The only LED bulbs I've ever had burn out were the cheap ones bought at the dollar store.
Then you haven't bought as many as I have. I've had a fair number go bad including some expensive ones. Don't get me wrong, most last a really long time and work great but I've had some pretty pricey ones fail for various reasons. Still better than incandescent bulbs by a country mile but not failure proof. Brand does seem to matter somewhat in my experience but it's not the only factor. You need a fixture designed so the heat they do produce won't fry the electronics. I've lost a few to that problem before changing the fixtures. They also seem to fail fairly early in their life if they are going to fail in most cases. And some percent seem to fail for unknown reasons regardless of make or model.
Also, there's no mercury in LED bulbs, unlike fluorescent bulbs.
That's true and good but LED bulbs aren't exactly devoid of toxic materials. They often contain lead, arsenic, and other materials that need to be properly handled when disposing of them. Safer than CFLs in most cases but not anything you want to go around licking if you get my point.
Right.... and I've got some bridges I'd like to sell. Once someone is proven to be untrustworthy it's unlikely they ever change. Yes it happens but it's terribly rare and almost unheard of in companies unless their incentives change to align with honesty. Facebook made their fortune in large part through dishonesty and the people who permitted that are still in charge. There is zero evidence to suggest the company has changed in any meaningful way. Their incentives are more or less the same, there is basically no regulation of them, and the same people are in charge. Why should they ever change?
While I agree that copyrights should not be eternal, your justification for why it's wrong is flawed and a slippery slope unless you think we should get rid of inheritances all together.
I see no reason that copyright should be an inheritable asset. The purpose of copyright is to allow THE CREATOR to benefit from their work. Not their heirs. It should extend some fixed amount of time after creation (less than currently IMO) and if the individual or corporation which holds the copyright ceases to live/exist then it should immediately enter the public domain. I really see no value to society in copyrights extending decades after the death of the author.
Also, if the person who made it is alive, are you saying that it should not be allowed to enter the public domain?
I said nothing of the sort. I'm perfectly fine with copyrights entering the public domain while the creator is still alive. I have yet to see a credible argument that copyright should extend longer than patents do. But even if they are longer they still should have a time limit that is shorter than a typical lifespan.
How do you define who made something, when talking about products made under funding of a corporation?
Doesn't (or shouldn't) matter whether it was funded by a corporation or an individual. Rules should be the same for either. I see no public interest in copyright being as long as it currently is and I really see no public interest in copyright being an asset that can be part of an estate passed on to children who had nothing to do with creating the work.
Disney characters are under trademark so others can't use those characters to create new original works.
Not true at all. Trademarks do complicate some types of works but they certainly do not prohibit people completely from using Disney created works once they've entered the public domain.
Trademarks last for as long as they are defended.
That's true but all trademarks do is identify the creator of the work. As long as the work you create doesn't create confusion about who created it (don't copy their trademark) then the trademark has no relevance. You cannot trademark a work of art and all conceivable permutations of it forever. That's not how trademarks work. I can make a can of cola that I sell in a red can without violating coca-cola's trademark. Similarly I can make a derivative work based on Steamboat Willie that (once the copyright expires) does not infringe on Disney's trademarks.
Copyright applies to a particular work of art. So you can't make a new work of art using Mickey Mouse
I think you are confused about what copyright protects. You absolutely CAN make a new work of art based on a work of art that has entered the public domain.
I have no problem with Disney's most popular characters NOT going into public domain.
Really? You should. Copyright should not be some eternal thing. They should have to keep inventing new works instead of milking work done by people who have been dead and buried for decades.
Disney actively exploits its brand.
So what? Disney has made a killing off of taking public domain works and making proprietary versions of them. Should work the other way around too. They've had 90 years to do something interesting/useful/valuable with it. Time to let others work on it.
How does the world benefit from Mickey Mouse going into public domain? In no way.
Completely wrong. Disney itself is a perfect example of what could happen. They take public domain works (pretty much 90% of their classic animated movies) and do interesting renditions of them that have huge economic and cultural value. Lots of creative works that you cannot even envision could be brought to life that cannot now. Disney's had a good run but if someone has an interesting take on their oldest work then they should be able to make a go of it. Disney shouldn't enjoy some special status not available to anyone else and the ENTIRE point of copyright and patents is that they provide TEMPORARY protection.
