The payment network gets paid no matter what, so they have no incentive to reduce transactions or increase transaction costs.
Once Visa/MC start being forced to eat 1/3 of every fraudulent transaction instead of dumping it on retailers, banks and consumers then they will be more interested in security.
Why not a motorized dish that will automatically scan the sky and find the satellite(s) you're looking for? Maybe this is overkill for programming on one satellite, but the FTA listing in wikipedia shows them appearing on multiple satellites meaning if you cared about content on multiple satellites you'd be re-aiming anyway.
If you make a recessed lip for it to mount to, it can't slide.
A lens with a lot of protrusion may torque off, but I think at a certain point you need to reign in your expectations of what kind of lens makes sense to attach to a smart phone regardless of mount.
ANY attachment system that results in a substantial protrusion runs the risk of being broken off, at least with a magnetic mount you don't destroy the phone or mount when the lens gets ripped off.
The iPhone 5s itself weighs 112g, I can't see mounting a lens that weighs as much as the phone itself or more to a phone. Or if you did, what kind of expectation would you have of it being something you could toss around as casually as a smartphone?
1) The statement that restrictive gun laws don't make you safer; implied by the fact that many places worldwide have restrictive gun laws yet still have high homicide rates.
2) The implication that this means the opposite is also true -- more guns make you safer.
I think (1) is probably true. I think that arguing (2) is more problematic, but I also think that claiming that this what people mean by arguing (1) is something of a rhetorical gimmick that twists the debate of (1).
I wonder if its political calculus that makes recent political leaders work this way, or if it's whatever's in the water that seems to make everyone, especially the rich and powerful, just assume that they can blatantly disregard all the rules, all the time.
Usually the ones on top flavor it with "on advice of legal counsel" or "based on our interpretation of the rules" and then something about how they have chosen to define up as down or black as white.
Maybe it's *always* been this way, but it sure feels like at some point the whole culture just looked at the normal rules and decided they didn't apply. And maybe it's just the nature of the rules, maybe once they became so absurd and insanely illogical it was an expected outcome.
OPs point still stands, even though his facts are wrong. I think most of the countries on the top 50 list you cite have extremely restrictive firearms laws.
Even if the only reason is that they carry Baylisascaris procyonis. They live around here and will get in the large, lidded garbage cans if given half a chance.
My neighbor will throw old bread out for them to eat and it's a major temptation to use that as an opportunity to shoot them. Popular opinion and that of law enforcement prevents me from doing this.
I think this administrative overreach is a bigger problem in small towns and suburbs than it is in cities. I think in these smaller communities you basically have collusion between the local police and the school administrators which makes the school administrators defacto prosecutors and the local police their enforcers, which is a dangerous combination of unaccountability.
I think there's also a lot of parental buy-in in these communities or at least a lot of parental peer pressure to keep this kind of system in place.
In a larger urban environment there's less of this; I think there's less cooperation between the schools and the police because both systems are just much larger and you get less of the informal collusion between the police and the school administrators. There's also the issue of urban populations being generally less trustful of the police which I think keeps the police more disengaged from the schools.
My sense is that most parents, especially your run-of-the-mill suburban types, probably believe that all of this school-as-law is a "good thing" of course until they run into a situation where it's their kid getting stripped of his rights and treated like a criminal.
The Minneapolis StarTribune had this article and what troubled me was this passage:
"As part of the settlement, Minnewaska school policies now address electronic devices for the first time.
The new rules say electronic records and passwords created off-campus can only be searched if thereâ(TM)s a reasonable suspicion they will uncover violations of school rules. Enhanced teacher training was also part of the settlement."
What bothers me about this is that there seems to be this idea that there are "school rules" that can conceivable cover ANY off-campus behavior, actions or activities. The idea of "reasonable suspicion" as being the grounds for searching anything seems to just make this seem all the more egregious.
