It's not cable addiction that keeps most customers with cable - it's routine and not wanting to put the effort into finding an alternative. I've known some people who whine and complain about cable prices continuously rising (literally, Comcast bills rise every month by $0.10-$1.99) but even though they watch ~3 channels total, they don't want the hassle of finding an alternative. Funny thing, I watched few of them motivate themselves to cord-cut when they were moving to new residences, or because their financial situation worsened and the cable bill started sticking out like a sore thumb when they looked at they monthly budget. After switching, they all wish they had done it earlier, and none of them want to go back. I asked if they would get cable again if offered cheap, and they say no, because they are now used to whatever streaming services they use, and are not willing to give those up for cable.
You forgot: Executive B: According to my projections, my idea of raising the price by 10% will yield the company 10% more revenue. I'll take my performance bonus now.
Not even close. Someone can compromise an algorithm of "forget" an equals sign or any other compromises which are not obvious to prove as intentional. The person who cashes in is going to cash their reward in secret, the companies who buy the exploits do not broadcast them to the public.
Also, I guarantee you that security researchers in the past have found vulnerabilities in the code written by people they know - a lot of security guys know each other already from conferences, academia, working for the same company, or inter-company partnerships. Security community doesn't change that fast, what changes most often is who they work for (hence whenever they meet at conferences, one of the first questions is "who do you work for today?").
Now I get why my Comcast bill (back in the days when I still used cable) kept increasing every months - it's all those cord cutters reducing the num_of_subscribers in the formula!
I wonder how long before they hit Division By Zero exception?
So if the myQ bridge is hacked giving criminals access to your garage, does Amazon take on the liability, or will they tell you it's not their product? Does Amazon own security patches for those devices now?
The AT&T Logo should serve as the BS flag. I only had AT&T once in my life, on a work test phone (had an phone or sim card for each carrier in the US and Europe). AT&T was the worst cell provider customer service I ever experienced - they always tell you what you want to hear, facts be damned.
If it's the rich who use it, then they already pay more taxes than the not rich, even after the government gives them back the EV rebate amount (if you don't pay taxes the government doesn't give you any rebates for buying an EV).
I agree with technology getting better and receivers being able to filter out the noise better, but as for transmitters, isn't the noise transmitted on harmonic frequencies regulated separately? If I have a 900MHz transmitter and my power limit is 100mW, are you saying I can transmit on any harmonic frequency I want as long as my total emissions are 100mW (so maybe 95mW on 2.7GHz and 5mW on all others including my main 900MHz carrier), or is it that I can transmit 100mW on 900MHz and some other power limit for all other frequencies?
The transmit power thresholds were chosen for some reason, no? Or did the FCC just pick the power levels out of a hat before? If they had valid reasons, how did those reasons change to make the higher thresholds ok today but not in the past?
From the summary: "This protects against potential damage from non-compliant USB chargers and the risks from maliciously embedded hardware or software in devices attempting to exploit a USB connection."
I think the summary omitted: More importantly, this protects against loss of revenue to 3rd party vendors who make USB chargers.
If it was only about compatibility and non-compliant chargers, USB-IF certification should suffice. As for malicious attacks, no certificate is going to protect the port against a brute force "fry the port" chargers.
Yea the first adapter is free. Next ones are not. Consider it a free sample, or a trial period. You don't even have to lose the dongle, Apple adapters for example just stop working. My kids go through 1 or 2 per year, they just die (nothing visually wrong with it, but just doesn't work anymore). .
It sounds like providing that data isn't free to the taxpayers, or else the shutdown would not have affected it. Or are you saying someone is purposefully withholding the data just to make a political statement, rather than because of no money?
It used to be be "Prime" meant delivered 2 days after ordering. There used to me "free shipping for Prime members" which was free shipping but arrival date longer than 2 days. Today they seem to group everything as "Prime" and hence the dilution of the label "Prime". I wish they had a search tick for "True Prime", or just a checkmark for "ETA 2 days from today".
Prime benefits as a whole haven't gotten worse, one could argue they expanded them over the tears with Prime video, music, or audible.
All tests have a margin of error, and none have 100% accuracy. That's just the nature of testing. That is why, if someone gets a surprising result, the best course of action is to perform another, independent test, to further minimize the error. So, if a dna test tells you a child is not yours, before you take drastic action, order a paternity test from an independent company.
