0
stringlengths 9
22.1k
|
|---|
Would you rather have internet advertised at 500kb down/50kb up? ISPs are overselling too much, building too little infrastructure, and capping too low —but to expect to be able to have a connection that is as fast in a burst as you want, and be able to operate at that speed all the time, is simply not physically realistic.
If ISPs hasn't squandered government infrastructure money, if there was real competition, etc, I think we would still have caps, they'd just be much higher, and the peak speed of the connection would be higher as well. I have Comcast 8/1Mbps (250GB cap), which is pretty pathetic really, but say 24/3/750GB cap would suddenly be far more reasonable, even though the cap-to-speed ratio is the same. There's only so much HD video you can watch in a month, after all, while the peak speed remains valuable almost without limit for downloading mid-sized files like software. |
I worked for Alienware for two years - I used to be the tech support supervisor for corporate and ALX (alienware luxury line of ultra-expensive computers, we're talking $6k computers ).
During that time, I had to take care of some really, really messed up cases and more often than not, trying to make up for damage that the bad depot repair guys inflicted on the computers. The call center is not located in India but in Costa Rica, that's where you're calling - it's not an Indian accent but rather a latino one FYI ;)
The depot is located in Miami, so the tech support agents have absolutely no way to physically go and see the computers, everything is handled over e-mail or a ticket system where MANY things get lost in translation.
After working there for 2 years, I can honestly say that the quality of Alienware's hardware is just one notch above the crappiest there is. It's just over-hyped marketing! The company used to advertise new computer configurations all the time, even before they had passed validation (a.k.a. before a single computer with that config was fully built, tested and stressed to confirm it works flawlessly). This caused endless problems.
The warranty and repair service are very unfair to customers. They pay $3k for a laptop and then get TERRIBLE support when they need to - and this warranty is also very expensive.
Dell took over several years ago and promised that everything would change, but I still have friends who work there and they've confirmed that everything is pretty much the same. Insanely long turnaround times, waiting on hold for 45 minutes, having to deal with stupid company policies and bad accents, etc.
Now, let me tell you from my own experience that I've only had good experiences with Dell . I've bought 7 computers from them (2 for myself and the rest for friends or relatives) and they all run perfectly. Sure, we've had to replace some components as they go bad from time to time (like with every computer in the world), but Dell's service has always been extremely fast, friendly and just great. Note that this is in Costa Rica , I don't know if the same applies to the US.
I bought the accidental damage plan for my XPS laptop and I've already had to use it twice to replace the motherboard. First time my brother spilled a whole glass of wine on the keyboard, effectively taking a dump on the laptop. And the second time, I plugged it into a bad wall outlet that just fried the motherboard. Both times, a HOT female tech came to my house and replaced the motherboard in less than 30 minutes , and I had the computer in perfect order 3 days after the accident.
It's sad to see that Dell's good customer service and support DOES NOT apply to Alienware, even if they're a sub-branch. Alienware still pretty much runs things on their own. The marketing, product management, research & development and call center teams are still the same as 5 years ago. That is, a separate company. |
Really, cause I went through quite a few hoops over borked wifi in my touch last year. |
I Bought an M15X about 3 years ago. It was a gift, and I was 14 at the time, so it was understandable. Within the year it had screen issues. I sent it out from NY for repairs, a month later it was returned. Everything had been replaced with no backups except the Ribbon cable causing the problem in the first place. Apparently every time I had called asking why it was taking so long they had been looking at a different laptop with water damage, that someone else had needed repairs on. I had to re-ship it out and wait another 2 weeks to finally get it repaired, after spending atleast $20 on a special laptop box and shipping. |
It's Malcolm Gladwell, which means the piece is probably supposed to contradict the prevailing notions, but without the attendant research.
The following article debunks the 10,000 hours myth as put forth in Outliers:
> “The striking thing about Ericsson’s study is that he and his colleagues couldn’t find any “naturals”, musicians who floated effortlessly to the top while practicing a fraction of the time their peers did.
>
> Nor could they find any “grinds”, people who worked harder than everyone else, yet just didn’t have what it takes to break the top ranks.” – Outliers, pg 39
>
>Again, I don't know how he arrives at the above statements - Ericsson presented not a single measure to support these claims ( and I happen to know that he didn't interview him either ). As we'll see shortly, it is actually inconceivable that Gladwell's statements are true - other study of skilled performance show massive variations, and the same will be true for violinists, of this I'm certain.
>
>But what he is saying above is that practice is NECESSARY (the first part of the quote - no one succeeds without doing the time), and that practice is SUFFICIENT (the second part - if you do the training, you will achieve the level). This is crucial to this debate - those advocating for 10,000 hours are saying that it is both necessary and sufficient.
Read on for a thorough debunking of Gladwell. |
While it's possible to take down super-large corporations like Sysco, Coca Cola, AT&T, Kraft Foods, Wal-Mart by voting with your wallet, it's HIGHLY HIGHLY probable it will fail. Reason being? So, you didn't buy that thing from wal-mart on principle; they'll be glad to know they really aren't missing out on much profit. However, if I decided not to buy from my local general store, they're gonna miss my dollars. |
Well, they have shown themselves to be incredibly short sighted and pro-censorship. The only reason they pulled support was PR and money. Their internal stance didn't change. This is them trying to save face, not do the right thing for the internet.
Giving them credit for just saying "We're sorry for doing that incredibly shitty thing so lets just forget about it eh? haha, what a laugh that was, whoopsie!" undermines it because its letting them off to easy in the minds of the Anti-SOPA crowd.
Let me put it this way, they were so far on the side of supporting SOPA that they don't win people back over by saying sorry and keeping all their domains and respect. They have to turn on a dime and do the right thing, which is not only "Withdraw support" AKA "We're scared our image will be hurt but we still want the bill passed" but actively campaign against it.
Basically they need to do more than say sorry to make up for their mistake. If they do that, then people might start giving them respect again. However the thing is that consumer confidence has been damaged and they know it. And thats very very hard to repair.
I'm an observer in Europe by the way. This is just what I have been able to see from others perspective. |
These are all symptoms of a broken political system in the USA. It goes like this:
Elections cost millions to win due to high costs of national airtime for attack ads and an army of campaign supporters and organizers.
Aspiring candidates take millions in donations and owe favors in return.
Once in power sitting congresspeople/senators are "informed" by further political "donations".
Powerful lobby groups like RIAA, agriculture lobby, arms manufacturers, unions etc have an outsized influence over political decisions.
Crappy outcome.
Alternative approach:
Candidates can ONLY spend a limited amount of public taxpayer money on their campaign, nothing else.
Sitting congress people/senators are paid ~1million per year. BUT cannot accept donations, stock options, gifts, support ANYTHING.
They serve at the pleasure of the public. They get paid very well to do an important job well, if they fuck it up by breaking the rules they're impeached/replaced. |
When the government is making laws that allow media companies to keep solidly in the past and prevent innovation in distribution technologies, and those companies refuse to adapt whenever a superior technology comes around, I can look up to a guy who links to some torrents.
True, they make money from other people's work, it's unfortunate. But when their service allows people to search up almost any TV show, movie, game, application, book and whatever else and provide comprehensive lists, entire discographies, entire series at the click of a button, it completely negates the need for the publishers, distributors and record labels that are pushing all this copyright law in the first place.
These technologies make them obselete, and they are JAILING people for this. They are putting potentially non-violent people in prison (for quite lengthy amounts of time compared to even some violent crimes, or crimes with a direct victim) with people who ARE violent, who are in there to stop them being violent to others. It's obscene, and it sickens me that this goes on, all from the influence of these big media companies who just want to make their fat wallets fatter.
EDIT (Clicked post too early): If the content creators were to leave their respective, abusive media companies, and instead direct their efforts to helping create content for these far superior services (of course being paid in return), it would solve many of the problems involved. Unfortunately due to the nature of the media business, many of these content creators are tied to particular publishers (Along with losing their creative writes to the IP in a lot of cases) so could not even do this anyway. |
Lol ok Enjoy not making a penny off your hard work.
When you wake up and realize that its important to earn money from your work you will think much differently about your methods.
Also calling me names etc...is absolutely pathetic, the fact that you take this personally and resort to insults etc...is proof you have no grip on reality. |
The other "to be fair" thing, though, that often comes up in these debates is that the US is such an incredibly decentralized country - whereas most European countries (partially due to the sheer difference in size compared to the US) have much higher relative population densities and are much more centralized. If you take a look at the population density of the US - you have massive population centers in the New England area and the California area - but the midwest is absolutely barren.
The US uses rail for shipping across the country but there's no way to really justify the cost it would take to overhaul the rail system country-wide because a good 75% of that rail would see very minimal use because there are just so few people living near it. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be a sense making long-term investment, but it's way more sense making for the European countries to have a good rail system countrywide and - seeing as they're all so close together, continent-wide, because they cover a very small total area (relatively) and their populations are more dense.
The big issue is that in order for it to really work - you have to make it work everywhere. There's a regional high speed train that exists, and if you look at a [US population density map]( - it's where it makes sense - from Boston to Washington - however, even this one shares the old rails so it's drastically limited in speed. There's a dedicated high speed rail line that's going to start being build, going from Anaheim to San Francisco.
But looking at the location of the two places it really makes sense (I'd also say going around the detroit/chicago area as well, and potentially from DC to Florida and/or Atlanta) you really run into the problem of high speed rail in the US: The system doesn't really effectively work unless you can interlink it, but there's a massive area where you're building rails across the US that are going to receive absolutely minimal use - there are so many sparsely populated areas of the US once you get off of the east and west coast, that a system that needs to really be universal (because sharing tracks or being forced to use old tracks drastically hinder it, and the way tracks were built previously were not conducive to the conditions high speed rails need).
But if, in contrast, you look at the population density of a country like [Germany]( - if you lay high speed rail in the places that it really "makes sense" you're essentially within 100 miles of basically 80-90% of your entire population - whereas in the US, you're covering maybe 25-30%, and you don't even have a system that can go across your entire country without a massive investment laying track in places that have no need.
Now look, at the end of the day, I'll agree that the US should definitely be taking bigger steps to be improving our public transit - particularly high speed rail, but the reason that the US's rail system is not up to par of Europe's has way more to do with it making perfect logical sense why Europe's rail system would be better than ours. |
Let me be the first (edit: not the first, as there are already downvotes) to say that you're just a little part ignorant, and a large part pretentious.
Attacking my nationality instead of using actual debate techniques to debunk my stance or argument? Classic misdirection and avoiding the point. You're so caught up with trying to find some way to keep your anti-US circlejerk going that you've grasped at a straw here. I have presented a factual argument, and have addressed the issues and arguments that matude brought up.
You have ignored what the basis of the conversation actually is, and have instead brought up something that is neither relevant nor constructive.
Am I defensive of the fact that we have no comprehensive rail system on par with Europe? Sure. Do I wish that the US had the resources and market for one? Yes, of course, I'm not an idiot. While I argued against the frugality and feasibility of building such a system in the US, I in no way, shape, or form stated or implied that I was against having one in the first place. I understand that, in the long run, a public transport system may end up being cheaper than individual transport solutions like automobiles. |
I am a musician in Austin, TX, and I couldn't agree more that the entertainment industry thrives on archaic, unfair, and dishonest tactics in the drive for money and power. As with many things, some degree of a resistance to change is a defense mechanism we all share at the base of who we are, and whether that is expressed or not is what makes us different. There is no denying that the industry needs to change, and ultimately will have to change, in order to survive. And while it's crucial that the change take place, remember that file-sharing as we know it today didn't really start taking hold until about 13 years ago with the launch of Napster. That's not a lot of time for a behemoth industry to change (but admittedly, the degree of stagnation is pretty disappointing).
The point so many seem to be missing is that the industry isn't just made up of rich businessmen and monolithic corporations; in fact, the majority of the music industry are individuals, like myself, who do our best to make our content heard and to survive off doing what we love to do. It's very easy to stigmatize big business and say something like "I urge everyone to make sure that the entertainment industry does not profit from them anymore", but it misses the point that the most negatively affected individuals from that action with be the millions of anonymous strugglers you don't think about.
I understand that the point is to put pressure on the industry executives and the organizations themselves, but that has to be done in a way that is healthy for entertainment (not to be confused with the entertainment industry). In reality, it's disingenuous to pretend that there are thousands of download-oriented websites focused on consciously and deliberately helping people to steal content created by people who have every right (based on a childlike notion of FairPlay and within the bounds of reason) to protect and profit from their content. Whether it's wise for the creators to do so is another question, but you don't justify breaking down the doors and looting a Hollywood Video because "no one believes in Hollywood Video anymore".