I think the congress has bigger fish to fry then copyright expansion.
While certainly true I'm not convinced that will have any relevance to what they actually do. Congress is great about doing nothing about the big stuff (cutting the deficit, getting health care for everyone, overspending on the military, etc) but always seem to have time for pandering to narrow constituencies.
1) Paved streets. Asphalt. Street lights, painted lines. Nope.
Look a little closer. The chemistry of the pavement has improved. The street lights use LEDs. The paint has improved chemistry too and sometimes isn't paint at all.
You seriously think there hasn't been any improvement in building materials or technology?
3) Cars. Rubber wheels, chemical fuels, pistons. Some electric cars. They had those in 1925. Nope.
Umm, yeah, the state of the art in cars clearly hasn't advanced at all since the Model T. [/sarcasm]
4) People. They wear shoes. Clothes. Nope.
What are those clothes and shoes made of? How are they made? Do they look the same? Do they cost the same? Were you buried under a rock somewhere?
5) Airplanes in the sky. They had those in 1975. They even had supersonic passenger jets in 1975. Not anymore... Oops.
I think it's pretty clear by now you are an idiot if you think that aviation hasn't seen any technology improvements in the last 45 years. We stopped using supersonic passenger jets because they weren't economical to operate, not because we can't make a better one today.
6) Grocery stores contain food. Nope.
They contain more food, of generally better quality, for less money (inflation adjusted), and far greater variety. About half the fruit and veggies on the shelves in my tiny town literally could not be purchased for any amount of money in the 1970s and much of what could be bought was only available seasonaly.
Let me know when that changes anything to 1-6.
Ok, literally everything in 1-6 has changed in the last 30 years. Got any other clueless snark to add to the conversation?
You do realize that Solar City/Tesla/Boring Company/SpaceX is all the same thing, right? It is just a shell game and the different companies just shuffle money from one account to another.
I'm sure you want to believe that but it's quite simply not true and demonstrably so. Solar City and Tesla are one organization under the Tesla aegis. Boring Company and SpaceX are independent. They share Elon Musk with Tesla and that's close to all they share. The finances of SpaceX have no meaningful relationship to Tesla and vice-versa. If you have evidence to the contrary please provide it.
Heck, back in 1977 when I saw Star Wars (no "A New Hope" cr*p!) the special effects were relatively laughable.
Your opinion was not shared at the time. I saw the movie in theaters in 1977 too and the special effects were excellent for the day. I'm not sure what you think was substantially better among late 1970s movies. The special effects were considered state of the art in 1977. Hell it's what made Industrial Light and Magic what it is today. It won 6 academy awards including Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing, Best Original Score, Best Sound and of course Best Visual Effects. Say what you want about the movie overall but you cannot say it's special effects weren't state of the art at the time of its release. My point is that the state of the art has advanced considerably in the last 40 years and it shows.
Honestly? Jar Jar. The character was an abomination in a variety of ways but from a pure FX standpoint Jar Jar looked WAY more believable than a bunch of awkwardly moving midgets wearing teddy bear suits. At no point was I ever able to suspend disbelief that the ewoks were anything other than small humans in suits because they moved EXACTLY like a little person wearing a costume.
This must be the tolerance that I keep hearing the left pushing for.
Cute. So only the right is allowed to act like assholes to people they disagree with? Got it. Certainly explains Trump...
Tolerance of people with different ideas in an honest philosophical disagreement is one thing. Tolerance of people actively working to harm you is something quite different (and foolish). If you want to have an opinion that I don't agree with that's probably ok. If your opinion is that other people should be allowed to try to rob, demean, or harass others then I'm not going to tolerate that. Tolerance does not mean meekly accepting any behavior or idea you disagree with. I do think Trump and a lot of the people (not all mind you) who voted for him are assholes. I also accept (tolerate) that they have the right to do that. Toleration does not equal condoning or being nice about something you have a problem with.
According to the yearly report published by Stockholm-based phone number-identification service Truecaller, spam calls grew by 300 percent year-over-year in 2018.
