Datasets:

jkruk
/

tech-data

Dataset card Data Studio Files Files and versions Community

Split (1)

train · 13.7k rows

0 stringlengths 9 22.1k
Bingo. Ex-Googler here (2005-2006), can verify it if anyone cares. I've written about Google's interest in AI over on Hacker News before. It is true that Google execs have mused, in public and in private, about maybe advancing strong AI to do search better, and I would expect at least a few people at Google are at least trying that. But they almost certainly are not trying to create a robot which deceives a human, in the common understanding of the Turing Test. Few computer scientists think that is a useful goal, and the Loebner Prize is regarded as a pointless stunt. The idea of using a robot is just non-Googly. Google would approach this by throwing massive computing power at the problem, and statistical methods. Their research would be focused on understanding the content of a page. That might include affective content (there are startups that do that right now for Twitter, etc.) but simulating emotions -- or interpreting them from a human -- is something Google has no expertise in, and likely no interest in.
Eh, Out of curiosity, why would porn sites even give a fuck about SOPA, most of their servers are located in foreign countries that don't have rules, and if they do, they're vague as fuck. Maybe they have offices in America but really highly doubt that. Also, the porn industry is a cut throat industry, a day of no service is a shitload of traffic lost, and more importantly, money, and most porn sites are funded solely off ads, and subscriptions.
This is very similar to a post I made earlier today. I absolutely think content creators should be compensated for their work. Without the creators, there is nothing to copy. My issue is completely with artificially created scarcity. It's as though you were the sole provider for oil in the whole world; would it be acceptable for you to hoard all of it and sell only to the richest people who could afford it? It would ruin the entire world economy. Why is it acceptable to limit availability of product for profit? Supply and demand is a basic economic principle. If you have infinite supply of a product, should it not mean that the value is practically zero? If this is the case, then we reduce the ability to be profitable for content creators to nothing. This is why they create artificial scarcity. If we look at the most profitable game companies and music/video providers, we find that what is making them money is selling a service behind a resource that is essentially infinite. This isn't a perfect model, as it opens up alternative service providers who don't compensate the creators (napster provided a service that was the best available at the time, but could have possibly hurt the creators more than it helped), but it does resolve the issue of artificially inflated market values of products. So what do we do? I'd advocate government solutions, but that isn't going to be possible in a global market with continual global conflicts. We legislate education and entertainment media production and tax it? China and Russia get the products for free. What if we could control the global internet by blocking foreign nations from accessing American copyrighted content to the best of our ability? -- This sounds like what SOPA and PIPA are aimed at. I'm in no way or shape advocating these bills, and don't think they are at all trying to achieve what I think should be the goals of legislation regarding copyright law. But from what I've gleaned recently of SOPA/PIPA, it's not quite as bad as everyone is toting them to be. I'm a Canadian, and I've yet to see what this would mean for me at all, nor what it would mean to an American with regards to sites in the US; I've read interpretations of the bill saying that it wouldn't evening affect .com domains at all .
Thank you as a foreigner I was very confused on how to do my part, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to do so. Knowing my lazy self I wouldn't have written such a letter anyway.
There is a reason that the powers-that-be support democracy in all of the countries that we are overturning (arab spring and all). It is complicated, and you could easily say (and be justified) that the governments being overthrown are 'bad', BUT the plain fact is that democracy means little in a country where media is controlled by a few.
Thanks the slide show seems very helpful. I'll take a better look tomorrow as it's really late here but I got up to around page 20, maybe a bit further. It did help me understand better how including ultrasonics can degrade SQ. (
n=6 per group is no robust statistical test. Repeat the test with the another control group and you will get a significantly different answer. The data may suggest something but is in NO WAY scientifically bulletproof.
Control over your phone; jailbreaking your phone allows you to be the administrator, not apple. The rest of the points follow from this one. Installing software that Apple may not deem appropriate (e.g. you can install non-iTunes applications) Other "hard working" devs create very useful software that either isn't on the app store or has been disallowed from the app store (c'mon, jailbreaking is not just for pirating). As you say, tethering and mobile hot spot Disabling things like carrier-IQ and other software you don't want running Other configuration settings Apple has refused to allow you to access
He either didn't read the article or didn't pay attention. He then makes a blanket statement that is patently incorrect. He then repeats the same argument after it's been refuted several times.
It's far from free. First you have the initial R&D cost. Cost of installation + brand new facility/retrofit. Test runs, calibrations, more testing. Greenlit. But then you have to maintain them. That needs people employed. It also needs a large backlog of (most likely at some level) proprietary parts.
As you can see in your chart the PC market IS shrinking: revenues are getting smaller. [This trend is continuing]( You're right to point out ubiquitous computing (having a smartphone and tablet and PC, and perhaps a smartwatch and alter something like Google Watch), but that pretty much proves my point: some day people will stop buying your product. That product being a PC, and some day no doubt people will stop buying as many smartphones as they do now. This is part of what I meant by demand for a product or service isn't infinite: for one, the product or service becomes obsolete. Secondly, as I pointed out with Coke and cars: at some point people don't care about getting more of your product, no matter the price. Smartphones also fit into this: you think the majority of customers want to ahve 2 phones? Or switch phones every 6 months? They don't, no matter how low the price is. Same with air travel: no, I wouldn't want to fly everywhere. but even IF I did and it was possible, what does that mean? We started this discussion with the sales of airplanes. You think those sales (demand) would keep increasing, always? No, at some point, everybody has his own plane. Then, your demand is capped at the rate people renew their airplane. the onyl growth you can achieve then is again capped by the population growth, which is smaller than the inflation, so you can't offset your shrinking revenues by that increase in sales.
I'm pretty sure that the "we've never heard of PRISM" is some lawyering bullshit too. Maybe they've never heard the codename PRISM, but surely they've known that such a program existed. Surely they know more about this shit than me. I'm just a software engineer, not the head of an incredibly powerful communication company, but I found out about Stellar Wind months ago and I've been talking about it ever since. Hell, just 3 days ago I was in a discussion thread where I was warning that this stuff was going on, and I was met with doubt. It's nice to be vindicated, but I'd rather that it wasn't actually true.
Not only that....when you think about it.....the plan was a disaster for developers. The whole thing was about controlling the used game market. Developers wanted their cut. They wanted everybody to pay. Realistically, how many times is one game bought and sold before it sits on someone'e shelf? Gets broken, lost, stolen, or scratched to the point of uselessness? I'll be generous and say 4, maybe 5 times. I very seriously doubt that number was over 10, on average. So essentially the developers were pissed because 4-5 people were using the same copy of a game and not getting their cut. So to counteract this....they were going to sign up for a system where NINE other people would be playing the same game without getting their cut? I don't think they'd be very happy with that. Given that, and this is pure speculation on my part, the sharing plan would likely have had restrictions or fees that were yet to be announced. Without restrictions or fees, they were setting themselves up for a scenario where up to 90% of their users weren't paying for their product at all.
I will not argue that there isn't a used games market. But by clinging to physical copies you are keeping the prices high. So high, that you create a used games market. I for one, like the idea way better to create a steam on consoles (have you seen their prices?) so that u never look back at the used games market. And its is for the reason that u can't resell/loan it that is becomes so cheap. Thats simple economics, cause with physical copies they charge a surpluss for this (and not a small one). And on top of that cherry, Xbox One was adding a system where u could loan your digital copies out to a select 10 (MILES ahead of steam) and even have the capability for 1 person to play a game at the same time as you, even though he doesnt have it. But this comes at a cost, and lets be honest people from the civilised world, the cost is A INTERNET CONNECTION. Not on constantly, just once a day (or say the day you wanna play). Thats a really small cost to completly change the market, and make it cheaper. And i know everyone loves jumping on the ''ERHMAGED i dont want DRM-internet connection required'. Really? Cause ask yourself, what the bloody fuck are you on right now? The internet. If your problem truly is not having internet, you have bigger problems then looking for a console tbh. BUY INTERNET ACCES. And yes, the people in Iran wont be able to play Xbox One for now, neither do they have the latest smartphone with internet acces, do you see Samsung give a shit about this? No, they encourage innovation, just like they applauded the first smart-phones that required an internet subscription. So here is the problem, because all this nonsense about refusing to want any innovation (because apperently half the ppl on reddit dont have internet, because bad marketing, because w/e) they are actually dailing DOWN on innovation. Not only have they reintroduced physical copies (tbh I hate physical copies, scratched cd's, i cant remember the last time i bought a physical for my pc) but subsequently the sharing of digital copies went out the door. Now this might seem strange to some of you, but its not. Because by reintroducing lendable physical copies, you have just destroyed the digital market by about (total guess) 60%. So now 60% will not pass through digital anymore. You think this fits in a market plan to trade digital copies with friends at a low price? You think Xbox can still get good deals now? Forget it, because of the community's inability to see a good thing you have thrown innovation out the door. (This is the same reason kinect is included with every xbox now, to expand the market share of it, so developers will work with it) This brings us to the 'bland' generation. Because of this receival PS4 is also not even considering of changing (btw they had this idea too, but cut out of it last minute). So instead, both the manufacturers are the same now (give or take some hardware that a pc-player will give a damn about) Someone in this thread called this a win-win because Xbox will compete with PS4 more now. In fact, its reversed. Because we threw innovation out the door, it is no longer a requirement for the consumers. So why innovate at all? Mark my words, when we throw out innovation, we are throwing out a big part of the console-market in a few years. No my friend, this is a lose-lose.
