0
stringlengths 9
22.1k
|
|---|
The slowed growth in hard drive development is not because of technical limitations, it's entirely due to a lack of competition in the market.
There are only two major manufacturers of large hard drives left, Seagate and Western Digital. Between them, they've purchased nearly every other manufacturer.
They've been tacitly price fixing for the past 3 years. They're making massive profits, and without competition, have no incentive to create larger drive sizes. Customers have no where else to go.
When there are just two providers of a product, captive markets like this tend to emerge. It's often the third or fourth player in a market that provide competitive pressures to develop newer and better versions of a technology. Without that third or fourth competitor, Seagate and WD lost any incentive to maintain previous rates of development. They make more money by selling old technology at high prices, while not having to upgrade manufacturing capability. |
Use incognito mode when you want to search for something that You would not want Google to record. ...You can also log into your Google account and go in the settings and delete everything they have recorded as far as searches go. Also they can only record if you are signed in.
** |
This is big topic, but in brief, AOSP is the kernel (linux) + middleware + basic applications, originally developed by Andy Rubin, now Google. It is under a mix of open source licenses. Your typical Google release then adds in proprietary licensed applications, such as Chrome browser and Play store. So pure AOSP has no Play store, and basic "android" browser, email client, messaging client, etc.
Most AOSP ROM's such as Cyanogenmod, then tweak the kernel and applications to improve the experience. The proprietary applications are required to be loaded separately if desired. Alternatively, you can just sideload anything you want, or use a strictly open source repository like F-droid. I have run a variation of this for a time on the Galaxy Nexus, and it was fine after moving away from Google. Firefox, OSMand maps, k9 mail, etc.
All that said, the ROMS include the proprietary binary "blob" drivers from the hardware manufacturers. To strip those out, there is a project called replicant that takes a much stricter line, and therefore runs only on a limited number of devices. Even so, there is no open firmware for the radio basebands, so to have a working telephony device, this is required, and therefore always the possibility of a hardware backdoor.
I don't know about formal code audits of the AOSP source. The linux kernel speaks for itself. There are certainly a lot of eyes on the code.
The [replicant OS]( website is worth a read.
There is basically a continuum from Replicant to other third party ROMS to ROMS shipped on devices as far as freedom is concerned. Pick your poison. Of course, just by using a cellphone (even a dumbphone) you can be tracked an communications recorded. If this is unacceptable, get a fully free laptop (these days I think you could do it with a thinkpad running coreboot) and only use wifi, and request webpages with wget like [RMS]( |
Can we get some sources? I searched for awhile and yeah, google has a ton of government contracts, for infrastructure and software services....
People like Gizmodo then go ahead and make the jump:
But theres no source that definitively says "google provided information knowingly and willingly". After the Prism thing dropped google began encrypting its searches, but that doesnt even matter since encrypted autocomplete packets and map usage has been proved vulnerable bssed on size. |
Perhaps someone can point to a site that provides something like that. |
It'd be nicely ironic if Twitter uses the power of their huge audience to convince the world that S&P's ratings are "junk" too.
Remember [S&P rating manipulation (along with Moody's and Fitch)]( was arguably the main cause of the housing crisis a few years back.
During that crisis it seems the main thing a positive S&P rating meant was that one of their partners had crap they want to sell to naive investors. It was apparently cheaper to buy manipulate favoriable S&P ratings than to find other ways of marketing their scams. So conversely I assume the main thing a negative rating means is that one of their partners probably wants to buy something for cheap.
Quoting that wikipedia link: "Critics have claimed there was a conflict of interest for agencies—a conflict between accommodating clients for whom higher ratings of debt mean higher earnings, and accurately rating the debt for the benefit of the debt buyer/investor customers, who provide no revenue to the agencies" . Heck, maybe S&P sees Twitter's $2 billion in cash and short-term investments, and wants to extort recruit Twitter as a new client. |
That's not what they mean. I understand your concern. However, there are things more important than your convenience. The police would be within their rights to try to remove them and you would be justified in your anger. However, the only way protests become effective is if they're large enough to really inconvenience people. Civil rights protestors shut down cities back in the day and they were arguably right to do so. |
I am German and moved recently to California in the bay area. So for example on the 101 you have like 4 or 5 lines in the same direction. Which lane do you choose now? All of them are 65 mph, so it would not matter where you drive. The more right you drive the more stressful the driving gets to me as there are exits and on ramps all the time, I am not quite aware of. So I'd rather go more to the left the longer I need to stay on that specific road.
You'll notice that in my thoughts above there was no reasoning about speed limit, because I don't quite grasp the concept of "slower traffic keep right", when I am already speeding with 5-10 mph over the limit. There is still somebody who wants to go faster?
(I have no idea about traffic speed violations here, are they expensive/cheap) ?
What I am used to on the Autobahn in Germany is different speeds on different lanes. So you rather choose your lane by the desired driving speed. But then again, the on/off ramps seem to support the faster driving a bit more in Germany. You have a strict "slower traffic keep right" rule in Germany as well, but the speed is not limited on the Autobahn, so there is always reason to believe that there is somebody who wants to go faster than you do. So it also seems natural to me to not block the left lane because of the speed differences. If I go a 130 kmh (roughly 80 mph) and there is somebody approaching with a 150-170 kmh (100 mph) you have significant differences, so you need to watch out.
In California on the other hand the speed differences between the lanes is maybe one or two mph, so the traffic is way smoother. |
I was born in 74, and I don't consider myself a 70's kid. Sure, I was a kid in the 70's, I played an Atari shortly after it came out, listened to disco, and watched lots of 70's TV shows. But none of it really resonated with me.
There is a period of your life, from about 7 to 14 years old, where kids seem to be at their height of fascination with popular culture, and seems to be the time when childhood nostalgia is strongest.
That being said, I am fortunate that I was born at a time where my 7-14 year old self was planted squarely in the 80s, so I can say I was definitely an "80's kid." However, calendar year decades are just the easiest way to look back at popular culture and categorize it.
I say you should consider yourself a kid of whatever decade resonates with you most. You were fortunate to be born at a time where you could enjoy popular culture from 3 different decades and can be classified as a kid from any of the above. |
Comcast* has rejected those arguments and has repeatedly said that its acquisition of Time Warner Cable won’t decrease competition in either the video or Internet markets because the two companies already don’t compete in the same markets. |
Erm, are you aware that Polaroid [did what you described]( sans the disadvantages?
They now sell a digital camera with a built-in inkless printer.
It's like a Polaroid... well, because it is a Polaroid.
EDIT: |
I disagree.
So, which statement of mine (ideally, from the |
complaining to other people is fine, and if you read my initial post you'll see that "stating your opinion is fine". advocating your own opinion is equally good.
if you had written this post without the obvious apple/iphone bias i might've actually listened to your advice with an open mind. this entire post looks identical to every single anti-apple post that has been on r/technology since the ipad came out and they announced os4.0. we have heard the arguments from both sides. continued bitching is exactly that, continued bitching. can we get back to something more informative than this continuous fanboy circlejerk? |
And that is a dumb statement
How long has the PS3 been out? Such a simple attack should have happened long ago, should it not? The fact that it took this long is more a testament to the fact that it required a very special set of criteria to be in place, such that only recently was it discovered. |
It's a fair point, but the fact that so few IT employees are non-exempt doesn't really convince me that they shouldn't get overtime. I mean, even in an industry where most employees are not exempt, those that are should be entitled to overtime. In the labor market, driving down wages of any employee has the potential to drive down wages of other employees because it's the wages of that employee that employers must compete with for labor.
Let me expand on this a little bit: companies usually only pay people well enough that they can be exempt because they don't want to pay the costs of overtime. Overtime provides employers an incentive to pay IT professionals at least the amount they need to qualify for exemption.
Remove overtime, and suddenly it might make more sense to move people out of exemption and back onto hourly, and by doing so, pay them less.
Because most IT professionals are still paid better than the minimum required to achieve exemption, this might not seem to effect them much either. But suddenly the companies have to compete for talent with a lower level of base pay, instead of the minimum for exemption, which drives wages down across the industry. So given that so many projects in IT require overtime, I would still be concerned about this even if you are exempt. |
My favorite instance on how Best Buy can easily screw over consumers (albeit unknowingly in my case) happened to me just little over a month ago.
I bought a 13" Mac Book Air with 256gb of solid state memory online for in store pickup. After picking it up I walked out the door and looked a the label on the bottom that shows the specs and guess what I noticed? It was the 128gb model. It was probably (at least I'm hoping) an honest mistake so I took it back in and the lady I had just bought it from started telling me it was too late to do returns so I had to correct her and tell her I wasn't returning it for a refund but that I wanted what I paid for. So finally she had someone get me the model I bought.
