I understand the frustration that comes with major features not working for many people or requiring JavaScript, but lynx? What portion of the community uses text-based browsers on a regular basis? If it's a tenth of a percent, I would be surprised, but even at that level, it's too small to cater to for most sites. At some point, you have to consider cutting off support for connections that are used by a minuscule portion of the population.
If you're referring to the Play Services (the one piece of the OS that is completely out of user control), Ars Technica talked about this recently. That was changed so that it would be more helpful to users in that Google would no longer be at the mercy of wireless carriers to upgrade certain parts of the operating system. By integrating Play Services at the core of the OS, they can theoretically upgrade almost any part they want without having to provide completely new firmware. That improves security, too, because they can install patches that the carriers would otherwise block for QA reasons.
Android is by far the smartphone OS with the widest distribution. While it was at one time pointed more at geeks, Google has to take into account a much wider range of users including people who get stuck a phone only because the price is the same as feature phones (free on contract), especially when they're added to a family plan.
I don't see many people mentioning AWACS here, which is a core component of US battle airspace management. Those stealth aircraft can be guided to their targets by the distant AWACS crew while retaining relative electronic silence, surprise the enemy, and at least knock their numbers down. The US did it in 1991 to enormous effect and it's only improved since then. Once air superiority is established, the hardpoints can be attached for greater payload (or older, less stealthy planes employed).
Modern air combat is about who can see the most. Those with effective AWACS (the US, Russia, Israel, and to lesser extents, China, India, and several European nations) are at an enormous advantage over those without. Stealth can complicate the balance, but those with better AWACS also tend to have better stealth. Battle between those of equivalent capability would be interesting, but would also largely involve powers that are unlikely to face each other at such scales.
This depends greatly on whether you can skim tests. It works great on paper exams. Some computer-based exams don't allow you to do this.
But it's still a useful skill to learn because it's applicable to time management in general. Do the easy things first (if you can--priorities matter in the real world) as it gets them off the list and can provide a sense of accomplishment, and then work on the more difficult items.
Agreed. But the LandRover was designed for very different conditions than the average road car of the times. I would expect even longer lives now, though electronics would also have to be upgraded.
It wasn't just the number of people Kodak employed. It was also all the film developers. One-hour photo stops at Walmart and the like are common now, but it wasn't really that long ago that one took film in to be developed over a longer period of time (often at least a day) at camera stores and at dedicated shops like Fotomat.
I think that within the lifetime of many here, the structure of the economy, at least for the West, is going to begin a shift unlike any seen since the agricultural revolution. Current hunter-gatherer tribes often work for less than four hours per day on average, with the remainder spent on leisure or family activities. Contrast this with the average American's workload exceeding 12 hours when commute, meal preparation, and other mandatory activities are included. But as the resources that lead to useful output become commoditized, the number of hours required from humans to maintain a given level of society (ignoring the wage losses) will decline rapidly. Once we have robots that can efficiently clean, deliver mail and packages, and maybe even handle emergency operations like firefighting and rescue, and I expect that it won't be long before humans, at least in more advanced countries, become knowledge manipulators, making decisions that robots and computers find difficult or impossible.
There's an alternative where some Neo-Luddite movement takes hold and limits the ability of automation of work, not necessarily reducing us to a pre-industrial era but perhaps to at least the current level of work by setting maximum efficiency levels on machines such that humans can compete at some level. But that would also require a fundamental shift in human psychology that I see as even less likely than acceptance of technological replacements of our jobs.
I hear people complaining about this as much as ever, but cars are lasting a lot longer now than they used to. It wasn't all that long ago that a car that reached 100,000 miles was sold off or traded in as a junker. Now, any car that can't reach 200,000 miles at a minimum (with moderate care) is considered to be of poor quality. Maintenance itself is getting easier, with longer times between oil changes, tune-ups, and other general maintenance. Hell, even tires are lasting considerably longer.
