the cost in storage space (suddenly all your pictures take 8 times more space)
The size that photos make up on a device is negligible these days, 8x more is nothing. But I'm betting that with compression it's some small fraction of that.
Do you work in Apple's marketing department? I swear you praise everything that apple ever does. I'm sorry but even doubling the image size is a problem for most people I know. The base model on the iPhone 6S has 16GB of storage. I know people who keep thousands of pictures on their phones. If you doubled the size of all of them you would need more storage. If Apple actually increased the storage on the base model to 32GB, instead of just dropping the 32GB model all together, I would say that it's no issue. But to me this just looks like a gimmick feature that will force people to pay to upgrade to the 64GB model because they've run out of space all of the sudden.
Live Photos (or non-trademarked equivalent) is a role relegated to producing images for print.
Why don't we just stop using this silly name of 'live photo'. Don't let Apple PR spin you, it is exactly what Eddie said it is not - a video. It may only be a 1 second video (0.5 seconds on either side of the intended frame), but it is still a video. Outside of your little kids playing sports, maybe some ripples in a pond, I am not certain there is much use for this feature. Do I really need 0.5 seconds of everyone trying to get their face together for a picture? Or 0.5 seconds of everyone wiping that fake smile off their face? No. And I certainly don't need it on a beautiful sunset view or a landscape of the city.
Hey, if your jurisdiction allows it, then go for it. If it's *not* against the law I see no need to sit on the road for no good reason.
It's not legal in my jurisdiction. I'm just pointing out the fact that everyone's jurisdiction is different. California lets you lane split on a motorcycle. I wouldn't personally do it, even if it were legal where I live now. But if there is a bad car accident that grinds traffic to a halt then I will drive on the shoulder illegally to get out of the way. The only reason I do that though is that it's very hot here and my motorcycle will overheat. If traffic is dead stopped then I turn my bike off and wait. Typically it's moving just fast enough that I would hold up traffic if I stayed in a lane and just slow enough that my bike doesn't get enough airflow through the radiator. I don't particularly enjoy doing it but my choices at that point are: 1) Pull over and wait for traffic to clear 2) Overheat and then cause a bigger traffic problem 3) break the law and get out of everyone's way. I'm not selfless enough to do 1 number 3 would cause me to get in the way of first responders. Even then I'm paranoid that some car will get the idea to do the same thing and pull onto the shoulder and hit me
It's really not a judgment call. Five or more vehicles behind you? You need to pull over and let them pass. That's the law in CA, WA, and OR - and probably most other States, too. No judgment call about it - it's illegal to hold up 5 or more vehicles behind you.
Except that it's still a judgement call. If you're bicycling in a busy city then you'll never get anywhere because there will always be 5 cars behind you. Not to mention the fact that you may be going fast enough that you're not really impeding the flow of traffic depending on stop lights and other conditions. If you're on a mountain road, or somewhere that often has large gaps in the traffic then you're right, no judgement call needed. Just get the hell out of the way. But how many cars do this, too? I can't tell you how many times I've been stuck behind a slow vehicle on windy California roads where motorists don't move out of the way for growing line of people who want to go the posted speed limit.
Bicyclists should wait at red lights just like everyone else, for example. It doesn't mean "stop, look, then proceed if you don't see a car crossing". It means you wait until it turns green.
If a traffic signal's induction loop detector is not detecting a bicycle because of insufficient metal surface, how many minutes is a cyclist expected to wait at a red light before making a U-turn and finding another route?
You wait forever because it's the damn law - don't blow through a red light.
Is it though? In the state of Virginia you're allowed to run a red light on a motorcycle if there is no traffic and you've waited a prescribed amount of time for the traffic signal to change. I think that makes perfect sense, too. I've sat at a stop light for 10 minutes on a motorcycle moving back and forth across the sensor (you can often see where they are through the asphalt) without having it trigger. Someone pulled up behind me and the light turned green almost immediately. In this situation I could have made a right turn and then gone a few miles down the road to the next place I could make a U-turn but if that light can't detect a motorcycle, it's not going to detect a bicycle at all.
You're absolutely right, except the number of cyclists who break the laws vs motorists is really unbalanced. I live in Toronto and the number of times a cyclist doesn't stop at a stop sign, traffic light, or will dart amongst traffic, really is getting ridiculous.
Well all of that depends on context, really. I live in a beach community with a lot of bicyclists. Most of them are people going to/from the beach, but a lot of people drive out to the beach to do long distance cycling on the coast, too. The road cyclists will get into a long chain of 50+ bikes and will run every stop sign they come across. There's about a 20% chance that a beach goer will stop for a stop sign. Everyone here knows what to expect and they wave the beach goers through stop signs preferring just to get them out of the way ASAP. When I am bicycling, I only stop for a stop sign if there is traffic. Otherwise I keep going, but at a reduced speed. To be quite honest with you, I wish that bicyclists could treat stop signs as a conditional yield - slow down if you see no traffic, stop if there are vehicles waiting for a turn to go. But then the question is, how do you enforce that? Bicyclists need to be more careful, but motorists should be more careful around bicycles as well.
Actually the typical advice given to bikers is to ride thinking that everyone around you is actively trying to kill you. It works because most people grossly underestimate how others can be *incompetent* but have much less difficulties in thinking about how others could be *malicious*. This is helpful in getting enough caution out of them.
When I ride my motorcycle I assume that every other vehicle on the road is trying to kill me. In reality, it's usually only one or two assholes per trip that do something that could result in my death or dismemberment. You can almost always pick them out a good 5-10 seconds before they try and kill you. Typically they are weaving a little bit or you notice that they haven't glanced in any of their mirrors in several seconds and they haven't realized that the traffic in front of them is slowing down and they're running out of real estate. It's probably a bit different for bicyclists, though./P.
