Yup. Also, it saves you from going to the wrong site if your typing is less than perfect. Google is usually smart enough to find the site you wanted despite most common typos instead of taking you to some typo squatter site.
Clearly they're not going to sustain this with paying for the full-fare tickets. Consumers will cancel their subscriptions if they think they're paying more for the service than the tickets would cost without it. Where this would work is if they could contract with the theaters to get lower rates for their members, so members still get a good deal, but the membership still makes money for MoviePass. If the average member sees 2.34 movies/month, then they would need to negotiate a ticket price of something like, $8/2.34 or $3.42/ticket. That probably doesn't work for theaters, at least during the first week a movie is out, but if the seats would be empty, and if the members are likely to buy concessions, then it would work.
So if we hear that MoviePass reaches deals with the movie chains, and if we see exclusions on the first week of new releases, then it starts to look like something they could sustain. Now they're probably burning through venture capital trying to grow large enough to negotiate those deals before they self destruct.
This is exactly the sort of thing competitors shouldn't be doing. The two largest competitors are teaming up to further marginalize their competitors instead of competing with each other.
While this may have short-term coverage improvements for consumers, the long-term impact if they succeed in squeezing out Sprint would be horrible.
Exactly. The fear is that this will go the way of cable TV and eventually they'll migrate from the nice paid ad-free service to an obnoxious paid ad-full service.
In Amazon's case in particular, I could see them moving the ad-free version to a added subscription on top of Prime, just like the Music Unlimited subscription. I really hope that doesn't happen.
I've noticed with Chrome for quite a while now that the slashboxes on the right don't scroll with the rest of the page, making them useless. Is this related to the change described in the article, or is this something different?
This will probably only be for shipments delivered by Amazon. I suppose they could eventually partner with other shipping companies and let them use it, too, but that would let you use it for non-Amazon shipments, and I'm not sure they want this.
So this may be another signal that Amazon is ramping up their delivery network to eliminate UPS and other vendors. Not a good time to invest in UPS.
As most people have commented, this appears rather stupid. Why would I ever want this?
But particularly in urban areas where people have had consistent problems with packages being stolen between delivery and when they get home, this addresses a real problem. In those cases, this would potentially be a great product.
I'm just trying to get everyone to call the winter shifted time "daylight wasting time." I don't care about the capitalization, though considering that other periods of time, like months or days, are capitalized, it might be logical to capitalize it. Perhaps I should trademark it and capitalize on the merchandising.:)
In simple words, the process of pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere and producing new fuel uses far more electricity than an electric car, so it will never be economically viable.
The same with hydrogen cars.
Instead of using electricity to produce fuel, use electricity as fuel.
As a Dell employee, I couldn't agree more. We're heading into open enrollment right now for next year's benefits, and there are a bunch of web sites that we use for various parts of it, and while they all have "dell" in the domain name, none of them are subdomains off of dell.com. It's crazy.
And this after the security training where we were told to watch out for suspicious domain names.
I suspect the reason is that they keep everything under dell.com controlled by Dell directly, so anything contracted to an outside vendor needs its own domain. But at the very least, they should set up for all the valid domains a redirect from subdomain.dell.com to subdomaindell.com so they could still advertise a professional-looking domain.
For specific organs, it's likely that they'll be able to clone them without having to clone an entire person. Just figure out the right chemical signals, and have your DNA grow a new heart in a pig to be harvested in a year. Oh, and edit the DNA a touch first to remove any known issues that won't lead to organ rejection.
Probably the hardest part in all of this is wiring up the nerves that get disconnected. Much of the organ control in the body is chemical, but there's still plenty we don't know. That's the big thing getting in the way of growing replacement limbs--if you can't wire up the nerves, they won't work. And this isn't like wiring a device where there are defined connections--I suspect it's all random, and the brain just develops to use whatever it finds, but an adult brain isn't prepared to start over.
We wanted a Mac Mini, so we bought an Intel NUC and turned it into a Hackintosh. It works great. We ended up spending almost the same amount of money, but the result was something vastly more powerful.
There are a few shortcomings, though, so if you're thinking of taking this route, you should do your research on the process and limitations first.
For the most part, I read your objections as transition issues. I'm optimistic that in a few years, those issues will mostly be solved, and USB-C will really be a convenience, not a hassle like today. I agree that it's a problem now, particularly for the problems you cite.
I'll admit, though, that I haven't studied the issues closely, so I can't say which of the issues are early implementation problems as opposed to problems with the standard incorporating too many options. But even where it's the latter, in time vendors will likely agree on a subset of the standard that everyone will implement to, solving the issue from a practical standpoint.
