I agree its a poor choice of terminology, as what they are really doing is "vehicle sharing." Although the word "ride" can be used colloquially as meaning someone's vehicle, such as the statement: "check out my new ride." Either way calling the company part of the sharing economy is still accurate.
No, I don't think you get it at all. It is sharing if you were making the trip anyway. Once I ask you to pick me up at location A and drop me off at location B for my benefit only, you've become a livery service and not a sharing service. They are a livery service, plain and simple. An industry that has existed and been regulated for a long time. The only difference is that they use an app for dispatch. That also is not new or unique as taxi companies in Germany, for instance, have been using dispatch apps for iPhone and Android since before Uber's creation.
I'm not in the US. I was talking about Discovery Health.
Other South Africans here who have ever had dealings with them will very likely agree.
Oooh do you mind me asking what part of ZA? Such a beautiful country. I want to go back and explore some more. I only saw the eastern and western cape, though.
hahhaha yeah because SSH login delays haven't been an issue in Ubuntu for the past 5 years already. No seriously there have been bugs reported, forum complaints, and issues with long delays due to SSH logins since I first started using Ubuntu with version 8.04. Curiously though it stopped around the 12.04 LTS version but re-emerged on a fresh install year later (non LTS), then disappeared again with version 15.10 and doesn't appear to be a problem on 16.04 (non LTS).
Interesting comment about eggs in a basket though, especially given that things are fine, other than a minor delay.
I've been using Ubuntu for my home server since the 8.04 LTS release and have never seen a long SSH delay unless I mistype the password. That delay is intentional. Have you seen it with any other distros? I've not once complained about SSH login time all the way back to 2.4 versions of the kernel (though that was on an embedded platform by... I forget who - one of those companies that specializes in embedded distros. Gah that was a long time ago)
Here in my country we have a similar issue in the medical insurance field. The largest local insurer by a long shot is also demonstrably the worst insurer you can have. They frequently refuse to pay claims they are liable for (relying on the imbalance of power their wealth gives them should a client choose to sue). Their customer service is absolutely atrocious.
United Health Care? is that you? Definitely the worst health insurance company I have ever seen in the US.
United. Go look in Chrome under certificates? Surprise they are signed by the wifi company!
So you're saying a trusted CA gave GoGo wireless a * certificate that works without adding a new trusted root? Because United uses the same WiFi services as Delta, so if United does it, Delta does it. Well, unless you're on one of the old satellite based United flights. I'll look next time I go on a business trip.
Encryption mechanism designed to protect traffic from eavesdropping by 3rd parties has potential to keep 3rd parties from inspecting traffic...
Was somebody expecting TLS to stop working if the evil bit was set?
Ohhh was that why my exploits weren't working? I'll make sure I unset the evil bit so they can sneak through firewalls.
The only way to do this is spearfish style from Lennovo which means inserting a forged SSL certificate by the firewall to inspect the traffic. Corporations do this to spy on their employees and so do airlines wifi which replace signed websites with their own certificate.
But I think it is obvious here why this is not a good idea.
Which airlines do that? I haven't seen it on any of the domestic US carriers - though I only ever fly Delta or United. But my company always pays for airline WiFi when I travel
And let me be more clear, I wrote the software in layers. One layer speaks the native protocol of the device and the other is an abstraction layer that hides details of the specific device and makes it a more generic credit card terminal interface. The enforcement of a singleton happens at the publicly exposed layer and can be more easily removed.
Is there every any particular need to limit them, though? A couple decades ago it was uncommon to have more than one sound device on a machine. Now it's unusual not to have two or three. Designs and requirements change over time, and having to factor out singleton behavior that was never really necessary in the first place is kind of a pain in the ass. You could easily just create those things with thing factories when the program starts up, and pass them around to objects that need them. No artificial limits, and you don't have to factor out singleton behavior when you decide you want two things where you used to only have one.
I've found that design review boards are becoming increasingly hostile toward singletons, too. There was a narrow window where they'd at least consider one, back when people started talking about design patterns. These days it's next to impossible to get one approved, even if there's pretty good justification for it. You can always design around the need for a singleton, and usually the system design will be better without them.