Does anyone actually believe this line of bullshit?
Honestly, if she was using the e-mail address associated with that SMTP server before she become Secretary of State, yes.
Most people don't like to use several e-mail accounts. It's a pain in the butt. If she was used to using that one and used it as she communicated with the officials that became her superiors and subordinates before becoming Secretary of State while planning the transition, then they were used to contacting here there and she was used to contacting them from there.
And yet millions of people throughout the world manage to do this just fine. Many of them preferring to keep their non-work related projects separate from work related issues. After all, how many people go and work at a random company without having some friend there to help get their foot in the door? People use networking to get jobs. It's not unreasonable or unexpected for you to use your official method of communication to talk to friends at your place of employment. That's normal and natural. You're just trying to find an excuse for her poor practices. And we all know the reason for these practices was to protect the emails from FOIA requests, not because it was convenient to only use one email address. I'm sorry that her royal highness isn't smart enough to use two or more email addresses just like the rest of us.
Should she have switched to a government-provided e-mail account? Probably. I don't say, "absolutely," specifically because of the high profile leaks that we've seen over the last decade, such that the mail might actually have been safer on that server that no one thought to compromise than on a government one.
Again you're making excuses for her. The answer is ABSOLUTELY. Why? Because every single thing she does at work is subject to FOIA requests and that information must be available in case, by some unfortunate accident, the Clintons were to die in a fiery plane crash. They were communicating about important issues that affect not only our nation, but how we interact with the entire world. This data must be properly accounted for and properly secured, even if it is not classified. While you may cite the security standards of the Department of State and indicate that they have poor security grades - that is irrelevant to this matter. If Ms. Clinton has an issue with the security policies at the Department of State, she should have ADDRESSED THEM! She was the boss. It was the perfect time for someone to go in there and fix the problem.
As an aside, Governor Palin used private e-mail for government functions too, actually registering addresses with public mail servers (yahoo if I remember right) after becoming Governor of Alaska, and specifically citing her newly-found position as the account name. There was no prosecution over that either.
And how much of that information was classified by the federal government? Probably none. And Palin was still violating the law of Alaska. Should she have gotten in trouble for it? Absolutely. If she was not properly punished then, assuming the statute of limitations has not run out, the people of Alaska should seek prosecution. One person getting away with it is NOT justification for a second person to not be punished when they get caught. Do you believe that OJ Simpson murdered his ex-wife? If so, he got away with it. Does that mean it's okay for me to go out and murder an ex-wife because OJ didn't get in trouble for it? That's just asinine.
While one can use distilled water, often it sits around potentially growing something (but probably nothing brain eating) so making it fresh has advantages.
Yes, these pests are rare; but the results dire enough one should take reasonable care before putting water up one's nose these days.
I guess that means that you shouldn't go swimming in fresh water? Even a chlorinated pool could contain this parasite for 24 hours if there is that same film inside the pool's plumbing.
I'm starting to get tired of this mentality from service providers that, just because someone is using their services in ways they didn't expect, they're somehow 'abusing' the service. If you advertise the service as unlimited, it should be unlimited. You shouldn't care that I'm using it to torrent or do whatever.
If you can't provide a truly unlimited service, don't advertise it
Perhaps you don't think it is abusing the network, but I think it is. It's pretty difficult to use 2TB of data in a single month. These people are obviously using their cell phone data plans in lieu of a home network connection. They didn't pay for WiFi hotspot service. T-Mobile allows people to tether for free. A service for which I am greatly appreciative. But if you want to a cellular itnernet hotspot, buy one of T-Mobile's MiFi style plans. Don't turn your cellular phone + data plan into a MiFi plan because such abuse will cause T-Mobile to start charging people to tether.
People with your attitude caused Costco to update its return policy. It used to be that you could return any item to costco at any item, no questions asked. People abused this policy by buying giant HDTVs, keeping them for a year and then returning them to get a free upgrade. It was perfectly in line with Costco's policy, but it was obviously above and beyond the intent of the policy. Costco had to change its policy because it was being abused. If people keep this up, T-Mobile will have to change their tethering policy, too. If these people were not tethering then T-Mobile would not be complaining about their high data usage. I've certainly not had T-Mobile complain when I used my cell phone to download almost 100GB of audiobooks onto my phone in a single day. I bet they wouldn't have been happy if I tethered 100GB of data in a single day.
EMS (generally) isn't government money. The private hospitals eat the cost of unpaid bills. Do you have anything to indicate that illegals pay their bills less than the equivalent citizen? The few things I've seen on it (that didn't touch on health care) indicate illegals pay bills better, because they don't want the attention that not paying bills brings.
WIC and SNAP and such are generally tied to SSN as the identifier. An illegal doesn't file for welfare in the US, because it would bring unwanted attention. In other places, the human right of food is higher than the state right of borders, to they don't mind illegals on welfare as much (though, from what I've seen this has changed, to where more are US like now). Perhaps if a citizen baby was being cared for by an illegal, the parents may file for WIC to see what happens, assuming they can't get deported with an anchor baby. But I've not seen any studies done on that part either. Both sides would rather ignore the problem and keep it as vague talking points for election time.
Well that depends entirely. In my current locale, the only hospital that accepts medicaid is run by the state. Other hospitals in town will only stabilize you and then transfer you to the state hospital ASAP. They do bill that to medicaid, if you have it. From friends that work at the state hospital, over 90% of the patients there never pay any of their bill. So 90% of the costs incurred for treatment are never reimbursed and are covered by state and federal money. Now, I also know that that hospital treats the local homeless community as well. So who is to say how many of them are illegal.
