If they offered an Azure VDI option with office 365 and exchange integration and the ability to install apps like a proper VDI at $15 or less a month, We would do it for our company.
VDI is expensive when it comes to windows. It's $100 a year per VDI session unless your on software advantage, and you're paying big bucks for that.
Google required manufacturers to pre-install the Google search and browser apps on Android phones, otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to use Google Play (its app service).
There is nothing stopping a manufacture to give Google the finger and put on the Amazon Appstore and Bing on AOSP. In fact, Amazon and Microsoft would probably pay you to do it. I'm actually surprised Samsung hasn't written their own app store yet.
Google paid manufacturers and network operators to make sure that only the Google search app was installed on devices.
As far as I know, this only pertained to Android devices featured on Google site, Since Google wanted a cleaner and consistent user experience for phones, unless you enjoy all of the crap apps and launchers that most budget phones have.
Google has restricted the development of competing mobile phone operating systems, which could have provided a platform for rival search engines.
BS. The Market did. As someone who owned a Kyocera Palm phone for years, I would have love to have seen Palm Succeed with the Pre. They didn't because of the Marketing and Price competitiveness of the Motorola Droid and Verizon. Hell, people seem to forget that the first Google phone, the G1, Failed Hard. At that time, Microsoft and Apple dominated the Smartphone industry, with Apple claiming huge increases in share while MS was getting what they could from Palm and Blackberry business holdouts.
Google has used Android as a vehicle to cement its dominance as a search engine.
Again. it's the market choice. This was the same argument used against MS for IE on windows. IE was used because it was the best choice at the time. as soon as Firefox and Chrome got stable, IE started losing market share left and right.
Also, You can hide all of the Google stuff and install Bing or DuckDuckGo if you wanted.
These practices have denied rivals a chance to innovate and to compete on the merits.
Amazon could release a phone right now if they wanted to. They won't because the last phone they made bombed. It bombed because the interface sucked and they said screw it instead of fixing the interface issues people had. Samsung reskins android to the point that it's practically a new OS and have the market share to either create an appstore or use Amazon's
They have denied European consumers the benefit of effective competition in the very important mobile sphere
There's nothing stopping you from installing Windows 10 Mobile, Android AOSP, Hell, even Firefox OS, Open WebOS and Sailfish OS on your phone other then manufacture lock in. If OS competition is so important why is it still accepted to lock hardware to a specific OS build instead of forcing open architecture compliance so that any phone can run any OS regardless of make or model?
In closing, If the EU was serious, they would block Android sales, but they're just going to fine Google big bucks instead. Always question government fines like this. Basically they're pissed that they can't tax Google as much as they'd like to so they're taking a different approach. Don't think for one minute that GDPR isn't going to be used in the same way against Google, MS, Amazon, ETC.
This would also affect any Athlon XP systems as well, since they don't support SSE2.
Not that they shouldn't be replaced by now, but there would be a lot more of those systems running Windows 7 then Pentium III's simply because AMD sold them throughout the Pentium 4 Era and they were fast enough to run windows 7..
Wrong. NOAA monitors the same variables but though different mechanisms. They use what looks like fixed land based sites and measurements from ocean vessels.
NASA's monitoring involved sampling from Aircraft and satellite measurements. Not only are you measuring CO2 in areas the NOAA can't (different parts of the atmosphere... different parts of the globe), and providing different kinds of data they cant, but you're also providing an independent check on the NOAA data.
There's no reason why NOAA can't use and study the data. They would have the access to the satellites and data that NASA has. There's no reason why this couldn't be rolled under NOAA's budget as a cost savings measure since that data could be used internally by NOAA for other projects. It's not like the Satellite coudn't be used for other projects or rolled into upcoming weather satellites. There's no reason why NASA, a Space Engineering Agency needs to be independently checking NOAA, a Climate Science and Research Agency. especially when there's no less than three other agency's (NWS, EPA, DEP) that are better equipped (both professionally and equipment wise) to verify climate and CO Emissions than NASA.
This Notion that NASA is a science agency needs to stop now. It is an Engineering agency. Of course there is science in NASA, but that Science should be focused on engineering the satellites and equipment we need in conjunction with the established science and research bodies such as NOAA, NWS, EPA, Various Colleges and Universities, etc so that they have the tools they need to do their scientific studies.
