I'm sure the general population is much too ignorant, but why don't they allow a battery gauge that shows actual electrical consumption in actual electrical units?
It makes sense that time remaining would always be misleading (and likely gamed by vendors anyway).
But if you had a 75 watt-hour battery and your gauge was in watt-hours, you'd have a reasonably accurate measure of how much battery capacity you had left.
I added business internet as a separate billed service several years ago to a residence with residential cable television. Like you said, it's great, no caps and I get static IPs, too.
Of course, it's still just one cable to the house. I'd drop cable television service but my concern is that my internet will get lost in a bureaucratic clusterfuck if they do something "standard" like physically disconnect the cable that runs to the house. Left hand and right hand not in sync.
I did the closest thing, cut back to the most basic TV service possible (which I think is like $12/month or something). If the fiber providers would calm the fuck down and offer static IPs without charging $400/month, I might consider dropping it completely.
I've been half-ass tempted to run a cloud-hosted pfsense instance with a static IP and run that as a VPN back to my house (with fiber internet). I've built that config in a lab and it worked, actually.
That was a fantasy at my last job, especially if I could pull of the "get rich" part without it being on TV news.
Our offices were on 8 floors of a public office tower and there was an underground parking ramp. High-level execs had spaces leased there, and I figured if I was rich enough I could lease a spot down there for my high-end car and "accidentally" run into some of the people down there. I also thought it would be fun to have a designer re-do my office over some long holiday weekend with expensive furniture and art.
But the real key was to keep working there totally without regard for anyone's opinion. Yes, business unit leader, your ridiculous idea is a total waste of money and is only designed for self-aggrandizement. Please, try to fire me over this. I have the top 5 employment law firms in town on retainer and a make-your-life-miserable
Otherwise, I can't say that staying at a job when I'm totally rich would make any sense. When I could afford to travel the world at the highest standards of accommodation, I'm supposed to put up with my paltry vacation time or work's idea of when I should schedule it? That's crazy.
About the only work I can see doing is getting so deep into a hobby I decide there's some business to be built there and I have enough time and money to explore it.
Because you say so, or because its adherents have no meaningful interest in doing so, or that nationalism has an inherent regressive quality that always results in mass racism?
You could say the same things about Social Democracy, though -- its adherents may secretly favor outright communism or that it also has an inherently regressive quality and will always tend towards communism or enveloping socialism.
I don't follow the alt right or understand its many facets that well, but I do get the impression that to the extent you can call it a "movement" that it has started to accept the notion that Nazi-style white supremacy and overt racism are self-defeating aspects only embraced by the furthest fringe elements, and that the only way to advance itself is through disavowal of those ideas.
Trump got elected because there are real issues that were not being addressed by the establishment, but no one on the left *or* right has owned up to this simple fact.
I think both the Democrats and Republicans have been promoting a false reality for so long that its deviation from reality in everyday life for most people just became so obvious that they no longer had any credibility.
I'm torn on whether it had to be Trump (or someone nearly identical to him) or whether a more conventional politician who also eschewed conventional thinking could have accomplished the same thing. Given the success of Bernie Sanders I'm inclined to think that it was just a question of when, not if, someone else would have cracked the facade. Yet part of me thinks it really took a person willing to ignore all the rules, with all the brashness, hostility to the status quo and wealth of Trump to pull it off.
It remains to be seen whether Trump's actual policy implementations will back his electoral rhetoric. While I think his cabinet appointments have been really uninspiring, I also wonder if his mode of governance, like his campaign, will be so different that trying to judge his appointees by conventional standards of Presidential governance is misleading. I wonder if he will end up being a strong top-down manager and the people he appointed were picked not for their own political views but for personality, loyalty and a willingness to attack the bureaucracies they represent. They won't be guiding Trump's policies as much as tools for his personal implementation of them.
Let's go the full distance here, give the devil his due, and presume that by and large the constellation of alt-right groups are all an ideological outgrowth of neo-Nazism.
