DNS is fine. Some applications, however, require an public domain on the Internet to have '.' inside... A regex that requires a '.'!
Most applications I've run across that do email validation are way too restrictive. If you have a 4 letter or longer top level domain, many will reject your email address and more exotics like a plus in your email, a percent in your email, etc... will almost certainly be rejected.
This and they also track views and presumably pay for content via the amount of views. If they are having very few legitimate views (or conversely a ton of illegitimate views) from a particular country then it could possible affect their negotiations.
Netflix could buy the rights for any show in any area. They just choose not to.
Although this is somewhat true, the problem is likely price. At $8/month they are operating at similar prices to HBO but possibly because it is on demand have to actually pay more per title so they are more just a channel that happens to be on demand. Just like a buffet is "all you can eat", very few have the most expensive entries and the ones that do charge alot more than the ones that stick to cheaper items.
My instinct is to swerve *away* from a hard object and go for the open path (like a sidewalk), even if that turns out to be filled with soft humans. Those humans might see me coming and get out of the way, or at least be taken care of slightly by the pedestrian friendly bumper, and go over the top of the car. A telephone pole is going to break my day.
I think you are wrong in this assessment.
Even if that is the case, leaving the roadway likely opens you up to homicide charges. Likely the best case for the self driving car is to always remain on the roadway. If the car remains on the roadway then it mostly can argue that it has the right of way but leaving the roadway for the sidewalk likely opens it up to lawsuits.
99% of time, the correct action is to stop. If a crash is unavoidable though, if you are solely concerned about the safety of the passenger, then it is safer for the passenger to hit a soft target like a crowd of people than something hard like a telephone pole. The passenger is much more likely to survive hitting a person than a brick wall but a human will usually choose the wall.
There is some truth to that. Recent laptop development has prioritized battery life rather than CPU performance. Even if you buy something with an i7 CPU, it's probably an ultra low voltage part that only has two cores and is no faster than the CPU in your seven year old laptop. On the bright side, the new system is two pounds lighter and runs twice as long on batteries (three times as long if you stream video because the new one does video decoding in hardware)
Yep. Exactly what I discovered. My 7 year old laptop has 4 cores with threading so shows up as 8 cores. When I look at it's passmark scores, it beats out most of the sub $1k laptops on the market. Battery life is not an issue for me as I need it portable but I always have AC so even if I'm at a coffee shop I just plug it in. The battery life of my phone is another issue but for my laptop, even a sub 1 hour charge (or even batteryless) would be sufficient for my day to day needs.
There is still one sub-genre of the laptop market that is putting the emphasis on performance: gaming laptops.
Yep, I'm currently looking at the alienware line as they're one of the few lines that have cpus with faster passmark scores than my current system. They also have an external video card adapter so I can drive a 4k monitor while at home and still be able to take my development station with me when on the move. The main reason I'm even looking at upgrading is that my laptop is now telling me that my battery is dying and I also recently discovered that my laptop can only drive 2 screens at a time (also 4k screens have dropped enough that the idea of having a 4k screen instead of multiple monitors is appealing). A desktop would be better suited for me but I have more than one office so I like to have the same setup at both locations.
EDO? Either you're writing from 1995 (which also might explain the $3K desktop) or you mean ECC.
The price of computers hasn't really dropped much in recent years. Mostly what has dropped is the specs. Most current laptops are what were considered "netbooks" a few years ago. I was shocked recently when I tried to upgrade my laptop which I bought 6-7 years ago for around $800. Almost every laptop I looked at had considerably worse specs than what I currently use. In order to get something with similar processing speed, I am going to have to spend over $1000 and probably closer to $2000 and even more if I want to get something actually faster than what I currently run.
It depends on what you're buying, of course. I have managed to get through my entire life, so far, having bought *nothing* from Amazon. I know it may ruffle your butt cheeks, but it's not only possible, but it's not difficult, either.
So you don't use amazon. Not hard to do. But please tell us where you do shop that pays a living wage and benefits to all its employees (including seasonal ones). Pretty much every retail place uses seasonal workers, pays them crap pay without training or benefits and kicks them to the curb as soon as the holidays are over.