The point is if someone who didn't know any better had bought this they could have easily ended up with the wrong thing. I've heard stories of how hard it is to return opened items to Best Buy so I'm not sure how that would have panned out if I had found out after I fired it up later that night. Moral of the story is: you better be tech savvy because the reps at Best Buy usually aren't. |
Eh kinda, its more like a further defining and separation of theft and intellectual property offenses (copyright infringement). The only reason Goldman didn't have a copyright on this was they wanted to use the doctrine of trade secret to protect it. Either way a criminal offense was improper in the first place and really this should have been a civil case where Goldmand would have been entitled to damages/attorney's fees. |
I question how the article is worded (badly is the only impression I had). The argument Sergey Aleynikov seems to be using is that the code/files he copied was open source to begin with, meaning that anyone has the right to use/copy it. Now it is probably a very grey area if this is true or not, but it creates enough doubt in the judges' opinions that they decided that prosecuting him AS A CRIMINAL for property theft is not in the court's best interest.
"Local media reports say that Aleynikov was wrongly charged with theft of property since the code wasn’t a physical object and therefore the defendant didn’t gain control of anything when he downloaded it." So this guy reporting on what the media is reporting? Also, I can find all sorts of problems with this statement, since the concept of intellectual property is really the question here, and judges in these cases tend to consider this a great deal:
Downvote me if you want, but the concept of IP is something we need to protect, for the sake of creating enough incentive for people to want to invent/develop new stuff and get paid for it. I do believe that this concept needs to change with the times, but still we need to create a environment that makes it worth someones time to come up with something new. A tricky proposition, yes - but a necessary one. Otherwise, who would bother inventing anything and going though all the trouble to market it?
I don't really see a precedent being created here. I see a corporate catfight. I see an ex-Goldman Sachs VP (Programmer? Really? A vice-pres? Ever heard of any programmers anywhere that make 400 grand a year unless they own part of the ship they run?) taking advantage of what I would consider a mistake Goldman Sachs made by not being more careful about network security.
Also, he will still be liable in civil court for breaking his agreements. But I am sure he is getting compensated for that by someone. |
These drop tests are such terrible science. They aren't from the same height, and hitting at the same angle. The inertia of the devices isn't the same due to the distribution of mass within. They aren't getting it EXACTLY right, and the amount of sheer and tensile forces faced by the devices is different because of this.
If we want to isolate a certain angle of impact - say the face of the device, or a corner, or whatever... then we need to simulate that impact on that location exactly with the same force.
But, you say, that wouldn't be real world testing!
Indeed it would not, which is why they do what they do, which can be more valid in theory, except their sample size is far far far far far far far far too small to pass review. They need to drop both phones under the same conditions thousands of times (with a new phone each time) to justify one being more durable than the other.
That's how science works. |
You completely missed his point, so I'll repeat it for you.
Firearms are already really easy to build with scrap. If you know how to do it, you could probably walk down to Home Depot and get everything you need for a gun for a couple hundred bucks. The instructions for that are available on the internet right now. I see plenty of shootings going on, but I don't see any shootings involving those kind of one-and-done guns. That's because the freedom to and ability to build a gun doesn't mean you're going to go shoot someone.
Your argument is about availability. It will be years before 3D printers are common in households. Even at that point, it will still be incredibly easy to just go build your own gun without the help of a 3D printer. The most they could do is expedite the process and make it a bit cheaper.
As an added bonus correction, you'd be lucky to be in a shooting involving an automatic weapon instead of a semiautomatic. Autos chew up full magazines in a few seconds, and they're hard as hell to aim. A shooter using a semiautomatic has to deliberately aim and fire each shot. |
Whatever. It's just fucking retarded when people say that anyone who uses apple stuff or instagram is a hipster. That doesn't make sense because they are both popular, mainstream TECHNOLOGY BASED companies. So why would any supposed hipster have any interest in them? And why has it suddenly become elitist for someone to wear glasses? I'm fucking blind! I need glasses to fucking see. |
Guys, a big reason for that "crapware" is because the companies that write the software subsidize the laptop, thus reducing the price of it for the end-user. Hence, as mentioned in the article, if you don't want any of that "crapware" (thought it was universally called bloatware amirite?) you have to pay the $99 premium fee.
For example: ASUS gets a lot of shit for having a lot of bloatware on their machines. Well, they also sell some of the cheapest machines for the dollars you put out. So for those of us that wipe our machines the second we un-box them, it's the best choice for people purely hunting value. |
That's right, the Surface Pro is not an ARM tablet.
I for one was assuming better tricks under the hood to stop it suffering these issues or prices (as were many others) otherwise it would beg the question of why bring out new hardware that doesn't do anything new? And getting it 'with a keyboard' is the final insult to the wallet, really.
In fact, considering these things and how they mean atrocious value for money....the mac brigade will probably love it. |
People are price sensitive, so when you've got the nexus at $250, the ipad mini at $329, the ipad 2 at $399, and the ipad 4 at $499 you need to set the price with what you're device is worth. Putting it at the same price point of the ipad 4 means they think the device is of equal quality, and while the build is nice, the ipad 4 has a much nicer display (particularly for reading text) and a metric fuckton of apps. While the RT does have office, it also lacks cellular options and proper VPN capabilities which kills it for people who work in BYOD environments. |
Mr Cameron says that when people switch on a new computer, they > will be asked if there are children in the house – and if they answer > yes, they will be automatically prompted to tailor internet filters.
> They will include options to block particular kinds of content,
> individual sites or restrict access at specific times of the day.
> If parents click through the options to set up a new system quickly, > filters against pornography and self-harm sites will be automatically >left on. |
Here's a link to Twitter's announcement: [Keeping our users secure]( I'm not certain how they had the nerve to use that title to describe a security breach but I've never taken "Putting a Positive Spin on Bad News 101".
Incidents like this are always a great time to remind others to use stronger passwords. Here are a [few tips on creating strong passwords]( |
EDIT:
For all of you that have poor reading comprehension skills, I'm going to spell this post out for you right up front: I KNOW THAT HE LIED. The only point I'm trying to make is that there has been NO evidence put forth yet that would demonstrate that this is a CONSPIRACY WITH BIG OIL. If you have some evidence of that please give it to me but so far people keep picking apart my post without actually getting the fucking point of it. God damn.
:END EDIT
Yeah, I think people are too quick to call conspiracy or conflict of interest. To me this read a lot like the average idiot that complains about their phone battery because they don't know how to use it. People with the brightness at 100% all the time, 15 different email accounts all with push notifications plus a few fetching every 5 minutes, all radios turned on when they're not in use (always with the bluetooth), plus streaming radio every spare second of the day and they complain about having to plug it in overnight.
It really seems like this guy is just not technical, and was trying to put it through the normal paces of what you'd expect from a "car" without really considering the inherent limitations and management that are needed for an electric car these days. So when it went terribly for him and he realized what an idiot he is, he lied to make himself sound better on the assumption that Tesla could never prove him wrong. His NYT article history is full of "green" articles, but having read one or two they really don't seem to be slanted either way. He's definitely not calling bullshit on climate change or promoting oil companies in any articles I read. |
Read the opinion (and watch the show). Tesla actually admitted that Top Gear did not say it wasn't a fully functioning car, and that they did not lie. Tesla merely claimed that the shot of them pushing the car was misleading because some viewers might have been misled to think Top Gear had claimed that the car wasn't fully functioning.
As the judge said, Tesla was right that it was misleading, and that some viewers would be misled...but they were also right that it wasn't a lie. And since they were sueing for libel, and truth is an absolute defence to libel, they had no case. |
Actually no - read the actual opinion. Tesla's lawsuit was thrown out for a couple of different reasons. Much of it was poorly drafted, and they mangled their claims for damages beyond repair (basically, they tried to claim for damages for things which they were not claiming were libellous or malicious, which is obvious not going to fly). But the core problem is that Tesla focused their libel claims on things Top Gear said when even Tesla admitted were true.
Notably, Top Gear said the Tesla would have only 55 miles of range on the Top Gear track. Tesla (and Musk) threw a fit about it, but when it came down to the actual lawsuit, Tesla admitted that this was correct, but argued that it was misleading because viewers would mistakenly think that the Tesla had a range of 55 miles on the highway . As the judge said, that wasn't unreasonable - but truth is an absolute defence to libel; you can't say "this is libellous because, albeit true, it's misleading". The word is defined precisely in such a way as to preclude that argument.
Really, Top Gear's review had issues, but it wasn't really that they shaded the truth or lied. When they noted that the Tesla - marketed as a supercar - had very low range when driven on a track, they were absolutely correct (which is precisely why Musk's ill-advised lawsuit got absolutely nowhere). What they didn't do was note that petrol powered supercars also have very low range. Clarkson's beloved Bugatti Veyron will run through its petrol tank in 12.5 minutes at top speed, and since it is electronically limited to 253.2 MPH, that means that if you floor a Veyron at absolute maximum speed, it'll go less than 53 miles. Which doesn't compare all that poorly to the Tesla's 55 miles when driven hard on a track, does it?