maybe thats what xbox one actually means... one full revolution @_@
Im pissed. I for one am not on a bandwagon or a fanboy to say the least for any console. I own both the consoles (ps3,xbox360) and enjoy playing both at any given time. What I have a hard time understanding is how a major company like Microsoft put so many hours and man power into creating a complete DRM console and then tell the consumer that they have to be the sole owner of games, much less, tell them that to even play those said games, they have to have a (almost) always on internet connection, and then flip the switch and go back on their word. Just seems like bad business. 0/10 still would not buy.
I'm not, but they are one of the more evil bigger players as is Apple and Google. The real evil ones are Raytheon, they make the Active Denial System which is that heat wave pain ray, and I believe they also make the LRAD long range acoustic device which will damage your hearing and I don't see how it's even legal, much like flashbangs which are considered "less than lethal" even though if they explode within 5 feet of you you could die and if not definitely suffer permanent hearing damage and possibly vision as well.
What DRM question was that? I'm answering a lot of comments here. [Here]( [Here]( >I'd say it's extraordinarily likely that they did exactly that, but that's the difference. They didn't want until they were made to look like idiots before deciding against it. So your only problem with the two decisions is that Microsoft announced there's at one point before changing it? >Ignoring your customers only works if everyone does it. In this case, MS tried to ignore them and if blew up in their faces. If Sony had done the same thing then they would've gotten away with it but that's not what happened, is it? MSFT sure ignored their customers when they completely changed their product's vision for something more consumer friendly! >It's the difference between offering a good product and maintaining a good relationship with your customers. I sure hope Sony allows my credit card to be vulnerable and that their service goes down for 24 days! Oh, wait, we're only complaining about features that havent been implemented in any available console. Too bad MSFT didnt attempt to maintain a good relationship with us by changing course to something more consumer friendly. >You're complaining that Microsoft made a profit-driven business decision that benefits customers. >>No I'm not. Yes you are. [ "Only when it because clear that this choice was going to have a significant impact on their bottom line did they change" ]( Its absurd, really. Getting upset at a company for wanting to improve their bottom line. >Telling your customers they can't have what they want and then changing tack after the competition makes you look bad might result in the same final outcome, but it speaks poorly for your attitude towards your customers. Apple took away the physical keyboard on the original iPhone and that was controversial because people werent used to it. The DRM on the Xbox allowed for interesting features that MSFT thought was going to help usher in a more digital age. "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."- Henry Ford. The team at MSFT wasnt attempting to throw DRM at their consumers as a giant 'fuck you' but as an attempt to bridge the physical to digital transition. Youre attributing to malice what could easily be a mistake in reading market trends, which has since been corrected before the thing even launches. To say it was a purely anti-consumer decision is incredibly biased and uninformed.
Right because the NSA definitely doesn't watch the Internet. You here that reddit, we're safe here.
Still buying a PS4 (if I ever get the cash). Don't forget that the XBone still requires the Kinect to always be connected, forcing indie game creators to use a publisher and other stuff (I think). Microsoft's attitude coming into this new generation solidified my support for Sony: they showed utter contempt for it's consumers. "We have a product for that... the Xbox 360", "DRM is not simple to shut off" (which they just did, very simply). Sony listened to its customers. Microsoft did not listen to its consumer base, it listened to all the money they wouldn't be able to steal from their users' wallets. People are saying that it doesn't matter, all companies are just after money (wow they turned their support back to Microsoft fast), but it does. Yes both are after money but Sony is after money by working hard, listening to people and providing a product that people want. Microsoft is making money by doing the least amount of effort they need, and taking as much money out of people as their policies can get. Sony is the hard working shopkeeper, providing groceries and essentials, Microsoft is that guy in the alley that lures you in by promising goods and then mugs you. Both do it to make money but the one is doing it in a morally acceptable way.
I could CLEARLY tell the difference in performance between RE4 on the GC and on the PS2 and so could everybody else on the internet. PS2 has longer load times, lower polygon count, worse texturing, and just over all shittier graphics with awful anti-aliasing. When you compare the two side by side it's CLEARLY obvious that the GameCube is the more technically superior system over the PS2 and that fact is held true when you look at the system specs which reveal that the GC does indeed have better hardware with the architecture to make all that better hardware perform even better.
Here is the thing about you sheeple... Xbox fans complained about it "always being online" It was once a day. You needed an internet connection, couldn't share games. everyone was all like, "we can't share games and Microsoft is spying on us!! ohh noo".. Well Microsoft heard you all!! Congratulations.. And they have proven that they can spy on you by sending info from your system to them.. So think about it.. What is stopping them? "Let them keep there games, and let them trade them and play them offline, who says we still wont spy?" - Possibly Microsoft. Just a thought that came to me while eating my Capt'n Crunch.. Edit
also samsung phones use AMOLED in where black is really NO POWER, not the dimmest light possible. using the subtitle app on my samsung phone with grey text allows me to comfortably enjoy the movie without neighbors complaining.
Stealing a few bits of data of no recognized importance is a lesser charge than stealing a recognized currency. If I go ahead and steal your lawn chair I'll get a fine, possibly a short jail sentence, and likely community service. The value of the lawn chair doesn't exceed the threshold to be considered a serious crime. If I steal a USB drive it would be much the same as the lawnmower. The value of the USB drive isn't recognized to be very large even if you adamantly insist it contains information worth much more. Unless it's something like medical data or other circumstances that would kick in other laws it isn't valuable. If I steal a suitcase that I know contains several thousand dollars it's a totally different situation. This ruling sets the precedent that bitcoins are a currency and are therefore protected just the same as cash. The likely outcome is that if someone steals your USB drive containing your bitcoin wallet and you can prove they were after that information then they can be charged under more serious laws. The case this ruling informs was driven by the fact that if bitcoins weren't recognized as currency this dude couldn't have been charged for running a ponzi scheme and it would have been totally legal for him to continue his scam.
Lets face it, the majority of people save in doc/docx format and open office's compatibility with files in that format is obviously not perfect. There are plenty of formatting bugs when opening MS word files in open office. Unless major companies somehow start using open office as the main file format for word/excel docs there is no way it'll become a real "office suite".
im kinda confused. is this going to be a steam console? or am i gonna need to get another computer to plug into my tv? or am i replacing windows? or is it a steam console computer? will there be a controller, or is it mouse and keyboard?
The current workaround is to run firefox+silverlight in wine. Silverlight is the plug-in that Netflix runs on. It's also a Microsoft product that doesn't support Linux. There's an opensource version, Moonlight, but it doesn't work with Netflix because of DRM.
Well hi there Mr. Cynical. If you did not understand where the ambition is then allow me to explain, the ambition is not in the creation of the product. The ambition I am referring to is in what they expect from the users. Have you paid attention to the startup O.S.s that have been coming out and the fate they met in popularity ? I'll just say that it wasn't pretty. Steam has a user base, a very content one at that, which I believe will make it weird for Windows and OSX users to switch over to something new. Now add in the point that not everyone knows how to partition a hard drive and you have even more problems.