So when every yahoo on your segment fires up BitTorrent your VoIP stops working? No thank you.
Basic prioritization: 1. Realtime Communications Traffic (VoIP) 2. Remote interactive sessions (RDP/SSH/Games/etc..) 3. Streaming Video 4. Streaming Audio 5. Web / Mail 6. Downloads
That's it. Realtime interactive communications get priority over non-interactive communications, which get priority over high latency operations, which get priority over ANY downloading. Of course, this should only kick in when the tubes are saturated, otherwise it doesn't matter.
Why should you or anyone else dictate how *my* packets are ordered. If you look at your other replies, people are already arguing about what the order is. Give everyone an equal slice and let everyone take turns. If your slice isn't big enough for you to do VOIP then you need to request a bigger pie not for your slice to get priority over my slice. I have no problem giving incentives to people to deprioritize their packets but it should be completely optional and under the user's control. Many utility companies have something similar where they will hook something up to your AC or hot water heater and cycle it off during peak demand. An ISP could easily do something similar where you get credit for shaping your own traffic.
Also, what is completely missing from your list is encrypted traffic. Most proposals I've seen put encrypted traffic at the bottom of the list because they don't know what it is so either you have to disable encryption or you're stuck at the very slowest tier.
You find it surprising that a system based on statistical analysis has trouble identifying things that are statistically unlikely? It is likely to assume everything is going to be that which is statistically the most likely. Common illnesses are the most statistically likely, thus AIs are going to perform best at those.
I'm reminded of my machine learning class. If you write a machine learning tool that when asked if you have cancer always says no, you'll have an incredibly high accuracy.
That's the wrong kind of statistics to use for diagnosis. It's not how many other people have those particular symptoms. It is how closely those particular symptoms match a known illness. Now you could always have a disclaimer that the best match is rare and therefore unlikely but it should still be included as the best match. There should also be a question that differentiates between the "common" illness and the "unique" illness even if that question is just something like "have you been to africa recently" but preferably the question would be an actual symptom because just because it is rare doesn't mean that you aren't just unlucky.
It will take many more people cutting the cord for us to see any changes.
The change will likely come from outside. Just like the entrenched stock brokers weren't the first ones to offer cheap trading, the entrenched cable networks are not going to be the first ones to offer alacarte. Amazon prime has already started do this a little. They have started adding add-on subscriptions to prime like starz and a few others. I see this continuing to increase. I also wouldn't be surprised if sites like the history channel and cartoon network either started offering stand alone subscriptions or hooking up with sites like amazon prime or roku to allow add on subscriptions.
"Eighty-four percent of clinicians listed the correct diagnosis in the top three possibilities, compared with 51 percent for the digital symptom-checkers. The difference between physician and computer performance was most dramatic in more severe and less common conditions. It was smaller for less acute and more common illnesses."
I'm surprised that digital diagnosis is that good already. The era of an "iDoc" app being as good as a gateway practitioner is probably not far off.
I was surprised that the doctor difference was smaller for common illnesses. I would have guessed the opposite. I would have expected a properly written AI to be much better at identifying obscure illnesses than a doctor that has never seen that particular illness. Also, they are using off the shelf symptom checker apps. Some of them might be ok but many are likely crap. If they are already at 51% then if someone like google seriously tried to tackle it with a decent budget then likely they could do much much better.
I think this is called the tragedy of the commons. Do you really want cable and satellite services to offer only those channels that draw the most viewers? This is why broadcast TV has such poor content, you know. Lowest common denominator programming.
I'm not saying only offer one channel that tries to appease everyone. Their satellites support over 100 channels so instead of having dozens of almost identical versions and then HD copies of those same channels why not have each channel specifically target 1% of the population. Then everyone gets a channel that they actually want. The infrastructure is the same but now instead of appealing to the majority you can also appeal to each niche separately. Noone can watch 100 channels at the same time, what you really want is everyone watching one of the 100 channels all the time and this would be much easier to do if instead of trying to get 50 million viewers on 1 channel at the same time instead they focused on getting 5 million viewers each on 100 channels which is a ton more eye balls.
