On my 7 year old macbook pro, I think I used the SD card slot maybe 2 or 3 times total. Same goes for the ethernet jack. If your'e going to use it so infrequently, doesn't seem like a disaster to expect an adapter.
Perhaps, but his arguments are asinine regardless. Card half sticking out? Hmmm i seem to have several cameras where the SD Card slot is spring loaded and has absolutely nothing sticking out of it. Wireless is satisfactory? Sure - lets just sit there for hours while I transfer 30GB of pictures from my last vacation. Sounds like a great time for everyone.
Off
On, GPS only
On, also uses wifi and cell networks by querying Google's database
The third one obviously sends some data to Google.
Yeah but look at the API docs. I am pretty sure they moved the location services inside of the Google Play APIs making it impossible to get location services without Play. In fact, I just looked it up and verified that. You literally cannot use location services now without it submitting the data to Google.
I was under the impression that Google changed the way that location tracking worked so that all location data comes through the Play APIs and you have to enable location services to use Play. I could be very wrong about this, though. I have an old Nexus 4 that I use for my OBD-II reader but I haven't used an Android device in years.
They found that the Trump Organization owns more than 3,600 web addresses, including names of his properties, products and progeny, as well as Trump-bashing names. [...] donaldtrumpsucks.com, no2trump.com, trumpmustgo.com and two dozen others that appear to be bashing the billionaire Republican presidential nominee.
These show a blank page; they are defensively bought domains and most certainly not Trump-bashing in any way. The fact that Clinton doesn't own similar ones could reflect on her incompetence, but most likely on her political career pre-dating the internet.
Another thing is that they included all Trump domains in one count, whether they were owned by his businesses or charities, etc while they counted only those owned directly by the Clinton campaign in her direct count and then later go on to mention "Oh yeah, she also has 214 other domains registered through her charity." While there is still a huge disparity 1) who cares? and 2) why the need for such obvious dishonesty? Of all the things I don't like about this campaign, the internet domains registered by either candidate aren't even on the radar.
The IRS always goes after the corporation instead of the individual for employee/contractor misclassification, regardless of whether the individual paid his correct share of self-employment tax. First, it's much more cost effective to do so. Second, the penalties for the corporation are severe and provide an additional source of tax revenue.
So your claim is that the sole purpose of this law is so that corporations will (accidentally or otherwise) run afoul of it so that the IRS can charge them penalties and fees for violating the law? I would argue that the IRS goes after the employer because it was the employer that violated the law. The contractor does not typically classify their own employment status unless they are running an actual contracting service.
Well, obviously the people living in Austin believe that it is reasonable to make sure that people who run a livery service have been vetted for certain types of criminal behavior.
And it's obvious that Uber disagrees. Because Austin and Uber can't come to an agreement, Uber doesn't operate in Austin. That's not "taking their ball and going home", any more than it is Austin kicking them out of the city - it's simply a "contract" whose terms are not suitable to both parties, and thus isn't taken up.
Well I don't think anyone can possibly win an argument one way or the other in this regard. This is a matter of perception.
What are you going to suggest now, that it's unreasonable to fingerprint elementary school teachers and daycare workers to make sure they aren't convicted pedophiles?
Sure. I dunno if it's the same in the US, but here in Australia, you can get a background check without needing to fingerprint someone. The problem isn't the background check, it's the collection (and presumably storing) of biometric information on someone. That sort of stuff usually needs a warrant.
That depends on how good of a background check you want, I suppose. I can easily steal an identity for a background check if no biometric data is required. I'm not saying that you need a fingerprint background check for an Uber driver, however, I strongly suspect that Uber objects to having to perform any sort of (legally mandated - therefore liability assuming) background checks period. I know of no jurisdiction under which they have agreed to require background checks. I could be entirely wrong about this all, of course. It is apparent, however, that Uber's entire business model requires them to have an uneven playing field by not meeting the same insurance and other legal requirements as other livery services.
The only reason the government/IRS even cares is because it's harder to enforce the payment of self-employment tax for 5,000 individuals than it is for a single corporation. They're not doing it to protect people from evil corporations and abuse - they're in it for the money. The only difference is the IRS has the power of the state behind it.
