But they do exist. For example, soaking your feet in a 75-25 mixture of white vinegar and generic Listerine (eucalyptus and menthol) will completely eradicate foot and nail fungus. You don't have to spend big money on creams or sprays, just buy a gallon of vinegar and a bottle of grocery store chain generic Listerine and soak your feet. You can even reuse the mixture.
The outer layers of your skin are dead anyway, so it doesn't matter if you cover it with poison (unless the poison happens to be absorbable transdermally). But if you drink enough of that 75-25 mixture of white vinegar and Listerine, you're probably going to die, and if you try to inhale it, you're almost definitely going to die.
That's the problem; we don't just need antifungal medications to treat external infections, but also for fungi in places where they can't be killed chemically and washed away, like in people's lungs, intestines, etc.
The thing is, as an X owner and a longtime Apple watcher, I can tell you exactly how this will play out — because this isn't the first time Apple has revised their plans when the customer base failed to see the value in a product line. One other relatively recent example is the Mac Pro — aka, the "trash can." Yeah... it was pretty universally hated for a lot of reasons, and Apple has acknowledged that it's on the chopping block. We're still waiting to see the outcome of that one.
The Mac Pro wasn't universally hated. A certain subset of pro users like it a lot — the ones who don't have any significant storage requirements and need really, really quiet machines. A different subset hate it — the ones who now have to install a separate RAID enclosure right beside their machine because they can't stick up to 240 TB of SSDs in each one like you can with the previous generation (or, more realistically, up to 48 TB of spinning rust), and are instead stuck with the paltry 1 TB that Apple graciously allows you to buy. (You can get more storage even in their laptops now, which is beyond sad.)
The bigger problem with the Mac Pro, of course, is that it is too small to accommodate subsequent generations of twelve-core CPUs and high-end GPUs, so they can't upgrade it to the current tech without significantly redesigning it. Their insatiable lust for thinness/compactness and their bizarre infatuation with proprietary SSD-only storage slots finally bit them in the a**. And it's good that they're having to rethink things. Maybe next time, they'll pay more attention to their target audience saying, "Here are our minimum requirements" before they design things, rather than just saying, "You'll adapt to what we sell," because at some point, their customers will get tired of doing that.
High ends intended for plugging into a pre-amp have 1/4" plugs because that's what the pre-amps have.
Not for about twenty years, they don't. The 3.5mm plug is pretty much the standard for almost all headphone manufacturers now, and the good ones come with an adapter for 1/4" use. There are two reasons for this: better compatibility and reliability. And really, the transition to 3.5mm was mostly about reliability. That probably sounds counter-intuitive, because the 1/4" jack is so much stronger and more robust, but it turns out that other factors play a bigger role.
Compatibility: non-pro gear almost invariably has a 3.5mm jack, and most people don't buy headphones purely to use with pro gear. Therefore, it is better to use the most common plug on the headphones to minimize the use of adapters.
Reliability: Ironically, the 1/4" jack is actually too robust. As a result, adapting 1/4" headphones to plug into a device with a 3.5mm jack is a recipe for disaster, because the larger plug can't go down into the device, and when tugged sideways, the whole adapter turns into a giant lever that destroys the equipment that it is plugged into.
Worse, it doesn't even help to use 1/4" connectors everywhere. If both your headphones and the device have a 1/4" connector, then when you walk away with cans on your head, you tend to destroy the wiring for your headphones (often at both ends) because the force required to pull out the plug is way too high. Something expensive still breaks.
By using 3.5mm plugs, you avoid both of these problems. For 3.5mm-native gear, plugs tend to come out when tugged (even at an angle). In the worst case, the headphone cord breaks, but it would do that with 1/4" connectors, too, so you're still no worse off.
For gear with 1/4" jacks, the 3.5mm-to-1/4" adapters are designed specifically to be sacrificial parts. When you walk away with cans on your head, the plastic parts of the adapters shatter into several pieces. Ten seconds, a pair of pliers, and a buck-fifty adapter later, you're back in business.
Maybe you didn't read the GP post carefully enough. I'm pretty sure that as long as the show remains on a cable network that is available almost exclusively in the U.S., what the GP said will probably always be true.
Rolled solar panels are remarkably thin and lightweight. You'd just need either a person or machine on the surface to unroll them, stack some rocks around the edges, and wire them up via a shared bus to an inverter/battery charge controller/*.