That's kind of their business model. ESPN costs $7 a month (or whatever), and they give you 15 other channels for free along with it. If they didn't give you those channels, ESPN would still cost $7. Same deal with whatever channel you value.
I'm ok with $7/channel. I'm also ok with a monthly minimum of $20 or something similar. What I'm not ok with is a $40 base package with none of the channels I want and then having to pay an extra $40 per month to get the 2 channels I do want. That's not $7/channel. That's $40 per channel when I have to pay $80/month to get the 2 channels I really want. It makes even less sense when we are talking directv and dish where assuming I already have the dish, the cost of them providing me a single channel is effectively free. They would be much better off to get rid of half of the channels and only offer channels that generate them a large revenue via either people willing to pay for them or shopping channels, ad revenue, etc...
It is Not the Cable Companies. The Content providers demand they take packages or they can't get the few channels they actually want. Or You want.
I have no problem with them including a shopping channel or other junk channel with the channel I want but what I really want is to be able to pay $5 per channel for the channels I want. If they want to give me a bunch of other channels with the hope that I'll watch some commercials, I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is paying $20 a month for a bunch of channels I don't want and/or having to pay $100/month to get the 4 channels that I do want. $20/month for 4 good channels should work out good for both of us but until then I will look elsewhere.
Exactly this. I currently prefer google voice over siri because it's more accurate but also because it doesn't try to be clever. It annoys the crap out of me when I ask siri a question like 'Can you do XYZ?" and it replies with "Who me?". A simple "NO" or "I don't understand the question" would be much preferred.
Are you really okay with that? Any half-assed hacker can reverse engineer your code. He can then replicate your software in 1/10th the time it took you to develop your software. You can't sue him for copyright infringement since the clone's implementation details vary from yours.
Kindof like I can read Harry Potter and then create a new book based on it where only the names have changed? Or maybe I could write a book called "Ron Weasley" and have the book from Ron's perspective but everything else being the same? Harry Potter has no patent protection but both of these would not be allowed. There are some "fair uses" for copyright. Fan fiction is a gray area but even that if I tried to publish a full length novel based in the Harry Potter universe then I would likely end up in court. Copyrights and patents offer very similar protection with slight differences in enforcement but for most parts would be virtually the same.
How? If I knew, I wouldn't write it here but instead sell an idea like that...
Most arcades are now filled with things like fake motorcycles which would be cost prohibitive for the home user. The movie theatre is trying this with things like dbox but in order to really create an experience that can't be had at home it really needs to be more like the virtual rides where 8-10 people get into a device that moves with the movie. The problem with this is that in order for it to be more than just a gimmick it needs to be integrated with the movie which requires the movies to plan for this which requires there to already be a ton of these type system in existence. It's a chicken/egg problem that probably won't be solved anytime soon.
If Facebook gets it set up so everyone has free access to all their cloned services while having to pay for the originals that's going to give them a huge advantage and could easily lead to a monopoly situation.
I've seen this in the past with internet kiosks. They have 6-12 "free" sites and the open web costs $1/minute. The kiosks get paid either way, it's just who is footing the bill. This gets more complicated though with players that also provide competing services because they might not let you zero rate your service at any cost because they don't want you to compete with them. That's why if we are going to do zero rating then the cost to the website should be the same rate to all websites and the same rate to the consumer so that the provider can't choose favorites.
If free basics was 64kbps to access anything on the web (basically what tmobile, etc.. do when you run out of data) then I might be ok with it. If free basics was html only and no video/multimedia then this again might be ok. I'm completely against zero rating but if you did it this way then you are basically giving a low bandwidth "text only" version of the web away for free. It makes no sense the other way where facebook is exempt but linkedin isn't because it didn't pay the right person. Now if facebook wants to pay my my cellular provider for my bandwidth usage (and pay the same consumer rate I do) then I would be ok with that too. It would have to be closely watched though so that you don't end up with a tiered web where the only sites most people visit are the ones that are "free".
A simple solution with a good balance would be microfiche embedded in amber/plastic/glass. It would last indefinitely and would require only a simple microscope to read. No digital to decode and analog can even take some degradation and still be readable.
Yeah, in the debate last night, everyone thinks Trump made a mistake when he said Hillary has been "fighting ISIS her entire adult life".
