Apparently manipulation what is being reported on election night isn't a big deal? What if for example seeing "Candidate A declared a projected winner by all stations" causes people planning to vote for the opponent to simply stay home thinking the election has already been decided?
Notice that this security would require all parties to subscribe, otherwise the outgoing/incoming interface is pretty much wide open. SMPT is pretty much open in flight, unless you force encryption and authentication, at which point you exclude yourself from most email ecosystem. Even if you did only interact with services which provide secured connection, the other side still has your mails. So if you email anyone at gmail, Google gets their hands on your mail anyways, so what's the point of your mailbox being secure?
So, unless you can convince everyone you email with or expect to receive emails from (any eCommerce websites you use) to start paying $100 per year for this service, it's not really beneficial to you.
First 2 games AI wins, but the description seems like the humans were learning quick and getting better every game, winning by 3rd game. The question would be, would humans continue to win in subsequent games?
Headline is a click-bait. Even the summary states that sellers are offering it at $3,000, so what sane person is paying $6,450? It could list it for $100,000, it doesn't mean it's selling at that price.
Even if you paid the shop for 1000 hrs of work, you're still not obligated to buy any health insurance for anyone. Some people do pay hundreds of hours of labor to restoration shops or customization shops. The mechanic is not your employee, they perform a service for which you get billed for, just happens that the price of the service depends on hours spent.. Same with contractors, they are not employees of the company for which they do work for - their hours are billed as a service.
Most contractors in big companies are subcontracted out by "manpower" type umbrella companies which pool together contractors and rent them out to large companies, taking a cut from their hourly wages in exchange for doing HR and sometimes providing benefits. The big companies are invoiced per hour for all contractors, not per person, not 1099 or W2. Think when you go to a shop to fix your car - if you get charged for 30hrs of labour, you are not suddenly required to buy the mechanic health insurance because he worked on your car >29hrs this week.
When an employee quits of their own volition or is fired with cause (say they didn't show up for their shitfs), they are not eligible for unemployment benefits. If they are laid off, they are eligible. Does the same apply here, or is quitting a gig-economy job considered an involuntary layoff? If the latter, it seems to open the door for massive abuse - people just have to quit their job in order to work for Uber, then a day later quit Uber and collect unemployment (since their original job earnings would provide the basis for premium calculation). Good intentions from the government, bad implementation.
What is the difference between someone pointing their browser to netflix and watching a video, pointing their browser to youtube and watching a video, or pointing a browser to slashdot and reading articles. Why isolate netflix or music streaming, instead of going after anything that people pay attention to? Warning the person watching netflix has higher value that warning someone browsing facebook?
Netflix doesn't need to know your location today, nor does it require the device to be connected to watch content - it can pre-cache of even download full content for offline viewing. When I said device, I meant your cell phone for example, which does know your location and has the ability to alert you to low battery, incoming call, so why not an emergency alert? By your logic, every web-site should be obligated to send emergency alerts, google, facebook, twitter, why not require all the websites to track you so we can get rid of the pesky privacy issue - can't ban tracking if it's required by the government, eh? Politicians have good intents sometimes, other times they just need to justify their paycheck, but often times they completely don't understand the technology they are trying to regulate.
What a stupid question. How would showing a "pre-scheduled test alert" provide alerts for any disaster?
Easy, pretty much all test alerts are scheduled ahead of time. Did you really think that test alerts, or drills, are done on a whim, some guy at the government wakes up and says, "I feel like doing an emergency drill so let's send out a test alert right now"? They are scheduled so that emergency responders for example are notified ahead of time in case some people may not realize it's a test and start calling 911.
Netflix is a service, or an app on a device. Why should Netflix be delivering alerts? What if the device is offline, should it show pre-scheduled test alerts?
Amazon started selling books, now they are one of the top players in e-commerce. They may be designing a switch for their own services for now, but give it time, someone will figure out they can be sold too.
I once spent months trying to figure out a network problem only to eventually find that some Cisco routers, even though they negotiated full-duplex connections, were communicating at half-duplex and when transmitting packets they would discard simultaneously incoming packets (with no errors). It did stay up without rebooting though.
IANAL, but I I don't think so, though I wouldn't be surprised if there was an exception for tax evasion - US government treats tax cheating as a more serious crime than murder.
