Even so, electricity isn't free. So when you do burn trash, capturing that heat and putting it into warming homes is a nice bonus (it's distributed via hot water pipes).
Considering my car's sign recognition camera routinely misinterprets and claims e.g. the speed limit is 140 in a 50 zone, this should get fun.
If it's on by default, I predict the sales of GPS jammers will skyrocket if this becomes the norm. Not to mention duct tape to cover the sign reading camera. Yes, even if you can actually turn it off in settings, a lot of people simply won't read the damn manual.
To boot, the early models were even thinner at the slim end.
2012 MBA: Height: 0.11-0.68 inch (0.3-1.7 cm) 2018 MBA: Height: 0.16–0.61 inch (0.41–1.56 cm)
That they somehow managed to mess up something as testable as a keyboard, is one thing. That they haven't managed to fix it several iterations later, is just sad. I'm sticking with my 2012 model and hoping it never dies.
"Why is this even possible?", internet users said on Thursday.
Didn't strike me as any great mystery. Amazon is too big and clunky to have gotten their GDPR ducks in a row and are manually handling requests that should be automated.
The longer version: For whatever reason Amazon has not made accessing your Echo recordings something you can just do at will (I assume this to be the case, otherwise the request would make no sense, but I don't own an Echo so I don't really know). The user made a request for the recordings, which falls under personal information, thus the GDPR, thus giving Amazon no option but to respond. When complying with a request for personal information is a manual process, there's always a risk of human error. Voila. If some poor sod is stuck all day collating recordings and sending users links to them, at some point it is inevitable that something will go wrong.
It seems to me the summary has misunderstood where the liability for lying in an ad is placed. It's with the advertiser, not the media where the ad is placed. You can't sue a newspaper for Ford running an ad in it that lies about mileage. If that were the case, that newspapers were required to fact check every ad someone pays them to print, it seems to me that would be the end of advertising.
Last I checked (this summer sometime), there was virtually no content on Amazon Video. At least not where I live. It was like a barren version of Netflix.
My main point was one of availability. I don't see any reason why you'd _have_ to bundle together a pay per view and a subscription service. E.g. I don't have to subscribe to Google's music service in order to be able to buy music from it, but I _can_ buy just about anything I'd ever want to listen to from there.
My expectation of Netflix predates their push into creating original content. That obviously changed things up a bit, in that they are now effectively competitors. Back then, however, I figured the movie industry would take note and want in on that action. And Netflix was the big name, like Steam is when it comes to games. So if they were going to start offering their wares, striking a deal with Netflix seemed like the natural choice to me. The audience was already there. Instead, they seem intent on repeating the music industry's mistakes.
If they'd rather get together and launch their own service, fine by me. As long as they all are in on it and all offer up their entire catalogue. Instead we have this fragmented mess where you largely need to choose your content providers rather than the content itself.
Bottom line: as has always been the case, you can't expect to combat piracy as long as it offers a vastly superior product.
The way to increase adoption of online streaming services is to make content more, not less, widely available.
It's interesting how the industry seems to have learned nothing from how this went down with music. 27 different subscription services, each giving access to a limited selection of content (different per region, to top it off), just isn't the way to go about things.
I expected Netflix (or similar) to have a base subscription with a wide selection of "included content", _and_ a pay per view option for "now in cinemas" and other premium type content, a long time ago now. You can still monetize stuff, just put it all in one bloody place.
It would be outrageous if Samsung fired factory workers for using a different phone. A _brand ambassador_, on the other hand, is literally paid specifically to promote the brand. If you don't want to use a product, don't become a freakin' brand ambassador for it and don't sign a contract saying you will use said brand.
... we already had this problem solved. Once upon a time, there was a thing called "an office". Where you walked to your door and closed it when you needed to work without interruption.
It is only remembered now by its distant cousin, the "home office".
I base this guess off of nothing but an image and a headline that said something like "friend charging" that I didn't click on, but it might be the ability to charge one phone with another. So if you have 80% battery and your friend's phone is about to die, you can put them on top of one another and yours can charge his.
Bad summary, as usual. Reading TFA it seems they only operate with the number of gyros required, keeping the remainders in reserve to drag out the lifetime of the HST. The scenario looks to be that one failed, and when they tried to bring the (final) spare online, it turned out to be misbehaving as well.
Same here, natural light and the ability to look outside are legal requirements. Ironically, I had blinds put in at work because I can't handle daylight without sunglasses.