Have you ever been self-employed? They will get their pound of flesh. Sure you can start your own corporation and use tax loopholes to avoid some portion of your taxes, even self-employment taxes, but, you'll end up paying your self-employment tax no matter how you get paid. And if you don't? The IRS will receive judgements against you and will place liens against your property and future income. The only way to escape the IRS is to die. As jaded as I am about some of our government policies, I do not believe this particular policy has anything to do with revenue. I think that these policies stem from labor abuses dating back into the founding of our country and were at their worst during the industrial revolution. It seems to me that you were born in the wrong century if you want to go back to the days where employers can demand whatever they want.
The problem is that what some people interprets as "abuse", others interpret as opportunity. Which is why it's usually best to let people decide for themselves rather a centralized government agency.
And that's exactly what typically happens in these cases. The corporations abuse the contractor relationship and someone sues them and all these former contractors get reclassified as employees. The IRS doesn't sit around auditing the employment status of every single contractor in the US. I imagine that it is the same in the UK. In the case of my experience from 1999 - no one stopped that guy from making a poor decision. No one is going to call shenanigans unless someone complains that the relationship is illegal. So feel free to partake in these opportunities to make poor decisions. I'm not going to stop you at all.
Every day there are people who make bad decisions about important aspects of their lives. If we were to take each instance as an opportunity for the government to intervene in our lives then then country would be completely devoid of freedoms.
So you don't think that the government should take steps to protect people from specific types of abuse? Remember that any position could be turned into a contractor position. You may not have any choice but to accept a contract position or start your own company if corporations are allowed to make whatever rules they want. They will always seek to externalize their costs and increase their profit margins.
I actually think they're to be commended for pulling out of a market rather than compromising their principles.
Mandatory fingerprinting just for being employed in a particular industry sounds horrifically intrusive. Kudos to Uber for sacrificing the potential profit of the Austin region in order to protect the privacy of their drivers. They're not punishing their customers - if their customers want Uber services, then their customers can not vote for bullshit, abusive laws.
Well, obviously the people living in Austin believe that it is reasonable to make sure that people who run a livery service have been vetted for certain types of criminal behavior. I don't personally blame them. What are you going to suggest now, that it's unreasonable to fingerprint elementary school teachers and daycare workers to make sure they aren't convicted pedophiles? That it's perfectly okay for a CPA to have a long history of embezzlement? I don't think you're going to get much sympathy from 90% of the world. That's not to say that you should bar someone for driving an Uber if they once got busted for pot but a background check is not unreasonable.
Yeah, let's have the government protect us from the the free-market and pre-decide that people aren't smart enough to evaluate opportunities presented by evil businesses.
The problem is that the cost is being externalized onto the government and certain other industries. I knew a guy who, in 1999, went to our boss and told him that he couldn't afford to live off his present salary and that he would quit if he didn't get a raise. He was a full-time employee with full benefits. The boss, who was part owner of the company, tricked him into becoming a contractor at a very small raise (about 30%) while stripping him, his wife, and newborn baby of healthcare. So what happens when that child gets sick? Well the state of California was paying for it. Trip to the emergency room? That cost gets shifted onto the hospital. The guy made a very short sided decision without even realizing that his social security tax was going to be doubled with a self employment tax and that he would have to pay for all of his medical care out of pocket. Was the guy an idiot? No, not generally, but he had no idea what kinds of expenses he was taking on when he agreed to become a contractor. There was nothing legal about his classification of contractor, either. He made a very poor choice.
Based on my understanding of how Uber driving works (both as someone who has tried it, and who has friends who have driven for Uber), some of your answers are definitely incorrect.
Do you have the capability to hire, supervise, or pay assistants to help you in performing the services under contract? Yes
The answer is no. You cannot hire someone to drive for you. In what way would an assistant provide any help to you when all you do is open a mobile app and wait for someone to request a ride from you that you must give personally? Any assistant you hired would be tangential to your relationship with Uber in that they might manage your bookkeeping from Uber.