As far as I'm concerned, the power of a school administrator extends to the boundaries of the school campus and only off-campus to the extent that the students are participating in some school-organized event (ie, playing school sports off-site or being on a field trip). You can't just say that because someone is a student in a school that you can create rules that extend past the schoolhouse door and empower you to utilize coercive force (police power) to enforce them.
I'm sure much of this thinking has been driven by the motivation to cut underage drinking by making it a violation of school policies and thus eliminating eligibility for sports or activities.
I think part of it may be the sports metaphor, where they believe that the coaching enabled one team (perhaps even quantitatively less talented) to beat another team. The speaker represents the inspirational coach.
Part of it may be the "big idea". Management has latched onto a "big idea" that they believe is transformative, the speaker is uniquely capable of quickly delivering this idea to the workforce.
Part of it may just be that's what you do at offsites, have some speaker come out and provide business-oriented entertainment.
Much of the explanation involving exclusive deals, etc, makes sense (as in I grok it, not that I like it) for recent titles, but what's the explanation for missing back catalog titles, stuff more than 10 years old?
So much of it is DVD only. I can't imagine there's that much of a market for those kinds of titles on DVD to keep them DVD exclusive.
It''s not like they're going to walk into a courtroom with a grey Meridian phone and say "we own this, now pay up". They have to prove it.
Given the size of the patent portfolios of both companies, the breadth of products produced by Cisco and the complexity of the products in question, I can see how it could take quite a while to digest all that information as well as integrate existing patent law, case law and so on to figure out what was infringing, how much, and which would produce the most likely successful outcome for Spherix.
I would imagine it would take an entire team of people (Cisco experts, hardware experts, software experts, lawyers) to do this. Hell, they may even have to buy the Cisco equipment in question to actually implement it as part of their discovery. This could easily take years depending on how the people were applied to the project.
It's not hard to see Google being reluctant/unwilling to do anything to encourage the use of Microsoft products. Google's economy of scale on hosting is probably greatly reduced when having to support a Microsoft OS as well.
But we don't keep things like financial information etc. in the cloud.
You don't have a bank account? Credit cards? No entry in the credit reporting agency databases?
Oh, OK, I get it -- you don't manually store financial data in consumer cloud services on your own, but you still have your financial data in cloud(s) somewhere, it's just not under your control.
How much of "the data" needs to be encrypted and how much can be stored unencrypted?
In a lot of applications there seems to a subset of data that is sensitive and needs to be encrypted while much of it seems like it could be left unencrypted. There may be situations where all of it needs to be encrypted, but I'm guessing that means its stored encrypted now which means its not available for dedupe or compression anyway.
Î(TM) would like to see the lifecycle energy consumption of a gasoline, diesel, hybrid and electric vehicle, including the raw material extraction and refining. I would exclude the fuel source extraction and refining energy consumption but maybe you shouldn't, but I'm principally wondering if the energy savings, especially with a hybrid, isn't lost by the battery and eletrical drive components which are dependent on mining in remote locations and/or intensive refining.
There used to be a site that claimed to have a report detailing a comparison between the F-150 pickup and a Prius, saying the F-150 was actually a lower lifecycle energy consumer. They went into details like extra tire replacements they claimed the Prius needed due to running smaller/narower tires and the energy consumption used in tire manufacturing. I can't seem to find it, but it was kind of interesting.
I'm not claiming it's even a true argument, just thought provoking.
I suspect it means is that alternative medicine proponents want to strip [citation needed] from statements of fact in AM-related articles and strip contradictory statements and refutations from AM-related articles so they read as more statements of truth than as unproven, questionable or in doubt.
I haven't read any AM articles, but given the wide variety of information in Wikipedia, it would seem unlikely they're just outright removing AM articles. I mean, the point of WP isn't that everything in it is verifiably true, but there is information about things even if the things themselves are false.
What currency doesn't involve real costs? The cost for printing and coining production of US currency is over $4 billion dollars. None of that covers the actual costs of the overhead of accounting, distribution and management of currency at the manufacturing and initial delivery level nor does it include the distributed costs of currency management by end user businesses (cash accounting, armored cars, bank fees for currency management, etc).