My point is that pushing forward a notion that content is free is dangerous to a lot of people's livelihoods that you probably don't consider daily (the way that I have to). I would be lying if I said I had never pirated content, but at it's core pirating content when it is available to be bought is equivalent to saying you neither respect the content owner's right to their personal creation nor appreciate the work they do to make it available to you. |
Providing a service comparable to piracy is the only way anyone will ever stop piracy.
I can go on the Pirate Bay less than an hour after a show is aired and find a 720p rip of the episode. Where is the comparable service for that in America? I can download new-release, high-quality 1080p movies in less than thirty minutes, I can get DRM-free music in FLAC quality for almost any artist out there. I'm not going to spend $15 on an album to hear one or two good songs and then never listen to it again. I'm not going to buy it online and give some ridiculous amount of the profits to people who had nothing to do with making the song.
I have Netflix and I buy from Bandcamp, because I support what they do for the market, but even Netflix is shit compared to piracy and I barely ever use it. I'm a big anime-person and Netflix only has dubbed anime. I also use Crunchyroll, which is decent, but it doesn't have anywhere near all the anime I watch and it doesn't allow you to DL 1080p. But that's a different story.
The day I can buy all my music from Bandcamp, every single obscure little song, with at least 90% of the money going to the artist, is the day that I stop pirating music. I already don't pirate a single thing that's on Bandcamp, such as, when Amanda Palmer switched over to Bandcamp, there's not a single thing I haven't bought from her.
I'm also going to bash on video games and Steam, I realize that's taboo here, but I'm going to do it. I bought the Darkness II and do you have any idea how annoying that shit is? To play it I have to first start up Steam, login, go on Steam, start up the game, wait for Steam to start it up with its little box popup that takes 5 minutes, and then the game starts and suddenly it's Microsoft's turn to ask me what my login information is, for their totally separate service, and I have to put that shit in, and then wait for it to connect, and then I can finally actually play the fucking game, that's 6 hours long and wasn't worth the $50 I paid to begin with.
I actually pirated The Darkness II because the pirate version of the game boots up immediately when I double-click the icon. I don't have to fuck with Steam, the Windows Live shit just goes away. There's no issues whatsoever. It's very clear that the pirated version of The Darkness II is the superior product, so why did I pay money for the legit version? To support THQ? A company that shits all over its customers and puts out tons of DLC that should have been included with the game in the first place?
It's ridiculous. Piracy is a part of the world now and people have to live with that. It's not going to go away. These generations are being raised with piracy, you can't convince people like me that an album is worth $15 or a movie is worth $30 on blu-ray or a game is worth $50, when we've grown up with receiving it for free. To companies- If you want to stop piracy, bring the prices down, provide good, high-quality comparable services, and stop being such corrupt fuckheads. |
For the past 5 years, I've been working my way up the studios in Hollywood. I'm an aspiring filmmaker and reddit lurker, but I've never posted until now. I just want to present my understanding of the studios' business and ask you all questions.
Most studios are own by larger corporations who primarily deal with other, more stable industries. The studios represent the entertainment section of their portfolios and is HIGHLY volatile at best. Normally the studios will have a board or a set of investors who expect certain returns annually. But as we all know, some films will succeed and others won't, as we're never entirely sure how the product with turn out. And we're even less sure how the public will respond the product.
People greenlighting films are average people like you or me who have worked VERY hard to crawl up the ranks until they're able to make decisions on what film/tv projects should go into productions. They have families, they have debt, they have the stress of keeping a studio from losing money, and their average career span at the studio is far less than 10 years. (They may later go on to be a producer.)
For feature films, we widely hear the reported budget (which can be VERY misleading to say the least), but what we don't hear is the additional $20 to $70+ million spent to market and distribute the films in the United States alone. That's just the cost to make the consumer aware that the film exists and is worth your time and money, due to the glut of material in the market.
Because of these things, Hollywood is obsessed with offsetting risk any way it can... because they have to be. If an executive walked into his boss' office requesting to make a $70million sci-fi adventure comedy with no stars and a no name director, he'd be out of a job. He's looking at putting the studio up for a $140million risk with no indication for people wanting to see that film. No way he can offer that.
SO, the studios try to make films with actors/directors the public likes, with storylines and themes the public likes, etc etc. Additionally, the studios sell the rights to the films. They can sell the distribution rights; they can sell the dvd rights; they can the streaming rights; and they can sell those things internationally as well. So instead of reaping all the monies from distribution and dvd sales worldwide, smaller distributors pay the studios for the rights to release the films locally. And if that's bad enough, some studios have deals with other studios to release their DVDs. Needless to say that the rights situation is out of control.... all in the name of profits. And I'm not sure that you can blame them. 100's if not, thousands of jobs depend on the success of those films. I don't think anyone will argue that the salary breakdown for someone like myself versus an executive on top is skewed... but my salary and opportunity for promotion/getting my film made hinge on the success of the industry as a whole.
Additionally, regarding paying for cable to watch commercials: Your cable payments go to the telecommunications companies to give you access to the broadcaster's channels and the fees the broadcasters charge those t-comm companies for the rights to air their content. The commercial fees go to the broadcasters and the show creators to pay for the budget/advertising/risks of the show and ultimately to increase the budgets of the subsequent seasons of the show. I know it seems like you're being hit twice, but they go into separate accounts and the advertisers are the ones spending.
MY QUESTIONS:
is the primary argument for pirating that the materials are not available in your region?
am I correct in assuming you don't have an infrastructure like netflix in your area to make viewing easy and reasonably inexpensive?
do you still watch films in the theaters?
if a young filmmaker cough had projects he wanted to screen, what would actually entice you to watch a film/series from a no name director/no stars?
would you honestly pay for an indie film?
would you be likely to donate to the film after you've seen it and enjoyed it?
in a perfect world, how do you want to see your TV shows/films? |
Well its like what NDT said on The Daily Show, the reason why we went to the moon was to show superiority in space over the Soviets because we felt threatened by them. It wasn't truly for the advancement for mankind, it was a dick measuring contest.
If we want the budget for NASA to increase, if we want to go to Mars, then all we need is for Al-Qaeda, Iran, North Korea, or any other group or country that we have a hostile relationship with to attempt to go to Mars before the U.S. does.
It seems like the only thing that will get the U.S.'s politicians to actually do something beside have petty arguments on their views on contraception or other things that really shouldn't have been an argumentative topic in the first place is a threat to the U.S. for superiority over anything. |
Actually, NASA is likely the most efficient government agency we have. The budget is tiny, and has been shrinking for awhile. The highest it has ever been is 4.41% of the federal budget (in 1966). It has been hovering below 1% since mid 70s, and is at its lowest point today.
Granted, that's % of budget, and the picture is slightly different over time when considered in a constant dollar viewpoint. However, it is sitting at about half of the normalized dollar level of the 60s.
Now, as you said, if you want to go to Mars or somewhere crazy, and you want to do it like the 60s, you obviously need to double the budget. Expecting NASA to get to Mars on half of the normalized dollar budget we used to get to the Moon just doesn't work. The reason it's just doing small scale stuff (although the new telescope would be absurdly amazing, it's Hubble on crack and think of all the awesome shit we learned from the Hubble once it finally got into space) is because that's all it can afford to do. They're trying to gain the most scientific information for their small budget (I'd argue because they ARE efficient) and so they put the money in the sadly non-glamorous things.
I'm never sure where people get the idea that they're inefficient. As far as I can tell as an outsider who has known several engineers that worked there, they're absolutely the most efficient part of our government hands down on a dollars to results ratio. (Hilariously, compare their efficiency to that of the F-35 JSF project, 58.4 billion dollar cost, 4 years of NASA budget, and what is there to show for it? |
Sorry to be a naysayer, but can someone explain to me why this CISPA is bad? This guy just ranted about SOPA for a while, and then cited an EFF article that I can't freaking find and that the dude failed to link to.
ಠ_ಠ
However, online I find these articles:
Don't get me wrong, I'm a freedom-loving anti-SOPA redditor, but, without reading it AND being a lawyer, or having lawyer's opinion on the matter, I fail to understand the bandwagoning. |
As often is the case with the government, there is a big difference between how things should be and how they actually are. There has been discussion of the "[Quantico Circuit]( since its existence was revealed in 2008 by a whistleblower (outlined in [this affidavit](
> Quantico Circuit
> n.
>A surveillance tap providing intelligence agencies with access to every conversation on an entire cell phone network. Named after the Virginia town where the FBI Academy is located, the recently disclosed technology has short-circuited customer privacy — and Congressional oversight — since at least 2003. ([Source](
You folks down under aren't immune Act 1979 ("TIA Act")]( National security trumps personal privacy and security concerns. Of course, these types of backdoor access points also allow for programs such as [WinCE/PhoneCreeper.A]( to be installed on cellular phones.
As you also pointed out above, [backdoor access is not limited to cellular communications]( and the discussion by the manufacturer is not focused on fixing the vulnerability - only on alerting customers of its existence.
Being aware of security vulnerabilities and threats to privacy is a full time job. For instance, most don't know [copy machines store a digital copy of all documents scanned and printed on a hard drive]( or that the hard drive needs to be erased upon disposal of the unit. |
We created the first office with 100 desks and said "we won't have 100 people here any time soon, since it's just you and I."
Five years later, we had seven employees, and laughed at how each staff had more than a dozen desks available to them.
Then we were successful, and next thing we knew we had 180 people in the company. We got really good at sharing desks, and we're all on mobile devices now anyways, but we're constantly having to redirect our phone numbers so that people can find us as we shuffle around the desks.
Now there's 2 desks unused and no storage space for anyone and so it's hard to conduct business. Some of them work from home as satellites, some of them share cubicles (their desk became a "Private Network" where we knew a resource could be reached, but couldn't know HOW until we were at the desk, inside the desk space, if you will).
So, now we're moving into a building complex that could support 2 MILLION EMPLOYEES, even though there's really only about 200 people in this office now, all trying to share the current pool of desks. We could NEVER run out of space, if we tried. Our fax machine can have its own desk. Our electric stapler could have its own desk, and ANYONE could reach the stapler if they have permission. Maybe we won't even need as many staplers as a consequence. |
Well...
Let's see if they're telling the truth...
The crime did not take place on UK soil. It took place on tvshack.net's servers.
The article doesn't say where tvshack.net's servers were hosted (good possibility that it was in the US).
.NET is owned by Verisign.
Verisign is based in [Reston, Virginia]( so tvshack.net's DNS was likely American as well. |
The wireless spectrum is hard limited by the Shannon limit. It's a limit that is impossible to meet, but proves that we cannot increase the network ability cap arbitrarily large. We can increase the limit by having more bandwidth available, but the FCC directly controls those bands in the US and cell phones have to share the spectrum with radio/microwave ovens/wifi/RC toys/military comm/satellite comm/etc. |
I had a "Tech support" operator tell me that if I jammed a regular phone cord into the Cat5 slot on my modem and then into my computer it would still work, "It would just be slower because it has fewer wires."
This was after having called them once a week for 3 months attempting to get my service working at the advertized speed. (I was getting 5 mbps insteand of 40 mbps) I was FRUSTRATED!
I made her cry. |
per NPR on the drive to work this morning, after every shift, the workers have to queue up in lines 200-300 people deep and go through metal detectors to ensure they are not stealing iPhones, parts, etc. The security guards that man these checkpoints have a reputation for insulting, berating, generally verbally abusing the workers as they leave.
The riot was, again per NPR, thought to have sparked because last night, some guards took things to the next level and physically assaulted some workers. Things came to a head and the riot occurred.
[Link to NPR]( |
Having dealt with Apple Stores frequently over the last 4 years, I have a hard time believing this story, especially since you preface it with "I hate Apple".
Here's an anecdote for you: took my friend to the Apple Store to try to get service on his 4S, jailbroken and with something on it called "Android Lock" that messed up so bad that even a restore didn't get rid of it. We didn't expect to get any service because immediately upon boot the phone displayed a message showing it was jailbroken, then froze completely. The Genius looks at the phone, looks at us knowingly, and says "It must be a problem with the internal battery." Five minutes later he walks out with a new iPhone, no questions asked. What possible reason would an Apple Store employee have for denying you service and lying to their manager? |
It is not a thing you can comprehend...
We might surprise you.
> You represent chaos, we represent order. Every technological advancement must be patented in order to bring order to the chaos. It is inevitable. Without our intervention, consumers are doomed. We are your salvation.
