For something like that it's good enough indeed. For nice shots of nature, or even people - well not so much. And I can't easily add those photos to Shotwell either! It's fleeting, it's anything but permanent.
Does FB expect to make money off of WhatsApp, or did they just eliminate a serious competitor that threatened to kill their entire company?
After all WhatsApp is doing most of what people use Facebook for now FB made sure their newsfeed has become useless - with proper group chat functions you don't find on FB.
Maybe easier than e-mail but the screen it's shown on is much smaller than that of a proper monitor. I hate it when ppl insist on sending photos by WhatsApp as I always end up copying the interesting ones to my PC for viewing on a decent sized screen. And then I realise time and again how poor that image quality really is, after WhatsApp's down scaling...
It is very well possible that GP pays less per month when paying 1p/MB than you pay for your unlimited data. Especially if he limits his usage to WhatsApp text messages and similar light use, doesn't exchange (many) photos, or downloads photos and stuff when on WiFi at home.
They'd still have to provide something in return to those militias. Some kind of reward for their services. Currently, that reward is money - without money or something equivalent no militia is willing to put their life on the line for someone else's business.
They're after the user base, and were afraid WhatsApp was becoming to big a competitor. They're no competitor anymore.
And besides, WhatsApp is more than SMS has on offer - can send photos etc, group chat, whatever. Pretty much everything Facebook is useful for (the News Feed used to be the strong point of Facebook, until they fucked that one up: I get messages posted "one hour ago" a few screen pages deep in my feed, in between day-before-yesterday's messages; plus messages of pages that I like are simply not there!).
You don't have to tell what you're testing. E.g. "we have a new restaurant and are looking for people to try out our new food - it's free, eat as much as you like," while the real question is "does the size of our plates change how much people are eating?". The people know they're test subjects, but think they're testing the food quality while in reality they're testing whether they'll eat more when they get bigger plates, and whether it matters how far their seat is from the buffet table.
I wonder who they want to sell to, when it comes to "mainstream" cards.
When it comes to graphics I consider myself mainstream. Watching video, running the OS, an occasional photo edit - that's about the heaviest it goes. I rarely play games (and those are not graphics intensive, just online games), I don't do CAD or anything else that's graphically intensive.
Motherboards come with graphics built in, and that works just fine for those not into hardcore gaming or hardcore graphic design work. Both relative small markets, and both not exactly "mainstream" markets.
So what is this "mainstream" market for graphics cards, nowadays?
Also, psychologists will frown upon any research where the subjects do not know they are part of a research project.
Note, the subjects do not need to know (and shouldn't know) the actual research being done, just that they're part of a research project. Usually they're told that the researchers are testing one thing, while it's something entirely different that's really being tested.
No idea how much the distribution network costs - other than that it's probably a lot. And it'll be more like $85-88 out of that $90 is for the physical infrastructure (including ISP overhead and profits and so, of course). The rest is for the data. Data is cheap.
And by the way, what you pay Netflix includes fees for the copyrights, Netflix' overhead and profits, etc.
Netflix is pumping out all those terabits of data over a single wire connected to a single point (and a backup of course - simplifying here).
Your ISP has to maintain thousands of wires to thousands of different households via hundreds of distribution points and all interconnecting wires, just to deliver the exact same amount of data.
Upstream is not more expensive than downstream, it's entirely technical. Both cable (coax) and telephone (twisted pair) wires were never designed to carry data, and the only way to make this work is if it is highly asymmetrical. Rolling out proper UTP cables is expensive, which is why it's never done to households, only to businesses that need fast upstream. Households mostly download (or stream) where upstream is basically just for ACK packages and the occasional e-mail.
Everyone who's on glass fibre (fibre-to-the-home) has symmetrical connections already. I've had cheap, symmetrical broadband. 20M down, 20M up for years in my office. The building had optical connections available. The same company offers also tradition ADSL, and that is of course highly asymmetric.
Comcast doesn't care about "angry users". After all, who are you going to? Isn't that the issue of free-market, capitalist USA: no competition to speak of when it comes to broadband? Users will continue to pay whatever they have to pay to get connected, because an Internet connection is so important nowadays you can hardly do without.
What your beloved Comcast does care about is money. They want lots of it. This is why they do their best to stifle any sign of competition in the broadband arena. Try to run your own network, and get sued to oblivion (or bought out - either way, competition neutralised).
