It does, however BRICS members haven't been shining examples of free speech. So either it is a way to allow themselves to isolate from the world, because they are expecting to do some things the rest of the world won't like, and could be facing removal. Or a nice way to move its citizens to a state sponsored internet. Or it could just be what they are saying it is, just a backup to DNS, just because having it under US Control is risky.
I am sure if enough people were interested in seeing Gant charts and pages of documents the media would provide such info to be profitable. But for most of us with just a passing interest. Oh a rocket is going off in 2018 not 2017.
Or are you bitter that your project is behind and your boss is riding your ass.
I need to agree. For one the Doctor you are seeing probably isn’t specialized in organ transplants, but treating your problems. So they are not thinking about removing your organs, but fixing the problems to keep you alive. Organ donation for that case is only shortly after have died and may be prepped if death is imminent. But that is a new team of people who do the work. Because if you died of a heart attack I doubt the cardiologist will perform surgery to get your kidneys. (They won’t use your heart because that is already shot)
We have some redundant organs and some that can be removed partly without killing the donor. Kidney, bone marrow can be donated without killing the patient. In some countries people are scammed drugged then have their kidneys removed. Once healed they are sent back on the streets with nothing.
Organ donation are charged at the receiver of the organ because it is a service that they are receiving. The doner (who can donate some organs while alive) is offering his services to someone else. Having the donor pay would prevent people from donating. Even after their death because they would like to see the money go to his family. Not pay for a medical bill for someone else.
If you like you can add to your will that you would like to use your estate value to help pay for the recipients (yes many people) medical bills.
As part of yesterdays article on Slashdot, when they stated they needed to review how they managed these issues, I had expected that this was probably a known issue, that just somehow failed to get into the right hands. [citation]
I think it is mainly a failure in management, then with Apple not caring or ignoring a problem. Just poor escalation management, which can be fixed.
Different breeds may be smarter then others. But that is due to us breeding them for different traits. However I doubt that there is a huge variation. As often traits that we equate to being smart for a dog, doesn't always require more brain power. As the article points out wild animals seem to be brainier, however a wolf doesn't have a lot of traits that we equate to intelligence that our pet dog has. For examples Dogs can understand the abstract concept of pointing, while wolves cannot. Dogs can be taught a lot of tricks and behaviors that may be outside their normal instinctive behavior, while wolves do not. However Dogs bark and make a lot of noise, and are much more disorganized in hunting by themselves, which would put them at a disadvantage in a non-human world. Dogs and Humans had created a symbiotic relationship. So the Dog has evolved to at least react to our weird abstract concepts, in a way that pleases us, they do not really understand the concept of being tethered, but they realize there is a boundary and past that us humans needs to be with them.
This seems to happen every 50 years or so. OMG technology will take our jobs. Oh wait it took jobs that we didn’t want to do and it created a new market for more jobs.
There use to be a job for the human computer who did calculations all day. We get the electric computer that replaced that job. However this meant more businesses could afford these computer causing a rise of software developers who had more jobs then the human computer had.
Except for fighting the future, embrace it, it will mean you can be on the next big thing.
I think in terms of software Apple is a victim of its own success. iOS is nearly the same as it was back in the original iPhone, sure we got a lot of new stuff in it, but it is based on what was popular. If apple risked Thinking Differently, then their product may scare off customers.
If the iPhone wasn't as popular of a device I expect to see a lot more changes in the iPhone and iOS devices, as well in OS X.
Apples biggest changes in its OS was from 1999 - 2005 Where Apple was nearly dead, and Microsoft was the Big unstoppable name in town. Having to change from MacOS 9 to OS X (A complete OS Rewrite) and putting a lot of big changes until 2007 where XP was starting to show its age, and Vista was failing to impress. However Apple used this time and put their resources to the iPhone, but this has been successful for a long time, so much of the software hasn't been rethought, because it works and it is popular.
I could argue the other way around. For a smaller company, having your code open source allows for more eyes on the software then what a small company can afford. While the biggest company can hire a lot of people to check and review the code.
If your program such as OS X is very popular and had a lot of features that competitors would love to see how they approached a problem, having it Open source could lead to a lot of excessive copying if not the code directly, duplicating the idea and specifications. Having an OS X compatibility layer in Linux or in Windows. Knowing which checks is needed to make a good Hackintosh system.