The primary disadvantage, at least in my view, is that the output power per square foot when deployed is minimal, which means if you're building a device that needs to move around much (e.g. bots that build structures, do mining, etc.), you're going to have to constantly charge batteries at a fixed charging station, which adds a lot of complexity. By contrast, a sufficiently small reactor could ostensibly be part of the bot itself, assuming it doesn't have to be tiny, and if it does, a small bot could be tethered via a cable to a larger bot.
While not easy, the parents description isn't entirely "pie in the sky", or have you not been paying attention to the automated solar powered robot running around Mars for years?
The "run then on solar for years" part is kind of pie-in-the-sky. We don't have fully automated mines even on Earth, and we've barely even started using electrical mining equipment. The practicality of running a mining system entirely on solar power just isn't there. It would take tremendous amounts of energy to actually mine the thorium, requiring a massive solar installation (think 0-gauge wires to the charging stations). And building that in an automated fashion would itself require a lot of power, so if it's solar farms all the way down, it is probably several different sets of equipment, each building a larger solar far than the previous one, using power from the previous one. You'd be lucky to start mining by 2200.
By contrast, if you used one of these little gadgets to power the mining equipment, you could get started mining immediately. And the mining gear could mine continuously without having to leave the tunnel every few hours to recharge its batteries. And you could use one of these devices to power bots that assemble habitats for decades.
This is not to say that you couldn't deploy a colony on solar power, but if you're going to use a thorium reactor, you should probably start with a thorium reactor.
You must have a Model S with the original (MobileEye) autopilot (AP1). AP2.5 ping-pongs between lines all the time, and struggles with any curve tight enough to have a yellow curve sign before it (even if it isn't actually tight enough to make most drivers slow down). When they lost that technology, their capabilities got a lot worse, and they're still not back to where they were before.
I really don't understand where BMW is going with this move. It's really got to piss off their car buyers, or they'll just do what I used to do before CarPlay - just put the phone on a mount, and use it directly with voice commands and the occasional tap. Which will result in more crashes, I'm sure.
I think the goal is to milk the pre-owned market for more money. For the people who trade after three years, they save $60. And for the people who buy a car after three years and use it for ten, instead of that $300 getting depreciated to $150, they instead spend $800.
Of course, for smart consumers, this will mean that a used BMW is worth $800 less than it was before, and if consumers start treating it that way, then the three-year lease will have to go up by $800, and those folks will pay even more.
Either way, consumers get screwed, and BMW should be ashamed of themselves, but they probably are too busy patting themselves on the back and smiling at their short-term stock growth to care that they're eroding the brand's image.
And no, it's not just my car. Everyone who has ever driven on a road with moderately tight curves has experienced this behavior, which is why Tesla says in the manual that AutoSteer should be used on roads without tight curves. They weren't kidding when they made that recommendation. They just haven't gotten the math right.
Also, while I'm sure the delay in turning is an issue with processing time, the correct way to navigate a turn is to eclipse it, which is not a constant radius turn. You should start wide and get as close as possible to the inside of the corner halfway through and then ease back out to the outside while accelerating. That's only if you're looking for maximum traction and speed though.
Yeah, you're right. Technically, it's not constant radius (though I think that's the term they used in our driver's ed class), but it is constant through most of the curve. You start steering before you get to the turn, getting tighter until you reach the target radius, then slowly ease off on your way out of the curve. The radius is, I suppose, more like a stretched sinusoid with a long, flat top.
Either way, the point I was trying to make is that you don't wait to start turning until after you're in the curve, turn too tightly, realize you're turning too tightly, straighten out the wheel, realize you're about to hit the center line, turn the wheel tightly again, etc. It should be a smooth transition from straight to some amount of turning and then back to straight, and it should begin before the lines start to turn.
Yet I can see a widespread lack of compassion for people who are somewhat more intelligent, but perhaps a bit socially awkward by potato standards.
Looking forward to potato responses.
That's one of the worst things about him. The illegal vote claim, Obama's birthplace, crowd sizes, belittling judges and derogatory names for others. The effing POTUS is supposed to be above this immature behavior.
The feature is available in more than just their sports car, you know. It's also in their sedan, their crossover SUV, etc.
I don't think it has anything to do with conflicting niches so much as having to spend time reinventing the wheel. After they lost MobileEye, they had to spend time redoing what MobileEye provided, plus everything they were planning to do going forward.