As recent as this weekend, I got a text saying "Did you hear of this show? 8.2 on IMDb. We're checking out the first ep now."
Leaving aside how inflated scores are in general – it's rare to see anything below 7 that's not pretty horrible – they serve pretty well as a rough indicator of overall quality. Or, to put it another way, an 8+ show might be worth checking out even if it seems a bit outside of what I'd normally watch. Likewise, low 7 or into the 6s is probably only worth checking out if it seems like just my thing.
Over the years, this has shown to hold pretty true in my experience. It's not perfect, but as a guide it works fairly well.
Our usage of the term seems to differ, then. To me, a systems error is a category separate from user error, even if the user error is made more likely by overly complicated design or implementation.
I forgave the local semi techy tabloid type online newspaper getting this wrong when the news broke days ago, but this is Slashdot FFS. This was user error, not a systems error. An AWS employee fucked up.
I suspect they're "creative" figures. Along the lines of how our politicians keep trying to convince us that our wages are high enough to compensate for the taxation.
Everyone I know who has lived in the US for a number of years, can attest to how inaccurate that is. While their wages dropped considerably when moving there, their purchasing power still increased significantly.
I disagree. If a welfare state needs nearly 100% effective taxation to stay afloat, it is nowhere near sustainable. Add welfare immigration to that, and it's destined to break down. Even the head of the national welfare organization recently went to the media to raise awareness of how the system is in danger.
Trivia: the cheapest bottle of rum I could find by a quick check of the booze monopoly (state run, of course), is $65.
I really hope that report's definition of "household" or "disposable income" is way off of what my definition of them are, because that seems not only off, but ridiculously off. Unless they exclusively consider a household to be a house filled with surgeons and psychiatrists.
But I'll never know, since I don't care enough to go read the report to find out.
One point to make, though, is that the majority of Norway's taxes is not tied to income, but spending. Want to buy a car? Here, have this, only 100% added in tax (not a joke). Want to drive to Oslo for work? That'll be $10 for for the toll, thank you very much (though they're changing that now, adding dozens of tolls inside the city center). Like a bit of whiskey on a Friday night? No problem, only 80% taxes added. Want to save a buck? Go for wine, only 60% taxes on that.
It should also be added that we'll soon all be in deep shit now that the oil industry is declining. Our welfare costs are through the roof, and without oil there's no way to sustain that. Hopefully, I'm old enough to be dead before it all comes crashing down.
Aye. I read the article and thought, "how is there enough data here to draw any kind of conclusion at all?" They don't seem to have controlled for anything whatsoever. Although, it's hard to tell since I can't seem to find a link to the actual research.
While I don't see any immediate reason to conclude the data was collected with the intent to show that gamers are sexist, I would not at all be surprised if "everyone" ignores how weak the science appears to be here, and we end up with a ton of articles citing this article to "prove" just that.
The fines that are being quoted are intended for blatant abuse from major actors, not e.g. a mom and pop shop not sufficiently sanitizing a webserver log. And, again, if you don't store or process personal data, no worries regardless.
For a webstore you'd store things like name and address, obviously, but all you need to do in order to comply would be to let the user know that information is solely used for the process of making purchases, not being shared by third parties, and that they can delete their account and all data whenever they choose to do so. That's basically an email and a "delete account" button.
Most webstores already have a button to delete your account. If assuming that's working as expected, then authoring that email would likely take less time than adding geoblocking and scripting mass account deletion would.
Considering I have not gotten a single warning about my account being disabled from any foreign webstore, but I have gotten a number of "here's how we use your data and here are your rights" mails from those stores, it seems most aren't finding this too difficult to handle.
The focus of the GDPR is the need to inform the user and to allow them to control the use of their personal information, making undisclosed data collection and/or usage a primary target for the legislation. Thus this (I'm going by the summary here, I don't know anything about unroll.me) would be exactly the type of behavior it's designed to prevent. In other words, I strongly believe you are objectively wrong.
It is possible that they could keep going if they informed the user properly and made everything opt-in, but the big issue I see is the stipulation in the GDPR for data minimization. You cannot collect or process data that's not necessary for the purpose for which you are accessing the data. For a service offering a way to unsubscribe from mailing list, processing information about how you use ride sharing services would be a tough sell as being relevant to the service being offered. In order to be able to anonymize data and use it for other purposes than offering the service, you first need to show that processing that data was necessary to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
Even so, electricity isn't free. So when you do burn trash, capturing that heat and putting it into warming homes is a nice bonus (it's distributed via hot water pipes).