But it's not a crime (or a tort) to only tell some truths, and while as an entertainment program Top Gear was not allowed to lie they were not required to be fair or balanced either. And ultimately, that's what Tesla actually alleged Top Gear did - not that they lied, but that they were unfair. And that's why Tesla's lawsuit was stupid. :) |
This shouldn't come as a surprise to most people in the know. I see a lot of people in this thread calling this "conspiracy theory" but unfortunately this stuff is the norm now and all too real.
I know it's a long time for some but think back 12 years ago to a major jumping off point for this stuff. On September 11, 2001 one of the most heinous acts of terrorism took place ( please spare me your thoughts on 9/11 ). Almost a month later, on October 23, 2001 the PATRIOT ACT , and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves" — individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups"
Who wrote this amazing bill in this short period of time, [none other than the beloved Joe Biden](
He later claimed publicly on several occasions that the USA PATRIOT Act – which eased restrictions on the Executive branch in the surveillance and detention of those suspected of terrorism or facilitating it – was essentially a duplicate of the anti-terrorist legislation he had drafted years earlier.--^ Michael Crowley (October 22, 2001). "Rhetorical Question". The New Republic. Retrieved August 25, 2008.
Since then we have seen [Obama flip flop on the FISA wiretapping issue](
We also saw the implementation of [much more powerful surveillance software such as NarusInsight]( CARNIVORE was abandoned in 2001 for NarusInsight.
This event also brought about [the creation of The Dept. of Homeland Security](
And most recently we're seeing the construction of the ["Community Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative Data Center"]( for the NSA. One of the largest and most expensive data centers known to exist it will reportedly capture "all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Internet searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital 'pocket litter'," though its precise purpose is secret.
Of course there are many other instances of this kind of stuff but these are some of the more important ones.
Sorry for the wall of text but this is reality and people need to know about it. I understand that denial and joking around are coping mechanisms but some people need to pull their heads out of the sand. |
I'm sick of this Brave New World outlook. The High school education in a nut shell. Why not a world where being watched is the norm and the main character doesn't care. Instead it's mass paranoia: fight or flight, kill or be killed.
If anything my education and research has taught me is that there is this myth concerning the spy. That this boogie monster is watching you in some imaginary epic. A tale of blackmail and espionage.
The reality is that the life of a spy is not that of a James Bond adventurer ready to stop your acts "immoral behavior." The idea which is so dear to /r/atheism that makes an atheist religious. It's the persona and public belief that you're being watched by some all seeing peoples: swaying thoughts that your actions are being watched, or possibly watched. The myth of submissive paranoia.
To continue this train of thought is counter productive, we know the life of a spy is a dull and lonely life. And that reality lies when they are championed. That history isn't protected by the spy, nor is it changed. Public opinion may be shepherd a certain direction, but that is unimportant to the individual. If anything, this article enforces this idea: a bunch of people sitting on computers monitoring others people's behaviors. Might as well be a boring reddit without laughs. |
I know it says usage is declining, but I wonder if Google could have turned it around for Reader. I feel like Reader is a useful tool for anyone with a passion for art (music, fashion movies), technology, business, or anything.
I don't have any facts to back this up, but I feel like the majority of people on the internet don't even know much about Google Reader or even RSS for that matter
What sucks is that it kind of takes a while to figure out how to use it. In order to maximize the utility for the product, there is a slight learning curve to get everything organized and set up. This takes some time to get used to for someone who is unfamiliar with RSS. |
Google's business model depends on us thinking we can depend on them. Why the hell do they want to take a giant dump on some of their most dedicated customers?
This is your mistake. We aren't it's customers, and that's not really the right way to think about google. Google's primary customers are advertisers, because focused advertising is the future. Where most advertisements have fractional (ie 1 in 1000 for good adverts) return rate for a hugely broad scope of advertising, targeted advertisement has an ideal return rate tending towards 100% per single advert shown. However, right now, only google has a broad enough database of people needs to even think about approaching that ideal. But it is getting close enough to make advertisers salivate.
To achieve this, google's primary goal is the categorisation of the human condition.
This is why they run the most popular search engine, not to service your queries, but to database your needs and desires.
This is why they are trying to create a library of every book that has ever existed, why they run a captcha service, to help them process edge cases in this service. It's why they ran a free directory enquiry service, to help them build a phonetic library, to deal with edge cases in their (whatever they plan to do based on voice technology. Probably something related to cell phones).
This is why they run the most popular facebook-clone. I'm not ready to call g+ a failure yet, I feel like google are playing the long game with that. They're waiting for the inevitable collapse of facebook (people don't actually trust facebook), and when people do leave facebook, they will have to go somewhere. Google is angling themselves to be the successor, since people trust google.
This is why they own youtube, where every home video, every business video, every any video ever made these days gets uploaded for the world, and more importantly google, to see.
This is why they ran google reader. To determine what people want to see regularly. What people whitelist and say 'This is good content, I will accept and read anything from this viewer (who has these tags assossciated with him (who shares tags with 3 of my other subscriptions (who also also share tags with these 4 other suggestions who I have not subscribed to (one of whom is paying for google adsense))))'
As a side note, the fact that they are closing google reader now (despite it's heavy user base) supports this. They aren't here for the user base, and they got the information they needed. That information will be used in a future product (and most likely integrated into their current projects) but probably in so digested a form that you won't recognise it.
This is the root reason google is trying to become your single port of call on the internet. Because they want every keystroke (and every mouseclick, and how long you spend on each page, and where your attention is focused on each page, and a whole lot more) you make on the internet to go to go through them.
In the information age, google survive because they have all of the information, and they stay 3 steps ahead of their competition. |
Simple, google reads the stuff that you type in your mails and the stuff you write in your documents. This allows them to serve more relevant ads to you, which is how those services make money.
On a off note, gmail is currently offered as a standalone product for business that want to use the gmail infrastructure under the Google Apps program. Google also makes money from Google Drive. One of the main selling points of Google Drive is Google Docs integration. Also, as Google docs gets better, I don't think its too much of a stretch to imagine it being offered as a standalone product much like gmail. |
How in the fuck can you use this to demonize republicans? If you were actually"somewhat" conservative you'd recognize immediately that John McCain is not a traditional republican. He's a rhino. Everyone knows this. |
There is no way in hell that this will make TV cheaper.
First off, it's clearly more , not less expensive, to even handle a set of channels for each household, compared to providing a handful of options for everyone. So on average, price per channel will go up.
Second, anyone who thinks TV distributors will let their profits go down over this, is a tool. The sad reality is that on average, we are dependent on TV, and we can't be bothered to pick-and-choose amongst so much... well, crap. So the only thing that can reasonably happen is that the actual price of this will be so high that nobody in their right mind would choose picking channels over just going for a bundle. |
how could you ever discover new things? cant tell you how many times ive just happened upon something and decided I liked it. mainly FX G4 and TLC.
Also, That would mean parents choose what kids will watch, my parents wouldnt pay for Cartoon Network. I want my adventure time, give me my regular show!
Plus, you really think Cable is our biggest economic issue right now? |
It really breaks down to what you watch and how much, sports programming isn't cheap and many people only watch two or three channels, where the rest only come into play when their major shows aren't on and they're flipping.
Netflix and Hulu really gives the channel surfers more bang for buck so they can flip less via suggestions based on what they have been watching. This really making it easier to only need an active sub to only the few channels they do watch.
After working for a television service provider I took a hard look at what I watch and how much I watch and I can't justify the cost. Personally I watch four to five series a year and I can generally wait until DVD, Instant Watch options of Bluray to watch them since its cheaper than an annual sub + 12 months of streaming netflix.
I really hand it to Amazon and Apple for their instant services when I can pay $20-$25 for a season of a show, generally get it the day after it airs and be able to download it to select portable device, stream to my phone or watch when ever. |
Jesus. I know it sounds appealing, but this would be bad news . The money the media companies make from selling ads on the terrible channels is a big part of what funds the programming on their high end channels. Tyler Perry's Terrible Sitcom makes Game of Thrones possible. The fact that Fox gets to count liberals who hate sports as Foxnews/FSN 'subscribers' gives them the advertising margins they use to make Justified . |
I'm pretty late to the party, but I strongly disagree with the reasoning behind this, and I believe it'll lead to worse quality in television in the years to come. There's no perfect solution to the problem that is cable television right now, but this is throwing water on a grease fire.
I work for a major network (that's as specific as I'll be), so I have no reason to oppose this from my own career standpoint. We don't need to be bundled to stay in business. But I believe bundling is still the best route and to prove so, I have a question for everyone here:
If this bill had introduced ten years ago, how many of you would've chosen AMC?