About your comment to extent these things to terrorism and whatever other crimes the society deems highest priority, why not introduce this option: police can invoke the terror or child pornography exception, but if the suspect complies and there is no terrorism or child pornography evidence found, any and all evidence provided by the suspect grants the suspect full immunity for any other crimes discovered as part of that information search. So, if they suspect the suspect of terrorism and they unlock a phone for the police, if there is evidence that the suspect cheated on a billion dollars worth of taxes but the suspect if innocent of terrorism, that crime can never be prosecuted. It would give the police the tool they need, but make it impossible to use abuse that tool for non-terrorism and child-pornography cases.
Ha, I think the moderators think you were kidding. I can totally see it coming soon, the only question is whether FCC gets a cut of the revenue, or do the cell companies get to keep all the ad profits. I also foresee a new "Emergency Alert System fee" coming soon to your cell phone bill, similar to "911 fee".
Exactly, but it seems they already know that. From the summary:
...the public will get used to responding to alerts and know what to expect.
So, phone goes off, public learns how to shut off the annoyance asap. The first time they may actually read the message in an effort to try to figure out how to make it stop. By the 5th time, muting it or tuning it off will become instinct. Most people will not bother reading a message to find out whether it was a test or not, since every other time it was always a test.
The headline summary conveniently omits "per GB". The source actual article also used the headline "makes money", which implies profit, instead of "charges money" which is simply a price. The actual headline should be:
"Canadian Telecoms CHARGE The Most Money PER GB on Data Usage In The World: Tefficient"
The more they charge, the less people will use. The source already mentions that Canadians use very little.data, probably due to cost. There is no mention of how much money they actually make (they could charge $1000 per GB, doesn't mean they'd be making more money).
One thing about bots is they have infinite patience. After "hanging-up" on a bot 50 times, maybe 500 times, you'd probably get tired and actually hold just so you can stop the darn thing calling you back indefinitely to tell you "it seems we got disconnected last time, please hold for...".
Zero-rating that doesn't harm consumers is not banned? So as long as it doesn't purposely deliver malware? If consumers are using the site you can assume they are doing it willingly and that they are not willingly harming themselves.
I hate talking to machines, but I would absolutely use it if I could offload talking to machines to a machine. Go to 1-800-GET-HUMAN.com , enter the support hotline number I am trying to reach, it calls it, talks its way through robots and once it hits a real person it tell them "please hold for Mr. X" and calls me back.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently manipulation what is being reported on election night isn't a big deal? What if for example seeing "Candidate A declared a projected winner by all stations" causes people planning to vote for the opponent to simply stay home thinking the election has already been decided?
No, they just redefined what "evil" is to "anything against Google's corporate goals".
Notice that this security would require all parties to subscribe, otherwise the outgoing/incoming interface is pretty much wide open. SMPT is pretty much open in flight, unless you force encryption and authentication, at which point you exclude yourself from most email ecosystem. Even if you did only interact with services which provide secured connection, the other side still has your mails. So if you email anyone at gmail, Google gets their hands on your mail anyways, so what's the point of your mailbox being secure? So, unless you can convince everyone you email with or expect to receive emails from (any eCommerce websites you use) to start paying $100 per year for this service, it's not really beneficial to you.
So he wants to go private, but still have funds available to the public from which Tesla can raise money from? As what, debt?
It seems the largest single category of buyers were ebay speculators. ;-)
First 2 games AI wins, but the description seems like the humans were learning quick and getting better every game, winning by 3rd game. The question would be, would humans continue to win in subsequent games?
Headline is a click-bait. Even the summary states that sellers are offering it at $3,000, so what sane person is paying $6,450? It could list it for $100,000, it doesn't mean it's selling at that price.
Even if you paid the shop for 1000 hrs of work, you're still not obligated to buy any health insurance for anyone. Some people do pay hundreds of hours of labor to restoration shops or customization shops. The mechanic is not your employee, they perform a service for which you get billed for, just happens that the price of the service depends on hours spent.. Same with contractors, they are not employees of the company for which they do work for - their hours are billed as a service.
Most contractors in big companies are subcontracted out by "manpower" type umbrella companies which pool together contractors and rent them out to large companies, taking a cut from their hourly wages in exchange for doing HR and sometimes providing benefits. The big companies are invoiced per hour for all contractors, not per person, not 1099 or W2. Think when you go to a shop to fix your car - if you get charged for 30hrs of labour, you are not suddenly required to buy the mechanic health insurance because he worked on your car >29hrs this week.