Illegal immigration is a difficult problem to solve. I would love to see these people become legal so that they can pay their taxes and also receive the benefits that they are entitled to as US citizens but at the same time I feel like granting amnesty and allowing them in with a wave of the hand may just encourage future illegal immigration. I don't think we want to encourage people to break just laws. By entering the country illegally, they are setting themselves up for exploitation. I believe that, by and large, the jobs that they are 'stealing' from citizens are jobs that most citizens feel that they are 'too good for'.
The savings in entitlement expenses would more than compensate
[citation needed]
In fact I'll save you the trouble, people have studied this and found the exact opposite. Illegal immigrants can access few entitlements yet pay many taxes, so they are usually net contributors.
That is, if you care about the facts.
Do those studies take into consideration the cost of emergency medical services, or just welfare, WIC, SNAP and other programs that would pay directly to the recipient? I haven't done any research into the matter, just curious.
Sprint has a bit better coverage than t-mobile imho. (sprint has 4g here t-mobile still 2g only)
That is in complete contradiction to anything I have ever experienced. I wouldn't use Sprint if it were free. I travel a lot and when I had Sprint I felt like my phone might as well have just been a 100g brick in my pocket. Do you mind me asking which phone and what area you live in? I know that the Nexus 4, for instances, is not FCC certified for the frequencies required to get proper 4G on T-Mobile.
From my experience in California, Verizon works best outside the big cities. At&t is 2nd. I wouldn't even consider T-mobile outside of the city, but to be fair I don't have experience with them. Sprint has unlimited data plans and works fairly well in certain areas and terribly in others.
I've used ATT, T-Mobile, and Sprint on both the West Coast and East Coast. Sprint is terrible. Even in some larger east coast cities the reception is spotty and even their LTE speeds can be very slow. T-Mobile works pretty well for me on the East Coast, but there are stretches of interstate where I do not have data whatsoever. The coverage in places like Central California don't seem to be all that great for T-Mobile. ATT has the best coverage of them all, typically. Though I have found deadspots where T-Mobile is better than ATT in parts of Florida, that is the exception and not the rule. If the OP needs coverage in the most rural of areas, he needs Verizon. If he's going to be doing a lot of interstate travel and smaller towns, ATT should be more than adequate. T-Mobile will give the OP the best value for the money if OP sticks to interstates and towns with a population greater than ~100,000-200,000 (on the east coast, anyway). If the OP goes with Sprint on the East Coast (except maybe New England) then may the FSM have mercy on his soul.
Google is creepier than all those data analysts snooping through everyone's text messages at the NSA.
The NSA analysts at least in theory need permission to trawl through your data and there is theoretical oversight. After all, its' the government's data, not a private companies.
Also, if you accept Google's default hooks, Google knows far more about you than the NSA.
See I run my own caldav and carddav servers to avoid sending that info to Google. Google knows my location due to my use of Google Maps, but the NSA already knows that too from their meta data collection. I also don't actually use my android phone anymore. The fact of the matter is, though, that someone has access to whatever data I don't have 100% control over myself. Whether that is my cell phone provider, the NSA, Apple, Google, Microsoft, or whoever, I can't keep that info from being available while using the conveniences of our modern society. But at least I feel like I have some control.
In "American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency" (2007), the United States Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the suit against the NSA, because they could not present evidence that they were the targets of the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Time for a class action lawsuit?? By definition at least one citizen of the US is being spied upon in a domestic spying program. So if the plaintiffs include every citizen of the US, someone has to have standing.
Rumor has it the selection process happens through your Google search history over a long period of time, so you're not going to be able to just spam Python jargon at the search engine and get in tomorrow.
Do you keep yourself logged in with a google account when you search? I specifically try to avoid Google tracking my searches to the extent that I can control. This whole thing is kind of creepy to me, and I never ever log into a google account unless I'm in a VM, though I am sure there are still ways to track me.
Out of curiosity, what are you concerned that Google is going to do with your search history?
FWIW, my approach is that I stay logged in all the time, with web history enabled (so Chrome sends a log of every page I visit to Google for storage, not just my searches) and open an incognito window when I'm doing something I don't want recorded. I try not to do that much, though, because I get a lot of value from being able to search my own web history (web history allows you to search in all the stuff you've looked at, so when you find yourself thinking, "I know I read that on some site..." you can typically find it pretty easily).
While there probably is stuff that I'd rather not share with the world, I really have no concern about sharing it with Google, because no one is ever going to see it. Unless there's a warrant or a subpoena for my information, but that seems pretty unlikely, and even more unlikely that any warrant or subpoena wouldn't get more from my e-mail, bank records, etc.
In the interest of full disclosure I should mention that I'm a Google employee, but this post really isn't about trying to convince you that you're wrong. I'm just curious.
It's not so much that I don't trust Google. It's just that I want control over what I trust to Google. That is a very difficult thing to manage. I trust Google no more or no less than any other standard corporation or government entity. The less they know about me, the better. And obviously Google is already using information it knows about users to make recruiting decisions so clearly they are using the data for more than just advertising.
Suppose that I use an Android phone and I have all my web browsers signed in to a Google account. Google now has access to all my phone data, my contact data, calendar data, search history, and even info about websites that I go to directly w/o the help of google (thanks to Google ads). That's a lot of data for Google to know about me. I don't think that Google forgets much, if anything. Text storage is cheap. Google has the potential to be just as creepy as all those data analysts snooping through everyone's text messages at the NSA.