No, you should not flush your condom down the toilet. If it's not poop, pee or toilet paper, it does not go in the toilet.
You may want to google "spontaneous recanalization".
Considering my car's sign recognition camera routinely misinterprets and claims e.g. the speed limit is 140 in a 50 zone, this should get fun.
If it's on by default, I predict the sales of GPS jammers will skyrocket if this becomes the norm. Not to mention duct tape to cover the sign reading camera. Yes, even if you can actually turn it off in settings, a lot of people simply won't read the damn manual.
To boot, the early models were even thinner at the slim end.
2012 MBA: Height: 0.11-0.68 inch (0.3-1.7 cm)
2018 MBA: Height: 0.16–0.61 inch (0.41–1.56 cm)
That they somehow managed to mess up something as testable as a keyboard, is one thing. That they haven't managed to fix it several iterations later, is just sad. I'm sticking with my 2012 model and hoping it never dies.
"Why is this even possible?", internet users said on Thursday.
Didn't strike me as any great mystery. Amazon is too big and clunky to have gotten their GDPR ducks in a row and are manually handling requests that should be automated.
The longer version: For whatever reason Amazon has not made accessing your Echo recordings something you can just do at will (I assume this to be the case, otherwise the request would make no sense, but I don't own an Echo so I don't really know). The user made a request for the recordings, which falls under personal information, thus the GDPR, thus giving Amazon no option but to respond. When complying with a request for personal information is a manual process, there's always a risk of human error. Voila. If some poor sod is stuck all day collating recordings and sending users links to them, at some point it is inevitable that something will go wrong.
It seems to me the summary has misunderstood where the liability for lying in an ad is placed. It's with the advertiser, not the media where the ad is placed. You can't sue a newspaper for Ford running an ad in it that lies about mileage. If that were the case, that newspapers were required to fact check every ad someone pays them to print, it seems to me that would be the end of advertising.
Last I checked (this summer sometime), there was virtually no content on Amazon Video. At least not where I live. It was like a barren version of Netflix.
My main point was one of availability. I don't see any reason why you'd _have_ to bundle together a pay per view and a subscription service. E.g. I don't have to subscribe to Google's music service in order to be able to buy music from it, but I _can_ buy just about anything I'd ever want to listen to from there.
My expectation of Netflix predates their push into creating original content. That obviously changed things up a bit, in that they are now effectively competitors. Back then, however, I figured the movie industry would take note and want in on that action. And Netflix was the big name, like Steam is when it comes to games. So if they were going to start offering their wares, striking a deal with Netflix seemed like the natural choice to me. The audience was already there. Instead, they seem intent on repeating the music industry's mistakes.
If they'd rather get together and launch their own service, fine by me. As long as they all are in on it and all offer up their entire catalogue. Instead we have this fragmented mess where you largely need to choose your content providers rather than the content itself.
Bottom line: as has always been the case, you can't expect to combat piracy as long as it offers a vastly superior product.
The way to increase adoption of online streaming services is to make content more, not less, widely available.
It's interesting how the industry seems to have learned nothing from how this went down with music. 27 different subscription services, each giving access to a limited selection of content (different per region, to top it off), just isn't the way to go about things.
I expected Netflix (or similar) to have a base subscription with a wide selection of "included content", _and_ a pay per view option for "now in cinemas" and other premium type content, a long time ago now. You can still monetize stuff, just put it all in one bloody place.
It would be outrageous if Samsung fired factory workers for using a different phone. A _brand ambassador_, on the other hand, is literally paid specifically to promote the brand. If you don't want to use a product, don't become a freakin' brand ambassador for it and don't sign a contract saying you will use said brand.
... we already had this problem solved. Once upon a time, there was a thing called "an office". Where you walked to your door and closed it when you needed to work without interruption.
It is only remembered now by its distant cousin, the "home office".
I base this guess off of nothing but an image and a headline that said something like "friend charging" that I didn't click on, but it might be the ability to charge one phone with another. So if you have 80% battery and your friend's phone is about to die, you can put them on top of one another and yours can charge his.
Oh, wait, I misread. Or rather, misunderstood. Disregard.
Most people would log in to their own home routers from... home. As in, not remotely.
Bad summary, as usual. Reading TFA it seems they only operate with the number of gyros required, keeping the remainders in reserve to drag out the lifetime of the HST. The scenario looks to be that one failed, and when they tried to bring the (final) spare online, it turned out to be misbehaving as well.