You're banning everything and the Samsung Galaxy in order to save us?
> The cycle must continue. There is no alternative.
Apple and Google don't have to destroy each other!
> The Battle with Samsung disproves your assertion. Finish your war - we will be waiting. |
Do you need it? No. Does an android/smartphone help in unexpected ways? Yes.
I live an aggressively boring regular life. But when we moved to a mountainous/canyon area, and my phone had zilch reception at the house, I loaded a free VOIP app so I can make calls easily. The 60+ year old neighbors keep chanting Magic Jack, and they have a hard time understanding it's the same thing but free-er.
We're looking at buying some undeveloped land out here in the middle of nowhere. We were walking some land and couldn't find the property lines, so I found a compass app that gives constant gps coordinates to help
We drove a cross country trip a few months ago, and loaded a GPS tracker so that our family can log in and see where we are, and if we're moving, instead of calling us every 3 hours to "just see how we're doing".
Sure I use it to read reddit, or stare at facebook when I'm bored, but I cannot pretend these phones don't continually come in handy for real life shit and makes life easier. |
Actually when you think about it, people go ape shit for Apple news because it's all speculation and the company doesn't generally make public statements. All apple news comes from deep within forumns. Unlike everyone else's which generally comes direct from the horse's mouth. |
High here so sorry for that
Honestly that was so emotional for me because my brother and i's relationship was like that when we were younger (me being your brother). My heart goes out to you man and I wish you all the best. Much love bud. -psyche |
Sorry for the text dump, but this is one of my interests.
[puts on 3D expert hat] So here's the deal. 3D is not a 'gimmick'. It's a film making tool. It's not 'natural', but neither is any other part of cinema. The visuals of cinema (color, focus, panning, transitions, lighting, etc) are completely artificial and also has no resemblance to human vision.
But unlike many of these other tools and techniques, 3D has some fundamental difficulties.
The first is the tools to actually capture video. Using two cameras to capture 3D creates huge problems. The distance between cameras (disparity) is basically fixed at the time of setup, so there is no opportunity to change the disparity or focal point as the shot develops. This means that panning, changing focus, changing focal points, etc are practically crippled. It would be like shooting 2D video without being able to change the focus.
The second comes during filming, editing, and post production. Scenes in 3D develop differently than 2D. Panning and transitions need to happen slower. Changing focus without changing focal points is highly problematic. Even the choice of where to set the focal point (the point the two cameras point to) is highly problematic. Sometimes you want it on a specific object, sometimes you want it at infinity (i.e. both cameras facing forward). These choices create very different visual affects and are difficult to change within a shot, and jarring to change between shots.
The third is playback. There are basically 3 ways to do it (not counting exotic and obsolete stuff).
The first and most common in theaters is polarization(RealD and IMAX). The big problem (once you start using circular polarization) is you need a special non-depolarizing screen. The screens are somewhat difficult to make and often have 'hot spots' and are more prone to bleeding images from the 'other' eye.
The second is active shutter glasses. These are expensive per unit so they are far more common for TVs and small venues. But small venues and TVs have a huge problem. You sit so close to the screen that you get very pronounced false parallax (when you turn your head the image 'stretches' in the wrong direction). Also, the field of view for the screen is way to small, creating a pronounced windowing affect.
The third is the Dolby 3D system, which is like the old anagylph (red/blue) system but it filters each of the three colors. It has some nice features (uses a standard screen, good color reproduction) but it's more expensive for glasses.
So if it sucks so badly, why use it?
First, technology is marching forward. The new LightField cameras are currently not much more than toys, but they have enormous potential for 3D, as well as traditional cinema. These cameras allow you to film a scene and later choose focal point, focus, depth of field, etc. An array of them would theoretically allow you to chose disparity and focal point as well. This basically solves many of the setup and shooting issues.
Being able to dynamically change depth of field, focal points, etc give an entire new visual 'vocabulary' for film makers to use. It's currently nearly impossible to do in real film, but I've seen it done in animation and the results are stunning.
Second, film makers are still learning how to shoot 3D. As noted, it's a very different process. The only commercial film to even attempt it was Avatar. If you watch the film in 2D you will see 'weird' color pallets, slow action scenes and transitions, etc. It was a 3D film from the start, rather that a ret-conned 2D film. It was primitive but it worked. I was disappointed with The Hobbit. Jackson had all the tools, but he basically made a 2D film and just added a second camera. Not much better then the post production crap you mostly see.
We are getting closer folks. It's just not there yet. |
I think the word you're looking for is "POSIX" compliant and FWIW Windows 2000 and newer are POSIX "compliant" and we all know that doesn't make those systems equivalent.
In regard to OSX, sure core-utils run and you've got a familiar shell to work in but from a performance and scalability perspective, OSX has a different kernel with different architecture and different priorities. They are not equivalent! Have a look at Apple infrastructure job postings, they're hiring Linux engineers like mad because even their data centers don't run on OSX. Apple is currently migrating from Solaris to RHEL 6 and are building their cloud on Linux and Xen.
As to all the posts regarding virtualizing OSX or virtualizing on OSX; I'm sure Dell (or maybe even Apple's own cloud) will serve up the OSX connections seperately from Windows and Chrome OS. They're obviously going to have separate "cloud" connections anyway for app stores etc.
BTW, this is a meh announcement of a meh technology. Meh. |
You explained nothing. Allow me to help you understand why people complain about it. PC gaming is its own animal, you spend a good 20-30 minutes installing and configuring the game to your liking. With a console you pop the disk in, it possibly loads some data to the hard drive, 5-10 minutes later you are up and running.
PC games are great for online multiplayer games, Consoles are great for local multiplayer games. I'd like to be able to take the disc I purchased for my Xstation U and bring it to a friend's house with me to play on their system with them. Moreover I'd like to be able to trade my investment in to acquire a different game once I've completed it to my liking.
I honestly, as a universal gamer (consoles and PC), wouldn't mind paying a few bucks to get online multiplayer access to a used game (note: a few bucks does NOT mean 15.99 or anything near that level.... EA...). The reason I wouldn't mind this is because the developer would continue to see the fruits of their labor. |
I won't speak to the Linux promise, but the PS2 games promise is one I can address.
When the PS3 was first released it could play PS2 games. This was not accomplished through emulation (would have been difficult with a completely different processor) but through the inclusion of actual PS2 hardware in the box. This, of course, had the side effect that the cost of the PS3 was relatively high. So high, in fact, that sales lagged.
So Sony decided to drop some of the dedicated PS2 hardware to save costs, relying on a mostly software-based solution. This meant that you couldn't play all PS2 games, but only most of them. The cost was reduced though. This was still too high of a price point for consumers to really start buying up the console.
You see, for as much as people whined about being able to have backwards compatibility, few people were willing to pay for it.
So at this point, Sony was faced with a decision. Keep PS2 playability, or drop the price so people will actually buy a PS3. So they dropped PS2 compatibility, which allowed the price to drop, which allowed the PS3 to increase in popularity. |
Even the physical media. I usually see a 3 year old game that used to be selling for $60 drop to $40. Sure, 33% is steep, but not when the sequel to that game has itself been out for a year.
Meanwhile, games on the Play Store regularly go half-off. In fact, many of these sales are in effect immediately after their release to encourage adoption. |
right the opposite: whenever a used game is resold the developers don't make any additional money. If everyone has to buy their own brand new copy sales would explode and companies knowing that would exclusivly produce for this system.
This results in Big Companies preferring the used-game-blocking system, the premium titles only come out for that system and everyone will buy the system all big companies produce their AAA-titles for. |
You're right about my card, but for $500 you can still build a PC that outperforms the listed specs on the PS4 by a long shot. The GTX 660Ti puts out 2.4 TFLOPS and costs $250 on sale. The HD 7870 regularly drops below $200 after rebates. Combine that with a cheaper AMD barebones kit with a 1045T, and you're pretty much set.
Adding Windows and other peripherals obviously costs more, and I'm not saying that the prices of PCs are ever going to drop BELOW that of the consoles, but it really just puts it in perspective that you're basically getting what you pay for. You spend $400 on a PS4, you might get slightly more performance (due to optimization) than a $400 desktop, but not by a landslide. It will also have longer life, yes, but hopefully Sony doesn't try to milk this generation like the last. Holy shit that was a long time to go between generations. Embarrassingly long. |
That's a horrible analogy, you're right.
The level of work to get the hello world running was absurd, and it wasn't even stable. Instead, their removing Other OS caused others to actually exploit something more akin to what you're describing because in reality their security was actually terrible.
The Other OS "hack" didn't get anywhere near running pirated content and likely never would. Many that came out later to reinstate other OS however allowed one to do so, and created the PSN fiasco. |
If you read the bill youll see that all the oppositions concerns are addressed in it. Most importantly it has a provision that the government can not use personally identifiable information and it defines exactly what information can and cannot be shared.
1104.(C)'(4)PROTECTION OF SENSITIVE PERSONAL DOCUMENTS- The Federal Government may not use the following information, containing information that identifies a person, shared with the Federal Government in accordance with subsection (b):
`(A) Library circulation records.
`(B) Library patron lists.
`(C) Book sales records.
`(D) Book customer lists.
`(E) Firearms sales records.
`(F) Tax return records.
`(G) Educational records.
`(H) Medical records.
1104.(h)`(4) CYBER THREAT INFORMATION-
(A) IN GENERAL- The term cyber threat information' means information directly pertaining to--
`(i) a vulnerability of a system or network of a government or private entity;
`(ii) a threat to the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of a system or network of a government or private entity or any information stored on, processed on, or transiting such a system or network;
`(iii) efforts to deny access to or degrade, disrupt, or destroy a system or network of a government or private entity; or
`(iv) efforts to gain unauthorized access to a system or network of a government or private entity, including to gain such unauthorized access for the purpose of exfiltrating information stored on, processed on, or transiting a system or network of a government or private entity. |
You must have a magical device that I don't have. No one has developed something that what you want to my knowledge. Why is that?
Oh, right: People would rather ask for someone name (again) instead of aiming a cellphone at them, which would prompt an explanation from the cellphone pointer person. Because it's fucking weird.
Your concept of "less intrusive" is interesting. Using glass to do this would be less intrusive into YOUR sense of well-being and your own level of comfort. Not mine. Using Glass for this purpose, which is already cloud-connected all the time, knows your location. Tagging me via a recognition hit also identifies where I am. I'd rather not let you do that, thanks. Just because that data isn't directly available doesn't mean it's not available.
Spend some time poking around in Google Analytics, [Ingress]( or any other numerous projects all using big data and shared GPS coordinates. Put two and two together.
I get that you're trying to overcome personal shortcomings. Guess what: This will not help you do that. Learn some fucking social skills and learn how to COPE with your shortcomings, not work around them by making people want to punch you in the face for constantly doing the glass-twitch.
I can't remember names for shit, either. I can, however, make up for it by remembering lots of OTHER details about people. People don't get very upset when you ask them about the new car they bought, the class they were studying for, taking the bar exam, or their sick cat and THEN say "yeah uh... your name. Gone. Forgot it." If you can't remember details OR the persons name, then what in the hell are you worried about anyway? You probably just have a shitty memory and won't remember it the next time you see them anyway. |
Electoral systems can have amazing impacts on the behavior of candidates. I've never seen this idea brought up before. I don't like this proposal though because, for a rational voter, it is needlessly more complicated than an alternative that does the same thing called, incidentally, the [Alternative Vote]( method.
Imagine there are 4 candidates: A, B, C, and D.
A rational voter who really wants Candidate A to win in your system must give a thumbs up to Candidate A and a thumbs down to everyone else in order to maximize the impact of their vote. If the voter likes more than one candidate, he can opt to give Candidate A and D a thumbs up and the rest a thumbs down, but if Candidate A is more preferred to Candidate D, how does one express this in your system? The same thing applies to picking the lesser of two evils. Candidate B is evil's incarnate, but you just generally don't like C. In this case, you must resort to not voting up or down for C, and a down vote for B.
In an AV system, the voter may rank their preferences to their hearts desire. Candidate A - #1, Candidate D - #2, and then if they don't care about anyone else, leave the ballot blank. If they want to ensure B doesn't get voted into office, they can rank everyone on the ballot and place C as #3 and B as #4. This will ensure that someone else will win before your vote goes to B. |
Just some theories as to what we're up against:-
Governments change laws when it suits them.