The RPi is an inexpensive mini ARM based computer that has a multitude of uses. I break it down into three types of people that buy them: 1) Educational institutions and instructors for teaching children/students how to program with scratch or python. There is also uses for it at a more advanced level of education (ie University), such as ARM assembly and embedded system interfacing (specifics mentioned in #3). 2) The IT/OS/HTPC/Server people that use the raspberry pi as a media server, torrent slave, or NAS etc. No offence meant to anyone, but this is usually the crowd that will end up leaving their Raspberry Pi on the shelf to gather dust. Some of these uses can be daunting for the underpowered hardware, and people may find they aren't satisfied with the performance of the RPi. 3) The hardware prototypers, programmers and engineers. These people usually build applications with C++, Python to interface with various sensors, LEDs and other hardware connected via the GPIO pins. The raspberry pi can be programmed to use a variety of communication protocols such as UART, SPI, and I2C. This opens up a world of potential for this little computer, as for hardware applications like this the RPi is actually considered extremely fast. If you look at any commercial DSP's, embedded boards, or microcontrollers you may find they run on older and slower hardware then the RPi (notable ones include Analog Devices boards, Blackfin & SHARC). Obviously the RPi isn't meant to be a commercial microcontroller and each have their advantages/disadvantages. For developing it can be a nice platform to prototype and build home projects with. To check out some projects with the RPi, do a quick google search.
As someone who works in an RMA department for a large memory company it's only somewhat logical to me. Keeping track of something like "RMAs avoided/ rejected" in the sense they are talking about really is just pointless because it's all dependent on the original outlook of the customer; according to their reasoning if a customer called in and didn't think the product was defective and just needed a simple fix on their end, then if the agent where to correct the issue and avoid an RMA this wouldn't count towards the "rejected" statistic. In another perspective having a "rejected" RMA stat is just yanking to be abused by a tech at the expense of the customer, a company should always strive to provide the best support to their customers, and provide a guideline for their employees that facilitates this; my department manager would flip even if an idea like what Ebuyer implemented was suggested. The stat they're tracking just makes no sense to me, it makes more sense that they're tracking it in it's original context from my perspective.
Why do people keep saying this. Google bought and sold Motorola MOBILITY, which was spun off by Motorola Solutions. The original Motorola company has been spun off many times in history and is still around. From Wikipedia: [Motorola Solutions is generally considered to be the direct successor to Motorola, Inc., as the reorganization was structured with Motorola Mobility being spun off.]( Furthermore, this isn't even the "true" value of Motorola as Google is keeping the bulk of the Intellectual Property that's most valuable. This deal is a LOT more complicated than it looks from reading the headline and not one person in this thread is an M&A analyst qualified to really strip out the deal.
TWC ? Well TWC has the worst customer service I have ever had the displeasure of dealing with. I am generally a calm guy and they got me to yell at top of voice on the phone and punch the wall. I hate this company so much so that I have saved their number as "Time Warner aka Asshole Collective" I would switch from them in a heartbeat if I had any other choice.
Everyone has their own opinion about them. Personally AT&T has been great for me; Time Warner on the other hand gave me poor service and really didn't care if you were a long term customer. THE SURVEY mentioned in the linked article should not be called a survey it is a list-making site. The 'lists' present no information on the demographics of those taking part; there is no indication that representative sample sizes are used for the "surveys" have been used and so margin of error is an unknown.
I can vouch for AT&T's customer service being exceptionally terrible. After trying to explain twice to an agent on the phone that I had already shut down and restarted my computer three times in attempting to solve a wireless internet service. He finally accepted that, but insisted there were still a few basic things we needed to do before he could help me. He "guided" me through some procedures which only involved checking my internet speed using their website, speaking to me like I was a five year old. I dealt with it and stayed calm until he told me to shut down my computer. I then asked him, "Are you about to make me turn back on my computer? Are you serious?" He said yes and I hung up with several profanities in tow. I solved the issue myself. If he would have guided me to some procedure that required the computer to be restarted, I would have understood and done so without complaint, but the fact that he dealt with me like I was an idiot only to have me check my internet speed and do the exact thing I told him I had already done three times was infuriating and made me feel incredibly disrespected. I never spoke with their support services again, and only dealt with them regarding billing, which was equally as horrible with the added torture bonus of spoken advertisements from the fucking agents every time they began a new line of conversation. That's maddening as all hell. I barely liked AT&T already and were only with them because they were cheap (at the time). Their internet service was slow and barely functional. Why would I possibly want to hear, three to four times in a ten minute conversation about their new products? After a year, of course, my internet shot up by seventy dollars and they told me if I wanted to keep a "reduced" rate, I had to move to a new package that was half the speed of the package I found at Comcast through a promotion deal that my coworker knew about. I ditched AT&T. They tried, three times after that to claim that I still had equipment which I had sent back to AT&T. Fortunately, that turned out alright and they didn't keep hounding me about the equipment. AT&T is unwieldy, inefficient and frustrating. They are the exact reason that anti-trust laws need to come back in this country. Comcast is barely any better and from everything I hear, Time Warner is pretty much the same business model as the other two...and now two of these three want to merge? This shit has to stop.
Let me detail my last encounter with Time warner customer support for you. I go to visit my parents, they occasionally remotely access files from their home internet and the 1 mbps upload wasn't cutting it anymore so I said I'd help them get service with a 5mbps upload. They pull out their last bill where I find they are paying 170 bucks a month for 2 voip lines and 15/1 internet. This is what Time Warner charges if you aren't on promotional pricing. Still, no biggie and I know I can save them some money by asking for the new promotional pricing so I give TW a call. I get a representative that seems to have no idea about the actual service plans they offer, tries multiple times to get me to sign up for cable service but I just reiterate that all I want is to keep the 2 phone lines and upgrade the internet service to 50/5 and I want the current lowest price for such service. He puts me on silent hold for 8 minutes. When he comes back he tells me he can offer me those services for $80 dollars a month. Sounds great! I say lets do it, what's the next step? Do we schedule a tech to come upgrade the service, do they just turn it on remotely, or do we need to exchange our modem? He says that we need to schedule a service visit so I say when is the earliest available appointment. He asks me to hold and I sat on silent hold for 20 minutes. I'm getting ready to just hang up when he comes back and asks for a call back number just in case we get disconnected. After that I go back on the silent hold. ANOTHER 25 minutes pass before I get fed up and just hang up the phone. 2 minutes later I get a call from the representative saying that it's all set up but he is having trouble applying the promotional pricing so he just needs to transfer me to somebody that can give the price he stated. He transfers me, putting me on hold for another 12 minutes before I get a new representative. This guy seems to know what's up, I tell him to check the account notes, as the previous representative told me to tell him. He says there are no account notes left by the previous rep. Starting all over...queue another 15 minutes of him trying to sign us up for cable tv. Finally get the price from him and it's now $130 for the 2 lines and 50/5. I say hold on the last guy said $80. He says he's not sure how that price was offered but he is going to try to speak with the last rep I spoke with to find out. I get another silent hold and after 5 minutes the call ends. THEY HUNG UP ON ME! So I call back, new representative, would you like to add cable service? Tell her what we are trying to do. In five minutes I get the price, $105. It's not $80 but I don't care at this point. I say lets do it when can we schedule a visit? She says that we don't need a visit but just to exchange our modem at any TW location. Also as a bonus(lol) our new modem includes free WiFi. My parents' home network is pretty robust and includes a lot of static ip devices that are all assigned by dhcp with the router holding the reservations. I live out of town and was worried that the router portion of the new modem would interfere with our router/network configuration. I ask to talk to tech support. The tech I get assures me that the new modem can just be swapped into the position of our old modem and will play nicely with our current router. The next week when they replace the modem of course everything goes to hell, all sorts of ip address conflicts as the new modem contains a router with an ip address assigned to the same as our gateway and the dhcp server turned on by default. I ended up having to make a 4 hour round trip drive to properly set up the new modem they assured me my parents would be able to swap out seamlessly. They still have my and my parents business but only because there is nobody else to turn to. I have several years IT support/service experience. I am currently going to school for computer science. I am very technically literate. I hate Time Warner.
Allow me to chime in on the ISP hate bandwagon. I have Time Warner Cable. It was that, or AT&T, and AT&T had slower internet speeds in my area. So basically a choice between giant douche or a piece of shit. Time Warner Cable was working just fine, but I wanted some movie channels, so I upgraded. With the upgrade I paid a one time fee of $40+ and got an extra $50 added to my monthly bill. Ok, fine that's what I ordered. I've paid my bills on time with them every month I've had them, never had an issue. This month however, they say I'm late and they only received the one time fee. I check because accidents happen and I can be forgetful, but there it is, the full amount withdrawn from my account and paid on time. I call them and get hung up on twice before I'm able to talk to anyone about the issue. I finally get through to one of their customer service reps "Graham" who is a rockstar and gets my situation figured out. I then get a call 2 hours later from their automated service saying I still owe money and talk to a representative that parrots the same message. They don't believe me that my funds were withdrawn. My bank is currently handling it, and they are fantastic at customer service (Charles Schwab). TWC needs to talk to them about how to treat a customer.