My question is can such an ideology ever evolve into a more or less legitimate political ideology?
It strikes me that what's generally referred to as "Democratic Socialism" seems to ultimately be derived from Marxism and other extreme-left political movements, yet nobody makes the association between Democratic Socialism and Stalinism, Maoism or other extremist Marxist ideologies. By and large Democratic Socialism ditched the worst parts of its ideological origins, baked in democratic legitimacy, a highly regulated market economy but retained many socialist economic principals and social programs. It's mostly seen as a legitimate political movement except by fairly small group of hard-core ideological capitalists.
Could "neo-Nazism" do the same -- disavow the worst of its original ideology, the anti-Semitism, the explicit racism and white supremacy yet retain the nationalist elements and message that promotes a vision of promotion of specific national interests and cultural values, back democracy as a source of legitimacy and an economic philosophy that is constrained by its nationalism and then be seen as a legitimate political ideology?
IMHO, this looks like what a big part of the "alt right" seems to be trying to accomplish. It remains to be seen whether this is a real attempt at reforming right-wing nationalism or merely an attempt at re-branding without abandoning its worst values.
I would make the argument that the most senior executive positions which make that kind of money aren't even aspirational targets for the $15/hr worker. Believing those positions can be obtained by average workers is in the same category of believing one day you can be Superman or Han Solo. It's ludicrous to believe that reducing their compensation somehow effects the motivations of the average worker.
I do think it's somewhat credible that if actually obtainable positions (ie, high skilled white collar worker or entry-level management in the 100k range) see huge pay cuts, it might actually influence aspirational workers, but only maybe.
By the time most any worker is in the $15/hr category as a full-time employee and not working in a career track, they have probably lost all aspiration. The only thing which would be really motivating is that their next step up includes both a nominally large pay increase ($15 to $20) and a real improvement in working conditions which includes some respect for work/life balance and management that actually pulls off caring about and giving consideration to worker input.
One thing that corporate management has really fucked up IMHO is that they've kind of gone backwards, pushing fascist management tactics up from the bottom of the work force into the broad middle tier of the work force. Why would anyone at the bottom be motivated to move up, outside of only the tiny increases in pay, when the job is just as awful as it ever was?
If you're making $15/hour and the senior executive is making the equivalent of $150/hour and that gets cut to $135/hour, do they really lose their incentive to move up in the ranks?
I'd say what kills their incentive isn't trivial cuts to top executive compensation, it's when the next rung up involves a pay increase to a whopping $16.50 an hour and an additional 10 hours a week of unpaid overtime.
Having worked as an independent contractor before. I still needed to follow the rules of my customer.
Do you? Employees generally have all kinds of rules, most of which don't make any sense unless you're an actual employee. So what specific rules am I required to follow and which ones do I not follow? Unless it's spelled out specifically, it sounds like I'm the one interpreting which rules I have to follow. Everything else is just an assumption on their part.
I've never had an contract employer make me read the handbook and sign the paper that says I read it.
Of course all of this is just a mere formality. Unless you're an asshole, "following the rules" is, 99% of the time, a question of basic social skills.
AFAIK the only thing that ISPs could reasonably do is not filter outbound traffic that couldn't have originated within their network, ie, bogus addresses.
The challenge with DDOS though is that it seems to work best and be hardest to mitigate when the number of sources is high and the requests are legitimate.
Let's assume they have the science-scale reactor actually working and can run the thing for a few hours at a time at a net-positive power output. They've reached the stage where it seems well understood and demonstrate the technology actually works and they're ready to build a demonstration plant capable of feeding the grid with 100 megawatts.
Figure, what, 10 years for funding, design, construction and then another 5-10 years of operation and the inevitable debugging of minor issues associated with scaling output up to higher amounts.
Now we've really shown it can be done as an actual utility. I would expect at this point they would have the attention and interest of governments and commercial utilities interested in building a plant at true utility scale, say 5 GW.