Trump says plenty of stupid things. The left is hurting itself when it jumps on Trump for slight mishaps like this. If he would have said "terrorists" or even "islamic terrorists" then he would be pretty much correct and everyone knows it. When people think they are smarter than everyone else and jump on Trump for a slight mishap like this the only thing it does is drive his supporters to support him harder and ignore all the real problems with the things he says. Unlike most candidates, pounding on his minor slip ups just makes him stronger and hides his real shortcomings behind a shield of "the establishment is out to get him"
I can't imagine any malware could detect a stock image taken from a year of use.
Yep. Even if it was taken from a few weeks of use in a student lab the amount of effort needed for a virus to determine the false positives from the false negatives would become astronomical. It would either still infect some honeypots or greatly reduce the number of systems it could infect. Basically the honeypots made it too easy as a real computer in use shows many signs of use like facebook access, random google searches, random cruft on the hard drives, etc.. This is a simplistic version. I could see a more advanced one making sure there was at least one facebook post in the last 24 hours before releasing it's payload.
Science and physics once said fusion and fision were impossible and the sun couldn't possibly exist as it produced more energy than physically possible. It also couldn't explain how the honeybee flew or heavier than air travel.
One thing that helped with these was that we had working examples that proved it was possible even if we didn't know how but just because we don't have a known working example of ftl travel it doesn't make it impossible.
We already have working theories on bendIng space. Currently they require an enormous amount of energy and likely destroy stuff in it's path but that doesn't make it impossible. It would be simple enough to stop before your destination and travel the last part of the journey the traditional way.
The Gates Foundation as well as several of the other ones you listed tend to mostly focus on distributing existing cures rather than trying to find new cures. I agree that it's pie in the sky idealism but $3 billion is still a considerable amount of money that could go a long way if focused in particular areas. I'm also not saying that the Gates Foundation is not doing a very good thing but discovering new cures is not really a huge focus of theirs because there are plenty of people already dying from know diseases with known cures.
Slashdot Mirror
DNS is fine. Some applications, however, require an public domain on the Internet to have '.' inside... A regex that requires a '.'!
Most applications I've run across that do email validation are way too restrictive. If you have a 4 letter or longer top level domain, many will reject your email address and more exotics like a plus in your email, a percent in your email, etc... will almost certainly be rejected.
This and they also track views and presumably pay for content via the amount of views. If they are having very few legitimate views (or conversely a ton of illegitimate views) from a particular country then it could possible affect their negotiations.
Netflix could buy the rights for any show in any area. They just choose not to.
Although this is somewhat true, the problem is likely price. At $8/month they are operating at similar prices to HBO but possibly because it is on demand have to actually pay more per title so they are more just a channel that happens to be on demand. Just like a buffet is "all you can eat", very few have the most expensive entries and the ones that do charge alot more than the ones that stick to cheaper items.
My instinct is to swerve *away* from a hard object and go for the open path (like a sidewalk), even if that turns out to be filled with soft humans. Those humans might see me coming and get out of the way, or at least be taken care of slightly by the pedestrian friendly bumper, and go over the top of the car.
A telephone pole is going to break my day.
I think you are wrong in this assessment.
Even if that is the case, leaving the roadway likely opens you up to homicide charges. Likely the best case for the self driving car is to always remain on the roadway. If the car remains on the roadway then it mostly can argue that it has the right of way but leaving the roadway for the sidewalk likely opens it up to lawsuits.
99% of time, the correct action is to stop. If a crash is unavoidable though, if you are solely concerned about the safety of the passenger, then it is safer for the passenger to hit a soft target like a crowd of people than something hard like a telephone pole. The passenger is much more likely to survive hitting a person than a brick wall but a human will usually choose the wall.