Rumor has it the selection process happens through your Google search history over a long period of time, so you're not going to be able to just spam Python jargon at the search engine and get in tomorrow.
Do you keep yourself logged in with a google account when you search? I specifically try to avoid Google tracking my searches to the extent that I can control. This whole thing is kind of creepy to me, and I never ever log into a google account unless I'm in a VM, though I am sure there are still ways to track me.
I believe that Pioneer offers a head unit for $600 that has both integrated GPS, as well as CarPlay and Android Auto support for those times when you want to use Google Maps. I've been wanting to buy it, as I hate my head unit, but I don't really want to spend that much on a new head unit right now. One thing that my built in NAV does that is nice is that it automatically adjusts the speaker balance when the nav voice speaks. It only puts the audio over the speakers covering the driver. The rest of the car continues to hear music as normal.
I have a long grass verge by the side of the road and several dog owners have taken to dumping their dog poo bags on it, which is bewildering. Why make the effort to collect the dog poo in a small black plastic bag, only to illegally litter it right afterwards? It's an on-the-spot 80 pounds = $120 fine where I live, but unless I install CCTV and review the footage (and even then identifying them might be impossible), they're never going to get caught by the local council.
Some scoundrel even *saved* 10 of their poo bags and then dumped them at various intervals along my verge. And, no, I'm not enemies with anyone local before anyone asks...
They leave it there indefinitely? I walk my dog on a route that only has trash bins at the beginning of the route. Since I walk back the same way I came, sometimes I'll pick up the poo and leave it out of the way so I don't have to carry it for another 3 miles. I put in a GPS reminder on my phone to grab it on the way back. Depending on how fast we walk, it may sit there for a solid 30 minutes before I pick it up. But like I said, I try to put it in an inconspicuous and out of the way location.
The OP asked about "technical resources" to get knowledgeable "in the relevant technologies", and continued to make it clear that this was about learning to actually use the technologies. That is the wrong approach.
The poster said no such thing. Instead he said:
He asked me if I could advise on how he could get knowledgeable in the relevant technologies, HTML and JavaScript, in order to better interact with their developers. While there are numerous resources available to learn to program both of these, I didn't feel that would be the best approach... Instead I looked for any primers that focus on technical subjects for non-technical disciplines.
So the OP was specifically saying he didn't think the right approach was for his friend to learn how to actually implement anything in these technologies. He then later asked whether he was correct in saying his friend should NOT learn how to implement the technology itself:
Do you even agree that this is an appropriate approach or should he look to develop a working knowledge of these languages instead? Any other suggestions on how to approach this?
So all in all, the OP was trying to find the best solution overall, and did not think that his friend should actually learn the ins and outs but was open to any advice whatsoever. Everyone just assumed that this guy is like all their old PHBs that tried to pretend like he knew what he was doing.
Look at this like brain-surgery: You as the customer (patient) do not tell the surgeon what to do, you tell him the desired outcome and he tells you the chances for that. If you do not trust that brain surgeon, you get another one or if you have to use him, you get a consultant to do fact-checking for you and explain things to you. But you do not start to learn how to do brain surgery.
I certainly read up as much as I can on my condition and the treatment modalities before I go in there and talk to my brain surgeon. I don't want to dictate or drive the discussion, but I want to be able to have an intelligent conversation with my brain surgeon. Management should be the same way. You have to trust your team, but you need to be able to understand what they tell you.
If your friend were to develop semi- (or worse) skills, the only thing he could do is give bad technological input and make bad technological decisions. Either get somebody that has the required insights, skills, and, most importantly, experience (and experience can only be replaced by more experience) or refrain from giving technological input and making technological decisions. A good option is to get a consulting firm with respective expertise to fill that role, especially, when no full-time person is required.
Why does everyone assume that he wants to use this new found knowledge to make technical decisions instead of trying to understand and moderate discussions within his team? A good manager will always want to learn new things - not to force things down his staff's throat, but so that he can follow discussions to the point where he at least has a good idea of what is going on. There are two important tasks for a manager: 1) Shield his staff from the bullshit that is raining down from on high and 2) Help his staff resolve their challenges in the most appropriate way possible. Sometimes that means a disagreement in imeplementation details, sometimes it means just helping them talk over a problem to help that team member figure out the best way to solve a problem. I can't tell you how many times I've figured out a solution to a difficult problem when trying to distill the problem down to a less involved person. Let the man learn and grow. Don't just assume he is going to use that knowledge to become a poor manager.
Account should not try to "get knowledgeable" in HTML and JavaScript. He will only seem more of an idiot.
1. Be a great accountant, and dominate your existing field. Teach developers how to make the products more profitable
2. Be a human and a user, and gain user and interface expertise, so you can say what you think about the product with authority and clarity. Tell the developers how to make a more usable product.
3. Can your expertise be used to improve the product? Accounting skills may be important for the platform to make money, and the financial analysis tools needed to understand the web platforms performance.
I've seen so many developers blow smoke up non-technical people's asses that I am not sure whether to agree or disagree with your statement. It is especially common when the developer has no idea what they are doing and are trying to buy time to stumble their way through a problem. While I agree that there is value in having the accountant teach the developers things outside of their discipline, I think that it makes sense for him to learn some things outside of his. But perhaps not be overconfident in his ability to understand the exact nature or complexity of the problems his staff brings to him. It's important to know your weaknesses, but it's always appropriate to learn and grow, too.
Slashdot Mirror
the cost in storage space (suddenly all your pictures take 8 times more space)
The size that photos make up on a device is negligible these days, 8x more is nothing. But I'm betting that with compression it's some small fraction of that.
