0
stringlengths 9
22.1k
|
|---|
It depends. A pneumatic engine doesn't require any more energy to make than an ICE. Since it's much simpler, it should actually require less. Though, your mechanics teacher is referring specifically to the batteries in electric powered vehicles.
OTOH, with the massive amount of waste heat created compressing air, it's possible it might use more energy in use than an ICE. I'd have to do the math. If you happened to live in an area where the majority of your power came from wind/solar/etc, then it would obviously be less. |
In the United States, interactions between police and citizens fall into three general categories: consensual (“contact” or “conversation”), detention (often called a Terry stop, after Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)), or arrest. “Stop and identify” laws pertain to detentions. - WIKI
When these Law Enforcement Officers are watching behind a camera and see your face, this is a "Contact" interaction between the law and a citizen. You should not, by law, be forced to give your identification in this instance. Especially without consent.
If you are not being detained, then an Officer of the Law has no right to ask you for ID. This pretty much sidesteps that and breaks this statute by using your face as an ID. While I agree it can be extremely useful, I would like to see laws that are updated and that balance this power which may be abused. They are honestly breaking the law if they are pulling up your identification, without asking you, and without detaining you. This is not okay that they have no regard for the law. Am I willing to allow leeway? Yes. Do I understand they must have a reasonable amount of surveillance, and that this is a very applicable thing? Yes. But they shouldn't just go ahead with it, not without consulting the American people, following old laws, and updating them. |
It's really not as much of a reality as this article suggests. Naomi Wolf is a sensation author who often provides no, or misleading, sources. If you actually read the News21 link she provides to claim "Disney sites are controlled by facial recognition technology," you'll find that the article doesn't support that at all, and in fact contains a quote from a Disney rep that they DON'T use that type of technology. The article is predominantly about fingerprint detection tech used on tickets/passes. |
Apple, along with Google got hauled before the Senate because of that. Here are some facts that came out of it.
The information Apple was tracking never left the device. Apple claimed it was a bug and released a patch a couple weeks later rectifying the problem.
>“Apple is deeply committed to protecting the privacy of our customers,” said Guy “Bud” Tribble, Apple’s vice president for software technology in testimony before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee today in Washington. “Apple does not track users’ locations -- Apple has never done so and has no plans to do so.”
Google claimed that they tracked the same information. That data was sent up to Google's servers in order to provide better search results and data relevant to the user. Google declared that the location tracking was intentional and swore (literally, this was before congress) that they use the data responsibly.
So yeah, you are making an issue out of nothing. Even if you are concerned about privacy, between Apple and Google, Apple is the one that doesn't tie location data to you (they do send it anonymously to help locate cell towers and wi-fi hotspots in order to improve the location services, Google also does the same).
source: |
I think most people don’t understand what it means that this is a design patent – it’s not the same thing as a “regular” patent (a utility patent). Design patents allow a company to get an exclusive right to the form of a functional object so that a 3rd party can’t make a different device with identical appearance (well, not legally at least). Almost every company that puts the time into making a distinctive shape for their devices gets one: Microsoft has one for the Xbox, George Lucas got one for Yoda etc.
Design patents are extremely narrow – you have to do your level best to copy them exactly in order to be found in infringement. Plus, they specifically cannot cover functionality – that has to be covered by a utility patent, if it’s going to be protected. This design patent only protects a “portable display device” (that’s the wording in the Patent itself), and only one with those specific design elements that are shown in the Patent Figures.
I’d be shocked if Apple hadn’t applied for design patents for all of its devices. This really isn’t an issue." |
Microsoft has one for the Xbox, George Lucas got one for Yoda etc.
The look of an xbox, or Yoda, are NOT the same as a plain rectangle with rounded corners. |
First off, for Locksmitthing, just imagine a sufficiently advanced drone app that launches off a quad with a [snap gun]( to the clients door, all hours, charged to credit card. The future burrito bomber of lock picking.
Now, in general, as far as protecting jobs from automation goes, I refer you to the printing press and the demise of the copy house. MASSIVE layoffs, huge individual cost of implementation (for the people who lost their jobs) and yet ultimately one of the best things to happen to humanity since we started sharing our food with fires before we ate it.
Human time, OUR time, should be one of the most valued things we have. Yet here we are, with phrases like "killing time". I do my best to automate my own job, not in the hope that someone will turn around and say "Oh hey there, your job is 99% done by your computer anyway, cya" but with the idea that either I can take advantage of it (I do about an hour work per 9-to-5, plus script supervising) or that someone will let me go do something that doesn't feel like it could be done by a 100 line python script.
/rant |
you can't interview everyone every year and ask for every piece of software they want to use along with the version they need
Bullshit. It's trivial to do this. You don't need to interview everyone on a one-to-one basis; just run a script to compile what software a user has been granted through Active Directory or SCCM or whatever and send it to them or their manager for review. If you're not keeping a record of both what software a user should have and what they actually have, then you're not doing your job properly.
In this particular case, all the software that the user needed should have installed automatically on the computer that he was assigned. Any programs that can't be managed through the administration software (and Visual Studio, a licensed program, certainly can and should) would have been considered to be "requested" when they were in the records that the IT department had.
> |
Quick! Someone call Stephen Hawking! I'm almost certain that you know so little about what you're talking about, that your grey matter has been replaced by antimatter. He may yet be able to come up with a legitimate use for that which inexplicably exists beneath your thick skull. Creating and maintaining images for each department in a multimillion dollar institution takes a massive amount of resources as-is. Tech departments spend the time and resources doing this, however, because that is in fact the most effective way to maintain massive groups of machines. Nearly every user is able to work at top efficiency when a tech department uses this method of maintenance. It is simply not feasible to make a custom image for every employee, you can't interview everyone every year and ask for every piece of software they want to use along with the version they need. Every university, large business, and government office with a tech department worth their salt knows this.
We have users who request any number of obscure programs we don't have access to, usually requested because of their own personal preference (some people cannot easily adapt to new versions of Word or Pages, or want to use old ticketing software that only worked on older versions of Windows, for example). If they need an oddball program installed, and they haven't been given administrator level privileges, they need to request an installation and provide the installation media.
Staff members demand all sorts of programs that can't even run on current operating system versions (like the man in the article), and there's no way to know whether they need it year-to-year on work machines (although these machines do need to be reimaged every year due to our security policies). You're forgetting that these machines belong to us, and while the Windows or Mac OS image is often tailored to specific standards their department requests (the art department gets Creative Suite, the stats teachers get SPSS, and so on), individual employees with individual needs absolutely need to put in a ticket and list their requests.
Keep in mind, 99% of our employees are covered by their department-requested software image. The last 1% are evenly split between people who are old and computer illiterate ("AppleWorks doesn't look how it used to. Why does the loading screen say 'Microsoft Word'!?"), and people who got shafted into oddball jobs that shouldn't technically exist, but are the result of losing an irreplaceable employee and trying to shaft their responsibilities onto know-nothings.
P.S. Their account is created locally when they log in. If they don't have their name on the "administrators" list, their account will not have administrator rights. That's not and issue for software technicians, we just forward it to security/active directory managers. |
I really hate people that bitch about the start menu and start screen. That cascading cluster fuck of a "menu" was the worst thing ever to be included in Windows since it's inception. Fuck that noise! It can't be managed. It's kinda like the Saved Games folder. Software makers don't give a fuck and just throw icons and folders all over the place willy nilly. Hey let's have a folder with the program and put another link in the root. God forbid you actually try and use it to launch a program.
Click All Programs -> Click Programs -> Click Accessories -> Click Application Folder -> Windows hiccups and the start menu closes. Do it again.
Now it is Windows Key -> Scroll side to side and click a program. HOLY SHIT IT IS NOT ONLY EASIER BUT it will never close on you while trying to find a program unlike the start menu of old.
When it comes to start screen and ease of use some of you are really ignorant and caught up in your old ways. Also don't reply to this talking about metro. The start screen has nothing to do with metro. Don't like metro? Right click and uninstall and unpin all metro apps. Otherwise the start screen as a menu and a launcher is fucking brilliant and easy to use. Fuck that old start menu and if you want something like it there are already 7000 apps that do it exactly the same or better but just because you can't change your ways don't beg for Microsoft to put it back and re-bloat the operating system just because you cant be arsed to learn something new. |
Microsoft does actually make hardware and it demonstrates what they seek to do with the unified experience. It demonstrates that one experience doesn't mean one interface or one paradigm.
The Surface Pro is a single device that unifies the tablet and traditional PC. It is a Windows 8 Pro device with a touch screen. It has an integrated keyboard/touchpad as a cover.
Here is the key. It is one device that sometimes is a tablet. When it is a tablet the desktop is pretty terrible. Every thing is too small and the lack of a mouse cursor means that corrections and small movements are difficult. A stylus helps but it is more for drawing than for clicking. To paraphrase Steve jobs. If you have to use a stylus then you already lost.
The Surface Pro is also a desktop. The integrated keyboard case is ok, but you are free to plug in what ever other mouse and keyboard you want. You can daisy chain in several display port monitors. It is a decently powered device that can do anything you want it to. For getting work done you need the desktop. You need a mouse and small buttons. You need the other interface.
There are two interfaces. Two paradigms. Both are part of the modern computing experience and both feel comfortable on windows 8.
Once device means I have only one set of files, one computer to organize, one set of software to buy. Most importantly it means that I only need to pay once. A MacBook air plus an ipad is $1600. A Surface Pro is $1000. If you don't need as powerful a desktop you can buy a snappy intel atom tablet for $500. With the new generation of atoms that option will become all most people need. |
I have to add that phone insurance can be a lifesaver. I'm careful with my phones and have sometimes used the same one for 3+ years, but I bought a phone a couple years ago that had just come out.. turns out the charging port was prone to becoming loose after even moderate usage and would eventually stop charging. And being a droid the battery ran down quick so it needed lots of charging, thus the charging port only lasted a few months. Phone insurance meant I could just bring it back, Verizon verified that it didn't charge, and overnighted me a new one. Repeat every 3-4 months for a year and a half and eventually they just sent me a newer model droid without using my upgrade. And the one time it was actually my fault because I dropped it and smashed the screen, I paid the $99 deductible and likewise got a new one (plus a free case and charger). |
The issue with sprint 4G is they implemented 4G WIMAX everywhere to try and beat everyone to the punch, everyone else went LTE and now sprint has to bend to the will of the phone manufacturers who don't want to make both an LTE and WIMAX version of phones. If you had good 4G and don't anymore get an LTE phone, if you have an LTE phone and get shitty coverage switch to your old WIMAX phone until it stops working good.
edit: The |
I had a similar problem... in the middle of Chicago where they were actually providing "real" 4G service. It was terrible at best. Their "unlimited" plans are complete bogus, because the quality they provide is very low. On their brand new, at the time 4G network, I got maybe 3mbit internet connection while my friends with everything else were hitting higher speeds on 3G/4G connections (going as far as 10mbit). Not only that, but that "affordable" 60 dollar bill would go up to almost 100 bucks with all the different extra "fees" that they tagged on. As time went by, the higher my bill got.
I eventually said fuck this shit and went with T-Mobile. While the cap is at 2 gigs for high speed internet, I cannot complain. The speeds are stable and they don't bill the living shit out of me.