If we can shift that 10 Million from NASA to NOAA, and NOAA orders the satellite from NASA and uses the leftover cash for more climate studies instead of hiring climate experts (which NASA would have to do. NOAA already has experts), then nothing has changed study wise and the money could be more efficiently spent.
Why would a Climate Monitoring System be under NASA and not NOAA?
I would think that NASA's only role in this should be launching and maintaining the satellites. The Science and Climate Monitoring itself should be under NOAA control.
Laws of computer stupidity 1) 99% of computer users do not know what they are doing. 2) Computer users do not read. 3) If a computer user can click on it, they will. If they need to click on it, they won't 4) You can patch software, but you can't (legally) patch stupid.
And It will still be relevant decades from now, Especially since I can do a search for adblock plus right now on the chrome web store and pick out 20+ fake apps in 5 seconds.
From my experience. almost no school uses Mac's. iPads have pretty much supplanted them. Chromebooks and ChromeBases are supplanting the Windows PC's since almost every K-12 app is web based anymore, and no IT dept wants to deal with Windows roll-outs and malware anymore.
For a brief time, I worked for a K-12 school with iPads and chromebooks. The biggest issue Apple needs to address is managing them. Chromebooks are pretty much "Get on WiFi, register, and manage through the web console". iPads are "Pray the third party management software works right this time or you're going to be entering iTunes passwords 3 times on 300+ iPads."
This is why it's baffling that they are so much in debt.
iHeartMedia is basically a advertisement platform that just happens to play music and talk shows once in awhile. Most of their "studio's" are empty since most of their stations are run off of nationwide feeds. Everything they broadcast is tied to advertising, IE (product) digital studios, (product) Sportdesk, (product) news center (prouduct) weather center, (product) traffic report, then to top if all off each broadcast is brought to you by (product). Hell, even the stations are used to prop up their iHeartRadio app since they can use their stations to cut steaming fees.
If the FCC was really serious about getting WISP's off the ground, They would ditch these auctions that tend to go to the highest bidder and sit unused and open the Spectrum to unlicensed, WISP only, long range use.
Most WISP's out there today are using the 2.4 and 5GHz bands because their unlicensed, unfortunately their also used for WiFi traffic as well. These wreak havoc with WISP equipment especially in dense populations, and it's only getting worse as cable companies started packing 5GHz WiFi in their modems that broadcast 80MHZ of spectrum regardless if wireless is being used or not.
A clear, WISP Equipment only, spectrum block would not only help out smaller wireless ISP's with their Point to Multi point deployments, but also give business other options of connectivity between buildings besides fiber runs, since most point to point microwave setups are built around Point to Multi-point Wireless Spectrum allocation.
Q3: How long will Microsoft require setting a registry key to receive the January 3, 2018, security updates?
A3: Microsoft added this requirement to ensure customers can successfully install the January 2018 security updates. Microsoft will continue to enforce this requirement until there is high confidence that the majority of customers will not encounter device crashes after installing the security updates.
Basically, there's no plausible scenario where a non-ISP content provider could cause harm to an ISP by throttling data from that ISP
Bullshit.
Apparently you've never heard of a Carriage Dispute. so let me visualize it for you...
1) Netflix decides it wants to charge ISP's like Viacom and CBS charge CableCo's for retransmission. 2) Netflix Throttles all Comcast streams to 480P or less. Tells customers to call Comcast to complain about speeds. 3) Customers Bitch at Comcast because they can't watch "Stranger Things" in HD. 4) Comcast checks their bandwidth, looks ok. Contacts Netflix to see what going on. Netflix tells Comcast to pay us $100 Million USD to "fix" the problem. 5) Comcast either pays Netflix to get their customers HD service, or tells Netflix to pound sand, which Netflix will respond by keeping Streams SD or less, and redirect millions of pissed off Customers to Comcast support or to some US regulatory body like the FCC to force Comcast's hand to pay. 6) If Comcast pays Netflix, they have to jack up Internet Rates to cover the Netflix Tax, Which pisses off Comcast customers and will probably get a US regulatory body involved claiming monopoly. 7) Repeat 1-6, replace Netflix with Hulu, CBS all access, amazon video, Google or whatever the Hell Disney will call their streaming service.
The problem is, who's the good guy? The answer is Neither. Both want money and both will find innovative ways to get it.
