I know Chuq. He's a good man and a world-class network engineer, and he's well respected by his former colleagues at Apple. He's wrong about the touch bar, but he doesn't deserve cheap shots like this.
I know him, too, and I happen to agree with him. But I don't think that was intended as a cheap shot at him, so much as a cheap shot at Apple for the whole headphone thing.:-)
I find the keyboard itself very nice and have no issues typing: my issues (keys repeating and being unresponsive) were confirmed by Apple service to be hardware problems and the top case got replaced twice free of charge under warranty.
My standard rule of hardware: If it fails once, it's a manufacturing defect. If it fails twice, it's a design flaw. From your anecdote, I can only conclude, then, that their new keyboard is a design flaw.
Developed by Woz himself. First model that had it was the Apple IIGS.
A serial daisy-chained protocol, designed to be hot-swapped and to make it possible to bit-bang the bus with an inexpensive microcontroller.
Unfortunately the hardware designers then messed up, so it was not considered safe to hot-swap it.
And yet most of us did so on an almost daily basis to no ill effect, FWIW.
No, multi-homing doesn't require netblocks from multiple ISPs. Doing this is a hack and only feasible for very trivial networks. A much better approach is BGP multi-homing.
Fair enough, but whether it's a single block owned by Google or one or more blocks owned by one or more ISPs, they still have to use BGP to advertise routes for a block of IPs that doesn't belong to their upstream ISP, so the distinction is largely academic.
How did a company that does no provide transit services even manage to send a route table that was accepted for use? Just seems like a very exploitable issue there
Multihoming. I'd imagine Google provides transit service, but only for their own IP blocks. Each Google datacenter almost certainly has multiple Internet connections to the world. As a result, they have multiple netblocks provided by multiple ISPs.
If, through some unlucky DNS accident, a client on ISP A looks up google.com and gets an IP address provided by ISP B, it would take many more hops to reach that server via public Internet routes than by sending traffic to that datacenter's nearest router (on ISP A) and asking that router to forward traffic through the datacenter to the other set of IPs.
Well, yes, but on the other hand, police officers know that death is the primary outcome, and thus are more likely to show restraint when using a firearm, which probably partially cancels out the difference.
The people who sell ads love it, because the autoplay videos can start with an annoying ad that they get paid for whether the user is actually watching it or not. These days, it's all about monetization at all costs, no matter how many users leave as a result. This is towards the end of the death spiral for the industry.
That said, just being able to mute CNN.com would be a big win. I'd like to kill their autoplay videos entirely for bandwidth reasons, but at least I'll be able to look at their website now while listening to other things in the background without their stupid autoplay video crap forcing itself upon my ears.
But you will be missing out on CNN - The Most Trusted Name In News...
Other way around. With this, I won't be missing out. As it is, I don't bother to go to the website very often because the experience is too disruptive.
Thanks for the pointer, but why the heck would an extension that just sets a flag on each tab require permission to read and modify content on all websites I visit? This extension is asking for way more broad permissions than it should reasonably need. No, I will not trust an extension to have complete access to the password fields for my bank account just to mute annoying, badly designed websites.
They'll announce it, and Phil Schiller will come on stage and say they've innovated their ass off, and figured out a way not to need to ship it with a remote.
They won't do that. It wouldn't be a viable gaming platform if they did, and there would also be nothing to differentiate it from the Chromecast Ultra that costs less than half as much.
My thoughts, exactly. Assuming the flag is accessible from Chrome extensions, it should be possible to trivially write an extension that would set the mute flag as soon as you go to a new page and provides a whitelisting feature to disable that behavior for a given page.
If the flag isn't exposed to extensions, file a bug.:-)
That said, just being able to mute CNN.com would be a big win. I'd like to kill their autoplay videos entirely for bandwidth reasons, but at least I'll be able to look at their website now while listening to other things in the background without their stupid autoplay video crap forcing itself upon my ears.
As someone that drove a semi for 15 years I have a pretty intimate knowledge of how logistics here the US works. One of the things that Trucks hate the most is ANY down time. That includes waiting on a load to be packed or just having to stop for a single tire change. The idea that you're going to have fleet of trucks that will ONLY get 200 or 300 miles on a charge is LAUGHABLE worthless in any but the most specialized situations.