In this case, most of the time, yes. There are exceptions, I am about to start a new project where the limit on the number of devices would be an issue. But I write drivers for credit card terminals on mobile devices. So unless the project specifically requires multiple credit card terminals (not common and the project I am referring to that will require it is due to the fact that one terminal may be hard configured for one currency and the other the USD), we intentionally limit the mobile device to one terminal. Since you have a single merchant performing a single transaction flow with a single customer at any given moment, there is rarely any demand for any other behavior. We try to make it as easy as possible for the mobile developer unless they specifically need different capabilities.
I've yet to see a computer science professor with particularly excellent code, either. I run across assignments and example code from courses on a regular basis that fall into the "Never, ever do that" category of programming. Case in point, a relative of mine recently had some questions about a CS programming assignment. Part of the assignment description talked about design patterns and predictably went straight for the Singleton as an example. I'm pretty sure that's the only pattern that about 90% of programmers ever actually learn when reading about design patterns and it's so abused in the industry right now that you can basically never get one past a design review board.
Anywhoo, back in the '90's I worked for a company that was getting a B2 Certification for its operating system. My job basically consisted of reading the entire AT&T C standard library code, finding potential security flaws, writing tests for those flaws and then writing a report with the tests which would be delivered to the NSA. I found the remote buffer overflow in the AT&T telnet daemon a couple years before the same overflow was discovered in the Linux telnet daemon. So the NSA basically outsourced the hard work of finding all those exploits to the companies that were trying to get security certifications. It took three or four guys just a few months to go through all the stuff we had to look at. I'm sure we missed a bit, but I was much more confident in the security of their OS at the end of all that. Too bad they eventually went out of business, were acquired by IBM and their products were killed. You know, progress!
I use singletons at work ALL the time. But only for hardware resources that I don't want someone to try and create more than one instance to. I can only have input and output stream on my device and, sure, I could make that static, but if I make the whole object obviously a singleton to the person using it, they get the idea that there is a limit on the hardware. Now, granted, if I was in the business of providing access to multiple instances of the same type of hardware, that would not be acceptable.
It even automatically defrosts the windshield if I turn on the rear window defroster. That is, of course, unless I tell it not to.
Yes, but why should you have to tell it not to? Because it's making a decision for you- the wrong decision.
The general assumption is that if your back window needs defrosting, the front window probably does too. I never think about my automatic climate control. Like ever. And then I was traveling for work last week and was in a rental car and was constantly turning the knob to adjust the temperature because it would never turn off once it got to a comfortable temperature and the damn thing kept blowing until I got cold. Not that it's the end of the world, but I'd rather pay attention to the road than my climate control.
I am sick of "smart" products. From the smart text selection in MS Word, which always selects more or less text than I actually want, to the climate control in my car, which insists on turning on the A/C when I just want some cool fresh air, they invariably get it wrong. I know what I want and I am smart enough to make my own choices.
I love the automatic climate control in my car. If I don't want the AC on, just fresh air, I hit the AC button and it does its best to match the selected climate using fresh air + heater. I set the dial and forget about it 90% of the time. The 10% of the time is when I want to just roll the windows down instead of using the climate system. It even automatically defrosts the windshield if I turn on the rear window defroster. That is, of course, unless I tell it not to.
What part of "Punish the police" did you not understand?
The whole system of making illegally acquired evidence inadmissible is wrong. It creates 2 injustices, the original felon goes free and the policeman breaking the law is unpunished. Because the only downside for those illegally acquiring evidence is seeing work go to waste, there is negligible disincentive for acquiring evidence illegally.
In a case like the one in TFA, the felon should be doing hard time for attempted murder, no possibility of parole. The policeman should be punished by (for example) a month in jail and a fine of a month's (gross) pay.
Oh I disagree wholeheartedly that the police officer who violated the law will be unpunished. They may not be punished criminally but you can bet that it will be a huge blight on not only that officer's career, but the District Attorney who was unable to properly prosecute the criminal. And rightfully so as you do not want people in power who so blatantly violate the law, especially a law that would have been absolutely trivial to satisfy. California makes it practically impossible to drop Domestic Violence charges so once the police showed up and saw her condition, they would have easily been able to detain him long enough to get a warrant to retrieve the surveillance video.
While it's true that the technology itself is "dated", so is Unix. Also, as TFS mentions: " is still updated by IBM, which did a major rewrite of the operating system about a decade ago."
Of course, they could do a RAD/SCRUM/No-SQL/Other-Buzzword-compliant technology rebuild and achieve the same results, with no downtime and seamless transitioning, right? Right?
I guarantee you they can duplicate Monday's results. That's about all I can guarantee.