Look at big companies and tax laws. Big companies don't pay taxes because governments essentially collude with them. In exchange for information, governments give big businesses a pass on paying taxes. Governments could change tax laws but they don't because there's a behind-the-scenes quid pro quo going on between governments and the likes of Google and Facebook. THAT affects all of us because it means we get less public services. It also means the little guy is taxed more and has less to spend.
Big companies also get inside info from governments in regards to their business operations - this helps keep them in their strong positions, which is convenient for governments because they want these big "partner" corps to remain where they are - big and strong.
To sum up, if you become a big enough corp, you enter a secretive symbiotic relationship with your government. "Sweetheart" deals are dished out both ways. |
absolutely no reason to upgrade.
DirectX 11.1 and 11.2, faster boot times, and better performance overall are the reasons why I upgraded. After 2 weeks, I got accustomed to the changes in the UI and the new and useful shortcuts (Win+X, for instance) it comes with.
Windows 7 is still strong, but I think the biggest reason for the slow adoption to 8 has to do with both 7 being good and Windows XP being phased out (finally). People are afraid to go a second step, and the Start Screen confuses the hell out of them. |
Facebook engineer in privacy (infra, not design, though). Believe me, everyone thinks this when they first join the team.
Large-scale change in privacy settings is a Bad Thing (TM). Whenever we make even small changes to our privacy settings, people think we're trying to trick them. Suddenly they feel [the need]( to go back through all their privacy settings and old content.
And (here's the real kicker) some settings look beneficial but are actually harmful. A few months ago we [killed]( the setting preventing people from searching for you by name. This setting didn't actually stop people from searching for you by location or workplace or school or friend or Facebook handle, but people were treating it as a setting that stopped people from finding you.
A more recent example (not us this time): Twitter's block setting doesn't actually work. I mean, it works, but a blocked user can bypass the block by logging out. Twitter tried to [overhaul]( blocks, but public outcry forced them to [recant]( their decision within the same day. |
If you have a low number of friends, isn't whatever algorithm that populates your news feed going to have a harder time coming up with more socially significant events to use? That could be why trivial stuff keeps popping up for you.
I have just over 600 friends, and the people whose posts I interact with the most are those who post comments or articles on technology, science, politics and architecture, and consequently I find that about 40-50% of my news feed comprises posts list these most of the time. Works to an extent, imo. |
I had the worst taxi experience in my life in Paris. I jumped in a cab and gave the driver the name of the hotel. She drove straight through the the area and past the hotel and then told me she didn't know where it was and started shouting at me that I should have given her the address.
I told her that if she didn't know where the hotel was she should have asked me for the address before we set off. But that didn't help. Then we drove around for 10 minutes before my mate took things into his hands and navigated for her using google maps.
She kept the meter running all the time and charged us for the guided tour of shitty parts of Paris. My company was paying and it was late so I just paid. |
I've spent 3 months in Paris the last year and although I used taxi only 3-4 times, I didn't have any problems. This is actually typical of Reddit...all this dude had was one bad experience and then in the |
It's to curtail bots.
If reddit finds a vote bot account they can flag it as such. If they didn't fuzz the votes then after voting the bot could just reload the page and check to see if its vote went through and if not, it would know that it was on the list, time for a new account.
Instead they with the vote fuzzing sometimes your upvote will add 1 upvote, other times 2 upvotes and 1 downvote, while a flagged bot account will always have a 1 upvote 1 downvote applies. The shadow votes are added at a later point so there is no way of the bot knowing if it's on a list and having all it's votes counteracted. |
Make no mistake: Google is purely in the business of data. It's their entire model. Any venture that collects data is of interest to Google for the sole purpose of selling that data to advertisers. Social networks like Twitter and Facebook can only wish they were as far ahead in the Big Data game as Google.
The best example is one few remember. A couple years back, Google offered a phone service in which you could call Google, ask for a search query, and it would read you the four top results (I believe it was called 411 GOOG). What seemed like an attempt to capture a search market that had not made its way to smartphones was actually a ploy to study speech to improve their speech-to-text analytics and compete with Siri. Every call was analyzed for dialect and accent to build a hyper-intelligent system that could analyze people via their own speech to discover what services they are most likely to respond to. |
It's just my opinion and I'm clearly the minority here but Google is seriously starting to frighten me. It seems like that every month, we're reading about some crazy acquisition that Google makes, another acquisition that brings potential power...all through some "thing" to make our life more convenient.
With Google, it's all about data, data, data. For everyone that is so pissed about the NSA, are you really okay with Google's constant and never-ending intrusion into your private lives?
Step back and look at this pragmatically. Put together, all of these seemingly benign data sources correlated correctly can tell someone just about everything about you. Who you are most likely to vote for, the path you take to work, what you eat, what you purchase, how often you consume alcohol, who you are friends with, your political leanings and where you are at any given time. |
I'm not trolling it just seems like you think you have a better understating of what it takes to get around security measures than you actually do. Worst case scenario a pirate bay type server system could be set up where the video is decoded and truncated before it ever gets to the end users computer. It would be very illegal, but decentralize it enough and you couldn't stop it just like they can't stop the pirate bay (especially now that it's decentralizing itself). And done properly there would be no difference in loading time or lag for the end user. I'm not saying any of these things should happen as IMO ad revenue is the backbone of the internet, I'm just pointing out that the reason that Google doesn't work harder at forcing you to watch ads is that they know there will always be a way to circumvent it and that there are incredibly brilliant coders out there who are very dedicated to circumventing these exact things. I'm not one of them, but there are tons out there. And furthermore, not enough people install ad block as it is for it to be worth the investment for google to force those people to watch. |
Uh. The TCP/IP protocol is decentralized?
The physical, wired infrastructure is not.
You could use a P2P packet switching system, perhaps, in areas with large contiguous wi-fi networks. But for anything else, you're going to have to route traffic through a wire that is owned by a big company or start building wires directly between people's houses.
So this is either/or a terrible article that fails to convey the concept in a way that makes it not suck, or a terrible concept.
And reading the white paper, it seems to be a lot of the first.
What this system would actually try to do is Encrypt and anonymize content that would still pass through ISP infrastructure as normal, but would be difficult for ISPs to sniff for content due to the encryption.
This is basically a homebrew implementation of net neutrality whereby people wanting to exchange their packets lie about their packets (through crypto/camoflauging wrappers - this is the "HTTP as a base section" of the document) to ISPs operating in bad faith, in order to keep the ISPs from manipulating their traffic. This is technically challenging but feasible.
What it would absolutely not do, as the white paper foolishly puts it, is "virtually replace every single major layer of the actual Internet".
And what it may do is snowball a breakdown of trust across the internet regarding IP traffic and its' handling, if ISPs respond with more aggressive packet discrimination (say, they decide to start identifying streaming data based on quantity from/to destination) and bitcloud and other packet concealing applications are forced to hide their traffic more and more heavily (so they fake IPs to pretend that streaming traffic is actually a bunch of different computers simultaneously downloading webpages).
Despite the white paper spending too much time on the bitcoin-equivalent portion of the technology which is basically tacked on, the overall idea is not bad. But in my view, it is not a long-term replacement for net neutrality and an enforcement of traffic carrying covenants, and indeed in the long term may further endanger those covenants by provoking a traffic discrimination arms race.
Edit: |
Okay, CDMA is a protocol used by the US military a while ago. They used it because at the time it was pretty secure. Back when I worked for Verizon (not too long ago) they continuously touted that they used CDMA because it was awesome and secure. Never mind that it's no longer secure by any real modern standard and never mind that it's a horribly inefficient method of sending information (ridiculously long packets and such). The long packets contribute to the poor call clarity because as the number of packets passing through any tower increase, Verizon truncates the high and low ends of the packets, thus producing a very muddy sound.
Sorry, it's really late and I'm tired. Not making this stuff up. I was there and these are the things I learned while working there (in the corporate center in Concord, CA). I was in the business sales division. It was horrible.
So anyway, under OPTIMAL conditions, Verizon's network is about as good as anyone else's. Sure. I'll go with that. But in an urban area which "high than national average call traffic", the network suffers terribly.
Another thing Verizon intentionally did was drop calls when traffic was too high. And this happened ALL THE TIME. And in every case, Verizon would come up with some BS reason for it. But I actually spoke with engineers there who told me what was actually going on and why.
Verizon does an AMAZING job with their marketing. Here's a piece: So remember back when Verizon was saying they had the most reliable network? And there was that TEENSY little asterisk there what nobody paid any attention to? Well, I asked about that asterisk and I found out something really interesting. Turns out when Verizon was saying "most reliable network" it had NOTHING to do with the ability to get a call through from any particular place (as it would have seemed due to Paul, the 'Can you hear me now' guy). Nope. It had to do with the fact that Verizon touted generator backup units on the towers they owned. Oh never mind other networks all have the same thing (and you don't hear about this claim any more). But worse is that Verizon actually owns less than 10% of the towers they use. So in reality they were talking about a statistic which had NOTHING to do with the visuals (or even the words) in the advertisements and affected very very few people on their network.
Sorry again if this is rambling and not making sense. I am so tired.
Finally, I was witness to their software debacles. So they have this software what sets up customer accounts. And I used it - a lot. But one common complaint I heard from business customers (from ones who had accounts before I was hired on) was that they ALL seemed to have services added to their accounts without their requesting them. AND, they all had errors in how the accounts were set up. I remember one guy was SUPER PISSED because he explicitly asked for all of his business lines to get unlimited texting - in writing as well as on the phone (he actually showed me a copy of the letter he sent to his rep (whose place I took) when he was setting up the account). Well guess what? No unlimited texting for him, and when he complained, Verizon switched him to unlimited texting but still stuck him with the $2500 bill for the text messages his employees sent. Tons and tons of stories like that.
Oh, and the software? Okay, so I started digging in to why these accounts were all messed up. I carefully watched each account I set up and I saw something. In EVERY case when I went to set up an account, something was added or changed right after I activated the account. And it was done nearly instantly to when I finalized the order so when you went back to look, it looked like it was set that way from the beginning. I was keeping notes on my accounts and when I rechecked them I could tell something was VERY awry. I checked with a couple of the other reps and they confirmed the same shenanigans had occurred on their accounts. So we started asking around and we were told "Don't worry about the accounts you've already set up - that's not your job. Go and sell new accounts." It wasn't until later on when I made friends with one of the engineers that I learned that what I suspected was true - the software had BUILT IN to it routines which would screw with an activation order in particular ways just so Verizon could charge more later.
This is real. I'm not sitting here typing all this crap to get attention. I worked for the company and I talked to people there and I saw what I saw. The idiocy and corruption in Verizon is AMAZING. Oh, here's a gem. Verizon had a big 'new year' rah rah thing at the Oakland Coliseum. They rented the whole place and filled a couple of sections with staff. It was really weird. VERY scripted and quite fake. They did the standard "we're so great" stuff and talked about various things. And at the end, there was the question and answer period.
First question: the iPhone is coming out in a couple of months (yeah this was back in 2007) - what is Verizon planning on doing to combat it? Answer: The iPhone isn't out yet so don't worry about it. Next question. Really. Well, people booed the answer. And that SHOCKED the uppity ups a bit. You could see it. The big cheese there (like the #3 Verizon guy in the nation) got up out of his easy chair on the stage and addressed the staff. "Listen: the iPhone isn't here yet so don't worry about that." Silence. He sat down. And that was that. We were all stunned. Three weeks later a half-assed flier came out of corporate citing 3 reasons why Verizon was better off without the iPhone. I can't remember all of it (I should have saved it) but one of the reasons was something like 'The iPhone is new and untested so Verizon, with tried and true technology, is better.' I mean, it was really lame sauce.
Anyway I was there for a while, and I saw how they treated employees and I saw how they treated paying customers (as opposed to those they were trying to sell to) and I saw the incredible lies about technology. At the time, AT&T definitely had a faster network, hands down. No, Verizon still claimed (not in writing) their network was faster and told us all to tell customers that.
I eventually just had enough and put in my notice.
It was very weird and messed up place to work and I have never, ever seen so much lying and corruption as I have at Verizon Wireless. |
Non-slideshow list:
It's all about choice -
>Having options available is always a good thing for tablet shoppers, and Windows has them. While other platforms running tablets have only one (Apple) or a few brands (Samsung, Google, etc.) to choose from, that's not the case with Windows tablets.
>Nearly every major PC maker now has one or more tablets in its line, and there's a good selection to choose from. All of the major PC brands are on store shelves: HP, Lenovo, Dell, Asus, Sony, Samsung, and Acer, to name a few. It's a shopper's paradise as favorite brands are likely represented in tablet form.