I don't think you're looking at the whole picture here, though. Traditional trucks have to have drivers. That means to go beyond 11-hour operating days, you have to either have two drivers ($$) or a network of depots with sleeping areas so you can hand off the truck to a new driver every 11 hours (possible, but logistically challenging). Autonomous EV trucks, even if they spent 3 hours out of every 8 hours charging, would still do 15 hours a day (four hours more than a single driver). And if they used a battery swap approach (5 minutes per "charge", with one charge every ~4.5 hours), then they would do 23.5 hours per day (more than two drivers). So I'm not convinced the range issue is as much of a problem as you think it is.
Or if you want something a little safer (non-tech) but still growing much faster than AAPL, try MA (MasterCard). On Oct. 7, 2011, it closed at $31.15. Since then, it has grown by a factor of 4.28, while AAPL has grown by only a factor of 2.74. So if you invested the same amount of money on October 7, 2011 in both stocks and sold them today, you would have gained almost twice as much with MA as AAPL.
Yeah, okay. With HBO wanting 15 bones, Netflix wanting 10 bones for HD. Hulu wanting 12 bones for ad-free...
You're telling me Disney is going to ask for 5$? Maybe for an intro rate that changes after a year. Even crunchyroll wants 7$.
No, that's actually quite a bit more than it should cost proportional to those other services. Hulu charges $12 for content from NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, SyFy, USA, and probably a dozen other networks with smaller catalogs. HBO provides only TV shows from one provider, but provides an extensive movie collection. If you care about watching movies (I don't, which is why I don't subscribe to them), even that one is a decent deal.
This is content from only a single network for ~42% of the cost of content from a couple of dozen networks. The problem is that you're using the cost to the user as an absolute metric, but users actually perceive the value of a service more in terms of [cost/number of titles worth watching]. So $5 is actually crazy expensive. IMO, it's worth about a buck. Maybe two.
Of course, the bigger problem is that the way credit card companies charge for service, you can't make a profit at $1 a month because you could lose a third of that in processing fees alone. This makes any payment scheme where content is truly available a la carte from individual companies largely untenable.
And the problem is made even worse by the lack of any sort of consistent standards for obtaining information about various companies' catalogs and playing the content. When I'm looking for somebody's content to watch, the absolute last thing I want to do is look through half a dozen different websites. I want to go to one place, search for something, and play it. I don't care in the slightest whether it comes from Netflix or Disney or HBO or Amazon or whatever. The only thing I care about is the content itself, and it royally p**ses me off to see content becoming more and more fragmented because of petty little bulls**t turf wars between companies that make more money than the Bureau of Engraving and Printing....
Every single study done by doctors and healthcare researchers says that being heavy, curvy, fat, or "voluptuous" is bad for your health, leads to a menagerie of diseases, and is the largest impactor of life expectancy, more so than income level.
As with everything, though, there's a spectrum. Being extremely overweight does significantly reduce life expectancy. Being slightly overweight actually increases life expectancy. The Hollywood definition of beauty is actually very unhealthy, often causing many people to resort to bulimia, which is even more so.
I admit I'm a little confused. I'm getting mixed messages from this. Is the fungal infection deadly, or have there been no deaths from it. I admit I haven't read the source yet but it's sounding to me that it's not deadly and rather the concern is only the fact it's drug resistant.
Candida kills 12–24,000 people annually in the United States, officially. Unofficially, the number is almost certainly much higher, because most Candida deaths occur in the elderly and go unreported as "old age" or "natural causes" or "pneumonia".
The fact that this outbreak hasn't killed anyone yet is relatively unremarkable. It just means no one had a weak enough immune system to succumb to it.
The conclusion that companies won't implement automation if labor is cheap enough has some validity. The problem with the conclusion is that the cost of labor is only one of at least a dozen factors to consider.
And arguably the least important. The most important is the cost of automation relative to the cost of the workers, which is primarily dictated not by the cost of the workers, but rather by the cost of automation itself. As technology gets more and more advanced, the cost of automating things makes it more and more effective to automate them regardless of how cheap the labor cost is. The only thing that reducing wages does is stretch out that timeline very slightly. By contrast, the plummeting cost of advanced automation and the accelerating speed at which automation is able to solve various tasks are the main limitations that principally govern the automation timeline.
Contrary to what certain political figures want you to believe, it's not like the majority of businesses and business owners are like Scrooge McDuck rolling in the dough laughing at the peons. In fact those companies are an extreme minority.