Don't raise your hand, you fucking liar, no you wouldn't have. Ten years ago AMC was known solely for replaying old movies filled with commercials. No Mad Men, No Walking Dead, No Breaking Bad. It was a mediocre second-tier channel at best.
"Ok sure, but I totally would've bought that channel when those shows came on!" That's the problem, those shows would never have made it on television in the first place. Had this bill been introduced ten years ago, there's a fair shot AMC would've gone out of business like many other channels. Television programming is built on a deficit-financing model, which means that the studio basically loses a lot of money to produce a show and will only make it back when that show goes into syndication (around Season 5). You can get a studio to invest in it, but it has to air on a network for those five seasons to get to syndication. And that network has to get advertisers to want to buy commercials on that show, which means it has to have a built-in audience and the money to build a marketing campaign. Oh, and that network has to EXIST. Let's not forget that part.
AMC has certainly shifted the paradigm in basic cable programming. One could argue that FX did it first, but I doubt many of you would've chosen them before The Shield/Sons of Anarchy/The League/etc. aired. A&E is now getting into the game with "Bates Motel", but I don't see a bunch of subreddits dedicated to their "Biography" episodes. Who knows who the next major cable player will be? Bravo, Cinemax, Discovery, History, MTV, Starz, Sundance are all getting into the scripted world (some have been for a couple years now). Could one of them create the next "Breaking Bad"? Absolutely. But could they do it if no subscribes to their network first? Doubtful.
Do I have a perfect solution for you? No. But then again, I don't have to stick a dick in my mouth just to know I don't want it in my ass, either. |
In a way, I agree with you. I pay for Hulu +, I pay for Netflix. Netflix is ad-free, Hulu + is not. What the fuck is going on here?!
At the same time... Hulu + has lots of things, in a more timely fashion, that I can't get on Netflix. And yes, they're charging me and advertising to me, but they're charging my $8/month, which is ridiculously less than I would be charged for cable television. I pay $16/month for Netflix/Hulu and can watch most of what I want between them, as opposed to paying $100+/month for cable. |
Not that I don't like this idea, but why would the government have anything to do with these unnecessary frivolous luxury services? Shouldn't capitalism handle this on its own? Netflix, Hulu and HBO go will likely lead to this anyway... |
Karma shwarma, ain't no problem. (For the record I haven't downvoted you either. Dat reddiquette).
But also, to be fair, I am not particularly passionate about this topic either. I get what you're saying, and to be perfectly honest with you I don't even have cable. Between the Netflix, Hulu Plus, and HBOGO accounts I bum off of my ex (booyah), not to mention torrents for all the rest, I don't even remotely want cable. Except for GSN (Gameshow Network). Love that shit, can't get it without one of the more expensive cable deals. And most of the game shows aren't easily torrentable (or at least I haven't found them). |
John McCain is like a political version of a random number generator. You never know what you're going to get next. Sometimes he happens to come out above the rest of the party, sometimes he happens to come out behind. |
the reason is simple and it's what I've been trying to shed light on for you. consumers can get content for free with ads. they can also pay for content with no ads. they can also pay both ways- subscription and ads. this is the exact reason people expect one type of media payment method across different media.
with tv, you can get free, ad supported content. local tv stations still exist. they can pay for media with no ads by buying dvds. they can get cable/satellite and pay twice.
another thing consumers can do is circumvent ads or payments by legal or illicit means. vcr, tivo, adblock, piracy, and outright theft.
finally, like many other things in society, increased price can mean increased convenience or a wider array of media. special edition dvds, paywalls, and premium programming packages. |
Live streaming for them if they try will take some time and some serious licensing discussion when sports are involved, the cost of it really isn't worth it unless its specific sports package like ESPN offers since they seem to hold quite a few exclusive sporting rights.
News is to specific to location and really not cost efficient unless they were to buy the weather channel and it's site and just have a small window on screen or weather update option. |
By this point this is burried but oh well.
Why does anyone think they'll save money? What in the hell makes you think Comcast etc is just going to say: ok, $100/month divided by 1000 channels that's 10 cents a month per channel so if you only want 10 channels that's $1/month
Get a grip people, you'll pay the same amount either way. Cable companies and even more so the content providers aren't going to give up their profits.
While we're on the subject of content providers you shouldn't be mad at cable providers they don't control what they offer.... or the price of what they offer for that matter. The content providers do. When someone like Viacom says 'jump' Comcast says 'how high? and would like like anything else sir?' If you see cable execs in the street with their thumbs up their asses singing opera music twirling in circles it's because a content provider told them to.
The only reason you have EVERY.FUCKING.<Insert content provider>.CHANNEL.EVER.CREATED. When all you want is channel X is because <insert content provider> said if you're going to sell channel X to your subscribers you also have to sell them a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,y and z channels as well. And that'll be $10 per month per subscriber. No exceptions. So when you're looking at channel packages they are grouped that way for this reason. Not because an evil Comcast exec wants your money. Because an evil Viacom exec wants your money.
Then you'll say "Well they shouldn't have those channels if no one wants them." You can't go in a restaurant and say "I don't like tomatoes so don't put them on, oh and I don't want to pay for them also" or "Don't bring me the complimentary bread and water but I expect a discount" They'll laugh at you.... then spit in your food. This is no different, with the exception of the spit. |
I know it's popular to point out that "artsy" and "niche" channels are dependent on being bundled to get a bunch of subscriptions they couldn't pull on their own (couldn't help but notice that point was in the article), but has anyone actually see what most channels get for cut of your bill? I can tell you the people making out like bandits are the sports networks. I haven't seen many, but based on a single google search, I found the following to be a pretty good indicator of relative expense for channels:
ESPN ($5.06)
ESPN 3D ($2.71)
3net ($1.29)
TNT ($1.21)
Disney Channel ($0.97)
NFL Network ($0.84)
Fox News ($0.82)
ESPN2 ($0.67)
USA Network ($0.62)
TBS ($0.59)
MGM HD ($0.58) / CNN en Espanol ($0.58)
[tie, above]
CNN/HLN ($0.57)
Nickelodeon/Nick at Nite ($0.52)
HDNet ($0.47)
FX ($0.46)
Fox College Sports ($0.39) / MTV ($0.39)
[tie, above]
HDNet Movies ($0.38)
Big Ten Network ($0.37) / Discovery Channel ($0.37)
[tie, above]
Yup, if you don't like sports (let's say perhaps 1/4 of households don't), you are still paying for 2/3 of the cost above, but don't want it. That's a ton of free money for sports networks.
Meanwhile, the "expensive" other channels all seem to pretty stable despite fractions of a dollar per customer. Imagine what a pittance the "niche" channels get! They could kick up their price more than an order of magnitude and not even draw the notice of a subscriber looking to cut channels. So long as the channels are opt-out and clearly priced, how many people will leave dozens of channels subscribed out of laziness to save a couple bucks by shaving down more channels, or out of principle funding the "little guy," or because they don't want to have reality TV and porn channels be all their mother finds when visiting? |
You don't know much about TV production, do you? It's not really like novel writing where there's one singular author. Not only are there loads of writers in the room, but those shows go through a lot of development with the network.
Regardless of who created them, all three of those shows were passed on by the big four networks, so without AMC, the shows wouldn't exist. |
I'm sure this has been said already, but here's the thing.
I hate the way cable companies operate. it's monopolistic, expensive, holding back advances in the market, pathetic, and stupid. they need to start to transition their models or die out as the times change around them. Picking which channels you want and paying for them is a good step towards things being how they should be.
that being said, it is absolutely not the government's job to force them to do this. we are a capitalist society, I believe(to some degree) in capitalism. I believe that eventually, this issue will resolve itself. the government should not regulate the private sector like this. the market should be allowed to work itself out and transition into other models as it should. online video is steadily growing, cable companies are dying out and holding onto whatever they can. every move these traditional companies make is a desperate attempt to stay in a losing battle. the government should not step in like this.
the government didn't step in and cell carriers are already starting to look at abandoning the contract model(T-Mobile!!), purely based on consumers driving the market and service providers responding to the consumer's wants and needs(I realize there are differences here, before anyone grills me on that). the market should be allowed to work as it will, it is not John McCain's job to step in and fix our entertainment-based woes for us, even as well-intentioned or as relevant as he's trying to be. our government is supposed to do other things, not meddle in this. and really, the whole thing smacks of him trying to say "hey guys I'm cool and not that old! my focus groups say you hate cable companies?? no worries 'bros', I'll totally take care of that for you. you like me now, right?"
we can fix the issues with cable companies, internet providers, all of that. allowing the fed to step in and impose regulations like this(as desirable as they may sound) is not a good idea. it's dangerous and flies completely in the face of the free market. that's my two cents on that |
quite so, the fact that Bush Sr. never got re-elected surprised quite a few analysts, mixed feelings about leaving Iraq intact, a poor economic record and 3rd presidential candidate were the nails in his coffin.
the popular vote was 43-38 for clinton, so despite the above mentioned and having a 3rd runner taking 19% of the popular vote Bush Sr nearly made his re-election.
the other well known modern 1 term president is Jimmy Carter. who ran an absoultely horrible 2nd term election campaign. he had horrible stagflation-ridden economy, the Iran hostage crisis was happening at the time and he handled it poorly. and during the debates he was a very detail oriented serious person against a charismatic and inspiring Regan.