That said I cannot vouch for their new LTE network, so people will have to tell me. |
I currently have Sprint and I live paycheck to paycheck. I switched jobs and was working this new one for 2 weeks when my boss had a question about my availability for the next week. He claimed he called my phone 10+ times over two days and every time it told him the phone was no longer in service. Not only was I at home oblivious to this, but was using my phone for texts, calls, and had service (if you could call it that). Not only that, but when I did walk into work the day after the schedule was finalized, his call went straight to voicemail. I had my friend call me and it went through. He left me off the schedule not knowing if he could get in touch with me at all. I went a week with 0$ income and now I'm 400$ behind bills because Sprint decided to bend me over and stick their dick in my ass. |
As a former manager at sprint that worked there for over 5 years and left on good terms I can confirm they are the worst.
This goes from the overall network quality, to how they treat employees, and ends with the overall impression customers get. The commission structure is changed every year and quotas change month to month to pay employees less. Ie: get 10 activations and we pay you $330. Then next month 30 activations gets you the same $330. They know how to exploit this. Then to make it worse, when quotas are extremely high and people miss they get written up. 3 strikes and they are out. There is no respect for tenure or the commitment you personally make to the company, it is all about kpi's.
I have personally let people go that I care about because of this. There are times when quotas are outrageous and traffic in the stores are dead but still reps are accountable. There are months when only 2 people hit their targets but guess what? The other 10 get a corrective action.
Next, the network... We would have issues when a tower would go out and several neighborhoods would be affected. We would make ticket after ticket.. Nothing! what do they expect, me to find/climb the tower and fix it? I would if I could.Then the customers would come in angry.. This was never pretty... The yelling, cursing us, just wanting their phone that they pay a $100+ bill for to work. It is a no win for anyone.
Trust me, I was in retail for 13 years. I worked at fast food, bestbuy, gamestop, and sprint. People take their phones serious and will go absolutely mad in those stores. They will rip employees and anyone in the way. I never had to kick a customer out before working at a cellphone store. After 5+ years there I can't even remember the amount of customers that were removed.
I could go on and on.. I'm happy I'm out but feel for my good friends still there. Not going to lie though, I love the Monday-Friday thing. |
I can attest to this from an employer's view. Well, from what my father has told me.
He used to be a field technician for Sprint. Whenever a cell site went "down", he was given an alert and had the option of resetting the site/calling the main switch to do some stuff idk what. If nothing worked he had to travel to the site and swap parts out. However, this was only when he was on call. He worked for them for about ten years or so.
So one day I come home from school (I was probably in 8th grade) in the middle of November (everything is pretty much dead) and my dad is mowing our lawn on his riding lawn mower. Something wasn't right, lol. I walked inside my house and my step mother informed me after I asked her why he was cutting dead grass that was laid off. Him and two other field techs in that area were laid off.
After about a week Sprint offered him the position again. However, they also offered the two other field techs the same position . So basically they told the 3 guys they laid off to fight for this position. Well, luckily, my dad got the job back. However he was always on call, working way more hours, and making a few thousand less a year.
They basically fired 3 people and hired one back making him fill in work for 3 people with less pay. Scumbags.
He was later offered jobs by AT&T then Verizon. He's now with Verizon and loves it. |
My thoughts exactly. I've had sprint for 10 and I've only had one instance with bad customer service....and ending up getting a free phone upgrade but the service itself in my area is nice. I have 4g at the workplace and 3g about 5 minutes on the commute and 4g the rest of the way home. I have great 4g coverage at home. I have only a single band router at home so when I have some people over eating bandwidth I just use 4g.(Just ran a speed test on 4g out of curiosity 10mbps up/2mbps down with 76 ping) I just put my wife onto the One up plan. She walked in there with 30 bucks in her pocket and now has a purple GS4 and only pays 80 a month for unlimited everything. I pay the same. |
I changed from sprint to Verizon due to virtually no coverage at my house.
Sprint let me out of my contract early because my address was off their grid of coverage.
I mailed my sprint phone in their provided packaging. Thought I was done..... That's what I get for thinking, again...
Got a bill for $550 a Month later.
I called and found they had received my phone, but still had to process my return.
A few weeks later I got a letter from a collections agency! I was a sprint customer for over 10 years and had never been delinquint with payments.
I was beyond mad. How could sprint send an account t to collections so quickly with only one bill sent, no late notices and due to a problem that was their problem and not mine.
I got everything settled after a few hours on the phone and I still haven't checked to see if they effected my credit rating. |
I have a theory on this, which may have been true a few years ago when post-pay plans were the better deal...maybe not so much nowadays that pre-paid plans are really taking off:
Source: I used to work at several RadioShack stores from 2005-2008 in various neighborhoods of varying socio-economic rankings.
Sprint has, by far, the lowest barrier of entry. People with absolutely HORRIBLE credit could get a line of service for a measly $150 deposit per line (at least back then). These people then don't pay there bills and come in shouting at some neutral third party about why their cell phone bill got "shot off". Then pay the absolute minimum to get it turned back on, and complain a week later when they sent a text message and got it "shot off" again.
AT&T and Verizon, on the other hand, have much higher barriers of entry. You had to have good credit to get Verizon, or else have to pay a $1000/line (or more) deposit to get service. AT&T, I had seen several $500+ deposits. In doing so, they attracted more customers who actually knew how to do things like pay their damn bills, and repeled customers who didn't.
In the past 5 years, I have had Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon phones and I can say with 100% certainty that their CELL service is all completely equal. Some places are good, some places are bad, but it all pretty much averages out in the end. Their customer service can vary slightly but generally they all pretty much suck. AT&T especially, but I have a special kind of personal hatred for them
Little tangent for why I hate AT&T: I had left RS to pursue a job at an AT&T Franchise, which I had lined up -- after putting in my 2 weeks with RS, RS decided they didn't want me anymore. So I had a week off before starting my new job with the franchise. During that time, AT&T decided to pull all franchise licenses and cease hiring, making my tentative job no longer exist. That was REALLY fun to explain to Unemployment, since I technically quit my last job. This was also at the peak of the recession. So I was unemployed for about a year, keeping my AT&T Employee plan since they were supposed to just automatically move me to the lowest-cost consumer plan. They never did. 10 months of paying my bill on-time later, they shut my phone off without warning. I got an e-mail from a prospective employer saying that my phone was shut off, despite having just paid the bill in full a couple of days earlier. The only phone number that was on my resumes and applications. I ended up getting that job and staying there for another 3 years or so. |
If you live in the Orlando Florida area do not get Sprint. When they had the 4GWimax, I had amazing signal that was just as good as wifi anywhere in Orlando. However with the new 4g LTE, Even downtown, my connection is so bad... Basically my phone just switches from 3g to 4g constantly and because it's switching between the two there is NO signal at all. I'm used to walking around with my phone showing 4g working and sitting there for 10 minutes waiting for a page to load etc. This year I will be cancelling my contract early to get away from this crappy service. |
I was tricked into keeping Sprint.
I live in Birmingham, Alabama, and got a phone from a local Sprint about two months ago. At the time I was told I had 14 days to try the phone without penalty ($300+). I quickly realized that 'Sprint' was a misnomer (they should actually call it "potential unlimited data"), but that I was going to keep it till the last day of my "free trial." So, just to be sure, I called Sprint customer service and asked them when was the last day I could return my phone without penalty. The service agent told me I could return it Monday without penalty.
Fast forward to penalty-free Monday: I returned my phone and the guy said that I was one day past due. After I calmed down, I spoke to the manager and told him the situation. He said I was one day past due on my free trial, and even though he believed that I was told Monday, he was being "locked out" by his computer from doing anything for me (because his computer showed me as one day past). He then called Sprint customer service, but they said since they did not have a recording of my original conversation, and since the original representative didn't write in their notes that I was "advised on returning my phone without penalty," there was nothing they could do.
The manager said the free trial was 14 days starting on the day of the contract signing, which is what I assumed, But when I called customer service(and when he called customer service later) we were both told dates that were 14 days starting the day after the service.
I called back the manager the next day and he said that there was nothing he could do; he was "locked out" on his computer. So nether side could do anything. And, since they didn't have a recording of the conversation I'd had with the customer service agent who told me Monday, it was basically my word vs, the retailer (who was "locked out" anyways).
I think it was just a ploy by Sprint customer service to get me to return it one day late, knowing any chance of appeal was hopeless. |
I guess "iDen" is what you call WIMAX internally or something. Basically what happened was sprint was the first kid on the block in most areas with 4G. How did they accomplish this? They implemented a WIMAX network because it was the newest fastest technology at the time, it is quite literally Wifi on steroids. It wasn't hard to take wifi, add a little more redundancy and amp the speeds and lower the frequency and toss in some really hi-gain antennas. It was a great battle plan, offer unlimited everything with one easy bill no overage worries and put it on the fastest network available and do it before everyone else, what they didn't account for was everyone elses pull.
Everyone else went to implement their 4G and decided (maybe not consciously, buy maybe so) to implement LTE which screwed sprint. Sprint never had the volume of customers of verizon and AT&T after the first iPhone so when AT&T and Verizon rolled out LTE on their much larger networks device manufacturers shifted their focus quickly to LTE. Once the device guys got sick of making two versions of a phone for each network sprint had no choice but to go LTE (which they announced in 2012).
Now everyone on sprint is in this limbo of spotty 4G coverage, my wife has a wimax phone and mine is LTE, we each have hit and miss coverage all over our city, but one of us always has 4G so there is that. It's happening slowly but surely. |
So, you want to move 10 GB per month at dialup speeds? That's ridiculous, especially if you are taking steps to get an expensive handset.
Have you seen Sprint's LTE map? Come on...
I'm sure that is nice. I don't know that area well enough, but I know having LTE where you spend a good portion of your time is nice. It is kind of what I was getting at. I've never left LTE service in almost a year now.
Five seconds is the time it takes to miss an exit, IMO.
There's something wrong. Even on 3G, that should have taken seconds.
$13 per month isn't huge cash. |
What the hell are you going on about? The question was:
>I wonder how feasible something like this would be in the US.
My answer is it would be much more difficult in the US, for the reasons mentioned. If you are actually that daft, I am assuming the same density threshold would be used for both nations to determine if an area would get wired or not. Australia has a much lower density in it's core than the US, but there are many areas of the US that would fall below the threshold (parts of Montana, Utah, Colorado, Idaho, North/South Dakota...) If you are still following along, the areas left out for the US would be dwarfed by the areas left out in Australia, ergo, the US network would not only have 14 times as many endpoints, but also cover an area several times larger. The larger network would be more difficult.
If you want to bitch and moan about 'the best for the most' go ahead, but nowhere did I ever say the US network won't or can't happen for any reason, and I sure as hell didn't say an actual implementation of the US network would be all or nothing. |
You said politics aside. Politics aside, it would be okay to say fuck off to large mostly unpopulated area not near the coast or the great lakes. You keep mentioning the rural areas like Montana, Utah, Colorado, etc......I already said, FUCK THEM.
I mean, how hard is it to comprehend that if Australia can do it for 22M in cities that are very spread apart, why the hell wouldn't the US be able to do it in California where the population is 50% larger and the cities much closer? Why the hell wouldn't they be able to do it in Texas where the population is larger and cities are closer than Australia? Why the hell wouldn't they be able to do it in the Northeast which is very dense from DC to Boston and a population significantly bigger than Australia can be found there?