Are you required to provide regular written or oral reports to your client? No
Uber drivers "make a report" after every single ride. They report that they picked the person up, dropped the person off, and rate the passenger. You can even see your passenger rating inside of the app. If you did something dangerous or unruly, this would be the time the Uber driver mentions it to Uber.
Can you work for a number of firms at the same time? Yes
Again I would not consider this to be significant. Can I have a job at Wendy's and McDonald's? Absolutely. But I can't work both at the same time. It's almost impossible to work for two ride sharing service at the exact same time - you'd end up declining rides and that would result in you getting kicked out of the service.
Are you subject to dismissal for reasons other than nonperformance of contract specifications? Unknown
The answer to this is yes. Uber treats you as an at-will employee in this regard. They can terminate your agreement at any time and for any reason.
They likely have home insurance and will be reimbursed. If anyone has a right to sue Amazon it will be the insurance company, to reclaim the money they paid out to the homeowners.
In my experience, the insurance company wants to sue anyone and everyone to reclaim their losses on the payout. I was injured many years ago and have on going treatment for said injury. Every time I have a procedure done I get a fresh letter from the insurance company asking me who they can sue. It's actually quite irritating because they can't legally sue anyone at this point - the statute of limitations already ran on it.
It looks like Intel is still playing catch up in the modem space. Interestingly, it looks like for the 2016 iPhone, Apple is using either the Intel XMM 7360 or the Qualcomm X12. Both of these modems were released in 2015. Qualcomm hasn't shipped a new generation since then, but Intel did release the XMM 7480 in February. It would be interesting to see how much progress Intel has made in a year.
Either way, the fact that Intel's modem exists is good for everyone... except Qualcomm. Without it, Qualcomm would be the only LTE modem supplier. There is no doubt Apple is aware of the Intel modem's shortcomings. My guess is Apple is willing to turn a blind eye to that for the "1st gen" product and use the new revenue as a carrot to get Intel to direct its engineering efforts to the features that Apple wants, probably stuff like CDMA for example.
Not only did Apple know, but there were public discussions about it the very same day that they announced the iPhone 7. I don't have the links in front of me, but some people on Reddit did a very technical overview of the differences between the two modems. the TL;DR version of the story (assuming my memory serves me correctly) is that the Qualcomm chip can handle 4 LTE bands at once and the Intel only two or some such thing. To my knowledge, no cellular network provides speeds that the Qualcomm version of the iPhone 7 can take advantage of that the Intel version cannot. Not to say that will change, but this test is all theoretical anyway. It's lab based.
You do realize that he's committed *actual* criminal offenses don't you? Perhaps you should avoid mentioning charities, that's a big minefield for your guy Trump.
I don't like the way you're disparaging Clinton. She's committed plenty of crimes herself, Comey just hasn't found anyone at the Attorney General's office that is interested in prosecuting. This is what makes America great - two career criminals running for president!
It's too bad budget cuts in the US forced JPL to back out of the program. While the US has several spectacular failures, they also have even more successes. The fact that they got the Rube Goldberg landing device for the Curiosity lander to work is an engineering wonder in itself. Hopefully Europe has the same tolerances for learning from mistakes as the US.
[badjokeeel] It sounds to me like JPL pulled out just in time.[/badjokeeel]
This clearly is targeting 1%ers. Who else could afford to donate even a few cents every time Trump says something stupid? Just further proof that Clinton is in bed with the rich elite, though probably not with her own husband.
I asked about why Rhode Island per se had any interest in the election, and you ignored that question. Why are you talking about Rhode Island and not the residents of Rhode Island? Each resident of Rhode Island would have the same vote in a popular vote election as everyone else in California or Alaska. Under the Electoral College system, each resident of Rhode Island has more of a say than each resident of California.
And does this mean anyone cares about Rhode Island? Is it a battleground state? Nobody on the national level seems to care about how I vote, because my state's electoral votes are going to Clinton no matter what. In a popular vote, Clinton would want to keep my state happy to build up a greater margin of victory that might offset losses somewhere else. Even if Rhode Island is seen as a swing state, under how many scenarios are its three electoral votes going to swing the election? Group voting systems like this generally give disproportionate influence to some blocs over others.
