But weren't string theories just supposed to be abstract models of computation rather than a theory that subatomic particles were literally n-dimensional strings? Similarly, even if an electron is measured to be a sphere does not mean it is literally a particle.
The vast majority of "techies" know nothing about technology. Even the majority of people who build, design, program, and maintain technology don't really understand it except for their own tiny subset.
If your employer paid for DMV services in the same way that they pay for health care, it wouldn't necessarily get better. We might be on the phone on hold for 8 hours instead of standing in line for 8 hours, and when we got a person on the other end of the phone it would be someone outsourced in a differen country. Private services have not yet proven themselves better than public services.
The real issue is that for most people, health care is paid for either by employers or by medicare if you're retired. Everyone else in comparison is an outlier, and yet that's where all the political angst is.
Also, not everywhere was San Francisco, and that place is an anomaly. In the past a town might have a rich section, a middle class section, and a poor section, and setting up a repair shop in the poor section would get you customers from the entire town. Also the television or appliance repair person would have a van and would be able to drive all over the place to fix things.
People were also much less wasteful in the past. Possibly because we had generations that remembered the depression or the rationing from wars, or possibly we just have a new generation of people who don't care about anything older than a few months.
Even today a coworker was thinking about the new iPhone, and with high paying job and a highly paid lawyer spouse, the cost of the new iPhone still felt like too much money to spend...
I'd say $49.95 to repair would work for many. The point of fixing is the convenience because you don't have to learn the newer model and get to keep what you're familiar with, plus the huge benefit of not dumping stuff into landfill (not directly seen by consumers trained to not noticethis).
But practically, 10% of the price is quite reasonable. It was not that long ago that the television repair shop was common. Similar for major appliances. The costs of a new model might not be terribly high but was also balanced with the cost of repair being even cheaper. If you just wanted to throw an appliance item away, you could NOT just place it in trash but would often have to pay a fee at the dump. There was also a common attitude that quality products should last and that being thrifty was a virtue; whereas today too many people assume that you things break often and being thrift is something only old people do. Remember, we used to "repair" clothing too.
I had watched Youtube, then a TV show, then went to the computer to see this news. Then I immediately went to Youtube and it was up. Not sure why this was a story, unless some Youtube fan was panicking about having to live a short period of time without it.
So let's say a court decides in a lawsuit that Sony does not actually own some content, given that Sony failed to reimburse the true content creator. Would that mean that de-facto ownership away from Sony by changing the blockchain even if Sony refuses to accept the court order?
Or maybe more practically, if a court rules that fair use applies to copies of media and games, and that Sony can no longer forbid customers from exercising their legal rights (to make backups, do time shifting, lend or resell the product, etc). Could the court override Sony's control that forbids making copies and grant back to customers the rights that Sony removed?
This is my biggest concern with DRM, in that it overrides the laws of various contries and turns the content owner into the ultimate legal authority. If the content owner disagrees with laws that allow consumers the rights to use their copies in various ways, the content owners can use DRM to create restrictions that go above and beyond the law. Ie, the law may say "the customer may use the copy at any time and in any locale that they wish provided it is not a public performance", but the DRM will go further and say "the customer can only use the copy in the USA, only during the year of 2019, and only on an authorized viewing device."
But if Sony controls the blockchain, or the method to manipulate the blockchain, then its still a centralized control method and gives no advantages beyond its current DRM schemes. But then, blockchain is a fashionable term so maybe Sony only uses this term to razzle dazzle the investors...
Leftist, rightist, or not, it is utterly irrelevant. It is amazingly partisan to claim someone has a bias against the truth merely because of political beliefs. And yet, that's one of the biggest claims against many media organizations, that they can't be trusted bcause their reporting staff has a different political stance than is required. If Snopes can cite the facts and backs them up, then I would not doubt it just because I haven't done my own research. Especially in things that would be absurd to fake because it could be discounted so quickly. But instead the report is that Snopes is staffed by leftists and therefore some articles say it cannot be trusted - even though those articles never once pointed out errors or did their own research.
In other words the point of those articles bashing Snopes was that its readers should NOT think for themselves and instead believe what the proper political authorities tell them to believe. The last thing this country needs is the rise of a political thought police, and yet that's what we seem to be growing on both the right and the left. In my view, if any political leader tells you something you must automatically doubt it and get more info before trusting it, especially if such leaders are highly partisan and are trying to demonize one side or the other.
Well, I don't use a printer anymore. It's pointless to get a home inkjet anyway unless you print something every day otherwise the head gets clogged. And if you get color then you will always run out of one of the colors long before the others. Laser printers are better but the additional cost can be too much and it's not worth it if you don't print a lot.
So, if the cost of ink is too high, if the printer is being annoying, if the company treats you like crap, then that's just more people who will realize that they don't actually need a printer anymore.
