Itâ(TM)s possibly a legal workaround to Pai preventing states countering his actions. Here Montana isnâ(TM)t really countering his actions, instead it is just a requirement for government contracts, which just happen to have and intended side effect
there where several notebooks thinner than a MacBook Air long before it came out. Sony Vaio had a few in 2004
There probably were, but I don't see them on the market anymore. Sony Vaio become history in 2014. The MacBook Air still fills a certain niche, though the specs could do with a little tweaking.
When I say *laptop* I use it for email, presentations, business operations and demonstrations. I don't use it for software development or any kind of network or processor intensive tasks.
It's thin, light, rugged with a good screen. Works well with projectors with 6+ hours of battery life (after four years). Microsoft Office's operation is fair (but I think that's more of Microsoft's issue than Apple's OS X).
I'm not an Apple guy (although I am a vehement Win 10 hater), just that this laptop has done what I've needed of it for years for my business, in a variety of different locations (and countries) without a glitch or problem of any kind.
There are plenty of people who do use the MacBook Air for development and it does well. Maybe this is more amongst web developers?
Back in 2014 I bought my MacBook Air because I needed to replace my ageing MacBook Pro that had suffered a coffee spill and I was on a tight budget, but still wanted to stay with an Apple branded computer. We are now in 2018 and it is still doing a good enough job. Certainly if graphics processing matters then it isn't a great choice, but otherwise it is a good general use computer. I am a developer and I use mine mainly for NodeJS and Java development.
Well looks like Paiâ(TM)s actions resulted in potentially making things worse for big ISPs. We can thank him for being an arsehole, for inadvertently galvanising a movement.
As part of this wave should be an attempt to open up the field to new competitors, whether that is by state network infrastructure that is leased out to new players (akin to the highway infrastructure) or some other approach.
While it is worrying there are these security issues, I am not sure how worried we should be? We didnâ(TM)t have these security features in the past and this shouldnâ(TM)t be the only line of defense. It is good to have these security elements in place, but I wonder if too much focus is being put on a single security point?
Part of the repeal, was that they forbade states from making their own rules.
But are they really legally allowed to do that? This wording sounds like only congress could put into law. Just on this wording alone I can see states suing the FCC.
The copyright claims are valid if his video copied the white noise audio track from other videos, which can easily be determined by comparing the wave forms.
That is probably fair, but if he generated the white noise and this white noise isa far longer, non repeating sequence, then surely the others are "infringing"?
A quick look shows anyone can generate their own sequence of white noise, in less than 10 lines of code:
It means the cheap Indian/Chinese workers don't have the cultural bias towards creativity that 'western' workers do; and are less likely to find and report unexpected behavior because they don't want to make their superiors look bad.
I worked for a month for an India based software co, and the bosses *deleted unfixed bugs from the database* in order to appear better. I got away from that company ASAP.
The other possibility is that they are equally creative, but don't have the confidence to raise the flag, since they don't have the protection of being a white American citizen? Or that "this may be the work of the CIA", so lets pretend we don't know about this?
Who pays corporate taxes? Answer: the corporations. And who owns the corporations? Answer: the shareholders.
Why don't we just tax the shareholders and skip the corporate tax?
Because for the most part shareholders aren’t making money until they sell their shares. Take a company like Apple which makes billions. There is no way on earth that you can tax the shareholders to get a proportional percentage of the profit. What would happen is nobody would dare invest or that shareholders would demand dividends inline with the corporate profits to offset the tax
A better position would be to tax the company, but work out some other incentive to make the shareholders less greedy. One solution may be the B-Corp, but that can only be done if you make it part of the company early on.
Google spends money on AI research, robotics, parallel computing, and information access.
The government spends money on wars, prisons, corporate welfare, and subsidies for a bloated and wasteful healthcare system.
I prefer that Google keeps as much money as they can.
The government also invest a lot on research, whether directly through government agencies or grants provided to research institutions, such as universities. As for the a wasteful healthcare system, a certain amount can actually be attributed to corporate greed and the unwillingness of the government to regulate these industries to keep prices in check. Both corporations and governments have their good sides, just as they have their bad sides.
But should a company have free reign to sell knock offs, using the same brand name, especially when not sanctioned by original company. As a customer I get deceived about product and quality and as the original company there is trademark infringement.
The challenge is blocking off accounts, without appearing to censor speech. Maybe they could create a behaviour flag and then let people decide if they want to ignore accounts with certain personality or behaviour types? They may have looked at this already, but then again I don't really know how much they care?
This government dislikes regulation. There are probably a number of reasons why, but they were put in place to prevent corporations screwing over the little guy.
We are back to allowing the super rich to profit even more and not supporting our fellow man. IMHO you shouldnâ(TM)t run a country as a corporation, but as a family. A profitable government is not one acting in the best interests of it people.
Then again donâ(TM)t they depend on Australia and ZaÃre for their uranium?
Even if they shifted to Thorium they wound still be dependent on foreign nations. India apparently being an important source.
At this point there is probably more value in creating reactors that can use the waste from other reactors, if they want to reduce foreign dependencies?