IMO, the big open question is whether the current AutoSteer tech is actually the basis for their self-driving tech, or just a temporary band-aid intended to replace the AP1 MobileEye functionality in the interim until their self-driving tech is ready.
Right now, I've seen the following problems (consistently) with AutoSteer:
If you put on your turn signal, the Tesla either immediately changes lanes without giving enough time to warn other drivers or it does nothing at all, and as far as I can tell, there's no rhyme or reason to which of those two things happens.
Sometimes when you put on the turn signal it tries to change lanes into a lane that is occupied by another vehicle. It never waits for a vehicle to get past you.
On curves, it steers way too late (a full second after a good driver would do so), then turns the wheel too far, ends up veering towards the other lane edge, then swerves back and forth drunkenly for ten or fifteen seconds.
On some curves, this results in the car leaving the lane entirely.
When cars are in the adjacent lane, it does not favor the other side of the lane as it should.
When there's a concrete barrier right next to the lane, it does not favor the other side of the lane as it should (and in many of those cases where it steered too late, I had to seize control to keep it from wrecking).
It makes no attempt at maintaining a constant turning radius (which is the very first lesson that new drivers typically learn in driver's ed class)
It usually fails to detect pedestrians and cyclists (even when they're crossing the road right in front of it).
It doesn't respect traffic lights or stop signs.
IMO, it doesn't brake soon enough when cars cut into the lane in front of you.
All in all, it isn't a beta so much as a pre-alpha. It is good enough for some freeways (the ones without significant turns), but it has trouble even on some four-lane, divided highways in the greater Bay Area, where presumably Tesla should have copious amounts of training data. I would have no faith in it on arbitrary roads. It isn't the edge cases that are wrong, but rather that the base case behavior is barely even adequate. It feels like they trained their model with drunk drivers and 15-year-old student drivers.
So I really hope that AutoSteer is a temporary replacement for MobileEye, and that the reason it isn't better is that it is getting only minimal maintenance. If that's not the case... we could be waiting a while.
What percentage of low-wage workers at Apple do you think will remain for 3 years?
At least for the low-wage corporate employees, I'd say most of them, actually. When I worked there, I used to see the same people working in the cafes every day for many years. The shipping and receiving people for my building knew me by name. And so on. Apple pays its low-wage employees significantly better than working at Mickey D's, plus they provide full medical/dental/vision benefits, an employee stock purchase plan, 401k matching, etc.
I'm not sure what the turnover rate is for the stores, nor do I have any idea what sort of benefits they get, beyond that I think maybe they get fewer vacation days than folks in corporate. So it's anybody's guess there.
Apple is the exception to the rule. The tax break is a corporate hand-out, and apple just happened to also be in the line. The republicans couldn't get their act together enough to get any other legislation passed this whole year, so they couldn't wait around to fine-tine the text right to make sure that companies they don't like get paid.
Not the point. They had a choice of whether to use that money to pay bonuses or buy back stock. They decided to give it to the employees, which strengthens Trump's position. I wouldn't have thought they would do so.
It probably means a lot more to all those sweatshop workers making iphone parts... oh, wait, they aren't Apple employees, are they? Too bad, kids! Get back to work.
No, but it probably will mean a lot to people working in Apple stores, Apple's corporate cafes, other non-engineering personnel, etc. For the engineers, not so much.
It gives the politicians who give away massive amounts of wealth to the corporations a simple talking point.
That's why this move makes very little sense. I've never thought of anybody in Apple's upper echelons as being a Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination.
There must be some tax advantage to doing this. Either that or they're bleeding people to Tesla, Google, and Facebook. Or both.
Ok, then let's use this one [youtube.com]. Take only the highest notes in each chord and remove all the rest. What do you have? A melody. Now repeat with the 2nd highest. Now you have another melody. You can do this several times and end up with 4 or 5 melodies. The fact that they can be combined together as harmonies is the genius of Bach.
Yeah. For non-music-nerds, that's called voice leading. These days, I'm starting to wonder if it is entirely a lost art, having largely been replaced in modern music by the simplest of chordal harmony, usually with a single chord per measure. Frankly, I'd be happy if we even got back to the homophony that was common in the 60s, much less actual polyphony.
Modern music keeps getting simpler, presumably because the people playing it keep getting worse. This, in turn, causes whole new generations to learn only that simple stuff, and some percentage find that too difficult, so they simplify it further, creating a seemingly never-ending cycle of simplification.