It's not an actual 'point system' per se, it's a ranking system. 1-5, 1 being the lowest (you're losing the company money) and 5 being the highest (they want to keep you as much as possible). They didn't give us many details on it, to be honest but pretty basic stuff like paying your bills on time, how often you call customer care (ie. if you call to complain about your bill every single month, you're likely not a 5), how much you spend, which features you have etc. If you do everything right and have an old ass grandfathered plan they're trying to get rid of, it's unlikely you'll be a 5. Though this is not always true, I've seen people with grandfathered unlimited data plans at a 5, but they generally had other lines on their plan and other features added on. Now I worked for AT&T mobile, not broadband so it may be slightly different but I would be surprised if they didn't have the same system in place.
Just preference I guess. I had an out dated windows laptop and an iPhone before I got it and I just didn't like how everything seemed "separate" (I guess that's the word I want). I got a Lenovo Ideapad Yoga 13 ultrabook running Windows 8 (8.1 now) and a Windows Phone 8 because I wanted all my devices connected over similar OS's. I don't like Macs, so I went windows. Then, I started looking into music services and Xbox Music Pass made the most sense to me. I don't know what you can or can't do on Spotify. Everyone seems to have it, so they must be doing something right. But Xbox Music Pass has all the features I need, and it's made by the same company that makes the OS's on my phone, ultrabook, and game consoles, so the integration with all those things is nice. Wow, I went on a ramble. I guess the
I think pay by use is the way to go as it is with electricity, water, driving (gas) etc. Though not before we are done with the whole concept of bandwidths. If i'm going to pay for 1Tb of data, i want that fast. I don't live in USA but from what i've heard its horrible there with the costs compared to the 100Mb/s (tops 150 on good days) without data caps for 20€/month i'm paying.
i don't understand companies like this. Time Warner is has a market cap of nearly 60 Billion, they have 1.8 Billion in cash, they have 20 Billion in debt, their profit margin is over 12% and their EBITDA is over 7.8 Billion. They have a lot of money coming in as profits, but they owe a lot of money too. I think having a profit margin over 12% is pretty good, it's higher than Verizon's. Verizon has 50 Billion in cash and almost 94 Billion in debt. Verizon made almost 50 Billion in EBITDA. These companies are doing fine, they make tons of cash. They are just trying to squeeze every last nickel out of their customers. They probably do this so that they can raise dividends for shareholders.
If they could guaranty my current service within 15% of my advertised rates during peak hours I might consider a compromise like this. I like watching Hulu/Netflix about the same time other viewers like to watch their Cable. But I only get peak performance at times when no one is watching TV. That means Amazon Prime and the like stutter so badly that they're nigh unwatchable. That means I schedule content downloads during peak hours and watch them from local source at my leisure. If I could use my paid for broadband service at somewhere near the advertised rates, I wouldn't need to download anything and I'd actually fit comfortably beneath their caps. I don't know if that's irony or a tragic coincidence.
Here's an idea which is exactly what they want but wont work because it is going to lose them money. Provide a tiered, open service at specific bandwidths and charge per Gig. Build a model where the higher speed cap gets a fixed cost per Gig. For instance, 100 Mbps for instance pays 15 cents a gig. Kind of exactly like how utility companies work. The more electricity you use, the more you pay (except for the most part electricity companies don't rip off their customers and provide a steady quality of product). You get exactly what you keep asking for. The heavier users pay for using more bandwidth and their share of the network upkeep. This of course wont be adopted because too many people use so little data and they would not be able to milk them for 40 dollars over what this model would do.
There are only a few closing tags (two h3's, one h2), which may have been automagically adjusted by MS FrontPage when the user felt brave and changed the HTML by him/herself. IIrc, closing certain tags was not a requirement in HTML 3.2; if you opened "p" and "font" tags and then closed "p", the end tag for "font" was inferred. The reason that IE8 interprets this as intended by the user (I assume o.O) but Firefox doesn't seems to be that the offending text is contained in "table rows" (tr, th/td) that are not inside a table element, probably because the user moved the HTML there. I don't know if IE8 honors the tr/th/td elements outside of a table, but at the very least it considers part of the document tree On the other hand, Firefox sees the offending tags and, as it cannot make sense of them, simply drops them altogether. Thus, the nesting of the different subelements change; critically the nesting of hN elements, which are no longer contained in an element that may allow correctly inferring their closing tags. As they are now "siblings" (tag-wise), FF interprets the "filtered" HTML as a DOM tree where the h3 tags are nested inside each other, and thus the text grows and grows. BUT then the "center" element which contained all the tr's is closed and everything returns to normal for the footer.
reposting my comment from ) Tesla definitely has room for improvement here -- I've hit 0 miles of range on a road trip before. If you use the car as a commuter you may not realize the range estimates are not reliable. If you are looking at the list of superchargers then I think you get an 'as-the-crow' flies (straight-line) estimate for the distances. Once you select the next location you get the road mileage estimate. Neither takes the basic of topology/altitude changes into account (as far as I can tell). This album was taken in Springfield OR (on the return trip). The car haven't moved, but the distance estimate changed from 113 miles to 138 miles. This is a difference of 25 miles. And unlike some regions, this isn't all uphill. You climb a little foothill and then you go ~300 ft back down before climbing the next foot hill. This isn't the wilderness - there should be data for it to easily be taken into account after you selected the destination. (note: the car doesn't bring it to your attention when you destination is suddenly 25 miles further away than it just told you it was... you notice it later and attribute it to elevation or speed) Hit 0 miles of range in a rain storm after dark in an unfamiliar area = very much not a good family trip experience. The fan boy comments on the TelsaMotors forums are a bit cringey: > holidayday \| APRIL 29, 2014 NEW > > paraphrasing: "Oh Gee, who would have thought that speed and elevation changes could affect range." The car knows where you are going -- the elevation changes should be factored in before you start driving. The speed affects could be better reported in real-time as you are driving. > AmpedRealtor \| APRIL 29, 2014 NEW > I stopped reading after "I'm in a rented Tesla Model S..." If Tesla can't make a car friendly enough for non-techies/n00bs to drive without getting stranded... then it isn't a smartcar / iPod on wheels the media likes to portray it as (and I should sell my stock :P)
to understand energy estimates are not accurate even in an ICE car This is 100% about a software problem with the car with ~distance~ estimates. One screen shows the supercharger is 113 miles away - once you select it and start driving it is magically 25 miles further away. This has nothing to do with power/range estimates - it is a basic error in how they present distances in the first screenshot -- it is based on straight-line distances not actual road miles. My ICE car doesn't have GPS, and when I use my phone for GPS it doesn't have this bug.
The Hoover dam is referenced in the title, and I would say that it should be in other ways too. The unemployment rate of construction workers is around 10% as of January. The a large publicly funded project could drop that number down a bit by building this! It would create green, renewable energy on a huge scale and save people from having to stay on unemployment. Even better, it could be used as job training to help the people employed to be able to find or even create more jobs in the future! Public works like this are something that is now lost to the corporate corruption, but they do not have to be!
Oh absolutely! I'm a huge fan of all of the distributed cryptocurrencies for precisely this reason. Our current monetary system a quasi-private centralized, usurious debt-based banking and monetary system that mathematically favors the big banks over all other entities subject to law, and cedes them power to control the entire economy by controlling the quantity of current in circulation and deciding who gets money and who doesn't. Not only do they have a favorable position. Not only do they always come out ahead, but "new" money literally ends up in their hands first. Not only that, but they don't actually have to have the money to lend it. In a distributed cryptocurrency, banks have no place, and there isn't a need for one. Iceland is doing a lot of really cool, democratic things. They bailed out homeowners and sued the banks. We bailed out our banks, then gave them a ton of free money.
True, but if your defense requires an opponent to make calculated decisions in limited timeframes, you've set up a large resource gap that requires a sustainable desire to break. Even then, its possible to setup a dead man switch that makes any attack futile.
I see someone squeezing and not really bending. His fingers are right over his thumbs and the edges of the phone are barely into the inner-corners of his fingers.
It's going to be even worse than that. Looking at Apple's spec page for the iPhone 6. They're using a Li-Ion battery in their phone. It'll look a little more like [this]( than the other video.
