That might be true. But none of these boxes play media that people have foolishly purchased from the Apple store and only plays on Apple devices.
That's the audience for the device - people locked into Apple's ecosystem. Everyone else can pick and choose and if they're smart they won't buy any kind of media - audio, video or books which is locked to one service / provider. Of course technically they're not buying media at all, just a licence to view the media which is why this chicanery happens at all. Digital content could be legislated and imbued with similar concepts of ownership / transferability & copyright as physical content but no region or country seems to have the balls to go there yet.
Battery storage didn't start with Tesla and I'm sure other solutions in a similar form factor will appear from other major manufacturers. Building banks of batteries into safe, reliable storage is obviously something that can be highly automated and the cost is only going to come over time.
But I don't see why anyone would want to do this for themselves. What they save in money they must surely lose in time and house / injury claims if their house goes up in smoke.
Nullsoft single handedly invented the MP3 players, streaming audio & video and P2P filesharing and downloads. AOL Time Warner (as it was at the time) singlehandedly failed to capitalize on any of these things and in fact drove the founder out by squelching his projects.
The SUPER stupid part is AOL did this a lot. They bought up a lot of innovative companies and squeezed the life and individuality out of them and stifled their potential. Want to know how dumb it got? AOL forced all their subsidiaries to migrate their email systems to use the AOL client because of course they did.
Chances are they are there in the first place because the providers paid Sony a lot of money for prominent placement.
Personally I have no interest in certain apps and I see no harm to the bottom line if Sony allowed them to at least be hidden even if they're part of the firmware.
The sad part is seeing people who are so grossly obese that they have to move around in mobility scooters. Not because of some underlying disability but because they ate themselves that way. Even more shocking is how this is becoming normalised with plus size seats, clothing etc.
I wonder how much obesity counts for the cost of health insurance in the US so it's not just an issue for individuals to deal with, it's societal. It should be dealt with head on the way smoking was. Obesity needs to be denormalized, not accepted.
It's one thing to complain that Hollywood and fashion use too many underweight models but let's not swing the other way and endorse obesity. The US and Western countries already have far too many obese people and it should not be normalised. It should be seen as a problem to be addressed and not accepted.
Exactly. If a bakery has a standard applies to all then it isn't discrimination. It's a dumb conflation of two things. One bakery can be found to be discriminatory for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding but another not if it refuses to write inflammatory words on a cake that violate their policy.
Some people appear to think that providing a service is a carte blanche to use it for any purpose whatsoever with no say from the service provider. It isn't.
I've stated three times what the problem is. Use your brain. If you need a clue, try googling consumer discrimination law and see if you can figure it out.
Er no, they must not. There is no obligation for a baker to offer you service providing it is not for discriminatory reasons. Even discrimination has to be tested in court. The rest of your argument falls apart because again, it's a weak conflation. Two different issues. Two different issues that don't even bear comparison.
It doesn't even work as a comparison to a software service where the AUP and TOS are preconditions of using the service and violation will result in termination of service.
As I said, a weak conflation. A bakery might be required to offer service to people without discriminating against them based on their sex, race or sexuality. It doesn't mean a bakery can't throw you out on your ass because you want to hold a white power meeting in their building, or order a cake with racist symbols or words on it. Because they can.
A service provider provides that service under terms and conditions. Violate those terms and they'll throw your ass out of the door figuratively and / or literally.
I'm not even sure why you mention a baker. I assume its a weak attempt to conflate two separate issues.
And the concept already exists. I use a courier that delivers parcels to drop off points consisting of steel lockers and a console that accepts a pin code. You authenticate your pin, the locker opens and you get your item.
The "convenience" of the system is I don't have to be at home to accept a parcel but I still have to drive to the parcel collection point to get it. So convenient in one way and not in another.
Yes and it's tied to your telephone number and many carriers charge large amounts of money for it. Now imagine something like that which is federated, works over the internet, is secure and encrypted (such that nobody in the middle knows more than necessary to deliver between the sender and recipient) and you have what chat should be.
Yes that too. Worsened in reality because most people would have to run multiple chat apps for all the people they might communicate with. It's bullshit and there is no reason for it.