I'm confident that USB-C will be in good shape within two years. With a phone, the only big issue is charging, and I think USB-C is ready for the job, so I wouldn't hold off on that. Of course, if you switch to wireless charging, then the USB issue is mostly moot. Then again, I don't use my phone with headphones, so issues with missing headphone jacks and dongles don't impact me. In general, though, the USB port on a phone has a much narrower range of uses than on a PC, so it's a lot easier to deal with it now.
The transition is unnecessarily painful, but otherwise USB-C is a great idea that addresses most of the old USB issues.
USB-C allows for must more power--I can plug in a USB-C cable and have power and accessories for my laptop, and it's great for phone charging.
USB-C finally eliminates issues with upside-down USB connectors.
USB-C has the same connector on both ends of the cable.
USB-C should be fully backwards compatible with dongles.
USB-C power should allow for nearly universal DC power. Ideally all home routers, switches, and such will use USB-C power, eliminating a wide assortment of power bricks and connectors. In fact, pretty much every wall wart power brick could be switched to USB-C. (Yes, this may mean USB-C wall warts, but it may also mean USB-C outlets.)
USB-C does have potential security issues, as does any USB-power option. This is something that device manufacturers should have been dealing with all along, but it's even more important now.
But there are problems where USB-C doesn't work as advertised. Many sub-standard cables and such are circulating, causing all sorts of problems. Lack of ports and dongles present a nasty headache in the short term.
My conclusion is that now is a lousy time to buy a new computer. In two years, they should have plenty of USB-C ports, and everything will have switched over to it. Given the choice for a phone, though, I would pick USB-C over micro-USB.
This is calculations based on wild assumptions about what is actually required for self-driving. If Tesla is right, then they can do it with the hardware that is already shipping, so power is not an issue--they just need to finish the software. You can also look at what Nvidia just released that they're billing as being designed for self-driving cars. AMD is apparently working on a similar product.
This sounds like a typical naysayer making stuff up to get attention (and advertising hits).
They say they don't track your location for suggesting friends, but that doesn't mean they won't use geotagging embedded in any photo you upload to effectively do the same thing.
It could be a non-sexual photo of the two together. It could even be some unrelated person who took a picture where the two are seen in the background. It could also be that Facebook is lying and they are using location data or data gathered from contacts or other apps. Of course, it's not like anyone should need this reason to avoid the Facebook apps and just use the web browser.
This is probably due to someone posting a photo with both people in it. Facebook will use facial recognition on photos, and when it sees two people in the same photo, I would expect it to suggest a connection.
My Tesla experience is that we save that 5 minutes every week because we never have to think about charging except on trips. During trips, we make longer charging stops, but on a whole we spend less time fueling. It's a tradeoff that I feel I'm winning on, but I can see how others might feel differently.
Going forward, I expect charging will get faster, and batteries will get larger, bringing charging during trips into line with fueling with gas, eliminating any advantage perceived with gas cars.
Range isn't usually an issue in my 2012 Leaf, but it's our second car, so we manage our use appropriately. The newer one has a lot longer range than mine. What's a reasonable range is different for different people.
Yup. Even if the shape of the vehicle is fairly normal, they seem to always add weird "electric" colors to make it look different. BMW is the worst at the weird colors. Nissan just does it with their logo, so it's not as obvious as others.
So that does take into account any increase in diagnosis of cases that would not have been fatal, and it also takes into account any decrease due to changes that reduce the overall incidence, such as reduced smoking.
Still, no matter how they came to the number, it's impressive.
If I read that correctly, this means that of all the cases reported now, the overall odds of death have dropped 40% compared to all the cases reported thirty years ago or so. That doesn't mean the odds of survival for a given diagnosis have improved 40%. One reason cited was the increased early detection through mammograms, so clearly some of the improvement is from shifting the average diagnosis to a less severe tumor. This raises the issue of tumors that are now detected which in the 70s would have gone unnoticed, and wouldn't have progressed, but are now detected and removed. (I'm not an expert, but I read on the Internet that this is an issue, so it must be true.) If you take that into account, it may pull down the overall percentage a tick.
In any case, it's clearly good news, but I've still lost a friend from breast cancer, but I'm hopeful that another will survive. I'm looking forward to what the next decade or two bring with better understanding of the genetic differences of specific cancers and vaccines or other drugs designed to target those differences.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup. Also, it saves you from going to the wrong site if your typing is less than perfect. Google is usually smart enough to find the site you wanted despite most common typos instead of taking you to some typo squatter site.