The still-present risks and inevitable red tape would probably mean that only one plant would be built and probably would take from start to plant operation maybe 10 years. I'll be generous in assuming scaling up involved minor but relatively easily recoverable glitches.
So now we're at 30 years and we have a single utility scale plant. Maybe after 5 years of continuous and successful operation it would really seem to live up to its promises and we'd get a gung-ho, all-in attitude towards it and start parallel construction of more plants.
So it'd be 50 years before we really saw a major amount of power being generated.
Offer the tickets at an extremely high price initially, and then lower the price with sales feedback until you get closer to the market clearing price.
The thing is, brokers know that the market clearing price is higher than the face value.
If you offered all the seats at $5000 per ticket when they went on sale, brokers wouldn't be able to snap them up on the first day of sale. There's no markup for them.
As you lower the price, you will find people who are willing to pay high prices for in-demand seats but they would still be at prices brokers would be unable to make money on. Some people would be unwilling to buy them at those prices and would wait until the prices reached a level that matched what they were willing to pay. Most of the time this is going to be close to the prices you probably would pay to a broker, but it's going to be above the prices where brokers will be able to arbitrage them.
People will whine that this will make tickets more expensive, which is true -- more expensive than current face value. But it's extremely difficult now to get tickets at face value because the tickets are priced too low, brokers buy them.
I'd have to believe that would be illegal, I'm sure someone's tried to use the domestic company as a borrower and then repay using assets held overseas.
I think the point is that Apple has effectively repatriated their earnings into the next best thing to US dollars, and done it without paying taxes.
It was one thing when they hoarded cash overseas without repatriating it, at least in some ways they were exposed to some kind of foreign currency risk. But since they've bought Treasuries with it I think to a lot of people it feels like they're beating the system even further.
I don't think multi-phone pairing with most Bluetooth receivers would be that hard. Nearly all the reasonably modern ones have track skip control and pause/resume functionality. Cars in particular seem to know when a call is coming in since the in-dash display usually shows incoming call status. It doesn't seem unreasonable that the car would just send a PAUSE to the sources playing music if the call came in on another device.
And up to this point, nobody STILL has explained tome whether multi-device pairing/audio mixing is a limitation of the Bluetooth protocol, the hardware/radios or something possible but unimplemented.
I really doubt that in most cases that's a specific concern for women and I would be really surprised if even gynecologists mention this to the typical patient having a couple of kids unless they have some reason to believe it's a risk. Maybe they might check and mention it for a woman having her 4th or 5th child.
I'd be more inclined to believe that women are concerned first of all about cosmetics and then sexual partner perception second, especially if the mother in question is on the young side of childbearing age.
My experience has been that women are really sensitive about "losing their looks" (bordering on narcissism) and other physical changes due to childbirth. While they may not really care whether they are "tight enough" specifically, I would not be at all surprised if it didn't cross their minds. It's one thing to not lose all the baby weight, quite another to not lose the baby weight and be a less sexually fulfilling partner.
Is this a self-derived concept, they just assume that having a natural birth will permanently stretch their vagina?
Or is this a learned concept, literally "an old wives tale", with a natural birth mother complaining after having a baby that she noticed her vagina stretched after birth, affecting sex, and future mothers choosing cesarean birth to avoid it?
My personal experience is that it was generally more age dependent that childbirth dependent but not completely consistent even then, with tightness varying without childbirth changes, including women had given birth tighter than women who hadn't of the same age.
How is the headset/speaker supposed to know which audio stream should be played. Assume you have two phones connected to your car via BT, listening to music from phone #1 and phone #2 gets called. Is the car receiver supposed to figure out which audio to mute and which to play, or just play both streams over each other and let the driver/user pause one?
Mostly that's a logic problem. Usually calls are prioritized over music in bluetooth, so if you were playing music on device 1 and a call came in on device 2, why wouldn't it make sense to pause playing on device 1 and play audio on device 2? That would be the "logical" choice for a relatively dumb playback device, but on a platform like a PC or something with a control plane for configuration choices it could be something that was configurable.