I started thinking about what Pai was trying to do outside of the "Verizon shill" argument and realized that the FCC in the end only could enforce Net neutrality on one side of the data; The ISP side. They could do nothing if a content provider decided to throttle an ISP's customers in order to extort money from the ISP.
Basically it comes down to this:
If Comcast throttled Netflix to try to get Netflix to pay them for priority bandwidth, FCC could step in with Title II and regulate. If Netflix throttled Comcast to try to get Comcast to pay them for priority bandwidth, FCC couldn't do a thing because Netflix is outside of FCC control.
By moving net neutrality enforcement to the FTC, Which has (albeit limited) regulation authority over both the ISP and the Content Provider, Net neutrality could (theoretically) be enforced better in both directions instead of just one like it currently is.
The problem either way is this needs to be resolved by legislation drafted by congress, and it needs to be drafted in a way that enforces Net Neutrality on both the ISP and Content providers. Otherwise, say hello to Carriage Disputes for internet sites in the near future.
On high end systems, there's hardly any difference between Edge, Firefox and Chrome speed wise, but on lower end hardware such as older Intel atoms or AMD E series processors with 2GB of RAM, Edge Destroys Chrome in performance with Firefox being in between the two.
The biggest reason I don't switch to Edge is that its sharing between browsers isn't close. Chrome and Firefox got this nailed down. You login with your sync or Google account and your stuff is there and in the case of Chrome, so are all of your extensions. Edge seems to sync erratically between browsers, even if both PC's are using Microsoft accounts, Especially bookmarks, which I've had duplicate bookmark entries or even all of the bookmarks but in reverse order in which they were organized.
I guess the real question would be why would a provider pay for paid prioritization if they cannot be throttled?
What was supposedly happening before Net neutrality was that ISP's were using packet shapers to throttle sites like Netflix and YouTube and when the sites started calling out ISP's for throttling, the ISP's claimed network congestion that would magically go away (cause the shaper was turned off for their site) if some money would be thrown their way. Net neutrality made this illegal.
Under the Republican proposal, an ISP can not Throttle, Impair or Degrade Internet Traffic but Paid Prioritization is still on the table which supposedly makes this law bad, but If that's the case, why would Netflix or YouTube pay for prioritization when throttling is illegal? If the ISP's where throttling illegally, sites would have the option to sue for damages under the law.
If anything is wrong with this proposal, Sites would legally have the ability to throttle traffic to an ISP (and on top of that, lie to it's customers so that the customers put pressure on the ISP) to where the ISP would have to pay them for prioritized content as a sort of new age carriage dispute. Even the old Net Neutrality rules had no provisions or blocks for this. What this law really needs is a clause that bans throttling from Both parties instead of Just ISP's
So it looks like what happened is what I suspected, that Kaspersky's Heuristic analysis found the file and submitted it for analysis. Which is fine since that's what it's supposed to do.
The real question is why wouldn't Kaspersky submit it to other AV Firms or even Microsoft for analysis instead of just deleting it? From what it sounds like they had full source code on a virus. I would think that would be the equivalent of striking gold in the AV community regardless of the virus's source, Unless Kaspersky was afraid that the US would Pressure the heck out of them if they disclosed, which is not much different from what's happening now.
iHeartMedia radio stations can finally close down the NAPA studios, the McDonald's Weather Center and the Dunham Sports Desk since they were such money pits and were so outdated.
At least they'll recoup their huge losses over the decades by Selling the Kohl's Traffic Copter since the Ford Fusion Traffic Report is no more.
That was windows RT. They didn't allow software installs outside of the windows store and barred recompilation of existing apps to arm. It bombed. The closest thing to this is Windows 10S, which will also bomb unless the OS is free, which it's not. At least you can upgrade it to pro though.
Windows 10 arm is pretty much windows 10 pro on arm. They would support existing app recompile to arm as well as existing compiled x86 apps (but not x64). Its what windows RT should have been in the first place, but no one is going to build anything to put it on either because OEMs don't trust MS to stick with it or because it only works on Qualcomm processors. So other than MS making a surface arm, it's pretty much DOA.
The best thing MS could've done to save the platform is to focus on running x86 on ARM. At least at that point, phones like the HP Elite x3 would have made sense.