They'll do the same with your content providers. If web site doesn't pay, they don't allow it on their network. And don't expect you as a consumer to pay any less for your connection! You may have to pay more because, with the money from Netflix, YouTube, and the rest, they upgraded the network to double the speed. So you now have a faster network, so you'll have to pay more in subscription fees. That by then half the Internet is inaccessible to you... well you probably don't stray beyond your four of five favourite sites anyway.
Allowing Netflix et.al. to pay for their bandwidth is what gives these content providers real power. Now they don't have that much power - they're at the mercy of network providers building the infrastructure. However when the content provider starts to pay for (part of) that network, nothing is stopping them from adding clauses that stifles competition, such as requiring that the extra bandwidth is only for themselves, leaving the competition with less bandwidth and a lower quality service.
This is not future fantasy; it's happening right now. Just look into the current "basic income" debate in the EU: basically the idea is that all citizens get a basic income from the state, and can get more income if they go out and work. Switzerland is quite close to actually implementing this already.
For more details on implementation (and to keep your comments to my post informed and useful) please check out the wikipedia page on the subject, or simply google for "basic info" or "basic info switzerland".
Oh yes, I'm dying for such a feature. Just a five-minute warning, that's enough! Like "system going down for crash in 5 minutes, please save your work now". Is it really that hard?! It'd might make Windows workable!
A PhD basically indicates that they know a whole lot about some certain thing at a certain time. If your business is that thing and their knowledge is recent then great. The reality is that things move so damn quick in the CS world that anyone who is good is always keeping up to date and doubtfully has any paper to show that.
That's not the key of a PhD. Of course while getting the grade you learned a lot about a very specific field, the most important part you prove (and have learned) by gaining a PhD is that you can work independently, and that you can set up and execute a research project successfully. The latter is what you should hire a PhD for. The first helps you decide which individual to choose (i.e. the one whose background matches what you intend them to do).
A few years later, the CEO of the parent company called wanting to know why his network was suffering intermittent downtime and demanded it be fixed immediately. I explained that his outage was caused by antiquated equipment that could not do debugging, and there was a proposal already on his desk for replacement gear. He was in a huff, but he knew I didn't mince words or advice, and that quote was signed in minutes.
The fact that you could tell him the proposal was on his desk already meant that you knew about the problem AND that you had taken all necessary measures to fix it, before it actually got so bad that this CEO started to call you. That the measures were not implemented yet was simply because the CEO has to sign off on such an expense, and you can't be blamed for that part.
Besides it appears he knew you well - and trusted your judgment in those matters - both of which help a lot.
A typical Google Glass wearer will not know more than they would have known without those glasses. It is not the act of recording, instead it's dispatch of such recordings to third parties that's the (possible) invasion of privacy.
If you don't want someone to know something about you, don't tell them, no matter whether they're wearing a pair of spectacles with built-in video camera or not.
So she thinks. But there's no guarantee that the finder didn't plug it into his laptop and download a copy of all her data before beginning his search for the rightful owner.
More than likely the finder did just that - at least it's what I'd do for the simple reason that browsing media on my hard disk is so much faster than browsing it over a slow USB link from a slow SD-card or similar media. The real question would be, did he delete the data afterwards?
And indeed it'd probably best for the rest of us if some of these people losing their Google Glass would indeed end up having all their embarrassing recordings on YouTube and other public Google services. Let them burn their hands. Let them be the perfect example of what can possibly go wrong with those things. Sure I do feel for the person who gets burnt - a little that is - it's also part of the risk of being a guinea pig.
Nonehteless I am betting such light would be forbbidden in many country in europe where the maximum intensity you can pump is limited by law.
BMW being a European company will take those limits into account in their production vehicles, don't worry.
And rightfully so, the "normal range light" are okish but the "long range" light are already quite blinding, and usually leave me blind fully for 3 to 4 seconds when one is oncomming and forgot to switch back to normal range light.
That's another matter. It's for a reason it's called "dipped" resp. "blinding" light. Now the problem for some areas, like what I see happening in China all the time, is that everyone likes to drive with blinding lights on at all times. I don't understand why - the result is that no-one can see anything properly. But then, it's not that those Chinese drivers care much about what's going on around them anyway...
Slashdot Mirror
For something like that it's good enough indeed. For nice shots of nature, or even people - well not so much. And I can't easily add those photos to Shotwell either! It's fleeting, it's anything but permanent.
I know it can be used like that, however not everyone uses it in the same way.