And it isn't just pop music, either. What happened to the days when congregations in churches sang in four-part harmony? Now, church composers are told that they need to always include the melody in the piano part, because the singers can't sing without being "supported". And I don't mean refrains for the congregation. I mean verses that only get sung by members of the choir. We've reached a point where music as an art form is very nearly dead, and what remains is the musical equivalent of paint by numbers.
There's only one way that things can realistically change, and that's if composers have the courage to break the cycle — to say "no more" and then start writing music that challenges everyone to try a little harder. To the music nerds out there, I'm doing my part; now go and do likewise.
Please do. I should be able to use your same approach to then mathematically prove that all music made after 1880 is vacuous noise (and most music since 1850).
Net Neutrality is NOT anti business, it is PRO business and PRO consumer.
What it does is shift much of the massive costs for bandwidth for companies like Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google, etc onto other ISP customers like you and me by raising their prices, since they cannot charge those high-bandwidth users at different rates than other ISP customers.
That's just absurdly wrong, as it implies that companies like Netflix use bandwidth entirely on their own. That's not the way it works. Netflix (for example) sends the data for a movie only when a user requests it. Therefore, the Netflix user was solely responsible for that data traversing the ISP's network, through his or her direct action. If Netflix didn't exist, that same user would have watched content from someone else, which means Netflix didn't actually cause that traffic to flow through that link. That's why the user's ISP is solely responsible for paying the cost of transit between the ISP's network and the backbone.
Netflix, by contrast, was solely responsible for that data traversing the network between Netflix's servers and the nearest backbone, and Netflix and the user share equal responsibility for the data as it passes through the backbone. This approach is really the only sensible way that things can be done.
What you're apparently trying to do is to shift the cost of providing service entirely to one side of that network connection, artificially deflating the impact of user decisions on the user, and artificially inflating the impact of user decisions on the companies that provide content. That approach very bad, because among other things, it means that users don't think about the impact of their decisions. If there's no extra cost for them to have the bandwidth to watch Ultra-HD, many users will dutifully grab Ultra-HD content and watch it on a cell phone or whatever.
It is also bad because the company on the other end doesn't have any real control over what the user's ISP does, or how high their costs are for providing service. Netflix can choose what ISP they work with to get data onto the backbone, minimizing their cost and maximizing efficiency. If every random ISP can decide to charge them an arbitrary amount of money, you're basically turning the cost of individual users' Internet service into an externality that Netflix has to pay for. As such, Netflix will be forced to decide which individual customers aren't worth the money based on how much the customers' ISPs are charging them. At that point, those users will no longer have access to the entire Internet.
And the cost of negotiating contracts with every little 100-customer ISP on the planet would be insane. It would essentially make it impossible for large companies to be viable without running their own cables to everybody's house. And if that happens, we'll eventually find ourselves with the Google Internet, the Amazon Internet, and the Netflix Internet, and they won't talk to each other except for low-bandwidth email. This outcome is in nobody's best interests, including the major ISPs.
In short, the things you're advocating are harmful in the short term to everyone involved except for the big ISPs, and in the long term, would spell their doom as well. Want to destroy the Internet? You just figured out how. And that's not hyperbole.
What, you don't think the ISPs are just going to eat the costs, do you? The original NN rules were written by Google! Do you believe Google primarily has your best interests in mind, or their own?
You speak of those two things as though you believe that they are mutually exclusive. When a company's interests align with your own, you should embrace that company's support. Rejecting that support merely because they also benefit from not letting ISPs completely break the Internet is shortsighted and stupid. Those big tech companies would still have a heck of a lot more lobbying power
Slashdot Mirror
Just wait until those birds fly to Quebec for the summer. Then, they really will be Pontiac firebirds.
Fungi, not bacteria. And if parasitic fungi can't attach, they die.
The outer layers of your skin are dead anyway, so it doesn't matter if you cover it with poison (unless the poison happens to be absorbable transdermally). But if you drink enough of that 75-25 mixture of white vinegar and Listerine, you're probably going to die, and if you try to inhale it, you're almost definitely going to die.
That's the problem; we don't just need antifungal medications to treat external infections, but also for fungi in places where they can't be killed chemically and washed away, like in people's lungs, intestines, etc.