Unfortunately, with HP pulling the plug on the x3 and no real focus on the ARM platform other than as a novelty as well as Intel threatening lawsuits over x86 emulation over ARM, The windows phone market (as well as Windows on ARM for the most part) is all but officially dead.
Thats correct, there is going to be some terrain loss when it comes to propagation, but it shouldn't be that large of an issue overall with AM. Here's an example of what you're referring to using UHF.
Unfortunately, I can't find a site that does maps quite like this for anything other than TV, but it shows what terrain can do to a UHF signal.
The difference however between UHF and MW when it comes to propagation is huge. UHF is typically received via Line of Sight and needs massive ERP to get long range vs AM, which can propagate using groundwave as well as skywave (mostly at night. This is why many stations dial down their ERP at night) and can penetrate hills and buildings easier with much less ERP at the tower. Also WAPA AM is low on the AM band which also helps in groundwave and skywave propagation.
In the end we're talking about a 100 mile island and a 10K MW transmitter. Unless there's damage or a design issue with the transmitter antenna then just about any car stereo on the island should get this signal. Especially at night.
At local range not only does it cover all of Puerto Rico, but starts to hit the Dominican Republic. Even cheap AM radios should be able to pick it up over most of the island.
A higher quality radio (such as a car stereo since power is out over most of the island) should have no trouble picking this up anywhere on the island at any time of the day short of deep in a valley.
Night should have no issues whatsoever anywhere on the island in any terrain short of a crystal radio on the western side.
Also, WAPA has 6 affiliates stations (although they could be down) According to Wikipedia
"I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though she's too young to have logged on yet. Here's what I worry about. I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, she will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?' " -Mike Godwin - Electronic Freedom Foundation
The above quote has been on the Freenet Project Page since it's inception in 2000. I find it disturbing that it's starting to come true.
Slashdot Mirror
If they offered an Azure VDI option with office 365 and exchange integration and the ability to install apps like a proper VDI at $15 or less a month, We would do it for our company.
VDI is expensive when it comes to windows. It's $100 a year per VDI session unless your on software advantage, and you're paying big bucks for that.
Yeah. That really saved Microsoft from being fined.
Oh Wait... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Google required manufacturers to pre-install the Google search and browser apps on Android phones, otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to use Google Play (its app service).
There is nothing stopping a manufacture to give Google the finger and put on the Amazon Appstore and Bing on AOSP. In fact, Amazon and Microsoft would probably pay you to do it. I'm actually surprised Samsung hasn't written their own app store yet.
Google paid manufacturers and network operators to make sure that only the Google search app was installed on devices.
As far as I know, this only pertained to Android devices featured on Google site, Since Google wanted a cleaner and consistent user experience for phones, unless you enjoy all of the crap apps and launchers that most budget phones have.
Google has restricted the development of competing mobile phone operating systems, which could have provided a platform for rival search engines.
BS. The Market did. As someone who owned a Kyocera Palm phone for years, I would have love to have seen Palm Succeed with the Pre. They didn't because of the Marketing and Price competitiveness of the Motorola Droid and Verizon. Hell, people seem to forget that the first Google phone, the G1, Failed Hard. At that time, Microsoft and Apple dominated the Smartphone industry, with Apple claiming huge increases in share while MS was getting what they could from Palm and Blackberry business holdouts.
Google has used Android as a vehicle to cement its dominance as a search engine.
Again. it's the market choice. This was the same argument used against MS for IE on windows. IE was used because it was the best choice at the time. as soon as Firefox and Chrome got stable, IE started losing market share left and right.
Also, You can hide all of the Google stuff and install Bing or DuckDuckGo if you wanted.
These practices have denied rivals a chance to innovate and to compete on the merits.
Amazon could release a phone right now if they wanted to. They won't because the last phone they made bombed. It bombed because the interface sucked and they said screw it instead of fixing the interface issues people had. Samsung reskins android to the point that it's practically a new OS and have the market share to either create an appstore or use Amazon's
They have denied European consumers the benefit of effective competition in the very important mobile sphere
There's nothing stopping you from installing Windows 10 Mobile, Android AOSP, Hell, even Firefox OS, Open WebOS and Sailfish OS on your phone other then manufacture lock in. If OS competition is so important why is it still accepted to lock hardware to a specific OS build instead of forcing open architecture compliance so that any phone can run any OS regardless of make or model?