Does FB expect to make money off of WhatsApp, or did they just eliminate a serious competitor that threatened to kill their entire company?
After all WhatsApp is doing most of what people use Facebook for now FB made sure their newsfeed has become useless - with proper group chat functions you don't find on FB.
Maybe easier than e-mail but the screen it's shown on is much smaller than that of a proper monitor. I hate it when ppl insist on sending photos by WhatsApp as I always end up copying the interesting ones to my PC for viewing on a decent sized screen. And then I realise time and again how poor that image quality really is, after WhatsApp's down scaling...
It is very well possible that GP pays less per month when paying 1p/MB than you pay for your unlimited data. Especially if he limits his usage to WhatsApp text messages and similar light use, doesn't exchange (many) photos, or downloads photos and stuff when on WiFi at home.
They'd still have to provide something in return to those militias. Some kind of reward for their services. Currently, that reward is money - without money or something equivalent no militia is willing to put their life on the line for someone else's business.
$16 bln for one less serious competitor for your many-times-that empire? Deal.
They're after the user base, and were afraid WhatsApp was becoming to big a competitor. They're no competitor anymore.
And besides, WhatsApp is more than SMS has on offer - can send photos etc, group chat, whatever. Pretty much everything Facebook is useful for (the News Feed used to be the strong point of Facebook, until they fucked that one up: I get messages posted "one hour ago" a few screen pages deep in my feed, in between day-before-yesterday's messages; plus messages of pages that I like are simply not there!).
You don't have to tell what you're testing. E.g. "we have a new restaurant and are looking for people to try out our new food - it's free, eat as much as you like," while the real question is "does the size of our plates change how much people are eating?". The people know they're test subjects, but think they're testing the food quality while in reality they're testing whether they'll eat more when they get bigger plates, and whether it matters how far their seat is from the buffet table.
I wonder who they want to sell to, when it comes to "mainstream" cards.
When it comes to graphics I consider myself mainstream. Watching video, running the OS, an occasional photo edit - that's about the heaviest it goes. I rarely play games (and those are not graphics intensive, just online games), I don't do CAD or anything else that's graphically intensive.
Motherboards come with graphics built in, and that works just fine for those not into hardcore gaming or hardcore graphic design work. Both relative small markets, and both not exactly "mainstream" markets.
So what is this "mainstream" market for graphics cards, nowadays?
Also, psychologists will frown upon any research where the subjects do not know they are part of a research project.
Note, the subjects do not need to know (and shouldn't know) the actual research being done, just that they're part of a research project. Usually they're told that the researchers are testing one thing, while it's something entirely different that's really being tested.
Seriously? You actually *think* SilkRoad is going to be able to not pay it's employees and stay in operation?
And you actually think SilkRoad 2 is going to stay in operation?
No idea how much the distribution network costs - other than that it's probably a lot. And it'll be more like $85-88 out of that $90 is for the physical infrastructure (including ISP overhead and profits and so, of course). The rest is for the data. Data is cheap.
And by the way, what you pay Netflix includes fees for the copyrights, Netflix' overhead and profits, etc.
Netflix is pumping out all those terabits of data over a single wire connected to a single point (and a backup of course - simplifying here).
Your ISP has to maintain thousands of wires to thousands of different households via hundreds of distribution points and all interconnecting wires, just to deliver the exact same amount of data.
No wonder Netflix' per-Gbps data rate is lower.
Upstream is not more expensive than downstream, it's entirely technical. Both cable (coax) and telephone (twisted pair) wires were never designed to carry data, and the only way to make this work is if it is highly asymmetrical. Rolling out proper UTP cables is expensive, which is why it's never done to households, only to businesses that need fast upstream. Households mostly download (or stream) where upstream is basically just for ACK packages and the occasional e-mail.
Everyone who's on glass fibre (fibre-to-the-home) has symmetrical connections already. I've had cheap, symmetrical broadband. 20M down, 20M up for years in my office. The building had optical connections available. The same company offers also tradition ADSL, and that is of course highly asymmetric.
Comcast doesn't care about "angry users". After all, who are you going to? Isn't that the issue of free-market, capitalist USA: no competition to speak of when it comes to broadband? Users will continue to pay whatever they have to pay to get connected, because an Internet connection is so important nowadays you can hardly do without.
What your beloved Comcast does care about is money. They want lots of it. This is why they do their best to stifle any sign of competition in the broadband arena. Try to run your own network, and get sued to oblivion (or bought out - either way, competition neutralised).
