You could create and save searches that would then show up as available layers for a map, you could toggle them on or off whenever you felt like it.
The search and add waypoints is a decent substitute, but it's not the same thing (it takes more interaction).
I'm pretty happy with the maps app now, but was just scraping from the top of my head features I noticed missing in my use. The offline maps thing is interesting, I had no idea it snuck back in so quickly.
It was a long time ago, I feel it was when they updated the maps app from the general way it worked in 1.6 (the first one with navigation) to the way it worked in 4.0 (which was a big visual and interface redesign).
It's back, but for a long while they removed the ability to download offline maps.
Another one they still don't have (I think) is search based layers, replaced most closely with the ability to search and add a waypoint to your route (I usually used it to have a gas station layer on long trips).
Offline maps came back after over a year, but I don't believe search based layers ever has.
Unless your whole life was the ship, it doesn't make sense.
Sure, maybe some species has a life span in the thousands of years, and making the journey only costs a relative month back home, but that seems unlikely, as a lifespan that long would make evolution (both genes and memes) very slow, reducing the likely hood of becoming so advanced.
Especially if we consider that only once every few generations (at best) would anything interesting be seen.
Still, the idea of a wandering near lightspeed generation ship with good accomodations doesn't seem impossible, if only because terraforming could be really hard.
If the options are to live in a self contained large structure on a planet that's otherwise inhospitable, or to live in one that wanders and every century or two sees something new, I'm sure there are people that would choose the second.
I'm not sure that barbaric is uninteresting as long as the cost to visit is low (which I doubt is physically possible with speed of light and all, but let's just assume that unlimited contact energy and matter manufacture are possible so that a generation ship is easy with enough tech). We watch animals slaughter each other (that's what nature documentaries were when I grew up).
All that said, it seems unlikely that this is a spaceship to me, for one thing it's very small for a ship that travels all around at sub light speeds.
It's not about price, it's about what's the best use of resources (which I suspect would vary by district).
A 10% budget increase, and longer time spent on the bust could allow universal choice (based on the number of highschools in my district being 3 and current transportation budgets at 4%).
I'm asking how you have meaningful choice when a large segment of the population doesn't have the luxury of transporting their kids to the school of choice.
Where I live rents were pretty stable during the recession (maybe a 10% drop vs houses well over 30%).
In 07 you were better off renting, in fact a lot of multi home landlords were selling off, as they could get 250k for a house that rented 1k/month.
Since then both houses and rents have steadily risen, and it's about a wash now (depends on the neighborhood and condition of the house). I suspect we'll hit the healthy market point where rents are about 20% more than mortgage with 10% down soon (no recent sales on my block, but a 200k (estimate) house rents for 1250-1450/month.
A few years ago there was a lot of fixer uppers on the market too, but they seem to have been purchased and converted to rentals primarily.
Didn't one exchange have a flash crash down to $200 and keep up?
All of the money on the exchanges came from other people, they take 0.02% on a transaction, over time they accumulate a lot of Bitcoin (maybe selling some to find themselves).
An honestly run exchange should be fine with a crash, since as people make a run, the $ value of Bitcoin drops, reducing their cash liability.
Their real risk is if everybody wants to pull their bitcoins out, but that is limited by blockchains ability to process transactions, so it shouldn't be a problem either.
I've definitely changed the date on an RX once, and a few times I've ordered using random eye doctors as mine but not providing an RX (they're allowed to ship if there's no response).
The way I see it, this move by amazon means 1 of 2 things: 1) they're both gonna stop acting like babies and we both can use our chosen service with our chosen device or 2) Amazon and Google cut a deal where Amazon sells google stuff and google makes youtube for Fire again, but the other video services are still device exclusive.
I'm really hoping it's the first one, if it's not, I'm probably cancelling prime (for other reasons too, they cancelled the grocery delivery in my area, and I haven't been needing random shipments as often since I haven't moved for a while).
Channels a la carte and multicast are somewhat mutually exclusive (or there's a big base and then a per channel fee).
The benefit of multicast is that the marginal cost of a person approaches 0. So it makes sense to bundle a bunch of live offerings together and give them to everybody.
Providing us each 5 different channels costs very little extra (infrastructure wise) than providing us both all 10. Similarly, providing us both 20 adds very little. The idea of bundling a core group of channels that offers a couple for each type of person allows a service to appeal to a family household, and only require a slight subsidy from people that may only want 5 of the channels.
Bundling can be too far (as often is the case beyond extended basic cable), but having a core bundle makes sense (as many of the live streaming services seem to be doing).