It's clearly a case of Caveat emptor. I wouldn't get hire-purchase on a phone I wanted to unlock if the law said that rented phones can't be unlocked by the renter (because we are all bound to the contracts we sign). If you have to unlock your phone, you'll have to buy the phone if the law says that you can't unlock it while someone else owns it. If you can't afford to buy the phone you don't get to unlock it (seems like an incentive to work hard and prosper, a success of the free market and people buying the things they want with the money they earn) If you went into a hire-purchase/lease-to-purchase agreement it's not as if you actually own the phone before you have finished paying for it, you don't, but you knew that when you signed the deal (if you didn't you'd clearly be a bit of a fool to sign a deal without understanding what you were signing). It does rather sound like a case of "I want the penny and the bun"... It seems you don't want to pay so you own the phone, but still want all the rights of full ownership, but without actually having the expense of paying for the privileges of ownership, unless I've misunderstood you of course. If the carrier is getting his income from the call tariff (and giving the phone away, or covering the cost of the phone by so doing) he will lose money because he has just given the phone away if you are allowed to unlock it. That's because if he gives it to you expecting you to pay his tariff (that you knew in advance) for a fixed period and you unlock it and change carriers, he's just donated the phone to you for free; which doesn't look to be a very good business model.
I'm so sorry you've seen the absolute worst of the country here. I can assure you that those people are NOT commonplace. In fact most likely these are the people that were against Net Neutrality in the first place who are here now because they're pissed that corporations don't have unfettered power over the internet. They're trying to make you hate America so you don't ask them for help again.
It won't matter. There is a (fantastic!) [book by Lawrence Lessig, called "How Money Corrupts Congress"]( I highly recommend it as an eye-opener to modern-day politics. There is a chapter, called "Beyond Suspicion", that covers how money makes its way into politics by lobbyists. In it, Lessig recalled being astounded by some of the (very ignorant) opinions of otherwise smart politicians. He found that they only ready ever hear one side of most arguments. Their time is limited and valuable. The lobbyists get them money. The lobbyists get time with them to talk, and give their point of view.
This bot keeps getting better and better with its
But the thing is, going back and playing the games you don't have a fond memory of will lead to either two realizations: 1) The game design is crap. The controls are crap. The hit detection and speed of play are crap. 2) The game is fun. Then five minutes pass and its repetetive. Don't get me wrong, the atari as a great system for the time. But from a right here, right now, standpoint all except for a handful of games (and by using current system-bashing logic, the entire system) are unplayable garbage. The few worthwhile games? Arcade Ports in which the arcade version was better. Guess what kiddies, (and if you people are harkening back to when you got this system, you are actually older) the atari couldn't handle the requisites to make a game worth playing: Graphics to clearly understand what you're doing (Pong does this well, 2600 Pac Man does not) responsive controls (Pong does this well, Ice Hockey does not), and a reason to keep playing (High score mode was a good step for this, but abused to a point where it lost meaning in many games). The games, when playing now are just cruel jokes consisting of "no, turn you piece of shit, no don't drive into that blob of... whatever, oh fuck I died... and now the screen flickered and reset" (Note: I didn't want to resort to the hardware's flicker problem, because it just as easily could be turned around on the NES's grey screen). Don't think i'm just picking on the Atari. there are other systems, even after the atari that upon playing now (I'm looking at you, game gear), make the system completely unplayable.
Partly true - regulation doesn't work if government is not accountable to the public. In the US, regulation has often become a tool for powerful corporate interests to stifle competition and line their pockets, which is obviously completely opposite its intended purpose.
A big part of what perpetuates this lie is the number of lobbyist written regulations that actually greatly benefit the corporations they are supposed to be "regulating" at the expense of the general public. So every once in a while, a piece of this unabashed highway robbery is repealed and we all jump for joy at the win we consumers just saw from "deregulation".
Gene is a tool for saying what he did, it shows he isn't with the times e.g. > “The music industry was asleep at the wheel,” Well yeah and so are you Gene, why should people drive to a store to buy a piece of plastic with music burned on it? Add to that the people here on Reddit throwing a tantrum and saying Kiss is bad, if you like Kiss they're good and if you don't like their music they're not good it depends on a person's taste in music, imagine that.
OK. fine, FINE. i will be the one guy in here who gets downvoted all to hell, but whatever. Simmons may be over-reacting. he may be a douche, and a sell-out. he may be a has-been. he may have made terrible music. fine. i will give you that. but he's right in the sense that file sharing seriously damaged an industry. and it may not have hurt KISS too much (or metallica, ice-t or any other rich musician who made a stink about it) but it sure as shit hurt a lot of other band and labels. i know a lot of people at a lot of levels of that industry, and while some have been able to thrive and find a place, others lost their jobs, or had their dreams destroyed right when they finally started getting them. YES it is true that bands make their money off t-shirt sales, but who do you think gives them them money to do a decent tour? yeah any band willing to work can hop in a van and head through a small area for a week, if they can get the time off of work. but if you want to go around the states, go to another continent etc you need a label's backing. and while the major labels will find new ways to fuck the artist and new ways to make sure the radio is full of shit music, the smaller labels will go under. the smaller bands will quit. i think it was the singer for Abney Park who said he actually knew multiple bands who quite or broke up primarily because of piracy. i know some too. i know that pirates like to think that "sharing is caring" but who the fuck are you caring about? the artist? great you stuck it to the only people who allow artists to do what they do, abusive as the system may be! good for fucking YOU. i'm not gonna try to stop anyone from file sharing. i do it now too. the anti-piracy group lost me the second sony put root-kits on cd instead of trying to find a way to embrace the technology. and there's a lot of good services and could be more great services that work with the technology, but everyone needs to stop fucking acting like we're all a bunch of victimized Robin Hoods every time someone speaks out against piracy. we didn't do anything for anyone besides ourselves. we're fucking GREEDY. we're far more greedy than the labels or gene simmons or anyone else in the industry. because while they may have been fighting too hard to protect their profits, we were willing to rape a whole industry just for some free music. music that a lot of people worked very hard on. no, you self-righteous ass, you "cared" for yourself. so yeah, fine. pirate away. hey, it's too late to go back now and yeah all us musicians do at least like the exposure. it'll helps us sell those t-shirts for sure. i'll be right there with you. but don't fool yourself into thinking that you're the good guy. you and i are just more assholes in an industry full of shit.
Cute ... but ... come on. This is just a pointless exercise in wishful thinking. Thinking outside the box is a great thing, but this guy has no idea where the box actually is. The real visionaries aren't the ones making videos like this one, the real visionaries are guys like cyanogen who understand the constraints of the technology and can push the boundary forward. And don't get me started on the Photoshop thing ... seriously ... has the person behind this concept even a cursory understanding of how computers work? There's nothing wrong with concepts, they're certainly entertaining, this is just one of the dumber ones.
Barring total mutual destruction, the total war effort will have insufficient time to develop a radical new technology in 5 years. Most likely we'll see improvements, refinements and the perfection of current and nascent technologies such as autonomous armed drones, much improved satellite killers, wider adoption of stealth tech across the electromagnetic spectrum - from radar, visible to infra red, a massive increase in electrical compact storage capacity, social engineering and monitoring tech in a super 1984-type scenario. I think the most scary technology will be a continuation of the current USA experience on an evolving totalitarian state, media control, information management to the "benefit of the state" and the erosion of individual liberties. In a total war situation between super powers all citizens will be at risk of attack. The USA will not be so isolated from harm as in the previous two conflicts and the military dominated governments will use this fear to solidify their control over the population. This control will continue until long after the war's end. I think that advances on the biological field will be centered around bio energy and food production, rather than in new medical or bio warfare fields, since the time scale is too short. A war situation will allow a lot of emerging technology to sidestep the usual ethical debates. It will also open the flood gates of state research funding into for the team with the best powerpoint presentation of their idea. Excellent computer graphics imaging tech will allow the propaganda machine to feed the population with believable fake video footage of the opposition's atrocities. Maybe even animate a recently assassinated president and keep said assassination secret? All bridges and other vital transportation structures will be quickly destroyed, so new quick-erect building techniques will be required. The priority will be on "good enough" for a few years, rather than the current 50+ years service life. All shipping will be soft targets, so almost all oil importing countries will be forced to become self reliant of all their energy needs in a within a blink of an eye. I think I'll stop here, this rambling post has progressed beyond the
The funny thing is, they're still on all the traffic lights, just freaking people out, I'd wager. That's actually how I found out. I mistimed a yellow and was raging at the possibility of the camera ticket. My wife kindly informed me that they had been declared unconstitutional and were not active. Which is weird, as she doesn't know how to drive or have a license. I do, but I had no idea.
It's a timing thing. If I'm 500ft from the yellow, then I have room to stop, but not when I'm 100ft out towing 10k lbs of cargo. On top of that, 45-55mph isn't speeding. There are just times when running the yellow light that may change to red as I'm going through it , is perfectly acceptable. I've never even come close to causing an accident doing this. It's the other people on the road you have to worry about. If you were the car that slammed on their brakes for a yellow (meaning you hit them so hard the front of your car nose dives) in front of me in my trailer, you're gonna get rear ended most likely.