I think it was a LOT more than 300%. I didn't used to get any. Now I get them almost daily. I have taken measures to block as many as I can but really the problem won't be solved unless there is legislation forcing the phone companies to take active measures. I almost never answer any call that isn't from someone in my address book anymore and then they have to go through a voicemail and spam filtering service.
I actually get most of my Amazon packages delivered to me at work. They get received by people I trust in a warm warehouse and delivered to my desk. I don't have to worry about them being left out in the weather or stolen by neighbors, etc. Plus I have a driveway that the UPS drivers really don't want to bother with in the winter so it's a win for them too. Plus since the driver is already coming to our plant daily it saves a tiny bit of fuel too.
"We have a huge technology leadership in database over Amazon," Ellison said on a conference call following the release of Oracle's second quarter financial results. "In terms of technology, there is no way that... any normal person would move from an Oracle database to an Amazon database."
I'm not qualified to evaluate the relative technical merits of the products but I can say without reservation that a HUGE win of going with Amazon is not having to deal with Oracle as a business. I've had that experience and Oracle can suck it as far as I'm concerned.
I still think the old Star Wars special effects are a TON better than the new ones.
Evidently you haven't seen A New Hope recently because the effects have not aged well and I'm being generous when I say that. You might appreciate them more for what they are and what went into making them but they look quite clumsy compared to the current state of the art. Some of the effects in the original trilogy have held up pretty well - particularly in Empire and RotJ but others definitely have not. The ewoks were a fail both from a story telling standpoint and from an effects standpoint. They just look absurd - it's like watching Sesame Street as an adult.
App support will continue for "at least two years, if not longer," Berberian says.
My first question would be what do they mean by "support"? I'd be shocked if they were providing any meaningful support as I use the term now. Not like they are going to get ongoing revenue from the apps unless they are some sort of game with in-game purchases. Given that they are selling these ultimately to children who generally don't control the credit card I can't imagine them bothering with any meaningful support.
These toys sold well when released with a movie, but interest waned over time as the movie became more distant, he says.
Were they expecting something different? That's how licensed content works as a general proposition.
company data shows that the toys weren't used much after initial play time and eventually sat on shelves.
In other news water is wet. Have these people ever actually watched children? This happens to approximately all toys. Children get them, play with them, get bored with them and move on to some other toy.
Ah yes, the Internet. Where all you have to do is type "It was a joke" to remove any culpability for a lack of clear writing or to even reverse the point of a comment.
Ahh the internet where people will continue to get their underwear in a bunch about a joke they didn't get even after it is pointed out to them that they didn't get it.
If you don't have something better to do than argue about this then you need to get yourself a hobby or better yet a date.
Dallas, Austin, San Antonio....? Hello, low tax Texas?
I have even less interest in living in Dallas than I do in NYC and I have little interest in living in NYC to begin with. I certainly don't move to a place because of the taxes or lack thereof. It might sway me all other things being equal but comparing Dallas to NYC is to compare two cities that could not be more different. Taxes are WAY down the list of concerns if I've considering one or the other. Anyone who wants to live in NYC (or SF) obviously isn't overly concerned about taxes to begin with so I'm not sure why you think that would be a big draw. Maybe it's something you obsess over but most of us are worried about other things.
Somebody at Google has a hard-on for paying through the nose.
Google is going where the people they want to hire are interested in being. Evidently that happens to be NYC among other places. Simple fact is that they aren't going to get a lot of people wanting to move to Toledo, Ohio no matter how cheap it is to live there. No NYC or SF aren't for everyone and that's ok. You don't have to work for Google. You be you and let them be them.
"Borders"? No it IS objectively ridiculous. You don't need the qualifier. There is no utility in most of it at all. It's just following whatever irrational thing their cult leader told them to do.
I can see how an ancient religion founded in ignorance could conclude that a specific food was risky and set up the rules regarding what to avoid, but to pass this latest development through a screen of modern day magic believers is silly.
Of course it is silly. Most things about religions are objectively ridiculous to anyone outside their cult. But that doesn't seem to stop them from doing all sorts of idiotic things for their invisible friend in the sky because their cult leader told them to do it.
As a former vegan/vegetarian, I'm happy to see alternatives to factory farming of sentient animals for food.