That said, DNA testing companies will of course have to deal with this problem because there will always be a percentage of children whose fathers have been mislead. I saw a long term study a while back tracking paternity over 40 years at a hospital on the east coast of US. Surprisingly, the percentage of children born with the fathers not knowing they were not theirs was almost constant for 40 years - it was around 10%. So, it seems that this is a problem which is not new at all, and it's probably not going to go away since it seems it's just human nature. I'm sure the percentage varies between communities, but it is likely that it also not changing, unless something drastic happens like mandatory paternity tests at hospitals, but that is very unlikely as governments such as the US government prefer to not do that as it would create a large number of fatherless children, therefore nobody to go after for child support. This is why the law in the US only gives fathers 6 months to contest paternity, after that, even 100 independent DNA test results make no difference as far as child support goes.
A conventional subway requires the same tunneling as Musk's tunnel. A conventional subway carries a lot more people than individual cars. Entering and leaving the subway will require vehicle elevators, also less efficient than people elevators. Can anyone explain how sending electric cars with an additional set of wheels underground to run through the tunnel is going to be more efficient than just another subway? Is it solely the fact that you can can build one way paths (tunnels in one direction only, you have to return via surface streets, or wait until the end of the day when the tunnel direction is reversed)? If the latter, how is it better than a single lane highway with alternating direction?
If the plants uses those chemicals to grow, does that mean that if your house doesn't have sufficient amount of them you have to water it with gasoline? Or can it live on regular water and non-toxic stuff too?
Did you miss the part about sabotaging Edge hardware accelerated video playback with an empty HTML overlay, purely so that Edge could not be more power efficient than Chrome? Or do you consider this one of the free benefits you listed, maybe frame is as a free "keep you warm for the holidays" by forcing Edge to use more power, of forcing you to use Chrome and heat up your laptop by using more power?
If that was true, they would simply sunset Edge and start shipping Windows with Chrome or Firefox. They didn't. They still want to be in the browser game.
It's bundled with "the internet" instead. Google search, google YouTube, Gmail, are a very large percentage of internet traffic. If using a different browser means not being able to use any Google sites, people will not use it. That is why Edge moved to Chromium.
Bluetooth things you have to keep charged. So if you use a headset once or twice a week you just want to leave in your jacket pocket because you use it only when you receive a call while outside, you're out of luck. Dongles add weight, break down and require replecement (my kids go through 1-2 Apple headphone adapters per year as they just stop working) or simply don't work well (I work with a person who's never been able to get his Pixel to work well with a small wire only non-chargeable headset to work, every time he tried, at some point during the call we'd have to wait for him to switch to speakerphone because the headset stopped working). That and bluetooth is not as reliable as plain old wired headset - interference, compatibility and reliability/software bugs issues plague them constantly. I have a Plantronics savi-7xx and it works great with Galaxy S9+ if I only enable bluetooth when I want to talk, but if I keep bluetooth enabled, few days of going in and out of range of the thing results in one way audio connection only, I can hear the caller but they cannot hear me - disabling and re-enabling bluetooth fixes it.
Remember, every government program is an opportunity for people to skim, grant contracts to friends and family or for kickbacks in one form or another. Maybe you have a family member who needs a job, why not hire them to administer some new program and of course pay for the job it of the same pool of taxes collected for that program.
1. If it's going to be a wash because they will lower voice service taxes, why bother, just take a portion of voice service taxes - unless somehow California has separate governments for voice and text services.
2. How do I reconcile those two statements: "The report says the tax would likely be a flat fee added to a monthly bill instead of a per text tax." "consumers who create greater texting revenues may pay a bit more" If the tax is flat, how to consumers who create greater texting revenue pay more? Did they not think it through, or just telling people whatever they want to hear?.
This is straight from the government "How to get some more money to skim from" handbook - ask for a new tax, make it small do people don't think it matters, tell everyone what they want to hear, get sufficient approval (or indifference) from the public to add the new tax, wait a year, increase the new tax, award new contracts to people who now owe you. After all, six taxes at 4% each don't seem as bad as one at 24%, right?