Well other then this one, how many other viruses or gross hacks were there in the past 15 years? I can remember only 3 or 4 major ones during this time. The rest were on par with the normal security fixes that everyone puts out, mostly getting access to stuff as a user already logged into the system.
I translated it as this was a known issue to the underlings, however it never was allowed to be addressed by the middle managers or this problem was a very to spot problem (probably some debug code that didn't get removed) that was allowed to get released.
However compared to other companies, at least Apple is publicly admitting the problem. While some companies may patch the problem, but not state any details about it.
I am missing your counter argument. My point is new batteries are better, we just don't see it because popular devices use more power. I am not saying you need a popular smart phone, just that technology for these phones advance in a way to allow a full day of usage as part of their design requirement, if the design runs longer then a full day, then that means they can probably put more features in. If battery length is important, you can make such a choice. Or is it that you are taking the friendly jabs at your phone at work or school personally.
If you want to use a basic phone, and having new battery technology to make it last for weeks, that is fine too. However most of these phones are just excess inventory of older phones, with decade old batteries. Or just an old designed not build for the batteries.
However being that nearly everyone I know of needs to sleep for at least 4 hours every day, they can use that time to charge their phone.
Except for the fact that there is a 3rd party tool that can change your password on your device. So while you may not be able to get in the phone, the app maker may be able to.
They have come to the market. Why do you think that we have personal computers in our pockets that allow for a nearly full day of computing, that are reliable enough for product makers to directly solder them to the electronic devices, and normally last past the expected device lifetime.
The problem is perception. 1. Batteries are boring. they are not flashy, they don't make your apps directly run faster. They just make the cool things other technology uses last longer. 2. Technology is using more power. My Phone, has an Ultra High resolution display, Gigs of ram, a fast processor comparable to some modern laptops and desktops. Sensors and Gyroscopes... and this is a normal consumer devices, Compared to 10 years ago, where we had a flip phone with a 100x100 pixel display (color is optional) And it made phone calls and texts, and a cheap camera, where most people had a separate camera. All this stuff uses more power. So device makers are sticking to a 20 hours battery under normal use. If the battery can last longer, then they put more stuff and speed to the device. 3. We forget the problems of the past. We needed user replaceable batteries in the past, because they would last an average of about a year. Meaning we needed to replace them after a while while our device is still relatively new. 4. We use devices more on battery. Old cell phone usage was just to make calls and texting, but for the most part the device is in our pocket, or charging. Today we as a culture are in front of little glowing squares. We are using these devices all day. Even for laptops, when I have a few hours of meeting I don't bother bringing my power cord, because I know my laptop will last the duration. Back 10 years ago, you always brought your power plug for your laptop, because the device may last 3 hours that is with the screen dimmed all the way down and no apps running. Today I can use my more powerful laptop for the 3 hours quite normally, granted if I go overboard it can vary. 5. Each breakthrough takes years to get out, make sure it works and is safe and reliable, and a fit for such devices. So if it takes 5 years to get to the market. the 3x improvement is the 3x improvement from 5 years ago, and with the other improvements going on when it gets released it is only 1.25x faster. Battery technology doesn't follow Moore's Law it is more linear. So we don't get the same awe effect that we do when we see new technology.
Most new TV for the Past 20 years or so, don't show static. They just give you the blue screen. Back in the old days if the channel wasn't available you get static visually and audio. Often very jarring noise as there isn't anything limiting the volume.
Two knobs. One for UHF Chanel's (2-13+VHS) and VHS (14-72?) you would switch the knob to the correct channel and then there a dial behind the know to adjust the analog single to get optimal strength. If you played with the dial enough sometimes you can pick up channels outside your normal viewing range, they will be fuzzy but you can get some sound and image.
No one called it a CRT TV, It was just the TV, or sometime Tube
CRT TV at the time was almost a redundant statement.
Actually the Idea of having your TV hooked up to your computer as its monitor was a thing, then monitors were a separate thing, then today we hook them back to our computers again. However if you were a kid of the 1990's seeing a computer, with an embedded keyboard, hooked up to a TV. Was considered old tech.
So say a company like AT&T who wants a government grant, or do some business. Now some behind the door deals with a President or Congressmen may sweeten the deal if AT&T customers have a hard time access to a popular news site like CNN (or Fox News if it is a Democratic leadership) just happens to run at 2400 bps. Ending Net Neutrality, can open the door for citizens access and free speech being blocked, because we are putting blocks to information that we don't want to give to the customers.