>The growing selection of tablets brings choice in the form of size. Windows tablets are available with screen sizes from eight to thirteen inches. Buyers can get a tablet with a size to best fit the expected use.
Plug it in
>Windows tablets are full PCs with a thin slate form. Most can do anything that their bigger siblings can do, and that includes letting owners plug peripherals in to do stuff. These include (but aren't limited to) keyboards, mice, external hard drives, and DVD drives.
>If you can plug something into your PC, you can almost certainly plug it into your Windows tablet. You can also plug external monitors into the tablet to form a desktop system, and in most cases plug it into that big-screen TV in the living room.
>It's true plug and play, and plug and work when appropriate.
Keeps getting better
>Windows 8 wasn't that great on tablets when first introduced, but that's a thing of the past. Microsoft has quickly added features and modified others to make the tablet user experience pretty darn good.
>The Windows 8.1 update really makes using tablets a good experience. It adds lots of useful features that makes using Windows by touch a great thing.
>Windows 8.1 Update 1 is getting ready to roll out, and while most new features are aimed at mouse and keyboard users, they should also work well on touch tablets. That will especially be a benefit for those using a Windows tablet as a laptop, as highlighted in the next slide.
Double Duty
>Many tablets are available in hybrid form, a slate (screen) that plugs into a dock that turns it into a laptop. These are tablets when you want one and laptops when you need one, as Microsoft is fond of telling us.
>While tablets on other platforms can be used with external keyboards, few are as laptop-like as Windows hybrids. Some hybrids are difficult to tell that the screen isn't fixed like a standard laptop, the docks are so good.
>Windows is great at instantly sensing when the screen is docked and undocked, so the systems always work with the hardware at hand. They are solid, albeit small, laptops, and often surprisingly good tablets. Road warriors can really benefit from a portable computer with this dual personality.
Then there's Office...
>A lot has been said about the need for Microsoft Office on tablets, and while there are decent alternatives to Office on the other tablet platforms, there's no solution as complete as the genuine article.
>Windows is the only platform that can run Office locally, and that means Windows tablets stand alone in this regard. Many OEMs offer Microsoft Office included in the purchase price which rounds out the value proposition.
>You might be able to get by with one of the alternate office suites available for the iPad or Android tablets, but with a Windows tablet there's no question you can handle everything thrown your way.
Do some real work
>You hear a lot of discussion about what constitutes real work, and while I can do my work on any tablet, some need Windows. Many companies have a requirement to use Microsoft Office as discussed in the previous slide, so a Windows tablet is the only option.
>Other companies and prospective tablet buyers use software that is proprietary for their operation, and that usually means Windows. These tablets are full PCs as previously stated, so no matter what doing real work entails, a Windows tablet can handle it.
Lots of apps
>You've probably heard that there are not as many apps in the store on Windows compared to the iPad or Android. That's certainly true, but with full Windows onboard these tablets have access to a huge library of apps.
>The ability to run new apps in the Microsoft Store along with older, legacy Windows apps opens up the playing field for Windows tablets. It would be nice if there were more apps in the app store optimized for tablets, but the collection is growing fast.
>Meanwhile, Windows tablet buyers can keep using the programs they have been using for years, until the number of modern apps is greatly increased.
Run any browser you want
>Most of us spend a lot of time on the web, and that's especially true for tablet users. While Internet Explorer on tablets is a good browser, some can't live without their favorite third-party browser. That's not a problem for Windows tablets, as they can run any PC web browser.
>There are some other browsers on the iPad and Android too, but Windows has pretty much all of them. Firefox users can browse to their heart's content on a Windows tablet, although it won't be a great touch experience. That's not the only browser unavailable on the other platforms, but it has a large user base.
Multi-tasking on the screen
>Those who do two things at once on an iPad or most Android tablets are all too familiar with having to swap between the two app screens. Bouncing back and forth is OK, but it would be much better to have the two apps displayed side-by-side on the tablet screen.
>Windows tablets have you covered in this regard, as snap view lets you put two apps up at once. You can easily refer to one app while working in the other. No muss, no fuss, just as it should be.
>You can adjust the two windows to the sizes that suit the task at hand.
Long-term viability
>Companies come, and companies go, and that's especially true in the mobile space. Buying into a mobile platform with any device is making a leap of faith that the platform and the company behind it will be around for the long haul.
>That's not a concern with a Windows tablet, as Microsoft is certain to be around for a long time. The company is almost too big to fail, and it's a pretty safe bet your new Windows tablet will be supported for a good while.
>The company has gone all-in with Windows 8, so it should be around for the life of the hardware that runs it. Microsoft will surely keep improving Windows, and tablets bought today will keep getting better over time. Unlike the case with Android tablets, it's not a question whether your tablet will get the next big update, it's when will it arrive. |
carpal tunnel
A small public service announcement
It's not always Carpal Tunnel Syndrome or RSI; it could be Tendinitis or Tendinosis
RSI is an umbrella term for any strain due to repetition.
It might not be carpal tunnel syndrome unless you have numbness and tingling.
It could be a repetitive strain injury of tendinosis (initially starts as tendinitis), where the tendons have weakened.
Tendinitis is the initial inflammation of the tendons, and tendinosis is the failed healing, and structural change of the tendons.
South Park got it wrong
South Park got it wrong in that WoW episode.
Carpal tunnel = numbness and tingling due to a pinched nerve.
Cartman receiving Bengay is indicative of inflammation of the tendons, and not carpal tunnel tingling.
Pain vs. Numbness
>"A predominance of pain rather than numbness is unlikely to be caused by carpal tunnel syndrome no matter what the result of electrophysiological testing."
CARPEL TUNNEL SYNDROME : A REVIEW Gadhave S. V.1**, Moon R.S., Kshirsagar R.V. 1Department of pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy, SRTM University Nanded-431606, Maharashtra.
>“When pain is the primary symptom, carpal tunnel syndrome is unlikely to be the source of the symptoms.”
The Value Added by Electrodiagnostic Testing in the Diagnosis of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
Repetition likely to cause tendinitis, not carpal tunnel syndrome
>"There is little clinical data to prove whether repetitive and forceful movements of the hand and wrist during work or leisure activities can cause carpal tunnel syndrome.
>Other disorders such as bursitis and tendonitis have been associated with repeated motions performed in the course of normal work or other activities."
I got an ultrasound, and it shows tendinosis in one of my wrists.
It’s a real joy.
I have a repetitive strain injury of tendinosis in my wrists, hands, and elbows, so I like to research on future treatments.
I came across one treatment that I thought had to do with stem cells, but I think it sounds like grafting:
Autologous Tenocyte Injection - take tendon cells from healthy area, grow the tendon cells, and inject them into injured area
> A paper on using autologous tenocyte injection for the treatment of severe, chronic resistant lateral epicondylitis was published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine on September 2013.
>
> A patellar tendon needle biopsy was performed under local anesthetic, and tendon cells were expanded by in vitro culture.
>
Tenocytes used for the injection were characterized by flow cytometry (sort and purify) and real-time polymerase chain reaction (amplify).
>
> Autologous tenocytes were injected into the site of tendinopathy identified at the origin of the extensor carpi radialis brevis tendon under ultrasound guidance on a single occasion.
>
> In this study, patients with chronic LE who had previously undergone an unsuccessful full course of nonoperative treatment showed significantly improved clinical function and structural repair at the origin of the common extensor tendon after ATI. (2)
I think this Autologous Tenocyte implantation is for the tendinosis (tendon thickening, hypoechogenicity, fibrillar disruption, angiofibroblastic degeneration, noninflammatory tissue, intrasubstance tears, calcifications, hypo-echoic areas, neovascularity, vascularity, tendon softening), but I wonder if it could help with other procedures that involve patellar tendon grafts.
Pau Gasol of the Los Angeles Lakers has tendinosis (chronic tendinitis) in knees - receives stem cell injections
Pau Gasol did a stem cell treatment for his patellar tendinosis.
>Los Angeles Lakers forward Pau Gasol underwent a procedure Thursday to address the tendinosis in both of his knees.
>The procedure, known as the FAST (Focused Aspiration of Scar Tissue) technique, involves a probe being inserted into the knee that "directs ultrasonic energy to eliminate scar tissue without damaging healthy tissue," according to a team release.
>“Gasol also will receive stem cell injections next week and is expected to make a full recovery, the Lakers said.”.
>
>
>"After talking to several specialists, I'm going to proceed to regenerate both of my patellar tendons and working hard to get back to my 100%," Gasol wrote on Twitter.”.
>
>
>"It's more than tendinitis, it's tendinosis," Gasol said. "There's a degeneration of the tissue, and it's something that I've dealt with all year. So I'll have to do something to regenerate the tissue so I don't have to play with this pain.".
Allogenic adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ALLO-ASC) - stem cells from fat
> As of November 2013, researchers at the Seoul National University Hospital will be looking to recruit participants into a clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of allogenic adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ALLO-ASC) in treatment of a tendon injury (symptom duration is over six months).
> ALLO-ASC will be administrated to the patients with lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow) by ultrasonographic guided injection. (1)
As I understand, this involves adult stem cells from fat.
I thought that they take the fat from the patient, but I thought that allogenic means that it comes from an external source.
Race horses, and iPSCs for horse tendon injuries
I think that they are experimenting, and have experimented with induced pluripotent stem cells with race horses. (3)
They get something called “bowed tendon”, which is their name for tendinosis.
Race horses are massive creatures on twiglike legs that are pushed very hard, and they can get tendon injuries.
Some race horses can cost more than houses, so there is an adequate demand to keep them performing well.
Cristiano Rinaldo has patellar tendinosis – collagen-producing non-bulbar dermal sheath (NBDS) cells from hair follicles for tendon healing
Yahoo sports did a story on the tendinosis in Cristiano Rinaldo's patellar region.
The Yahoo journalist interviewed the CEO of a Canadian company called RepliCel.
They are working on a tendon treatment that will involve taking stem cells from the sheath surrounding a patient's own hair follicles.
I don’t know if working with hair follicles is classified under iPSCs or adult stem cells.
RepliCel to begin Stage 2 trials for Achilles tendinosis treatment
> RepliCel Life Sciences, in which Berkley owns 918,120 shares of with the option to acquire more shares, is set to begin Stage 2 trials for its RCT-A-01 treatment for chronic Achilles tendinosis in the Q3 2014.
>
> ---
>
> RepliCel and its regenerative cell therapy technology were featured in a recent Yahoo Sports article discussing the impact of the condition on the careers of athletes such as soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo of Portugal.
> The basis of the company's innovative therapy system is taking non-bulbar dermal sheath (NBDS) cells surrounding each patient's own hair follicles and injecting it into the damaged area.
>
> NBDS cells are rich in of collagen-producing dermal fibroblasts necessary for tendon healing.
>
> ---
> RepliCel's proposed Phase 2 trial will include 82 subjects who have failed traditional tendon treatments and who are otherwise in good health.
>
> NBDS cells will replicated and then reintroduced into the wounds within the tendon via ultrasound.
>
> After injections are performed, subjects will return to the clinic for assessments of safety, function and pain, as well as changes in tendon thickness, echotexture, interstitial tears and neovascularity (4).
Citations:
Seoul National University Hospital. Treatment of Tendon Injury Using Mesenchymal Stem Cells (ALLO-ASC). In: ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. Last updated: November 22, 2013. Available from: NLM Identifier: NCT01856140.
Wang, A.; Breidahl, W.; Mackie, K. E.; Lin, Z.; Qin, A.; Chen, J.; Zheng, M. H. (2013). "Autologous Tenocyte Injection for the Treatment of Severe, Chronic Resistant Lateral Epicondylitis: A Pilot Study". The American Journal of Sports Medicine 41 (12): 2925–2932. doi:10.1177/0363546513504285. ISSN 0363-5465.
Marfe, G.; Rotta, G.; De Martino, L.; Tafani, M.; Fiorito, F.; Di Stefano, C.; Polettini, M.; Ranalli, M.; Russo, M.A.; Gambacurta, A. (2012). "A new clinical approach: Use of blood-derived stem cells (BDSCs) for superficial digital flexor tendon injuries in horses". Life Sciences 90 (21-22): 825–830. doi:10.1016/j.lfs.2012.03.004. ISSN 0024-3205.
Regenerative Medicine
September 2013, Vol. 8, No. 5, Pages 535-542 , DOI 10.2217/rme.13.56
(doi:10.2217/rme.13.56).