Mute playback on all devices, reduce volume to x% and continue playback, bridge audio to call and set playback to x%.
You could have choices for incoming calls similar to the call waiting prompts now on phones -- ignore incoming, accept and hold current call, or merge calls.
And the last obvious (to me anyway) option would be volume mixing choices for simultaneous audio streams to set levels for each audio device. I may want audio from the PC at 25% but my phone at 100%, for example.
Obviously simultaneous pairing presents some choices and not every device would or even needs to have options for every possible combination, but mostly I think there's default behaviors that would make sense most of the time for simple devices. But IMHO there's no reason not to have more configuration options if the device itself has some kind of control interface anyway.
If two devices can share information about frequency changes, key rotation or whatever, why can't three or more? The assumption is that you go through manual pairing/peering verification on the devices themselves, so there seems to be no reason that the protocols couldn't replicate this data among more than two devices.
I mean where I can pair a set of headphones to, say, a phone and a computer at the same time and get audio from both at the same time? Or send the audio from one device to multiple devices at the same time? Two headsets paired to one phone at once?
Is this a hardware restriction of the radios, a limitation of the BT protocol or just the retarded nature of the implementation?
For example, I've been involved with sales to the IT groups at certain banks, and they have strict checklists where anything connected to or running on their systems must meet 100% of the hundreds of conditions or it's game over. Nothing with any sort of telemetry built in would be getting anywhere near those systems.
I'd guess they'd get told telemetry was optional but would be necessary for certain support functions or turn some automated functions (like software updates) into manual, downtime-required functions.
I've worked with a couple of banks before and it was always amazing how their procedures would turn a 30 minute maintenance task into 6 hours of downtime. We actually negotiated our way out of a project with a bank because they were so hard to work with and I think we even modified our estimating process for anything involving a bank to have double hour estimates for everything with special riders allowing us to quit if they proved too difficult. We just couldn't make money and work within their policies.
I think that's fantasy. Lots of high-end enterprise kit has phone-home so deeply embedded into it you basically couldn't use the product without it. Compellent actually has a feature called "Phone Home" that sends telemetry to support and support can remotely console into the system.
Everyone and their dog is scrutinizing Win10 telemetry and MS knows it. Any half-solid evidence they're grabbing proprietary data would be an instant multi-billion dollar class action suit.
I get that we'd always have people at the margin who have above average intelligence but otherwise to fit into a worker mold and wind up as criminals of varying levels of success. Usually, though, they seem to suffer from various other pathologies -- substance abuse, psychological defects, the kind of panoply of sociological misintegration that limits not only their legitimate success but their ability to make even life below the line very successful.
Maybe there's just a correlation between high levels of computer skills and these same sociological maladjustments, and the medium provides an outlet previously unavailable which offers reduced risk and greater rates of success.
First of all, Jesus H. Chist, I'm continually amazed at the lengths people will go and the sheer brainpower employed in malware and hacking generally. I've gotten to the point where I go to hang a towel over the mirror in the bathroom because I'm worried someone has hacked the mirror and then figure, fuck it, they probably also hacked the towel.
Secondly, is this level of malware sophistication evidence that there's economic stagnation?
I'm assuming this is software designed to create botnets or measly bank account info or whatnot and the author(s) make some money but not griping about the lack of space for their megayacht next season at Monaco kinds of money.
Is the fact that people do this kind of really clever shit for more or less ordinary income, is it proof that the economy is in some way broken? I would think that people this smart, in a functional economy, would be in real demand to do productive economy kinds of things.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure the general population is much too ignorant, but why don't they allow a battery gauge that shows actual electrical consumption in actual electrical units?
It makes sense that time remaining would always be misleading (and likely gamed by vendors anyway).