In closing, If the EU was serious, they would block Android sales, but they're just going to fine Google big bucks instead. Always question government fines like this. Basically they're pissed that they can't tax Google as much as they'd like to so they're taking a different approach. Don't think for one minute that GDPR isn't going to be used in the same way against Google, MS, Amazon, ETC.
This would also affect any Athlon XP systems as well, since they don't support SSE2.
Not that they shouldn't be replaced by now, but there would be a lot more of those systems running Windows 7 then Pentium III's simply because AMD sold them throughout the Pentium 4 Era and they were fast enough to run windows 7..
Wrong. NOAA monitors the same variables but though different mechanisms. They use what looks like fixed land based sites and measurements from ocean vessels.
NASA's monitoring involved sampling from Aircraft and satellite measurements. Not only are you measuring CO2 in areas the NOAA can't (different parts of the atmosphere... different parts of the globe), and providing different kinds of data they cant, but you're also providing an independent check on the NOAA data.
There's no reason why NOAA can't use and study the data. They would have the access to the satellites and data that NASA has.
There's no reason why this couldn't be rolled under NOAA's budget as a cost savings measure since that data could be used internally by NOAA for other projects. It's not like the Satellite coudn't be used for other projects or rolled into upcoming weather satellites.
There's no reason why NASA, a Space Engineering Agency needs to be independently checking NOAA, a Climate Science and Research Agency. especially when there's no less than three other agency's (NWS, EPA, DEP) that are better equipped (both professionally and equipment wise) to verify climate and CO Emissions than NASA.
This Notion that NASA is a science agency needs to stop now. It is an Engineering agency. Of course there is science in NASA, but that Science should be focused on engineering the satellites and equipment we need in conjunction with the established science and research bodies such as NOAA, NWS, EPA, Various Colleges and Universities, etc so that they have the tools they need to do their scientific studies.
If we can shift that 10 Million from NASA to NOAA, and NOAA orders the satellite from NASA and uses the leftover cash for more climate studies instead of hiring climate experts (which NASA would have to do. NOAA already has experts), then nothing has changed study wise and the money could be more efficiently spent.
Why would a Climate Monitoring System be under NASA and not NOAA?
I would think that NASA's only role in this should be launching and maintaining the satellites. The Science and Climate Monitoring itself should be under NOAA control.
This has been in my Sig for years now.
Laws of computer stupidity
1) 99% of computer users do not know what they are doing.
2) Computer users do not read.
3) If a computer user can click on it, they will. If they need to click on it, they won't
4) You can patch software, but you can't (legally) patch stupid.
And It will still be relevant decades from now, Especially since I can do a search for adblock plus right now on the chrome web store and pick out 20+ fake apps in 5 seconds.
From my experience. almost no school uses Mac's. iPads have pretty much supplanted them. Chromebooks and ChromeBases are supplanting the Windows PC's since almost every K-12 app is web based anymore, and no IT dept wants to deal with Windows roll-outs and malware anymore.
For a brief time, I worked for a K-12 school with iPads and chromebooks. The biggest issue Apple needs to address is managing them. Chromebooks are pretty much "Get on WiFi, register, and manage through the web console". iPads are "Pray the third party management software works right this time or you're going to be entering iTunes passwords 3 times on 300+ iPads."
about:config
Accept the Risk
media.autoplay.enabled = False
I would assume it's more for Hyper-V environments where you're already running Windows Server as the host.
This is why it's baffling that they are so much in debt.
iHeartMedia is basically a advertisement platform that just happens to play music and talk shows once in awhile. Most of their "studio's" are empty since most of their stations are run off of nationwide feeds. Everything they broadcast is tied to advertising, IE (product) digital studios, (product) Sportdesk, (product) news center (prouduct) weather center, (product) traffic report, then to top if all off each broadcast is brought to you by (product). Hell, even the stations are used to prop up their iHeartRadio app since they can use their stations to cut steaming fees.
If the FCC was really serious about getting WISP's off the ground, They would ditch these auctions that tend to go to the highest bidder and sit unused and open the Spectrum to unlicensed, WISP only, long range use.
Most WISP's out there today are using the 2.4 and 5GHz bands because their unlicensed, unfortunately their also used for WiFi traffic as well. These wreak havoc with WISP equipment especially in dense populations, and it's only getting worse as cable companies started packing 5GHz WiFi in their modems that broadcast 80MHZ of spectrum regardless if wireless is being used or not.