That's planned for next year when availability is increased. It's the only thing that's kept me from getting them. For those places that don't allow it, I'll keep an extra, normal pair of glasses in my car, similar to what I already do with sunglasses.
If it's a true story, it's possible that it was simply a coincidence. The insurance company may make the demand on random policy holders (it should be in the policy itself) and cover the cost of it if they mandate it.
Facebook has had opt-out for photo tagging for a long time. It also has the option of allowing you to approve tags. I approve a handful of them, but most get rejected.
The release of documents by Snowden put the evidence of the collection into the public light and was accepted by the courts, reviving a barely-live case by proving that the party was under surveillance. Once it's out in the open, it's impossible to get a state secrets claim approved.
The latter two have an impact on the first. The government is allowed to push the lines if there is a compelling reason, but it must do so in the most narrowly-tailored way possible. Given that there are now documents in the public domain that suggest that not only is it not narrowly tailored but technicians at the NSA itself have said that they have too much data to effectively work with. The collection, possibly even without a warrant, of a very narrow selection of information related to a documentably (or at least believably) imminent threat may be covered under probable cause, but that is likely a very, very far cry from what's been happening.
Replacement is possible though I don't know how likely it actually is. Netflix hasn't seemed to be as content to sit back and enjoy the limelight and instead has been pushing to change how they do things and the customer experience. I don't know who can seriously challenge them; there are at least a dozen competitors, but few if any have the range of content. Maybe Amazon (and I could see them trying to buy Netflix) has the architecture and the content, but I'm not at all happy with their non-rental selection. I don't see Redbox taking over any time soon, much less any of the other competitors.
At my last job, I participated heavily in the interviewing process. We had a certain perspective and requirements, and would often sift through 50+ resumes to interview perhaps 10 people to pick one person. That suggests that we were looking for the top 10% or top 2%, depending on your perspective. The only difference with Netflix is that they keep that evaluation going. I kind of wish we'd done that where I was and cut some people when it was clear they weren't pulling their weight.
I think the choice of VC-1 came because it was supported by Silverlight while H.264 was limited if present at all. VC-1 is also the protocol of choice for Blu-Ray, and the time saved simply copying the files instead of moving them to H.264 may be significant.
They're the largest in their field and have little real competition, so they must be doing something right. They're also in the process of moving away from Silverlight, provide a primary source of more bandwidth across the Internet than perhaps any other single company (not counting CDNs like Akamai), and maintain a customer satisfaction rate that is the envy of most of the entertainment industry. The executives may need to be smacked around a little, but it's hard to argue that the company as a whole has many serious problems.
Congress didn't do it. It was done in 1996 by Executive Order and encryption was largely placed under the Commerce Department. It was done this way because the relevant law (22 USC 2778) provides for presidential control of the United States Munitions List, so there was no need to go through Congress.
That poster said "corporations." There was no specificity about which, though I'm fairly certain that he meant only large corporations. But lumping them all together is stereotyping, and it ignores that even large corporations can and do perform good acts. You point out that early corporations were required to "provide some PUBLIC GOOD". True to a degree--by 1800, only a few hundred corporations existed, and most of them were expressly for providing public services. But even without this, there were means of the elite protecting their power and wealth through trusts and limited partnerships.
You clearly are trying to fill in what you believe are my values based on very minimal knowledge. I agree that many large corporations do not pay the taxes that they should, and that this impacts the government's ability to provide the services needed. I'm not at all comfortable with any non-human person donating to the political process, but at the same time, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, you cannot say that one group of people (unions, for example) can express speech in a fashion which costs money while another group (corporations) cannot. I do feel that the PACs need to be reined in, as do the 501(c)(4) "social welfare groups" that are being used to provide cover for political ads.