Former huh? Personally I'm comfortable with the fact that animals (including humans) eating animals is absolutely normal and appropriate. We are omnivores and I think it's absurd to deny that fact. Industrial scale farming does have some bad practices that need to be addressed but I don't have an issue with farming at scale in principle as long as reasonable practices of hygiene and ethical treatment of the animals are followed.
I think there is practical utility in eating mostly vegetables. Good health benefits, environmental benefits, economic benefits, and yes ethical benefits. But I don't really have a problem with the fact that we are animals that eat other animals sometimes too. I think vegan's tend to be people who take a good idea too far. I don't see any ethical problems with eating eggs or drinking milk or using some sorts of animal products, provided they were sourced humanely even if you'd prefer to avoid eating the animal itself. The problem is that people start becoming de-facto carnivores which isn't really a good thing for them or for society in general.
The fact that any religion is even debating it is a good indicator of how useless they are in modern times. Humanity needs to grow up.
Lab-grown meat is becoming closer to a reality. But this new technology poses new questions for people who typically avoid meat for religious or ethical reasons.
No it doesn't because you cannot actually buy it. It doesn't present any questions until people can obtain it for consumption and actually are considering doing so. Honestly I doubt it's going to become a real issue because if the "ick" factor and FUD that will surround it unless it is just astonishingly delicious.
Lab-grown meat has sparked a debate among rabbis in Israel about whether cell-cultured is the same as conventional meat and should fall under the same guidelines for keeping kosher.
Why exactly should the rest of us give a shit about the irrational restrictions a bunch of religious crazies put on themselves regarding food? (Yes I think that if you let a rabbi or priest tell you what to eat you are crazy) Unless they are trying to interfere with what I eat I don't really care about this at all any more than I care about whether or not someone goes to Weight Watchers. Their problem, not mine.
I don't get why if you are tech company like Google you'd have any interest in maintaining anything more than some sales offices etc there.
Because there are a lot of talented people in NYC and it's pretty easy to recruit people to live there. Not everyone's cup of tea of course but one only has to look at the number of buildings in Manhattan to see that a lot of people like living there. NYC is somewhat underappreciated as a tech hub. It has a lot of excellent universities nearby, excellent infrastructure, world class amenities, and lots of talented people. NYC rightly is regarded as a financial center but finance has a LOT of tech and so it's not hard for a company like google to poach talent.
It super expensive so you will have pay high salaries, much higher than you would elsewhere.
Umm, have you looked at the price of living in the Bay Area recently? I think this isn't a worry of Google's. Plus if you look at their income statement I don't think they have any problems paying top dollar for good talent.
NYC is for the most part a dirty crowded shit hole.
Yes that it true to an extent that but that's not all it is. It has a lot of amazing things going on too. It's not my brand of vodka either but I get why people like it. I wouldn't enjoy living there either but then a lot of people who do live in NYC would hate living where I do. You be you.
Unlike Amazon, Google did not pursue tax breaks or other incentives from New York.
They may not have been blatant about it like Amazon was but you can bet that taxes were a part of the discussion just like it would be for any big company making a big investment. Might have been simply that they didn't need to go begging to get a deal they were happy with. Google avoids paying taxes just like all the other big companies do whenever they can.
There's a reason people put "/sarc" at the end. Sarcasm, like facetiousness, doesn't translate well to print. Your upper post read like a statement of belief.
Welcome to the internet. Sometimes you just don't get the joke. Happens to all of us sometimes. You are not the first person with that revelation.
The face scans are compared to a database of her stalkers.
Duh. It wouldn't be a very useful technology if it didn't. You can't recognize someone you haven't previously seen.
I would imagine many famous people have stalkers.
Of course they do. It's not a new problem. It's also not clear that this technology provides any meaningful additional safety to the performer. It's not as if you hear about performers getting assaulted by their fans at concerts very often. Big venues tend to do security very well and they did so long before automated facial recognition was even a possibility.
Slashdot Mirror
The only LED bulbs I've ever had burn out were the cheap ones bought at the dollar store.