The 3rd most recent was Hoover who was in office in the 1929 stock market crash and purposely did little to change the depression. |
The NSA is actually most likely actively hurting the national security of the USA with the PRISM program, despite what their intentions are.
This is because the access to the data has obviously not been secured properly (proof is that Snowden had access). For every Snowden leaking to the public, there are surely many foreign spies and/or plants from organized crime using this data for their own agendas. |
I have the Huawei phone of which you speak. Using it right now, in fact, to reply to you. It's actually not a bad phone. There are a few things I would change but none of them are true deal breakers. Using Straighttalk service, I pay $45 a month, using AT&T towers for signal. Unlimited talk, text and data. Do far my data usage is 3 gigs. But I just mostly Reddit, read articles online linked from Reddit, play games, keep up with work emails. Overall not bad at all. But the great thing is no contract AND im saving money. My last bill from AT&T was almost S300. I know you didn't ask for this drawn out explanation but I just wanted to put in my two cents. |
Warning - Wall of Text , but if you're interested this is what I've got:
>How can someone really ever determine this?
Well that's actually exactly what the ITC is for (or an actual court, if the parties were to go there instead). The ITC also felt Apple was acting in bad faith. They could certainly have awarded Samsung with damages rather than attempting to ban Apple's products . It looks like the Obama administration wanted Samsung to pursue relief through federal courts where they could pursue damages instead of the ITC. If they had, then Obama's administration probably would have respected that decision and not vetoed it. The veto is specifically because of the ban and they expressly stated that Samsung is entitled to other restitution.
To address your fears of Apple's non-compliance - there's no reason to believe that Apple would defy a judgment or court order. They butt heads with other corporations but AFAIK they've never been ordered to do something by any court (whether in the US or internationally) and refused to perform.
Now keep in mind that I don't know every last detail about this whole deal, but I've been following it for a few years so I'll share what I've gathered.
One of the major arguments Apple put forth was that the standards-essential patent (SEP) in question was already paid for. Qualcomm and Samsung had an agreement on that patent, and Apple bought that part from Qualcomm. Thus there's the "double-dipping" argument. Apple argued that Samsung should not be permitted to charge Qualcomm for the use of the patent, then now turn around and try to charge Apple when they already purchased the chip (and presumably the rightful use of that chip including the SEP) from Qualcomm. I haven't dug that deep into this argument yet, so this is just here to let you know what I've heard about it.
The main issue is that of the veto and enforcement issues. My understanding of the situation is that there were preliminary negotiations. However, Samsung demanded 2.4% for use of its SEP.
This is from Apple's argument, so take this information for what it's worth:
>Even if it were used, this functionality is trivial and accounts for far less than 0.01% of the code in an accused device and approximately 0.000375% of the UMTS standard.
Assuming the numbers are even in that ballpark; Apple is arguing that 2.4% for a SEP and especially one that contributes such a miniscule portion of the whole is evidence of bad faith. You can see how Apple would refuse to pay 2.4% for something that (in their estimation) is valued at 0.01%. Note that if this were a regular patent, Samsung would be able to charge whatever they wanted and Apple would have to pay up or make their own. However, because it's a SEP (in this case 3G), Samsung voluntarily subjected themselves to FRAND terms and must charge what's "fair and reasonable".
On Samsung's end, presumably the argument is that it was an initial good faith offer because they realized they would not get that but it was essentially a starting point for negotiations.
Samsung's other offer was that Apple cross-license it's regular patents in exchange for the use of Samsung's SEP. This is another uneven offer. SEP means that it has to follow FRAND terms, which stands for Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory. This is a limitation on how far they can go through charging for these patents. Obviously, this is because they're standards-essential.
An important thing to note here is that FRAND patents are voluntary . What happens is a corporation develops tech and agrees to abide by FRAND terms in order to encourage adoption by the industry. The purpose of FRAND is to establish standards and cooperation between the players. They don't get to charge as much as they would for a regular patent, but because it's the standard in the industry, every major player is using it. There is real money to be made here. It's a mutually beneficial thing (and very good for us as well). There's no reason to believe they'd stop using FRAND as it's handled today.
Essentially, there's an inherent inequality between FRAND and non-FRAND patents. Regular patents - pay up or come up with your own solution. FRAND - we agree to charge what's fair and reasonable. So inherently, Samsung demanding the use of non-FRAND patents in exchange for its FRAND/SEP ones isn't a very good offer itself.
FRAND works because other companies are assured of FRAND terms. This is why any potential abuse of FRAND is incredibly threatening. The second that FRAND is no longer an assurance of fair/reasonable pricing, the big players in the industry throw that out. Imagine if there's a risk where your billion dollar investment may get banned altogether from a market because you couldn't come to terms with a SEP holder, who's also your direct competitor in the market . Who in their right mind would rely on that SEP rather than utilize their own tech even though it's proprietary? This is the reason why nobody lets something like an import ban happen over SEP.
Banning competing products from the market is excessive. As I've stated above, federal courts have refused to even consider that a form of relief for FRAND/SEP and the ITC itself has never granted an import ban like this in the past. Banning competing products from the market is such a harsh penalty that it effectively makes SEP offensive weapons (part of the "war chest" that every corporation has been building recently).
With all that said, what we do know is that there were negotiations between the two. You don't have to worry that Apple was just sitting back abusing Samsung's SEP rights and is trying to get away with it. They were unable to come to terms and they had to send it up to various committees/tribunals/courts around the world.
Now we know the ITC ruled in Samsung's favor. I firmly believe that if they had pursued and been awarded damages in federal court, Obama would not have vetoed the decision (as stated in the veto) and Apple would have paid. I actually haven't heard of any of the major corporations defying a court order/judgment, including Apple. The controversy at this stage in the game is strictly one of not permitting the ban.
There's one last relevant fact to consider regarding Apple's alleged abuse. The whole SEP deal isn't specific to the US. Samsung has been duking it out with other corporations all over the world. There's this one ITC ruling in their favor. Every other SEP claim was dismissed (over 20 claims all over the world). The EU actually found that they were violating anti-trust rules through the use of pursuing injunctions against Apple and threw a number like $15 billion or something at them. The last I checked, Samsung is trying to settle on that front.
I'm not saying one side's right and the other's wrong. I don't care who wins or loses. What's important to me is that this veto happened and FRAND is going to remain in effect as it has in the past. It's the one area of patent law that I feel isn't being totally abused. |
i think the problem is when you go outside and look around, people are happy. people aren't rioting/ yelling/ anything. we are content with what we have...and unfortunately don't give a shit if nothing we have gets better ever again. |
One would expect that countries with more than two parties wouldn't have problems with transparency, yet I don't see that being the case.
A more direct approach in my opinion is to make the voters care about it. Right now they don't. Without a majority of voters demanding transparency from government, it's not going to happen no matter how many parties we have. With a majority of voters demanding transparency from government, it will happen no matter how many parties we have. And the barriers are less too. In order for third parties to be viable, you'd need to get rid of first past the post elections, which would require changing the constitution, which would require the approval of at least one of the dominant parties, which is never going to happen since that would be hurting themselves. |
Wait, what? I need a |
Garbage journalism. Shit like this is just as bad as Fox News.
Utilities hate solar not because of lost sales, but because of the unfair cost burden it puts on them. People buying solar aren't buying the grid-friendly $50,000 package, they are buying the $5,000 fuck-the-grid package.
Greatly simplifying things, these budget solar installs dump "dirty" power into the grid. A single home doesn't make a difference, but when lots of homes "team up" it can really fuck things up. The utilities are mandated to keep the grid within certain parameters, and having a bunch of homes that randomly give and take relatively large amounts of power makes that really hard to do.
On top of that, all these cheap PV install homes also still rely on the grid for power. The utility doesn't mind that, what it does mind is having to maintain the power infrastructure for that home. So despite the fact that your home generates almost all it's own power and the utility has to pay you every month for power, when that tree falls on your power lines, the utility has to foot the bill. |
That's pretty cool. I use a similar plugin it works will all browsers called 'Ignore the comment section' |
At least on reddit I feel like at least people see my opinions whether they like them or not. On YouTube, I'll receive a reply from someone once in a blue moon. I feel like the YouTube comment section is a cesspool of overused 14 year old humor, spam/trolling, conspiracy theories, 3rd grade level grammar, and nonsensical religious debates. Do we see the same comments on reddit? Yes, but it's not close to the same magnitude. The majority of YouTube comments are quite noticeably less intelligible than reddit comments, and although the level of intelligence you'd see in a comment is widely based off what type of content the person is viewing, I still see overall better comments on reddit than on YouTube. |
Please give us your real phone number for "safety".