The thing is, while true, that ignores another fundamental truth, which is that most consumers won't pay any more than they have to which means that businesses can't raise wages unless everyone does so. So raising the minimum wage forces businesses to raise wages and raise prices across the board, which (ignoring the relatively tiny impact that such changes have on the value proposition for automation) means more money for workers, paid for at least in part by people who can afford to pay more for those goods and services.
I waited until 25 to get my license because car insurers overcharge policyholders if a driver under 25 is on the policy. Another family may not have thousands of dollars to pay a driving instructor for the 50 to 120 hours of supervised driving that the state requires of new drivers, especially if the parent is also a non-driver. In what way do these excuses fall into the categories of "laziness, apathy, or fear"?
The insurance companies fear young drivers getting into accidents, so they raise premiums, of course.:-D
No, fMRI has not been "discredited". The fish thing was cute and all, and it did make a valid point—that statistics have noise. That's a far cry from discrediting the technology. You might as well say that digital cameras have been discredited for use in astrophotography because they occasionally have hot pixels.
Yeah, and I'm sure they calibrated for that based on failure rate and historical failures of similar products.
A failure rate of 25% over two years would indicate that even if they only sampled failure rate over the first month, they still got way more than a 1% failure rate, which IMO is an order of magnitude higher than is acceptable in a consumer product over the course of two years. Something is very wrong if CR is coming up with estimates that are that high. That's junk-level hardware by the time you get into a double-digit annual failure rate.
Err... I meant $15 per month to get a few episodes per year (in case that wasn't obvious). $15 per year would still be too expensive, but not extortionately so.
Ah, the old I don't like the pricepoint, so I'll just not pay.
You'd come across as far more righteous if you just refused to watch GoT.
That would be me. I'd love to watch it, but I don't care about any of HBO's other offerings, and to me, it isn't worth spending $15 for a few episodes per year of a single TV show. If you don't want to watch HBO's other content, that comes to something like twenty bucks per episode, making it by far the most expensive TV show to watch in the entire history of TV.
I consider content sources in terms of the value per dollar. Netflix costs me... either $8 or $10 a month (I forget which) and provides content from dozens of sources, including Netflix. HBO NOW, apart from movies (which I rarely watch), provides content from one source, and costs $15 a month. That makes HBO NOW about two orders of magnitude more expensive for what you get. HBO's position is effectively no different than selling a Blu-Ray disc for $2,000 and then wondering why it is the most pirated and most poorly sold Blu-Ray disc in the world.
And arguably, pirating GoT might even be ethically the better thing to do. By refusing to watch it, I'm denying HBO the information that I exist. If everyone did that, they would have no idea that there's a huge potential audience out there that wants to watch their programing, but isn't willing to pay their exorbitant price for a movie-oriented streaming service just for the privilege of watching a single TV show. The pirates, by contrast, make that very clear, and if enough people pirated it, maybe HBO's execs would get the message that they're being short-sighted and stupid.
Or maybe a huge upswing in GoT piracy might be enough to convince Time Warner's stockholders that the current management is running the company into the ground, causing them to replace Time Warner's board with smarter people who will fire the CEO and turn the company around. To be blunt, when Netflix—a streaming-only company that barely even produces content—has about the same market cap as your giant media content creation powerhouse, you're not doing something wrong; you're doing everything wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I know him, too, and I happen to agree with him. But I don't think that was intended as a cheap shot at him, so much as a cheap shot at Apple for the whole headphone thing. :-)
My standard rule of hardware: If it fails once, it's a manufacturing defect. If it fails twice, it's a design flaw. From your anecdote, I can only conclude, then, that their new keyboard is a design flaw.
Apple Desktop Bus was actually kinda cool.
Developed by Woz himself. First model that had it was the Apple IIGS. A serial daisy-chained protocol, designed to be hot-swapped and to make it possible to bit-bang the bus with an inexpensive microcontroller. Unfortunately the hardware designers then messed up, so it was not considered safe to hot-swap it.
And yet most of us did so on an almost daily basis to no ill effect, FWIW.
Fair enough, but whether it's a single block owned by Google or one or more blocks owned by one or more ISPs, they still have to use BGP to advertise routes for a block of IPs that doesn't belong to their upstream ISP, so the distinction is largely academic.