When I heard that the iPhone was "missing" the headphone jack, my first thought was "good call".
Here you have this insanely popular electronic device that people have with them at all times, and what's the number one complaint about it? No, no,/. friends, no, it's not planned obsolescence. It's "this thing dies if it so much as looks at water."
Well if you're going to try to take care of that problem one thing you might go for right away is getting rid of that crazy big hole in the top that by its very nature of design is all about exposed metal contacts.
I guess you could get all crazy in your head about DRM and shit but as someone else points out, at the end of the day however the sound is delivered it must end up being converted into a signal that can be used by standard speakers or headphones.
The only way around that is if Apple plans on making it so you have only two options:
* play the sound directly through the iPhone's built-in speaker
* send the sound via some Apple-proprietary encrypted cousin of bluetooth to one of Apple's own special speaker systems that if they get large enough to entertain a party probably cost many thousands of dollars
If that's the direction they're going to go I'd like to imagine it's going to be a complete failure because people don't have the money or wherewithal to spend on special speakers from Apple (the computer company, not the music company).
But then again you only have to know a handful of Apple users to understand that they would do exactly that, and would be glad to go broke doing it.
They aren't getting right of the big giant hole for the lightning connector. You know that, right? So there were still be a gaping hole on the bottom and I expect its far more dangerous to have water in your lightning plug than your mini stereo jack receptacle.
Apple may not care about DRM one way or the other but they do care about people bypassing their cash generating MFi program and their proprietary lightning connector and using the "audio" jack as a data connection interface. I'm sure they're still trying to figure out how to make Square pay the fee.
Bullshit.
Apple looks the other way on NON-MFI devices ALL the time.
Or do you really think all those $2.99 Lightning cables on Amazon are MFI-registered? Wait, you're probably stupid enough to actually think they are.
You can buy a spindle of the chips required to make a Lightning cable at less than $0.50 a chip at a quantity as low as 1000 units. The price obviously decreases with volume. Then it's another $10,000 to join the MFI program. So, yes, I bet you could ship a $2.99 lightning cable from China to the US if you have the right volume.
I heard good things about Virgin. A while ago I made regular trips from Amsterdam to Tokyo on KLM, with a few co-workers flying in from London on Virgin. After their description of the lounge and the in-flight service I was sorely tempted to grab a flight to London on my own dime and hop on that Virgin flight instead of sticking with KLM, just to experience a service where people actually make an effort (KLM isn't terrible, but it feels like they always do as little as they can get away with).
The fanciest service I've ever had from an airline was by KLM. It was in business class where they served breakfast on fine china for a 50 minute flight. Of course, that was a decade ago so perhaps they aren't nearly as fancy any more? I fly first on United and Delta from time to time and it has never ever been as amazing as that one flight by KLM. The lounges are great for long flights but I don't ever bother on domestic travel. Oh how times have changed.
The publication is pay-walled so I can't read the original study but the write up does not mention how they determined intelligence. It sounds like they had two groups of people - those who said they think a lot and those who do not. The news article suggests that they assumed that those labeled themselves as thinking more are therefore more intelligent. That doesn't seem very logical to me. Furthermore, anyone with an above average intelligence can tell you just how easy it is to be bored in meetings, lectures, etc while you wait for everyone else to comprehend the material that you already understand. So unless the original study discusses something I've missed, I don't understand the logic here at all. And maybe I am less intelligent than I think I am, but I often engage in physical activity to help me think - I find that if my hands aren't busy I get easily distracted and my mind starts wandering to more interesting problems than the ones at hand. I go for a jog or take a walk so that there is nothing more interesting to focus my attention on. If the problem is interesting enough on its own, I'll sit there and forget to eat or sleep until I solve it.
Don't worry guys, DHS will take over all federal elections to make sure that everything is done in accordance with DHS policies. Oh and Jeh Johnson would also like to announce his candidacy for President in the 2020 election cycle.
The summary ignores the most obvious finding: Far fewer men are having sex than women. If the virginity rate is 15% in the 90's-born population as a whole and 5% among 90's-born women, the then rate among 90's-born men must be about 25%.
It also means that a significant fraction of the men are having multiple partners. The women may also be having multiple partners but the data doesn't necessarily demonstrate that.
Or it means that millennial women prefer older men - which is my experience.