Competitive environments are seen as discriminatory because by their very nature they discriminate against people who achieve less. If your mentality is "everyone deserves a trophy because they tried", and "it's not fair to use one's advantage, whether genetic talent of the fact that parents had time and money to school the child", of course startups are not cool.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not cable addiction that keeps most customers with cable - it's routine and not wanting to put the effort into finding an alternative. I've known some people who whine and complain about cable prices continuously rising (literally, Comcast bills rise every month by $0.10-$1.99) but even though they watch ~3 channels total, they don't want the hassle of finding an alternative. Funny thing, I watched few of them motivate themselves to cord-cut when they were moving to new residences, or because their financial situation worsened and the cable bill started sticking out like a sore thumb when they looked at they monthly budget. After switching, they all wish they had done it earlier, and none of them want to go back. I asked if they would get cable again if offered cheap, and they say no, because they are now used to whatever streaming services they use, and are not willing to give those up for cable.
You forgot:
Executive B: According to my projections, my idea of raising the price by 10% will yield the company 10% more revenue. I'll take my performance bonus now.
That is a new business model for a startup. Pay for exploits to be inserted, then sell them.
Not even close. Someone can compromise an algorithm of "forget" an equals sign or any other compromises which are not obvious to prove as intentional. The person who cashes in is going to cash their reward in secret, the companies who buy the exploits do not broadcast them to the public.
Also, I guarantee you that security researchers in the past have found vulnerabilities in the code written by people they know - a lot of security guys know each other already from conferences, academia, working for the same company, or inter-company partnerships. Security community doesn't change that fast, what changes most often is who they work for (hence whenever they meet at conferences, one of the first questions is "who do you work for today?").
Now I get why my Comcast bill (back in the days when I still used cable) kept increasing every months - it's all those cord cutters reducing the num_of_subscribers in the formula!
I wonder how long before they hit Division By Zero exception?
So if the myQ bridge is hacked giving criminals access to your garage, does Amazon take on the liability, or will they tell you it's not their product? Does Amazon own security patches for those devices now?
The AT&T Logo should serve as the BS flag. I only had AT&T once in my life, on a work test phone (had an phone or sim card for each carrier in the US and Europe). AT&T was the worst cell provider customer service I ever experienced - they always tell you what you want to hear, facts be damned.
If it's the rich who use it, then they already pay more taxes than the not rich, even after the government gives them back the EV rebate amount (if you don't pay taxes the government doesn't give you any rebates for buying an EV).
I agree with technology getting better and receivers being able to filter out the noise better, but as for transmitters, isn't the noise transmitted on harmonic frequencies regulated separately? If I have a 900MHz transmitter and my power limit is 100mW, are you saying I can transmit on any harmonic frequency I want as long as my total emissions are 100mW (so maybe 95mW on 2.7GHz and 5mW on all others including my main 900MHz carrier), or is it that I can transmit 100mW on 900MHz and some other power limit for all other frequencies?
The transmit power thresholds were chosen for some reason, no? Or did the FCC just pick the power levels out of a hat before? If they had valid reasons, how did those reasons change to make the higher thresholds ok today but not in the past?
From the summary:
"This protects against potential damage from non-compliant USB chargers and the risks from maliciously embedded hardware or software in devices attempting to exploit a USB connection."
I think the summary omitted:
More importantly, this protects against loss of revenue to 3rd party vendors who make USB chargers.
If it was only about compatibility and non-compliant chargers, USB-IF certification should suffice. As for malicious attacks, no certificate is going to protect the port against a brute force "fry the port" chargers.
I think we could calculate "how much" support it would cost to have UBI in the USA. I just don't think Sillicon Valley is willing to pay that much.
Yea the first adapter is free. Next ones are not. Consider it a free sample, or a trial period. You don't even have to lose the dongle, Apple adapters for example just stop working. My kids go through 1 or 2 per year, they just die (nothing visually wrong with it, but just doesn't work anymore). .
It sounds like providing that data isn't free to the taxpayers, or else the shutdown would not have affected it. Or are you saying someone is purposefully withholding the data just to make a political statement, rather than because of no money?
It used to be be "Prime" meant delivered 2 days after ordering. There used to me "free shipping for Prime members" which was free shipping but arrival date longer than 2 days. Today they seem to group everything as "Prime" and hence the dilution of the label "Prime". I wish they had a search tick for "True Prime", or just a checkmark for "ETA 2 days from today".
Prime benefits as a whole haven't gotten worse, one could argue they expanded them over the tears with Prime video, music, or audible.
All tests have a margin of error, and none have 100% accuracy. That's just the nature of testing. That is why, if someone gets a surprising result, the best course of action is to perform another, independent test, to further minimize the error. So, if a dna test tells you a child is not yours, before you take drastic action, order a paternity test from an independent company.