It's not like any of this is free to anyone, even the consumer, who pays for it indirectly through taxes and banking fees.
I believe that they're all *actually* oversold, but where exactly is Comcast's hard resource bottleneck?
Is it in whatever my neighborhood segment is (the block of end-user connections that terminate in a neighborhood-level fiber distribution node)? How many Mhz is my entire neighborhood allocated in the coax cabling that runs down the alley? Is it within my municipality (in between nodes and their upstream "super nodes")? Between "super nodes" and the metro-area central office(s)? Upstream from that?
I can see the physical limits of the coax -- that only has so many Mhz to allocate to TV channels, etc. Gimmicks like switched digital would indicate that this is real, that they already face allocation issues trying to deliver a hundred plus HDTV channels plus an equal number of SD channels, plus carry a lot of data traffic.
Internode traffic seems less limited; it's all their fiber and presumably when installing it they put it in enough to move tens of GBits of data even if its deliberately not all lit. Is it just at the peering edges or where exactly are they hard-constrained?
They can't arrest you outright, but they can manipulate the financial and legal system in such a way that they can just get the police to arrest you.
There's been numerous articles on the shady practices of collections agencies who file bogus cases (unverified claims, inadequate documentation, falsified notification, etc) for debts as small as video rental late fees. Since they don't make an effort to notify you (using old addresses, etc) they are able to get default judgements, bench warrants, etc issued and people get jailed with open warrants when they have any interaction with the police.
I often wonder how well our medical establishment has studied the euphoric effect of opiates and how they contribute to or even in some cases surpass the functional pain relief.
I had a traumatic hand injury two months ago which involved a partial amputation of one of my fingers. I experience a lot of "pins and needles" nerve stimulation and some false limb pain (pressure or stabbing-type sensation where I have no finger) and generalized fatigue in my hand. I take small (5 mg) doses of oxycodone once or twice a day and I "feel better" but without necessarily specific reduction of any one kind of pain -- I still feel it, but it bothers me less.
I don't think it's an addiction response; some days I take zero and don't feel any classic withdrawal symptom I've ever read about. But I sometimes wonder if the pain reduction is really the result of interaction with my pain, or because the eurphoric nature of the drug just makes me feel overall better, raising my psychological tolerance of pain without actually reducing the pain itself.
I wonder philosophically if it "matters" -- if the drug produces a euphoria that allows me to tolerate the pain, is that somehow less legitimate than some functional reduction of pain that may be the drug's principal purpose? What is the effect and what is the side effect? Os is it just a question of dose versus ancillary risks (whether it's addiction or some other more organic disturbance, eg, skin rash, etc).
I don't remember flip phones having that great of a battery life.
I know I charged my StarTAC nightly (IIRC, I had two batteries and the morning routine was to swap the spare into the phone). The early digitals I had after that weren't great, either, and I seem to remember buying the "extended" batteries for them, too. as well as always charging them over night.
I don't really think my iPhone 5s is really that bad in terms of standby or even talk time battery performance. Maybe it is just "overnight charge" mental conditioning but I feel pretty good about 12 hours of light usage during the day and having 50%-ish battery left. I'm in the car a lot, and a ProClip holder with a charge cable/aux-in setup is as much about ease of use (making/taking calls, aux-in audio, not losing the damn thing between seats) as it is "needing" to charge it.
But then again, I've always been an "overnight" charging/fresh batteries every day mentality since the 1980s using NICADs and NiMH AAs with cassette Walkmen. Always owned at least for rechargeable cells, always swapped fresh cells into the Walkman every morning and put yesterday's into the charger.
Slashdot Mirror
The payment network gets paid no matter what, so they have no incentive to reduce transactions or increase transaction costs.