I dunno, but there were a lot of people furious about that. Possibly they were self important and wondered why they weren't allowed on. But this is standard procedure for many new products - roll them out slowly, try it out in a beta test, etc.
The thing I hated was linking it to other Google services. I liked Google+, but then one day I found out I had a Youtube account that I did not want and could not get rid of. Even today Youtube automatically logs me in if I am logged in to Google+.
Google+ had a good thing going if only Google had realized this. It was better than Facebook in every way except popularity when it was new. But once it was out Google started losing interest in it. Like most Google products.
California. You get told your polling place. When you arrive they look up your name and address in a list of voters assigned to that location. If you're on the list, you sign it. If you're not on the list, you get a provisional ballot. It's been this way forever, Republican or Democrat governors. In your smaller states maybe they are better able to detect when someone decides to vote in more than one polling location?
Well, there are web sites already claiming that "Snopes" is staffed by leftists and that no one should believe anything it says. The war over what the truth is has already begun.
The story being told is "don't trust anyone on the internet unless they agree with your gut feelings!"
Most voters don't have a choice of polling stations, you get one and only one unless you have an absentee ballot or can get a provisional ballot (which won't be counted until after the results have been announced).
Well, those who could be bothered to state an opinion either way are already a self-selecting group. If this were a randomized poll then I would agree with you, but for self-selected data points they can often be highly skewed. Ie, those pro-net-neutrality felt they needed to spend proactively 10 seconds clicking on buttons on the web, whereas those anti-net-neutrality just needed to passively do nothing and let the status quo remain.
However I think that just signing a form letter does not mean as much to lawmakers as if you wrote the letter yourself. It's the difference between someone who is tepid on the subject versus someone who really cares about it. When lawmakers care about being re-elected based on their actions, why won't worry much about tepid voters who signed a petition.
It does indicate maybe that duplicate comments (templates) might not be given the same weighting as unique comments by those who make decisions. As such, spending 10 seconds to fill out an online petition may make someone feel good about doing something, but spending time to actually write something down will count a whole lot more.
It's a solution to many existing problems. However the media focus has been on the consumer side of things where the problems are trivial and don't really need solving. In business, industry, and science, there is a real need for sensor devices that can be communicated with remotely, whether directly on the internet or a private network.
Slashdot Mirror
But weren't string theories just supposed to be abstract models of computation rather than a theory that subatomic particles were literally n-dimensional strings? Similarly, even if an electron is measured to be a sphere does not mean it is literally a particle.
The vast majority of "techies" know nothing about technology. Even the majority of people who build, design, program, and maintain technology don't really understand it except for their own tiny subset.
Can't they shut shut if off, wait a bit, then turn it back on?
If your employer paid for DMV services in the same way that they pay for health care, it wouldn't necessarily get better. We might be on the phone on hold for 8 hours instead of standing in line for 8 hours, and when we got a person on the other end of the phone it would be someone outsourced in a differen country. Private services have not yet proven themselves better than public services.
The real issue is that for most people, health care is paid for either by employers or by medicare if you're retired. Everyone else in comparison is an outlier, and yet that's where all the political angst is.
If we throw out the politicians, will they stick around stinking up the dump and seeping into the water table?
Also, not everywhere was San Francisco, and that place is an anomaly. In the past a town might have a rich section, a middle class section, and a poor section, and setting up a repair shop in the poor section would get you customers from the entire town. Also the television or appliance repair person would have a van and would be able to drive all over the place to fix things.
People were also much less wasteful in the past. Possibly because we had generations that remembered the depression or the rationing from wars, or possibly we just have a new generation of people who don't care about anything older than a few months.
Even today a coworker was thinking about the new iPhone, and with high paying job and a highly paid lawyer spouse, the cost of the new iPhone still felt like too much money to spend...
I'd say $49.95 to repair would work for many. The point of fixing is the convenience because you don't have to learn the newer model and get to keep what you're familiar with, plus the huge benefit of not dumping stuff into landfill (not directly seen by consumers trained to not noticethis).
But practically, 10% of the price is quite reasonable. It was not that long ago that the television repair shop was common. Similar for major appliances. The costs of a new model might not be terribly high but was also balanced with the cost of repair being even cheaper. If you just wanted to throw an appliance item away, you could NOT just place it in trash but would often have to pay a fee at the dump. There was also a common attitude that quality products should last and that being thrifty was a virtue; whereas today too many people assume that you things break often and being thrift is something only old people do. Remember, we used to "repair" clothing too.
But then anyone could make their own, where's the profit in that?
Why do IoT devices use BSD or Linux? The ones I've seen and worked on are all RTOS based (custom or otherwise).
On the other hand, I preferred the UIs out there a decade ago. Maybe a UI that feels a decade old might be preferable?
I had watched Youtube, then a TV show, then went to the computer to see this news. Then I immediately went to Youtube and it was up. Not sure why this was a story, unless some Youtube fan was panicking about having to live a short period of time without it.
