Unfortunately for many artists, unlike authors, it's too difficult to create and sell a song on their own. They need a producer, engineer(s), backing musicians, just to name a few. Even more than that if they want to tour.
Not to mention it would be a task to program the computer to respond appropriately. My PC (or rather the software running on it) knowing that I'm pissed at it, won't help it fix the problems. What we really need is a reporting tool for the developers. i.e., "74% of users who reported this bug problem had a look of murderous rage on their face."
After browsing his wiki entry, it appears his misunderstanding might not just be a blind devotion to the Bible, but an actual misunderstanding of science. Take his statements on historical CO2 levels:
Today we have about 388 parts per million [CO2] in the atmosphere. I think in the age of dinosaurs, when we had the most flora and fauna, we were probably at 4,000 parts per million. There is a theological debate that this is a carbon-starved planet — not too much carbon. And the cost of a cap-and-trade on the poor is now being discovered."
He thinks he knows what he's talking about. He's a typical politician. He reads about a fact that, on the surface, seems to support his theory without acknowledging or being completely ignorant of other facts. I'd love to read the rest of the hearing's transcript.
Every interview I've seen where Brian Greene talks about the multiverse, he's always qualified his statements by saying something like "We still have to figure out the mathematics to explain it. We still have no experiments to test this yet."
Let's agree not to call this a "Republican" or "Democratic" position. The problem is that there are adherents to scientific claims who don't know the truth on both sides. I don't claim to know much about climate science, evolution, natural history or reproductive biology. So me claiming a "scientific" position on global warming, creationism, evolution or abortion is to some extent who I want to have faith in. Generally I choose respected scientists, but its still faith on my part because I haven't done the research myself.
It most certainly is a Republican/Democrat position. The difference is that Republicans who don't understand something dismiss is altogether, while OTOH as the Sokal incident pointed out, some Democrats held too much faith in scientists. I would hope that, in matters of science, politicians have more faith in scientists and in, say, religion. I mean, this is pretty chilling.
As John Shimkus of Illinois, who also sits on the [House Energy and Commerce Committee]— as well as on the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment — has said that the government doesn’t need to make a priority of regulating greenhouse-gas emissions, because as he put it late last year, “God said the earth would not be destroyed by a flood.”
This kind of ignorance is dangerous and baffling. It's not as if he's arguing against anthropogenic global warming using science. Hell, maybe he believes in global warming and that it really is man-made. But he refuses to accept what will happen because the Bible says otherwise. What. The. Fuck.
The case will likely center on one point of contention. Was the vehicle in a public place when the device was attached? Was it on the street? Was it in a driveway? If so, is a driveway considered private property? What if it was fenced in? Was it in a garage? If so, was the garage locked? As noted in this story last year, a federal judge ruled that is is legal to plant a device on your car to track you, even it if was in an unenclosed driveway.
The biggest hurdle in this case will be convincing a judge to allow the suit to proceed and go to trial. If it does, it wouldn't surprise me if a jury rules in the young man's favor, seeing that civil court juries only need a simple majority to reach a decision.
Most people probably don't mind the refurb (as long as it is a good one) for the much faster turnaround - you just have to restore your phone from backup when you get it. Takes about 15 minutes.
Most people would probably prefer to just replace the battery themselves like almost all other manufacturers allow. It's still a hassle to have to mail in your phone or find an Apple store and do it there (assuming they can just swap it in store).
Their replacement policy truly is ridiculous. See here for your self.
You have to pay $80 to replace it out of warranty. This means you're paying Apple $80 for a different used phone, while they take your phone to farm for replacement parts. It's obvious they do this when you consider that damaged in any way that makes it unusable or in this case, unsellable. The fact that they won't even replace the battery for a non-functioning phone or one with "unauthorized modifications" is ludicrous. Have fun in the iron grip of Apple. I'm sure the extra 3mm of space is worth it.
Steve Jobs has determined that 1024x768 is the optimal resolution for a screen that size. You should be thankful that Dear Leader has decided to impart his wisdom to us.
Remember when iPhone users found out that the phone they got back after sending their old one in for a "battery repair" was just a totally different phone? I'm willing to bet that if Apple stated this policy to consumers, a non-trivial amount of users would decide not to buy one.
The phrase "Comcast can't interfere with Internet video traffic flowing over its broadband network." Sounds pretty universal to me.
Really? To me it sounds like it applies only to Comcast.
I assumed this was known. Why would they care about anyone but Comcast for the merger? I am taking the term "universal" to apply to their content and the rival companies who want to stream it.
here is a more detailed press release from the DoJ itself. It has more specific language such as:
The settlement also includes other relief aimed at ensuring that Comcast cannot evade the provisions designed to protect competition. For example:
Comcast may not retaliate against any broadcast network (or affiliate), cable programmer, production studio or content licensee for licensing content to a competing cable, satellite or telephone company or OVD, or for raising concerns to the department or the FCC;
Comcast must relinquish its management rights in Hulu, an OVD. Without such a remedy, Comcast could, through its seats on Hulu's board of directors, interfere with the management of Hulu, and, in particular, the development of products that compete with Comcast's video service. Comcast also must continue to make NBCU content available to Hulu that is comparable to the programming Hulu obtains from Disney and News Corp;
In accordance with recently established Open Internet requirements, Comcast is prohibited from unreasonably discriminating in the transmission of an OVD's lawful network traffic to a Comcast broadband customer. Comcast must also maintain the high-speed Internet service it offers to its customers by continuing to offer download speeds of at least 12 megabits per second in markets where it has upgraded its broadband network. Additionally, Comcast is required to give other firms' content equal treatment under any of its broadband offerings that involve caps, tiers, metering for consumption or other usage-based pricing; and
Comcast may not, with certain narrow exceptions, require programmers or video distributors to agree to licensing terms that seek to limit online distributors' access to content.