I as the consumer am paying the ISP for bandwidth, I as the consumer should get the data that I want as the speed that the ISP says I should have it. If I am or the customers are using too much bandwidth, then throttle my whole account, charge me more, lower the bandwidth speeds. However the ISP shouldn't care about the endpoint of the communication. Because I have the freedom to listen/view other point of views. Just as I have the right to state my own.
New Neutrality is a good thing... Will it make internet a little more expensive? Maybe. But it is worth the cost to make sure that I know my access isn't controlled, by the delivery agents.
Being that the internet is a Government tool outsourced to companies. It is still a free speech issue.
The problem with in game payments, is the fact they will purposely break good game design so it can be monetized. The purpose of XP is to allow an open play environment, however have areas just too dangerous to be in until your character is strong enough to be there. So while you may be able to b-line it straight to the main boss, you will be so under powered that you would be dead instantly. So the XP is so you explore the world and prep for the final game boss. Its drawback, is if the game isn't well designed their may be a fair amount of grinding, because your XP may not be enough to get to the next point, even with following the explorers path.
Net Neutrality, is an easy set of rules to follow. Treat every packet like any other one. Getting rid of Net Neutrality opens the door for a bunch of laws and complex sets of regulations. How far is too far, can a competitors website be blocked entirely, or slowed down to a point where it takes hours to load? If an ISP is unfairly treating someone, would this be considered a violation of free speech. Then you have truth in advertising so if they advertise 1gbs speed, and that is only via premium content providers, then the rest get 10mbs then are you really getting what you think you are getting, because you may want this 1gbs speed to VPN into work. While you only get 10mbs because your ISP doesn't consider your place of work premium, and your work will not pay for premium access to your ISP, because it may not be a big enough company for it.
In short if you want government out of your internet, then you should support Net Neutrality, because without it, they will be a bunch of complex set of laws behind it.
Slashdot Mirror
It does, however BRICS members haven't been shining examples of free speech. So either it is a way to allow themselves to isolate from the world, because they are expecting to do some things the rest of the world won't like, and could be facing removal. Or a nice way to move its citizens to a state sponsored internet.
Or it could just be what they are saying it is, just a backup to DNS, just because having it under US Control is risky.
I am sure if enough people were interested in seeing Gant charts and pages of documents the media would provide such info to be profitable. But for most of us with just a passing interest. Oh a rocket is going off in 2018 not 2017.
Or are you bitter that your project is behind and your boss is riding your ass.
I need to agree.
For one the Doctor you are seeing probably isn’t specialized in organ transplants, but treating your problems. So they are not thinking about removing your organs, but fixing the problems to keep you alive.
Organ donation for that case is only shortly after have died and may be prepped if death is imminent. But that is a new team of people who do the work.
Because if you died of a heart attack I doubt the cardiologist will perform surgery to get your kidneys. (They won’t use your heart because that is already shot)
We have some redundant organs and some that can be removed partly without killing the donor.
Kidney, bone marrow can be donated without killing the patient.
In some countries people are scammed drugged then have their kidneys removed. Once healed they are sent back on the streets with nothing.
Organ donation are charged at the receiver of the organ because it is a service that they are receiving.
The doner (who can donate some organs while alive) is offering his services to someone else.
Having the donor pay would prevent people from donating. Even after their death because they would like to see the money go to his family. Not pay for a medical bill for someone else.
If you like you can add to your will that you would like to use your estate value to help pay for the recipients (yes many people) medical bills.
It looks like you are married to your work.
As part of yesterdays article on Slashdot, when they stated they needed to review how they managed these issues, I had expected that this was probably a known issue, that just somehow failed to get into the right hands. [citation]
I think it is mainly a failure in management, then with Apple not caring or ignoring a problem. Just poor escalation management, which can be fixed.
Different breeds may be smarter then others. But that is due to us breeding them for different traits.
However I doubt that there is a huge variation. As often traits that we equate to being smart for a dog, doesn't always require more brain power.
As the article points out wild animals seem to be brainier, however a wolf doesn't have a lot of traits that we equate to intelligence that our pet dog has.