Then you haven't bought as many as I have. I've had a fair number go bad including some expensive ones. Don't get me wrong, most last a really long time and work great but I've had some pretty pricey ones fail for various reasons. Still better than incandescent bulbs by a country mile but not failure proof. Brand does seem to matter somewhat in my experience but it's not the only factor. You need a fixture designed so the heat they do produce won't fry the electronics. I've lost a few to that problem before changing the fixtures. They also seem to fail fairly early in their life if they are going to fail in most cases. And some percent seem to fail for unknown reasons regardless of make or model.
Also, there's no mercury in LED bulbs, unlike fluorescent bulbs.
That's true and good but LED bulbs aren't exactly devoid of toxic materials. They often contain lead, arsenic, and other materials that need to be properly handled when disposing of them. Safer than CFLs in most cases but not anything you want to go around licking if you get my point.
"We've fundamentally altered our DNA"
Right.... and I've got some bridges I'd like to sell. Once someone is proven to be untrustworthy it's unlikely they ever change. Yes it happens but it's terribly rare and almost unheard of in companies unless their incentives change to align with honesty. Facebook made their fortune in large part through dishonesty and the people who permitted that are still in charge. There is zero evidence to suggest the company has changed in any meaningful way. Their incentives are more or less the same, there is basically no regulation of them, and the same people are in charge. Why should they ever change?
While I agree that copyrights should not be eternal, your justification for why it's wrong is flawed and a slippery slope unless you think we should get rid of inheritances all together.
I see no reason that copyright should be an inheritable asset. The purpose of copyright is to allow THE CREATOR to benefit from their work. Not their heirs. It should extend some fixed amount of time after creation (less than currently IMO) and if the individual or corporation which holds the copyright ceases to live/exist then it should immediately enter the public domain. I really see no value to society in copyrights extending decades after the death of the author.
Also, if the person who made it is alive, are you saying that it should not be allowed to enter the public domain?
I said nothing of the sort. I'm perfectly fine with copyrights entering the public domain while the creator is still alive. I have yet to see a credible argument that copyright should extend longer than patents do. But even if they are longer they still should have a time limit that is shorter than a typical lifespan.
How do you define who made something, when talking about products made under funding of a corporation?
Doesn't (or shouldn't) matter whether it was funded by a corporation or an individual. Rules should be the same for either. I see no public interest in copyright being as long as it currently is and I really see no public interest in copyright being an asset that can be part of an estate passed on to children who had nothing to do with creating the work.
Disney characters are under trademark so others can't use those characters to create new original works.
Not true at all. Trademarks do complicate some types of works but they certainly do not prohibit people completely from using Disney created works once they've entered the public domain.
Trademarks last for as long as they are defended.
That's true but all trademarks do is identify the creator of the work. As long as the work you create doesn't create confusion about who created it (don't copy their trademark) then the trademark has no relevance. You cannot trademark a work of art and all conceivable permutations of it forever. That's not how trademarks work. I can make a can of cola that I sell in a red can without violating coca-cola's trademark. Similarly I can make a derivative work based on Steamboat Willie that (once the copyright expires) does not infringe on Disney's trademarks.
Copyright applies to a particular work of art. So you can't make a new work of art using Mickey Mouse
I think you are confused about what copyright protects. You absolutely CAN make a new work of art based on a work of art that has entered the public domain.
I have no problem with Disney's most popular characters NOT going into public domain.
Really? You should. Copyright should not be some eternal thing. They should have to keep inventing new works instead of milking work done by people who have been dead and buried for decades.
Disney actively exploits its brand.
So what? Disney has made a killing off of taking public domain works and making proprietary versions of them. Should work the other way around too. They've had 90 years to do something interesting/useful/valuable with it. Time to let others work on it.
How does the world benefit from Mickey Mouse going into public domain? In no way.
Completely wrong. Disney itself is a perfect example of what could happen. They take public domain works (pretty much 90% of their classic animated movies) and do interesting renditions of them that have huge economic and cultural value. Lots of creative works that you cannot even envision could be brought to life that cannot now. Disney's had a good run but if someone has an interesting take on their oldest work then they should be able to make a go of it. Disney shouldn't enjoy some special status not available to anyone else and the ENTIRE point of copyright and patents is that they provide TEMPORARY protection.