Eye-tracking – potential mouse replacement in certain tasks
4 eye tracking companies are trying to negotiate for hardware integration of their eye trackers. An external eye tracker device can cost $99, but if manufacturers of smartphone, tablet, notebook, and laptop modify the existing built-in camera in these devices, and add an upgraded sensor, it’s supposed to only add $5 to the manufacturing cost.
E.g. Look to highlight, and then press a “select-what-I’m-looking-at” button on the keyboard. |
It would be great, if not for the hardware drivers and their frequently overly complicated configurations. Been using Ubuntu here for years now. Ubuntu was a great way to a new life to an older laptop or desktop. Unfortunately we are seriously considering returning back to Windows because of appalling Flash support. With more work being done on online and more sites requiring Flash, Ubuntu (in fact any flavor of Linux) is quickly being pushed to the back seat. |
Lemme help. I have ultra-sensitive skin, both to infections (acne, for example) and to mechanical irritants. I have to take an antibiotic to stave off as much acne as possible and keep what I can't stop showing up from turning into cysts, essentially. These hurt super bad and occasionally rupture under the skin and have to be lanced and such. Hurts like a bitch. And I will get tons of them at once. On my face.
Anyway, I also use two (already really expensive) chemical treatments as well. One is an exfoliating scrub. Together they are about $28 with a discount card at the "beauty store". The reason I can use the exfoliating one is because the beads are very tiny, and rather smooth for something that is made to grind your skin off basically. A loofa or washcloth are way too abrasive or not enough, respectively. If plastic beads are banned, then products like that that are intended for people with crazy sensitive skin will either have to put new, even more expensive, ingredients in to do the same job, or will not have them and be pretty useless without a loofa. |
Sorry but you guys in north america have your priorities all wrong. 1.1 million plastic particles per square kilometre is an incredibly small amount . It is equal to 1.1 parts per square meter of water. Assume that depth of the lake is 1000 ft (350m, which is around the average depth of a lake). In a cube meter of water, there are a 1000 litres. I hope you can see how ridiculously insignificant this really is.
Canada has other issues like obesity epidemic, carbon emissions, issues of political setup, immigration, etc. I am not suggesting that you guys aren't paying attention to those topics. But even on a scientific level, this particular issue is so insignificant, it is quite unbelievable there are actually lobby groups protesting against it.
Even if you are battling plastic, the worst place to start is something like facial cleaning products. Why not start with your grocery stores and the insane amount of plastic you have everywhere. Or water bottles. Want to guess how much plastic is in a single bottle? And don't you tell me it all gets recycled. Much of it ends up in the ocean. |
I used to work in a deli, and every now and then, someone would lecture me about preservatives in cold cuts. They would act like I was the one who decides to add these preservatives, almost like I was trying to slowly poison them.
It didn't really bother me, mostly because I felt bad for the people. If you can't figure out the college kid behind the counter has nothing to do with what goes into your cold cuts, you are not a bright person. |
This article concerns me on several levels. First, what it the concentration of beads that were found? But regardless of it was 1000 per gallon or 1 per gallon, how can a sewer treatment plant not remove something as big as 1.25 mm? Some of the comments here say that the plants here do "filter" these types of items out. So is the issue micro-beads or poor oversight of wastewater treatment plants in Illinois? Sounds like the latter to me. Also, they soak up toxins like a sponge, but they are too small to be filtered.... So, toxins in amounts too small to be filtered anyway? Or are the toxins soaked up from Lake Michigan? Again, is the problem the beads or a polluted lake? |
Actually the city didn't have a choice. A US Broadband Map search of Worcester, MA shows the usual 2 ISP options (Level 3 and Platinum Equity serve enterprise customers only; Verizon and AT&T are the only landline telco ISPs left, and their service areas never overlap): Charter and either Verizon or AT&T.
Since Charter agreed to sell their Worcester operations to Comcast, they're out of the picture. If the city rejected Comcast, they'd be left with only 1 landline ISP (much slower than cable, per the Broadband Map), not to mention they'd also lose a TV provider. Guess how well that would go over in elections. |
You're joking, right? Because it's a public project, they'd have to allow contractors to bid on it, which would take months. Assuming a successful bid process isn't turned into a court case fiasco by rejected contractors or political accusations of bribery, improper process, etc (which could take months or years), only then would construction - NOT service - start. Construction might take years.
And then the city would have to actually run the network. Again, since most cities aren't set up to be ISPs, they'd either have to create a department - which takes very long due to state bureaucracy - or contract the work out. Oh yeah, then come ongoing operating costs.
During all this time, the city would be minus a TV and internet provider as I said before.
BTW, all of the above would have to be taxpayer funded and the city already has a whopping $10M budget deficit Therefore the only way to fund the fiber network would be to take on more debt or increase taxes, both of which are politically unpalatable and could cause city officials to be voted out next election.
Besides all of the above, the muni fiber project would also have to replace Comcast's TV service. This means negotiating TV deals, for which the fiber project wouldn't have any leverage because their service area is too small. Thus, whatever TV service they offer - if they could - would either be limited or expensive. |
I agree that the author is suffering from severe internet attention disease, but the idea is genius. Hearing things like this coming out of Google is like a little sunrise in my soul, they do seem to genuinely want this game-changing tool of communication to belong to everyone (which is as it should be).
This isn't TV, no sponsored soundbox with a one-way ejection slot for ideas and information: it's the seventh sense, the feeling apparatus for the zeitgeist. Maybe I'm waxing too poetic, but in my heart of hearts I genuinely do believe that the internet will be absolutely integral to the future of free and autonomous people, just as the printing press (and ability to read) was in the past.
What space cadet would hand exclusive control of the printing press to someone with a profit motive? My God, we'd still be buying indulgences on the church steps today (and LIKING it).
I have new -- if cautious -- faith in Google at this news. They do control an awfully big chunk of this technology, and it's encouraging to see them taking the rights of the people to freely communicate seriously.
I've been worried for a long time now that the internet would fall under the control of the same idiots that made television into the dystopian crap dispenser that it is. |
The store? Most of the games I play are available on the internet. Ever played CS Source? Heroes of Newerth, Savage2, Battle for Wesnoth? I bought UT2004 in stores, but that included a Linux version in the box. |
The issue we have at the moment is the senior politicians and other people in power in Australia are all relatively conservative - mid-late 50s to mid 60s age group, who grew up in a more conservative time.
This same generation and demographic is also one of the larger voting groups. The baby boomer generation, who are all approaching retirement, have worked their entire lives, built up a nice chunk of wealth, etc. They don't care about issues such as this one - they want their investments to increase, they want good education for their children and grandchildren, and they want good health care for when they are shitting in a bag in a nursing home. Censorship is a non-issue for them.
This isn't terribly different to other western societies, but Australia has traditionally been very politically apathetic - we think all politicians are no-good, blood sucking liars, who are only politicians because they couldn't get a job in the real world.
So the majority of people who enter politics are either quite conservative, quite liberal, or people who want to wield some sort of power. The people at the extreme left or extreme right obviously find it hard to be elected, leaving the third group to fill that void.
They have a view that society is degrading and life is so much worse now than it was when they grew up, so they must do anything and everything they can to stop it. PLEASE SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN.
The baby boomers (and the general population) would not actively seek out and support such a policy, but they're not about to change their votes based on this issue. Compounding this is that our media is generally conservative, so these issues are always framed to the public in such a way to make it seem as though if one does oppose this policy, they're supporting pedophiles and sexual deviants.
So, our apathy is slowly beginning to be a real problem for us.
The majority of us aren't backwards rednecks. I swear. I'm someone who has no faith in people in general, and I'm very critical of the population in general, but this kind of thing is not driven by a majority. |
Don't act so persecuted. Perhaps in your mind what you wrote counts as a well-reasoned or thoughtful response, but let me assure you it isn't. You didn't get downvoted for pointing out Gruber's bias (which certainly exists, by the way). You got downvoted for how you said it. Rather than respond to mistercow in a rational, point-by-point fashion showing things that Gruber has done and why it supports your claim you instead made a comment filled with idiotic swearing, name-calling, and fellatio references. And even if Gruber is biased (again, a claim I agree with) shouldn't we be discussing the merits of the argument rather than lambasting its creator? Just because Gruber is in Apple's corner doesn't mean he doesn't have anything valuable to say. Instead you squeeze as much unnecessary crassness as possible into one paragraph and act like a martyr when people recognize it for idiotic personal attack it is. |
Indeed. In a lawsuit based on infringement of a trade secret the minimum penalty includes "monetary damages for misappropriation plus court costs an attorney's fees". However , because Gizmodo most certainly acted in a willful manner then according to the Uniform Trade Secrets Act they would be also liable for punitive damages , which all together could be quite a bit of money (there is no ceiling on trade secret damages like there is for copyright damages). |
There's no doubt that they make excellent products which has helped them gain a huge market share. But now they're exploiting this market share, while saying 'fuck you' to their customers and developers, with the sole aim of generating profits. It is definitely a company's duty towards its shareholders to make profits, but when some of these profits are made at the cost of a huge inconvenience to their customers, it is obvious that the fierce loyalty it used to command will be replaced with skepticism.
In other words, whether Apple's products are better than their competitors or not, they're definitely not as great as they could be with less restrictive and more open practices and their customers even while choosing to buy the iPad/iPhone are becoming painfully aware of this.
Edit: |
whilst it would be ideal to live 100% of one's beliefs 100% of the time, unless all other things in the universe are equal, it will lead to a short and martyred life. so until then a strategy of compromising less valuable beliefs is efficient to maintain the more important ones.
whilst open and transparent living is best due to the efficiency at which energy in all it's forms can be spread, if it can compromise your survival, then it must be forfeited until a time when it is efficient to live such a way. until then, hiding your valuables may be the better way to survive even if it goes against your lesser beliefs about deceit and honesty.
in this age of old human concepts such as "ownership", it would be unwise to allow everyone to have free access to everything you have, as you would not live long in your desired ways. anyone who wants to leave their front door open while away will learn this quickly.
for greater examples you need only witness current behaviours such as free and open information battling against the archaic beliefs of Hollywood and the RIAA/MPAA. the battle between the old system of "it belongs to me" and the newer system of "it belongs to everyone" is just one example of the shifting paradigm to a better way.
right now it's best for those of new behaviour to temporarily hide their valuables until those of old behaviour learn, it is worth the compromise on strategy for the greater principle. |
However, it isn't an across the board increase in load on their servers. This only affects the search front end boxes. They probably serve an order of magnitude more ads and those aren't sent over SSL. Also, all the backend requests to generate the search results (which touch 1000 servers) wouldn't be encrypted. And finally, that doesn't even consider all the other offline infrastructure (crawling, indexing) that isn't touched by this change. |
Thank you, Reddit!
Prior to Digg's laughable 'upgrade' they did me a great favor. Through the comments I was reacquainted with the wonderful & diverse webhole called Reddit.
I admit to being a Digg refugee, and have found Reddit to be far superior in many aspects. Beyond the vastly more interesting content; notably is the real desire to communicate. Even if we're in disagreement, I've had better treatment here in less than a month than in a year at Digg. Which is among the many reasons I keep coming back...
It seems Digg has dug its own grave. Let 'em rot... |
Okay, well the people arguing in favour of Facebook have been saying for the past while that it works FOR THEM, and while it may not work FOR YOU, it does work very well with the things they want from it. It's unfortunate that up until now I enjoyed the back and forth you had going on. But your whole mini-rant about Facebook being the equivalent of "drive by dick and fart jokes with your bros" or "some competition where winning means you have your dick permanently locked into all your friends assholes" is a petty shot. You are grossly oversimplifying what other people talk about on there and all of your grievances that you just described can easily be taken care of by tweaking your settings and maybe deleting a few people here and there. You've already established you like doing 10 different things on 10 different applications so this would come easily to you anyways.
However, you've also already established you want nothing to do with Facebook, so just accept the fact that (which everyone has kind of been alluding to) your friends list in real life is low, and you don't need Facebook to manage that low of a number, because nobody here has been trying to force it down your throat, they're just showing you how convenient it is. steve_yo was talking about how he liked the convenience and that's why he uses it, and then you come in to explain the bunch of other more tedious and inconvenient ways of doing the things he just said he'd prefer to do on Facebook. But again you've shown your dislike for convenience and in some cases (like above), outright condescension as well. |
Facebook came around after I was done with school as well. I admit that it was nice getting in contact with some people I hadn't talked to in a while, but in the end I did not see enough advantages to keep it around.