But if you had a 75 watt-hour battery and your gauge was in watt-hours, you'd have a reasonably accurate measure of how much battery capacity you had left.
I added business internet as a separate billed service several years ago to a residence with residential cable television. Like you said, it's great, no caps and I get static IPs, too.
Of course, it's still just one cable to the house. I'd drop cable television service but my concern is that my internet will get lost in a bureaucratic clusterfuck if they do something "standard" like physically disconnect the cable that runs to the house. Left hand and right hand not in sync.
I did the closest thing, cut back to the most basic TV service possible (which I think is like $12/month or something). If the fiber providers would calm the fuck down and offer static IPs without charging $400/month, I might consider dropping it completely.
I've been half-ass tempted to run a cloud-hosted pfsense instance with a static IP and run that as a VPN back to my house (with fiber internet). I've built that config in a lab and it worked, actually.
That was a fantasy at my last job, especially if I could pull of the "get rich" part without it being on TV news.
Our offices were on 8 floors of a public office tower and there was an underground parking ramp. High-level execs had spaces leased there, and I figured if I was rich enough I could lease a spot down there for my high-end car and "accidentally" run into some of the people down there. I also thought it would be fun to have a designer re-do my office over some long holiday weekend with expensive furniture and art.
But the real key was to keep working there totally without regard for anyone's opinion. Yes, business unit leader, your ridiculous idea is a total waste of money and is only designed for self-aggrandizement. Please, try to fire me over this. I have the top 5 employment law firms in town on retainer and a make-your-life-miserable
Otherwise, I can't say that staying at a job when I'm totally rich would make any sense. When I could afford to travel the world at the highest standards of accommodation, I'm supposed to put up with my paltry vacation time or work's idea of when I should schedule it? That's crazy.
About the only work I can see doing is getting so deep into a hobby I decide there's some business to be built there and I have enough time and money to explore it.
Because you say so, or because its adherents have no meaningful interest in doing so, or that nationalism has an inherent regressive quality that always results in mass racism?
You could say the same things about Social Democracy, though -- its adherents may secretly favor outright communism or that it also has an inherently regressive quality and will always tend towards communism or enveloping socialism.
I don't follow the alt right or understand its many facets that well, but I do get the impression that to the extent you can call it a "movement" that it has started to accept the notion that Nazi-style white supremacy and overt racism are self-defeating aspects only embraced by the furthest fringe elements, and that the only way to advance itself is through disavowal of those ideas.
Trump got elected because there are real issues that were not being addressed by the establishment, but no one on the left *or* right has owned up to this simple fact.
I think both the Democrats and Republicans have been promoting a false reality for so long that its deviation from reality in everyday life for most people just became so obvious that they no longer had any credibility.
I'm torn on whether it had to be Trump (or someone nearly identical to him) or whether a more conventional politician who also eschewed conventional thinking could have accomplished the same thing. Given the success of Bernie Sanders I'm inclined to think that it was just a question of when, not if, someone else would have cracked the facade. Yet part of me thinks it really took a person willing to ignore all the rules, with all the brashness, hostility to the status quo and wealth of Trump to pull it off.
It remains to be seen whether Trump's actual policy implementations will back his electoral rhetoric. While I think his cabinet appointments have been really uninspiring, I also wonder if his mode of governance, like his campaign, will be so different that trying to judge his appointees by conventional standards of Presidential governance is misleading. I wonder if he will end up being a strong top-down manager and the people he appointed were picked not for their own political views but for personality, loyalty and a willingness to attack the bureaucracies they represent. They won't be guiding Trump's policies as much as tools for his personal implementation of them.
Let's go the full distance here, give the devil his due, and presume that by and large the constellation of alt-right groups are all an ideological outgrowth of neo-Nazism.
My question is can such an ideology ever evolve into a more or less legitimate political ideology?