House seats are supposed to reflect population. Senate seats are intended to balance states (and Senators were originally selected by the state legislatures).
Did you not even read the first sentence I wrote? Rhode Island needs to have some measure of influence in the presidential elections. And by Rhode Island I mean both the government and its people. Why would you want to belong to a nation that gives you no influence over its national government? You wouldn't. Sure you claim that Rhode Island would benefit from a popular vote but give no real reason how it would benefit anyone to cater to the needs of Rhode Island. Like I've said several times - a federal election would depend almost entirely on the will of the 10 most populous states without the electoral college. That would account for almost 171 million out of 314 million Americans. With the electoral college those 40 states could band together to prevent their neglect. The 10 most populous states only account for 256 out of 538 electoral votes. You cannot guarantee a win in the electoral college system with just the support of 10 states. Remember that the constitution was made to prevent the US from splintering. States are granted all rights not explicitly given to the federal government by the constitution (or reserved to the people). This is the founding fathers recognizing that all regions want to feel like they have a say in what happens to the country.
When you have a tablet, you can do things like punch in what defense the other team just used to provide statistical analysis of what the next best play is, or what kind of defense to run if your opponent is doing X often. These are things a coach can know, or have on paper, but the ability to quickly look things up for an effective response or plan is probably very beneficial.
What I don't know, however, is why they would need "connectivity." Why do you need wi-fi operating your iPad or Surface if you have all of the relevant info on the device? If they don't have all the relevant info on the device, what do they need it for?
Um... Live replay, maybe.... Oh, forgot, the NFL is the No Fun League so "No replay for you....." Actually, they are using it for downloading photos and drawing up plays, same as the paper copy.
The NHL has gone to live reply on tablets this season. Saw it being used during the Pittsburgh game a couple of nights ago.
The San Jose Sharks coaching staff has been using tablets at the bench for probably 8-10 years now.
Why are you concerned about the influence of states in Presidential elections? Rhode Island is not its own group mind. It just contains a lot of voters, and a popular election would give each voter an equal say in the election. As it is, my vote for President is meaningless, since I don't live in a swing state. I don't think that's fair, myself.
Because Rhode Island needs influence in the election or presidential candidates (incumbents included) will tend to not really care about the state. If the state is ignored by everyone but its own senators then why would they want to even bother being a part of the union? The way that house seats and electoral votes was doled out was to balance the needs of low population states versus densely populated states. Just because they have a low population doesn't mean that they add no value to the nation.
No. I said the license plate does not identify the car. I said it could be used for probable cause to initiate a search for the VIN. That is not contradicting myself. The license plate does not identify the vehicle. period. You know that VIN stands for "Vehicle Identification Number", right?
Apple Pay does not use the card nor require its presence during the transaction. It does not pass or use your credit card number either. The code it uses is specific to the device and it's relationship to accounts and you is known only to the issuing bank. Any system that relies on the card and a pin still exposes your account number and your identity, does it not?
EMV over NFC can do the same sort of card number tokenization that Apple pay uses. You can't replay an EMV NFC transaction, the best you could hope to do is intercept it and process it before the legitimate request goes through.
Apple Pay doesn't charge the merchants at all. It's the card issuers who pay Apple and they are will to do so because Apple Pay is much more secure than their own systems - chips and strips. It saves the banks money because it drastically reduces the fraud rate. So, no consumers are not paying for this. Another feature of Apple Pay (and Google's version) is that you aren't tied to a bank, a credit card (VISA, MC, etc.). That's what the banks don't like. They want to own the relationship.
Apple Pay is, on the whole, no more secure than EMV NFC. At least not for a card present scenario. It's a little more secure for online purchases.
Slashdot Mirror
On my 7 year old macbook pro, I think I used the SD card slot maybe 2 or 3 times total. Same goes for the ethernet jack. If your'e going to use it so infrequently, doesn't seem like a disaster to expect an adapter.