The Mac Pro wasn't universally hated. A certain subset of pro users like it a lot — the ones who don't have any significant storage requirements and need really, really quiet machines. A different subset hate it — the ones who now have to install a separate RAID enclosure right beside their machine because they can't stick up to 240 TB of SSDs in each one like you can with the previous generation (or, more realistically, up to 48 TB of spinning rust), and are instead stuck with the paltry 1 TB that Apple graciously allows you to buy. (You can get more storage even in their laptops now, which is beyond sad.)
The bigger problem with the Mac Pro, of course, is that it is too small to accommodate subsequent generations of twelve-core CPUs and high-end GPUs, so they can't upgrade it to the current tech without significantly redesigning it. Their insatiable lust for thinness/compactness and their bizarre infatuation with proprietary SSD-only storage slots finally bit them in the a**. And it's good that they're having to rethink things. Maybe next time, they'll pay more attention to their target audience saying, "Here are our minimum requirements" before they design things, rather than just saying, "You'll adapt to what we sell," because at some point, their customers will get tired of doing that.
Not for about twenty years, they don't. The 3.5mm plug is pretty much the standard for almost all headphone manufacturers now, and the good ones come with an adapter for 1/4" use. There are two reasons for this: better compatibility and reliability. And really, the transition to 3.5mm was mostly about reliability. That probably sounds counter-intuitive, because the 1/4" jack is so much stronger and more robust, but it turns out that other factors play a bigger role.
Compatibility: non-pro gear almost invariably has a 3.5mm jack, and most people don't buy headphones purely to use with pro gear. Therefore, it is better to use the most common plug on the headphones to minimize the use of adapters.
Reliability: Ironically, the 1/4" jack is actually too robust. As a result, adapting 1/4" headphones to plug into a device with a 3.5mm jack is a recipe for disaster, because the larger plug can't go down into the device, and when tugged sideways, the whole adapter turns into a giant lever that destroys the equipment that it is plugged into.
Worse, it doesn't even help to use 1/4" connectors everywhere. If both your headphones and the device have a 1/4" connector, then when you walk away with cans on your head, you tend to destroy the wiring for your headphones (often at both ends) because the force required to pull out the plug is way too high. Something expensive still breaks.
By using 3.5mm plugs, you avoid both of these problems. For 3.5mm-native gear, plugs tend to come out when tugged (even at an angle). In the worst case, the headphone cord breaks, but it would do that with 1/4" connectors, too, so you're still no worse off.
For gear with 1/4" jacks, the 3.5mm-to-1/4" adapters are designed specifically to be sacrificial parts. When you walk away with cans on your head, the plastic parts of the adapters shatter into several pieces. Ten seconds, a pair of pliers, and a buck-fifty adapter later, you're back in business.
Maybe you didn't read the GP post carefully enough. I'm pretty sure that as long as the show remains on a cable network that is available almost exclusively in the U.S., what the GP said will probably always be true.
Rolled solar panels are remarkably thin and lightweight. You'd just need either a person or machine on the surface to unroll them, stack some rocks around the edges, and wire them up via a shared bus to an inverter/battery charge controller/*.
The primary disadvantage, at least in my view, is that the output power per square foot when deployed is minimal, which means if you're building a device that needs to move around much (e.g. bots that build structures, do mining, etc.), you're going to have to constantly charge batteries at a fixed charging station, which adds a lot of complexity. By contrast, a sufficiently small reactor could ostensibly be part of the bot itself, assuming it doesn't have to be tiny, and if it does, a small bot could be tethered via a cable to a larger bot.
The "run then on solar for years" part is kind of pie-in-the-sky. We don't have fully automated mines even on Earth, and we've barely even started using electrical mining equipment. The practicality of running a mining system entirely on solar power just isn't there. It would take tremendous amounts of energy to actually mine the thorium, requiring a massive solar installation (think 0-gauge wires to the charging stations). And building that in an automated fashion would itself require a lot of power, so if it's solar farms all the way down, it is probably several different sets of equipment, each building a larger solar far than the previous one, using power from the previous one. You'd be lucky to start mining by 2200.
By contrast, if you used one of these little gadgets to power the mining equipment, you could get started mining immediately. And the mining gear could mine continuously without having to leave the tunnel every few hours to recharge its batteries. And you could use one of these devices to power bots that assemble habitats for decades.
This is not to say that you couldn't deploy a colony on solar power, but if you're going to use a thorium reactor, you should probably start with a thorium reactor.