There is some truth to that. Recent laptop development has prioritized battery life rather than CPU performance. Even if you buy something with an i7 CPU, it's probably an ultra low voltage part that only has two cores and is no faster than the CPU in your seven year old laptop. On the bright side, the new system is two pounds lighter and runs twice as long on batteries (three times as long if you stream video because the new one does video decoding in hardware)
Yep. Exactly what I discovered. My 7 year old laptop has 4 cores with threading so shows up as 8 cores. When I look at it's passmark scores, it beats out most of the sub $1k laptops on the market. Battery life is not an issue for me as I need it portable but I always have AC so even if I'm at a coffee shop I just plug it in. The battery life of my phone is another issue but for my laptop, even a sub 1 hour charge (or even batteryless) would be sufficient for my day to day needs.
There is still one sub-genre of the laptop market that is putting the emphasis on performance: gaming laptops.
Yep, I'm currently looking at the alienware line as they're one of the few lines that have cpus with faster passmark scores than my current system. They also have an external video card adapter so I can drive a 4k monitor while at home and still be able to take my development station with me when on the move. The main reason I'm even looking at upgrading is that my laptop is now telling me that my battery is dying and I also recently discovered that my laptop can only drive 2 screens at a time (also 4k screens have dropped enough that the idea of having a 4k screen instead of multiple monitors is appealing). A desktop would be better suited for me but I have more than one office so I like to have the same setup at both locations.
EDO? Either you're writing from 1995 (which also might explain the $3K desktop) or you mean ECC.
The price of computers hasn't really dropped much in recent years. Mostly what has dropped is the specs. Most current laptops are what were considered "netbooks" a few years ago. I was shocked recently when I tried to upgrade my laptop which I bought 6-7 years ago for around $800. Almost every laptop I looked at had considerably worse specs than what I currently use. In order to get something with similar processing speed, I am going to have to spend over $1000 and probably closer to $2000 and even more if I want to get something actually faster than what I currently run.
It depends on what you're buying, of course. I have managed to get through my entire life, so far, having bought *nothing* from Amazon. I know it may ruffle your butt cheeks, but it's not only possible, but it's not difficult, either.
So you don't use amazon. Not hard to do. But please tell us where you do shop that pays a living wage and benefits to all its employees (including seasonal ones). Pretty much every retail place uses seasonal workers, pays them crap pay without training or benefits and kicks them to the curb as soon as the holidays are over.
So when every yahoo on your segment fires up BitTorrent your VoIP stops working? No thank you.
Basic prioritization:
1. Realtime Communications Traffic (VoIP)
2. Remote interactive sessions (RDP/SSH/Games/etc..)
3. Streaming Video
4. Streaming Audio
5. Web / Mail
6. Downloads
That's it. Realtime interactive communications get priority over non-interactive communications, which get priority over high latency operations, which get priority over ANY downloading. Of course, this should only kick in when the tubes are saturated, otherwise it doesn't matter.
Why should you or anyone else dictate how *my* packets are ordered. If you look at your other replies, people are already arguing about what the order is. Give everyone an equal slice and let everyone take turns. If your slice isn't big enough for you to do VOIP then you need to request a bigger pie not for your slice to get priority over my slice. I have no problem giving incentives to people to deprioritize their packets but it should be completely optional and under the user's control. Many utility companies have something similar where they will hook something up to your AC or hot water heater and cycle it off during peak demand. An ISP could easily do something similar where you get credit for shaping your own traffic.
Also, what is completely missing from your list is encrypted traffic. Most proposals I've seen put encrypted traffic at the bottom of the list because they don't know what it is so either you have to disable encryption or you're stuck at the very slowest tier.
You find it surprising that a system based on statistical analysis has trouble identifying things that are statistically unlikely? It is likely to assume everything is going to be that which is statistically the most likely. Common illnesses are the most statistically likely, thus AIs are going to perform best at those.
I'm reminded of my machine learning class. If you write a machine learning tool that when asked if you have cancer always says no, you'll have an incredibly high accuracy.
That's the wrong kind of statistics to use for diagnosis. It's not how many other people have those particular symptoms. It is how closely those particular symptoms match a known illness. Now you could always have a disclaimer that the best match is rare and therefore unlikely but it should still be included as the best match. There should also be a question that differentiates between the "common" illness and the "unique" illness even if that question is just something like "have you been to africa recently" but preferably the question would be an actual symptom because just because it is rare doesn't mean that you aren't just unlucky.
It will take many more people cutting the cord for us to see any changes.