Couldn't agree more During an otherwise excellent edition of how to circlejerk, I tried to get [congressman Jared]( to talk about copyright but unfortunatly my question was pretty long and there were plenty of circlejerkin redditors needing his attention I strongly recommend that people watch the coming war on general computing that while possibly hyperbolic raises atleast two good points: Big media, are nothing compared to [other big lobbying groups]( As each plan fails, due to fundemental flaw that you can't stop people copying something they have control over, the legislators write even worse plans. We Cannot afford to lose the initiative if SOPA and PIPA fail, we have to push back further, Obama never mentions how copyright affects everyday people (after all isn't THAT who laws are supposed to protect, not corporate interests) He talks about jobs but the restrictive copyright regime only generates perpetual income no JOBS We finally have the momentum it's time to push further, sure sane copyright (less than 28 years in a modern economy and/or more permissive rules for non-commercial use), is not on the horizon but we should try and capitalise and at least get a statements about: the constitutionally outlawed, yet de-facto, perpetual copyright. how piracy isn't really costing jobs but the measures against it sure do how software patents are crippling US tech inovation how much DMCA is only harming legitimate users. Sure were unlikely to get any laws passed in the right direction but if we get strong statements from politicians at least pretending to see our point of view, we can use them for their entire career and they will be a strong incentive for them to not support SOPA-like measures in the future.
It's an honor to have you reply to one of my comments, good sir.
I knew it. the timing of when I switched from loving google to finding them annoying is too perfect on this, it has to be a little bit true at least,
You know, it's not okay to respond solely based on your notions of cultural misogyny. It degenerates the level of the conversation and belittles the actual problem of having "so few women in technology." Marissa's the epitome of a class act, she's hot, has brains to boot (BS/MS Stanford), and has an extremely successful career. She's also very taken. No, I won't stop, but you can stop contributing to the problem. Do I ever wonder why there are so few women in technology? Yes, and I never come to same conclusion that you have (in fact, people who are well-informed on the topic rarely come to your conclusion). Since I'm not in the mood to post a
That should be what circles are for, but it's not how my phone currently treats them. There is no list of my circles in my contacts sync that I can individually turn off and on. It either syncs everyone I have in any circle or no one at all. Under my "Accounts and Synchronization", I can turn off Google+, but that turns it off completely. If someone mentions me or sends me a message, I don't see it unless I go log into the app. But if I turn it on, it syncs to my address book. On what universe will I, a fat, bald, mid-30s mathematician living in Iceland, need the ability to contact Seven of Nine? If I want to send her a message, it's going to have to be through the Google+ app anyway. In the meantime, the people I do need to communicate with are then mixed in among a few hundred to a few thousand random strangers who say funny things on the Internet. OK, so maybe I can tell the address book itself not to look at Google+. No, in fact I can't. It syncs if Google+ synchronization is on, and doesn't if it's off, which as mentioned before, disables all notifications from the Google+ app. There is a separate option for filtering which synced contacts to display, and that also does not contain a list of my G+ circles that I can select or deselect individually. All I can do is select my Google account, under which I have "Friends", "Family", "Co-workers", "Unknown", "Starred in Android", and "All other contacts". I do have G+ circles for "Friends" and "Family", but none of the others. "Starred in Android" is a reference to my normal Google Contacts list, nothing to do with Google+ at all. So there's this mix of labels, several of which have no obvious meaning (if I have someone's email address in my Gmail contacts, but they aren't friends or family, are they "unknown"? "Other contacts?"). I literally had to spend 15 minutes checking and unchecking boxes one at a time, refreshing my contacts list, and looking to see if it looked like it contained everyone I might actually contact. Also, while I have a high end phone and can live with this solution, lots of people have severely space-constrained phones, and the idea of synching 35 MB of celebrity profile photos just so they can turn around and tell the address book to never actually show them is a pretty limiting thing. There are quite a few messages on various support forums from people who have run into that problem. The thing is, any human with an advanced enough intellect to feed and dress themselves will absolutely know without a shadow of a doubt that a huge number of people are not going to want celebrities they follow on an asymmetric social network to appear in their phone book. Even with facebook, where the person actually must acknowledge that we're friends, I don't actually want to see everyone . On Google+ the idea is ludicrous. I don't see how you can accidentally or through incompetence not have a clearly worded "Don't sync Google+ to Contacts" setting right up front. (Caveat: my phone just got Samsung's ICS update last night, so (a) I can't easily remember exactly what it looked like before, and (b) Samsung's UI people actually could plausibly be that incompetent.)
The negative effects and potential harm to Google's image is far outweighed by the risks of not entering social media. The main issue at hand has not been competing with Facebook, the main issue is that Facebook, with all of its insider information on its users, could potentially dominate search in the future by making search personalized and thus better for each end user. Google was forward thinking when it launched G+ in the effort to ensure future market dominance. Now that said, obviously G+ has thus far to some extent been a failure, but it allows them to gather to some extent personal information on each of its users in a legal manner, and thus can improve tailoring their search algorithms. Also, being roughly new and in a transition/experimental period results in a lot of negative drawbacks that will be mitigated with user feedback and data analysis. Another issue is that advertisers could potentially flock to Facebook because it could reach a more specific demographic with all of its personalized/social information; thus Google is trying to ensure online advertising dominance.
Come on now, Google is not that bad. Send me to down vote hell for this, I do not care. People get their panties in a bunch because a business does something that gasp MAKES THEM MONEY. In all honesty, the whole issue with Google tracking anyone's information and selling it to other businesses is not a great discrepancy in my book either. I have nothing to hide from Google, and if they want to advertise old school Nintendo game dealers (because I search for that quite often, believe it or not) then so be it. The last thing I bought for my game collection was the instruction manual for Zelda II. I bought it from a business that had an advertisement on Google. The business won, Google won, and ultimately I got an item I have been wanting for a long time. Google+ is not a problem either. There are thousands of crappy social networking sites out there, but no one ever complains about them (at least not to my knowledge). Just because it is Google does not mean that it can not provide a bad service. That also means that it is not the death or end of the "old" Google either. A prime example of this would be if some one were to go to a Chinese buffet and complain that the chicken nuggets that are there for children are awful. You do not go to a Chinese buffet for American food, and you also do not assume that the restaurant is going to go down hill from there.
It isn't at all. It's very simple. When the upload creates a link that's connected to the file, it's the file, not the link that DMCA cares about. The file itself is copyrighted, not just one instance of the file. Here, I'll go get my takedown form to quote for you. >I represent EMPLOYER, for the purpose of copyright protection. I have identified copyrighted material, linked below, hosted on your servers and I have a good faith belief that use of the aforementioned material is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agents, or the law. This statement is accurate under penalty of perjury. That's what I send to infringing file-hosts when I want them to take down some of our material. Notice that the request addresses material not links to material . According to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, when I send that notice you're legally obligated to remove the material from your servers, not just de-link a single instance of it from the file in your de-dupe system. You're not required to go hunt down every other instance of our copyrighted material on your own to delete, which is part of the safe harbor clause that protects sites like Youtube. I have to do the hunting, but as soon as I find that material and send you a take-down notice with a link to it, it's your legal responsibility to remove that file from your servers. Megauploads never once fulfilled a take-down request. Essentially what they did was create individual pages for each individual upload that links back to the main file. The pages with links to the file aren't the infringement, the file is. Taking down the pages doesn't remedy the issue, because the issue is the file. Now, all that considered, does Dotcom's de-dupe system, if he complies with DMCA, essentially render his site uncompetitive, in terms of piracy, with more decentralized systems like torrent trackers and even youtube? Oh yes. But see, DMCA's safe harbor clause isn't there to make sure that the best piracy sites thrive, it's there to ensure that nobody gets sued over things they simply can't control . Youtube, working as hard as they can to comply with takedown requests that they receive, still hosts a ton of copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright holder. The only reason that's the case is because it's impractical for them to get rid of it all, it's too big and there's too much. Of course, it's really in their interest to leave as much of it up as possible, because it drives up traffic. The thing is, they can't just decide not to remove that stuff. The best they can do is make themselves inefficient at being able to track it all down, so it's more likely to stay up. Notice how Megauploads took a very different approach. Obviously they want to generate traffic in any way they can, including with copyrighted material, just as YouTube does. Instead of creating a system that makes it hard to keep track of what files they've got on their servers to give themselves safe harbor protection, they created a system in which identical uploads call the same file (something which wouldn't even be meaningful to original works), and then just violated DMCA by not ever removing those files. See the difference? They could have played the game and maintained a niche covered by the safe-harbor laws, but instead they chose to ignore DMCA entirely. And by the way, I don't work for MPAA or RIAA or any large company. I work for a small sort of niche pseudopornographic production company, and that is who piracy hits in the wallet. It makes me money, so I ain't complaining, but without tools like DMCA for people like me to utilize, these small outlets would have no chance at all of protecting their copyright. CISPA can go fuck itself, though.