Then again a lot of innovation has happened in just the last 10 years when it comes to alternative energy sources and source material for plastics. Hopefully this will help drive companies to look further into how to develop products that day by depend on oil.
The first countries that develop oil free technologies may actually have the competitive edge in the coming years. On the other hand countries trying to support ailing energy types, such as coal, may be playing catch up.
I am many things, but certainly not a Trump voter, but I am starting to feel some tit-for-tat is necessary. If the Chinese block access to foreign firms or increase levies, while their companies get free reign both at home and internationally, then something is wrong.
A policy should be instated indicating that if a foreign nation provides unfair access, then the same should be coming. At the same time if we already do create unfair barriers, then we should accept that is fair game another country will to do so for the same products.
If you want access to an open market, then you need to be playing by the same rules or risk getting penalised in the same way.
If China is planning to increase duty on foreign branded phones, surely the US should be doing the same for Chinese branded phones and for the same percentages? I don't believe in unfair market protections, so if the another country is applying duties, surely the same tariffs should be applied in the other direction?
Either the internal heat will kill components prematurely or the thing will make even more jet noise than an old PowerPC G4 tower.
I'm glad you could clear that up for us without ever having seen the product.
Well I do hope they get it right. I had a 27" iMac (the last gen with the DVD) that died because of heat. It was always extremely hot at the vents and then the graphics card failed. Apple wanted 700 CAD to fix it (apparently it required a mother board replacement), out of warranty. One place told me that a reflow could help and it did, but that only bought me two months, since it failed in the same way again.
If I was putting money down, I would be asking how hot it got and what sort of warranty there was.
In the meantime there is barely a blip on news networks. Between the news networks being owned by the 'big boys' and possibly a lack of effort of trying to connect with the non-IT crowd, there is a risk the message is just going to be lost in the noise of everything else trying to grab headlines. I don't want to be negative, but I really feel the money won and the people lost, and the FCC failed to uphold what it was meant to stand for.
There was all this hand waving about the Chinese and Russians having backdoors to stuff sold in the US. How will the US having backdoors be any better, to any other government?
If it is a question of backdoors, then you might as well have low grade encryption, since it is probably not much better than the master key getting leaked?
Slashdot Mirror
Itâ(TM)s possibly a legal workaround to Pai preventing states countering his actions. Here Montana isnâ(TM)t really countering his actions, instead it is just a requirement for government contracts, which just happen to have and intended side effect
there where several notebooks thinner than a MacBook Air long before it came out. Sony Vaio had a few in 2004
There probably were, but I don't see them on the market anymore. Sony Vaio become history in 2014. The MacBook Air still fills a certain niche, though the specs could do with a little tweaking.
When I say *laptop* I use it for email, presentations, business operations and demonstrations. I don't use it for software development or any kind of network or processor intensive tasks.
It's thin, light, rugged with a good screen. Works well with projectors with 6+ hours of battery life (after four years). Microsoft Office's operation is fair (but I think that's more of Microsoft's issue than Apple's OS X).
I'm not an Apple guy (although I am a vehement Win 10 hater), just that this laptop has done what I've needed of it for years for my business, in a variety of different locations (and countries) without a glitch or problem of any kind.
There are plenty of people who do use the MacBook Air for development and it does well. Maybe this is more amongst web developers?
Back in 2014 I bought my MacBook Air because I needed to replace my ageing MacBook Pro that had suffered a coffee spill and I was on a tight budget, but still wanted to stay with an Apple branded computer. We are now in 2018 and it is still doing a good enough job. Certainly if graphics processing matters then it isn't a great choice, but otherwise it is a good general use computer. I am a developer and I use mine mainly for NodeJS and Java development.
Well looks like Paiâ(TM)s actions resulted in potentially making things worse for big ISPs. We can thank him for being an arsehole, for inadvertently galvanising a movement.
As part of this wave should be an attempt to open up the field to new competitors, whether that is by state network infrastructure that is leased out to new players (akin to the highway infrastructure) or some other approach.
While it is worrying there are these security issues, I am not sure how worried we should be? We didnâ(TM)t have these security features in the past and this shouldnâ(TM)t be the only line of defense. It is good to have these security elements in place, but I wonder if too much focus is being put on a single security point?
I am american and %100 opposed to job killing net neutrality. Anything that allows for job killing net neutrality to exist is bad for country.
I'll bite: how does it kill jobs?
Part of the repeal, was that they forbade states from making their own rules.
But are they really legally allowed to do that? This wording sounds like only congress could put into law. Just on this wording alone I can see states suing the FCC.
The copyright claims are valid if his video copied the white noise audio track from other videos, which can easily be determined by comparing the wave forms.
That is probably fair, but if he generated the white noise and this white noise isa far longer, non repeating sequence, then surely the others are "infringing"?
A quick look shows anyone can generate their own sequence of white noise, in less than 10 lines of code:
https://noisehack.com/generate...
It means the cheap Indian/Chinese workers don't have the cultural bias towards creativity that 'western' workers do; and are less likely to find and report unexpected behavior because they don't want to make their superiors look bad.