Do you work in Apple's marketing department? I swear you praise everything that apple ever does. I'm sorry but even doubling the image size is a problem for most people I know. The base model on the iPhone 6S has 16GB of storage. I know people who keep thousands of pictures on their phones. If you doubled the size of all of them you would need more storage. If Apple actually increased the storage on the base model to 32GB, instead of just dropping the 32GB model all together, I would say that it's no issue. But to me this just looks like a gimmick feature that will force people to pay to upgrade to the 64GB model because they've run out of space all of the sudden.
Live Photos (or non-trademarked equivalent) is a role relegated to producing images for print.
Why don't we just stop using this silly name of 'live photo'. Don't let Apple PR spin you, it is exactly what Eddie said it is not - a video. It may only be a 1 second video (0.5 seconds on either side of the intended frame), but it is still a video. Outside of your little kids playing sports, maybe some ripples in a pond, I am not certain there is much use for this feature. Do I really need 0.5 seconds of everyone trying to get their face together for a picture? Or 0.5 seconds of everyone wiping that fake smile off their face? No. And I certainly don't need it on a beautiful sunset view or a landscape of the city.
Hey, if your jurisdiction allows it, then go for it. If it's *not* against the law I see no need to sit on the road for no good reason.
It's not legal in my jurisdiction. I'm just pointing out the fact that everyone's jurisdiction is different. California lets you lane split on a motorcycle. I wouldn't personally do it, even if it were legal where I live now. But if there is a bad car accident that grinds traffic to a halt then I will drive on the shoulder illegally to get out of the way. The only reason I do that though is that it's very hot here and my motorcycle will overheat. If traffic is dead stopped then I turn my bike off and wait. Typically it's moving just fast enough that I would hold up traffic if I stayed in a lane and just slow enough that my bike doesn't get enough airflow through the radiator. I don't particularly enjoy doing it but my choices at that point are: 1) Pull over and wait for traffic to clear 2) Overheat and then cause a bigger traffic problem 3) break the law and get out of everyone's way. I'm not selfless enough to do 1 number 3 would cause me to get in the way of first responders. Even then I'm paranoid that some car will get the idea to do the same thing and pull onto the shoulder and hit me
It's really not a judgment call. Five or more vehicles behind you? You need to pull over and let them pass. That's the law in CA, WA, and OR - and probably most other States, too. No judgment call about it - it's illegal to hold up 5 or more vehicles behind you.
Except that it's still a judgement call. If you're bicycling in a busy city then you'll never get anywhere because there will always be 5 cars behind you. Not to mention the fact that you may be going fast enough that you're not really impeding the flow of traffic depending on stop lights and other conditions. If you're on a mountain road, or somewhere that often has large gaps in the traffic then you're right, no judgement call needed. Just get the hell out of the way. But how many cars do this, too? I can't tell you how many times I've been stuck behind a slow vehicle on windy California roads where motorists don't move out of the way for growing line of people who want to go the posted speed limit.
Bicyclists should wait at red lights just like everyone else, for example. It doesn't mean "stop, look, then proceed if you don't see a car crossing". It means you wait until it turns green.
If a traffic signal's induction loop detector is not detecting a bicycle because of insufficient metal surface, how many minutes is a cyclist expected to wait at a red light before making a U-turn and finding another route?
You wait forever because it's the damn law - don't blow through a red light.
Is it though? In the state of Virginia you're allowed to run a red light on a motorcycle if there is no traffic and you've waited a prescribed amount of time for the traffic signal to change. I think that makes perfect sense, too. I've sat at a stop light for 10 minutes on a motorcycle moving back and forth across the sensor (you can often see where they are through the asphalt) without having it trigger. Someone pulled up behind me and the light turned green almost immediately. In this situation I could have made a right turn and then gone a few miles down the road to the next place I could make a U-turn but if that light can't detect a motorcycle, it's not going to detect a bicycle at all.
You're absolutely right, except the number of cyclists who break the laws vs motorists is really unbalanced. I live in Toronto and the number of times a cyclist doesn't stop at a stop sign, traffic light, or will dart amongst traffic, really is getting ridiculous.
Well all of that depends on context, really. I live in a beach community with a lot of bicyclists. Most of them are people going to/from the beach, but a lot of people drive out to the beach to do long distance cycling on the coast, too. The road cyclists will get into a long chain of 50+ bikes and will run every stop sign they come across. There's about a 20% chance that a beach goer will stop for a stop sign. Everyone here knows what to expect and they wave the beach goers through stop signs preferring just to get them out of the way ASAP. When I am bicycling, I only stop for a stop sign if there is traffic. Otherwise I keep going, but at a reduced speed. To be quite honest with you, I wish that bicyclists could treat stop signs as a conditional yield - slow down if you see no traffic, stop if there are vehicles waiting for a turn to go. But then the question is, how do you enforce that? Bicyclists need to be more careful, but motorists should be more careful around bicycles as well.
Actually the typical advice given to bikers is to ride thinking that everyone around you is actively trying to kill you. It works because most people grossly underestimate how others can be *incompetent* but have much less difficulties in thinking about how others could be *malicious*. This is helpful in getting enough caution out of them.
When I ride my motorcycle I assume that every other vehicle on the road is trying to kill me. In reality, it's usually only one or two assholes per trip that do something that could result in my death or dismemberment. You can almost always pick them out a good 5-10 seconds before they try and kill you. Typically they are weaving a little bit or you notice that they haven't glanced in any of their mirrors in several seconds and they haven't realized that the traffic in front of them is slowing down and they're running out of real estate. It's probably a bit different for bicyclists, though./P.