That said, DNA testing companies will of course have to deal with this problem because there will always be a percentage of children whose fathers have been mislead. I saw a long term study a while back tracking paternity over 40 years at a hospital on the east coast of US. Surprisingly, the percentage of children born with the fathers not knowing they were not theirs was almost constant for 40 years - it was around 10%. So, it seems that this is a problem which is not new at all, and it's probably not going to go away since it seems it's just human nature. I'm sure the percentage varies between communities, but it is likely that it also not changing, unless something drastic happens like mandatory paternity tests at hospitals, but that is very unlikely as governments such as the US government prefer to not do that as it would create a large number of fatherless children, therefore nobody to go after for child support. This is why the law in the US only gives fathers 6 months to contest paternity, after that, even 100 independent DNA test results make no difference as far as child support goes.
A conventional subway requires the same tunneling as Musk's tunnel. A conventional subway carries a lot more people than individual cars. Entering and leaving the subway will require vehicle elevators, also less efficient than people elevators. Can anyone explain how sending electric cars with an additional set of wheels underground to run through the tunnel is going to be more efficient than just another subway? Is it solely the fact that you can can build one way paths (tunnels in one direction only, you have to return via surface streets, or wait until the end of the day when the tunnel direction is reversed)? If the latter, how is it better than a single lane highway with alternating direction?
If the plants uses those chemicals to grow, does that mean that if your house doesn't have sufficient amount of them you have to water it with gasoline? Or can it live on regular water and non-toxic stuff too?
Did you miss the part about sabotaging Edge hardware accelerated video playback with an empty HTML overlay, purely so that Edge could not be more power efficient than Chrome? Or do you consider this one of the free benefits you listed, maybe frame is as a free "keep you warm for the holidays" by forcing Edge to use more power, of forcing you to use Chrome and heat up your laptop by using more power?
If that was true, they would simply sunset Edge and start shipping Windows with Chrome or Firefox. They didn't. They still want to be in the browser game.
It's bundled with "the internet" instead. Google search, google YouTube, Gmail, are a very large percentage of internet traffic. If using a different browser means not being able to use any Google sites, people will not use it. That is why Edge moved to Chromium.
Bluetooth things you have to keep charged. So if you use a headset once or twice a week you just want to leave in your jacket pocket because you use it only when you receive a call while outside, you're out of luck. Dongles add weight, break down and require replecement (my kids go through 1-2 Apple headphone adapters per year as they just stop working) or simply don't work well (I work with a person who's never been able to get his Pixel to work well with a small wire only non-chargeable headset to work, every time he tried, at some point during the call we'd have to wait for him to switch to speakerphone because the headset stopped working). That and bluetooth is not as reliable as plain old wired headset - interference, compatibility and reliability/software bugs issues plague them constantly. I have a Plantronics savi-7xx and it works great with Galaxy S9+ if I only enable bluetooth when I want to talk, but if I keep bluetooth enabled, few days of going in and out of range of the thing results in one way audio connection only, I can hear the caller but they cannot hear me - disabling and re-enabling bluetooth fixes it.
Remember, every government program is an opportunity for people to skim, grant contracts to friends and family or for kickbacks in one form or another. Maybe you have a family member who needs a job, why not hire them to administer some new program and of course pay for the job it of the same pool of taxes collected for that program.
1. If it's going to be a wash because they will lower voice service taxes, why bother, just take a portion of voice service taxes - unless somehow California has separate governments for voice and text services.
2. How do I reconcile those two statements:
"The report says the tax would likely be a flat fee added to a monthly bill instead of a per text tax."
"consumers who create greater texting revenues may pay a bit more"
If the tax is flat, how to consumers who create greater texting revenue pay more? Did they not think it through, or just telling people whatever they want to hear?.
This is straight from the government "How to get some more money to skim from" handbook - ask for a new tax, make it small do people don't think it matters, tell everyone what they want to hear, get sufficient approval (or indifference) from the public to add the new tax, wait a year, increase the new tax, award new contracts to people who now owe you. After all, six taxes at 4% each don't seem as bad as one at 24%, right?
Competitive environments are seen as discriminatory because by their very nature they discriminate against people who achieve less. If your mentality is "everyone deserves a trophy because they tried", and "it's not fair to use one's advantage, whether genetic talent of the fact that parents had time and money to school the child", of course startups are not cool.