They'll do the same with your content providers. If web site doesn't pay, they don't allow it on their network. And don't expect you as a consumer to pay any less for your connection! You may have to pay more because, with the money from Netflix, YouTube, and the rest, they upgraded the network to double the speed. So you now have a faster network, so you'll have to pay more in subscription fees. That by then half the Internet is inaccessible to you... well you probably don't stray beyond your four of five favourite sites anyway.
Allowing Netflix et.al. to pay for their bandwidth is what gives these content providers real power. Now they don't have that much power - they're at the mercy of network providers building the infrastructure. However when the content provider starts to pay for (part of) that network, nothing is stopping them from adding clauses that stifles competition, such as requiring that the extra bandwidth is only for themselves, leaving the competition with less bandwidth and a lower quality service.
And this is why I told you to read up about it, as then you can find out how it works.
This is not future fantasy; it's happening right now. Just look into the current "basic income" debate in the EU: basically the idea is that all citizens get a basic income from the state, and can get more income if they go out and work. Switzerland is quite close to actually implementing this already.
For more details on implementation (and to keep your comments to my post informed and useful) please check out the wikipedia page on the subject, or simply google for "basic info" or "basic info switzerland".
Oh yes, I'm dying for such a feature. Just a five-minute warning, that's enough! Like "system going down for crash in 5 minutes, please save your work now". Is it really that hard?! It'd might make Windows workable!
A PhD basically indicates that they know a whole lot about some certain thing at a certain time. If your business is that thing and their knowledge is recent then great. The reality is that things move so damn quick in the CS world that anyone who is good is always keeping up to date and doubtfully has any paper to show that.
That's not the key of a PhD. Of course while getting the grade you learned a lot about a very specific field, the most important part you prove (and have learned) by gaining a PhD is that you can work independently, and that you can set up and execute a research project successfully. The latter is what you should hire a PhD for. The first helps you decide which individual to choose (i.e. the one whose background matches what you intend them to do).
A few years later, the CEO of the parent company called wanting to know why his network was suffering intermittent downtime and demanded it be fixed immediately. I explained that his outage was caused by antiquated equipment that could not do debugging, and there was a proposal already on his desk for replacement gear. He was in a huff, but he knew I didn't mince words or advice, and that quote was signed in minutes.
The fact that you could tell him the proposal was on his desk already meant that you knew about the problem AND that you had taken all necessary measures to fix it, before it actually got so bad that this CEO started to call you. That the measures were not implemented yet was simply because the CEO has to sign off on such an expense, and you can't be blamed for that part.
Besides it appears he knew you well - and trusted your judgment in those matters - both of which help a lot.
A typical Google Glass wearer will not know more than they would have known without those glasses. It is not the act of recording, instead it's dispatch of such recordings to third parties that's the (possible) invasion of privacy.
If you don't want someone to know something about you, don't tell them, no matter whether they're wearing a pair of spectacles with built-in video camera or not.
The "news" is that glassholes' data is safe,
So she thinks. But there's no guarantee that the finder didn't plug it into his laptop and download a copy of all her data before beginning his search for the rightful owner.
More than likely the finder did just that - at least it's what I'd do for the simple reason that browsing media on my hard disk is so much faster than browsing it over a slow USB link from a slow SD-card or similar media. The real question would be, did he delete the data afterwards?
And indeed it'd probably best for the rest of us if some of these people losing their Google Glass would indeed end up having all their embarrassing recordings on YouTube and other public Google services. Let them burn their hands. Let them be the perfect example of what can possibly go wrong with those things. Sure I do feel for the person who gets burnt - a little that is - it's also part of the risk of being a guinea pig.
Nonehteless I am betting such light would be forbbidden in many country in europe where the maximum intensity you can pump is limited by law.
BMW being a European company will take those limits into account in their production vehicles, don't worry.
And rightfully so, the "normal range light" are okish but the "long range" light are already quite blinding, and usually leave me blind fully for 3 to 4 seconds when one is oncomming and forgot to switch back to normal range light.
That's another matter. It's for a reason it's called "dipped" resp. "blinding" light. Now the problem for some areas, like what I see happening in China all the time, is that everyone likes to drive with blinding lights on at all times. I don't understand why - the result is that no-one can see anything properly. But then, it's not that those Chinese drivers care much about what's going on around them anyway...