As for the ability of IPTV to do this, I assume that is part of why TMobile is buying L3 rather than starting from scratch (like Sony did for example).
TMO is buying the expertise and experience doing IPTV efficiently, they will marry it with their Network expertise and hopefully (for them) it will mean the ability to efficiently do IPTV without needing to run wires (L3s biggest struggle I'd bet).
It may be a big failure, but I see why it made sense to them. They could buy a relatively small company (2 city cable provider), that gives them the potential to add $30+/month to each of their customer's bills. For them that's growth that may cost less than expanding the network to get a new $80/month customer. L3s tech is basically about scaling IPTV, this is why L3 has value beyond in house development (also, content contracts probably save some time).
Lastly, even without broadcast style tech, an LTE tower often has more capacity than the back haul, 20TB of cached data at a tower can exploit this (all live TV on a 2 second delay and 1000 hours of the most recently streamed on demand).
Doing a tower to cellphone stream, rather than internet to cellphone, is extremely cheaper in the sense of bandwidth, even if no type of multicasting is involved.
I can't find any stats on what percentage of streaming is the most popular 1000 hours, but it has to be a lot of it, and approaching 100% during the heaviest usage times (think game of thrones finally, or even a popular show dropping a season on Netflix). 1000 hours gives you the top 100 movies and the top 60 seasons of TV). If TMobile is the content provider, they can basically take advantage of surplus tower (radio surplus vs the back haul) surplus for free. The fact that back haul to towers is the limiting factor in LTE capacity may be why they decided to do this, they can now use the excess bandwidth without hitting the back haul.
Part of their original justification for stop selling the Chromecast was that "it was confusing, because it doesn't work with our service" which was of course a purely their decision.
I find it really annoying to whole tab/phone cast to watch Amazon.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd argue that it was both.
Sending junk commands isn't exactly something I'd think the kernel should do.
You could create and save searches that would then show up as available layers for a map, you could toggle them on or off whenever you felt like it.
The search and add waypoints is a decent substitute, but it's not the same thing (it takes more interaction).
I'm pretty happy with the maps app now, but was just scraping from the top of my head features I noticed missing in my use. The offline maps thing is interesting, I had no idea it snuck back in so quickly.
It was a long time ago, I feel it was when they updated the maps app from the general way it worked in 1.6 (the first one with navigation) to the way it worked in 4.0 (which was a big visual and interface redesign).
It really was a nice feature.
It's back, but for a long while they removed the ability to download offline maps.
Another one they still don't have (I think) is search based layers, replaced most closely with the ability to search and add a waypoint to your route (I usually used it to have a gas station layer on long trips).
Offline maps came back after over a year, but I don't believe search based layers ever has.
Except then you never get to come home.
Unless your whole life was the ship, it doesn't make sense.
Sure, maybe some species has a life span in the thousands of years, and making the journey only costs a relative month back home, but that seems unlikely, as a lifespan that long would make evolution (both genes and memes) very slow, reducing the likely hood of becoming so advanced.
Especially if we consider that only once every few generations (at best) would anything interesting be seen.
Still, the idea of a wandering near lightspeed generation ship with good accomodations doesn't seem impossible, if only because terraforming could be really hard.
If the options are to live in a self contained large structure on a planet that's otherwise inhospitable, or to live in one that wanders and every century or two sees something new, I'm sure there are people that would choose the second.
I'm not sure that barbaric is uninteresting as long as the cost to visit is low (which I doubt is physically possible with speed of light and all, but let's just assume that unlimited contact energy and matter manufacture are possible so that a generation ship is easy with enough tech). We watch animals slaughter each other (that's what nature documentaries were when I grew up).
All that said, it seems unlikely that this is a spaceship to me, for one thing it's very small for a ship that travels all around at sub light speeds.
Sorry, not available in my country (the US)
You could also reduce student teach ratios by three students (10%), or provide a healthy breakfast, or any number of other things.
It's not about price, it's about what's the best use of resources (which I suspect would vary by district).
A 10% budget increase, and longer time spent on the bust could allow universal choice (based on the number of highschools in my district being 3 and current transportation budgets at 4%).
So, to allow choice, every school needs to have bus routes expanded to cover much more area?
That doesn't seem particularly inexpensive to me.
I'm asking how you have meaningful choice when a large segment of the population doesn't have the luxury of transporting their kids to the school of choice.
Does every school run busses everywhere, or does choice only apply to people that can afford to drive their children and afford before and after care?
Where I live rents were pretty stable during the recession (maybe a 10% drop vs houses well over 30%).
In 07 you were better off renting, in fact a lot of multi home landlords were selling off, as they could get 250k for a house that rented 1k/month.