Perhaps, but his arguments are asinine regardless. Card half sticking out? Hmmm i seem to have several cameras where the SD Card slot is spring loaded and has absolutely nothing sticking out of it. Wireless is satisfactory? Sure - lets just sit there for hours while I transfer 30GB of pictures from my last vacation. Sounds like a great time for everyone.
There are three settings:
Off On, GPS only On, also uses wifi and cell networks by querying Google's database
The third one obviously sends some data to Google.
Yeah but look at the API docs. I am pretty sure they moved the location services inside of the Google Play APIs making it impossible to get location services without Play. In fact, I just looked it up and verified that. You literally cannot use location services now without it submitting the data to Google.
Location sniffing, local Wifi SSIDs sniffing
Location services -> off
I was under the impression that Google changed the way that location tracking worked so that all location data comes through the Play APIs and you have to enable location services to use Play. I could be very wrong about this, though. I have an old Nexus 4 that I use for my OBD-II reader but I haven't used an Android device in years.
First obvious drawback: solar cells are only useful on south-facing slopes, meaning non-matching tiles on the north-facing slope of the roof.
I live in the Southern Hemisphere, you insensitive clod!
using people for fuel. What else can we do with the 7B on the planet anyway?
7 out of 10 people prefer soylent green.
They found that the Trump Organization owns more than 3,600 web addresses, including names of his properties, products and progeny, as well as Trump-bashing names. [...] donaldtrumpsucks.com, no2trump.com, trumpmustgo.com and two dozen others that appear to be bashing the billionaire Republican presidential nominee.
These show a blank page; they are defensively bought domains and most certainly not Trump-bashing in any way. The fact that Clinton doesn't own similar ones could reflect on her incompetence, but most likely on her political career pre-dating the internet.
Another thing is that they included all Trump domains in one count, whether they were owned by his businesses or charities, etc while they counted only those owned directly by the Clinton campaign in her direct count and then later go on to mention "Oh yeah, she also has 214 other domains registered through her charity." While there is still a huge disparity 1) who cares? and 2) why the need for such obvious dishonesty? Of all the things I don't like about this campaign, the internet domains registered by either candidate aren't even on the radar.
The IRS always goes after the corporation instead of the individual for employee/contractor misclassification, regardless of whether the individual paid his correct share of self-employment tax. First, it's much more cost effective to do so. Second, the penalties for the corporation are severe and provide an additional source of tax revenue.
So your claim is that the sole purpose of this law is so that corporations will (accidentally or otherwise) run afoul of it so that the IRS can charge them penalties and fees for violating the law? I would argue that the IRS goes after the employer because it was the employer that violated the law. The contractor does not typically classify their own employment status unless they are running an actual contracting service.
Well, obviously the people living in Austin believe that it is reasonable to make sure that people who run a livery service have been vetted for certain types of criminal behavior.
And it's obvious that Uber disagrees. Because Austin and Uber can't come to an agreement, Uber doesn't operate in Austin. That's not "taking their ball and going home", any more than it is Austin kicking them out of the city - it's simply a "contract" whose terms are not suitable to both parties, and thus isn't taken up.
Well I don't think anyone can possibly win an argument one way or the other in this regard. This is a matter of perception.
What are you going to suggest now, that it's unreasonable to fingerprint elementary school teachers and daycare workers to make sure they aren't convicted pedophiles?
Sure. I dunno if it's the same in the US, but here in Australia, you can get a background check without needing to fingerprint someone. The problem isn't the background check, it's the collection (and presumably storing) of biometric information on someone. That sort of stuff usually needs a warrant.
That depends on how good of a background check you want, I suppose. I can easily steal an identity for a background check if no biometric data is required. I'm not saying that you need a fingerprint background check for an Uber driver, however, I strongly suspect that Uber objects to having to perform any sort of (legally mandated - therefore liability assuming) background checks period. I know of no jurisdiction under which they have agreed to require background checks. I could be entirely wrong about this all, of course. It is apparent, however, that Uber's entire business model requires them to have an uneven playing field by not meeting the same insurance and other legal requirements as other livery services.