Does anyone actually believe this line of bullshit?
Honestly, if she was using the e-mail address associated with that SMTP server before she become Secretary of State, yes. Most people don't like to use several e-mail accounts. It's a pain in the butt. If she was used to using that one and used it as she communicated with the officials that became her superiors and subordinates before becoming Secretary of State while planning the transition, then they were used to contacting here there and she was used to contacting them from there.
And yet millions of people throughout the world manage to do this just fine. Many of them preferring to keep their non-work related projects separate from work related issues. After all, how many people go and work at a random company without having some friend there to help get their foot in the door? People use networking to get jobs. It's not unreasonable or unexpected for you to use your official method of communication to talk to friends at your place of employment. That's normal and natural. You're just trying to find an excuse for her poor practices. And we all know the reason for these practices was to protect the emails from FOIA requests, not because it was convenient to only use one email address. I'm sorry that her royal highness isn't smart enough to use two or more email addresses just like the rest of us.
Should she have switched to a government-provided e-mail account? Probably. I don't say, "absolutely," specifically because of the high profile leaks that we've seen over the last decade, such that the mail might actually have been safer on that server that no one thought to compromise than on a government one.
Again you're making excuses for her. The answer is ABSOLUTELY. Why? Because every single thing she does at work is subject to FOIA requests and that information must be available in case, by some unfortunate accident, the Clintons were to die in a fiery plane crash. They were communicating about important issues that affect not only our nation, but how we interact with the entire world. This data must be properly accounted for and properly secured, even if it is not classified. While you may cite the security standards of the Department of State and indicate that they have poor security grades - that is irrelevant to this matter. If Ms. Clinton has an issue with the security policies at the Department of State, she should have ADDRESSED THEM! She was the boss. It was the perfect time for someone to go in there and fix the problem.
As an aside, Governor Palin used private e-mail for government functions too, actually registering addresses with public mail servers (yahoo if I remember right) after becoming Governor of Alaska, and specifically citing her newly-found position as the account name. There was no prosecution over that either.
And how much of that information was classified by the federal government? Probably none. And Palin was still violating the law of Alaska. Should she have gotten in trouble for it? Absolutely. If she was not properly punished then, assuming the statute of limitations has not run out, the people of Alaska should seek prosecution. One person getting away with it is NOT justification for a second person to not be punished when they get caught. Do you believe that OJ Simpson murdered his ex-wife? If so, he got away with it. Does that mean it's okay for me to go out and murder an ex-wife because OJ didn't get in trouble for it? That's just asinine.
Using a Neti pot, NealMed or homebrew .... it seems still sensible to either:
1) Boil water, and hold at temp for several minutes (a "hot pot" e.g. http://www.zojirushi.com/app/p... typically holds the water at a boil for 4min) or 2) UV sterialize http://www.steripen.com/advent... as an example
While one can use distilled water, often it sits around potentially growing something (but probably nothing brain eating) so making it fresh has advantages.
Yes, these pests are rare; but the results dire enough one should take reasonable care before putting water up one's nose these days.
I guess that means that you shouldn't go swimming in fresh water? Even a chlorinated pool could contain this parasite for 24 hours if there is that same film inside the pool's plumbing.
I'm starting to get tired of this mentality from service providers that, just because someone is using their services in ways they didn't expect, they're somehow 'abusing' the service. If you advertise the service as unlimited, it should be unlimited. You shouldn't care that I'm using it to torrent or do whatever.
If you can't provide a truly unlimited service, don't advertise it
Perhaps you don't think it is abusing the network, but I think it is. It's pretty difficult to use 2TB of data in a single month. These people are obviously using their cell phone data plans in lieu of a home network connection. They didn't pay for WiFi hotspot service. T-Mobile allows people to tether for free. A service for which I am greatly appreciative. But if you want to a cellular itnernet hotspot, buy one of T-Mobile's MiFi style plans. Don't turn your cellular phone + data plan into a MiFi plan because such abuse will cause T-Mobile to start charging people to tether.
People with your attitude caused Costco to update its return policy. It used to be that you could return any item to costco at any item, no questions asked. People abused this policy by buying giant HDTVs, keeping them for a year and then returning them to get a free upgrade. It was perfectly in line with Costco's policy, but it was obviously above and beyond the intent of the policy. Costco had to change its policy because it was being abused. If people keep this up, T-Mobile will have to change their tethering policy, too. If these people were not tethering then T-Mobile would not be complaining about their high data usage. I've certainly not had T-Mobile complain when I used my cell phone to download almost 100GB of audiobooks onto my phone in a single day. I bet they wouldn't have been happy if I tethered 100GB of data in a single day.
EMS (generally) isn't government money. The private hospitals eat the cost of unpaid bills. Do you have anything to indicate that illegals pay their bills less than the equivalent citizen? The few things I've seen on it (that didn't touch on health care) indicate illegals pay bills better, because they don't want the attention that not paying bills brings. WIC and SNAP and such are generally tied to SSN as the identifier. An illegal doesn't file for welfare in the US, because it would bring unwanted attention. In other places, the human right of food is higher than the state right of borders, to they don't mind illegals on welfare as much (though, from what I've seen this has changed, to where more are US like now). Perhaps if a citizen baby was being cared for by an illegal, the parents may file for WIC to see what happens, assuming they can't get deported with an anchor baby. But I've not seen any studies done on that part either. Both sides would rather ignore the problem and keep it as vague talking points for election time.