Same here, natural light and the ability to look outside are legal requirements. Ironically, I had blinds put in at work because I can't handle daylight without sunglasses.
As recent as this weekend, I got a text saying "Did you hear of this show? 8.2 on IMDb. We're checking out the first ep now."
Leaving aside how inflated scores are in general – it's rare to see anything below 7 that's not pretty horrible – they serve pretty well as a rough indicator of overall quality. Or, to put it another way, an 8+ show might be worth checking out even if it seems a bit outside of what I'd normally watch. Likewise, low 7 or into the 6s is probably only worth checking out if it seems like just my thing.
Over the years, this has shown to hold pretty true in my experience. It's not perfect, but as a guide it works fairly well.
Our usage of the term seems to differ, then. To me, a systems error is a category separate from user error, even if the user error is made more likely by overly complicated design or implementation.
I forgave the local semi techy tabloid type online newspaper getting this wrong when the news broke days ago, but this is Slashdot FFS. This was user error, not a systems error. An AWS employee fucked up.
I suspect they're "creative" figures. Along the lines of how our politicians keep trying to convince us that our wages are high enough to compensate for the taxation.
Everyone I know who has lived in the US for a number of years, can attest to how inaccurate that is. While their wages dropped considerably when moving there, their purchasing power still increased significantly.
I disagree. If a welfare state needs nearly 100% effective taxation to stay afloat, it is nowhere near sustainable. Add welfare immigration to that, and it's destined to break down. Even the head of the national welfare organization recently went to the media to raise awareness of how the system is in danger.
Trivia: the cheapest bottle of rum I could find by a quick check of the booze monopoly (state run, of course), is $65.
I really hope that report's definition of "household" or "disposable income" is way off of what my definition of them are, because that seems not only off, but ridiculously off. Unless they exclusively consider a household to be a house filled with surgeons and psychiatrists.
But I'll never know, since I don't care enough to go read the report to find out.
One point to make, though, is that the majority of Norway's taxes is not tied to income, but spending. Want to buy a car? Here, have this, only 100% added in tax (not a joke). Want to drive to Oslo for work? That'll be $10 for for the toll, thank you very much (though they're changing that now, adding dozens of tolls inside the city center). Like a bit of whiskey on a Friday night? No problem, only 80% taxes added. Want to save a buck? Go for wine, only 60% taxes on that.
It should also be added that we'll soon all be in deep shit now that the oil industry is declining. Our welfare costs are through the roof, and without oil there's no way to sustain that. Hopefully, I'm old enough to be dead before it all comes crashing down.
Aye. I read the article and thought, "how is there enough data here to draw any kind of conclusion at all?" They don't seem to have controlled for anything whatsoever. Although, it's hard to tell since I can't seem to find a link to the actual research.
While I don't see any immediate reason to conclude the data was collected with the intent to show that gamers are sexist, I would not at all be surprised if "everyone" ignores how weak the science appears to be here, and we end up with a ton of articles citing this article to "prove" just that.
The fines that are being quoted are intended for blatant abuse from major actors, not e.g. a mom and pop shop not sufficiently sanitizing a webserver log. And, again, if you don't store or process personal data, no worries regardless.
For a webstore you'd store things like name and address, obviously, but all you need to do in order to comply would be to let the user know that information is solely used for the process of making purchases, not being shared by third parties, and that they can delete their account and all data whenever they choose to do so. That's basically an email and a "delete account" button.
Most webstores already have a button to delete your account. If assuming that's working as expected, then authoring that email would likely take less time than adding geoblocking and scripting mass account deletion would.
Considering I have not gotten a single warning about my account being disabled from any foreign webstore, but I have gotten a number of "here's how we use your data and here are your rights" mails from those stores, it seems most aren't finding this too difficult to handle.
The focus of the GDPR is the need to inform the user and to allow them to control the use of their personal information, making undisclosed data collection and/or usage a primary target for the legislation. Thus this (I'm going by the summary here, I don't know anything about unroll.me) would be exactly the type of behavior it's designed to prevent. In other words, I strongly believe you are objectively wrong.
It is possible that they could keep going if they informed the user properly and made everything opt-in, but the big issue I see is the stipulation in the GDPR for data minimization. You cannot collect or process data that's not necessary for the purpose for which you are accessing the data. For a service offering a way to unsubscribe from mailing list, processing information about how you use ride sharing services would be a tough sell as being relevant to the service being offered. In order to be able to anonymize data and use it for other purposes than offering the service, you first need to show that processing that data was necessary to begin with.