The change will likely come from outside. Just like the entrenched stock brokers weren't the first ones to offer cheap trading, the entrenched cable networks are not going to be the first ones to offer alacarte. Amazon prime has already started do this a little. They have started adding add-on subscriptions to prime like starz and a few others. I see this continuing to increase. I also wouldn't be surprised if sites like the history channel and cartoon network either started offering stand alone subscriptions or hooking up with sites like amazon prime or roku to allow add on subscriptions.
"Eighty-four percent of clinicians listed the correct diagnosis in the top three possibilities, compared with 51 percent for the digital symptom-checkers. The difference between physician and computer performance was most dramatic in more severe and less common conditions. It was smaller for less acute and more common illnesses."
I'm surprised that digital diagnosis is that good already. The era of an "iDoc" app being as good as a gateway practitioner is probably not far off.
I was surprised that the doctor difference was smaller for common illnesses. I would have guessed the opposite. I would have expected a properly written AI to be much better at identifying obscure illnesses than a doctor that has never seen that particular illness. Also, they are using off the shelf symptom checker apps. Some of them might be ok but many are likely crap. If they are already at 51% then if someone like google seriously tried to tackle it with a decent budget then likely they could do much much better.
I think this is called the tragedy of the commons. Do you really want cable and satellite services to offer only those channels that draw the most viewers? This is why broadcast TV has such poor content, you know. Lowest common denominator programming.
I'm not saying only offer one channel that tries to appease everyone. Their satellites support over 100 channels so instead of having dozens of almost identical versions and then HD copies of those same channels why not have each channel specifically target 1% of the population. Then everyone gets a channel that they actually want. The infrastructure is the same but now instead of appealing to the majority you can also appeal to each niche separately. Noone can watch 100 channels at the same time, what you really want is everyone watching one of the 100 channels all the time and this would be much easier to do if instead of trying to get 50 million viewers on 1 channel at the same time instead they focused on getting 5 million viewers each on 100 channels which is a ton more eye balls.
That's kind of their business model. ESPN costs $7 a month (or whatever), and they give you 15 other channels for free along with it. If they didn't give you those channels, ESPN would still cost $7. Same deal with whatever channel you value.
I'm ok with $7/channel. I'm also ok with a monthly minimum of $20 or something similar. What I'm not ok with is a $40 base package with none of the channels I want and then having to pay an extra $40 per month to get the 2 channels I do want. That's not $7/channel. That's $40 per channel when I have to pay $80/month to get the 2 channels I really want. It makes even less sense when we are talking directv and dish where assuming I already have the dish, the cost of them providing me a single channel is effectively free. They would be much better off to get rid of half of the channels and only offer channels that generate them a large revenue via either people willing to pay for them or shopping channels, ad revenue, etc...
It is Not the Cable Companies.
The Content providers demand they take packages or they can't get the few channels they actually want.
Or You want.
I have no problem with them including a shopping channel or other junk channel with the channel I want but what I really want is to be able to pay $5 per channel for the channels I want. If they want to give me a bunch of other channels with the hope that I'll watch some commercials, I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is paying $20 a month for a bunch of channels I don't want and/or having to pay $100/month to get the 4 channels that I do want. $20/month for 4 good channels should work out good for both of us but until then I will look elsewhere.
Exactly this. I currently prefer google voice over siri because it's more accurate but also because it doesn't try to be clever.
It annoys the crap out of me when I ask siri a question like 'Can you do XYZ?" and it replies with "Who me?".
A simple "NO" or "I don't understand the question" would be much preferred.
Are you really okay with that? Any half-assed hacker can reverse engineer your code. He can then replicate your software in 1/10th the time it took you to develop your software. You can't sue him for copyright infringement since the clone's implementation details vary from yours.
Kindof like I can read Harry Potter and then create a new book based on it where only the names have changed? Or maybe I could write a book called "Ron Weasley" and have the book from Ron's perspective but everything else being the same? Harry Potter has no patent protection but both of these would not be allowed. There are some "fair uses" for copyright. Fan fiction is a gray area but even that if I tried to publish a full length novel based in the Harry Potter universe then I would likely end up in court. Copyrights and patents offer very similar protection with slight differences in enforcement but for most parts would be virtually the same.