It strikes me that what's generally referred to as "Democratic Socialism" seems to ultimately be derived from Marxism and other extreme-left political movements, yet nobody makes the association between Democratic Socialism and Stalinism, Maoism or other extremist Marxist ideologies. By and large Democratic Socialism ditched the worst parts of its ideological origins, baked in democratic legitimacy, a highly regulated market economy but retained many socialist economic principals and social programs. It's mostly seen as a legitimate political movement except by fairly small group of hard-core ideological capitalists.
Could "neo-Nazism" do the same -- disavow the worst of its original ideology, the anti-Semitism, the explicit racism and white supremacy yet retain the nationalist elements and message that promotes a vision of promotion of specific national interests and cultural values, back democracy as a source of legitimacy and an economic philosophy that is constrained by its nationalism and then be seen as a legitimate political ideology?
IMHO, this looks like what a big part of the "alt right" seems to be trying to accomplish. It remains to be seen whether this is a real attempt at reforming right-wing nationalism or merely an attempt at re-branding without abandoning its worst values.
I would make the argument that the most senior executive positions which make that kind of money aren't even aspirational targets for the $15/hr worker. Believing those positions can be obtained by average workers is in the same category of believing one day you can be Superman or Han Solo. It's ludicrous to believe that reducing their compensation somehow effects the motivations of the average worker.
I do think it's somewhat credible that if actually obtainable positions (ie, high skilled white collar worker or entry-level management in the 100k range) see huge pay cuts, it might actually influence aspirational workers, but only maybe.
By the time most any worker is in the $15/hr category as a full-time employee and not working in a career track, they have probably lost all aspiration. The only thing which would be really motivating is that their next step up includes both a nominally large pay increase ($15 to $20) and a real improvement in working conditions which includes some respect for work/life balance and management that actually pulls off caring about and giving consideration to worker input.
One thing that corporate management has really fucked up IMHO is that they've kind of gone backwards, pushing fascist management tactics up from the bottom of the work force into the broad middle tier of the work force. Why would anyone at the bottom be motivated to move up, outside of only the tiny increases in pay, when the job is just as awful as it ever was?
If you're making $15/hour and the senior executive is making the equivalent of $150/hour and that gets cut to $135/hour, do they really lose their incentive to move up in the ranks?
I'd say what kills their incentive isn't trivial cuts to top executive compensation, it's when the next rung up involves a pay increase to a whopping $16.50 an hour and an additional 10 hours a week of unpaid overtime.
Having worked as an independent contractor before. I still needed to follow the rules of my customer.
Do you? Employees generally have all kinds of rules, most of which don't make any sense unless you're an actual employee. So what specific rules am I required to follow and which ones do I not follow? Unless it's spelled out specifically, it sounds like I'm the one interpreting which rules I have to follow. Everything else is just an assumption on their part.
I've never had an contract employer make me read the handbook and sign the paper that says I read it.
Of course all of this is just a mere formality. Unless you're an asshole, "following the rules" is, 99% of the time, a question of basic social skills.
1. Build up civil forfeiture slush fund using otherwise line-item budget methods, i.e. old-fashioned police state tactics
2. Use non-budget line-item slush fund to bribe airport employees
3. Collect more civil forfeiture funds
4. Go to step 2
You now have a perpetual motion machine of slush fund generation with zero budget oversight.
AFAIK the only thing that ISPs could reasonably do is not filter outbound traffic that couldn't have originated within their network, ie, bogus addresses.
The challenge with DDOS though is that it seems to work best and be hardest to mitigate when the number of sources is high and the requests are legitimate.
What's the ISP to filter then?
50 years?
Let's assume they have the science-scale reactor actually working and can run the thing for a few hours at a time at a net-positive power output. They've reached the stage where it seems well understood and demonstrate the technology actually works and they're ready to build a demonstration plant capable of feeding the grid with 100 megawatts.
Figure, what, 10 years for funding, design, construction and then another 5-10 years of operation and the inevitable debugging of minor issues associated with scaling output up to higher amounts.