Think of All Apps as All Programs where the fuck are my sub menus and look at all those unistall programs I wonder which ones which
That's got to be the software you're installing, then. Has it been updated recently? All of the software I've installed neatly put everything into its own folders. I don't see random uinstallers lying around in the U section of my apps or anywhere else. My guess is they changed something in the way the start menu creates the hierarchies and some older installers don't handle this properly? But just a guess.
They did bring the start menu back as far as I can tell - though it's not quite the same as it used to be.
Actually they just took the shite tiles and made them popup when you hist the start button but without taking up the whole screen. What we meant when we were screaming for them to bring back the Start Menu was the good old hierarchical Start Menu where every app had it's own sub menu with everything pertaining to the app within that sub menu. Instead now I have all the components of every piece of installed software all jumbled together in a great big mess.
MS idea of a user experience is getting progressively more "blind fold & bullet"
Yeah but I see both when I hit the start menu - the "All Apps" and the tiles. Is that not what you see? I have the pro edition so perhaps it is different than Home. I've never used W10 Home.
I have to say that I'm against life extension research. My one comfort, when some bad person gets the firmest of grips on a suffering country, is that the bad person will die, and someone else with different views will take over.
Not trying to claim that I am a bad person whatsoever but, to be honest, I take comfort in knowing that some day, when my body is probably old and worn enough that life will be less satisfactory, I too will die and someone else will take my place and (hopefully) make the world a better place than when I was there.
he wouldn't be the first guy to get obsessed with the fact that they're going to die like the rest of us.
People getting obsessed with solving a problem is what drives science and technology forward. Would you rather that Peter spent his time playing golf?
Disclaimer: I have "baby blood", meaning I am CMV negative, so instead of receiving blood from the young, I donate to babies. A pint every 8 weeks, totalling to 10 gallons so far, and I have a t-shirt from the Red Cross to prove it.
I don't know, I think this Peter Thiel guy is turning out to be just as super villany as Christopher Reeves.
But in all seriousness, I am CMV neg also. Good for you to donate every 8 weeks. It's hard to find that kind of time sometimes.
Yep they really have lost the plot. They need to ditch Cortana (I mean does anyone seriously use it), Stop gathering every peice of information about their users. And please just bring back the start menu properly. Or better still just roll over and let Linux take over.
They did bring the start menu back as far as I can tell - though it's not quite the same as it used to be.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree its a poor choice of terminology, as what they are really doing is "vehicle sharing." Although the word "ride" can be used colloquially as meaning someone's vehicle, such as the statement: "check out my new ride." Either way calling the company part of the sharing economy is still accurate.
No, I don't think you get it at all. It is sharing if you were making the trip anyway. Once I ask you to pick me up at location A and drop me off at location B for my benefit only, you've become a livery service and not a sharing service. They are a livery service, plain and simple. An industry that has existed and been regulated for a long time. The only difference is that they use an app for dispatch. That also is not new or unique as taxi companies in Germany, for instance, have been using dispatch apps for iPhone and Android since before Uber's creation.
I'm not in the US. I was talking about Discovery Health.
Other South Africans here who have ever had dealings with them will very likely agree.
Oooh do you mind me asking what part of ZA? Such a beautiful country. I want to go back and explore some more. I only saw the eastern and western cape, though.
hahhaha yeah because SSH login delays haven't been an issue in Ubuntu for the past 5 years already. No seriously there have been bugs reported, forum complaints, and issues with long delays due to SSH logins since I first started using Ubuntu with version 8.04. Curiously though it stopped around the 12.04 LTS version but re-emerged on a fresh install year later (non LTS), then disappeared again with version 15.10 and doesn't appear to be a problem on 16.04 (non LTS).
Interesting comment about eggs in a basket though, especially given that things are fine, other than a minor delay.
I've been using Ubuntu for my home server since the 8.04 LTS release and have never seen a long SSH delay unless I mistype the password. That delay is intentional. Have you seen it with any other distros? I've not once complained about SSH login time all the way back to 2.4 versions of the kernel (though that was on an embedded platform by... I forget who - one of those companies that specializes in embedded distros. Gah that was a long time ago)
Here in my country we have a similar issue in the medical insurance field. The largest local insurer by a long shot is also demonstrably the worst insurer you can have. They frequently refuse to pay claims they are liable for (relying on the imbalance of power their wealth gives them should a client choose to sue). Their customer service is absolutely atrocious.
United Health Care? is that you? Definitely the worst health insurance company I have ever seen in the US.
United. Go look in Chrome under certificates? Surprise they are signed by the wifi company!