>The reasoning? Two step verification to protect accounts from being stolen or compromised, thus being used for spam, or gaining personal information, or other purposes.
Google's stated intentions here are a smokescreen that you've bought hook, line, and sinker. Yes, adding a phone number ostensibly gives you a way to unlock your account if you forget your password and backup email...but it also associates your random Internet account with a unique identifier. A phone number is nearly as good as a fingerprint--especially if you have a smartphone running Android.
Using your real name, real phone number, etc., associates your real identity with everything you do on Google's properties: your interests, what products you buy, your true opinions and beliefs, etc., all tied in with your name, age, language, location, religious beliefs, music preferences, sexual identity, your social graph (hugely valuable)--basically all the stuff you'd put on a social networking site.
Google is an advertising company, and the more accurate their data the better they can advertise to you and sell ad space that you and your demographic will positively respond to. If you use your real identity (and aren't just some throwaway, anonymous account) it's more valuable for analytics and advertisers. Tying everything together has been the modus operandi of Google's advertising strategy for years: more data and increased accuracy helps them earn more money.
Thus, an engineer didn't walk into a conference room and say "you know what'd really help our users? If they were able to add their phone number to prevent them from being locked out of Gmail. It's SO important, in fact, that users who decline this step should be reminded about it every other time they log in."
No, the engineer said, "If we integrate the user's phone number his or her Google profile will be that much more unified and universally unique. This will increase the quality of our advertising metrics by giving us a solid differentiator between multiple accounts: no longer will we have to use fuzzy heuristics to guess whether two Google accounts belong to the same person. Since this feature is high-impact on our analytics and thus will have material effect on our advertising bottom-line, I recommend the user be prompted to reveal his phone number every other time he logs in. As an added bonus, it may slightly reduce the number of unresolvable support emails we receive regarding locked accounts."
The same logic applies to many of the other categories you've listed, such as wanting you to stay signed in over 100 Google properties. Sure, you don't have to sign in 100 times, and that could be a good thing...but if you stay signed in then your session persists, and they can easily associate your activity on those sites with your real identity. This increases the amount of data they have about you and improves the quality of their analytics. |
And even with that I'd be fine with GMO as long as foods containing GMOs are labeled as such. Because while there is no danger, I as someone living in the developed world can pick what to consume for any damn reason. If people can pick what wine to drink by how cool the label looks, I damn well ought to be able to not eat GMO food."
It's only the governments job to label food if there is a safety concern. All other aspects of labeling food is up to the people distributing the food. If they don't want to put a non-gmo sticker on it, too fucking bad.
If we allow the government to start forcing labeling on food that isn't based on science then we might as well force labels that say's "this product does not generate profit for the lizard people overlords" or "this product has been sanctified by the celestial church of craziology" |
Thanks for this post. There is a lot of misinformation to be seen, likely purposeful on the part of firms like Monsanto. |
One of my favorite pros about GMO foods is the story of how Norman Borlaug created better, stronger, more fertile and more pest resistant wheat to feed the world. I love it because to me it is the most anti-GMO example, which is almost always used as pro-GMO.
I think of it as anti-GMO because Norman Borlaug's work was publicly funded, no private entity had an interest in doing this. And the developed strains were given away for free.
Because the work only used regular old cross breeding. No other genetic engineering.
And because the work relied on a pre-existing varieties of wheat strains. For example once yields increased enough stalks started to collapse under the weight of the seeds. A pre-existing Japanese dwarf wheat variety was used to create a strong enough stalk. Again, with plain old fashioned cross breeding.
On the other hand, GMOs tend to work in exactly the opposite way.
They are privately funded and owned. Monsanto even engineers a suicide gene in its beans to prevent farmers from saving seeds. Thus they have to buy seed every year.
They use genetic engineering to introduce genes which can't be introduced with cross breeding. Like taking the BT toxin from a bacterium and inserting that into corn.
And they tend to result in mono culture, where the exact same strains are used all over the world.
In the developed world, the US, EU, Japan, etc. we have an excess of food. Governments often pay farmers to produce less, and engage in extensive protectionism. Like for example to protect Florida sugar cane farmers from cheaper imported sugar.
If we already have an excess of food, why do we need GMOs? We don't. GMOs are used to increase profits.
What's wrong with that? Nothing. Just label food with GMOs as such. But that's not done in the US. Why? Free markets are supposed to have free information, but Monsanto does not like that. Monsanto even lobbied to forbid milk being advertised as growth hormone free.
Well that's pretty fucked up. My small business doesn't get special help like that.
What about the developing world?
Golden rice is my favorite pro-GMO example for helping the developing world. There are places where people suffer from night blindness because they don't get enough vitamin A.
Golden rice has been engineered to produce beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A. The problem is there needs to be a sufficient amount of fat present in the diet for the body to absorb the carotenes.
But fat is expensive. In the crazy world we live in, fat can be cheaper than fresh green vegetables. But in the developing world, fat, especially a lot of dietary fat is hard to come by. That's why people suffer from vitamin A deficiency. Because they actually have sources of vitamin A, carrots and other fruits and vegetables and seeds and nuts. They just don't have a lot of fat in their diets.
Pro Golden rice people will often bring up the one study which showed Golden rice is a good source of beta-carotene. But the study used something like 100 grams of butter per cup of rice. A crazy amount of fat! Butter itself has vitamin A! If people suffering from night blindness had that much butter they would not need the rice! Seriously, 7 grams of butter has like 67 µg of Vitamin A! |
Speaking from experience in the industry, often gmail is used when the client doesn't want to pay for business grade email. In those situations, they get mad that their free service messes up, even blaming us for the outage.
Same thing with home grade computers, needing to pay to upgrade a home version of windows because they wanted to save money buying a system that they wanted on their domain, etc. |
plus.net (An ISP in the UK, SUCK!)
A family friend recently called sky.com (an ISP) to inquire about changing broadband provider to them and he agreed to move from plus.net (ISP) to sky.com (ISP) over the phone. It was dead simple to switch as sky.com contacted plus.net and arranged the transfer. It was done a day before he was traveling to the United States for a holiday so he was going to be out of the country for a month.
When he got back he tried to login to his e-mail and couldn't access the account, I called up plus.net on his behalf and they said that the account had been permenantly removed.
I told him that he had been a customer for 9 years with them and this is how they treat ex customers by deleting their account. Their excuse was that they had e-mailed him to get a notice that the account would be removed in x days time but if he wanted to keep it then all he would have to do is reply but it would mean a cost of £2 a month.
I explained that he was on holiday, he couldn't of read or replied and that they should get a verbal or written reply before deleting an account or better just let them have an account, they won't be losing anything from some courtesy.
I required that it be restored so that he could transfer all his accounts over to his new e-mail and save what he needs but they informed me that the account had been permanently deleted and couldn't be restored.
I wrote a written complain to the company about the incident/issue but never received a response. |
Hotmail inexplicably blocks entire domains. They used to block EVERY email sent by my bank, yet would let through phishing emails from Nigerians pretending to be my bank. They blocked emails from several sources that were vital to me to the point where I had to stop using the account.
I used to get dozens of spam a day. With gmail I get almost no spam yet have yet to miss an important email. |
Important thing to understand is that the City of London is not London .
It's a relatively tiny city with a population of about 7,000 people in the center of London, with a significantly larger working population. As you can imagine a lot of its politics are influenced by the businesses that operate there. |
You dumbass, where did you learn to solder? Everyone knows you never melt the solder and drip it into the material you're soldering. You heat up the joint and the solder melts when you touch it to the hot material. |
Well, let's see. Copper is a fantastic heat conductor, I agree; it's just about twice as good as aluminum. That said, it's not what almost every heat exchanger is made of - that would be aluminum, for reasons of cost and density.
As for passive air-metal contact, it's not good enough in almost any PC on the market. The ubiquity of fan-cooled systems stems from the fact that conduction isn't enough, so we use driven air to keep forcing cool air onto the heat exchanger. It's true that a cell-system like this one will probably see more effective convection than a flat or fin system, but I sincerely doubt that it will be enough.
I don't think I follow your final point at all. Conduction from CPU to heat sink is great, but the point in question is heat transfer from heat sink to air. Similarly, convection is ok, but it can't move heat from the sink into the air. That's exclusively the roll of metal-to-air conduction and radiation. In that role copper is still a fairly good heat exchanger, but begins to lose it's edge over aluminum because anodized aluminum is about an order of magnitude better at radiative transfer than the polished copper in use here.