You made an argument that said excluding politics. Well excluding politics, there are areas with significantly more population than Australia in areas much smaller. Come on, Sydney to Melbourne is over 500 miles in distance. For comparisons, San Diego to San Francisco is about 500 miles and the population between those 2 cities is significantly more than the whole country of Australia. DC to Boston is only 430 miles and there is a MUCH larger population there than in ALL of Australia. Chicago to Detroit to Cleveland to Pittsburg is about 580 miles and those 4 metro areas have a similar population to all of Australia. |
Attention ladies and gentlemen, 'the catch':
The Japanese government is willing to fund half the construction of a DC to Baltimore (but only to the BWI airport) maglev route ON THE CONDITION that the US pays the remaining cost for a route that extends through Philadelphia and New York to Boston. That's a very very expensive proposition. Especially when you consider the turning radius of a maglev train could be as high as 6 miles for full speed trains and this corridor doesn't have much open space in it. The cost of eminent domain would be through the roof.
And these trains would be expected to run through the heart of major cities whose current infrastructure ROWs are occupied with non-compatible track. ROWs with tight curves that could under no circumstances handle full speed trains. So if you were to run maglev through Philadelphia, you'd have to put it underground from the stadiums in South Phily to Frankford. That's a 10 mile tunnel, 3x as long as the Big Dig in Boston (though admittedly not as wide). |
It really depends on how you define government regulations. You're happily considering what government currently isn't doing (stopping Duke) as a government regulation, but you're forgetting that what government did to enable Duke to do its bad things in the first place is also government regulation.
Without government regulation, Duke also wouldn't have been able pollute in the first place: no rights of way, no ability to raise capital, no protection from angry local mob, etc.
It's very easy, on the same facts, to argue that government regulation caused the pollution in the first place.
The real |
You replied twice to me so I'll just respond to one. You're overlooking the major historical facts. Germany's railways were bombed to shit in WWII. Between that and Reunification, the country had carte blanche for rebuilding activities. Same with Japan. If you need proof - look at older cities which were left mostly intact (most of Italy), and compare with cities largely rebuilt. Tokyo is a great example if you've been there. The latter tend to have layouts that are much more rational, and built with an eye to future expansion and transport.
In the US, there has never been an inflection point when it comes to our rail infrastructure. It was built in fits and starts over 100 years as we expanded West, and linked haphazardly. But our highways make a lot more sense, because they were built largely as one network in the 50s. |
I can buy a 1 TB harddrive for like $50. The blockchain is currently just under 20 GB right now I think, after 5 years of transactions. So right now, I can store the blockchain like 50 times over for only 50 bucks. If there was more or less the same amount/size of transactions over every 5 year period (unlikely, will probably grow substantially, but still), thats 250 years worth of transactions that could be stored. For 50 bucks. And harddrive space is getting cheaper and more abundant every single year.
Theres also the fact that you dont actually need to download the blockchain at all to use bitcoin. Web wallets, desktop wallets like electrum, smartphone wallets like mycelium. none of those require you to download it. Solutions that help reduce its size or the need to download the entire thing are also being developed. |
When Reddit wishes a sub to die, for either being awful or for gaining too much power it is condemned to the brutal, scorching exposure to millions of hits on the FrontPage Wasteland - where intelligent, informed discussion is ignored because |
Who the hell wrote that title. Online data does have 4th amendment protection. Read the article!
The 4th amendment:
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
And now the judges ruling:
> Overseas records must be disclosed domestically when a valid subpoena, order, or warrant compels their production.
It is the very definition of 4th amendment protection. The government has to have a warrant .
If the judge had instead said:
> Overseas records must be disclosed domestically even when no valid subpoena, order, or warrant compels their production.
That would mean online storage has no 4th amendment protection. But online storage has 4th amendment protection.
Do i believe a judge should be allowed to issue warrants to compel production of evidence? No. I believe everyone should be free from reasonable search or seizure, no matter what a warrant says. If a guy tweets some child porn, I believe Twitter should be allowed to tell the government to go fuck themselves. But that's not the world we live in. |
Rooting (but not unlocking) will allow you access to uninstall apps. However, even rooted you can't simply "uninstall" the app, you have to use something to remove it.
Many times it is safer to just freeze it (such as with titanium backup). What causes the instability or issue with updates is that if the system files are not what they should be, they may not update. I found this out the hard way when I rooted my S3, installed a modified play store without realizing it thinking I was getting something else, and when the next update came out I had to flash over a different ROM because it was stuck in an update loop.
So, while NFL may be pointless, as long as you don't need the space, freezing it will free up any CPU and memory usage it has. My wife had the original MAXX, and she was able to customize her drawer so that the program wasn't seen, and it doesn't run in the background unless you've opened it anyway.
The S5 (and it might be a kitkat thing) has an option to "uninstall" system apps that people would typically consider bloatware. It doesn't truly uninstall them. It just reverts them back to the default settings and disables it from running (similar to freeze from titanium backup). I haven't played with any other kitkat devices so I'm not sure if it's a Samsung touchwiz thing, or if it is kitkat.
I was able to uninstall most everything from verizon, including the account manager, accessories and NFL. The files, themselves, still reside on my device, but they will not run unless I "reinstall" it.
I can also disable google apps this way (such as magazine and music, which I don't use). But I cannot disable most of the samsung apps (such as the touchwiz gallery and the file browser).
Rooting gives you the ability to modify a lot though, so be careful. And some malicious programs may masquerade as others and so you should only grant root privileges to apps you know you can trust. |
You don't really need to unlock your bootloader if you just want to be rooted. [Towelroot]( will do that.
Rooting will allow you to run titanium backup and "freeze" apps you don't want running. You can use uninstaller programs to remove the apps if you want them fully gone.
If you want to install the latest android OS or install a custom OS (such as cyanogenmod) you'll need to unlock your bootloader. Which was, for a while, difficult to do. But users are reporting at XDA that it is able to be done once again: I don't personally recommend trying to unlock the bootloader if you have no reason to (you're not going to install a non-stock OS). If you're just looking to stop the bloatware from being there, rooting will work. Keep in mind that future updates may reverse the root, and unlocking your bootloader will help reduce the chances you can't get root back.
Note, unlocking your bootloader is not the same as unlocking your phone. Unlocking your phone simply allows it to work with other carriers, it has nothing to do with the software. |
Really the problem is not really "regulation" but roll-out.
Local municipalities and utilities own the right-of-way agreements allowing utilities to pass their wires over public and private land. Obtaining these right-of-way agreements is very expensive, involving surveys, attorneys, and substantial payments to private landowners. Most of them date to the 1930's - 1950's when they were purchased to bring electricity and telephone to the area. It is simply not economically feasible for a company to get new right-of-way agreements signed with all the landowners that would be affected by a new network rollout, so the providers are stuck buying access to these rights from the town, city, county, or utility which already owns them.
Back in the 1980's and 1990's the cable and telephone companies purchased long-term leases on these right-of-way from local government entities at rock bottom rates, usually free if they would agree to roll out service to unserved areas of the town, county, etc. Now the local governments and utilities have caught on and realize that, due to the high cost of duplicating these agreements, these right-of-way leases are a de facto , or natural, monopoly. When a new company comes along seeking use of these right-of-way agreements they can and do charge significant fees for access to 'their' network.
In the absence of any government regulation, no new entrant can provide services unless they have significant financial resources to purchase this access, like Google. Even then, they will be at a significant economic disadvantage because Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, Charter, and the other established telecom companies likely purchased 30-year to 99-year leases for $1.00 (plus the aforementioned build-out, which is complete) and have no annual upkeep charges. This acts as a significant barrier to entry for new firms and is the reason that these cable and telephone companies have a natural monopoly on high-speed internet services. Of course, these firms also actively prevent new competition by lobbying state and federal government for favorable regulations, but this is simply a second-line of defense for their natural monopoly. Eliminating all government regulation would do nothing to address the ownership rights in the right-of-way agreements that create the monopolistic conditions in the first place, as these are contractual, and not regulatory in nature.
Finally, this is the reason that the cable providers are so terrified of local municipalities and utilities doing their own network build-outs. When municipalities are willing to forego the high rents that they could charge for their right-of-ways and provide internet as a public service the monopoly power of the telecom companies is eviscerated. Because they already own access to the right-of-ways, they can build out a new network for the same low price that the cable companies already did. This eliminates all barriers to entry and even turns the advantage over to the local entities, since they are government entities or public utilities that can publicly finance, borrow money at ultra-low interest rates, and do not have to pay taxes on income from the network. What's worse, they can then sell these fully-built networks to for-profit companies to run, like Provo, UT did when it sold its fiber network to Google for $1.00, leaving the telecom companies competing against a formidable private corporation on an equal basis. |
I don't know about the Federal Government stepping in to help out. Their dollars are for the nation, not single towns. If the Fed helped out a single town, it would set a precedent for the government to be obligated to help out any other town that built such a network.
In the 1930s, the government helped out with the electric power to put Americans back to work, since it was during the worst years of the Great Depression. |
To really get the most out of cable internet you want to buy your own cable modem (theirs could have terrible custom firmware).
If you want to take it further, buy a router based on hardware specs (like an Asus that is heavy on clock speed and RAM) and flash custom firmware on it like tomato.
Then check your physical cable in every area you can (entry to your house or apartment, etc) and make sure you understand where the signal is split, passively amplified, actively amplified, etc.
Then speed test based on Ethernet to the cable modem, and Ethernet to the router. Wireless network adapters vary wildly, and even a USB port can be a problem in certain circumstances (old USB standard, part of a hub) |
I spent some time researching this a bit ago because I was seeing it everywhere. It's not Coop/USF/BTOP; it is subsidies that were given to Verizon (and AT&T I think, but the articles I've read talk about Verizon) to provide FTTH in several states ([Pennsylvania]( and [New York]( |
It's hard not to take it personally, but Comcast is notorious for doing this regardless (and often in spite) of good performance.
All of the great feedback and attempts to have your contract bought out wasn't necessarily intended to give you false hope, so much as a long shot given your short-term contract. As you said, the vast majority of employees are contract / contract-to-hire, regardless of the nature of the work . The higher ups at Comcast probably had no intention of ever hiring you or anyone else for that role.
Also, your |
Yup, I lost a great job/opportunity when someone falsely reported me for defaming the General Manager of the company. I loved the job I was doing, I was getting good pay and had great prospects to move up and was in a position that allowed me to have constant communication with upper management and I had already build a good rapport with them over the couple months I was there.
Everything just went downhill after that. I clearly explained to management that I said no such thing and have no desire to defame them as I enjoyed the job I was doing and did not want to jeopardise it. The HR Manager was also involved and sympathised with me and supported on my behalf. The management accepted my explanation but it didn't end there.
Upper management basically stopped talking to me and I kinda stopped enjoying my work. They weren't as receptive as before and any issues that I had which required management support I was receiving none whereas before I was fully supported by management with whatever issues I needed to deal with.