So you're saying a trusted CA gave GoGo wireless a * certificate that works without adding a new trusted root? Because United uses the same WiFi services as Delta, so if United does it, Delta does it. Well, unless you're on one of the old satellite based United flights. I'll look next time I go on a business trip.
Encryption mechanism designed to protect traffic from eavesdropping by 3rd parties has potential to keep 3rd parties from inspecting traffic... Was somebody expecting TLS to stop working if the evil bit was set?
Ohhh was that why my exploits weren't working? I'll make sure I unset the evil bit so they can sneak through firewalls.
The only way to do this is spearfish style from Lennovo which means inserting a forged SSL certificate by the firewall to inspect the traffic. Corporations do this to spy on their employees and so do airlines wifi which replace signed websites with their own certificate.
But I think it is obvious here why this is not a good idea.
Which airlines do that? I haven't seen it on any of the domestic US carriers - though I only ever fly Delta or United. But my company always pays for airline WiFi when I travel
And let me be more clear, I wrote the software in layers. One layer speaks the native protocol of the device and the other is an abstraction layer that hides details of the specific device and makes it a more generic credit card terminal interface. The enforcement of a singleton happens at the publicly exposed layer and can be more easily removed.
Is there every any particular need to limit them, though? A couple decades ago it was uncommon to have more than one sound device on a machine. Now it's unusual not to have two or three. Designs and requirements change over time, and having to factor out singleton behavior that was never really necessary in the first place is kind of a pain in the ass. You could easily just create those things with thing factories when the program starts up, and pass them around to objects that need them. No artificial limits, and you don't have to factor out singleton behavior when you decide you want two things where you used to only have one.
I've found that design review boards are becoming increasingly hostile toward singletons, too. There was a narrow window where they'd at least consider one, back when people started talking about design patterns. These days it's next to impossible to get one approved, even if there's pretty good justification for it. You can always design around the need for a singleton, and usually the system design will be better without them.
In this case, most of the time, yes. There are exceptions, I am about to start a new project where the limit on the number of devices would be an issue. But I write drivers for credit card terminals on mobile devices. So unless the project specifically requires multiple credit card terminals (not common and the project I am referring to that will require it is due to the fact that one terminal may be hard configured for one currency and the other the USD), we intentionally limit the mobile device to one terminal. Since you have a single merchant performing a single transaction flow with a single customer at any given moment, there is rarely any demand for any other behavior. We try to make it as easy as possible for the mobile developer unless they specifically need different capabilities.
I've yet to see a computer science professor with particularly excellent code, either. I run across assignments and example code from courses on a regular basis that fall into the "Never, ever do that" category of programming. Case in point, a relative of mine recently had some questions about a CS programming assignment. Part of the assignment description talked about design patterns and predictably went straight for the Singleton as an example. I'm pretty sure that's the only pattern that about 90% of programmers ever actually learn when reading about design patterns and it's so abused in the industry right now that you can basically never get one past a design review board.
Anywhoo, back in the '90's I worked for a company that was getting a B2 Certification for its operating system. My job basically consisted of reading the entire AT&T C standard library code, finding potential security flaws, writing tests for those flaws and then writing a report with the tests which would be delivered to the NSA. I found the remote buffer overflow in the AT&T telnet daemon a couple years before the same overflow was discovered in the Linux telnet daemon. So the NSA basically outsourced the hard work of finding all those exploits to the companies that were trying to get security certifications. It took three or four guys just a few months to go through all the stuff we had to look at. I'm sure we missed a bit, but I was much more confident in the security of their OS at the end of all that. Too bad they eventually went out of business, were acquired by IBM and their products were killed. You know, progress!
I use singletons at work ALL the time. But only for hardware resources that I don't want someone to try and create more than one instance to. I can only have input and output stream on my device and, sure, I could make that static, but if I make the whole object obviously a singleton to the person using it, they get the idea that there is a limit on the hardware. Now, granted, if I was in the business of providing access to multiple instances of the same type of hardware, that would not be acceptable.
It even automatically defrosts the windshield if I turn on the rear window defroster. That is, of course, unless I tell it not to.
Yes, but why should you have to tell it not to? Because it's making a decision for you- the wrong decision.
The general assumption is that if your back window needs defrosting, the front window probably does too. I never think about my automatic climate control. Like ever. And then I was traveling for work last week and was in a rental car and was constantly turning the knob to adjust the temperature because it would never turn off once it got to a comfortable temperature and the damn thing kept blowing until I got cold. Not that it's the end of the world, but I'd rather pay attention to the road than my climate control.