Multihoming. I'd imagine Google provides transit service, but only for their own IP blocks. Each Google datacenter almost certainly has multiple Internet connections to the world. As a result, they have multiple netblocks provided by multiple ISPs.
If, through some unlucky DNS accident, a client on ISP A looks up google.com and gets an IP address provided by ISP B, it would take many more hops to reach that server via public Internet routes than by sending traffic to that datacenter's nearest router (on ISP A) and asking that router to forward traffic through the datacenter to the other set of IPs.
Well, yes, but on the other hand, police officers know that death is the primary outcome, and thus are more likely to show restraint when using a firearm, which probably partially cancels out the difference.
The people who sell ads love it, because the autoplay videos can start with an annoying ad that they get paid for whether the user is actually watching it or not. These days, it's all about monetization at all costs, no matter how many users leave as a result. This is towards the end of the death spiral for the industry.
Other way around. With this, I won't be missing out. As it is, I don't bother to go to the website very often because the experience is too disruptive.
Thanks for the pointer, but why the heck would an extension that just sets a flag on each tab require permission to read and modify content on all websites I visit? This extension is asking for way more broad permissions than it should reasonably need. No, I will not trust an extension to have complete access to the password fields for my bank account just to mute annoying, badly designed websites.
They won't do that. It wouldn't be a viable gaming platform if they did, and there would also be nothing to differentiate it from the Chromecast Ultra that costs less than half as much.
My thoughts, exactly. Assuming the flag is accessible from Chrome extensions, it should be possible to trivially write an extension that would set the mute flag as soon as you go to a new page and provides a whitelisting feature to disable that behavior for a given page.
If the flag isn't exposed to extensions, file a bug. :-)
That said, just being able to mute CNN.com would be a big win. I'd like to kill their autoplay videos entirely for bandwidth reasons, but at least I'll be able to look at their website now while listening to other things in the background without their stupid autoplay video crap forcing itself upon my ears.
I don't think you're looking at the whole picture here, though. Traditional trucks have to have drivers. That means to go beyond 11-hour operating days, you have to either have two drivers ($$) or a network of depots with sleeping areas so you can hand off the truck to a new driver every 11 hours (possible, but logistically challenging). Autonomous EV trucks, even if they spent 3 hours out of every 8 hours charging, would still do 15 hours a day (four hours more than a single driver). And if they used a battery swap approach (5 minutes per "charge", with one charge every ~4.5 hours), then they would do 23.5 hours per day (more than two drivers). So I'm not convinced the range issue is as much of a problem as you think it is.
Or if you want something a little safer (non-tech) but still growing much faster than AAPL, try MA (MasterCard). On Oct. 7, 2011, it closed at $31.15. Since then, it has grown by a factor of 4.28, while AAPL has grown by only a factor of 2.74. So if you invested the same amount of money on October 7, 2011 in both stocks and sold them today, you would have gained almost twice as much with MA as AAPL.
No, that's actually quite a bit more than it should cost proportional to those other services. Hulu charges $12 for content from NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, SyFy, USA, and probably a dozen other networks with smaller catalogs. HBO provides only TV shows from one provider, but provides an extensive movie collection. If you care about watching movies (I don't, which is why I don't subscribe to them), even that one is a decent deal.
This is content from only a single network for ~42% of the cost of content from a couple of dozen networks. The problem is that you're using the cost to the user as an absolute metric, but users actually perceive the value of a service more in terms of [cost/number of titles worth watching]. So $5 is actually crazy expensive. IMO, it's worth about a buck. Maybe two.
Of course, the bigger problem is that the way credit card companies charge for service, you can't make a profit at $1 a month because you could lose a third of that in processing fees alone. This makes any payment scheme where content is truly available a la carte from individual companies largely untenable.
And the problem is made even worse by the lack of any sort of consistent standards for obtaining information about various companies' catalogs and playing the content. When I'm looking for somebody's content to watch, the absolute last thing I want to do is look through half a dozen different websites. I want to go to one place, search for something, and play it. I don't care in the slightest whether it comes from Netflix or Disney or HBO or Amazon or whatever. The only thing I care about is the content itself, and it royally p**ses me off to see content becoming more and more fragmented because of petty little bulls**t turf wars between companies that make more money than the Bureau of Engraving and Printing....
Oops. Sorry for the latency. The Internet is kind of slow here.