The courts didn't find that "speech = money", as you say. But the ability to widely publicize a given viewpoint has almost always required some amount of money. Newspapers have always taken money to run ads, pamphlets cost money to print, and advertising on radio, in movie theaters, on television, and on the Internet costs money. Restricting the amount of money that can be spent therefore may be seen as a restriction on free speech. The Supreme Court did not find that this is impossible, but that such restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny: there must be a compelling government interest, the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and it must be the least restrictive means for achieving the goal. At the time, the arguments failed to sway a majority of the Court. With the backlash from it, maybe we'll see a new amendment to the Constitution.
Finally, whether you like me or think I'm authoritarian matters little to the conversation. Neither you nor the original poster (presuming you're different people) know anything about me other than what you've read from a couple of posts. There are a lot of things that need to change in the United States and around the world including limiting the power of the elite whether political or economic, and the world will be freer and more prosperous for those changes. But there are processes to that in the US, including engaging in debate, and juvenile ranting doesn't help get your point across.
That's your (very incorrect) perception of corporations. Your image of a corporation is Exxon, American Airlines, and Target. But it's counter to the reality that millions of other businesses in the US alone are corporations, and the majority of them are not only not involved in politics, but they're quite small. They're made up of one or more people, and without very strong reason that would reverberate through every other group, they get the same rights and responsibilities as any other group of people including free speech (including political speech), the right to petition the government, and the right to due process.
Your complaint about the origin of corporations is not only factually incorrect (businesses have incorporated for more than 1500 years with varying or even no protection for the founders), but ignores that it prevents small business owners from being personally crushed by the failure of a business, sometimes by factors out of their control. The family sandwich shop, the small machine shop, the furniture maker... Many of these are corporations. Almost everyone that isn't doing business under their own name is incorporated in some fashion. Without that protection, many people would never try to start a business.
Your complaints aren't remotely new, but they're also not remotely realistic.
The Constitution gives Congress certain powers such to coin money, but no one expected them to personally work in the mints. They draft the laws that provide for the duties to be carried out by other parts of government. Technically, they have the power to raise and spend money, but they don't have a constitutional requirement.
The Executive Branch is provided the responsibility to enforce the laws, but for practical matters require that it must sometimes decline to enforce the law due to other, more pressing concerns such as the cost of prosecution or where the effect of enforcing the law could have a larger detriment. This might include not enforcing some aspect of the health care law to allow for practical realities to be ironed out.
The Supreme Court has always had internal politics. In one extreme example, Justice James Clark Reynolds despised Justices Louis Brandeis and Benjamin Cardozo simply because the they were Jews and would not sit next to or speak with them nor sign opinions written by them. But one does not ever know for certain how they will rule going in. One of the most stunning to me was in Gonzalez v. Raich over California's legalization of medical marijuana. The case was decided 6-3, but the dissent included one by Justice O'Connor which was joined by the Chief Justice Rehnquist and a separate dissent by Justice Thomas, the latter two of the most conservative justices who broke with their conservative colleagues who grouped with their more liberal colleagues to rule in favor of the federal government.
Finally, on the topic of corporations and politics, the argument is that corporations are groups of people. To block spending by them, every other group would have to be blocked from political spending. Maybe this would be good--it would certainly quell the protest from the right over unions spending money--but as we've seen with 501(c)(4) groups, getting that regulation right is incredibly difficult. But it may also have a detrimental effect on anonymous contribution to political dialogue, as forcing everyone behind the political speech to be named could be seen as oppressive.
Many people want a very simple, straightforward implementation of the ideals in the Constitution. But reality is messy, and political reality even worse. No one gets everything they want, at least not for long, before something swings against them.
There's plenty of malware code out there that checks for browser versions, fires off different exploits based on it, and still tries to load Java and PDF malware.
The cost moderated the usage so much that they're mostly no longer enabled even if they're present. The remaining service will be shutting down completely at the end of this year.
It's about an 8.3A draw. It's not going to burn down the building, even if another such draw is happening. I'd be surprised if the breakers are rated for anything less than 25A, and wouldn't be surprised to see 40A breakers.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand the frustration that comes with major features not working for many people or requiring JavaScript, but lynx? What portion of the community uses text-based browsers on a regular basis? If it's a tenth of a percent, I would be surprised, but even at that level, it's too small to cater to for most sites. At some point, you have to consider cutting off support for connections that are used by a minuscule portion of the population.