I think the congress has bigger fish to fry then copyright expansion.
While certainly true I'm not convinced that will have any relevance to what they actually do. Congress is great about doing nothing about the big stuff (cutting the deficit, getting health care for everyone, overspending on the military, etc) but always seem to have time for pandering to narrow constituencies.
1) Paved streets. Asphalt. Street lights, painted lines. Nope.
Look a little closer. The chemistry of the pavement has improved. The street lights use LEDs. The paint has improved chemistry too and sometimes isn't paint at all.
2) Houses. Wood, plastic, foam, glass, bricks, mortar, aluminum, copper.... Nope.
You seriously think there hasn't been any improvement in building materials or technology?
3) Cars. Rubber wheels, chemical fuels, pistons. Some electric cars. They had those in 1925. Nope.
Umm, yeah, the state of the art in cars clearly hasn't advanced at all since the Model T. [/sarcasm]
4) People. They wear shoes. Clothes. Nope.
What are those clothes and shoes made of? How are they made? Do they look the same? Do they cost the same? Were you buried under a rock somewhere?
5) Airplanes in the sky. They had those in 1975. They even had supersonic passenger jets in 1975. Not anymore... Oops.
I think it's pretty clear by now you are an idiot if you think that aviation hasn't seen any technology improvements in the last 45 years. We stopped using supersonic passenger jets because they weren't economical to operate, not because we can't make a better one today.
6) Grocery stores contain food. Nope.
They contain more food, of generally better quality, for less money (inflation adjusted), and far greater variety. About half the fruit and veggies on the shelves in my tiny town literally could not be purchased for any amount of money in the 1970s and much of what could be bought was only available seasonaly.
Let me know when that changes anything to 1-6.
Ok, literally everything in 1-6 has changed in the last 30 years. Got any other clueless snark to add to the conversation?
You do realize that Solar City/Tesla/Boring Company/SpaceX is all the same thing, right? It is just a shell game and the different companies just shuffle money from one account to another.
I'm sure you want to believe that but it's quite simply not true and demonstrably so. Solar City and Tesla are one organization under the Tesla aegis. Boring Company and SpaceX are independent. They share Elon Musk with Tesla and that's close to all they share. The finances of SpaceX have no meaningful relationship to Tesla and vice-versa. If you have evidence to the contrary please provide it.
Heck, back in 1977 when I saw Star Wars (no "A New Hope" cr*p!) the special effects were relatively laughable.
Your opinion was not shared at the time. I saw the movie in theaters in 1977 too and the special effects were excellent for the day. I'm not sure what you think was substantially better among late 1970s movies. The special effects were considered state of the art in 1977. Hell it's what made Industrial Light and Magic what it is today. It won 6 academy awards including Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing, Best Original Score, Best Sound and of course Best Visual Effects. Say what you want about the movie overall but you cannot say it's special effects weren't state of the art at the time of its release. My point is that the state of the art has advanced considerably in the last 40 years and it shows.
Ewoks weren't effects. They were little people in suits.
Ewoks absolutely were practical effects.
Which one looked more realistic? Ewoks or jar jar
Honestly? Jar Jar. The character was an abomination in a variety of ways but from a pure FX standpoint Jar Jar looked WAY more believable than a bunch of awkwardly moving midgets wearing teddy bear suits. At no point was I ever able to suspend disbelief that the ewoks were anything other than small humans in suits because they moved EXACTLY like a little person wearing a costume.
This must be the tolerance that I keep hearing the left pushing for.
Cute. So only the right is allowed to act like assholes to people they disagree with? Got it. Certainly explains Trump...
Tolerance of people with different ideas in an honest philosophical disagreement is one thing. Tolerance of people actively working to harm you is something quite different (and foolish). If you want to have an opinion that I don't agree with that's probably ok. If your opinion is that other people should be allowed to try to rob, demean, or harass others then I'm not going to tolerate that. Tolerance does not mean meekly accepting any behavior or idea you disagree with. I do think Trump and a lot of the people (not all mind you) who voted for him are assholes. I also accept (tolerate) that they have the right to do that. Toleration does not equal condoning or being nice about something you have a problem with.