Now we've really shown it can be done as an actual utility. I would expect at this point they would have the attention and interest of governments and commercial utilities interested in building a plant at true utility scale, say 5 GW.
The still-present risks and inevitable red tape would probably mean that only one plant would be built and probably would take from start to plant operation maybe 10 years. I'll be generous in assuming scaling up involved minor but relatively easily recoverable glitches.
So now we're at 30 years and we have a single utility scale plant. Maybe after 5 years of continuous and successful operation it would really seem to live up to its promises and we'd get a gung-ho, all-in attitude towards it and start parallel construction of more plants.
So it'd be 50 years before we really saw a major amount of power being generated.
No, you do it with a reverse auction.
Offer the tickets at an extremely high price initially, and then lower the price with sales feedback until you get closer to the market clearing price.
The thing is, brokers know that the market clearing price is higher than the face value.
If you offered all the seats at $5000 per ticket when they went on sale, brokers wouldn't be able to snap them up on the first day of sale. There's no markup for them.
As you lower the price, you will find people who are willing to pay high prices for in-demand seats but they would still be at prices brokers would be unable to make money on. Some people would be unwilling to buy them at those prices and would wait until the prices reached a level that matched what they were willing to pay. Most of the time this is going to be close to the prices you probably would pay to a broker, but it's going to be above the prices where brokers will be able to arbitrage them.
People will whine that this will make tickets more expensive, which is true -- more expensive than current face value. But it's extremely difficult now to get tickets at face value because the tickets are priced too low, brokers buy them.
I'd have to believe that would be illegal, I'm sure someone's tried to use the domestic company as a borrower and then repay using assets held overseas.
I think the point is that Apple has effectively repatriated their earnings into the next best thing to US dollars, and done it without paying taxes.
It was one thing when they hoarded cash overseas without repatriating it, at least in some ways they were exposed to some kind of foreign currency risk. But since they've bought Treasuries with it I think to a lot of people it feels like they're beating the system even further.
I don't think multi-phone pairing with most Bluetooth receivers would be that hard. Nearly all the reasonably modern ones have track skip control and pause/resume functionality. Cars in particular seem to know when a call is coming in since the in-dash display usually shows incoming call status. It doesn't seem unreasonable that the car would just send a PAUSE to the sources playing music if the call came in on another device.
And up to this point, nobody STILL has explained tome whether multi-device pairing/audio mixing is a limitation of the Bluetooth protocol, the hardware/radios or something possible but unimplemented.
I really doubt that in most cases that's a specific concern for women and I would be really surprised if even gynecologists mention this to the typical patient having a couple of kids unless they have some reason to believe it's a risk. Maybe they might check and mention it for a woman having her 4th or 5th child.
I'd be more inclined to believe that women are concerned first of all about cosmetics and then sexual partner perception second, especially if the mother in question is on the young side of childbearing age.
My experience has been that women are really sensitive about "losing their looks" (bordering on narcissism) and other physical changes due to childbirth. While they may not really care whether they are "tight enough" specifically, I would not be at all surprised if it didn't cross their minds. It's one thing to not lose all the baby weight, quite another to not lose the baby weight and be a less sexually fulfilling partner.
I'm curious about the vagina stretching.
Is this a self-derived concept, they just assume that having a natural birth will permanently stretch their vagina?
Or is this a learned concept, literally "an old wives tale", with a natural birth mother complaining after having a baby that she noticed her vagina stretched after birth, affecting sex, and future mothers choosing cesarean birth to avoid it?
My personal experience is that it was generally more age dependent that childbirth dependent but not completely consistent even then, with tightness varying without childbirth changes, including women had given birth tighter than women who hadn't of the same age.
How is the headset/speaker supposed to know which audio stream should be played. Assume you have two phones connected to your car via BT, listening to music from phone #1 and phone #2 gets called. Is the car receiver supposed to figure out which audio to mute and which to play, or just play both streams over each other and let the driver/user pause one?