Messing with servers in the root zone of the DNS system isn't going to get you far. The importance of those particular servers isn't because they contain some secret code that makes the system function, their power is derived from the fact that people say they are authoritative. If any of the root servers were to be taken offline or publicly manipulated in an attempt to corrupt the DNS system itself then any sane network would stop considering them authoritative and use whatever they have in local cache until a more permanent solution is decided upon. You'd almost certainly see the big tech companies deploy a new server to be the trust anchor for their internal networks and accept the fragmentation that causes when trying to communicate to the outside world instead of relying on the corrupted old root zone. I'd bet dollars to donuts that Google's would become the new defacto root just because of their size and popularity.
That's your reasoning? Okay here is how your torrent works. [Your 40mbps connection is not actually 40 Megabytes download speed per second]( but rather around 5MB per second. That is the maximum speed your internet connection can download it. now various inefficiencies may drop that number further, but that's the basic speed you'd be downloading at a maximum. Now, when you connect to the swarm on the torrent, you're connected to a number of people (the number of which is limited by the amount that you set in your torrent client's settings), and each of those people will send you a piece of the file you're trying to download at a certain speed. This will obviously differ between each person's connection, but for somebody with the same connection as you, this number will likely be far less than the speed that you can download at. Now lets say that there is some completely insane internet connection that a seed has. Say.. he can upload at 100 Gigabytes per second. That piece he is sending to you? It will always, every time be limited by your download speed. He'll send you his part, and the speed will ramp up until it hits the maximum speed that you have allowed your torrent client to download at. When you are connected to multiple people, as is what happens with a torrent, this number changes, and the torrent client will allocate the amount of bandwidth to each person based on whatever speed they are downloading at. Its a bit complicated to explain this part, but I can guarantee you that the maximum speed you can download at will always be the same regardless of if you're connected to more than one person, or just one person. Think about this. Even a regular direct download on the internet, the internet wouldn't work if someone's upload speed could "max out" a downloader's connection. All those huge datacentres can send out data at huge amounts of speed, but they all adjust to whatever speed the downloader's connection can handle. Back to your connection. There are two main settings in your client that will control what you download at: a) your total download speed (this is the speed that you're downloading at, all torrents included) and b) the number of connections that you are making to other peers/seeds of the torrent's swarm. If you limit the speed at which you can download to an arbitrary value lower than what you had it at, All of your incoming connections, regardless of whatever speed they're capable of seeding at, will send you a file at that limit, as a maximum. Okay, now lets say you're connected to the swarm, but your internet connection is getting overloaded. Regardless of what you're downloading at, there's a number of people that are connected to you downloading and uploading. This is entirely limited by your connection and whatever hardware your ISP has. HOWEVER that said, your client can limit that number further, depending on whatever setting you set it at. Ideally this should be lower than whatever your ISP has (as if you use up all of the number of connections you have available, that's what will cause your connection to "max out"). This is where it takes a bit of tweaking as I said earlier, but if you pick a significantly lower number of connections to make, and slowly increase it, you can find that sweet spot where your connection is no longer being overloaded.
Is anyone else beyond fed up with how bad You Tube is now being plagued with commercials? I had minimum complaints when you could skip it right away. If they want to have that five second delay before we can skip, fine... I don't like it but I can live with it. But now you run into those 30 second no skip commercials quite often and I'm fucking fed up with it. I usually just get pissed and exit the browser and say fuck it. Sorry for the rant.
That's not cut and dry. I can argue the opposite - if they stopped paying for those commercials, I guarantee you they'd still charge you the same, because you've already shown that you're willing to pay it. (Might be different if EVERYONE stopped advertising, but that seems implausible). Additionally, they'd sell less (if they were generally competent at advertising in the first place), and thus need to charge more on each to make equivalent profits, as a result. Advertising done well should have a positive ROI - i.e. they really do make more money through incremental sales than they spend on advertising. Things like TV are a little hand wavy since it's quite hard to track - but things like online ads not so much.
Actually while I agree with the root of your sentiment the advertisers are actually paying the tv networks for the right to include advertising. Similarly, the cable companies ALSO pay the networks for the right to provide the network's content to CableCo's customers. And as a kicker the networks were granted license to broadcast on the public's airwaves for free a long time ago. Cable companies are just government regulated monopolies that gouge us so they can run their service at 80% gross margin.
Nobody is pointing out that this is actually good for the networks. More people will get to watch those shows now and as they get hooked, they'll watch it the same night (less than 24 hours past) in which the auto-hop feature is not active yet and the shows will need to be skipped like a regular DVR'ed event or if real time the viewer will watch the commercials.
yup. I always hated shitty miracle whip but the GF likes it so we'd normally have that in the house (since I hardly use any mayonnaise). I saw those awful awful commercials about extreme mayonnaise and almost threw up. Seriously? what are they trying to say with those ads? "Our mayo is so fucking tits brah, you'll be a millionaire having all kinds of crazy sex with skater chicks in no time!!" When in reality a 13 year old eats his shitty ham sandwich, then jerks off and cries.
People could discuss "Justice" or "Freedom" with 10 friends without realizing that each person has a completely different association in their mind. This reminded me of a conversation I had a while back in re: Richard Stallman. If you've ever seen, heard, or read an argument [debate] with Stallman you'll know it usually ends up with Richard Stallman being unshaken in his beliefs, and the other person is either shaken or unshaken. Basically it's either a win or a draw for Richard Stallman and his beliefs. My friend posited that this is because Stallman is very precise in his use of language. He makes sure that you aren't arguing some abstract concept of freedom, you are arguing against Stallman's definition of freedom.
The FDA was given their power by the American citizenry, which in turn has their power lent to them by the design of the American government. Also to say that an organization cannot come to power despite other powers being present is ludicrous, where exactly do you think powerful people come from? Sure you can be born into power, but you can also rise to it by the collective will of a society. If the "collective will of the American people" is viewed as a power, then the prof's quote still holds true. (Crime is something that American citizens at large, as expressed by their government, find inconvenient. - Seems right to me.) There can exist those with more power and sway than the American people, but I guess they either weren't in a good position to thwart the FDA, or they didn't care [at the time.] == EDIT:
Check the number of fails on youtube for steve jobs keynotes. You'll be impressed (even more in the early years of OSX). You'll also notice that Steve Jobs handles handled it way better than the presenter in this video, who's trying to hide it from view as if we didn't know what happened.
At least in that case Bill had the sense of humor to laugh about what happened. The guy in the Surface presentation totally could've laughed it off and done the same thing, explained that this was still pre-release software, but instead he was too nervous to react in a natural way, and therefore made the whole freeze-up look that much worse by pretending like nothing was wrong.
The problem is, a blue screen was a huge wall of text that often didn't tell professionals anything the memory dump or event log couldn't. It was user hostile and extracting any useful information from a user who experienced one was pretty fantastically rare. So they decided, well, if the professionals already can diagnose these things with a minimal amount of information, let's not barrage the hapless lay-people that make up the bulk of our consumers with information they can't use and won't remember, or make them have to make a decision about what piece of information on the screen is vital to report to a professional. AFAIK, Windows 8 will show the STOP code and maybe scant little more information, but it does so in a far more friendly manner.
If I recall I actually watched that full keynote, I thought he threw it off stage to a stagehand who worked with it and handed it back to Steve? (
Interesting. A very similar law applies in Australia. Although our consumer protection outfit (ACCC) hasn't come out with a big stick yet, all Aussie consumers are also protected by a statutory warranty, which basically states that an item's warranty should extend to cover "a reasonable expectation of product life". As an example, a $300 laptop could certainly get away with just a 12-month warranty - but the same can't be said for a $2000 laptop. You've paid a lot more, the quality should be better and no "reasonable" person would expect it to fail in 13 months. This came to a head recently with respect to Apple due to their 12-month warranty on iPhones. Nearly all phones are sold on 24-month contracts in Australia, yet Apple tried to persist with a 12-month warranty. This led to the unfortunate situation where you could have a broken device after 13 months and still be contracted to pay for it and a phone service for the following 11 months. The ACCC has recently ruled that 24-month phone contracts imply a 24-month warranty term for the device, and it is the business or carrier's responsibility to ensure that a faulty device is repaired during that 24-month period (if the fault isn't user-induced, of course).