Once Visa/MC start being forced to eat 1/3 of every fraudulent transaction instead of dumping it on retailers, banks and consumers then they will be more interested in security.
Why not a motorized dish that will automatically scan the sky and find the satellite(s) you're looking for? Maybe this is overkill for programming on one satellite, but the FTA listing in wikipedia shows them appearing on multiple satellites meaning if you cared about content on multiple satellites you'd be re-aiming anyway.
If you make a recessed lip for it to mount to, it can't slide.
A lens with a lot of protrusion may torque off, but I think at a certain point you need to reign in your expectations of what kind of lens makes sense to attach to a smart phone regardless of mount.
ANY attachment system that results in a substantial protrusion runs the risk of being broken off, at least with a magnetic mount you don't destroy the phone or mount when the lens gets ripped off.
The iPhone 5s itself weighs 112g, I can't see mounting a lens that weighs as much as the phone itself or more to a phone. Or if you did, what kind of expectation would you have of it being something you could toss around as casually as a smartphone?
It's fairly galling no matter what shape it is.
There's two things going on:
1) The statement that restrictive gun laws don't make you safer; implied by the fact that many places worldwide have restrictive gun laws yet still have high homicide rates.
2) The implication that this means the opposite is also true -- more guns make you safer.
I think (1) is probably true. I think that arguing (2) is more problematic, but I also think that claiming that this what people mean by arguing (1) is something of a rhetorical gimmick that twists the debate of (1).
I wonder if its political calculus that makes recent political leaders work this way, or if it's whatever's in the water that seems to make everyone, especially the rich and powerful, just assume that they can blatantly disregard all the rules, all the time.
Usually the ones on top flavor it with "on advice of legal counsel" or "based on our interpretation of the rules" and then something about how they have chosen to define up as down or black as white.
Maybe it's *always* been this way, but it sure feels like at some point the whole culture just looked at the normal rules and decided they didn't apply. And maybe it's just the nature of the rules, maybe once they became so absurd and insanely illogical it was an expected outcome.
OPs point still stands, even though his facts are wrong. I think most of the countries on the top 50 list you cite have extremely restrictive firearms laws.
Even if the only reason is that they carry Baylisascaris procyonis. They live around here and will get in the large, lidded garbage cans if given half a chance.
My neighbor will throw old bread out for them to eat and it's a major temptation to use that as an opportunity to shoot them. Popular opinion and that of law enforcement prevents me from doing this.
You should see some of the cars people survived accidents from. You'd think there's no way they could have even lived.
I think this administrative overreach is a bigger problem in small towns and suburbs than it is in cities. I think in these smaller communities you basically have collusion between the local police and the school administrators which makes the school administrators defacto prosecutors and the local police their enforcers, which is a dangerous combination of unaccountability.
I think there's also a lot of parental buy-in in these communities or at least a lot of parental peer pressure to keep this kind of system in place.
In a larger urban environment there's less of this; I think there's less cooperation between the schools and the police because both systems are just much larger and you get less of the informal collusion between the police and the school administrators. There's also the issue of urban populations being generally less trustful of the police which I think keeps the police more disengaged from the schools.
My sense is that most parents, especially your run-of-the-mill suburban types, probably believe that all of this school-as-law is a "good thing" of course until they run into a situation where it's their kid getting stripped of his rights and treated like a criminal.
The Minneapolis StarTribune had this article and what troubled me was this passage:
"As part of the settlement, Minnewaska school policies now address electronic devices for the first time.
The new rules say electronic records and passwords created off-campus can only be searched if thereâ(TM)s a reasonable suspicion they will uncover violations of school rules. Enhanced teacher training was also part of the settlement."
What bothers me about this is that there seems to be this idea that there are "school rules" that can conceivable cover ANY off-campus behavior, actions or activities. The idea of "reasonable suspicion" as being the grounds for searching anything seems to just make this seem all the more egregious.