The only reason the government/IRS even cares is because it's harder to enforce the payment of self-employment tax for 5,000 individuals than it is for a single corporation. They're not doing it to protect people from evil corporations and abuse - they're in it for the money. The only difference is the IRS has the power of the state behind it.
Have you ever been self-employed? They will get their pound of flesh. Sure you can start your own corporation and use tax loopholes to avoid some portion of your taxes, even self-employment taxes, but, you'll end up paying your self-employment tax no matter how you get paid. And if you don't? The IRS will receive judgements against you and will place liens against your property and future income. The only way to escape the IRS is to die. As jaded as I am about some of our government policies, I do not believe this particular policy has anything to do with revenue. I think that these policies stem from labor abuses dating back into the founding of our country and were at their worst during the industrial revolution. It seems to me that you were born in the wrong century if you want to go back to the days where employers can demand whatever they want.
The problem is that what some people interprets as "abuse", others interpret as opportunity. Which is why it's usually best to let people decide for themselves rather a centralized government agency.
And that's exactly what typically happens in these cases. The corporations abuse the contractor relationship and someone sues them and all these former contractors get reclassified as employees. The IRS doesn't sit around auditing the employment status of every single contractor in the US. I imagine that it is the same in the UK. In the case of my experience from 1999 - no one stopped that guy from making a poor decision. No one is going to call shenanigans unless someone complains that the relationship is illegal. So feel free to partake in these opportunities to make poor decisions. I'm not going to stop you at all.
Every day there are people who make bad decisions about important aspects of their lives. If we were to take each instance as an opportunity for the government to intervene in our lives then then country would be completely devoid of freedoms.
So you don't think that the government should take steps to protect people from specific types of abuse? Remember that any position could be turned into a contractor position. You may not have any choice but to accept a contract position or start your own company if corporations are allowed to make whatever rules they want. They will always seek to externalize their costs and increase their profit margins.
I actually think they're to be commended for pulling out of a market rather than compromising their principles.
Mandatory fingerprinting just for being employed in a particular industry sounds horrifically intrusive. Kudos to Uber for sacrificing the potential profit of the Austin region in order to protect the privacy of their drivers. They're not punishing their customers - if their customers want Uber services, then their customers can not vote for bullshit, abusive laws.
Well, obviously the people living in Austin believe that it is reasonable to make sure that people who run a livery service have been vetted for certain types of criminal behavior. I don't personally blame them. What are you going to suggest now, that it's unreasonable to fingerprint elementary school teachers and daycare workers to make sure they aren't convicted pedophiles? That it's perfectly okay for a CPA to have a long history of embezzlement? I don't think you're going to get much sympathy from 90% of the world. That's not to say that you should bar someone for driving an Uber if they once got busted for pot but a background check is not unreasonable.
Yeah, let's have the government protect us from the the free-market and pre-decide that people aren't smart enough to evaluate opportunities presented by evil businesses.
The problem is that the cost is being externalized onto the government and certain other industries. I knew a guy who, in 1999, went to our boss and told him that he couldn't afford to live off his present salary and that he would quit if he didn't get a raise. He was a full-time employee with full benefits. The boss, who was part owner of the company, tricked him into becoming a contractor at a very small raise (about 30%) while stripping him, his wife, and newborn baby of healthcare. So what happens when that child gets sick? Well the state of California was paying for it. Trip to the emergency room? That cost gets shifted onto the hospital. The guy made a very short sided decision without even realizing that his social security tax was going to be doubled with a self employment tax and that he would have to pay for all of his medical care out of pocket. Was the guy an idiot? No, not generally, but he had no idea what kinds of expenses he was taking on when he agreed to become a contractor. There was nothing legal about his classification of contractor, either. He made a very poor choice.
The answer is no. You cannot hire someone to drive for you. In what way would an assistant provide any help to you when all you do is open a mobile app and wait for someone to request a ride from you that you must give personally? Any assistant you hired would be tangential to your relationship with Uber in that they might manage your bookkeeping from Uber.
Are you required to provide regular written or oral reports to your client? No
Uber drivers "make a report" after every single ride. They report that they picked the person up, dropped the person off, and rate the passenger. You can even see your passenger rating inside of the app. If you did something dangerous or unruly, this would be the time the Uber driver mentions it to Uber.