Also at the start of my employment contract, I was given a 3 months probation period in which they would confirm my position after 3 months. 8 months in my job, I never received any confirmation that my probation ended and when I asked my direct superior, he informed me the GM told him to keep me in probation. The lingering stink of the past held me back from enjoying my job and I saw my prospects just went down after hearing that, that's when I decided to just quit and do something else. |
How is it possible to simultaneously disagree with a Comcast/TimeWarner merger, but promote swallowing kool-aid?
That merger depends on people consuming the exact same advice you're giving right now; ignore your values, help powers larger than what you control essentially own you.
You could make way more money and have way more independence than these situations by building up some self-confidence and starting your own business. And maybe you don't make as much money, but at least you get to own your own identity. |
This reminds me how I was fired from my last job:
I was an assistant manager at an hotel. The manager had taken around 2 weeks off to get married, back at their home-country. All this was planned a year before - so I was ready to take responsibility as the acting manager.
Anyway, the day the manager leaves, the boss decides to make a surprise visit. Yeey! He is not only a really hard guy to work with - incredibly undeserved ego, totally unprofessional, clueless about hospitality and service industries, and has this twisted idea of running an hotel like his textile factory.
We accept the reality, don't get idealist ambitions to teach him about the industry's necessities, and try to keep the place in one piece while also keeping him happy. But whatever happens, whenever he decides to visit us, a shit storm starts, around 2 - 3 people get fired and " necessary systematic changes " are made...
This time was even worse. There was a tension among the entire staff. People were whispering in the corners, walking around with their heads down, avoiding eye contact from each other. I knew some of the staff were also lobbying with the boss to secure their positions and have people "they didn't like" get fired.
So I'm not only left with keeping the hotel in one piece in its daily schedule, but also have to manage the personnel in this shitstorm and comply with the funny requests coming from the boss. I stay professional, mind my own business, try to stay away from all the chaos, lobbying and gossiping going around, while keeping my eyes open to see what's going on.
I was already alarmed. This guy had replaced the entire management staff, 4 times in the 1 year the hotel had been running before us. But what skyrocketed my alertness level was when he decided to have a personnel meeting, without including me and another management level colleague. We weren't supposed to learn about this, but knowing about stuff was part of my job.
BTW, I was a foreigner in the country like the manager. We had moved to the country only for the job. Also, the manager's marriage decision was kind of rushed because of the situation - something I wouldn't do, and didn't do: which later cost me a relationship of 6 years - a relationship I really valued. Anyway, my girlfriend came to visit me every 2 or 3 months. And (my luck) she had decided to come during these days. I had to stay at the hotel, work almost 24 hours without sleeping, only was able to rest my eyes in an empty room once in a while, and this was going on for 3 or 4 days. And out of respect to her, I had placed my now ex to one of the rooms instead of my house, so that I would be able to spare some time for her.
After the huge meeting ended, we heard that the boss was also planning to have face to face meetings with each one of the personnel, including me and my management level colleague. So - during all these meetings, the hotel and completely stopped functioning. something you can rarely see. the guests are still in the rooms, r coming by to see an empty reception - or me at the reception.
I said fuck it - went out for 30 minutes to reorganize my head and take my gf away from the situation. Had a coffee with her. Ranted for 30 minutes. Took some breaths, sent her to my apartment telling her I'd probably bring her stuff later in the day, and ran back to the battlefield.
In a few moments, I am summoned for the face to face meeting. Finally, some management level talk time, and receive the update on the situation I needed to have days ago. I wasn't expecting anything good, but trying to operate the place while completely in the dark, was getting harder and harder.
I meet him, keep my professional face in every moment, don't even blink my eyes. He asks for some reports on this, reports on that. I give him the reports. He rants about the report format, tells us he had warned us many times before about the format, and for this reason he wont be working with the manager anymore. (I mean, come on, if you're gonna show off like a sadistic egomaniac, don't hide behind simple reasons. Just tell me you're sacking him, while he is away for getting married, just to satisfy your ego, and show me how big of a man you are too...)
It was expected. But I never imagined the style would get so ugly. Still, somehow managed to keep my professionalism, and said "ok, I understand your position even if I wouldn't agree with the decision. And it wont be a problem for me. now on to the other xyz problem we were talking about." (I was loyal to my manager as fuck, but had nothing to do about it anymore, besides informing him about the situation asap - and had no ambitions of taking his place - would simply reject if I was offered.)
So, we talk about some companies we are working with. For some reason he says: "they don't want invoices" . I had 2 invoices prepared for them 5 days ago. He was right, but the thing he didn't know was that the companies had changed their stance on the invoices 2 months ago. I explained him. He tells me - "this is my hotel, do you think you'll know more than I do about how this place works" (last time he came was around 4 months ago). Then rants for a while. I insist. Request 5 minutes from him to bring the invoices as proof - and he starts screaming: "who the fuck you think you are, I won't be working with you too. You can stay at the hotel as long as you need."
*"I wont be needing, I've rented an apartment here and am staying there ever since I came. Thanks for the offer though. I'll collect my stuff, pass the financial and other necessary keys etc. to someone you'll designate."
"The accountant" (The accountant was stealing from the hotel, and was trying to team up with the f&b manager to grow the operation and steal from the restaurant too. We had been investigating the rumors for a while, and had some second degree proof about it. They had found a hole in the IT system we were using. We were also trying to change or fix it asap - to prevent other problems: but "investing in IT was financially unnecessary" )
"ok." ;) (After almost 72 hours without a decent sleep, lots of pressure on me, and seeing how much of a fucktard some people can be, I'm still surprised how I managed to keep my cool and professionalism, and was still able to think straight.)
Later I learned, he also put a lot of time to spread rumors about me & the manager around in the city.
I'm still living in the same city, managing a smaller hotel. I do my best to let people know about the unbiased story of how that manager was sent. And that hotel has replaced management 4 times after us - and is building a name for itself.
I saw him a few months ago. he was surprised to see me in the city. Asked someone next to him what the hell I was doing. I had one of the most satisfied grins in my life when I saw his frustrated red face after he realized that "all this power he thought he had to destroy me in the city" - was nothing. |
yea recently I canceled HD services. I still have cable and pay for the package that includes HD channels, but comcast normally charges a $10 "Hd Technology Fee" to enable the viewing of HD content.
I canceled this fee and the DVR fee.
Comcast sent me a notice that they had mistakenly not billed me for those services (that I canceled) and that I would be billed next month for them.
When I canceled the fees initially, I was told that I did not need to change, exchange, or return any equipment.
When I called a few days ago about that notice, they said I had to return the equipment or I would be billed for the services. Then I got transferred. 2nd Service rep told me the same.
I asked to be transferred to customer retention (I was very mad). Little did I know I would be transferred to the greatest customer retention rep ever at comcast.
I explained the situation to him, and he said the HD technology fee was a big part of our package, as we are paying for HD channels.
I told him I wasn't canceling the package (Because we have triple play that I negotiated down already, and billing for double play or a lesser service would actually cost more ).
He told me he changed my account to where I would have free HD for a year.
Been watching the glorious hd since.
It was a mixed bag, a lot of frustration and incompetence in the beginning, with a surprising, amazing ending.
Comcast still sucks, but that one rep made it suck just a little less. This shows how batshit insane comcast is with prices.
Just call, and complain a lot. Don't take no for an answer. Threaten to cancel and sign up under your spouse's name (even if you don't have a spouse) for the new customer specials. If you are dedicated enough, they WILL lower your bill. |
This. The real issue is that a lot of countries have a strong socialist aspect to them and things like broadband speeds and penetration become things of national pride almost. They don't leave it to the market to decide.
Here in the US, we just let the free market run it all. Cable providers bully towns into signing monopoly deals while the federal regulators are legally bound to not interfere (states rights, bro). This all happened in the 70s and 80s as cable penetration spread and now we're dealing with these issues.
Competitors can't match a coax roll-out because its economically difficult to compete when everyone already has coax from a different company and any sharing of infrastructure legislation gets shot down by lobbyists. Contrary to some of the BS in this thread, a lot of towns have multiple cable companies or multiple ISP providers. Usually one large one and a smaller provider and that's on top of a telecom copper company selling DSL/U-verse/whatever. The problem is things shake out to a duopoly in larger markets and collusion and lack of competition is easy to do. In EU states, when this happens, corporations get yelled at or the state-owned telecom eats their lunch in pricing/performance. In the US, this doesn't happen. In many cases a duopoly is just as bad as a monopoly.
On top of it, a lot of these countries have state-owned telecoms or telecoms partially owned/controlled by the state, so parliament can dictate "We want 90% fiber to home by this year" and it will happen. In the US we can say, "Well Comcast if you try to get speeds up past 10mbps we can give you tax breaks or something." Or we'll give incentives and breaks and give milestones and if those milestones aren't reached, its just a slap on the wrist on the telecoms. See the 1990's efforts to build out a better broadband infrastructure. These companies just didn't feel threatened to actually keep their promises.
I really hate the right-wing reddit chorus about "REGULATORS RUINED IT" when in reality, its our hands off system that ruined it. A lot of redditors need to realize that many things in life fall into natural monopolies, and broadband tends to be one of them. Without proper government initiatives, these natural monopolies emerge and solidify, instead of being controlled or broken up. The current regulatory mindset in the US is pretty weak and American companies often have more power than the government. I think a lot of regulators tried hard to avoid this situation, but politically in the US, unlike Europe, their hands are tied. States rights, bro.
Its an irrefutable fact, that outside the US, regulation and state control has led to massive broadband gains in little time and with low cost. [The same way that US townships that run their own fiber roll-outs via municipal owned business get massive costs cuts compared to a private provider.]( I think its obvious that the private sector has failed us here and continuing to blame "regulators" is asinine right-wing bullshit that holds us back. |
I think the point of NuGet is more so to ensure every developer working on the same project has the necessary files to compile said project, while also making it easier to manage dependencies and update libraries.
This seems to serve another purpose, and I'm not sure what. It's a neat feature, but do we really need repositories for Windows applications? Also, unless one is on a Windows Server without a GUI, when else would anyone install via CLI? |
Apple has built a little slab of Disneyland with its iPad, which is meant to be an experience unsullied by provocative or crude material. It’s beautiful and enticing — the company has already sold more than a half million of them in the first two weeks it’s been available — but it’s not the real world.
I propose a new meme: Apple is Disneyland or AOL. As such it's exclusively suitable for children, old people, people who couldn't even program their VCR clock and the kind of people who explode in paroxysms of fury if they so much as see a bit of cleavage.
As in: "the iPhone's a great mobile device if you're twelve ". Or "the iPad's a great tablet computer if you're scared and confused by a real computer , and/or have never seen a real-life breast ".
If Apple's positioning itself as the next stage-managed family-friendly fascist "please ignore the man behind the curtain making sure you only think vacuous, happy, corporate-approved thoughts" pseudo-utopia like Disneyland or AOL's old online service, I say we treat them as such - with derision and condescension.
Apple's biggest concern is to remain trendy and fashionable. Censorship and heavy-handed enforced family-friendliness isn't fashionable , and it's about time public opinion started reminding them of that fact.
Also, [irony]( |
I have a Dell laptop. Backlight started acting funny, so I start chatting with a support guy, very clearly an American. After a quick diagnosis, he tells me one of the backlight components needs to be replaced. The next morning, a (not at all skeezy) technician shows up at my place, and 20 minutes later it's fixed. |
It's not the users acting uncivilized, it's Apple. Apple hasn't censored just one voice they've censored many. I'm not talking about just the past, but the future. Future satirists have little reason to spend the time/money making apps for Apple when they know it could all be wasted. Don't you think that Apple has been banning, censoring enough for people to finally just say "Fuck Apple"?