A clear, WISP Equipment only, spectrum block would not only help out smaller wireless ISP's with their Point to Multi point deployments, but also give business other options of connectivity between buildings besides fiber runs, since most point to point microwave setups are built around Point to Multi-point Wireless Spectrum allocation.
Political mudslinging is news for nerds now.
Just go to Gizmodo.com if you don't believe me. For a tech blog it seems like every other blog post is a "I Hate Donald Trump" Story,
Apparently This is a temporary solution according to Microsoft.
https://support.microsoft.com/...
Q3: How long will Microsoft require setting a registry key to receive the January 3, 2018, security updates?
A3: Microsoft added this requirement to ensure customers can successfully install the January 2018 security updates. Microsoft will continue to enforce this requirement until there is high confidence that the majority of customers will not encounter device crashes after installing the security updates.
Basically, there's no plausible scenario where a non-ISP content provider could cause harm to an ISP by throttling data from that ISP
Bullshit.
Apparently you've never heard of a Carriage Dispute. so let me visualize it for you...
1) Netflix decides it wants to charge ISP's like Viacom and CBS charge CableCo's for retransmission.
2) Netflix Throttles all Comcast streams to 480P or less. Tells customers to call Comcast to complain about speeds.
3) Customers Bitch at Comcast because they can't watch "Stranger Things" in HD.
4) Comcast checks their bandwidth, looks ok. Contacts Netflix to see what going on. Netflix tells Comcast to pay us $100 Million USD to "fix" the problem.
5) Comcast either pays Netflix to get their customers HD service, or tells Netflix to pound sand, which Netflix will respond by keeping Streams SD or less, and redirect millions of pissed off Customers to Comcast support or to some US regulatory body like the FCC to force Comcast's hand to pay.
6) If Comcast pays Netflix, they have to jack up Internet Rates to cover the Netflix Tax, Which pisses off Comcast customers and will probably get a US regulatory body involved claiming monopoly.
7) Repeat 1-6, replace Netflix with Hulu, CBS all access, amazon video, Google or whatever the Hell Disney will call their streaming service.
The problem is, who's the good guy? The answer is Neither. Both want money and both will find innovative ways to get it.
I started thinking about what Pai was trying to do outside of the "Verizon shill" argument and realized that the FCC in the end only could enforce Net neutrality on one side of the data; The ISP side. They could do nothing if a content provider decided to throttle an ISP's customers in order to extort money from the ISP.
Basically it comes down to this:
If Comcast throttled Netflix to try to get Netflix to pay them for priority bandwidth, FCC could step in with Title II and regulate.
If Netflix throttled Comcast to try to get Comcast to pay them for priority bandwidth, FCC couldn't do a thing because Netflix is outside of FCC control.
By moving net neutrality enforcement to the FTC, Which has (albeit limited) regulation authority over both the ISP and the Content Provider, Net neutrality could (theoretically) be enforced better in both directions instead of just one like it currently is.
The problem either way is this needs to be resolved by legislation drafted by congress, and it needs to be drafted in a way that enforces Net Neutrality on both the ISP and Content providers. Otherwise, say hello to Carriage Disputes for internet sites in the near future.
It matters on lower end hardware.
On high end systems, there's hardly any difference between Edge, Firefox and Chrome speed wise, but on lower end hardware such as older Intel atoms or AMD E series processors with 2GB of RAM, Edge Destroys Chrome in performance with Firefox being in between the two.
The biggest reason I don't switch to Edge is that its sharing between browsers isn't close. Chrome and Firefox got this nailed down. You login with your sync or Google account and your stuff is there and in the case of Chrome, so are all of your extensions. Edge seems to sync erratically between browsers, even if both PC's are using Microsoft accounts, Especially bookmarks, which I've had duplicate bookmark entries or even all of the bookmarks but in reverse order in which they were organized.
I guess the real question would be why would a provider pay for paid prioritization if they cannot be throttled?
What was supposedly happening before Net neutrality was that ISP's were using packet shapers to throttle sites like Netflix and YouTube and when the sites started calling out ISP's for throttling, the ISP's claimed network congestion that would magically go away (cause the shaper was turned off for their site) if some money would be thrown their way. Net neutrality made this illegal.