Remember when Google used to support XMPP (Jabber) protocol so chat was federated and people could use what software they liked?
These days, every chat provider is just a vertical, proprietary walled off service. First they snare you with the kewl features, then they scrape your contacts. Then they start grabbing your GPS location. Then they start pushing ads and services at you "relevant to your conversations and location". Then they start integrating features of product B until the chat software is a bloated mess. Then they calve off product B into its own app but make it mandatory you install it as part of a suite. Then a new chat app comes along which claims to do away with the bloat, rinse and repeat.
Just implement a secure, federated, open protocol and stop this nonsense. At that point chat can be part of the phone software stack. Apps can compete on their front ends and other functions they offer.
Of course you can. Load the page in an anonymizing browser from the dark web and mock the posts, debate the facts, or keep tabs on the threat. It might even embolden the *cough* technically challenged operators and denizens of the site to say or do something that earns them an raid.
Is it because WOW32 & 32-bit graphics drivers can be unstable on Windows 64-bit? Or because antivirus software doesn't have the means to insert hooks into it in ways that destabilize it? Or because it has more memory to leak before allocs start causing it to become unstable?
Would be nice to know. Probably a combination of all of the above but I assume Mozilla has metrics to say where the added stability comes from.
Which means LinkedIn are free to use technical measures to make it a pain in the ass to make meaningful sense of the data - JS, CSS, random ids on elements, dynamically injected code etc.
Writing their own software or board isn't necessarily expensive. And by "chatty" you mean the US military using a drone that sends information back to China. Not just the software on the device but the software controlling it. It is an obvious security risk and not one the military should try to work around with some hack or trust to software they cannot modify.
As there is open source drone software and board designs it seems eminently doable to replace the board. Or use a DJI-like device. But perhaps in replacing the DJI board they could even contribute the work back to the project. Everyone wins, including these "hundreds of dumb civilians" who you clearly hold in such high esteem.
A DJI Phantom is just a bunch of motors and sensors controlled by a small computer running some software. If the military doesn't trust the software then flash it, or rip the board out entirely and make a new one. I'm sure the industrial military complex can scrape a few engineers together to build a replacement board and software that runs on it.
There is even mature open source drone software that could be adapted easily enough and is already in use in commercial drones and even in places like Boeing and NASA.
And therein lies what LinkedIn would probably do to stop scraping. Many websites truncate the information and place a "click here to read on" button or a "More..." link. Humans click the button and the rest of the info appears.
Under the covers however, the link and the javascript that controls it and the elements of containing visible text, and the layout in general could be engineered in a way to be a pain in the ass to read automatically and scrape into a coherent form. At the very least it would slow down scraping, introduce more errors into their result and it could even be used to inject garbage that a human doesn't see if some text is hidden with JS or CSS at runtime.
Requests could also be disrupted, e.g. slowed down, or redirected to interstitials which only occur occasionally and that a human would bypass easily but a bot wouldn't.
I have no love for LinkedIn and believe it is a skeezy meat market and data vacuum. However it is their website and I don't see why they shouldn't put any measures they like into it to prevent competitors from scraping it.
Even if the ruling goes against them I'm sure they can think of imaginative ways to fuck around with people scraping their site.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the audience for the device - people locked into Apple's ecosystem. Everyone else can pick and choose and if they're smart they won't buy any kind of media - audio, video or books which is locked to one service / provider. Of course technically they're not buying media at all, just a licence to view the media which is why this chicanery happens at all. Digital content could be legislated and imbued with similar concepts of ownership / transferability & copyright as physical content but no region or country seems to have the balls to go there yet.
But I don't see why anyone would want to do this for themselves. What they save in money they must surely lose in time and house / injury claims if their house goes up in smoke.
When the train hits top speed passengers will be well and truly fuxed.
The SUPER stupid part is AOL did this a lot. They bought up a lot of innovative companies and squeezed the life and individuality out of them and stifled their potential. Want to know how dumb it got? AOL forced all their subsidiaries to migrate their email systems to use the AOL client because of course they did.