I'm sick of people thinking Facebook is the be-all-end-all form of communication. People will say they sent me an email, when in fact it was a Facebook wall post. They will get angry because I am ignoring their wall posts, when in reality I hadn't logged on to Facebook in months because I only keep it as a contact list.
As far as contacts changing, this happens and I don't disagree. This fact is actually something that can keep the good relationships/friendships stronger. If I contact a person on a regular basis through means other than Facebook then I will have a better chance of keeping their information up to date. The people who I don't talk to often, or at all (99% of FB friends) I probably didn't need to have contact info for in the first place.
What it real boils down to is this. I just don't like Facebook, and I'm not going to sell out to something I don't like for the sake of keeping in contact with people I don't talk to anyway. |
Although I agree with you 100%, there is one really important thing to note: Hong Kong is only 426 square miles and it is all urban. Laying infrastructure in a such a small area with a high density is much easier than the thousands (millions? billions?) of miles of cable that would required in the USA. |
This kind of question / accusation indicates a lack of knowledge on the subject. Hong Kong is a very densely populated area, and the US is not. It is much easier to install and maintain infrastructure in a densely populated area. 1Gbps is simply not feasible in the US at this time; some people still don't even have broadband. We might be able to start rolling out some 100Mpbs, and 1Gbps connections in the larger cities, but it will take a long time to get those types of connections deployed universally and the backbones upgraded to handle it. |
When it comes to necessities, they MUST be regulated by the government. The Internet has become a necessity that now needs regulation.
Whenever you deregulate a commodity that people cannot viably function without, prices invariably go up. This has been proven time and again, because demand never goes down for necessities. It is the law of economics. |
It wouldn't be any more correct to say that they are Japanese, Chinese, etc.
I also know many people from Asia that do not like to be called Asian. I try not to be insensitive, but some people take political correctness too far.
( |
if you wanted long winded articles on interesting subjects why are you reading gizmodo? i'm serious, every time i go on that site it's just some shit about a samsung 7inch tablet or something stupid about steve jobs.. |
I'm sensing a definite lack of appreciation for the humor latent in this article. I'm wondering if anyone actually read it...
Anyway. Assuming we're taking this seriously, it's utterly ridiculous. We've created an age of high technology, and 'scientists' of all people are surprised and frightened that we are adapting to it? We are merely building new social structures to meet our current wants, needs and environment; unfortunately they happen to be petty and shitty structures, but, that's from the view of someone who does not fully exist in that structure. The new generation will find their own positive and desirable traits, springing from their social order, and reproduction will remain at status quo. Alarmists, anti-technologists and literary fiction fans are never going to understand, change or enjoy it.
I think the only way to improve things is to further integrate with technology, where we can express more and deeper than even direct interpersonal interaction could allow. We're just in a crappy interim infancy state at the moment, and we are responding awkwardly; it doesn't mean things are going to devolve to idiocy, it means we need to create a new set of, possibly, higher order inter-social skill sets. Not an easy task , people should not be so quick to judge. |
No. Nuclear engineer here - why'd you have to ask about this on my Saturday morning?
Not all uranium is created equal. Lets simplify things and say that there's two main "types", Uranium-238 and Uranium-235. They're both uranium, but the only difference is one is slightly heavier. If you mine uranium, what you get is a mix, and it'll be about 99.3% U-238, and 0.7% U-235.
Here's the thing - U-238 is pretty much useless as a nuclear fuel, at least directly. U-235 is what we want. In most nuclear reactor designs, "enriched uranium" is used, which is uranium where the amount of U-235 is increased to about 3% or so.
But here's where things get really cool. In a nuclear reactor, the whole point of the operation is that you've got a metric shit-ton of neutrons flying around. If U-235 absorbs a neutron, it busts apart and releases energy and more neutrons - this is how it generates heat and keeps the "chain reaction" going. But if U-238 absorbs a neutron, it doesn't "fission" like U-235. Instead, it becomes U-239 which decays quite quickly into Plutonium 239. Plutonium 239 is a useful nuclear fuel. In fact, even in many current reactor designs, a large fraction of the overall energy is produced from this plutonium - fuel that was produced within the reactor itself.
But when there's no more U238 left, then there's no way to make more plutonium. In a modern reactor, this isn't a problem - a very small fraction of the actual uranium (maybe 2% at most) is used up before we can't use the fuel anymore. The reason we can't use it anymore is because the wastes produced absorb too many neutrons to sustain the chain reaction - but there's still lots of fuel!
In the past, "reprocessing" has been attempted, which chemically separates most of these wastes, leaving behind the useful plutonium and uranium to be reused. In theory, we can do this about 50 times. The problem with reprocessing is that it makes it really easy to spill the nasty bits that we don't want to spill. The uranium and plutonium themselves are practically harmless - it's the wastes that are dangerous. When they're separated and concentrated, it's worse than spent nuclear fuel.
A TWR is designed to convert more U-238 to Pu-239, without reprocessing. The conversion happens entirely within the reactor core. So, if a fuel bundle in a current reactor lasts one year, then the same fuel bundle could last 50 years in a TWR if it could convert all of the U-238. |
This is what makes you an ass. He doesn't "attempt" to be a geek. He's just himself, and he talks about what he enjoys. Too bad that doesn't meet with your approval.
You come across as a bitter hater because you think people should listen to you above Wil. He gets instant Geek Cred for being on Star Trek from most people. That's something you will never accomplish. He's not trying to be the authority on technology or anything, he just enjoys talking about it.
Who elected you King of the Geeks, with the power to say who is or is not a geek? |
Three strikes rule is in effect in France. IT IS STUPID. Here's how it has been done in France :
Usually, the plaintiff need to prove that you were downloading and seeding, they have the burden of proof.
Since it's almost impossible for them to prove that in piracy case (shared internet access accross a family, possibility of a pirated access to your network,...), they want to create stupid law that displace the burden of proof to the defendant. You fucking have to prove that you are not a pirate. These laws are very undemocratic, so usually killed by national supreme court or never created.
They could invade our privacy (DPI) and watch everything everybody do online, but strangely people do not want government and private company to look after everything they do online, and this is more or less a problem in a democratic state.
But government have lawyers, who create new offense to overcome these legals and political difficulty.
French exemple : You must secure your internet access, if you have a unsecured internet access it is an offense and you can be sued for it.
Of course, a "secure internet access" mean nothing, since every network can be hacked, but if they caught someone downloading from your access, you're screwed : You are a pirate (= sued for copyright infrigement) or your internet access is not secured (=you are sued for "non secured internet access" and your internet access is suspended).
Here is the best part : They know this law is a joke and during any serious trial, with someone who is willing to fight back, they will loose. So NO ONE (yes, no one !) have had a suspended internet access in France. And this shit cost several millions every year to the French state. Fuck.
And, of course, everyone is turning to other way of accessing illegal content (streaming, Usenet, VPN,....). |
I work in tech support, and I'm sorry to say but there's nothing more frustrating than getting something along the lines of a epic BB error message which causes you to reload the OS
I do like how flexible the OS actually is, and that its come this far as the basis for most of the other OS's out there, but seriously, RIM just needs to stop with BB's and get back to their basics |
They relied on their corporate business thinking their encryption would carry them through. They apparently forgot consumers also have phones.
I think the only thing they bothered to do once the iPhone hit was put out the Blackberry Storm. One of their very few touch screen phones.
"Old people love our phones because they're secure and have a great keyboard, but Apple is coming out with a phone! What should we do? Nothing, businesses love us and old people run businesses and make the decisions."
Then young people flocked to iOS/Android. Businesses started to adapt to BYOD to save money. "Oh you already have a phone that can get emails and we don't need to buy you one, pay activation fees, or termination fees when you quit?" |
Because no matter what he has done in the past he doesn't deserve this.
I don't like Dotcom at all, he's an obnoxious scumbag. But the actions taken against him are completely out of proportion to what(if anything) he has done. He may be fat and obnoxious but that doesn't mean all his basic rights should be shit on.
So many things that have been done against him are straight up illegal, not in a grey area like what Dotcom himself was doing. The raid was done on a invalid warrant and not legal, the FBI is deliberately withholding evidence needed for his defence, the FBI seizures of megaupload assets is illegal as neither the company or individuals were ever served.
The whole thing is a farce and a show of exactly what is wrong with "copyright enforcement" and how much power special interest groups have over American government and law enforcement, and how much power America has over other countries. The copyright maximalist lobby is using the police and FBI like it's private army, and doing stuff that is multitudes worse that what it is supposedly preventing, it's just sickening.
If everything was done by the book and they had had an actual civil copyright case against him I would welcome it, if he has done something illegal then try him for it. But there was no due process here and that is a serious issue. |
Funny story,
I had a few acquaintances in high school who would on occasion play monopoly together. The one guy I was actually really good friends with at the time was a bit of a hot head. He didn't like to lose. The other one barely spoke English(his only language is English but he mostly talked in grunts). The last guy is a cheater. Always cheats if he can get away with it(only at games I think he finds it funny).
Well they've been playing together for years and we all go off to university and by this time I've gotten to be good friends with them. The three of them move into a condo together. Well one night I go over there and the cheater has gotten back from the dentist with a chipped tooth. I ask him what the deal was, he laughs and says "Hot Head finally found out that I've been cheating"
Turns out what happened was one of them realized he had been taking money from the bank. He had been the banker ever since they started playing in junior high. Hot Head flipped because cheater always won, realizing that all of these years he had been cheated. He threw one of the monopoly pieces at him hits him in the mouth. Chipped tooth.
The moral of the story is, I never thought to rotate who got to be banker each round. I'm killing myself laughing and can't wait to see hot head and cheater next week. |
Hey, I have heard Reddit complain so many times about how these financial criminals get off too easy and they should be treated like the rest of the criminals in the criminal justice system. Well here you have it. The fact is he broke the law (a law you and I and Reddit might disagree with) and is being treated as such. Had it been a corporate banker who's house was raided with M4s and Helicopters you guys would be hootin and hollering about how justice was served. |
You're wrong. We can stop them. But it won't be easy. All we have to do is get everyone who agrees with our principle in one place. The principle is freedom. The cause is "Stop government oppression now". Let's pick a medium sized city somewhere, (a place with plenty of water and good weather), find a bunch of people who agree with the same ideas we agree with. Then we move ourselves into the city and live there on a permanent basis. We'll never leave if we can manage it. Then we'll be free to make our own rules collectively in a technologically aided real direct democracy instead of allowing unknown lobbyists who live god knows where to write and pass bad laws that effect all of us even the people who do not agree.
What can the police do against a few thousand people in one place? Are they going to arrest us? Are they going to build special jails to house all of us? What can an army do? Are they going to massacre a few thousand people? Would they dare? Are they going to block the roads and act as if we're not going to walk right through their barriers?
No barrier can hold us. We'll just climb over the top and then they'll have to shoot us, but I guarantee they won't massacre a thousand people who decide to climb over their barrier. Why? Because if they dare kill a thousand innocent people than they ally themselves with the terrorists. Is our government a terrorist organization? Is it turning into one? A thousand dedicated people can stop it. The masses will never support government sponsored terrorism.
We will be untouchable because we will remain nonviolent. If any of us start getting violent, we'll get together and stop the violent ones. We'll tie the violent one up and we'll throw him at the police. Violence is not a part of us. Violence is a cancer. We will remove the cancer from our body and survive.
But we will resist arrest en masse. If we see one of us getting arrested, all others will converge on that spot to stop it. We are not afraid. They cannot control us with fear. Freedom is more powerful than fear. If they try to fight us we'll exercise out right to self defense. We'll crush anyone who stands in our way. A thousand people fighting for freedom. I'd like to ask the governments and corporations how many cops and guards they think they can gather to prevent a thousand people from exercising their God given right to self determination? My guess is not many and not for long. Many of those cops may end up joining us. We'll gladly have them. Freedom is forgiveness.
If the powers of this world escalate their war against us, we'll claim the right to be recognized as a new ethnic group. Our one unifying belief, the belief that distinguishes us from all the other people of the world, can be summed up in one word: freedom. Want to see our constitution? It's just one word. It says: "freedom". Want to see our plan? Unlike the powers, we have no need to keep our plans secret. Our plan? Freedom. Freedom isn't just something for the movies. Freedom isn't just something our ancestors fought for. Freedom is our future and together we can make freedom a reality. Freedom is possible if we work at it. Will the people of this world let our group be discriminated against on the basis of our belief in freedom? Who can resist freedom? Can anyone?