You must have a Model S with the original (MobileEye) autopilot (AP1). AP2.5 ping-pongs between lines all the time, and struggles with any curve tight enough to have a yellow curve sign before it (even if it isn't actually tight enough to make most drivers slow down). When they lost that technology, their capabilities got a lot worse, and they're still not back to where they were before.
I think the goal is to milk the pre-owned market for more money. For the people who trade after three years, they save $60. And for the people who buy a car after three years and use it for ten, instead of that $300 getting depreciated to $150, they instead spend $800.
Of course, for smart consumers, this will mean that a used BMW is worth $800 less than it was before, and if consumers start treating it that way, then the three-year lease will have to go up by $800, and those folks will pay even more.
Either way, consumers get screwed, and BMW should be ashamed of themselves, but they probably are too busy patting themselves on the back and smiling at their short-term stock growth to care that they're eroding the brand's image.
The first rule of The Mission is that you do not talk about The Mission.
The second rule of The Mission is that you do not talk about The Mission.
And no, it's not just my car. Everyone who has ever driven on a road with moderately tight curves has experienced this behavior, which is why Tesla says in the manual that AutoSteer should be used on roads without tight curves. They weren't kidding when they made that recommendation. They just haven't gotten the math right.
Yeah, you're right. Technically, it's not constant radius (though I think that's the term they used in our driver's ed class), but it is constant through most of the curve. You start steering before you get to the turn, getting tighter until you reach the target radius, then slowly ease off on your way out of the curve. The radius is, I suppose, more like a stretched sinusoid with a long, flat top.
Either way, the point I was trying to make is that you don't wait to start turning until after you're in the curve, turn too tightly, realize you're turning too tightly, straighten out the wheel, realize you're about to hit the center line, turn the wheel tightly again, etc. It should be a smooth transition from straight to some amount of turning and then back to straight, and it should begin before the lines start to turn.
Yet I can see a widespread lack of compassion for people who are somewhat more intelligent, but perhaps a bit socially awkward by potato standards. Looking forward to potato responses.
Careful. The potatoes have eyes everywhere.
FTFY.
The feature is available in more than just their sports car, you know. It's also in their sedan, their crossover SUV, etc.
I don't think it has anything to do with conflicting niches so much as having to spend time reinventing the wheel. After they lost MobileEye, they had to spend time redoing what MobileEye provided, plus everything they were planning to do going forward.
IMO, the big open question is whether the current AutoSteer tech is actually the basis for their self-driving tech, or just a temporary band-aid intended to replace the AP1 MobileEye functionality in the interim until their self-driving tech is ready.
Right now, I've seen the following problems (consistently) with AutoSteer:
All in all, it isn't a beta so much as a pre-alpha. It is good enough for some freeways (the ones without significant turns), but it has trouble even on some four-lane, divided highways in the greater Bay Area, where presumably Tesla should have copious amounts of training data. I would have no faith in it on arbitrary roads. It isn't the edge cases that are wrong, but rather that the base case behavior is barely even adequate. It feels like they trained their model with drunk drivers and 15-year-old student drivers.
So I really hope that AutoSteer is a temporary replacement for MobileEye, and that the reason it isn't better is that it is getting only minimal maintenance. If that's not the case... we could be waiting a while.
Those numbers are completely absurd. Chrome + Safari alone is 70% of the browser market, and those both have built-in password managers.
So 58% of computer users don't know that they're already using a password manager.
Really?
At least for the low-wage corporate employees, I'd say most of them, actually. When I worked there, I used to see the same people working in the cafes every day for many years. The shipping and receiving people for my building knew me by name. And so on. Apple pays its low-wage employees significantly better than working at Mickey D's, plus they provide full medical/dental/vision benefits, an employee stock purchase plan, 401k matching, etc.
I'm not sure what the turnover rate is for the stores, nor do I have any idea what sort of benefits they get, beyond that I think maybe they get fewer vacation days than folks in corporate. So it's anybody's guess there.
Not the point. They had a choice of whether to use that money to pay bonuses or buy back stock. They decided to give it to the employees, which strengthens Trump's position. I wouldn't have thought they would do so.
Also, $2,500 is pretty sad.
It probably means a lot more to all those sweatshop workers making iphone parts... oh, wait, they aren't Apple employees, are they? Too bad, kids! Get back to work.
No, but it probably will mean a lot to people working in Apple stores, Apple's corporate cafes, other non-engineering personnel, etc. For the engineers, not so much.
That's why this move makes very little sense. I've never thought of anybody in Apple's upper echelons as being a Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination.