Under the Republican proposal, an ISP can not Throttle, Impair or Degrade Internet Traffic but Paid Prioritization is still on the table which supposedly makes this law bad, but If that's the case, why would Netflix or YouTube pay for prioritization when throttling is illegal? If the ISP's where throttling illegally, sites would have the option to sue for damages under the law.
If anything is wrong with this proposal, Sites would legally have the ability to throttle traffic to an ISP (and on top of that, lie to it's customers so that the customers put pressure on the ISP) to where the ISP would have to pay them for prioritized content as a sort of new age carriage dispute. Even the old Net Neutrality rules had no provisions or blocks for this. What this law really needs is a clause that bans throttling from Both parties instead of Just ISP's
So it looks like what happened is what I suspected, that Kaspersky's Heuristic analysis found the file and submitted it for analysis. Which is fine since that's what it's supposed to do.
The real question is why wouldn't Kaspersky submit it to other AV Firms or even Microsoft for analysis instead of just deleting it? From what it sounds like they had full source code on a virus. I would think that would be the equivalent of striking gold in the AV community regardless of the virus's source, Unless Kaspersky was afraid that the US would Pressure the heck out of them if they disclosed, which is not much different from what's happening now.
iHeartMedia radio stations can finally close down the NAPA studios, the McDonald's Weather Center and the Dunham Sports Desk since they were such money pits and were so outdated.
At least they'll recoup their huge losses over the decades by Selling the Kohl's Traffic Copter since the Ford Fusion Traffic Report is no more.
That was windows RT. They didn't allow software installs outside of the windows store and barred recompilation of existing apps to arm. It bombed. The closest thing to this is Windows 10S, which will also bomb unless the OS is free, which it's not. At least you can upgrade it to pro though.
Windows 10 arm is pretty much windows 10 pro on arm. They would support existing app recompile to arm as well as existing compiled x86 apps (but not x64). Its what windows RT should have been in the first place, but no one is going to build anything to put it on either because OEMs don't trust MS to stick with it or because it only works on Qualcomm processors. So other than MS making a surface arm, it's pretty much DOA.
The best thing MS could've done to save the platform is to focus on running x86 on ARM. At least at that point, phones like the HP Elite x3 would have made sense.
Unfortunately, with HP pulling the plug on the x3 and no real focus on the ARM platform other than as a novelty as well as Intel threatening lawsuits over x86 emulation over ARM, The windows phone market (as well as Windows on ARM for the most part) is all but officially dead.
Thats correct, there is going to be some terrain loss when it comes to propagation, but it shouldn't be that large of an issue overall with AM. Here's an example of what you're referring to using UHF.
WAPA TV's coverage map.
Unfortunately, I can't find a site that does maps quite like this for anything other than TV, but it shows what terrain can do to a UHF signal.
The difference however between UHF and MW when it comes to propagation is huge. UHF is typically received via Line of Sight and needs massive ERP to get long range vs AM, which can propagate using groundwave as well as skywave (mostly at night. This is why many stations dial down their ERP at night) and can penetrate hills and buildings easier with much less ERP at the tower. Also WAPA AM is low on the AM band which also helps in groundwave and skywave propagation.
In the end we're talking about a 100 mile island and a 10K MW transmitter. Unless there's damage or a design issue with the transmitter antenna then just about any car stereo on the island should get this signal. Especially at night.
To add more fuel to the article bashing fire:
This is WAPA's Daytime Signal Propagation at 10000 Watts.
This is WAPA's Nighttime Signal Propagation at 9500 Watts
At local range not only does it cover all of Puerto Rico, but starts to hit the Dominican Republic. Even cheap AM radios should be able to pick it up over most of the island.
A higher quality radio (such as a car stereo since power is out over most of the island) should have no trouble picking this up anywhere on the island at any time of the day short of deep in a valley.
Night should have no issues whatsoever anywhere on the island in any terrain short of a crystal radio on the western side.
Also, WAPA has 6 affiliates stations (although they could be down) According to Wikipedia
"I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though she's too young to have logged on yet. Here's what I worry about. I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, she will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?' "
-Mike Godwin - Electronic Freedom Foundation
The above quote has been on the Freenet Project Page since it's inception in 2000. I find it disturbing that it's starting to come true.