If you're referring to the Play Services (the one piece of the OS that is completely out of user control), Ars Technica talked about this recently. That was changed so that it would be more helpful to users in that Google would no longer be at the mercy of wireless carriers to upgrade certain parts of the operating system. By integrating Play Services at the core of the OS, they can theoretically upgrade almost any part they want without having to provide completely new firmware. That improves security, too, because they can install patches that the carriers would otherwise block for QA reasons.
Android is by far the smartphone OS with the widest distribution. While it was at one time pointed more at geeks, Google has to take into account a much wider range of users including people who get stuck a phone only because the price is the same as feature phones (free on contract), especially when they're added to a family plan.
I don't see many people mentioning AWACS here, which is a core component of US battle airspace management. Those stealth aircraft can be guided to their targets by the distant AWACS crew while retaining relative electronic silence, surprise the enemy, and at least knock their numbers down. The US did it in 1991 to enormous effect and it's only improved since then. Once air superiority is established, the hardpoints can be attached for greater payload (or older, less stealthy planes employed).
Modern air combat is about who can see the most. Those with effective AWACS (the US, Russia, Israel, and to lesser extents, China, India, and several European nations) are at an enormous advantage over those without. Stealth can complicate the balance, but those with better AWACS also tend to have better stealth. Battle between those of equivalent capability would be interesting, but would also largely involve powers that are unlikely to face each other at such scales.
Code execution in an unprivileged account is one small step away from executing exploit code to get root, and then you've got just about everything.
This depends greatly on whether you can skim tests. It works great on paper exams. Some computer-based exams don't allow you to do this.
But it's still a useful skill to learn because it's applicable to time management in general. Do the easy things first (if you can--priorities matter in the real world) as it gets them off the list and can provide a sense of accomplishment, and then work on the more difficult items.
Agreed. But the LandRover was designed for very different conditions than the average road car of the times. I would expect even longer lives now, though electronics would also have to be upgraded.
It wasn't just the number of people Kodak employed. It was also all the film developers. One-hour photo stops at Walmart and the like are common now, but it wasn't really that long ago that one took film in to be developed over a longer period of time (often at least a day) at camera stores and at dedicated shops like Fotomat.
I think that within the lifetime of many here, the structure of the economy, at least for the West, is going to begin a shift unlike any seen since the agricultural revolution. Current hunter-gatherer tribes often work for less than four hours per day on average, with the remainder spent on leisure or family activities. Contrast this with the average American's workload exceeding 12 hours when commute, meal preparation, and other mandatory activities are included. But as the resources that lead to useful output become commoditized, the number of hours required from humans to maintain a given level of society (ignoring the wage losses) will decline rapidly. Once we have robots that can efficiently clean, deliver mail and packages, and maybe even handle emergency operations like firefighting and rescue, and I expect that it won't be long before humans, at least in more advanced countries, become knowledge manipulators, making decisions that robots and computers find difficult or impossible.
There's an alternative where some Neo-Luddite movement takes hold and limits the ability of automation of work, not necessarily reducing us to a pre-industrial era but perhaps to at least the current level of work by setting maximum efficiency levels on machines such that humans can compete at some level. But that would also require a fundamental shift in human psychology that I see as even less likely than acceptance of technological replacements of our jobs.
I hear people complaining about this as much as ever, but cars are lasting a lot longer now than they used to. It wasn't all that long ago that a car that reached 100,000 miles was sold off or traded in as a junker. Now, any car that can't reach 200,000 miles at a minimum (with moderate care) is considered to be of poor quality. Maintenance itself is getting easier, with longer times between oil changes, tune-ups, and other general maintenance. Hell, even tires are lasting considerably longer.