I worked for a month for an India based software co, and the bosses *deleted unfixed bugs from the database* in order to appear better. I got away from that company ASAP.
The other possibility is that they are equally creative, but don't have the confidence to raise the flag, since they don't have the protection of being a white American citizen? Or that "this may be the work of the CIA", so lets pretend we don't know about this?
Who pays corporate taxes? Answer: the corporations. And who owns the corporations? Answer: the shareholders.
Why don't we just tax the shareholders and skip the corporate tax?
Because for the most part shareholders aren’t making money until they sell their shares. Take a company like Apple which makes billions. There is no way on earth that you can tax the shareholders to get a proportional percentage of the profit. What would happen is nobody would dare invest or that shareholders would demand dividends inline with the corporate profits to offset the tax
A better position would be to tax the company, but work out some other incentive to make the shareholders less greedy. One solution may be the B-Corp, but that can only be done if you make it part of the company early on.
Google spends money on AI research, robotics, parallel computing, and information access.
The government spends money on wars, prisons, corporate welfare, and subsidies for a bloated and wasteful healthcare system.
I prefer that Google keeps as much money as they can.
The government also invest a lot on research, whether directly through government agencies or grants provided to research institutions, such as universities. As for the a wasteful healthcare system, a certain amount can actually be attributed to corporate greed and the unwillingness of the government to regulate these industries to keep prices in check. Both corporations and governments have their good sides, just as they have their bad sides.
Instead of Don't be Evil it's Don't Pay Taxes.
Nah, it really comes down to "what do you really mean by evil and in what jurisdiction?"
But should a company have free reign to sell knock offs, using the same brand name, especially when not sanctioned by original company. As a customer I get deceived about product and quality and as the original company there is trademark infringement.
Or the those people in the legal team.
Maybe they could employ the bot themselves?
The challenge is blocking off accounts, without appearing to censor speech. Maybe they could create a behaviour flag and then let people decide if they want to ignore accounts with certain personality or behaviour types? They may have looked at this already, but then again I don't really know how much they care?
We should all follow the god of Islam and start covering our women and throwing gays from building then right?
So Progressive!
So, just like the far right Christians? Different identities, same attitudes.
BTW moderates of any creed tend to be okay, but not universally so
This government dislikes regulation. There are probably a number of reasons why, but they were put in place to prevent corporations screwing over the little guy.
We are back to allowing the super rich to profit even more and not supporting our fellow man. IMHO you shouldnâ(TM)t run a country as a corporation, but as a family. A profitable government is not one acting in the best interests of it people.
Then again donâ(TM)t they depend on Australia and ZaÃre for their uranium?
Even if they shifted to Thorium they wound still be dependent on foreign nations. India apparently being an important source.
At this point there is probably more value in creating reactors that can use the waste from other reactors, if they want to reduce foreign dependencies?
Then again a lot of innovation has happened in just the last 10 years when it comes to alternative energy sources and source material for plastics. Hopefully this will help drive companies to look further into how to develop products that day by depend on oil.
The first countries that develop oil free technologies may actually have the competitive edge in the coming years. On the other hand countries trying to support ailing energy types, such as coal, may be playing catch up.
I am many things, but certainly not a Trump voter, but I am starting to feel some tit-for-tat is necessary. If the Chinese block access to foreign firms or increase levies, while their companies get free reign both at home and internationally, then something is wrong.
A policy should be instated indicating that if a foreign nation provides unfair access, then the same should be coming. At the same time if we already do create unfair barriers, then we should accept that is fair game another country will to do so for the same products.
If you want access to an open market, then you need to be playing by the same rules or risk getting penalised in the same way.
If China is planning to increase duty on foreign branded phones, surely the US should be doing the same for Chinese branded phones and for the same percentages? I don't believe in unfair market protections, so if the another country is applying duties, surely the same tariffs should be applied in the other direction?
ok bud. i have never used it as a handheld and don't plan to. serious players use it as a console.
How do you defined a serious gamer? A PC gamer? In the end does it really matter?
Either the internal heat will kill components prematurely or the thing will make even more jet noise than an old PowerPC G4 tower.
I'm glad you could clear that up for us without ever having seen the product.
Well I do hope they get it right. I had a 27" iMac (the last gen with the DVD) that died because of heat. It was always extremely hot at the vents and then the graphics card failed. Apple wanted 700 CAD to fix it (apparently it required a mother board replacement), out of warranty. One place told me that a reflow could help and it did, but that only bought me two months, since it failed in the same way again.
If I was putting money down, I would be asking how hot it got and what sort of warranty there was.
In the meantime there is barely a blip on news networks. Between the news networks being owned by the 'big boys' and possibly a lack of effort of trying to connect with the non-IT crowd, there is a risk the message is just going to be lost in the noise of everything else trying to grab headlines. I don't want to be negative, but I really feel the money won and the people lost, and the FCC failed to uphold what it was meant to stand for.
There was all this hand waving about the Chinese and Russians having backdoors to stuff sold in the US. How will the US having backdoors be any better, to any other government?
If it is a question of backdoors, then you might as well have low grade encryption, since it is probably not much better than the master key getting leaked?