Well that depends entirely. In my current locale, the only hospital that accepts medicaid is run by the state. Other hospitals in town will only stabilize you and then transfer you to the state hospital ASAP. They do bill that to medicaid, if you have it. From friends that work at the state hospital, over 90% of the patients there never pay any of their bill. So 90% of the costs incurred for treatment are never reimbursed and are covered by state and federal money. Now, I also know that that hospital treats the local homeless community as well. So who is to say how many of them are illegal.
Illegal immigration is a difficult problem to solve. I would love to see these people become legal so that they can pay their taxes and also receive the benefits that they are entitled to as US citizens but at the same time I feel like granting amnesty and allowing them in with a wave of the hand may just encourage future illegal immigration. I don't think we want to encourage people to break just laws. By entering the country illegally, they are setting themselves up for exploitation. I believe that, by and large, the jobs that they are 'stealing' from citizens are jobs that most citizens feel that they are 'too good for'.
The savings in entitlement expenses would more than compensate
[citation needed]
In fact I'll save you the trouble, people have studied this and found the exact opposite. Illegal immigrants can access few entitlements yet pay many taxes, so they are usually net contributors.
That is, if you care about the facts.
Do those studies take into consideration the cost of emergency medical services, or just welfare, WIC, SNAP and other programs that would pay directly to the recipient? I haven't done any research into the matter, just curious.
Are you suggesting that we should ask the NSA which init system they use on their in house Linux boxes?
Sprint has a bit better coverage than t-mobile imho. (sprint has 4g here t-mobile still 2g only)
That is in complete contradiction to anything I have ever experienced. I wouldn't use Sprint if it were free. I travel a lot and when I had Sprint I felt like my phone might as well have just been a 100g brick in my pocket. Do you mind me asking which phone and what area you live in? I know that the Nexus 4, for instances, is not FCC certified for the frequencies required to get proper 4G on T-Mobile.
From my experience in California, Verizon works best outside the big cities. At&t is 2nd. I wouldn't even consider T-mobile outside of the city, but to be fair I don't have experience with them. Sprint has unlimited data plans and works fairly well in certain areas and terribly in others.
I've used ATT, T-Mobile, and Sprint on both the West Coast and East Coast. Sprint is terrible. Even in some larger east coast cities the reception is spotty and even their LTE speeds can be very slow. T-Mobile works pretty well for me on the East Coast, but there are stretches of interstate where I do not have data whatsoever. The coverage in places like Central California don't seem to be all that great for T-Mobile. ATT has the best coverage of them all, typically. Though I have found deadspots where T-Mobile is better than ATT in parts of Florida, that is the exception and not the rule. If the OP needs coverage in the most rural of areas, he needs Verizon. If he's going to be doing a lot of interstate travel and smaller towns, ATT should be more than adequate. T-Mobile will give the OP the best value for the money if OP sticks to interstates and towns with a population greater than ~100,000-200,000 (on the east coast, anyway). If the OP goes with Sprint on the East Coast (except maybe New England) then may the FSM have mercy on his soul.
The NSA analysts at least in theory need permission to trawl through your data and there is theoretical oversight. After all, its' the government's data, not a private companies.
Also, if you accept Google's default hooks, Google knows far more about you than the NSA.
See I run my own caldav and carddav servers to avoid sending that info to Google. Google knows my location due to my use of Google Maps, but the NSA already knows that too from their meta data collection. I also don't actually use my android phone anymore. The fact of the matter is, though, that someone has access to whatever data I don't have 100% control over myself. Whether that is my cell phone provider, the NSA, Apple, Google, Microsoft, or whoever, I can't keep that info from being available while using the conveniences of our modern society. But at least I feel like I have some control.
In "American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency" (2007), the United States Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the suit against the NSA, because they could not present evidence that they were the targets of the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Time for a class action lawsuit?? By definition at least one citizen of the US is being spied upon in a domestic spying program. So if the plaintiffs include every citizen of the US, someone has to have standing.
Rumor has it the selection process happens through your Google search history over a long period of time, so you're not going to be able to just spam Python jargon at the search engine and get in tomorrow.
Do you keep yourself logged in with a google account when you search? I specifically try to avoid Google tracking my searches to the extent that I can control. This whole thing is kind of creepy to me, and I never ever log into a google account unless I'm in a VM, though I am sure there are still ways to track me.
Out of curiosity, what are you concerned that Google is going to do with your search history?
FWIW, my approach is that I stay logged in all the time, with web history enabled (so Chrome sends a log of every page I visit to Google for storage, not just my searches) and open an incognito window when I'm doing something I don't want recorded. I try not to do that much, though, because I get a lot of value from being able to search my own web history (web history allows you to search in all the stuff you've looked at, so when you find yourself thinking, "I know I read that on some site..." you can typically find it pretty easily).
While there probably is stuff that I'd rather not share with the world, I really have no concern about sharing it with Google, because no one is ever going to see it. Unless there's a warrant or a subpoena for my information, but that seems pretty unlikely, and even more unlikely that any warrant or subpoena wouldn't get more from my e-mail, bank records, etc.
In the interest of full disclosure I should mention that I'm a Google employee, but this post really isn't about trying to convince you that you're wrong. I'm just curious.
It's not so much that I don't trust Google. It's just that I want control over what I trust to Google. That is a very difficult thing to manage. I trust Google no more or no less than any other standard corporation or government entity. The less they know about me, the better. And obviously Google is already using information it knows about users to make recruiting decisions so clearly they are using the data for more than just advertising.
Suppose that I use an Android phone and I have all my web browsers signed in to a Google account. Google now has access to all my phone data, my contact data, calendar data, search history, and even info about websites that I go to directly w/o the help of google (thanks to Google ads). That's a lot of data for Google to know about me. I don't think that Google forgets much, if anything. Text storage is cheap. Google has the potential to be just as creepy as all those data analysts snooping through everyone's text messages at the NSA.