When an employee quits of their own volition or is fired with cause (say they didn't show up for their shitfs), they are not eligible for unemployment benefits. If they are laid off, they are eligible. Does the same apply here, or is quitting a gig-economy job considered an involuntary layoff? If the latter, it seems to open the door for massive abuse - people just have to quit their job in order to work for Uber, then a day later quit Uber and collect unemployment (since their original job earnings would provide the basis for premium calculation). Good intentions from the government, bad implementation.
What is the difference between someone pointing their browser to netflix and watching a video, pointing their browser to youtube and watching a video, or pointing a browser to slashdot and reading articles. Why isolate netflix or music streaming, instead of going after anything that people pay attention to? Warning the person watching netflix has higher value that warning someone browsing facebook?
What a stupid question. How would showing a "pre-scheduled test alert" provide alerts for any disaster?
Easy, pretty much all test alerts are scheduled ahead of time. Did you really think that test alerts, or drills, are done on a whim, some guy at the government wakes up and says, "I feel like doing an emergency drill so let's send out a test alert right now"? They are scheduled so that emergency responders for example are notified ahead of time in case some people may not realize it's a test and start calling 911.
Netflix is a service, or an app on a device. Why should Netflix be delivering alerts? What if the device is offline, should it show pre-scheduled test alerts?
Amazon started selling books, now they are one of the top players in e-commerce. They may be designing a switch for their own services for now, but give it time, someone will figure out they can be sold too.
I once spent months trying to figure out a network problem only to eventually find that some Cisco routers, even though they negotiated full-duplex connections, were communicating at half-duplex and when transmitting packets they would discard simultaneously incoming packets (with no errors). It did stay up without rebooting though.
IANAL, but I I don't think so, though I wouldn't be surprised if there was an exception for tax evasion - US government treats tax cheating as a more serious crime than murder. About your comment to extent these things to terrorism and whatever other crimes the society deems highest priority, why not introduce this option: police can invoke the terror or child pornography exception, but if the suspect complies and there is no terrorism or child pornography evidence found, any and all evidence provided by the suspect grants the suspect full immunity for any other crimes discovered as part of that information search. So, if they suspect the suspect of terrorism and they unlock a phone for the police, if there is evidence that the suspect cheated on a billion dollars worth of taxes but the suspect if innocent of terrorism, that crime can never be prosecuted. It would give the police the tool they need, but make it impossible to use abuse that tool for non-terrorism and child-pornography cases.
You wouldn't be held in contempt of court if you did, or refused to open the door, or refuse to tell the search party about a hidden hiding place.
... with a premium up-sell to "real alerts only". Wait, I think there will be an app for that.
Ha, I think the moderators think you were kidding. I can totally see it coming soon, the only question is whether FCC gets a cut of the revenue, or do the cell companies get to keep all the ad profits. I also foresee a new "Emergency Alert System fee" coming soon to your cell phone bill, similar to "911 fee".
So, phone goes off, public learns how to shut off the annoyance asap. The first time they may actually read the message in an effort to try to figure out how to make it stop. By the 5th time, muting it or tuning it off will become instinct. Most people will not bother reading a message to find out whether it was a test or not, since every other time it was always a test.
The headline summary conveniently omits "per GB". The source actual article also used the headline "makes money", which implies profit, instead of "charges money" which is simply a price. The actual headline should be: "Canadian Telecoms CHARGE The Most Money PER GB on Data Usage In The World: Tefficient" The more they charge, the less people will use. The source already mentions that Canadians use very little.data, probably due to cost. There is no mention of how much money they actually make (they could charge $1000 per GB, doesn't mean they'd be making more money).
It's literally in the summary.
ban ISPs from violating net neutrality by not counting the content and websites they own against subscribers' data caps
If you read the summary to the very end, you would have seen:
"...while "zero-rating" plans that don't harm consumers are not banned."
which is why I asked the question, who decides which of those are not banned.
One thing about bots is they have infinite patience. After "hanging-up" on a bot 50 times, maybe 500 times, you'd probably get tired and actually hold just so you can stop the darn thing calling you back indefinitely to tell you "it seems we got disconnected last time, please hold for ...".
Zero-rating that doesn't harm consumers is not banned? So as long as it doesn't purposely deliver malware? If consumers are using the site you can assume they are doing it willingly and that they are not willingly harming themselves.
I hate talking to machines, but I would absolutely use it if I could offload talking to machines to a machine. Go to 1-800-GET-HUMAN.com , enter the support hotline number I am trying to reach, it calls it, talks its way through robots and once it hits a real person it tell them "please hold for Mr. X" and calls me back.