The eclipse is in 2024.
As with everything, though, there's a spectrum. Being extremely overweight does significantly reduce life expectancy. Being slightly overweight actually increases life expectancy. The Hollywood definition of beauty is actually very unhealthy, often causing many people to resort to bulimia, which is even more so.
Candida kills 12–24,000 people annually in the United States, officially. Unofficially, the number is almost certainly much higher, because most Candida deaths occur in the elderly and go unreported as "old age" or "natural causes" or "pneumonia".
The fact that this outbreak hasn't killed anyone yet is relatively unremarkable. It just means no one had a weak enough immune system to succumb to it.
And arguably the least important. The most important is the cost of automation relative to the cost of the workers, which is primarily dictated not by the cost of the workers, but rather by the cost of automation itself. As technology gets more and more advanced, the cost of automating things makes it more and more effective to automate them regardless of how cheap the labor cost is. The only thing that reducing wages does is stretch out that timeline very slightly. By contrast, the plummeting cost of advanced automation and the accelerating speed at which automation is able to solve various tasks are the main limitations that principally govern the automation timeline.
The thing is, while true, that ignores another fundamental truth, which is that most consumers won't pay any more than they have to which means that businesses can't raise wages unless everyone does so. So raising the minimum wage forces businesses to raise wages and raise prices across the board, which (ignoring the relatively tiny impact that such changes have on the value proposition for automation) means more money for workers, paid for at least in part by people who can afford to pay more for those goods and services.
The insurance companies fear young drivers getting into accidents, so they raise premiums, of course. :-D
No, fMRI has not been "discredited". The fish thing was cute and all, and it did make a valid point—that statistics have noise. That's a far cry from discrediting the technology. You might as well say that digital cameras have been discredited for use in astrophotography because they occasionally have hot pixels.
Yeah, and I'm sure they calibrated for that based on failure rate and historical failures of similar products.
A failure rate of 25% over two years would indicate that even if they only sampled failure rate over the first month, they still got way more than a 1% failure rate, which IMO is an order of magnitude higher than is acceptable in a consumer product over the course of two years. Something is very wrong if CR is coming up with estimates that are that high. That's junk-level hardware by the time you get into a double-digit annual failure rate.
Err... I meant $15 per month to get a few episodes per year (in case that wasn't obvious). $15 per year would still be too expensive, but not extortionately so.
Ah, the old I don't like the pricepoint, so I'll just not pay.
You'd come across as far more righteous if you just refused to watch GoT.
That would be me. I'd love to watch it, but I don't care about any of HBO's other offerings, and to me, it isn't worth spending $15 for a few episodes per year of a single TV show. If you don't want to watch HBO's other content, that comes to something like twenty bucks per episode, making it by far the most expensive TV show to watch in the entire history of TV.
I consider content sources in terms of the value per dollar. Netflix costs me... either $8 or $10 a month (I forget which) and provides content from dozens of sources, including Netflix. HBO NOW, apart from movies (which I rarely watch), provides content from one source, and costs $15 a month. That makes HBO NOW about two orders of magnitude more expensive for what you get. HBO's position is effectively no different than selling a Blu-Ray disc for $2,000 and then wondering why it is the most pirated and most poorly sold Blu-Ray disc in the world.
And arguably, pirating GoT might even be ethically the better thing to do. By refusing to watch it, I'm denying HBO the information that I exist. If everyone did that, they would have no idea that there's a huge potential audience out there that wants to watch their programing, but isn't willing to pay their exorbitant price for a movie-oriented streaming service just for the privilege of watching a single TV show. The pirates, by contrast, make that very clear, and if enough people pirated it, maybe HBO's execs would get the message that they're being short-sighted and stupid.
Or maybe a huge upswing in GoT piracy might be enough to convince Time Warner's stockholders that the current management is running the company into the ground, causing them to replace Time Warner's board with smarter people who will fire the CEO and turn the company around. To be blunt, when Netflix—a streaming-only company that barely even produces content—has about the same market cap as your giant media content creation powerhouse, you're not doing something wrong; you're doing everything wrong.
Not even close. Not when programmers can do things like:
id object = [[NSClassFromString(@"SomeOtherClass") alloc] init];
id result = [object performSelector:NSSelectorFromString(@"someMethod")];
It's theoretically possible to catch all of those tricks, but easy, it ain't.