For examples Dogs can understand the abstract concept of pointing, while wolves cannot. Dogs can be taught a lot of tricks and behaviors that may be outside their normal instinctive behavior, while wolves do not. However Dogs bark and make a lot of noise, and are much more disorganized in hunting by themselves, which would put them at a disadvantage in a non-human world. Dogs and Humans had created a symbiotic relationship. So the Dog has evolved to at least react to our weird abstract concepts, in a way that pleases us, they do not really understand the concept of being tethered, but they realize there is a boundary and past that us humans needs to be with them.
This seems to happen every 50 years or so. OMG technology will take our jobs. Oh wait it took jobs that we didn’t want to do and it created a new market for more jobs.
There use to be a job for the human computer who did calculations all day.
We get the electric computer that replaced that job. However this meant more businesses could afford these computer causing a rise of software developers who had more jobs then the human computer had.
Except for fighting the future, embrace it, it will mean you can be on the next big thing.
I think in terms of software Apple is a victim of its own success.
iOS is nearly the same as it was back in the original iPhone, sure we got a lot of new stuff in it, but it is based on what was popular. If apple risked Thinking Differently, then their product may scare off customers.
If the iPhone wasn't as popular of a device I expect to see a lot more changes in the iPhone and iOS devices, as well in OS X.
Apples biggest changes in its OS was from 1999 - 2005 Where Apple was nearly dead, and Microsoft was the Big unstoppable name in town. Having to change from MacOS 9 to OS X (A complete OS Rewrite) and putting a lot of big changes until 2007 where XP was starting to show its age, and Vista was failing to impress.
However Apple used this time and put their resources to the iPhone, but this has been successful for a long time, so much of the software hasn't been rethought, because it works and it is popular.
I could argue the other way around.
For a smaller company, having your code open source allows for more eyes on the software then what a small company can afford. While the biggest company can hire a lot of people to check and review the code.
If your program such as OS X is very popular and had a lot of features that competitors would love to see how they approached a problem, having it Open source could lead to a lot of excessive copying if not the code directly, duplicating the idea and specifications. Having an OS X compatibility layer in Linux or in Windows. Knowing which checks is needed to make a good Hackintosh system.
Well other then this one, how many other viruses or gross hacks were there in the past 15 years?
I can remember only 3 or 4 major ones during this time. The rest were on par with the normal security fixes that everyone puts out, mostly getting access to stuff as a user already logged into the system.
I translated it as this was a known issue to the underlings, however it never was allowed to be addressed by the middle managers or this problem was a very to spot problem (probably some debug code that didn't get removed) that was allowed to get released.
However compared to other companies, at least Apple is publicly admitting the problem. While some companies may patch the problem, but not state any details about it.
I am missing your counter argument. My point is new batteries are better, we just don't see it because popular devices use more power. I am not saying you need a popular smart phone, just that technology for these phones advance in a way to allow a full day of usage as part of their design requirement, if the design runs longer then a full day, then that means they can probably put more features in. If battery length is important, you can make such a choice.
Or is it that you are taking the friendly jabs at your phone at work or school personally.
If you want to use a basic phone, and having new battery technology to make it last for weeks, that is fine too. However most of these phones are just excess inventory of older phones, with decade old batteries. Or just an old designed not build for the batteries.
However being that nearly everyone I know of needs to sleep for at least 4 hours every day, they can use that time to charge their phone.
Except for the fact that there is a 3rd party tool that can change your password on your device. So while you may not be able to get in the phone, the app maker may be able to.
LA LA LA Android is perfect!!! Look over here see an unrelated problem on a different system. Man those guys suck!!!
They have come to the market. Why do you think that we have personal computers in our pockets that allow for a nearly full day of computing, that are reliable enough for product makers to directly solder them to the electronic devices, and normally last past the expected device lifetime.
The problem is perception.
1. Batteries are boring. they are not flashy, they don't make your apps directly run faster. They just make the cool things other technology uses last longer.
2. Technology is using more power. My Phone, has an Ultra High resolution display, Gigs of ram, a fast processor comparable to some modern laptops and desktops. Sensors and Gyroscopes... and this is a normal consumer devices, Compared to 10 years ago, where we had a flip phone with a 100x100 pixel display (color is optional) And it made phone calls and texts, and a cheap camera, where most people had a separate camera. All this stuff uses more power. So device makers are sticking to a 20 hours battery under normal use. If the battery can last longer, then they put more stuff and speed to the device.
