a workbench. Some tools. Nice network cabeling etc. |
Lumens and watts have the same dimensions? In what way?
1 lm = cd*sr
1 W = kg*m^2/s^3
A candela is defined as: "The candela is the luminous intensity, in a given direction, of a source that emits monochromatic radiation of frequency 540×10^12 hertz and that has a radiant intensity in that direction of 1⁄683 watt per steradian."
I guess you are thinking that since the candela is defined by a radiant intensity of W/sr, that the units cancel out and you get 1 lm = 1/683 W. Not the case, however. The definition above describes how to create a light source that produces 1 cd - this does not mean that the candela is no longer a base SI unit. Previous to the definition above (1979), a candela was define as: "The candela is the luminous intensity, in the perpendicular direction, of a surface of 1 / 600 000 square metre of a black body at the temperature of freezing platinum under a pressure of 101 325 newtons per square metre."
They realized that this method of calibration was tricky at best, so they modified the definition to the current one, which uses watts. |
It should be added that while the retina can detect a single photon, this is just the sensitivy rather than the density of the retina as sensor. The density is dependent on the distribution of rods and cones, specialized cells capable of detecting intensity respectively colour (though colour can also be quantified in intensity). There are approximately 120 million rods and 7 million cones (numbers are unconfirmed estimates), and a (relatively) recent discovery of an additional 1.2 million to 1.5 million retinal ganglion cells, capable of measuring specific blue light and interconnected between the rods and cones, the neuronal pathways of which are quite complex. While a single photon is indeed detectable by the retina, it would take more detected photons for an actual conscious registration of the light to take place. Consider that not every photon will hit the proteins responsible for actually measuring light, due to the density being much smaller than the free movement space of photons.
But that's just offtopic and I wanted to add that. |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.