There must be some tax advantage to doing this. Either that or they're bleeding people to Tesla, Google, and Facebook. Or both.
>Stuff made from plants is renewable.
It's carbon neutral too.
Only if it takes no non-plant-based energy to harvest it and refine it.
Yeah. For non-music-nerds, that's called voice leading. These days, I'm starting to wonder if it is entirely a lost art, having largely been replaced in modern music by the simplest of chordal harmony, usually with a single chord per measure. Frankly, I'd be happy if we even got back to the homophony that was common in the 60s, much less actual polyphony.
Modern music keeps getting simpler, presumably because the people playing it keep getting worse. This, in turn, causes whole new generations to learn only that simple stuff, and some percentage find that too difficult, so they simplify it further, creating a seemingly never-ending cycle of simplification.
And it isn't just pop music, either. What happened to the days when congregations in churches sang in four-part harmony? Now, church composers are told that they need to always include the melody in the piano part, because the singers can't sing without being "supported". And I don't mean refrains for the congregation. I mean verses that only get sung by members of the choir. We've reached a point where music as an art form is very nearly dead, and what remains is the musical equivalent of paint by numbers.
There's only one way that things can realistically change, and that's if composers have the courage to break the cycle — to say "no more" and then start writing music that challenges everyone to try a little harder. To the music nerds out there, I'm doing my part; now go and do likewise.
Please do. I should be able to use your same approach to then mathematically prove that all music made after 1880 is vacuous noise (and most music since 1850).
Net Neutrality is NOT anti business, it is PRO business and PRO consumer.
What it does is shift much of the massive costs for bandwidth for companies like Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google, etc onto other ISP customers like you and me by raising their prices, since they cannot charge those high-bandwidth users at different rates than other ISP customers.
That's just absurdly wrong, as it implies that companies like Netflix use bandwidth entirely on their own. That's not the way it works. Netflix (for example) sends the data for a movie only when a user requests it. Therefore, the Netflix user was solely responsible for that data traversing the ISP's network, through his or her direct action. If Netflix didn't exist, that same user would have watched content from someone else, which means Netflix didn't actually cause that traffic to flow through that link. That's why the user's ISP is solely responsible for paying the cost of transit between the ISP's network and the backbone.
Netflix, by contrast, was solely responsible for that data traversing the network between Netflix's servers and the nearest backbone, and Netflix and the user share equal responsibility for the data as it passes through the backbone. This approach is really the only sensible way that things can be done.
What you're apparently trying to do is to shift the cost of providing service entirely to one side of that network connection, artificially deflating the impact of user decisions on the user, and artificially inflating the impact of user decisions on the companies that provide content. That approach very bad, because among other things, it means that users don't think about the impact of their decisions. If there's no extra cost for them to have the bandwidth to watch Ultra-HD, many users will dutifully grab Ultra-HD content and watch it on a cell phone or whatever.
It is also bad because the company on the other end doesn't have any real control over what the user's ISP does, or how high their costs are for providing service. Netflix can choose what ISP they work with to get data onto the backbone, minimizing their cost and maximizing efficiency. If every random ISP can decide to charge them an arbitrary amount of money, you're basically turning the cost of individual users' Internet service into an externality that Netflix has to pay for. As such, Netflix will be forced to decide which individual customers aren't worth the money based on how much the customers' ISPs are charging them. At that point, those users will no longer have access to the entire Internet.
And the cost of negotiating contracts with every little 100-customer ISP on the planet would be insane. It would essentially make it impossible for large companies to be viable without running their own cables to everybody's house. And if that happens, we'll eventually find ourselves with the Google Internet, the Amazon Internet, and the Netflix Internet, and they won't talk to each other except for low-bandwidth email. This outcome is in nobody's best interests, including the major ISPs.
In short, the things you're advocating are harmful in the short term to everyone involved except for the big ISPs, and in the long term, would spell their doom as well. Want to destroy the Internet? You just figured out how. And that's not hyperbole.
What, you don't think the ISPs are just going to eat the costs, do you? The original NN rules were written by Google! Do you believe Google primarily has your best interests in mind, or their own?
You speak of those two things as though you believe that they are mutually exclusive. When a company's interests align with your own, you should embrace that company's support. Rejecting that support merely because they also benefit from not letting ISPs completely break the Internet is shortsighted and stupid. Those big tech companies would still have a heck of a lot more lobbying power