How? If I knew, I wouldn't write it here but instead sell an idea like that...
Most arcades are now filled with things like fake motorcycles which would be cost prohibitive for the home user. The movie theatre is trying this with things like dbox but in order to really create an experience that can't be had at home it really needs to be more like the virtual rides where 8-10 people get into a device that moves with the movie. The problem with this is that in order for it to be more than just a gimmick it needs to be integrated with the movie which requires the movies to plan for this which requires there to already be a ton of these type system in existence. It's a chicken/egg problem that probably won't be solved anytime soon.
If Facebook gets it set up so everyone has free access to all their cloned services while having to pay for the originals that's going to give them a huge advantage and could easily lead to a monopoly situation.
I've seen this in the past with internet kiosks. They have 6-12 "free" sites and the open web costs $1/minute. The kiosks get paid either way, it's just who is footing the bill. This gets more complicated though with players that also provide competing services because they might not let you zero rate your service at any cost because they don't want you to compete with them. That's why if we are going to do zero rating then the cost to the website should be the same rate to all websites and the same rate to the consumer so that the provider can't choose favorites.
If free basics was 64kbps to access anything on the web (basically what tmobile, etc.. do when you run out of data) then I might be ok with it.
If free basics was html only and no video/multimedia then this again might be ok.
I'm completely against zero rating but if you did it this way then you are basically giving a low bandwidth "text only" version of the web away for free.
It makes no sense the other way where facebook is exempt but linkedin isn't because it didn't pay the right person.
Now if facebook wants to pay my my cellular provider for my bandwidth usage (and pay the same consumer rate I do) then I would be ok with that too.
It would have to be closely watched though so that you don't end up with a tiered web where the only sites most people visit are the ones that are "free".
A simple solution with a good balance would be microfiche embedded in amber/plastic/glass. It would last indefinitely and would require only a simple microscope to read. No digital to decode and analog can even take some degradation and still be readable.
Yeah, in the debate last night, everyone thinks Trump made a mistake when he said Hillary has been "fighting ISIS her entire adult life".
Trump says plenty of stupid things. The left is hurting itself when it jumps on Trump for slight mishaps like this. If he would have said "terrorists" or even "islamic terrorists"
then he would be pretty much correct and everyone knows it. When people think they are smarter than everyone else and jump on Trump for a slight mishap like this the
only thing it does is drive his supporters to support him harder and ignore all the real problems with the things he says.
Unlike most candidates, pounding on his minor slip ups just makes him stronger and hides his real shortcomings behind a shield of "the establishment is out to get him"
The stock images should be more comprehensive?
I can't imagine any malware could detect a stock image taken from a year of use.
Yep. Even if it was taken from a few weeks of use in a student lab the amount of effort needed for a virus to determine the false positives from the false negatives would become astronomical. It would either still infect some honeypots or greatly reduce the number of systems it could infect.
Basically the honeypots made it too easy as a real computer in use shows many signs of use like facebook access, random google searches, random cruft on the hard drives, etc.. This is a simplistic version. I could see a more advanced one making sure there was at least one facebook post in the last 24 hours before releasing it's payload.
Science and physics once said fusion and fision were impossible and the sun couldn't possibly exist as it produced more energy than physically possible.
It also couldn't explain how the honeybee flew or heavier than air travel.
One thing that helped with these was that we had working examples that proved it was possible even if we didn't know how but just because we don't have a known working example of ftl travel it doesn't make it impossible.
We already have working theories on bendIng space. Currently they require an enormous amount of energy and likely destroy stuff in it's path but that doesn't make it impossible. It would be simple enough to stop before your destination and travel the last part of the journey the traditional way.
Or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation with $44 billion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Gates Foundation as well as several of the other ones you listed tend to mostly focus on distributing existing cures rather than trying to find new cures. I agree that it's pie in the sky idealism but $3 billion is still a considerable amount of money that could go a long way if focused in particular areas. I'm also not saying that the Gates Foundation is not doing a very good thing but discovering new cures is not really a huge focus of theirs because there are plenty of people already dying from know diseases with known cures.