I am sick of "smart" products. From the smart text selection in MS Word, which always selects more or less text than I actually want, to the climate control in my car, which insists on turning on the A/C when I just want some cool fresh air, they invariably get it wrong. I know what I want and I am smart enough to make my own choices.
I love the automatic climate control in my car. If I don't want the AC on, just fresh air, I hit the AC button and it does its best to match the selected climate using fresh air + heater. I set the dial and forget about it 90% of the time. The 10% of the time is when I want to just roll the windows down instead of using the climate system. It even automatically defrosts the windshield if I turn on the rear window defroster. That is, of course, unless I tell it not to.
What part of "Punish the police" did you not understand? The whole system of making illegally acquired evidence inadmissible is wrong. It creates 2 injustices, the original felon goes free and the policeman breaking the law is unpunished. Because the only downside for those illegally acquiring evidence is seeing work go to waste, there is negligible disincentive for acquiring evidence illegally.
In a case like the one in TFA, the felon should be doing hard time for attempted murder, no possibility of parole. The policeman should be punished by (for example) a month in jail and a fine of a month's (gross) pay.
Oh I disagree wholeheartedly that the police officer who violated the law will be unpunished. They may not be punished criminally but you can bet that it will be a huge blight on not only that officer's career, but the District Attorney who was unable to properly prosecute the criminal. And rightfully so as you do not want people in power who so blatantly violate the law, especially a law that would have been absolutely trivial to satisfy. California makes it practically impossible to drop Domestic Violence charges so once the police showed up and saw her condition, they would have easily been able to detain him long enough to get a warrant to retrieve the surveillance video.
While it's true that the technology itself is "dated", so is Unix. Also, as TFS mentions: " is still updated by IBM, which did a major rewrite of the operating system about a decade ago." Of course, they could do a RAD/SCRUM/No-SQL/Other-Buzzword-compliant technology rebuild and achieve the same results, with no downtime and seamless transitioning, right? Right?
I guarantee you they can duplicate Monday's results. That's about all I can guarantee.
When I heard that the iPhone was "missing" the headphone jack, my first thought was "good call".
Here you have this insanely popular electronic device that people have with them at all times, and what's the number one complaint about it? No, no, /. friends, no, it's not planned obsolescence. It's "this thing dies if it so much as looks at water."
Well if you're going to try to take care of that problem one thing you might go for right away is getting rid of that crazy big hole in the top that by its very nature of design is all about exposed metal contacts.
I guess you could get all crazy in your head about DRM and shit but as someone else points out, at the end of the day however the sound is delivered it must end up being converted into a signal that can be used by standard speakers or headphones.
The only way around that is if Apple plans on making it so you have only two options: * play the sound directly through the iPhone's built-in speaker * send the sound via some Apple-proprietary encrypted cousin of bluetooth to one of Apple's own special speaker systems that if they get large enough to entertain a party probably cost many thousands of dollars
If that's the direction they're going to go I'd like to imagine it's going to be a complete failure because people don't have the money or wherewithal to spend on special speakers from Apple (the computer company, not the music company).
But then again you only have to know a handful of Apple users to understand that they would do exactly that, and would be glad to go broke doing it.
They aren't getting right of the big giant hole for the lightning connector. You know that, right? So there were still be a gaping hole on the bottom and I expect its far more dangerous to have water in your lightning plug than your mini stereo jack receptacle.
Apple may not care about DRM one way or the other but they do care about people bypassing their cash generating MFi program and their proprietary lightning connector and using the "audio" jack as a data connection interface. I'm sure they're still trying to figure out how to make Square pay the fee.
Bullshit. Apple looks the other way on NON-MFI devices ALL the time. Or do you really think all those $2.99 Lightning cables on Amazon are MFI-registered? Wait, you're probably stupid enough to actually think they are.
You can buy a spindle of the chips required to make a Lightning cable at less than $0.50 a chip at a quantity as low as 1000 units. The price obviously decreases with volume. Then it's another $10,000 to join the MFI program. So, yes, I bet you could ship a $2.99 lightning cable from China to the US if you have the right volume.