The important question here is exactly what heat transfer profile the "copper foam" has. Unfortunately, I can't find an answer to that, and it looks a lot like nobody has one. What's happening here is some impossible-to-calculate combination of external flow over a corrupted version of a vertical plate, and turbulent internal flow through crooked pipes. At the same time, radiative transfer is going to be non-zero, deeply screwing up the standard equations for turbulent convection. No one is going to manage to model that, so we're left with experimental results that it appears no one has done. In particular, the people offering the product offer absolutely no data related to having actually done these tests. |
Someone already did that and found no office there. The project leader answered the question about that in an interview here:
[Computerbase.de (german)]( |
definitely not silent, but a good/high quality pump is almost unnoticeable. The fan/s for the radiator will be noticeable, but because the water system allows you to move the heat radiation point to the edge of even out side of the case you need less fans total.
Most of the fan noise from a computer is from multiple fans interfering with each other.
Also if you're able to move the radiator outside the computer it doesn't have other heat generators(power supply, motherboard, RAM, Hard drives, Graphics card) to fight against as it tries to dump heat into the surrounding air.
Ninja |
Revenue
Increase US$ 64.657 billion (2013) [5]
Increase US$ 62.57 billion (2012) [5]
Operating income
Increase US$ 13.563 billion (2013) [5]
Increase US$ 12.179 billion (2012) [5]
Net income
Increase US$ 6.816 billion (2013) [5]
Increase US$ 6.203 billion (2012) [5]
Total assets
Increase US$ 158.813 billion (2013) [6]
Increase US$ 164.971 billion (2012) [5]
Total equity
Increase US$ 51.058 billion (2013) [6]
Increase US$ 49.796 billion (2012) [6] |
I live in Colorado and have century link. Their customer service is just the same. Full of idiots and people you can't understand whether it be a thick accent or simply mumbling. However the actual techs they send out are amazing. This past week we called because we were only getting half the speed we pay for. He installed 2 new Jacks in the house, fixed a broken one and got our Internet speed to where it needs to be. |
This is the second time I've seen someone post about a problem they had with self installation.
What I'm learning from this is that you should just suck it up and let the fucking tech come out to setup your service. I could have done a self install when I moved into my apartment 3 years ago, but I opted not to. The installation was free and it ensured I wouldn't be charged if anything was fucked up. After reading the horror stories stemming from self installs, I'm glad I opted for the tech to do it. |
I fucking know Comcast makes enough money to pay them
They don't, actually. There's a reason for it, and it's in no way exclusive to Comcast, either. Cable work is VERY seasonal. We usually get about 3 months of balls-to-the-wall, slammed every day workload, with about a month and a half on each side of that, where it's moderate. The other 6 months, the workload drops out.
Now, here's the thing. I don't know if this goes for every company, or what category cable operators fall under that does it, but apparently they can't lay off 60% of their workforce every year for 9 months out of the year. There's also unions for some places and not for others, but if they hire someone on as a full-time technician, they'll be paying them for 40 hours a week during the lull, and there is literally no work for them to do.
In come the contractors. Contractors, usually get paid based on their productivity. Every thing they do is a-la-carte (sp?). There is serious incentive to get more done in a day than an hourly guy, and serious backcharges for making mistakes (usually the whole job is not paid for, even if only one little thing wasn't done correctly). Anyways, the contractors "order up" a certain number of routes based on how many guys they have working that day, but those two numbers rarely match each other . They'll order anywhere from 2-40% more routes than they have guys, because the majority of their techs get way more done in a day than an in-houser. So, especially during the rush season in any particular area, you could be seeing 4-5 times the work being done on any given day by people that don't work for the company, have no ownership to the geographic region, and are up to their noses in earning potential. |
Thank you for the post! I have AT & T for Internet access with a max speed of 3Mbit/sec. No other providers offer service where I live. I would give my left but for a comcast connection (and both for a Google fiber connection) that provided a decent speed. Comcast may have shitty customer service but if the end game is you get a decent connection i think it's a worthy tradeoff. |
I'm not really impressed by the phone. I do like the fact that you can pay using your finger print instead of a pin code like google wallet, and I really hope their iPay takes off as it could cause a trend and force other digital wallets to keep up (like google wallet, 4 years old and still can't get it in Canada unless you root your device and sideload it).
The iWatch looks actually kinda cool, more useful then Google wear. The fitness tracker, the map with tracking, the haptic feedback giving you directions, it seems like a good idea. If the Moto 360 could do that I would definitely get a smart watch, but all they do is notifications, google now, and tell time. |
I'm honestly guessing it has something to do with the history. What has it been...the evens are bad and the odds are good? I would think that they're making this one (which should be an odd) be an even, so that when windows...11 comes out, people will think that it will be good (instead of bad).
this is hearsay though. shit that I read on digg some 5ish years ago. And it's probably wrong. |
There are agreed upon minimal standards on what a good cup of coffee is, similar to a red wine. There may be quite a bit of subjective preference within these generally agreed upon standards, but if it doesn't meet them, it's unanimously rejected. |
The price of the coffee cartridges is their business. The machine itself is sold at-cost. Keurig was stupid to sell their first machines without some kind of protection from a gray market. |
micro usb is a pile of shit that I am glad apple stayed away from. I just basically jam in the lightning connector without looking, either way works. USB needs a much more precice insertion in the right orientation and is limited in how much power it can transfer and speeds it can do it at. |
Is this something new in the US?
We have these machines in Europe forever and of course at the beginning the companies wanted to cash in with the cups/pads. It's the same principle as with razors and blades. But nowadays you can buy other coffee thingies for all(?) systems.
And basically it's the same with the ink printers. Was there ever a successful law suit? AFAIK most ink printers are today DRM-locked into specific cartridges.
Also Panasonic did the same with it's digital cameras. There was a firmware update that did nothing else than enabling a DRM for the batteries. |
I didn't think this was a new idea. That's how the industrial age started. People in England were digging for coal but their mines kept on getting flooded and it was too difficult to pump out the water manually so somebody built a water pump that ran off of coal power. |
So this is sort of my situation. I never really accepted being single, but stopped bitching about it. I made a lot of friends, and most of them are girls, and I'm really happy with it all. Of course, one of these girls and I have had on and off feelings for one another, and I asked her out, but missed my mark, as she didn't want to date anyone at the time.
At this point, we have been talking a while, and have figured out that we are comfortable staying friends, but also occasionally fucking. |
This is exactly what happened to me. I watched all my (middle school) friends changing girlfriends more often than I changed my socks, which was frustrating because at that age your object of infatuation tends to take priority over friends and family. I had my first girlfriend for less than a year, and it filled me with anxiety and stress. I just wasn't ready for a mature and proper relationship, and neither were most kids my age. This is probably the biggest advice I have for a relationship: get your own shit figured out before you tangle it up in someone else's shit.
So after that ended I decided that I wasn't going to worry about dating anymore. It was a problem I'd worry about later in life when I had a broader perspective of the way relationships (romantic or otherwise) are supposed to work. So for 2 years I was completely single by choice. I made friends with everyone for those 2 years and it was amazing. Then, while on a 10-day trip to Mississippi for hurricane relief (I'm from MN), I spent every day with a new friend I had made and luckily she was also from MN. So after 10 days of getting to know one another, then sharing a 22-hour car ride back to MN together, I ended the event with my arm around her and the two of us falling asleep together in the back of our vehicle. I decided that since I wasn't looking for a relationship, it was most appropriate to end our trip by giving her a hug and a kiss on the cheek and letting her decide what it meant. The 10 days made it feel like we had known each other for 5 years already, and there's no better foundation for a relationship than a legitimate friendship. Now, 7 years later, I will be marrying her come September. |
Hang in there dude(?)