I've never understood the complaints about the TSA. Sure, the patdowns and TSA security procedures are certainly a nuisance and may infringe on one's personal privacy, but really, all they're doing is trying to make sure our flights are safe. 9/11 happened and it sucked, and one of the unfortunate repercussions is that there now has to be increased security at our airports. I'm fine with a few unnecessary security scans and sketchy pat downs in the name of preventing any sort of in-flight security breach.
I unssubbed from /r/politics because, well, it was a bit too liberal. Then /r/worldnews started getting extremely political too. Now, politics is encroaching into /r/technology too. Point is: I am not here to hear about you guys advocate for our rights and freedoms. There are other more appropriate sub-reddits for you to raise awareness in.
Put simply, yes. However -- like everything involving patent law -- it is usually more complicated than what meets the eye. The court could decide on a settlement due from Apple to Google. This may or may not include lawyer fees. Alternatively, Google may have to cover Apple's lawyer fees if they lose the case. Google could be granted the exclusive rights to the patents, and Apple would then have a choice: redesign products or eliminate entire product lines. Anything between those two outcomes is also possible. HOWEVER A patent court can always outright void patents in the interest of a perceived "greater public good". For example if I discovered and patented the cure for cancer -- and subsequently was a complete ass and for some reason decided to not develop it to market myself or license the technology -- a court could void my patent in favor of a better outcome for society.
Wrong. Apple did not license the GUI or Mouse technology from Xerox. Steve Jobs sold 100,000 shares for $1M to Xerox for a tour of PARC. At PARC he was shown the Alto which was Xerox's version of the personal computer which ran an early version of the STAR operating system. As part of the deal Xerox asked Apple to buy insurance from Xerox's insurance company. Sources: Sources: I worked at PARC from 1998-2002 as a security guard, I had full access and clearance to every part of the building. My mother worked at PARC from 1994-2008 as a patent clerk. Lots of history in that building for anybody who wants to read.
When you buy stock, you are investing (giving somebody money so that they can go make stuff or provide a service). Loaning money has a return, otherwise nobody would do it, and we wouldn't have modern economies or technology.
You're even looking at their business model through rose colored glasses. Lets take IOS for example and their permissions system. Recently its come to light that apps like Path and more malicious apps can take your contacts, location, and other related data.. for ads, etc. Apple is closing this hole in IO6 by allowing user set permissions. Apple packaged you and your data to hand over to app developers because they needed support from developers and willingly allowed it. Only now that they have a sizable market share and public outcry do they decide they want to stop it. So basically you are still a product thats packaged and sold regardless.
I am not talking about /r/technology - most people in /r/technology are at least half way informed of events within the technology world that do not revolve around the latest apple or microsoft or google development. The people I am talking about are the people on the streets who do not have a clue what is going on. What it boils down to, is Apple is effectively trying to head butt Google - A company that is well versed in dealing with litigation. A company that has a far reaching, and experienced legal team - Not to mention a company well stocked, more recently, with a boat load of patents of their own to throw in apples face if and when push comes to shove. If apple bites, Google is more then able to strong arm back. So as apple attempts to patent everything it can, it only damages the reputation of the corrupt system - and puts fuel in the pot to damage their own reputation. Being caught red handed lying by saying you are innovating - when the world knows you are trolling - does not bode well for your market shares. It may not seem so at first, but first, you get people unwilling to buy the product - not a lot, but a few. People who used to be loyal customers - People who feel cheated. And these people - Earlier adopters of technology in some cases, find new products, and give word of mouth. And slowly it chips away at the giant. Look at IBM, Look at Microsoft. They were both giants - still big, but not nearly as much. They moved slowly, relied on their patents, and market positon - instead of innovation and development. They relied on familiarity, instead of strong marketing. Apple relies on marketing - but they can no longer use some of the big strong points in selling, so they are left with familiarity. They are not innovating nearly as much - they are following the trend. They are resisting an overhaul on iOS to update its interface. To make it functional instead of flashy. All of these pieces of the puzzle are starting to slide together. Android is growing - and is being sold competitively. Both in performance, and in price - very much so in price. People do not need a personal computer on the go. They do not notice a 0.25 second difference more often then not, let alone 0.01 of a second. People do not require > 200 ppi screens - they need battery life. This is likely where the next step in competition will go.
Of course it is. Was that up for debate? (Unless you are talking about your windmill thing, in which case, it's not really controlled. There are no inputs to control it with.) You are never going to 3d print something that sorts and requires an electronic sensor. Yes, you can print the housing and control mechanisims, you can even print a mechanical computer, but you aren't going to print the sensor (Which is a is arguably the most advanced part.) nor are you going to print the device that interfaces with the sensor.
We have to deal with complaints sometimes at work, more so in my last job. The problem is if we as a company dispute it, we become liable. We notify the customer who would then be responsible and liable for the complaint and dispute unless they don't respond. At that time we have the right to administratively down the content or site until a response from the customer is generated. We can't say its legal for it to be there or not as its not our site/content but we are still responsible for covering our own ass.
It used to be that the vision of the future, was that technology would make life easier for us i.e. washing machines, vacuum cleaners or remote controls. The thing that seems to be missing now, is the intuitiveness that we associate with handling things in the physical realm. The interface in minority report certainly looks like it has functionality by the bag full, but to operate it looks like a nightmare. I imagine it would be like having to memorize every keyboard shortcut possibility. Yes, you could probably get things done quicker, but to learn how to use it would probably require an intensive training course. When I was younger, I stayed away from Nokia phones... everybody seemed to have one, and I wanted to be different. One day I bit the bullet, and I realised what intuitive really was. I had swapped from a Sony to a Nokia, and there was still functionality on the Sony that I had never used, but the Nokia made it very simple to use the phone to it's full capabilities. Without trying. And so I cant help but wonder exactly how intuitive are the devices nowadays? We've all grown used to the drag and swipe^TM, it's second nature. But give it to someone who's never used one before, how easy is it to learn? [The linked article went on to describe how we use our hands without even realising it] ( and I cant help but wonder how much more intuitive things would be if they related to the physical tasks they try and emulate. I think the pinnacle of innovation would be for the user to accomplish something without having to think about it. For example, you have a clapper to turn your lights on and off. A member of the family visits, but doesn't know this, and so searches for the light switch. It's not intuitive to clap your hands to turn the lights on, even if it is easier than hunting for the switch in the dark. An alternative may be movement detection - You never have to think about turning a light on or off again... although walking into a darkened room to make the lights come on isn't that intuitive either. Anyway, my rant is over.
Dont know about an ELI10, but
fuck you, and fuck links to your stupid pseudoscience spam blog. (for those /r/technology readers who may not be familiar with zephir_banned_banned, those two "banned"s on the end of his name are there for a reason. He is a pathological troll who is fixated on a bullshit pseudoscientific handwavy pile of nonsense he called aether wave theory. He is has been regularly spamming this horseshit to /r/physics and /r/science since at least 2006, and has been banned repeatedly due to the absolute lack of science in any of his postings on science-related sub forums).
By changing the image and then re-saving you are creating a new file. You have no guarantee the the card will write it into the same place as the old one. Even if you use low-level system tools to explicitly tell the card to zero out a particular sector and write something over it the card is free to redirect the write to a different sector.
Yup! A lot of people here seem to work for larger companies. I work for a 20 person company for my 9-5 where I am the only IT personnel on site. I also run not one, but two companies now on the side and its literally a one man show most of the time. Although we're hiring some people for the side gigs, it's not as easy as "they'll find a way to cope without me." Especially with the side business, people only ever call me when they can't figure it out for themselves because they know they are paying for my services.
Get out. I fell for that for 6 years with a "small business that needs time to grow, then we'll be able to pay you more." Meanwhile, I watched two of the owners cheat the third partner out of everything, and do whatever they could to convince everyone they were working SO HARD, all while one of them was robbing the company blind, and the other (I much later discovered) was addicted to opiates. I highly recommend looking at what you're doing with a completely objective eye. It's worth noting that if everyone around you is trying to convince you to leave, but you have the attitude of "I'll show them," you're going to be wrong 99% of the time. Listen to people who have more experience than you - they may not understand the business, but they understand people. It's sad that I've become so jaded about small businesses, but when I see and hear people saying and doing the same things I did, I feel like I have to throw that warning out there.

Subsets and Splits

No saved queries yet

Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.