I heard good things about Virgin. A while ago I made regular trips from Amsterdam to Tokyo on KLM, with a few co-workers flying in from London on Virgin. After their description of the lounge and the in-flight service I was sorely tempted to grab a flight to London on my own dime and hop on that Virgin flight instead of sticking with KLM, just to experience a service where people actually make an effort (KLM isn't terrible, but it feels like they always do as little as they can get away with).
The fanciest service I've ever had from an airline was by KLM. It was in business class where they served breakfast on fine china for a 50 minute flight. Of course, that was a decade ago so perhaps they aren't nearly as fancy any more? I fly first on United and Delta from time to time and it has never ever been as amazing as that one flight by KLM. The lounges are great for long flights but I don't ever bother on domestic travel. Oh how times have changed.
The publication is pay-walled so I can't read the original study but the write up does not mention how they determined intelligence. It sounds like they had two groups of people - those who said they think a lot and those who do not. The news article suggests that they assumed that those labeled themselves as thinking more are therefore more intelligent. That doesn't seem very logical to me. Furthermore, anyone with an above average intelligence can tell you just how easy it is to be bored in meetings, lectures, etc while you wait for everyone else to comprehend the material that you already understand. So unless the original study discusses something I've missed, I don't understand the logic here at all. And maybe I am less intelligent than I think I am, but I often engage in physical activity to help me think - I find that if my hands aren't busy I get easily distracted and my mind starts wandering to more interesting problems than the ones at hand. I go for a jog or take a walk so that there is nothing more interesting to focus my attention on. If the problem is interesting enough on its own, I'll sit there and forget to eat or sleep until I solve it.
Don't worry guys, DHS will take over all federal elections to make sure that everything is done in accordance with DHS policies. Oh and Jeh Johnson would also like to announce his candidacy for President in the 2020 election cycle.
The summary ignores the most obvious finding: Far fewer men are having sex than women. If the virginity rate is 15% in the 90's-born population as a whole and 5% among 90's-born women, the then rate among 90's-born men must be about 25%.
It also means that a significant fraction of the men are having multiple partners. The women may also be having multiple partners but the data doesn't necessarily demonstrate that.
Or it means that millennial women prefer older men - which is my experience.
Think of All Apps as All Programs where the fuck are my sub menus and look at all those unistall programs I wonder which ones which
That's got to be the software you're installing, then. Has it been updated recently? All of the software I've installed neatly put everything into its own folders. I don't see random uinstallers lying around in the U section of my apps or anywhere else. My guess is they changed something in the way the start menu creates the hierarchies and some older installers don't handle this properly? But just a guess.
They did bring the start menu back as far as I can tell - though it's not quite the same as it used to be.
Actually they just took the shite tiles and made them popup when you hist the start button but without taking up the whole screen. What we meant when we were screaming for them to bring back the Start Menu was the good old hierarchical Start Menu where every app had it's own sub menu with everything pertaining to the app within that sub menu. Instead now I have all the components of every piece of installed software all jumbled together in a great big mess.
MS idea of a user experience is getting progressively more "blind fold & bullet"
Yeah but I see both when I hit the start menu - the "All Apps" and the tiles. Is that not what you see? I have the pro edition so perhaps it is different than Home. I've never used W10 Home.
I have to say that I'm against life extension research. My one comfort, when some bad person gets the firmest of grips on a suffering country, is that the bad person will die, and someone else with different views will take over.
Not trying to claim that I am a bad person whatsoever but, to be honest, I take comfort in knowing that some day, when my body is probably old and worn enough that life will be less satisfactory, I too will die and someone else will take my place and (hopefully) make the world a better place than when I was there.
he wouldn't be the first guy to get obsessed with the fact that they're going to die like the rest of us.
People getting obsessed with solving a problem is what drives science and technology forward. Would you rather that Peter spent his time playing golf?
Disclaimer: I have "baby blood", meaning I am CMV negative, so instead of receiving blood from the young, I donate to babies. A pint every 8 weeks, totalling to 10 gallons so far, and I have a t-shirt from the Red Cross to prove it.
I don't know, I think this Peter Thiel guy is turning out to be just as super villany as Christopher Reeves.
But in all seriousness, I am CMV neg also. Good for you to donate every 8 weeks. It's hard to find that kind of time sometimes.
Yep they really have lost the plot. They need to ditch Cortana (I mean does anyone seriously use it), Stop gathering every peice of information about their users. And please just bring back the start menu properly. Or better still just roll over and let Linux take over.
They did bring the start menu back as far as I can tell - though it's not quite the same as it used to be.