I was single (and a virgin) about twice as long as everyone else seemed to be. It bothered me a lot . Then one day, I looked at my life and decided that I liked it (and myself) this way and it was all probably for the best. I stopped actively trying to pick up girls. Being no longer obsessed with pursuing any particular booty, I started making friends with a whole lot of people and learned to value girls as genuine friends as well. And then, over time, one of those genuine friends grew closer and closer to me until (during one particularly cozy moment, on impulse) I kissed her on the cheek to show my affection. She immediately returned the gesture, to my surprise. I was still in "happily being single"-mode and so I left it at that and she didn't press the issue either. We did repeat the cheek-kissing a lot though, over several weeks. I gradually came around to the idea that I actually might be on to something there. So I threw caution to the wind and properly kissed her on her birthday. And this is how I got my first girlfriend, a relationship which lasted 3.5 years. All my major relationships since then have started out in a similar way. (No dating was involved ever.) Women make really great friends, if you are befriending them without any sexual agenda. (It's fine-ish to be opportunistic I guess, but if you are among those who fear the "friend-zone", you are doing it wrong . Some people don't appear to understand the concept of friendship at all) |
Dude you need to quit fucking snap chatting mckenna. Stop. She doesn't respond with anything meaningful for a reason and she's not interested in you. Who am I? The man whom she is in love with. She already told me not to worry, she's not interested in you. Sorry I bothered you kid. I've dated her since 2 summers ago. If you aren't trying to get at my woman or being inappropriate I don't care if you snap her occasionally. Just don't try anything man. You'll embarrass yourself and anger me. We are in love and we're making love tomorrow. So if you have any ill intentions with my woman you can forget it right now. I'm the biggest and best she's ever had, only man she's ever loved and the only man who could truly satisfy her physically. You will never have her. And she loves me. I don't have any problems with you if you are over my woman and realize you will never be with or touch her again. I apologize for coming off as a dick, just me and kenna are really deep in love and we've been through a lot and I just moved back home and it makes me a little jealous and angry to see a man she used to date before me is snap chatting her.... We don't need any extra bullshit or drama right now, so don't bring us any please is all I ask friend. If you try to talk to her any way but as a brother, or you try to see her at all, if she tells me you do anything inappropriate or anything outside of what a strict brother like friend would do,we are going to have a huge problem. I will leave you alone now dude if you're not trying to get at the woman who I love and whom is in love with me. That entire summer she was with me. She left kyle for me. She's been with me ever since, she even loved me and made love to me before she EVER let anything happen with you. You didn't please her. She didn't have strong feelings for you at all. And she immediately ended shit with you for me once she knew I loved her too. So get any ideas of the past out of your head. None of this truth should bug you if you're over her but I'm just making sure. I hate when my baby's friends have ill intentions and she thinks they are just friends and have no alternative motive. But idk if I trust you at all. If I can trust you to not stress me and my baby or fuck with our love tell me. I will leave you alone and apologize. But if you aren't over her and you're tryna "get some" or you're tryna get back in her life, it's NOT HAPPENING. She said you were nothing to her, and the sex was bad anyway haha. You're small and weak and she said it all felt wrong after being with me. She's been with me ever since. We're in love. And tomorrow me and her will be together in my room making love alll day how we always have together. If you have a problem speak up like a man or tell me our love doesn't bug you and I'll apologize, it's simple. So??? What is it? You are after my woman then huh?! Tell me the fucking truth man. Don't you dare be disrespectful and gross enough to bring it up, but if if you ask her about anything she shared with me about your weak ass, she may be nice and lie to you, or she may not care and tell you the truth. Either way. I'm her soullmate and her boyfriend of the past two years almost. And she tells me everything and NEVER lies to me. I don't care haha. Just stay away from my kenna. I sincerely apologize if you have no ill intentions and aren't trying to make moves with my woman. And i respect you as a guy in the service. I'm sure you're an ok dude. But just as a friend. You're nothing to my kenna but a brother like friend. I just wanna be sure you know it and don't forget it. Find a nice classy woman where you are stationed, marry her.... But back off of mine. You will never even compare to me in her eyes. Not even close haha.I just don't need you interfering with me and kenna's love. It's our lives man. It's really not cool.... Goodbye man, good luck. Respect to you being in the service. Sorry to bring your day down with my crazy bullshit but. Me and kenna are head over heels.... I can't help but be crazy about her. I love her with all of my heart and I will protect her from her untrustworthy fake friends. Not saying you are one. But you're dodging telling me what's going on in your head so I'm questioning a lot right now. Just know I'm never gonna hurt her, I'm always going to have her back, I'd give my life for her without hesitation, and I will protect her from anything, everything, and anyone. She is the love of my life. I fully intend to marry and give kenna my children. And we've talked a lot about it. Just don't make shit harder than it already is. I just moved back and me and her miss eachother so badly and we are FINALLY go to see eachother tomorrow and make love for the first time since halloween.... I hope you don't hate me man. I'm a good dude. Just protective of the woman who holds my heart. And who's heart I hold and must protect. I hope you can understand. She promised me there's nothing at all to worry about with you and that she's not interested:"/ I wish I knew before I embarrassingly went off on you. I'm so sorry man. I'm sorry. Please don't mention this to my baby:/ I'm really embarrassed and while she will understand, I just feel like an ass for attacking you when you have nothing with my kenna and no intention to. Good bye brother. I hope you find your one true love someday. It'll make you crazy, trust me, but you'll find her one day. I found mine when I was really young. And it's my kenna :) |
Personally, I use LastPass, but there are several alternatives available as well, just not as good as this. It's fast, has multi-factor authentication support, has options to organize things, supports form fills for registration, shopping, banking, also has secure notes, you can make offline encrypted backups, etc. It has extensions for all major browsers, and auto-fill is available for pretty much every website out there. |
When you open your browser, you only need to log in to LastPass with your master password. From there on, LastPass will do the job for you using the site log in information you gave it. Sometimes websites block auto-filling username and password, you just have to click the asterisk icon and tell it to fill it manually. This means having to do 2 clicks, which is still faster and more convenient than typing the username and password. |
By refusing ads for legal services, Google is making a provocative stand against that legal service. |
Please reply to my comment! I'm extremely curious.
I genuinely would like to know, what made you comment? Did you not watch the video? It's understandable, as the article is linked and if you're in |
I was involved in PEM Fuel Cell Research in 2003, and there were some "BIG NAMES" on board then, too, with tons of press. We had a gag order from Plug Power not disclose any reliability figures whatsoever, even though our research was the residential feasibility of PEM fuel cells. Well, the fuel cell ended up around 5% reliable over a 365 day period. It was down 95% of the research period, even though Plug Power KNEW we were going to publish our results, they never could send enough parts to keep the fuel cell running for > a week at a time. |
Not true, price is determined by supply versus demand, if supply cannot meet demand, the price goes up, if costs go down, supply meets demand easily and will remain artificially inflated unless there is competition that brings cost down.. Unfortunately if there is only one author and one publisher that holds the rights to a book, there is no competition for that book to bring the cost down.. And in this case, there is an infinite supply, so the only thing keeping cost up is lack of competition for specific works.. |
They'd love to improve the infrastructure!
Unfortunately, improving the infrastructure means upgrading existing equipment, running new lines, installing new transformers, and so on. Upgrading existing equipment costs money. Running new transmission lines is a problem. Requests to run new lines are sued into oblivion by the "not in my back yard" folks, who don't want electric lines run through their yard or in the neighborhood, or in their city, or across the North American Red Herring Scapegoat pastures. Hence, not enough power lines to deliver electricity to where it is needed.
Infrastructure improvements cost money. In today's economic climate state public utility commission offices are loathe to raise electric rates. If everyone would agree to a few cents more per kWH on their bill, I'm sure new infrastructure could be managed, and this would not be an issue.
<troll>But why should I subsidize your electric car infrastructure when I don't drive one?</troll> To be clear with this, I personally have no problem with this. It's the right thing to do, and it's the future, but there are plenty of people out there who will take this stand, and as long as they outnumber the people who are willing to pay more, don't look for a quick fix to the problem.
They are also looking at things like forcing electric cars to charge at night, when electric usage is much less than it is during the day, but even that won't help if a whole neighborhood is full of electric cars. |
Are you... are you just completely ignoring the GUI? I'm not saying it wouldn't have happened, but Jobs (and thus Apple) were the only ones who gave a shit about it in the 80s. Would someone just be marketing the GUI now? Who the fuck knows. And the command line isn't accessible to anyone. And then there's the iPad, which is bringing computing to people who wouldn't have had it before.
But to downplay Jobs' achievements because he was an asshole is just revisionist, in a very bad way. It's ignoring major, important computing history. Why, because you hate Apple? That's asininity of the highest form. |
Actually, the Maginot line was never breached until the French abandoned their lines due to the Blitz to the north. The line was never extended to the sea mostly because of bickering with the low countries about mutual defense (having a line through France seemed to tell them that they would be abandoned once war broke out). The Germans took advantage of this by rolling through Belgium and The Netherlands. |
One day, I couldn't figure out what the word was that described taking a word or phrase and rearranging the letters in order to make a new word or phrase. So I googled it, and got my answer, using "rearranging letters of a word to make a new word" . They even provided anagram engines.
Try it in Bing, you get a lot of yahoo/ehow/ask.com/wiki answer results.
Try also "show about girl moving into an apartment with nerds" and you get Big Bang Theory in Google, Bing gives you tips on how to get a nerdy girl, how to be a nerd, and hollywood nerds (which still didn't mention BBT!). |
The only reason to use microsoft over google in this case, is similar to the reasons for wearing a suit, you do it because everyone is doing it.
If google's current software was entrenched in business, and microsoft was trying to break in, even with identical software on both sides to what we have today, you would see much the same situation, but probably without retarded ads like that. |
The thing is, whether or not this ad makes sense depends on how well Google Apps generally is on the radar for people. With you this ad obviously was just harmful, but for people (managers, CTOs etc.) who are thinking about evaluating Google Apps this ad may very well bring up some uncomfortable questions and reinforce some nagging doubts, thus being good for Microsoft. Still, I too think it's a dick move. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.