Can you work for a number of firms at the same time? Yes
Again I would not consider this to be significant. Can I have a job at Wendy's and McDonald's? Absolutely. But I can't work both at the same time. It's almost impossible to work for two ride sharing service at the exact same time - you'd end up declining rides and that would result in you getting kicked out of the service.
Are you subject to dismissal for reasons other than nonperformance of contract specifications? Unknown
The answer to this is yes. Uber treats you as an at-will employee in this regard. They can terminate your agreement at any time and for any reason.
They likely have home insurance and will be reimbursed. If anyone has a right to sue Amazon it will be the insurance company, to reclaim the money they paid out to the homeowners.
In my experience, the insurance company wants to sue anyone and everyone to reclaim their losses on the payout. I was injured many years ago and have on going treatment for said injury. Every time I have a procedure done I get a fresh letter from the insurance company asking me who they can sue. It's actually quite irritating because they can't legally sue anyone at this point - the statute of limitations already ran on it.
It looks like Intel is still playing catch up in the modem space. Interestingly, it looks like for the 2016 iPhone, Apple is using either the Intel XMM 7360 or the Qualcomm X12. Both of these modems were released in 2015. Qualcomm hasn't shipped a new generation since then, but Intel did release the XMM 7480 in February. It would be interesting to see how much progress Intel has made in a year.
Either way, the fact that Intel's modem exists is good for everyone... except Qualcomm. Without it, Qualcomm would be the only LTE modem supplier. There is no doubt Apple is aware of the Intel modem's shortcomings. My guess is Apple is willing to turn a blind eye to that for the "1st gen" product and use the new revenue as a carrot to get Intel to direct its engineering efforts to the features that Apple wants, probably stuff like CDMA for example.
Not only did Apple know, but there were public discussions about it the very same day that they announced the iPhone 7. I don't have the links in front of me, but some people on Reddit did a very technical overview of the differences between the two modems. the TL;DR version of the story (assuming my memory serves me correctly) is that the Qualcomm chip can handle 4 LTE bands at once and the Intel only two or some such thing. To my knowledge, no cellular network provides speeds that the Qualcomm version of the iPhone 7 can take advantage of that the Intel version cannot. Not to say that will change, but this test is all theoretical anyway. It's lab based.
Whereas Trump has settled multiple lawsuits using charity money.
http://people.com/crime/donald-trump-used-money-from-charity-to-settle-lawsuits-report/
Although in more recent 7 years he hasn't used charity money at all for ANY donations, instead just using it for his own expenses:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-promised-millions-to-charity-we-found-less-than-10000-over-7-years/2016/06/28/cbab5d1a-37dd-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html
You do realize that he's committed *actual* criminal offenses don't you? Perhaps you should avoid mentioning charities, that's a big minefield for your guy Trump.
I don't like the way you're disparaging Clinton. She's committed plenty of crimes herself, Comey just hasn't found anyone at the Attorney General's office that is interested in prosecuting. This is what makes America great - two career criminals running for president!
It's too bad budget cuts in the US forced JPL to back out of the program. While the US has several spectacular failures, they also have even more successes. The fact that they got the Rube Goldberg landing device for the Curiosity lander to work is an engineering wonder in itself. Hopefully Europe has the same tolerances for learning from mistakes as the US.
[badjokeeel] It sounds to me like JPL pulled out just in time.[/badjokeeel]
This clearly is targeting 1%ers. Who else could afford to donate even a few cents every time Trump says something stupid? Just further proof that Clinton is in bed with the rich elite, though probably not with her own husband.
I asked about why Rhode Island per se had any interest in the election, and you ignored that question. Why are you talking about Rhode Island and not the residents of Rhode Island? Each resident of Rhode Island would have the same vote in a popular vote election as everyone else in California or Alaska. Under the Electoral College system, each resident of Rhode Island has more of a say than each resident of California.