If someone does something wrong, I tell them that. If they're not listening, I don't walk away because what they're doing to someone else is still wrong. I say it louder so they can hear. And if they're still not listening, I give a loud signal: "Fuck you Apple" ...they're not listening, why should they get hurt?
And you know what else? I appreciate when other people raise their voice because it gets my attention and lets me see how frustrated people can be with a corporation (I obviously don't let it be my only impression of a company, but I do like to keep it in mind). I used to make satirical comics, they're no where as near as popular as Fiore's but I still made an app for Facebook and it got some attention. This post got my attention, I now know I was wise not to bother making an app for Apple, I actually made this decision after I saw the amount of money and time I'd waste on it, but this if anything really re-confirms it for me. |
As I've said elsewhere, I don't agree with Apple's unnecessarily strict policies, but I do feel they have the right to run their ship the way they want to. As you yourself said, the iPhone is really the first (and still the only) smartphone that is governed by its creator. That's not news either, the iPhone has been out for years now. If people don't realize what they're buying yet, then maybe they should be doing better research.
It's a slipper slope, absolutely, but in the end the only people who will be hurt are Apple themselves, and the people using their phones, and Apple certainly hasn't forced or tricked anyone to use the iPhone against their will.
I find the situation a bit like music piracy. I know it's illegal, but I do it anyway. I'm not a hypocrite. I'm not going to whine if I get caught. I realize that what I do I don't personally consider bad enough to be illegal, but in the end it still is. It's the same here. People want the comfort and style and elegance of an Apple product and environment, but they still reserve the right of complete freedom to fuck all that up as much as they want. I don't understand that. Either you voluntarily agree to bind yourself to Apple's standards, or you go somewhere else. Don't download music and cry "I didn't know!" when you get caught, and don't buy an iPhone and cry "why can't I use this app?" when it, clearly, goes against Apple's terms of agreement. |
which, by the way, I actually know happen to know a few things about. (We'll get to that.) You see, I served cheapskates like you for years. Luckily, you were far outnumbered by decent human beings who weren't opportunistic and selfish enough to arbitrarily find ways to save money at the expense of other people. Based upon my experience, barring any errors in service, 90% of people understand (not necessarily agree with) the concept of tipping. 10% of people are just cheap, or just honestly unaware of the system and how it works. 0% of people fall into the category of having the balls to admit, to a person's face, that they enjoyed the meal and service, but have chosen not to leave a 15% tip based on principle. Why? Because that would become a conversation, and you only want to hear what you head is already telling you--something along the lines of "If I give them money, that means I have less money." You had a one-person conversation, and then-- based upon the information that you yourself presented--decided that the best (er, easiest) way to stick it to "the man" was to take it out on a person that has nothing to do with the rules. Any act of social disobedience that involves slinking away in the hopes of never conveying any sort of communication is just cowardice. |
At my store we'd hype some amazing deals (such as 70% off or whatnot) in a newspaper ad on a few high margin items just to get people in the door, but the cost on these items is almost nothing so the store still makes money off them. However the point isn't to make money or even sell those items, the whole idea is just to get people in the store (who are practically going to beg you to take their money) that will most likely buy some other stuff that is only slightly marked down in addition to the door buster items.
Also note that a few stores will use BF to clear out inventory that they can't sell. They will sell this stuff usually for a loss and you can get some really good stuff for garage sale prices. |
Somewhat of a threadjack, but if anyone is interested in living out this commercial in real life, and happen to live in the Seattle area, there is a company that rents classic Rolls Royce limos, complete with bottles of Grey Poupon. I believe it is called British Coaches (yes Ive heard of google but c'mon Im on my Droid, and let's face it, the multitasking leaves much to be desired).
Anyway, |
Hmm. If this actually blocks people from using Google, wouldn't this be a very workable DoS of Google by use of a large Zombie net of PCs, thereby blocking any NAT'd networks? |
I can't help but feel what we've seen this year is the begin of the slow decline of Netflix and similar streaming services.
First there was a price hike for those who want streaming + DVDs. Reasonable, but it came after months and months of advertising "get DVDs by mail AND get unlimited streaming for free!"
Now this is essentially a price doubling for families. Everyone in this thread is assuming that if you're not sharing it with all your friends then you won't have an issue. Well, what if you want to put the kids downstairs with some streaming kids movies while you and the wife go upstairs and watch something for more mature audiences? Now you pay double if you want to do that. Another buck or two would be reasonable for this. Lots of people are making the argument that this is just like renting a second cable box. But a box rental will add $10 to your cable bill, it doesn't double it. And if you plug straight into the wall, you can watch on every TV for the normal rate.
Then, we're slated to lose a big chunk of streaming content. Granted anything can happen between now and Feburary, but right now, we're losing a chunk of streaming content. They say it's only 8%, but I bet it's the 8% people want to watch. We're losing Toy Story, but you can still watch Katt Williams standup.
So what are you to do? Hulu+? That's hardly a viable option at this point with their annoying "web only" restriction on half of their content. Blockbuster? Redbox?
The entertainment providers are essentially shooting themselves in the foot. They didn't learn a damn thing from the RIAA wars of the early 2000s. The difference here is that there are a TON of people who are willing to shell out reasonable amounts of their hard earned cash in exchange for streaming content, but the content providers are blocking it every step of the way in order to prop up failing video rental stores and cable companies.
Even iTunes TV show rentals was a flop, because studios just wouldn't get on board. I probably would've paid $15 for a rental season pass of Parks and Recreation, but I'm not going to pay $42.99 to own the whole season, because how many times am I realistically going to watch it? They assume that by killing rentals you'll be forced to take the high price option, but instead most people will opt for nothing.
So what are you to do? Well, Usenet costs 8 bucks a month. |
I am 5 miles from the nearest 'big town' that has cable/dsl. I have to use 3G wireless from Verizon (grandfathered Alltel contract, no 5gb cap). When it was Alltel, i'd get 2-3mb down and 1mb up but since the merger the best I get is at tops 1mb down and .25 up. So I don't even have the luxury of streaming even 1 thing from netflix.
I perfectly understand why you aren't allowed to stream more than 1 netflix at once when you only pay for a 1 dvd rental. Buy the 2 dvd package and get 2 streams. It's the same thing as saying you want 2 dvds shipped to your house when you only pay for 1. I don't see what the problem is. |
Good for you. No, I understand fine, however, as I've stated in several other comments, you can dual stream, sometimes. I can get my pc on my tv to stream, wait a few minutes and start another stream. however, on occasion it will gripe about more than 1 stream. Seems it is a bit flakey. Guess what though, it was like that when the DVD+stream x 2 plan. Sometimes we'd have 3 devices, and on occasion it would bitch about 3 streams. |
Those 62 people might have been able to be saved by this device.
Ok, let's say I'm psychic. I can predict which buildings will have fires and which will not. I can even predict which people will be around when the fire is a threat, just not which ones will die. Let's say that some buildings catch fire twice each year and that only two people on average are ever at risk of dying in each fire. That makes roughly 12,000 buildings x 2 occupants that I can predict will really need this device. Each device costs $2,000, so that's $24M or about $387,000 per life saved (62 in all of the 24K who were at highest risk) in my ludicrous best-case scenario.
Contrast that with a "buckle up" PSA that runs for $5M during the Super Bowl and reaches 5% of the potential traffic fatalities that I mention above. If this convinces even 10% of those 694 people to use a seat belt and doing so cuts their mortality risk in half, then I saved about 35 lives for around $145,000 each.
edit: If you figure that the average high-rise denizen has about 30 productive years left in him, then the best-case cost per life-year saved by the escape device is about $13,000. You can compare this to analogous costs for [a multitude of public health interventions from this 1994 paper]( using the inflation-adjusted value of $8,800. There are dozens of better ways to spend your money. /edit |
Wow, this article is full of crap and fear mongering. The word "attack" is used 13 times and there wasn't even a real attack!
This kind of thing is best described as spying or information gathering. Considering the current state of Wall Street, I don't think that gathering more information on companies financial transactions is a bad thing. In many ways, it's needed.
What has happened here is that some hackers got some information on some companies NASDAQ actions. They didn't screw up anyone's account, they didn't cause a massive DOS, they didn't rip off the accounts, they didn't cause anything to happen. Nothing was malicious. Everything was passive.
However, we are talking about big companies and their money here. They are going to freak out and make a much bigger deal of it then what it is. If they make a big enough stink, the politicians that they have bought will pass law to do something about it. That's what's happening here.
Quotes like this freak ME out: "to discuss the growing cybersecurity threats to our nation and the need for prompt legislative action to ensure the U.S. government has the authorities it needs to keep the nation safe." and "...the Obama administration wants Congress to pass comprehensive cyber-security legislation that would increase the government's ability to thwart the growing threat"
You know what this sounds like it's leading up to? A digital version of the patriot act. The patriot act was passed in a very sensitive time where people didn't have all the facts and were mad. They don't have all the facts. They said that "God knows exactly what they have done. The long term impact of such attack is still unknown". They are obviously mad because someone dared to look at their wallets.
You see, it's shit like this that gets people so upset. That's why OWS is still going strong and getting more support each day from everyday people. Some politicians may support the movement, but there hasn't been much serious talk about it. Even if there is some traction, it's going to take forever to have any action taken politically. Meanwhile, companies get a spybot in their system and they freak out. Politicians say that they have to take action quickly so it doesn't happen again. Seriously? Stop protecting this crap. Let's worry about more important things.
/rant |
context of a larger clause and makes perfect sense.
I'll take on your "bigger picture" comment.
In your larger picture, wars with other nuclear powers are now instead fought via economics. China and the US will never go to war because they're tied economically at the hip. What is bad for one, is bad for the other. That doesn't mean they'll stop attempting to one up each other. It's a dynamic system after all.
So if nuclear weapon proliferation, climate change, over-population, and war happen, how do the rich benefit from it? How do they benefit from dying in a nuclear explosion? |
Please don't let up now. SOPA will still harm . We need to give them a sharp kick in the nuts by killing SOPA and PROTECT IP stone dead, or the insanity will never end until they completely control our culture through their paid off congressional proxies. |
Because the internet is a vehicle for free information, and that will always include piracy. There are ways to combat it, but it's a battle that will ultimately be lost for the media producers, and won for the pirates. That's the future in a world with an internet. It's old media, or new media, there is no true compromise, no legislation to stop the internet doing bad things, etc. Old media simply has to become new media, and they're extremely hesitant to do that.
Either SOPA and PIPA die, or the internet does. If SOPA and PIPA both die, then old media has no choice: adapt or die. Evolution consumes us all in the end, SOPA and PIPA are just the last dying attempts from old media, trying to change the world instead of adapting to it. |
They already do put all of the pending legislation up. There are government sites and OpenCongress.org is independent and non partisan.
All of the bills are filled with legalese that makes it hard for anyone but insiders to understand.
