And part 9 - "All recharging points accessible to the public shall also provide for the possibility for electric vehicle users to recharge on an ad hoc basis without entering into a contract with the electricity supplier or operator concerned.".
So I turn up at a Tesla charge point in my type 2 CCS EV made by some other manufacturer and I should have the means to use that charge point and pay for it in an ad hoc fashion.
The phone charger thing was actually a Chinese mandate that the EU adopted as an advisory. Manufacturers including Samsung, Apple and Nokia signed a memorandum of understanding to use USB chargers. Even so, Apple uses a proprietary connector and forces people use an ugly dongle to use a standard USB charger - that's to comply with the letter but not the spirit of the agreement.
I could see Tesla doing similar, however I think it is encouraging they are using type 2 CCS in the model 3 and it is a sign that they won't. Letting other cars use their network is also a way to hedge their bets and utilise the extra revenue to build out faster.
The odd one out is Nissan who are still clinging to chademo even though it is ultimately doomed in Europe. Even the revised Leaf that appeared last year uses chademo. The really stupid part is the Leaf has a Type 2 charger right alongside the chademo charger but one is for AC and one is for DC. For the time being owners should be fine but I wonder how many chargers will exist 5 or 10 years from now.
They'll have to unless they want to speciously argue that their charging infrastructure is somehow a private members club or similar. That's because the EU has rules which come into effect about public chargers having to offer type 2 CCS and non-discriminatory pricing.
Tesla will have to allow it because there is an EU directive that says they must offer nondiscriminatory charging to any kind of vehicle through a common payment form, e.g. credit card and type 2 CCS. Strictly speaking this only applies to charge points built after Nov 2019 but as Tesla are still building out their network they're going to be on the hook.
Prior Tesla vehicles used a modified type 2 connector which had DC charging without the additional combined charging DC pins. It was a neat design but it's not the mandated minimum so I assume their cars will support either form.
The only way I could see Tesla not accepting other vehicles at their charges is if they claimed their charge points were part of private club or something but that probably wouldn't fly in court. Personally I don't see why Tesla would turn away revenue regardless of whose car it was.
He attacked a children's hospital and then has the temerity to think he's some kind of hero activist. He's a self-important jerk and his ass is going to be in jail for 10 years. I hope he gets to enjoy every last minute of it.
I don't believe that people didn't buy the game because people can choose a race / gender in multiplayer. More likely they didn't buy because the game feels stale and the ongoing belief that EA would rape players the way they had in the past.
It wouldn't hurt if companies like EA, Activision et al suffered a backlash and financial shock for acting like greedy jerks. It might remind them that they're supposed to be producing games, not skinner boxes.
Got to admit this is an interesting idea, but it's not doing anything more than lightly applying some colouring to cover a blemish. Something you could do with the tip of a finger and some pan-stick.
I also expect when these things appear on the market, that the cost of the device and/or the filler will be eye watering. And that when self applied by a person, or in natural light looks less convincing than it might on video.
Okay, I understand why Facebook might pay Samsung to put an app on their phone, but why bake it into the firmware? Facebook is one of those apps which updates every week so the one in the firmware is instantly obsolete wasting space even if someone did want to use that app. What's the point?
It would be far more sensible to just ask the user during phone setup if they want [list of partner apps] installed and if the user says yes they get queued up for installation. Otherwise a clean phone. And aside from being a way for the user to avoid crapware, it makes the firmware easier to test since there is less in it.
But this is Samsung. Their phones are filled with crapware, much of it of their own making and I doubt they'll change any time soon unless people start voting with their wallets.
"Impossible Burger", "Beyond Burger" and these others not-beef-but-tastes-like-it burgers still cost a LOT more than the equivalent beef burger. It's tantamount to a hipster tax.
When we start to see these companies sell their product for the same or less price than meat I think we'll be onto something.
They are protecting you to an extent. The apps were identified and removed from the store, and Google has the means to remotely remove them from devices.
But is the store a walled garden where every line of code is reviewed and approved? No. The store might be proactive about identifying and removing threats, but it is not a substitute for exercising common sense.
As an aside, this threat was identified by Trend Micro who are IMO, even worse than some of the malware they claim to protect from. It's obviously in their interest to big up threats even if in this case it's little more than nuisance software. Their antivirus products for the PC are just garbage, slowing down internet access and firing false positives. Can't even uninstall or disable the thing because its corporate policy.
Using an external device is always a smarter choice than a "smart" TV. We also know that many smart TVs phone home about usage patterns so splitting out what you're doing stops that from happening.
I wouldn't be so quick to moan about Sony though without knowing the reason which could be rather mundane. Other smart TVs are little better, in some senses rather a lot worse since most of them don't even run Android so you can't run any app on them except the ones blessed by the device.