And does this mean anyone cares about Rhode Island? Is it a battleground state? Nobody on the national level seems to care about how I vote, because my state's electoral votes are going to Clinton no matter what. In a popular vote, Clinton would want to keep my state happy to build up a greater margin of victory that might offset losses somewhere else. Even if Rhode Island is seen as a swing state, under how many scenarios are its three electoral votes going to swing the election? Group voting systems like this generally give disproportionate influence to some blocs over others.
House seats are supposed to reflect population. Senate seats are intended to balance states (and Senators were originally selected by the state legislatures).
Did you not even read the first sentence I wrote? Rhode Island needs to have some measure of influence in the presidential elections. And by Rhode Island I mean both the government and its people. Why would you want to belong to a nation that gives you no influence over its national government? You wouldn't. Sure you claim that Rhode Island would benefit from a popular vote but give no real reason how it would benefit anyone to cater to the needs of Rhode Island. Like I've said several times - a federal election would depend almost entirely on the will of the 10 most populous states without the electoral college. That would account for almost 171 million out of 314 million Americans. With the electoral college those 40 states could band together to prevent their neglect. The 10 most populous states only account for 256 out of 538 electoral votes. You cannot guarantee a win in the electoral college system with just the support of 10 states. Remember that the constitution was made to prevent the US from splintering. States are granted all rights not explicitly given to the federal government by the constitution (or reserved to the people). This is the founding fathers recognizing that all regions want to feel like they have a say in what happens to the country.
When you have a tablet, you can do things like punch in what defense the other team just used to provide statistical analysis of what the next best play is, or what kind of defense to run if your opponent is doing X often. These are things a coach can know, or have on paper, but the ability to quickly look things up for an effective response or plan is probably very beneficial.
What I don't know, however, is why they would need "connectivity." Why do you need wi-fi operating your iPad or Surface if you have all of the relevant info on the device? If they don't have all the relevant info on the device, what do they need it for?
Um... Live replay, maybe.... Oh, forgot, the NFL is the No Fun League so "No replay for you....." Actually, they are using it for downloading photos and drawing up plays, same as the paper copy.
The NHL has gone to live reply on tablets this season. Saw it being used during the Pittsburgh game a couple of nights ago.
The San Jose Sharks coaching staff has been using tablets at the bench for probably 8-10 years now.
Why are you concerned about the influence of states in Presidential elections? Rhode Island is not its own group mind. It just contains a lot of voters, and a popular election would give each voter an equal say in the election. As it is, my vote for President is meaningless, since I don't live in a swing state. I don't think that's fair, myself.
Because Rhode Island needs influence in the election or presidential candidates (incumbents included) will tend to not really care about the state. If the state is ignored by everyone but its own senators then why would they want to even bother being a part of the union? The way that house seats and electoral votes was doled out was to balance the needs of low population states versus densely populated states. Just because they have a low population doesn't mean that they add no value to the nation.
Yes. That's exactly what I said:
You exactly contradicted yourself.
No. I said the license plate does not identify the car. I said it could be used for probable cause to initiate a search for the VIN. That is not contradicting myself. The license plate does not identify the vehicle. period. You know that VIN stands for "Vehicle Identification Number", right?
Apple Pay does not use the card nor require its presence during the transaction. It does not pass or use your credit card number either. The code it uses is specific to the device and it's relationship to accounts and you is known only to the issuing bank. Any system that relies on the card and a pin still exposes your account number and your identity, does it not?
EMV over NFC can do the same sort of card number tokenization that Apple pay uses. You can't replay an EMV NFC transaction, the best you could hope to do is intercept it and process it before the legitimate request goes through.
Apple Pay doesn't charge the merchants at all. It's the card issuers who pay Apple and they are will to do so because Apple Pay is much more secure than their own systems - chips and strips. It saves the banks money because it drastically reduces the fraud rate. So, no consumers are not paying for this. Another feature of Apple Pay (and Google's version) is that you aren't tied to a bank, a credit card (VISA, MC, etc.). That's what the banks don't like. They want to own the relationship.
Apple Pay is, on the whole, no more secure than EMV NFC. At least not for a card present scenario. It's a little more secure for online purchases.