If the police dare come with their dogs and guns to try to cart us all off kicking and screaming they will look exactly like fascists. Didn't the Nazis do the same thing to the Jews? Didn't the Jews eventually get their own country, in part because they were so brutally oppressed? Isn't freedom for our children's future worth being sent to a government concentration camp in the present? Why can't everyone who has a different belief than those perpetuated by the governments and corporations reject them both and set up their own independent area? Why can't we? I'll tell you. Only because we believe we can't. The only way the powers can defeat us is if we have already defeated ourselves in our own minds.
We can live as long as we need to in whatever place we choose, a permanent protest against worldwide government and corporate oppression. Not one of us would starve or die from lack of anything we need to survive because if people started dying it would be a human rights violation. Don't underestimate the importance of protecting human rights. Thanks to the homogenized globalized community the powers have forced the world into, we now have organizations like the World Court and the United Nations to protect us. Thanks to the power's own stupidity and greed, they have unwittingly created the very institutions with an interest in keeping us safe and alive. If any of us die by no fault of our own, it will be a shocking atrocity committed by the United States and a rallying point behind which the rest of the world could freely object to government and corporate imperialism.
As time goes on, more people would drop out of our present, crooked system to congregate in the only place in the world that is truly free: the permanent protest site—whichever site we choose. We'll take the whole town. We'll expand with settlements into the surrounding area. The citizens living there can either help us--or if they don't like what we have to offer--they can leave. We won't stop anyone from going out or coming in. We won't force anyone to change any behavior they might have. If any behaviors are changed it will be because of a personal choice, as it should be.
This is our rallying point: no one should have the right to tell another what they can and cannot do. No one should force another with the threat of violence into behaviors that are contrary to their nature.
The people of the world will see us and either agree or disagree. If enough agree than the world changes. If more disagree than agree then the people have chosen slavery over freedom—it will suck to be them, but at least we won't be there to see it.
Eventually we'll knock down the suburbs, grow our own food, build protective structures designed to deal with dangerous weather. We'll lobby skilled people to join our movement: doctors, scientists, lawyers, media people. We'll remove offending citizens by kicking them out of town. (not by throwing them in jail; Lord knows jails do not work and are overly expensive to run). We'll say, "You don't like it here? You don't want to play by the rules we all agreed on? You can leave. Goodbye. I hope the world of slaves outside is to your liking because you can't come back here."
You really think we are in no position to stop the powers from trampling us into oblivion? I agree, but use your imagination for a second. There's a million positions we can organize ourselves into to stop them, but I don't think we can stop them unless we decouple ourselves from them. As long as people personally benefit from the present system on a local level they will never leave it, they will never work to change it. They'll do the easiest thing. The easiest thing is to just sit wherever you are and say, "Yeah, it would be great if I could pursue my own personal way of life without any outside force intruding, but it won't work." That's the easy thing to do. Dying is always easier than living.
Nobody knows what is going to work in the end. People need the freedom to figure it our for themselves. We know what doesn't work, don't we? Prisons don't work. Wars don't work. Governments, (unless we're talking about local government), don't work. The markets don't work. Consumerism doesn't work. Slavery doesn't work. Our whole political, economic, religious, social system doesn't work and things are only going to get worse, unless we can collectively find a different way.
These days concerned citizens will take a weekend off for some pathetic protesting against some pathetic legislation. They'll obey all laws during the protest and go home poorer than when they left. They won't ever truly believe that they personally have the power to really change anything, (Hold a sign I can do; Change things? Yeah, whatever.). But it is only because of the poverty of their own minds that they are in "no position to stop them".
Listen, assume a position to stop them or assume the position to someday kiss all your worthless freedoms goodbye. If things have to change, (I would argue they do), then we must soon take a position and defend that position with our lives or everything we love and cherish will someday be destroyed by the powers that rule this world. They don't want us to have freedom. They want us to have their warped idea of freedom. Get their shit out of your mind. It's time to wake up, shake off your fear, put on the armor of courage and proclaim an end to tyranny and the birth of freedom. |
However, that being said, Dotcom and his employees were not only fully aware of the illegal material stored on their service, but were also guilty of uploading and sharing some of it. Sure, the CEO of UPS knows that his company makes money off of illegal activities, but he doesn't participate in said illegal activities himself. That's the difference here. While the charges against Megaupload are trumped up bullshit, and this entire case stinks, Dotcom and his employees were personally guilty of uploading and sharing stolen content. |
oh can you do this?" Sound like a honest question if the person doesn't use iOS stuff.
"oh we were able to do this before you!" Well, they did. But fanboy's versus fanboy's facts matter. Facts are never a bad thing. It's what separates fanboys from people that can take criticism. And Apple fanboy's think something that android has had for 2+ years is ground breaking for apple to make? Can you understand why people are like "Oh, you just got that now". I'm still waiting for drag and drop on iOS devices and expandable storage. It would "really" be nice for the users.
"oh hows that front/rear glass holding?" And Glass on the back was a bad design flaw. It put form over function. Even over the state of reality. People drop phones, alot. So, lets put glass on both sides and make it take 45 minute to replace (but the new one it's easier fix like 5 minutes). And for my self first thing when I saw it was "that's going to break & scratch on a lot of phones".
"hows all the freezing, glitches, low battery notifications, and random restarts doing for ya" I love that you get mad at people "so called" attacks on your favorite phone you in turn do the same (if I understand the phrasing you are saying this against others). Mine nor any of my friends phones freeze, glitch or random restarts. And all phone will run low on battery. But if you have a bigger screen and bigger CPU/GPU of course you be burning up more battery versus a small Screened and Smaller processors phone. That's part of computer 101. Again I do not know if I am understanding what you mean.
The problem with the "killer" crap is nobody really cares; really nobody. It was hype or marketing; you know like what apple does/ did with Mac<Pc ads ( But Macs Are Personal Computers with all the same parts). And if someone is really doing the "killer" they are a hipster douche try to be better then the mainstream product. Just remember as don't forget. Google is only making the world they want to see A.K.A. the future because many companies are just sitting there slowing progress to make (screwing) you pay more for less. Cars, OS, Fiber, Etc.... They real don't care what people say about them.
And in my eyes apple is one of those companies. With profit margins around 56%. And over charging for ram, DVD drives, hard drives, and even MS Word. Really, build a computer side by side. (I saw a friend do it with top of the line desktop for about 12,000 just the tower. Then built a tower with a better video card, HD web cam, mechanical keyboard, gaming mouse, monitor, double the ram, a gaming laptop (about 1,300) and the top it off 100 boxes of poptarts. And it was still cheaper by $100 or so)
I really just wish people don't "believe" anything apple says and start looking at third party reviews. And compare more and understand the ethics of what they are supporting. And their history as well; not the made up history the real history. |
Because it's a scanner, not a guitar. I remember my father (who used to work on old tube computers back in the day) told me about how the engineers (programming was engineering back then) could make the UNIVAC "sing" because the tubes resonated at different frequencies. |
Throw away account here, but just wanted to pitch my two cents: I am a sex offender for something that I did four years ago. I've been through the counseling/therapy with no incident, I was never declared a threat to the society, I register on time, and my crime involved no interaction with other human beings. Porn thing, you know what I mean. I'm one of the lucky ones, in that I don't have to register for life. The point is that, in my time as a sex offender, all these lists, all these public notifications... they don't help at all. I'm not talking about just for myself (we'll get to that in a minute), but they don't help the community. For cases like mine where the person is a lower risk, being on the public registry (which, by the way, eliminates all hopes for privacy. ever) only serves to get me harassed and worry the community. I'm a smart man, I have a degree... but I can't get a job. Other than flipping burgers. Just as a point of reference - during my most recent interview the company offered my $20/hr, until they asked about my record. It always goes like that. "Nice credentials, oh wait, you're a felon. No job for you." I haven't had a girlfriend in about 5 years now, no one will have a sex offender. I still live with my father - no landlord will house a sex offender. The point is that I'm leading a fairly shitty life (I'm aware that I caused this), with no apparent way out. With a bill like this, one of the last places where I can be just a "normal guy" is gone, and with it one of my last refuges. I know this post sounds self pitying, but that's just the way it is. I see no point why I should have to suffer further for something that I've already "done my time/rehab" for. /two cents |
I did not say that I pirate music. I have to disclose, I did pirate frequently back in the days when Napster was king, but that was before all the RIAA shit hit the fan, and before most of us really thought about it much. I haven't really pirated anything since then.
What I actually said was, I find an alternate way to listen, or I do without. I listen to the radio, or go to youtube (which probably does put some advertising dollars in the pockets of the evil empire, but at least its a model I support), or... I DO WITHOUT.
I don't need a vast library of "cool songs" to have a fulfilling life. You know how many songs are on my phone? Zero. My computer? Zero. In my car? Zero. I simply learned to do without, its just not that important to me. I really enjoy hearing the current "hit of the month" sparingly, and by chance, rather than looping it on my own - it makes me appreciate it more (even when its a lame song). |
Actually, Pris' face painting won't fool the computers. Most of the face detectors these days (the ones you find in your phones, pocket cameras, etc.) first check if the assumed eye area in the image is darker than your cheek area, then proceed with a bunch of similar checks. Kind of. Google Viola-Jones and look at the examples. If you want a DIY experiment and some proof, you can print a picture of Pris, point your face-detecting phone at it, and see what happens.
Proper non-consumer face detectors are definitely a step up from this basic approach. To fool these, you'd need to paint your face so much that you'd stick out like a sore thumb in the crowd. You'd also want to test your face painting on a bunch of real face detectors to see how well it works, and adjust the painted pattern based on the results. If you want to fool facebook's or iphone's detector, just tilt your head a little and cover one eye with your hand. If you want to fool a real face detector... you can't. Just forget it. |
If you are buying remotely, you are giving your home address to a stranger online who sells drugs. If you are buying face to face, cash is basically untraceable and easier to exchange. Admit it, cash is, and always will be, far more convenient than crypto-currencies for buying drugs. |
AT&T has made a deal with Verizon so that only the AT&T iPhone can do both.
In not-locked-down-for-silliness-land, Verizon LTE devices and some 3G devices can do simultaneous voice and data. LTE devices definitely can, since data will go over LTE, and voice will go over CDMA. VoLTE solves all problems, and a handful of devices have special CDMA/EvDo radios which can do CDMA (voice) and EvDo (3G data) simultaneously, but that also requires that the cell towers in your area support it as well. |
Can confirm part of this. My family is trying to save money by ditching the AT&T Home Phone at $75/m with terribly basic DSL at $20/m and trying a VoIP provider (Ooma. ) ATT's offering was, for just basic DSL ala cart, it skyrockets to $35/m.
Not to mention I live in a suburb, with an ATT tower in the town center (recently put in, with new switching lines.) Uverse isn't available and likely never will be, as it is not profitable.
My neighbor has the "upgraded" version in his barn office, and basic at his home. He says that there is no difference between two promised speeds.
The kicker? We've been a loyal customer forever and a Wireless customer for 10 years. |
What age does one become an adult in regards to this survey? Because the only teens that are driving are (maybe) 16, 17, 18, and 19. Many states consider 18 as an adult. If the survey considered this, then only two ages are both teens and drivers. |
But... Assuming 500 people in each age category (I cannot assume otherwise because this article reports no actual raw data) the results are not significant. It was underpowered to detect a difference that small (again, unless I see more data I can only very roughly estimate how "significant" these results are. |
28 years old. Zero accidents/collisions of any type.
I use my signal when I need it. The difference being that I actually know when I need it and you guys use it regardless because you turn your brain off when you drive. Why do you signal when no one is around you? Because you don't actually know if someone is around you. You don't pay attention when you drive.
I will continue to use my turn signal at my discretion. I have no fear of a collision because I actually pay attention to the cars around me.
You'll notice that your driving improves dramatically if you ask, "Do I need my turn signal right now?", and then actually look around to check if you need it. I know... I know... You guys are safe though! You just complacently do what you're told and hope everyone else on the road is paying more attention than you. Then you drive 65 in the passing lane and wonder why people think you're a douche. |
Oh god, I'm 20 and my Dad is 49. He is fucking terrible about texting and driving. Worse off is he has an iPhone so he's trying to pull that bullshit with a touchscreen, with family and friends in the car. It's fucking obtuse and offensive, I've literally had to scream and take it away from him (I'm a man by the way) yell at him to dodge incoming objects and the such. Now other than that glaring discrepancy he's an intelligent, mature, and successful man.
I on the other hand do not give a damn if someone texts/calls me during class or driving, never have, ever since I got my first phone at 13... well unless it's a girl. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.