Using a separate device is smart, not because of what Sony is or is not doing but because it makes it easier to upgrade just the device when it goes bitrotten, unlike a TV.
As for why Sony is blocking Kodi, start with the most likely, rational reasons and work outwards. Chances are it is one of those.
Most likely it is one of those things and if it isn't then explain what you think the reason to be. Perhaps you think they just delete an apk for no reason at all except to incite the irrational reactions in people such as yourself.
Kodi crashes their TV, or has the potential to compromise the device, or they've licensed other streaming apps and something in the contract means they have to block competing apps.
I guess one way to narrow it down is try some other free streaming / playback apps and see what happens to those.
Slashdot Mirror
Except there is evidence right there in the indictment to support the charges. If you bothered to read it that is.
So I turn up at a Tesla charge point in my type 2 CCS EV made by some other manufacturer and I should have the means to use that charge point and pay for it in an ad hoc fashion.
This directive. Article 4, parts 4, 8, 10 & 11 in particular.
I could see Tesla doing similar, however I think it is encouraging they are using type 2 CCS in the model 3 and it is a sign that they won't. Letting other cars use their network is also a way to hedge their bets and utilise the extra revenue to build out faster.
The odd one out is Nissan who are still clinging to chademo even though it is ultimately doomed in Europe. Even the revised Leaf that appeared last year uses chademo. The really stupid part is the Leaf has a Type 2 charger right alongside the chademo charger but one is for AC and one is for DC. For the time being owners should be fine but I wonder how many chargers will exist 5 or 10 years from now.
They'll have to unless they want to speciously argue that their charging infrastructure is somehow a private members club or similar. That's because the EU has rules which come into effect about public chargers having to offer type 2 CCS and non-discriminatory pricing.
Prior Tesla vehicles used a modified type 2 connector which had DC charging without the additional combined charging DC pins. It was a neat design but it's not the mandated minimum so I assume their cars will support either form.
The only way I could see Tesla not accepting other vehicles at their charges is if they claimed their charge points were part of private club or something but that probably wouldn't fly in court. Personally I don't see why Tesla would turn away revenue regardless of whose car it was.
Joined up thinking puts an end to bullshit charging format wars.
Well don't use ctags or any other hinting a language or associated tool may provide and enjoy yourself. Not sure how your comment is relevant.
Those too would qualify.
These people are basement dwelling losers. It is right and proper that they are offended by mere criticism of a comic book adaptation.
Use the Rust plugin for VS Code, or for IntelliJ / Clion and it will show you the inferred type.
Nor does Python, Java, Ruby etc. Maybe it's just a distinctive moniker for the language.
He attacked a children's hospital and then has the temerity to think he's some kind of hero activist. He's a self-important jerk and his ass is going to be in jail for 10 years. I hope he gets to enjoy every last minute of it.
It wouldn't hurt if companies like EA, Activision et al suffered a backlash and financial shock for acting like greedy jerks. It might remind them that they're supposed to be producing games, not skinner boxes.
Why on earth do you think they'd drop one of the most popular, open container formats?
I also expect when these things appear on the market, that the cost of the device and/or the filler will be eye watering. And that when self applied by a person, or in natural light looks less convincing than it might on video.
It would be far more sensible to just ask the user during phone setup if they want [list of partner apps] installed and if the user says yes they get queued up for installation. Otherwise a clean phone. And aside from being a way for the user to avoid crapware, it makes the firmware easier to test since there is less in it.
But this is Samsung. Their phones are filled with crapware, much of it of their own making and I doubt they'll change any time soon unless people start voting with their wallets.
When we start to see these companies sell their product for the same or less price than meat I think we'll be onto something.
But is the store a walled garden where every line of code is reviewed and approved? No. The store might be proactive about identifying and removing threats, but it is not a substitute for exercising common sense.
As an aside, this threat was identified by Trend Micro who are IMO, even worse than some of the malware they claim to protect from. It's obviously in their interest to big up threats even if in this case it's little more than nuisance software. Their antivirus products for the PC are just garbage, slowing down internet access and firing false positives. Can't even uninstall or disable the thing because its corporate policy.
I wouldn't be so quick to moan about Sony though without knowing the reason which could be rather mundane. Other smart TVs are little better, in some senses rather a lot worse since most of them don't even run Android so you can't run any app on them except the ones blessed by the device.
As for why Sony is blocking Kodi, start with the most likely, rational reasons and work outwards. Chances are it is one of those.
Most likely it is one of those things and if it isn't then explain what you think the reason to be. Perhaps you think they just delete an apk for no reason at all except to incite the irrational reactions in people such as yourself.
I've always wanted a TV which can roll up into a enormous box laying across the floor.
I guess one way to narrow it down is try some other free streaming / playback apps and see what happens to those.
Not anger, amusement. And if you're stupid enough to do it then knock yourself out.