Since then both houses and rents have steadily risen, and it's about a wash now (depends on the neighborhood and condition of the house). I suspect we'll hit the healthy market point where rents are about 20% more than mortgage with 10% down soon (no recent sales on my block, but a 200k (estimate) house rents for 1250-1450/month.
A few years ago there was a lot of fixer uppers on the market too, but they seem to have been purchased and converted to rentals primarily.
I doubt they'd go down permanently.
Didn't one exchange have a flash crash down to $200 and keep up?
All of the money on the exchanges came from other people, they take 0.02% on a transaction, over time they accumulate a lot of Bitcoin (maybe selling some to find themselves).
An honestly run exchange should be fine with a crash, since as people make a run, the $ value of Bitcoin drops, reducing their cash liability.
Their real risk is if everybody wants to pull their bitcoins out, but that is limited by blockchains ability to process transactions, so it shouldn't be a problem either.
That fee is $30 now though right?
So it should get picked up.
Are you saying 80% of the net is using browsers over two years old?
It doesn't need to be remembered in a week to have a lasting effect.
Switching browsers has a cost for the end user, it's an annoyance.
If Mozilla looses 5% of it's userbase from this one action, it will take a long time to recover that.
It will cost them 5% of their revenue for the foreseeable future.
I'd think archival paper and ink
You could buy 9 million dollars, that's pretty valuable.
Don't all online contact places do this?
I've definitely changed the date on an RX once, and a few times I've ordered using random eye doctors as mine but not providing an RX (they're allowed to ship if there's no response).
I have about a 3/4 success rate.
Well, YouTube was there until recently, right?
The way I see it, this move by amazon means 1 of 2 things:
1) they're both gonna stop acting like babies and we both can use our chosen service with our chosen device
or
2) Amazon and Google cut a deal where Amazon sells google stuff and google makes youtube for Fire again, but the other video services are still device exclusive.
I'm really hoping it's the first one, if it's not, I'm probably cancelling prime (for other reasons too, they cancelled the grocery delivery in my area, and I haven't been needing random shipments as often since I haven't moved for a while).
Channels a la carte and multicast are somewhat mutually exclusive (or there's a big base and then a per channel fee).
The benefit of multicast is that the marginal cost of a person approaches 0. So it makes sense to bundle a bunch of live offerings together and give them to everybody.
Providing us each 5 different channels costs very little extra (infrastructure wise) than providing us both all 10. Similarly, providing us both 20 adds very little. The idea of bundling a core group of channels that offers a couple for each type of person allows a service to appeal to a family household, and only require a slight subsidy from people that may only want 5 of the channels.
Bundling can be too far (as often is the case beyond extended basic cable), but having a core bundle makes sense (as many of the live streaming services seem to be doing).
As for the ability of IPTV to do this, I assume that is part of why TMobile is buying L3 rather than starting from scratch (like Sony did for example).
TMO is buying the expertise and experience doing IPTV efficiently, they will marry it with their Network expertise and hopefully (for them) it will mean the ability to efficiently do IPTV without needing to run wires (L3s biggest struggle I'd bet).
It may be a big failure, but I see why it made sense to them. They could buy a relatively small company (2 city cable provider), that gives them the potential to add $30+/month to each of their customer's bills. For them that's growth that may cost less than expanding the network to get a new $80/month customer. L3s tech is basically about scaling IPTV, this is why L3 has value beyond in house development (also, content contracts probably save some time).
Lastly, even without broadcast style tech, an LTE tower often has more capacity than the back haul, 20TB of cached data at a tower can exploit this (all live TV on a 2 second delay and 1000 hours of the most recently streamed on demand).
Doing a tower to cellphone stream, rather than internet to cellphone, is extremely cheaper in the sense of bandwidth, even if no type of multicasting is involved.
I can't find any stats on what percentage of streaming is the most popular 1000 hours, but it has to be a lot of it, and approaching 100% during the heaviest usage times (think game of thrones finally, or even a popular show dropping a season on Netflix). 1000 hours gives you the top 100 movies and the top 60 seasons of TV). If TMobile is the content provider, they can basically take advantage of surplus tower (radio surplus vs the back haul) surplus for free. The fact that back haul to towers is the limiting factor in LTE capacity may be why they decided to do this, they can now use the excess bandwidth without hitting the back haul.
This means Prime Video is coming to Chromecast.
Part of their original justification for stop selling the Chromecast was that "it was confusing, because it doesn't work with our service" which was of course a purely their decision.
I find it really annoying to whole tab/phone cast to watch Amazon.
Clearly missing the / 24 part.