Clearly they're not going to sustain this with paying for the full-fare tickets. Consumers will cancel their subscriptions if they think they're paying more for the service than the tickets would cost without it. Where this would work is if they could contract with the theaters to get lower rates for their members, so members still get a good deal, but the membership still makes money for MoviePass. If the average member sees 2.34 movies/month, then they would need to negotiate a ticket price of something like, $8/2.34 or $3.42/ticket. That probably doesn't work for theaters, at least during the first week a movie is out, but if the seats would be empty, and if the members are likely to buy concessions, then it would work.
So if we hear that MoviePass reaches deals with the movie chains, and if we see exclusions on the first week of new releases, then it starts to look like something they could sustain. Now they're probably burning through venture capital trying to grow large enough to negotiate those deals before they self destruct.
This is exactly the sort of thing competitors shouldn't be doing. The two largest competitors are teaming up to further marginalize their competitors instead of competing with each other.
While this may have short-term coverage improvements for consumers, the long-term impact if they succeed in squeezing out Sprint would be horrible.
So how exactly is this legal?
Exactly. The fear is that this will go the way of cable TV and eventually they'll migrate from the nice paid ad-free service to an obnoxious paid ad-full service.
In Amazon's case in particular, I could see them moving the ad-free version to a added subscription on top of Prime, just like the Music Unlimited subscription. I really hope that doesn't happen.
I've noticed with Chrome for quite a while now that the slashboxes on the right don't scroll with the rest of the page, making them useless. Is this related to the change described in the article, or is this something different?
This will probably only be for shipments delivered by Amazon. I suppose they could eventually partner with other shipping companies and let them use it, too, but that would let you use it for non-Amazon shipments, and I'm not sure they want this.
So this may be another signal that Amazon is ramping up their delivery network to eliminate UPS and other vendors. Not a good time to invest in UPS.
As most people have commented, this appears rather stupid. Why would I ever want this?
But particularly in urban areas where people have had consistent problems with packages being stolen between delivery and when they get home, this addresses a real problem. In those cases, this would potentially be a great product.
I'm just trying to get everyone to call the winter shifted time "daylight wasting time." I don't care about the capitalization, though considering that other periods of time, like months or days, are capitalized, it might be logical to capitalize it. Perhaps I should trademark it and capitalize on the merchandising. :)
In simple words, the process of pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere and producing new fuel uses far more electricity than an electric car, so it will never be economically viable.
The same with hydrogen cars.
Instead of using electricity to produce fuel, use electricity as fuel.
As a Dell employee, I couldn't agree more. We're heading into open enrollment right now for next year's benefits, and there are a bunch of web sites that we use for various parts of it, and while they all have "dell" in the domain name, none of them are subdomains off of dell.com. It's crazy.
And this after the security training where we were told to watch out for suspicious domain names.
I suspect the reason is that they keep everything under dell.com controlled by Dell directly, so anything contracted to an outside vendor needs its own domain. But at the very least, they should set up for all the valid domains a redirect from subdomain.dell.com to subdomaindell.com so they could still advertise a professional-looking domain.
For specific organs, it's likely that they'll be able to clone them without having to clone an entire person. Just figure out the right chemical signals, and have your DNA grow a new heart in a pig to be harvested in a year. Oh, and edit the DNA a touch first to remove any known issues that won't lead to organ rejection.
Probably the hardest part in all of this is wiring up the nerves that get disconnected. Much of the organ control in the body is chemical, but there's still plenty we don't know. That's the big thing getting in the way of growing replacement limbs--if you can't wire up the nerves, they won't work. And this isn't like wiring a device where there are defined connections--I suspect it's all random, and the brain just develops to use whatever it finds, but an adult brain isn't prepared to start over.
We wanted a Mac Mini, so we bought an Intel NUC and turned it into a Hackintosh. It works great. We ended up spending almost the same amount of money, but the result was something vastly more powerful.
There are a few shortcomings, though, so if you're thinking of taking this route, you should do your research on the process and limitations first.
For the most part, I read your objections as transition issues. I'm optimistic that in a few years, those issues will mostly be solved, and USB-C will really be a convenience, not a hassle like today. I agree that it's a problem now, particularly for the problems you cite.
I'll admit, though, that I haven't studied the issues closely, so I can't say which of the issues are early implementation problems as opposed to problems with the standard incorporating too many options. But even where it's the latter, in time vendors will likely agree on a subset of the standard that everyone will implement to, solving the issue from a practical standpoint.