And even then, it's not just what the bill says but also what can be interpreted from it based on the language and the sponsors. |
Yes, but Obama's idea of "fixed" doesn't match mine or the ideas of many people on Reddit. He publicly stated that he didn't have a problem with the indefinite detention part of the bill--he's been arguing that the Constitution gives him that right anyway--but he objected to the language that seemed to require that terror suspects be subject to military tribunals. He wanted to be able to choose where to try suspects and didn't want Congress to make his decisions for him. Once that was changed (but the codification of indefinite detention left in the bill), he happily signed it. |
I think you must have misread what I wrote while you were unbunching your panties. I you reread what I've written (slowly this time), you'll see I never claimed that "HBO is the frontrunner of technology," or anything to that effect. I said that there are legitimate, business-related reasons that HBO hasn't created an online-only option, and that it's silly for you to pretend that the reason it hasn't happened is because everyone who runs HBO is old.
Maybe you should take your own |
Kinda relevant:
Haven't had HBO in 6 years, but have been told to get it for GoT.
Finally just went out and bought the first season on BRD. The show is awesome. AWESOME.
I plan on watching this season with a friend who has a group over to watch it together as I have no intention to pay the premium channel price for one program. I will absolutely buy the second season when it comes out on BRD.
However, I've missed the first 3 episodes of season two and I doubt my friend will give me a key to his apartment so I can watch them. My roommate said he would download them for me no problem.
I've always been hesitant about this, but he has downloaded episodes of House for me that I missed when our cable has gone out or Fox has interrupted it with NASCAR or something. (they aren't available On Demand)
(I have bought every season of that show as well)
So he downloads GoT, two episodes, and less than 24 hours later I get an email from Comcast: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement. Notice of Action under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Awesome.
Edit: |
Here's how:
HBO's business model is not what you think it is.
HBO gets paid a giant lump of $$$ by it's cable/dish partners (Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, etc) regardless of subscribers. HBO is paid by these partners simply so they may have the "privilege" of offering HBO as part of their lineup.
As such, Verizon (Comcast, Time Warner, Dish, DirectTV, Cablevision, etc) DO NOT want HBO making direct offers to consumers in any way the circumvents them.
If HBO today were to say "Hey consumers, now you can get HBO direct - no need for your cable service anymore!" then those cable/dish partners would throw a fit. They would demand to drastically cut the lump payments (or maybe eliminate them altogether).
HBO knows that one day they will be offering their content direct, but it's too early. They can't only think about what tech savvy 15-35 year olds want - they make a ton of money off of the cable companies and their (relatively) wealthy middle aged subscribers.
For right now, they know they will make a lot more staying tethered to the providers and collecting that guaranteed paycheck than risking pissing them off. For the time being, they'd rather piss off the reddit crowd than their largest business partners/sources of income. |
Its FUD though.
Cable and satellite companies are already feeling the pain of losing subscribers, partially due to the economy, and partially due to cord cutters. To remove an extremely popular and profitable channel would weaken their position further, alienate customers further, and cause the loss of even more subscribers. |
HBO,
Please allow me to pay you $25+ a month for access to your programming online and quit it with this silly stuff.
You could even have different subscription levels that dictated how many hours of you programming we could watch a month. For unlimited viewing make it cost as much or more than the channel. People would buy it, piracy would decrease (but not end, it will never end) and TV and internet people could be happy.
With the advent of DVRs, people don't have to watch shows WHEN they are on, so how much different would it be to let us watch online.
I really don't want to have to wait forever for the Game of Thrones DVDs again after this season.
-A customer who enjoys your programming, it is among the best film there is, TV or cinema. |
No I'm not.
For one, I'm not in my twenties. Two, I design studios, media distribution and asset management systems, etc. I have a distinct familiarity with the costs of production, the costs of distribution, and the various methods.
Before I go any further - next time you reply to a comment, leave the hidden snide remarks out. It does not help your position or make you look more intelligent/knowledgeable about the situation.
Costs of upgrading the infrastructure for the traditional cable-based providers are substantial, and they don't want to do it - especially with the current weaknesses in the economy. At the same time, wireless communications are increasing in speed at a rapid pace. Even customers unable to be reached by anyone but satellite are now finding themselves able to get reasonable speeds using wireless internet services, certainly faster than the satellite down/dialup up they have been used to. This opens up to numerous additional potential sources of revenue not previously available.
And I can promise you, there are companies out there working to monetize that right now.
In addition, there are many media companies working on alternate distribution methods, and securing their advertisers - this is something new to them, as its an entirely different medium. This will take some effort, but they are gaining traction.
The long and short of it is, you are being naive if you think HBO is the frontrunner of technology - like many major media organizations, they are lagging behind to see what others do, and what sticks, as opposed to putting in the effort themselves to be the first to monetize. They are holding on to all that they can to the traditional methods, which is why you're seeing things like the new encryption requirements that were rolled out. |
I do the same thing. I've been paying my $100/month tv subscription for a year now and have literally never watched a show on it. I tried when I first got it, thinking I should try being legit but the UI for my DVR/Channel browsing is slow and clunky. I already have an awesome filing system and media center setup so I went back to pirating. |
Indeed. Cable companies are already watching themselves fail; once they cancel the good shows they're out of business. If they start to lower the value of their service, that will push many people over the edge and make them switch to the Internet. |
Their viewing software sucks. I love The Wire and when I was a HBO subscriber I tried watch all the seasons on HBOGo.com. Somewhere in the middle of the fourth season I gave up. I couldn't handle any more sudden lost of the video steaming in the middle of watching an episode and being told that I wasn't logge din or someone else was also watching and then having to refresh the window and log back in and realize that the player cannot remember where I left off. It never remembered where it left off. Shortly after I ended my HBO subscription. |
K. Wait just a second here. I agree that this step is over the line and too much, but the fact that we on the internet are so obsessed with pirating is NOT a good thing. Yes, pirating is very much like copying a CD and giving it to a friend, but there is an obvious distinction between the two. One is limited inherently in scope, the other is virtually unlimited. HBO is in its full right to make it hard to watch their content for people that don't pay for it. Again, I'm in favor of piracy, or e-downloads. There are situations where it's important (like when a show is unavailable in your area) but come on.
It ultimately just makes us look bad. Because even if you believe that everything should be up for virtual download no matter what, you will lose just about every single person sympathetic to your cause. You will come off as a low-life that just wants free stuff. Regardless of the inaccuracy, it validates SOPA, ACTA and CISPA to just about every single person that doesn't use the internet a lot. Hell, even a lot of us that use the internet a lot are beginning to be turned off by the piracy culture. Everyday there's some rant about how we shouldn't be able to pirate things. That was not, nor should be, the outrage over SOPA and other bills like it. The problem was the overreaching power it gave to corporations to shut us down. Piracy is still illegal and there's a reason for it. As much as we like stuff for free, the world doesn't work that way. Whether or not the people who would be losing money over this do or don't need the money is irrelevant in the end. They spend time creating a product and then selling it. That's just how business works. If there was no profit involved, they wouldn't be making it and no one would enjoy it. |
In Australia, HBO have a streaming service. What they don't have is a cable deal.
As far as I can tell, HBO's business model is based around using cable company revenue to fund expensive, complex drama, secure in the knowledge that they're capturing an affluent demographic that's hard to reach any other way. Offering their TV shows a la carte would make it impossible for them to make any more - expensive, complex drama doesn't rate, so advertising is right out, and direct sales revenue won't be enough. Game of Thrones reportedly cost $50-60 million to make, and draws viewers of around 9 million or so at most. You'd only be able to convince a fraction of that number to pay anything, and the higher you price it, the more people you exclude.
This is HBO's biggest hit, so it can't just pay for itself, it has to pay for all of the shows that didn't catch on.
The only way HBO can afford to do what they do is to force cable companies to split revenue with them, in return for delivering audiences they can't reach any other way, regularly and reliably. The kind of people who watch HBO are probably affluent enough to be able to afford additional services the cable company offers, such as pay-per-view or cable internet - but to get them in the door in the first place, they need to offer something this savvy audience can't get anywhere else. |
I like the choice of the Unabomber instead of MLK Jr or Gandhi, whose civil disobedience methods are infinitely more applicable to this situation than the methods of an anarchist murderer. No one is suggesting you walk into your local radio station and blow it up. It's like using Hitler as your example for a Christian or Timothy McVeigh as your example for a Republican. It does nothing but distract from the discussion of a concept by attributing the idea to crazy people. Try these on for size:
>One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. - MLK
>“Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them?” - Henry David Thoreau
>Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.… where the State places those who are not with her, but against her,– the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor.… Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose. If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible - Henry David Thoreau
>“An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. Now the law of nonviolence says that violence should be resisted not by counter-violence but by nonviolence. This I do by breaking the law and by peacefully submitting to arrest and imprisonment.” - Mahatma Gandhi
> "Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God." - Susan B. Anthony
> “Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of leaders…and millions have been killed because of this obedience…Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves… (and) the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem.”
Howard Zinn
Now, obviously the concept of piracy pales in comparison to the Civil Rights movement, to Gandhi's satyagraha movement that helped free India from Britain's control and the horrors the Sufragettes were put through so a woman could vote, but that doesn't mean it's any less the duty of a righteous and moral man to fight an unjust law, and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who legitimately believes that the laws strengthening the MPAA/RIAA and screwing the consumer are just and fair laws. (Happy Birthday is still copyrighted, FFS)
If you don't like the system, and you continue to buy media from the companies that fund the MPAA/RIAA/etc, you are part of the problem. It's not a holier than thou concept, it's a fact. If you do like the system, I have nothing to say that can get through. You are completely allowed to keep purchasing media and funding the lobbyists that change for stricter copyright laws just like you could still hop on a bus in Birmingham during the boycotts. But if you feel the copyright laws are unjust and continue to fund the 'enemy', I'll definitely think you're a coward.
Times have changed. There is an infinitely smaller risk for a pirate than there was for MLK or the Sufragettes. You're not going to have a hose shoved up your nose and be force fed oatmeal until you die because you downloaded a new album, and I hardly think you'll be convicted of attempting to overthrow the government because you downloaded Ryan Gosling's new flick. The kernel of the situation remains, however, which is that an unjust law is an unjust law, no matter how large the group it oppresses, and cannot be allowed to remain on the books.
Change has never come from obeying rules, because those rules are in place to prevent change. It protects a ruling class by intimidating the masses, time and time again throughout history. It's only once we realize, en masse, that the social contract we've strived our entire lives to obey isn't being upheld by the other side that anything changes. (Look up John Locke if you have as limited an understanding of the social contract concept as you appear to have about civil disobedience. I can't tell if the Unabomber comparison was willful ignorance or unintentional misconception of protesting against an unjust government.)
Edit: Formatting issue plus added one of my favorite quotes, which I managed to forget:
>"The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right."
-Henry David Thoreau
The only defense we have against unjust laws or mob rule is our individual morality. Just because the larger or more powerful group says something is right doesn't make it so. Sorry for the essay, I'm quite passionate about the ideas expressed and the thoughts kept rolling. |
And thus you prove my point.
The fact remains that the law requires you pay for content you consume. Despite the bleatings of many on this site and others, you don't "own" the content, you are simply licensing its use.
I personally have no problem with that. Indeed, I'm happy to pay for content to ensure that the artists and the content incubation, development and distribution networks get rewarded for their efforts and investment.