According to the yearly report published by Stockholm-based phone number-identification service Truecaller, spam calls grew by 300 percent year-over-year in 2018.
I think it was a LOT more than 300%. I didn't used to get any. Now I get them almost daily. I have taken measures to block as many as I can but really the problem won't be solved unless there is legislation forcing the phone companies to take active measures. I almost never answer any call that isn't from someone in my address book anymore and then they have to go through a voicemail and spam filtering service.
I actually get most of my Amazon packages delivered to me at work. They get received by people I trust in a warm warehouse and delivered to my desk. I don't have to worry about them being left out in the weather or stolen by neighbors, etc. Plus I have a driveway that the UPS drivers really don't want to bother with in the winter so it's a win for them too. Plus since the driver is already coming to our plant daily it saves a tiny bit of fuel too.
"We have a huge technology leadership in database over Amazon," Ellison said on a conference call following the release of Oracle's second quarter financial results. "In terms of technology, there is no way that... any normal person would move from an Oracle database to an Amazon database."
I'm not qualified to evaluate the relative technical merits of the products but I can say without reservation that a HUGE win of going with Amazon is not having to deal with Oracle as a business. I've had that experience and Oracle can suck it as far as I'm concerned.
I still think the old Star Wars special effects are a TON better than the new ones.
Evidently you haven't seen A New Hope recently because the effects have not aged well and I'm being generous when I say that. You might appreciate them more for what they are and what went into making them but they look quite clumsy compared to the current state of the art. Some of the effects in the original trilogy have held up pretty well - particularly in Empire and RotJ but others definitely have not. The ewoks were a fail both from a story telling standpoint and from an effects standpoint. They just look absurd - it's like watching Sesame Street as an adult.
App support will continue for "at least two years, if not longer," Berberian says.
My first question would be what do they mean by "support"? I'd be shocked if they were providing any meaningful support as I use the term now. Not like they are going to get ongoing revenue from the apps unless they are some sort of game with in-game purchases. Given that they are selling these ultimately to children who generally don't control the credit card I can't imagine them bothering with any meaningful support.
These toys sold well when released with a movie, but interest waned over time as the movie became more distant, he says.
Were they expecting something different? That's how licensed content works as a general proposition.
company data shows that the toys weren't used much after initial play time and eventually sat on shelves.
In other news water is wet. Have these people ever actually watched children? This happens to approximately all toys. Children get them, play with them, get bored with them and move on to some other toy.
Ah yes, the Internet. Where all you have to do is type "It was a joke" to remove any culpability for a lack of clear writing or to even reverse the point of a comment.
Ahh the internet where people will continue to get their underwear in a bunch about a joke they didn't get even after it is pointed out to them that they didn't get it.
If you don't have something better to do than argue about this then you need to get yourself a hobby or better yet a date.
Dallas, Austin, San Antonio....? Hello, low tax Texas?
I have even less interest in living in Dallas than I do in NYC and I have little interest in living in NYC to begin with. I certainly don't move to a place because of the taxes or lack thereof. It might sway me all other things being equal but comparing Dallas to NYC is to compare two cities that could not be more different. Taxes are WAY down the list of concerns if I've considering one or the other. Anyone who wants to live in NYC (or SF) obviously isn't overly concerned about taxes to begin with so I'm not sure why you think that would be a big draw. Maybe it's something you obsess over but most of us are worried about other things.
Somebody at Google has a hard-on for paying through the nose.
Google is going where the people they want to hire are interested in being. Evidently that happens to be NYC among other places. Simple fact is that they aren't going to get a lot of people wanting to move to Toledo, Ohio no matter how cheap it is to live there. No NYC or SF aren't for everyone and that's ok. You don't have to work for Google. You be you and let them be them.
IMO, some of it borders on the ridiculous...
"Borders"? No it IS objectively ridiculous. You don't need the qualifier. There is no utility in most of it at all. It's just following whatever irrational thing their cult leader told them to do.
I can see how an ancient religion founded in ignorance could conclude that a specific food was risky and set up the rules regarding what to avoid, but to pass this latest development through a screen of modern day magic believers is silly.
Of course it is silly. Most things about religions are objectively ridiculous to anyone outside their cult. But that doesn't seem to stop them from doing all sorts of idiotic things for their invisible friend in the sky because their cult leader told them to do it.