3. We forget the problems of the past. We needed user replaceable batteries in the past, because they would last an average of about a year. Meaning we needed to replace them after a while while our device is still relatively new.
4. We use devices more on battery. Old cell phone usage was just to make calls and texting, but for the most part the device is in our pocket, or charging. Today we as a culture are in front of little glowing squares. We are using these devices all day. Even for laptops, when I have a few hours of meeting I don't bother bringing my power cord, because I know my laptop will last the duration. Back 10 years ago, you always brought your power plug for your laptop, because the device may last 3 hours that is with the screen dimmed all the way down and no apps running. Today I can use my more powerful laptop for the 3 hours quite normally, granted if I go overboard it can vary.
5. Each breakthrough takes years to get out, make sure it works and is safe and reliable, and a fit for such devices. So if it takes 5 years to get to the market. the 3x improvement is the 3x improvement from 5 years ago, and with the other improvements going on when it gets released it is only 1.25x faster. Battery technology doesn't follow Moore's Law it is more linear. So we don't get the same awe effect that we do when we see new technology.
Most new TV for the Past 20 years or so, don't show static. They just give you the blue screen. Back in the old days if the channel wasn't available you get static visually and audio. Often very jarring noise as there isn't anything limiting the volume.
Two knobs. One for UHF Chanel's (2-13+VHS) and VHS (14-72?) you would switch the knob to the correct channel and then there a dial behind the know to adjust the analog single to get optimal strength. If you played with the dial enough sometimes you can pick up channels outside your normal viewing range, they will be fuzzy but you can get some sound and image.
No one called it a CRT TV, It was just the TV, or sometime Tube
CRT TV at the time was almost a redundant statement.
Actually the Idea of having your TV hooked up to your computer as its monitor was a thing, then monitors were a separate thing, then today we hook them back to our computers again. However if you were a kid of the 1990's seeing a computer, with an embedded keyboard, hooked up to a TV. Was considered old tech.
So say a company like AT&T who wants a government grant, or do some business. Now some behind the door deals with a President or Congressmen may sweeten the deal if AT&T customers have a hard time access to a popular news site like CNN (or Fox News if it is a Democratic leadership) just happens to run at 2400 bps. Ending Net Neutrality, can open the door for citizens access and free speech being blocked, because we are putting blocks to information that we don't want to give to the customers.
I as the consumer am paying the ISP for bandwidth, I as the consumer should get the data that I want as the speed that the ISP says I should have it.
If I am or the customers are using too much bandwidth, then throttle my whole account, charge me more, lower the bandwidth speeds. However the ISP shouldn't care about the endpoint of the communication. Because I have the freedom to listen/view other point of views. Just as I have the right to state my own.
New Neutrality is a good thing... Will it make internet a little more expensive? Maybe. But it is worth the cost to make sure that I know my access isn't controlled, by the delivery agents.
Being that the internet is a Government tool outsourced to companies. It is still a free speech issue.
You are welcome (beep)
The problem with in game payments, is the fact they will purposely break good game design so it can be monetized.
The purpose of XP is to allow an open play environment, however have areas just too dangerous to be in until your character is strong enough to be there. So while you may be able to b-line it straight to the main boss, you will be so under powered that you would be dead instantly. So the XP is so you explore the world and prep for the final game boss. Its drawback, is if the game isn't well designed their may be a fair amount of grinding, because your XP may not be enough to get to the next point, even with following the explorers path.
Net Neutrality, is an easy set of rules to follow. Treat every packet like any other one.
Getting rid of Net Neutrality opens the door for a bunch of laws and complex sets of regulations. How far is too far, can a competitors website be blocked entirely, or slowed down to a point where it takes hours to load? If an ISP is unfairly treating someone, would this be considered a violation of free speech. Then you have truth in advertising so if they advertise 1gbs speed, and that is only via premium content providers, then the rest get 10mbs then are you really getting what you think you are getting, because you may want this 1gbs speed to VPN into work. While you only get 10mbs because your ISP doesn't consider your place of work premium, and your work will not pay for premium access to your ISP, because it may not be a big enough company for it.
In short if you want government out of your internet, then you should support Net Neutrality, because without it, they will be a bunch of complex set of laws behind it.