Mostly that's a logic problem. Usually calls are prioritized over music in bluetooth, so if you were playing music on device 1 and a call came in on device 2, why wouldn't it make sense to pause playing on device 1 and play audio on device 2? That would be the "logical" choice for a relatively dumb playback device, but on a platform like a PC or something with a control plane for configuration choices it could be something that was configurable.
Mute playback on all devices, reduce volume to x% and continue playback, bridge audio to call and set playback to x%.
You could have choices for incoming calls similar to the call waiting prompts now on phones -- ignore incoming, accept and hold current call, or merge calls.
And the last obvious (to me anyway) option would be volume mixing choices for simultaneous audio streams to set levels for each audio device. I may want audio from the PC at 25% but my phone at 100%, for example.
Obviously simultaneous pairing presents some choices and not every device would or even needs to have options for every possible combination, but mostly I think there's default behaviors that would make sense most of the time for simple devices. But IMHO there's no reason not to have more configuration options if the device itself has some kind of control interface anyway.
I guess I'm asking "why not?"
If two devices can share information about frequency changes, key rotation or whatever, why can't three or more? The assumption is that you go through manual pairing/peering verification on the devices themselves, so there seems to be no reason that the protocols couldn't replicate this data among more than two devices.
I mean where I can pair a set of headphones to, say, a phone and a computer at the same time and get audio from both at the same time? Or send the audio from one device to multiple devices at the same time? Two headsets paired to one phone at once?
Is this a hardware restriction of the radios, a limitation of the BT protocol or just the retarded nature of the implementation?
For example, I've been involved with sales to the IT groups at certain banks, and they have strict checklists where anything connected to or running on their systems must meet 100% of the hundreds of conditions or it's game over. Nothing with any sort of telemetry built in would be getting anywhere near those systems.
I'd guess they'd get told telemetry was optional but would be necessary for certain support functions or turn some automated functions (like software updates) into manual, downtime-required functions.
I've worked with a couple of banks before and it was always amazing how their procedures would turn a 30 minute maintenance task into 6 hours of downtime. We actually negotiated our way out of a project with a bank because they were so hard to work with and I think we even modified our estimating process for anything involving a bank to have double hour estimates for everything with special riders allowing us to quit if they proved too difficult. We just couldn't make money and work within their policies.
I think that's fantasy. Lots of high-end enterprise kit has phone-home so deeply embedded into it you basically couldn't use the product without it. Compellent actually has a feature called "Phone Home" that sends telemetry to support and support can remotely console into the system.
Everyone and their dog is scrutinizing Win10 telemetry and MS knows it. Any half-solid evidence they're grabbing proprietary data would be an instant multi-billion dollar class action suit.
I get that we'd always have people at the margin who have above average intelligence but otherwise to fit into a worker mold and wind up as criminals of varying levels of success. Usually, though, they seem to suffer from various other pathologies -- substance abuse, psychological defects, the kind of panoply of sociological misintegration that limits not only their legitimate success but their ability to make even life below the line very successful.
Maybe there's just a correlation between high levels of computer skills and these same sociological maladjustments, and the medium provides an outlet previously unavailable which offers reduced risk and greater rates of success.
First of all, Jesus H. Chist, I'm continually amazed at the lengths people will go and the sheer brainpower employed in malware and hacking generally. I've gotten to the point where I go to hang a towel over the mirror in the bathroom because I'm worried someone has hacked the mirror and then figure, fuck it, they probably also hacked the towel.
Secondly, is this level of malware sophistication evidence that there's economic stagnation?
I'm assuming this is software designed to create botnets or measly bank account info or whatnot and the author(s) make some money but not griping about the lack of space for their megayacht next season at Monaco kinds of money.
Is the fact that people do this kind of really clever shit for more or less ordinary income, is it proof that the economy is in some way broken? I would think that people this smart, in a functional economy, would be in real demand to do productive economy kinds of things.