As a former vegan/vegetarian, I'm happy to see alternatives to factory farming of sentient animals for food.
Former huh? Personally I'm comfortable with the fact that animals (including humans) eating animals is absolutely normal and appropriate. We are omnivores and I think it's absurd to deny that fact. Industrial scale farming does have some bad practices that need to be addressed but I don't have an issue with farming at scale in principle as long as reasonable practices of hygiene and ethical treatment of the animals are followed.
I think there is practical utility in eating mostly vegetables. Good health benefits, environmental benefits, economic benefits, and yes ethical benefits. But I don't really have a problem with the fact that we are animals that eat other animals sometimes too. I think vegan's tend to be people who take a good idea too far. I don't see any ethical problems with eating eggs or drinking milk or using some sorts of animal products, provided they were sourced humanely even if you'd prefer to avoid eating the animal itself. The problem is that people start becoming de-facto carnivores which isn't really a good thing for them or for society in general.
The fact that any religion is even debating it is a good indicator of how useless they are in modern times. Humanity needs to grow up.
I could not agree more.
Lab-grown meat is becoming closer to a reality. But this new technology poses new questions for people who typically avoid meat for religious or ethical reasons.
No it doesn't because you cannot actually buy it. It doesn't present any questions until people can obtain it for consumption and actually are considering doing so. Honestly I doubt it's going to become a real issue because if the "ick" factor and FUD that will surround it unless it is just astonishingly delicious.
Lab-grown meat has sparked a debate among rabbis in Israel about whether cell-cultured is the same as conventional meat and should fall under the same guidelines for keeping kosher.
Why exactly should the rest of us give a shit about the irrational restrictions a bunch of religious crazies put on themselves regarding food? (Yes I think that if you let a rabbi or priest tell you what to eat you are crazy) Unless they are trying to interfere with what I eat I don't really care about this at all any more than I care about whether or not someone goes to Weight Watchers. Their problem, not mine.
I don't get why if you are tech company like Google you'd have any interest in maintaining anything more than some sales offices etc there.
Because there are a lot of talented people in NYC and it's pretty easy to recruit people to live there. Not everyone's cup of tea of course but one only has to look at the number of buildings in Manhattan to see that a lot of people like living there. NYC is somewhat underappreciated as a tech hub. It has a lot of excellent universities nearby, excellent infrastructure, world class amenities, and lots of talented people. NYC rightly is regarded as a financial center but finance has a LOT of tech and so it's not hard for a company like google to poach talent.
It super expensive so you will have pay high salaries, much higher than you would elsewhere.
Umm, have you looked at the price of living in the Bay Area recently? I think this isn't a worry of Google's. Plus if you look at their income statement I don't think they have any problems paying top dollar for good talent.
NYC is for the most part a dirty crowded shit hole.
Yes that it true to an extent that but that's not all it is. It has a lot of amazing things going on too. It's not my brand of vodka either but I get why people like it. I wouldn't enjoy living there either but then a lot of people who do live in NYC would hate living where I do. You be you.
Unlike Amazon, Google did not pursue tax breaks or other incentives from New York.
They may not have been blatant about it like Amazon was but you can bet that taxes were a part of the discussion just like it would be for any big company making a big investment. Might have been simply that they didn't need to go begging to get a deal they were happy with. Google avoids paying taxes just like all the other big companies do whenever they can.
There's a reason people put "/sarc" at the end. Sarcasm, like facetiousness, doesn't translate well to print. Your upper post read like a statement of belief.
Welcome to the internet. Sometimes you just don't get the joke. Happens to all of us sometimes. You are not the first person with that revelation.
Did you even read the summary?
Do you understand sarcasm or jokes?
The face scans are compared to a database of her stalkers.
Duh. It wouldn't be a very useful technology if it didn't. You can't recognize someone you haven't previously seen.
I would imagine many famous people have stalkers.
Of course they do. It's not a new problem. It's also not clear that this technology provides any meaningful additional safety to the performer. It's not as if you hear about performers getting assaulted by their fans at concerts very often. Big venues tend to do security very well and they did so long before automated facial recognition was even a possibility.