Rumor has it the selection process happens through your Google search history over a long period of time, so you're not going to be able to just spam Python jargon at the search engine and get in tomorrow.
Do you keep yourself logged in with a google account when you search? I specifically try to avoid Google tracking my searches to the extent that I can control. This whole thing is kind of creepy to me, and I never ever log into a google account unless I'm in a VM, though I am sure there are still ways to track me.
I believe that Pioneer offers a head unit for $600 that has both integrated GPS, as well as CarPlay and Android Auto support for those times when you want to use Google Maps. I've been wanting to buy it, as I hate my head unit, but I don't really want to spend that much on a new head unit right now. One thing that my built in NAV does that is nice is that it automatically adjusts the speaker balance when the nav voice speaks. It only puts the audio over the speakers covering the driver. The rest of the car continues to hear music as normal.
I have a long grass verge by the side of the road and several dog owners have taken to dumping their dog poo bags on it, which is bewildering. Why make the effort to collect the dog poo in a small black plastic bag, only to illegally litter it right afterwards? It's an on-the-spot 80 pounds = $120 fine where I live, but unless I install CCTV and review the footage (and even then identifying them might be impossible), they're never going to get caught by the local council.
Some scoundrel even *saved* 10 of their poo bags and then dumped them at various intervals along my verge. And, no, I'm not enemies with anyone local before anyone asks...
They leave it there indefinitely? I walk my dog on a route that only has trash bins at the beginning of the route. Since I walk back the same way I came, sometimes I'll pick up the poo and leave it out of the way so I don't have to carry it for another 3 miles. I put in a GPS reminder on my phone to grab it on the way back. Depending on how fast we walk, it may sit there for a solid 30 minutes before I pick it up. But like I said, I try to put it in an inconspicuous and out of the way location.
The OP asked about "technical resources" to get knowledgeable "in the relevant technologies", and continued to make it clear that this was about learning to actually use the technologies. That is the wrong approach.
The poster said no such thing. Instead he said:
He asked me if I could advise on how he could get knowledgeable in the relevant technologies, HTML and JavaScript, in order to better interact with their developers. While there are numerous resources available to learn to program both of these, I didn't feel that would be the best approach... Instead I looked for any primers that focus on technical subjects for non-technical disciplines.
So the OP was specifically saying he didn't think the right approach was for his friend to learn how to actually implement anything in these technologies. He then later asked whether he was correct in saying his friend should NOT learn how to implement the technology itself:
Do you even agree that this is an appropriate approach or should he look to develop a working knowledge of these languages instead? Any other suggestions on how to approach this?
So all in all, the OP was trying to find the best solution overall, and did not think that his friend should actually learn the ins and outs but was open to any advice whatsoever. Everyone just assumed that this guy is like all their old PHBs that tried to pretend like he knew what he was doing.
Look at this like brain-surgery: You as the customer (patient) do not tell the surgeon what to do, you tell him the desired outcome and he tells you the chances for that. If you do not trust that brain surgeon, you get another one or if you have to use him, you get a consultant to do fact-checking for you and explain things to you. But you do not start to learn how to do brain surgery.
I certainly read up as much as I can on my condition and the treatment modalities before I go in there and talk to my brain surgeon. I don't want to dictate or drive the discussion, but I want to be able to have an intelligent conversation with my brain surgeon. Management should be the same way. You have to trust your team, but you need to be able to understand what they tell you.
If your friend were to develop semi- (or worse) skills, the only thing he could do is give bad technological input and make bad technological decisions. Either get somebody that has the required insights, skills, and, most importantly, experience (and experience can only be replaced by more experience) or refrain from giving technological input and making technological decisions. A good option is to get a consulting firm with respective expertise to fill that role, especially, when no full-time person is required.
Why does everyone assume that he wants to use this new found knowledge to make technical decisions instead of trying to understand and moderate discussions within his team? A good manager will always want to learn new things - not to force things down his staff's throat, but so that he can follow discussions to the point where he at least has a good idea of what is going on. There are two important tasks for a manager: 1) Shield his staff from the bullshit that is raining down from on high and 2) Help his staff resolve their challenges in the most appropriate way possible. Sometimes that means a disagreement in imeplementation details, sometimes it means just helping them talk over a problem to help that team member figure out the best way to solve a problem. I can't tell you how many times I've figured out a solution to a difficult problem when trying to distill the problem down to a less involved person. Let the man learn and grow. Don't just assume he is going to use that knowledge to become a poor manager.
Account should not try to "get knowledgeable" in HTML and JavaScript. He will only seem more of an idiot. 1. Be a great accountant, and dominate your existing field. Teach developers how to make the products more profitable 2. Be a human and a user, and gain user and interface expertise, so you can say what you think about the product with authority and clarity. Tell the developers how to make a more usable product. 3. Can your expertise be used to improve the product? Accounting skills may be important for the platform to make money, and the financial analysis tools needed to understand the web platforms performance.
I've seen so many developers blow smoke up non-technical people's asses that I am not sure whether to agree or disagree with your statement. It is especially common when the developer has no idea what they are doing and are trying to buy time to stumble their way through a problem. While I agree that there is value in having the accountant teach the developers things outside of their discipline, I think that it makes sense for him to learn some things outside of his. But perhaps not be overconfident in his ability to understand the exact nature or complexity of the problems his staff brings to him. It's important to know your weaknesses, but it's always appropriate to learn and grow, too.