That's planned for next year when availability is increased. It's the only thing that's kept me from getting them. For those places that don't allow it, I'll keep an extra, normal pair of glasses in my car, similar to what I already do with sunglasses.
If it's a true story, it's possible that it was simply a coincidence. The insurance company may make the demand on random policy holders (it should be in the policy itself) and cover the cost of it if they mandate it.
Facebook has had opt-out for photo tagging for a long time. It also has the option of allowing you to approve tags. I approve a handful of them, but most get rejected.
The release of documents by Snowden put the evidence of the collection into the public light and was accepted by the courts, reviving a barely-live case by proving that the party was under surveillance. Once it's out in the open, it's impossible to get a state secrets claim approved.
The latter two have an impact on the first. The government is allowed to push the lines if there is a compelling reason, but it must do so in the most narrowly-tailored way possible. Given that there are now documents in the public domain that suggest that not only is it not narrowly tailored but technicians at the NSA itself have said that they have too much data to effectively work with. The collection, possibly even without a warrant, of a very narrow selection of information related to a documentably (or at least believably) imminent threat may be covered under probable cause, but that is likely a very, very far cry from what's been happening.
Replacement is possible though I don't know how likely it actually is. Netflix hasn't seemed to be as content to sit back and enjoy the limelight and instead has been pushing to change how they do things and the customer experience. I don't know who can seriously challenge them; there are at least a dozen competitors, but few if any have the range of content. Maybe Amazon (and I could see them trying to buy Netflix) has the architecture and the content, but I'm not at all happy with their non-rental selection. I don't see Redbox taking over any time soon, much less any of the other competitors.
At my last job, I participated heavily in the interviewing process. We had a certain perspective and requirements, and would often sift through 50+ resumes to interview perhaps 10 people to pick one person. That suggests that we were looking for the top 10% or top 2%, depending on your perspective. The only difference with Netflix is that they keep that evaluation going. I kind of wish we'd done that where I was and cut some people when it was clear they weren't pulling their weight.
I think the choice of VC-1 came because it was supported by Silverlight while H.264 was limited if present at all. VC-1 is also the protocol of choice for Blu-Ray, and the time saved simply copying the files instead of moving them to H.264 may be significant.
They're the largest in their field and have little real competition, so they must be doing something right. They're also in the process of moving away from Silverlight, provide a primary source of more bandwidth across the Internet than perhaps any other single company (not counting CDNs like Akamai), and maintain a customer satisfaction rate that is the envy of most of the entertainment industry. The executives may need to be smacked around a little, but it's hard to argue that the company as a whole has many serious problems.
Congress didn't do it. It was done in 1996 by Executive Order and encryption was largely placed under the Commerce Department. It was done this way because the relevant law (22 USC 2778) provides for presidential control of the United States Munitions List, so there was no need to go through Congress.
That poster said "corporations." There was no specificity about which, though I'm fairly certain that he meant only large corporations. But lumping them all together is stereotyping, and it ignores that even large corporations can and do perform good acts. You point out that early corporations were required to "provide some PUBLIC GOOD". True to a degree--by 1800, only a few hundred corporations existed, and most of them were expressly for providing public services. But even without this, there were means of the elite protecting their power and wealth through trusts and limited partnerships.
You clearly are trying to fill in what you believe are my values based on very minimal knowledge. I agree that many large corporations do not pay the taxes that they should, and that this impacts the government's ability to provide the services needed. I'm not at all comfortable with any non-human person donating to the political process, but at the same time, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, you cannot say that one group of people (unions, for example) can express speech in a fashion which costs money while another group (corporations) cannot. I do feel that the PACs need to be reined in, as do the 501(c)(4) "social welfare groups" that are being used to provide cover for political ads.