Personally I have no interest in certain apps and I see no harm to the bottom line if Sony allowed them to at least be hidden even if they're part of the firmware.
I wonder how much obesity counts for the cost of health insurance in the US so it's not just an issue for individuals to deal with, it's societal. It should be dealt with head on the way smoking was. Obesity needs to be denormalized, not accepted.
It's one thing to complain that Hollywood and fashion use too many underweight models but let's not swing the other way and endorse obesity. The US and Western countries already have far too many obese people and it should not be normalised. It should be seen as a problem to be addressed and not accepted.
Some people appear to think that providing a service is a carte blanche to use it for any purpose whatsoever with no say from the service provider. It isn't.
I've stated three times what the problem is. Use your brain. If you need a clue, try googling consumer discrimination law and see if you can figure it out.
It doesn't even work as a comparison to a software service where the AUP and TOS are preconditions of using the service and violation will result in termination of service.
As I said, a weak conflation. A bakery might be required to offer service to people without discriminating against them based on their sex, race or sexuality. It doesn't mean a bakery can't throw you out on your ass because you want to hold a white power meeting in their building, or order a cake with racist symbols or words on it. Because they can.
A service provider provides that service under terms and conditions. Violate those terms and they'll throw your ass out of the door figuratively and / or literally.
I'm not even sure why you mention a baker. I assume its a weak attempt to conflate two separate issues.
The "convenience" of the system is I don't have to be at home to accept a parcel but I still have to drive to the parcel collection point to get it. So convenient in one way and not in another.
Easily. The service itself could store the encrypted data and only devices you've authorised are able to decrypt it.
And no it's not a free speech issue. Nazis can go host their own content with their own storage and tools.
Yes and it's tied to your telephone number and many carriers charge large amounts of money for it. Now imagine something like that which is federated, works over the internet, is secure and encrypted (such that nobody in the middle knows more than necessary to deliver between the sender and recipient) and you have what chat should be.
Yes that too. Worsened in reality because most people would have to run multiple chat apps for all the people they might communicate with. It's bullshit and there is no reason for it.
These days, every chat provider is just a vertical, proprietary walled off service. First they snare you with the kewl features, then they scrape your contacts. Then they start grabbing your GPS location. Then they start pushing ads and services at you "relevant to your conversations and location". Then they start integrating features of product B until the chat software is a bloated mess. Then they calve off product B into its own app but make it mandatory you install it as part of a suite. Then a new chat app comes along which claims to do away with the bloat, rinse and repeat.
Just implement a secure, federated, open protocol and stop this nonsense. At that point chat can be part of the phone software stack. Apps can compete on their front ends and other functions they offer.
Of course you can. Load the page in an anonymizing browser from the dark web and mock the posts, debate the facts, or keep tabs on the threat. It might even embolden the *cough* technically challenged operators and denizens of the site to say or do something that earns them an raid.
Would be nice to know. Probably a combination of all of the above but I assume Mozilla has metrics to say where the added stability comes from.
Which means LinkedIn are free to use technical measures to make it a pain in the ass to make meaningful sense of the data - JS, CSS, random ids on elements, dynamically injected code etc.
As there is open source drone software and board designs it seems eminently doable to replace the board. Or use a DJI-like device. But perhaps in replacing the DJI board they could even contribute the work back to the project. Everyone wins, including these "hundreds of dumb civilians" who you clearly hold in such high esteem.
There is even mature open source drone software that could be adapted easily enough and is already in use in commercial drones and even in places like Boeing and NASA.
Under the covers however, the link and the javascript that controls it and the elements of containing visible text, and the layout in general could be engineered in a way to be a pain in the ass to read automatically and scrape into a coherent form. At the very least it would slow down scraping, introduce more errors into their result and it could even be used to inject garbage that a human doesn't see if some text is hidden with JS or CSS at runtime.
Requests could also be disrupted, e.g. slowed down, or redirected to interstitials which only occur occasionally and that a human would bypass easily but a bot wouldn't.
Even if the ruling goes against them I'm sure they can think of imaginative ways to fuck around with people scraping their site.