Yet here we are again. Because I state my opinion, I'm regaled as some kind of idiot who needs to be told to "try on" quotations "for size" (whatever the fuck that means).
I'm well aware that pirating software, music or video is not equivalent to murder (do I really have to explicitly state that? Really? ), but I'm also aware of the stupidity of the original quotation that drove the use of that "extreme satirical analogy".
Your post implies that you're an intelligent, thoughtful person (though I disagree with your position on piracy and your arrogance). Please extend to me the same courtesy.
> If you don't like the system, and you continue to buy media from the companies that fund the MPAA/RIAA/etc, you are part of the problem.
Oh, the "If you don't agree with me, you're wrong" argument, eh? Well, looks like you've snookered me there!!
> It's not a holier than thou concept, it's a fact.
Yes it is, and not it's not. It's your opinion. It's so far from a "fact" that it's laughable. If I don't agree with you, I'm wrong. And not only am I wrong, but that it's simply impossible for me to disagree because, you know, "it's a fact"? The hubris is breathtaking.
> Change has never come from obeying rules
You see, silly statements like these only devalue and trivialize the opinion you are perfectly entitled to hold.
> The kernel of the situation remains, however, which is that an unjust law is an unjust law, no matter how large the group it oppresses, and cannot be allowed to remain on the books.
Blatant exaggeration and alarmism. "Cannot be allowed to remain on the books" no less!! I assume you are leading the civil insurrection therefore? No? Just keep pirating your stuff?
Oh, OK then...
> The only defense we have against unjust laws or mob rule is our individual morality.
So you're entitled to yours, but I'm not entitled to mine?!
Forget it. You're the walking, talking example of what I referred to above. you think you are right, and brook no possibility of any alternative opinions or divergent views.
I choose to pay for my content. Deal with it.
You choose to pirate. I certainly couldn't care less. You could learn from that attitude. |
they used it to check materials for impurities as well as neutron radiography testing. |
I once worked with a guy who had a friend who worked security at Texas Instruments, in Attleboro Mass. He swore to me that "TI" had a small reactor like the one in this story.
He saw it on a screen in the security office when his friend gave him a tour. There was a group of screens showing the grounds, and this one screen was focused on the nuclear pile. This guy knew what they looked like from his time in the air force, so he was certain what it was.
Plus, that one screen had a roll down cover that the security head quickly brought down to cover the image, but too late. I always believed him and stories like this one about Kodak just reinforce my belief. |
Oh, hell yes, they did. I had a summer job one year that consisted of inventorying hundreds (if not thousands) of different chemical products by literally going out to the warehouse, and going through every little tray of bottles, one at a time, and counting the bottles, one at a time. The only protective gear / practice was that we had to strip down when we arrived in the morning and put on a set of "whites," then before we left in the evening we had to strip down again, and shower, before putting our "street clothes" back on and going home. (That in itself was an interesting experience for a young kid, but that's another story.)
I had been doing this job for about three weeks when I started paying attention to the small print on the labels. "Carcinogen." "Reproductive hazard." "Stench." This, plus the fact that occasionally the bin at hand contained not just bottles but a few tablespoons of loose powder, plus the fact that we were handling these things with our bare hands, gave me pause. At that point I became concerned and asked for rubber gloves, which were duly provided.
But yeah, they definitely handled some strange-and-scary shit out there.
Oh, that reminds me -- a couple years before that summer job at Kodak, I'd had another one, in which I worked for the Refrigeration department. That wasn't nearly as bad, for the most part -- I spent a lot of time blindly following wiring diagrams to build over-temperature alarm units, for example -- but there was one day when we had to do some maintenance on the HVAC units on the roof of the very active chemical plant on Ridge Road -- you know, the one where they didn't bother to build real walls on the building, so that any explosions would be less contained, therefore build up less pressure and be less fatal to fewer workers...? We walked in there in our jeans, sneakers, and shirtsleeves, carrying our toolboxes along slimy catwalks right past teams of workers garbed in full-body hazmat suits and goggles, up onto the roof where numerous smokestacks belched smoke of many different colors (I specifically remember bright orange and lime green). Did our work up there, then walked back out through the same environment. Man, if anything had spilled or exploded just then, we'd have been done for. I'd love to know what those guys thought, seeing us go by in that condition. "Man, those guys are done for." "Hello, cancer!" *ulp!* |
It depends entirely on what you consider better. More gigahertz, more gigabyte, and less moneys is not what makes a computer better. Build quality, portability, compatibility, ease of use, and battery life are concerns for people who can't tell a gigabytes from gigahertz. It isn't just hardware, it is also software. Style is a factor too. They look nicer and people want to buy them more because they look nicer.
As people who can tell apart a gigabyte from a gigahertz, we can all shout proudly how much better we are than those stupid consumers buying what they want to buy. Or we can accept that our criteria for what constitutes a better computer are not universal. Just because we have different criteria doesn't mean ours are better.
I know that the biggest complaint of all is probably people buying Apple computers because they are fashionable. I can't stand it when people attack this mindset. If I buy nice clothes that cost more because they look nicer nobody would judge me. It is acceptable to pay for fashion. Why shouldn't the same apply to computers? People spend a lot of time behind their computer. A computer is now a device which becomes part of your life. People use them daily and they become a permanent presence in your household. Is it so strange that consumers want a device which they think looks sexy? |
Apple operates a closed source software and closed source hardware business model, the average Apple computer customer believes that the build and care quality justify living within the closed source and higher price ecosystem.
The battery in question within the Retina MacBook Pro is MASSIVE. It is a 95 Watt-hour battery (compare that to the 50 Watt-hour battery in the non-Retina Pro). There's no way that that battery is going to be as inexpensive (parts-wise AND labor-wise) to replace as the lower capacity batteries in this particular form factor. |
Why is there some arbitrary and rigid line between ultrabooks and 'regular' laptops? The new MBP is basically in between the two. It's bigger and more powerful than any Ultrabook on the market that I'm aware of, but portability is clearly a very high design priority. It's a very appealing product to a lot of people.
>but do not solder ram to logic board.
I think this issue has been severely overblown. It ships with a minimum of 8GB and the maximum is 16, so the only thing you lose is the choice to get 8 now and buy RAM from someone else later to go to 16. Personally, I don't see the need for more than 8 (by the time 8GB is insufficient for most users, I'm sure many other hardware components will be obsolete as well). I think most users would rather either overpay a bit for more RAM from Apple, or live with "only" 8GB, than have the entire machine be significantly thicker to accommodate SO-DIMMs.
>And who glues battaries? Consume instead of use and repair.
The battery can still be replaced. Apple replaces the battery for you when you buy a new one (or get a new one for free because you bought extended AppleCare for your $2200 investment like a good little boy). AASPs can do it, too. iFixit et al are probably not too happy because it makes life harder for third party repair shops, but most consumers would get their new battery from Apple anyway, and they'll install it for free.
>I want to use my brain to fix technical problems.
And if a component you need to replace is attached with an adhesive and not a screw, you can't do that? |
I've read you post similar comments other places in this thread. You just don't understand how batteries work. You can destroy it in 200 cycles if you don't maintain it.
Stop using the word "defective" because that's just your way of refusing to take any responsibility for the maintenance of your computer. Figure out if your battery is Good, Bad, or Consumed. Tell me the results of the full battery report and I can give you a good idea why they didn't cover it.
If you had a warranty and your battery was at 200 cycles with under 80% Full Charge Capacity Apple would have replaced it for free, no questions asked. Based on what you are saying one of two things happened.
You didn't buy a warranty and your computer was more than 1 year old. At this point doesn't matter if it's defective or not - YOU DIDN'T BUY A WARRANTY. That's on you. Not Apple.
Your computer, based on the fact you are saying 200 cycles and not like 500, is like 4 years old. You probably leave it plugged in all the time and never let the battery cycle. Go to Apple.com/batteries and read how to maintain it for next time. |
I was speaking in wide strokes. Obviously it needs to be intrepted to modern standards, but some of the interpretations people throw out are just patently absurd and try to erode the document itself, which I dislike. |
You sound like every other Windows fanboy out there. I could insert some insult here, but I'm not going to stoop to your level.
You're information about Linux is 10+ years out-of-date. Linux distros targeted towards "average users" like Ubuntu, Linux Mint, and etc. are no more complicated to use than Mac OS X. I'm sick and tired of all the lies being spread by people who have no clue what they're talking about. Who think they know everything about Linux because they read some inane idiot's rant on the Internet.
Time for a wake up call...
Hardware compatibility issues are rare these days on modern Linux distros. Go to the store, buy a webcam or printer and plug it in to the USB port. It works the first time, often without needing to install any drivers at all. That's via USB2 and USB3.
Compiling software to install it on Linux is something that hasn't been a necessity for a very long time. Repositories have taken the complication out of installing and uninstall software on modern Linux desktop and server distros. The Ubuntu Software Center is like an app store with screenshots, product reviews, and simple one-click installations. Other distros have similar app store-like package managers which do the same thing. In the Ubuntu Software Center you can also buy commercial software.
Installing and configuring Linux is now a nearly fully automated process that requires very little human input on modern distros targeted towards average users. Its now no more complicated to install than Windows or Mac OS X.
Like it or not, Steam is now on Linux, and Valve is spearheading a big push to get other developers to port games natively to Linux. Many game developers are shunning Windows 8 and are looking looking to expand to other platforms. Indie game studios have had a head start on the rest of the videogame industry when it comes to Linux support. The success of the Humble Indie Bundle has proven there is a market for native Linux games and most of the game industry has taken notice. There is also the fact that the SteamBox will not run Windows but a custom Linux distro with Steam's Big Picture mode as its desktop.
Here's the |
So you want a service and other systems can't provide that service so bitching about paying 60 dollars for something you want and enjoy. Pay and enjoy it and not bitch about the price.
As for the inferior product, yes it is inferior. But for basic searches it works and they pay you for it. If its not worth the 5 bucks they give you then don't use it. They don't make advertising revenue when you make fake searches using Bingo. But if thats how you justify and make yourself feel better for cheating, then go ahead.
Also, you saying that you indirectly supporting a game developer is like me saying that fueling up at a gas station indirectly supports the game developer. But the difference is I might actually be supporting the game developer because it's money I spent.
YOU in the other hand is not supporting anyone but you. We can take what you're doing and scale it so you can see how much you're not helping developers. Lets just say that 80% of the people who use bing is doing the same thing as you and cheating the system. Bing would most likely lose advertisers thus not have the ability to pay you for fake searches. So if the game developers would rather you not do what you're doing because it directly hurts them. If the game developer wants to see more $ from MS, MS has to have advertiser that pay MS to advertise. Advertiser $ then goes to MS and a part of it goes to the person who searches and some buy the game developers product. You, instead are using Bingo and giving Google ad revenue and taking it from Bing, which is taking it from the advertisers which pays the game developers. |
If that's the implication in his post, then I completely misunderstood it. I guess I assumed he had a clue how the Google Maps/Apple Maps situation occurred.
Apple used to pay Google for their map data. Google wanted too much money and Apple played hardball in negotiations, eventually making good on threats that they'd just make their own product. Google thought Apple needed them and they didn't.