The courts didn't find that "speech = money", as you say. But the ability to widely publicize a given viewpoint has almost always required some amount of money. Newspapers have always taken money to run ads, pamphlets cost money to print, and advertising on radio, in movie theaters, on television, and on the Internet costs money. Restricting the amount of money that can be spent therefore may be seen as a restriction on free speech. The Supreme Court did not find that this is impossible, but that such restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny: there must be a compelling government interest, the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and it must be the least restrictive means for achieving the goal. At the time, the arguments failed to sway a majority of the Court. With the backlash from it, maybe we'll see a new amendment to the Constitution.
Finally, whether you like me or think I'm authoritarian matters little to the conversation. Neither you nor the original poster (presuming you're different people) know anything about me other than what you've read from a couple of posts. There are a lot of things that need to change in the United States and around the world including limiting the power of the elite whether political or economic, and the world will be freer and more prosperous for those changes. But there are processes to that in the US, including engaging in debate, and juvenile ranting doesn't help get your point across.
That's your (very incorrect) perception of corporations. Your image of a corporation is Exxon, American Airlines, and Target. But it's counter to the reality that millions of other businesses in the US alone are corporations, and the majority of them are not only not involved in politics, but they're quite small. They're made up of one or more people, and without very strong reason that would reverberate through every other group, they get the same rights and responsibilities as any other group of people including free speech (including political speech), the right to petition the government, and the right to due process.
Your complaint about the origin of corporations is not only factually incorrect (businesses have incorporated for more than 1500 years with varying or even no protection for the founders), but ignores that it prevents small business owners from being personally crushed by the failure of a business, sometimes by factors out of their control. The family sandwich shop, the small machine shop, the furniture maker... Many of these are corporations. Almost everyone that isn't doing business under their own name is incorporated in some fashion. Without that protection, many people would never try to start a business.
Your complaints aren't remotely new, but they're also not remotely realistic.
The Constitution gives Congress certain powers such to coin money, but no one expected them to personally work in the mints. They draft the laws that provide for the duties to be carried out by other parts of government. Technically, they have the power to raise and spend money, but they don't have a constitutional requirement.
The Executive Branch is provided the responsibility to enforce the laws, but for practical matters require that it must sometimes decline to enforce the law due to other, more pressing concerns such as the cost of prosecution or where the effect of enforcing the law could have a larger detriment. This might include not enforcing some aspect of the health care law to allow for practical realities to be ironed out.
The Supreme Court has always had internal politics. In one extreme example, Justice James Clark Reynolds despised Justices Louis Brandeis and Benjamin Cardozo simply because the they were Jews and would not sit next to or speak with them nor sign opinions written by them. But one does not ever know for certain how they will rule going in. One of the most stunning to me was in Gonzalez v. Raich over California's legalization of medical marijuana. The case was decided 6-3, but the dissent included one by Justice O'Connor which was joined by the Chief Justice Rehnquist and a separate dissent by Justice Thomas, the latter two of the most conservative justices who broke with their conservative colleagues who grouped with their more liberal colleagues to rule in favor of the federal government.
Finally, on the topic of corporations and politics, the argument is that corporations are groups of people. To block spending by them, every other group would have to be blocked from political spending. Maybe this would be good--it would certainly quell the protest from the right over unions spending money--but as we've seen with 501(c)(4) groups, getting that regulation right is incredibly difficult. But it may also have a detrimental effect on anonymous contribution to political dialogue, as forcing everyone behind the political speech to be named could be seen as oppressive.
Many people want a very simple, straightforward implementation of the ideals in the Constitution. But reality is messy, and political reality even worse. No one gets everything they want, at least not for long, before something swings against them.
There's plenty of malware code out there that checks for browser versions, fires off different exploits based on it, and still tries to load Java and PDF malware.
The cost moderated the usage so much that they're mostly no longer enabled even if they're present. The remaining service will be shutting down completely at the end of this year.
It is theft, but the damages involved are inconsequential. A formal warning by the officer to not do it again would have been a better solution.
It's about an 8.3A draw. It's not going to burn down the building, even if another such draw is happening. I'd be surprised if the breakers are rated for anything less than 25A, and wouldn't be surprised to see 40A breakers.