So let's say a court decides in a lawsuit that Sony does not actually own some content, given that Sony failed to reimburse the true content creator. Would that mean that de-facto ownership away from Sony by changing the blockchain even if Sony refuses to accept the court order?
Or maybe more practically, if a court rules that fair use applies to copies of media and games, and that Sony can no longer forbid customers from exercising their legal rights (to make backups, do time shifting, lend or resell the product, etc). Could the court override Sony's control that forbids making copies and grant back to customers the rights that Sony removed?
This is my biggest concern with DRM, in that it overrides the laws of various contries and turns the content owner into the ultimate legal authority. If the content owner disagrees with laws that allow consumers the rights to use their copies in various ways, the content owners can use DRM to create restrictions that go above and beyond the law. Ie, the law may say "the customer may use the copy at any time and in any locale that they wish provided it is not a public performance", but the DRM will go further and say "the customer can only use the copy in the USA, only during the year of 2019, and only on an authorized viewing device."
But if Sony controls the blockchain, or the method to manipulate the blockchain, then its still a centralized control method and gives no advantages beyond its current DRM schemes. But then, blockchain is a fashionable term so maybe Sony only uses this term to razzle dazzle the investors...
Leftist, rightist, or not, it is utterly irrelevant. It is amazingly partisan to claim someone has a bias against the truth merely because of political beliefs. And yet, that's one of the biggest claims against many media organizations, that they can't be trusted bcause their reporting staff has a different political stance than is required. If Snopes can cite the facts and backs them up, then I would not doubt it just because I haven't done my own research. Especially in things that would be absurd to fake because it could be discounted so quickly. But instead the report is that Snopes is staffed by leftists and therefore some articles say it cannot be trusted - even though those articles never once pointed out errors or did their own research.
In other words the point of those articles bashing Snopes was that its readers should NOT think for themselves and instead believe what the proper political authorities tell them to believe. The last thing this country needs is the rise of a political thought police, and yet that's what we seem to be growing on both the right and the left. In my view, if any political leader tells you something you must automatically doubt it and get more info before trusting it, especially if such leaders are highly partisan and are trying to demonize one side or the other.
Well, I don't use a printer anymore. It's pointless to get a home inkjet anyway unless you print something every day otherwise the head gets clogged. And if you get color then you will always run out of one of the colors long before the others. Laser printers are better but the additional cost can be too much and it's not worth it if you don't print a lot.
So, if the cost of ink is too high, if the printer is being annoying, if the company treats you like crap, then that's just more people who will realize that they don't actually need a printer anymore.
I dunno, but there were a lot of people furious about that. Possibly they were self important and wondered why they weren't allowed on. But this is standard procedure for many new products - roll them out slowly, try it out in a beta test, etc.
The thing I hated was linking it to other Google services. I liked Google+, but then one day I found out I had a Youtube account that I did not want and could not get rid of. Even today Youtube automatically logs me in if I am logged in to Google+.
Google+ had a good thing going if only Google had realized this. It was better than Facebook in every way except popularity when it was new. But once it was out Google started losing interest in it. Like most Google products.
California. You get told your polling place. When you arrive they look up your name and address in a list of voters assigned to that location. If you're on the list, you sign it. If you're not on the list, you get a provisional ballot. It's been this way forever, Republican or Democrat governors. In your smaller states maybe they are better able to detect when someone decides to vote in more than one polling location?
A popular method, true. But is it an effective method?
Well, there are web sites already claiming that "Snopes" is staffed by leftists and that no one should believe anything it says. The war over what the truth is has already begun.
The story being told is "don't trust anyone on the internet unless they agree with your gut feelings!"
Most voters don't have a choice of polling stations, you get one and only one unless you have an absentee ballot or can get a provisional ballot (which won't be counted until after the results have been announced).
Well, those who could be bothered to state an opinion either way are already a self-selecting group. If this were a randomized poll then I would agree with you, but for self-selected data points they can often be highly skewed. Ie, those pro-net-neutrality felt they needed to spend proactively 10 seconds clicking on buttons on the web, whereas those anti-net-neutrality just needed to passively do nothing and let the status quo remain.
However I think that just signing a form letter does not mean as much to lawmakers as if you wrote the letter yourself. It's the difference between someone who is tepid on the subject versus someone who really cares about it. When lawmakers care about being re-elected based on their actions, why won't worry much about tepid voters who signed a petition.
It does indicate maybe that duplicate comments (templates) might not be given the same weighting as unique comments by those who make decisions. As such, spending 10 seconds to fill out an online petition may make someone feel good about doing something, but spending time to actually write something down will count a whole lot more.
But why did the lightning miss Comcast?
It's a solution to many existing problems. However the media focus has been on the consumer side of things where the problems are trivial and don't really need solving. In business, industry, and science, there is a real need for sensor devices that can be communicated with remotely, whether directly on the internet or a private network.