It's the reverse on default search. This time Apple is demanding more money or they'll switch to a different search provider (or possibly do their own, like they did with maps). Apple is in the position of power, not Google. And Apple has followed through with threats in negotiations. That puts Google in a very weak position. It's not "hush money" or anything like that, it's "We're afraid if we don't agree to these terms, you'll step away from the table and go to MSN or Yahoo!"
Also it's per device and we can't assume it's a one time fee (A software update would allow Apple to switch default search for all existing users; they could easily be charging Google by active devices/quarter or similar). There's a ton of iphones ([27 million just last quarter]( If Apple increases the amount by $1/year/user, that's $100 million/year increased from just the new users . Not hard to see how that could reach $1billion eventually. |
Wow you are a fucking retard. I work as a sysadmin and specifically do pen-testing as a large portion of my income. "Salting" a hash does in no way imply that each salt is unique. That is a strong implementation and sadly not used by the majority of people who implement salting.
I know what you were taught in your bachelors level web admin course, however this is not the real world. Upwards of 30% of all websites still store passwords in plaintext and another 25% use simple (usually MD5) hashing. Among the rest who do implement "salts" only about a third implement dynamic salting the way you understand it. |
I laugh at you mortals, trusting your stuff to programs that will inevitably break. - Protodong
Dude just make an algorithm in your head to make strong passwords. I have many. Follow certain rules such as: no plain english phrases in natural order. Use nonstandard letter substitutions. And use padding.
This is an example of a password using a random algorithm I made up just now.
<<!@#prQtQrZdd!t#@!>>
This password is (for all intents and purposes) as strong as anything that lastpass can come up with and yet I can remember it and recreate it based on an algorithm in my head. It is a character substitution cipher with padding based on the site name and my user name. I can remember this and use it on any computer that I come across. |
Considering even in the FBI,CIA and the Vatican / destroying sensitive data.
Shit these guys should be taken in on terrorist charges. Do they need to be brown to be considered so? That law could single handedly create the most elaborate backdoor into millions of computers, on all govenrments' users and governments themselves.
What happens if the 'virus' shuts down a nuclear reactors control pc because the guy who was in charge has a daughter who likes bieber. So she got an mp3 on her dads usb labeled as something similar to what he uses to jam. I'm pretty fucking sure that will never happen but what if it does? You can blame the guy for being reckless but does he really need to do a triple check on an mp3 when he has more pressing matters in his hands to deal with?
Fuck it when my papers due date is up and I have nothing to write Ill just put in the new Shrek movie and will shut down my profesors pc. I may even end up taking the entire network hes connected to so thats cool too. |
If you really believe that, you don't know much about how the Internet functions. Law enforcement is all but powerless and thats not likely to change in the forseeable future. If anything, the Internet has proven itself quite capable of being several steps ahead of them for nearly two decades now. There's simply too many people with technical know how intent on thwarting copyright law. |
Yes it is, it says so." In theory, sure lets just say The Constitution is the highest law but I don't give a shit about theory. Lets talk about reality: The Constitution is an ideal set of principles, keyword being ideal . The Constitution upholds good principles, but there are many laws that aren't made in accordance with the Constitution. If it really was the HIGHEST LAW then those laws infringing upon our freedom wouldn't exist. |
If he's able to get those records, which might not even exist, it wouldn't change anything, since at best, it would show where his phone, which he may or may not have had on him, was at the time of the robbery. |
I love this country and its history, I feel almost special knowing I'm a natural born citizen. On the other hand our countrys policies are not in any way beneficial to us. They spread lies and scare us into being afraid, but one day they won't be able to scare us. One day WE WILL have to fight again for the future of this country whether that's between each other or the world we have yet to see. Will we let this quasi-1984 future take hold? One in which we are afraid to think thoughts out loud, where our every MOVEMENT, our every WORD TYPED, and especially what's SPOKEN is recorded? We should learn RIGHT NOW that we shouldn't be afraid to get angry at those that are supposed to protect THE WHOLE of this country.
Guess what fat-cat?
Fuck you, pay up bitch! Pay these people some decent wages OR provide great benefits to all.
Don't be so mothafucking greedy, and quit doing shit like introducing heroin to the black population, allowing rich bankers to get away with ruining TENS OF THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES LIVES.
People like you or you or...you.
Who's going to be next on the chopping block? Me? You? Your mother? Your father or brother or sister?
Will we be rounded up like the poor Jews of the world war 2 era Germany?
Idk. But I do know this, the future is now we have to get angry now before it really goes down. |
If I were on the jury I suppose I'd have to take this into account.
Government vs. defendant. Gov claims that defendant is guilty. Defendant says Gov has exculpatory evidence, which they are required to release if they have it. Recent revelations show the Gov does have the evidence in question. Gov refuses to release any of the evidence to show whether it is exculpatory or not.
"Not guilty, your honor. I have a reasonable doubt." |
In the above, I was not arguing against the notion that copyrights are necessary for some economic incentive. That's more complicated. If that's the argument, then discussing lots and lots of things mentioned in the other response to your post seems almost necessary. You seemed to dismiss that argument in such a way that I read your point as saying that issue is about the ownership of intellectual property; that's why I responded that if that's the case than anything less than a perpetual copyright seems ill-founded, as all other property is (almost without exception in America) perpetual. Now, if the point is about economic incentives, that is different, and I think discussing the length, fair use stipulations, etc are more worthy of discussing than DVD regions, which "We the People" did not create EXCEPT the copyright law (DMCA) which gives them teeth to begin with.
In response to the economic incentive argument though: saying that they are "on some level necessary" is a little thought-provoking, because implies that there is a "correct" goal and some decisions have to be made to reach that goal. It's pretty clear that copyright protections are not necessary in same sense as breathing, or (more seriously) some form of taxation (after all, one could not enforce copyright law without taxation). Most of modern human history has been done without copyrights. A person could take Shakespeare's plays and perform them down the road a day later if they were so capable, yet Shakespeare still wrote plays.
I would say that some copyright law is beneficial for the support of some artists. But, then where would Disney be without having the free works that they base almost every one of their works on, or Shakespeare if he had to get the life rights from Cassius's great^n grandson, etc, etc similarly for every derivative book, song, or play. So although copyrights encourage some types of creative works, they discourage (rather, ban) others, and it's reasonable to suspect more stringent copyright laws discourage more such activity.
I think that is always missing in the talk about whether copyrights are necessary. One can point to a work and, often convincingly, argue "ah-ha! That probably wouldn't have been made if not for some (reasonable) copyright laws" but I can't show you all the kick ass Star Wars movies that would have been made if the copyright length was more in line with what I would consider reasonable (the original 14 years). But then again I can't even tell you there would have been a Star Wars in the first place if that was the length of a copyright. |
agentassfuck (...) is comparing the default frontpage to pop music.
Pleasing to the masses, not exactly specialized but simple enough that it can appeal to a broad audience. Pop music is marketed to music's largest audience, similar to reddit's front page.
Posting what you know is well received by the masses will net you more karma than something original (most of the time). Repost upon repost, maybe with a slightly different hook/angle.
Want more Karma? Post something that the most people will like, as you'll get more upboats that way. Want more $$$? Put out something that the most people will like, as you'll get more $ that way. When stuff gets stale, you can put out more and get even more karma/$! Pop music has that incentive of giving you "something else to listen to when you're bored with what you've got" by constantly pumping out stuff (ie, serial reposters wanting more and more karma).
Smaller subreddits are like 4chan; rarely overtaken by the hivemind, individuals have a greater say and there's much less worthless crowd pleasing. More worthwhile content per capita :) |
You know what man? You need to wake the fuck up to reality.
The REALITY is that as soon as you publish something, you have by definition OPENED IT UP FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION. You can make the punishment as high as you want but once the information is out there, people can and WILL take it. Some of them will feel as though the producer rightly deserves compensation, others won't.
That's just reality. You can't stop it, hollywood can't stop it.
The problem lies with EXPECTED profit. The entertainment industry has experience immense growth in the last 50 years thanks to ever more extreme copyright restrictions along with a monopolistic grip on distribution and technologies which the independent scene is only now beginning to catch up to.
We saw the music industry take a massive tumble in recent years because they lost their monopoly on music sales. People were no longer forced to buy music by the album, but could purchase songs individually. Without even taking piracy or copyright violations of any kind into account, the industry has been hemorrhaging profits. This is just another side effect of modern business teachings promoting short term revenue over long term gains.
It also effects movies and games in a similar fashion. We articles about game and vfx studios closing all the time. Reading these articles, we learn that the studios are horribly mismanaged to the point of failure, but piracy ends up being the blame.
I'm not sure what industry you work in, but the way in which most producers and studios in general work is MASSIVELY inefficient and no one cares about numbers until it hits post production. By that time it's mostly too late to fix any of the more egregious issues, so they try to cover it up with editing and VFX. The end result ends up being compromised in numerous ways, is limped out of the gate and into release with the expectation of making back all of the money that was pissed away during production.
In case you are wondering just how bad things have gotten, here's a refresher
Digital Domain: September 11th, 2012 Closed Florida facility, laid off 350 employees
Pixomondo: February 24th, 2013 Closing Detroit & London Offices
Electronics Arts: February 21st, 2013 Extensive Layoffs
Rhythm and Hues: Feb. 16th, 2013 Bankruptcy, Layoffs
Dreamworks: Feb. 7th, 2013 Several hundred upcoming layoffs
Technicolor: Feb. 21st, 2013 Closing Facility
Eurocom Dec. 23rd, 2012 Major Layoffs
Double Negative Oct. 20th, 2012 Layoffs of 150-200 individuals
Do you know what the response is by the producers that put these studios under?
FULL SPEED AHEAD. BUSINESS AS USUAL.
Without proper incentive to create, copyright laws are fundamentally broken. The NEED for the protection of ideas is very real. But the situation does not suit that need. What we have now is only hurting small producers and acts as a scapegoat for large producers.
You want to make money out of 100M views? You have to use what you have gained, being EXPOSURE and NOTORIETY in order to drive other avenues of profit. If youre not making money through one business avenue, isn't it foolhardy to continue bashing your head against the wall trying to make progress where you are not making any money? You make money the same way PRADA or Louis Vuitton does amidst [almost no copyright protection]( with knockoff versions popping up all over the place. You make money the same way the AUTOMOTIVE and FOOD industries do [without copyright support](
Use that exposure to power merchandising, to channel those views into AD revenue, to branch out to other industries. |
Fuck you. Only government people are stupid. Always. |
It is the job the lawyers to present the case, so the jury doesn't need to know about the subject if you have a good attorney. I don't suggest that this is a good thing, but it is why juries of Joe & Jill average can decide whether a security protocol violates a patent.
If the lawyer gets good, reliable witnesses, experts, and evidence, and supports that with charisma, then you have a good chance of getting your point across any jury - or at least keeping their attention.
IMO, if you brought in experts, they would bring in with them the equivalent of "outside evidence" - their knowledge would be inconsistent, and spotty, and possibly outright wrong in multiple areas. Not to mention, finding experts on these matters would require basically approaching the same people who were suing one another - some fields are just too small to summon up a single expert who has never worked with the companies in question (and doesn't work for a company who has a contract with them either). Then imagine the testing process... it would be an administrative nightmare. Finding a cipher expert amidst the motley group of that week's jurors would be more luck than anything. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.