As far as I'm concerned, the power of a school administrator extends to the boundaries of the school campus and only off-campus to the extent that the students are participating in some school-organized event (ie, playing school sports off-site or being on a field trip). You can't just say that because someone is a student in a school that you can create rules that extend past the schoolhouse door and empower you to utilize coercive force (police power) to enforce them.
I'm sure much of this thinking has been driven by the motivation to cut underage drinking by making it a violation of school policies and thus eliminating eligibility for sports or activities.
I think part of it may be the sports metaphor, where they believe that the coaching enabled one team (perhaps even quantitatively less talented) to beat another team. The speaker represents the inspirational coach.
Part of it may be the "big idea". Management has latched onto a "big idea" that they believe is transformative, the speaker is uniquely capable of quickly delivering this idea to the workforce.
Part of it may just be that's what you do at offsites, have some speaker come out and provide business-oriented entertainment.
Much of the explanation involving exclusive deals, etc, makes sense (as in I grok it, not that I like it) for recent titles, but what's the explanation for missing back catalog titles, stuff more than 10 years old?
So much of it is DVD only. I can't imagine there's that much of a market for those kinds of titles on DVD to keep them DVD exclusive.
It''s not like they're going to walk into a courtroom with a grey Meridian phone and say "we own this, now pay up". They have to prove it.
Given the size of the patent portfolios of both companies, the breadth of products produced by Cisco and the complexity of the products in question, I can see how it could take quite a while to digest all that information as well as integrate existing patent law, case law and so on to figure out what was infringing, how much, and which would produce the most likely successful outcome for Spherix.
I would imagine it would take an entire team of people (Cisco experts, hardware experts, software experts, lawyers) to do this. Hell, they may even have to buy the Cisco equipment in question to actually implement it as part of their discovery. This could easily take years depending on how the people were applied to the project.
It's not hard to see Google being reluctant/unwilling to do anything to encourage the use of Microsoft products. Google's economy of scale on hosting is probably greatly reduced when having to support a Microsoft OS as well.
But we don't keep things like financial information etc. in the cloud.
You don't have a bank account? Credit cards? No entry in the credit reporting agency databases?
Oh, OK, I get it -- you don't manually store financial data in consumer cloud services on your own, but you still have your financial data in cloud(s) somewhere, it's just not under your control.
How much of "the data" needs to be encrypted and how much can be stored unencrypted?
In a lot of applications there seems to a subset of data that is sensitive and needs to be encrypted while much of it seems like it could be left unencrypted. There may be situations where all of it needs to be encrypted, but I'm guessing that means its stored encrypted now which means its not available for dedupe or compression anyway.
Î(TM) would like to see the lifecycle energy consumption of a gasoline, diesel, hybrid and electric vehicle, including the raw material extraction and refining. I would exclude the fuel source extraction and refining energy consumption but maybe you shouldn't, but I'm principally wondering if the energy savings, especially with a hybrid, isn't lost by the battery and eletrical drive components which are dependent on mining in remote locations and/or intensive refining.
There used to be a site that claimed to have a report detailing a comparison between the F-150 pickup and a Prius, saying the F-150 was actually a lower lifecycle energy consumer. They went into details like extra tire replacements they claimed the Prius needed due to running smaller/narower tires and the energy consumption used in tire manufacturing. I can't seem to find it, but it was kind of interesting.
I'm not claiming it's even a true argument, just thought provoking.
What does this mean in this case?
I suspect it means is that alternative medicine proponents want to strip [citation needed] from statements of fact in AM-related articles and strip contradictory statements and refutations from AM-related articles so they read as more statements of truth than as unproven, questionable or in doubt.
I haven't read any AM articles, but given the wide variety of information in Wikipedia, it would seem unlikely they're just outright removing AM articles. I mean, the point of WP isn't that everything in it is verifiably true, but there is information about things even if the things themselves are false.