I'm confident that USB-C will be in good shape within two years. With a phone, the only big issue is charging, and I think USB-C is ready for the job, so I wouldn't hold off on that. Of course, if you switch to wireless charging, then the USB issue is mostly moot. Then again, I don't use my phone with headphones, so issues with missing headphone jacks and dongles don't impact me. In general, though, the USB port on a phone has a much narrower range of uses than on a PC, so it's a lot easier to deal with it now.
The transition is unnecessarily painful, but otherwise USB-C is a great idea that addresses most of the old USB issues.
USB-C allows for must more power--I can plug in a USB-C cable and have power and accessories for my laptop, and it's great for phone charging.
USB-C finally eliminates issues with upside-down USB connectors.
USB-C has the same connector on both ends of the cable.
USB-C should be fully backwards compatible with dongles.
USB-C power should allow for nearly universal DC power. Ideally all home routers, switches, and such will use USB-C power, eliminating a wide assortment of power bricks and connectors. In fact, pretty much every wall wart power brick could be switched to USB-C. (Yes, this may mean USB-C wall warts, but it may also mean USB-C outlets.)
USB-C does have potential security issues, as does any USB-power option. This is something that device manufacturers should have been dealing with all along, but it's even more important now.
But there are problems where USB-C doesn't work as advertised. Many sub-standard cables and such are circulating, causing all sorts of problems. Lack of ports and dongles present a nasty headache in the short term.
My conclusion is that now is a lousy time to buy a new computer. In two years, they should have plenty of USB-C ports, and everything will have switched over to it. Given the choice for a phone, though, I would pick USB-C over micro-USB.
If you assume 300Wh is a mile of range, then you're talking about consuming one or two miles of range per hour of driving. That's not bad.
This is calculations based on wild assumptions about what is actually required for self-driving. If Tesla is right, then they can do it with the hardware that is already shipping, so power is not an issue--they just need to finish the software. You can also look at what Nvidia just released that they're billing as being designed for self-driving cars. AMD is apparently working on a similar product.
This sounds like a typical naysayer making stuff up to get attention (and advertising hits).
They say they don't track your location for suggesting friends, but that doesn't mean they won't use geotagging embedded in any photo you upload to effectively do the same thing.
It could be a non-sexual photo of the two together. It could even be some unrelated person who took a picture where the two are seen in the background. It could also be that Facebook is lying and they are using location data or data gathered from contacts or other apps. Of course, it's not like anyone should need this reason to avoid the Facebook apps and just use the web browser.
This is probably due to someone posting a photo with both people in it. Facebook will use facial recognition on photos, and when it sees two people in the same photo, I would expect it to suggest a connection.
My Tesla experience is that we save that 5 minutes every week because we never have to think about charging except on trips. During trips, we make longer charging stops, but on a whole we spend less time fueling. It's a tradeoff that I feel I'm winning on, but I can see how others might feel differently.
Going forward, I expect charging will get faster, and batteries will get larger, bringing charging during trips into line with fueling with gas, eliminating any advantage perceived with gas cars.
Range isn't usually an issue in my 2012 Leaf, but it's our second car, so we manage our use appropriately. The newer one has a lot longer range than mine. What's a reasonable range is different for different people.
I think it's a bit odd looking, but not ugly.
Yup. Even if the shape of the vehicle is fairly normal, they seem to always add weird "electric" colors to make it look different. BMW is the worst at the weird colors. Nissan just does it with their logo, so it's not as obvious as others.
Thanks!
So that does take into account any increase in diagnosis of cases that would not have been fatal, and it also takes into account any decrease due to changes that reduce the overall incidence, such as reduced smoking.
Still, no matter how they came to the number, it's impressive.
If I read that correctly, this means that of all the cases reported now, the overall odds of death have dropped 40% compared to all the cases reported thirty years ago or so. That doesn't mean the odds of survival for a given diagnosis have improved 40%. One reason cited was the increased early detection through mammograms, so clearly some of the improvement is from shifting the average diagnosis to a less severe tumor. This raises the issue of tumors that are now detected which in the 70s would have gone unnoticed, and wouldn't have progressed, but are now detected and removed. (I'm not an expert, but I read on the Internet that this is an issue, so it must be true.) If you take that into account, it may pull down the overall percentage a tick.
In any case, it's clearly good news, but I've still lost a friend from breast cancer, but I'm hopeful that another will survive. I'm looking forward to what the next decade or two bring with better understanding of the genetic differences of specific cancers and vaccines or other drugs designed to target those differences.