What currency doesn't involve real costs? The cost for printing and coining production of US currency is over $4 billion dollars. None of that covers the actual costs of the overhead of accounting, distribution and management of currency at the manufacturing and initial delivery level nor does it include the distributed costs of currency management by end user businesses (cash accounting, armored cars, bank fees for currency management, etc).
It's not like any of this is free to anyone, even the consumer, who pays for it indirectly through taxes and banking fees.
I believe that they're all *actually* oversold, but where exactly is Comcast's hard resource bottleneck?
Is it in whatever my neighborhood segment is (the block of end-user connections that terminate in a neighborhood-level fiber distribution node)? How many Mhz is my entire neighborhood allocated in the coax cabling that runs down the alley? Is it within my municipality (in between nodes and their upstream "super nodes")? Between "super nodes" and the metro-area central office(s)? Upstream from that?
I can see the physical limits of the coax -- that only has so many Mhz to allocate to TV channels, etc. Gimmicks like switched digital would indicate that this is real, that they already face allocation issues trying to deliver a hundred plus HDTV channels plus an equal number of SD channels, plus carry a lot of data traffic.
Internode traffic seems less limited; it's all their fiber and presumably when installing it they put it in enough to move tens of GBits of data even if its deliberately not all lit. Is it just at the peering edges or where exactly are they hard-constrained?
They can't arrest you outright, but they can manipulate the financial and legal system in such a way that they can just get the police to arrest you.
There's been numerous articles on the shady practices of collections agencies who file bogus cases (unverified claims, inadequate documentation, falsified notification, etc) for debts as small as video rental late fees. Since they don't make an effort to notify you (using old addresses, etc) they are able to get default judgements, bench warrants, etc issued and people get jailed with open warrants when they have any interaction with the police.
I often wonder how well our medical establishment has studied the euphoric effect of opiates and how they contribute to or even in some cases surpass the functional pain relief.
I had a traumatic hand injury two months ago which involved a partial amputation of one of my fingers. I experience a lot of "pins and needles" nerve stimulation and some false limb pain (pressure or stabbing-type sensation where I have no finger) and generalized fatigue in my hand. I take small (5 mg) doses of oxycodone once or twice a day and I "feel better" but without necessarily specific reduction of any one kind of pain -- I still feel it, but it bothers me less.
I don't think it's an addiction response; some days I take zero and don't feel any classic withdrawal symptom I've ever read about. But I sometimes wonder if the pain reduction is really the result of interaction with my pain, or because the eurphoric nature of the drug just makes me feel overall better, raising my psychological tolerance of pain without actually reducing the pain itself.
I wonder philosophically if it "matters" -- if the drug produces a euphoria that allows me to tolerate the pain, is that somehow less legitimate than some functional reduction of pain that may be the drug's principal purpose? What is the effect and what is the side effect? Os is it just a question of dose versus ancillary risks (whether it's addiction or some other more organic disturbance, eg, skin rash, etc).
I don't remember flip phones having that great of a battery life.
I know I charged my StarTAC nightly (IIRC, I had two batteries and the morning routine was to swap the spare into the phone). The early digitals I had after that weren't great, either, and I seem to remember buying the "extended" batteries for them, too. as well as always charging them over night.
I don't really think my iPhone 5s is really that bad in terms of standby or even talk time battery performance. Maybe it is just "overnight charge" mental conditioning but I feel pretty good about 12 hours of light usage during the day and having 50%-ish battery left. I'm in the car a lot, and a ProClip holder with a charge cable/aux-in setup is as much about ease of use (making/taking calls, aux-in audio, not losing the damn thing between seats) as it is "needing" to charge it.
But then again, I've always been an "overnight" charging/fresh batteries every day mentality since the 1980s using NICADs and NiMH AAs with cassette Walkmen. Always owned at least for rechargeable cells, always swapped fresh cells into the Walkman every morning and put yesterday's into the charger.
Scout leader? Maybe try "be prepared."
Or better yet, maybe try to be a scout *leader* and teach your kids to survive off the grid, without modern gadgets, like, well scouts used to do.