What this actually does is accept the fact that a corporate merger can specify what is blocked and what isn't. This is actually a dangerous trend for network neutrality, because we are seeing the Justice Department agree with the idea that what is blocked and what isn't is a matter of contractual language between corporations, instead of the inherent right to a free internet.
The article certainly doesn't paint it that way.
FTFA:
Still, in approving the deal, federal officials attached dozens of conditions, including several big ones to protect Internet video:
Comcast must sell its content to online video services. That gives them access to marquee NBC Universal programming.
Comcast can't interfere with Internet video traffic flowing over its broadband network. That means that it cannot prevent its subscribers from accessing Netflix and other Web video services, or slow down traffic from these services to make them jerky, unreliable and hard to watch.
Comcast must sell stand-alone Internet access at a reasonable price, without tying it to a cable TV package, to enable cord-cutting. That includes offering a standard 6-megabit-per-second plan, which is fast enough to handle Internet video, for roughly $50 a month.
The phrase "Comcast can't interfere with Internet video traffic flowing over its broadband network." Sounds pretty universal to me. I just hope the author wasn't paraphrasing a document that specified Internet video only from certain providers and not others, i.e. youtube, netflix, hulu, etc.
You have to admit that unfettered access to the internet for citizens inside an oppressive regime seems to be quite the game changer these days, to the point that it can be used strategically.
Indeed, much less messy than a physical show of force with the military. I've heard testimony from Libyans asking foreign powers to help them oust Gaddafi, but they'll have to deal with it themselves in that regard. Hopefully we are doing something directly other than scrambling for a UN sanction.
According to Holmes, the general wanted the IO team to provide a "deeper analysis of pressure points we could use to leverage the delegation for more funds." The general’s chief of staff also asked Holmes how Caldwell could secretly manipulate the U.S. lawmakers without their knowledge. "How do we get these guys to give us more people?" he demanded. "What do I have to plant inside their heads?"
It might not be ethical, but how is this different than organizations that lobby congress? This seems blown up. Would it be ok if instead of being called "Psy-Ops" they were called "Public Relations?"
I should also point out that this only measures traffic, and attributes any decrease to "filtering." While that is possible, and probably true, I can't help but wonder how much of a decrease in traffic is due to people not being at home using the Internet and instead protesting out on the streets. I point out Bahrain as an example.
where as Groupon (which I've never heard of) had a low estimated growth,
Seriously? Groupon is one of the fastest growing companies...ever. Less than 3 years old now, and experts are already pegging them to be the fastest company to generate $1bn in revenue ever. I'd say their growth is certainly on par, if not higher, than Facebook. The question is can they sustain that growth. Clearly there is a market out there (you haven't even heard of them, as I'm sure others haven't either). I still think it's insane to value Facebook at that much considering their revenue. The only way I can see profiting from this kind of investment is convincing someone else to pay more for it. In the end, someone is going to get fucked when the bubble bursts.
Facebook 09 estimated revenue is indeed $800 million...yet Goldman Sach's offer could place the total value near $50bn. That's laughable compared to Groupon, who saw profits around $350 million, yet were only offered $6bn. If Facebook really is worth $50bn (it's not) then Groupon was right to reject the offer. Hell, that $800 million is only revenue. I'm sure it's probably not by very much, but their income is going to be less.
The smart investor won't dump money into a company so overpriced as Facebook when you look at the money they can get. Besides, how long will it be until Facebook is unseated? 5, 10, 15 years?
i doubt there is someone in the U.S. that believes there is an ISP that doesn't treat their customers like cornholio. i guess this intended for other nations.
So for I have had zero problems with Verizon FiOS. They treat me pretty well right now, even 6 months into the contract nothing has changed.
Consideration of performing an action is news now?
It shouldn't be, but in this case it seems that's the case. They're just trying to gain some attention so everyone is listening when they do release the report. I don't really see why they wouldn't release this information.
Civil court != Criminal court
Considering the circumstances, she would never be found guilty in a court of law. There's just too much reasonable doubt.
Was the sun in her eyes like she and another witness said?
Can they prove she was actually driving when she posted to Facebook?
Why was the victim in the road and not on the sidewalk?
Veloz had exited his vehicle after getting into a minor accident with another motorist at around 7:30 AM. He was standing near the other driver’s vehicle exchanging information when he was struck by Beas. His right leg was partially severed, and he lost too much blood. Veloz was pronounced dead at around 9:30 AM in a nearby hospital.
Beas told police that she had been temporarily blinded by the sun at the time of the collision, which resulted in a ticket for striking a pedestrian in the roadway. The driver involved in the earlier minor collision with Veloz told officers at the time that they had been temporarily blinded by the sun as well. Beas’ mother, Rosario Rodriguez, came to her daughter’s defense claiming that she posted the Facebook update as she sat in her car while waiting for it to warm up outside her boyfriend’s home, which is located two miles away from where the crash occurred.
So. The woman could very well have been unable to see due to the sun. Was the victim standing in the road? Did they move their vehicles to the side of the road? It's impossible to prove that the driver was using her phone at the time of the accident.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately for many artists, unlike authors, it's too difficult to create and sell a song on their own. They need a producer, engineer(s), backing musicians, just to name a few. Even more than that if they want to tour.
Not to mention it would be a task to program the computer to respond appropriately. My PC (or rather the software running on it) knowing that I'm pissed at it, won't help it fix the problems. What we really need is a reporting tool for the developers. i.e., "74% of users who reported this bug problem had a look of murderous rage on their face."
After browsing his wiki entry, it appears his misunderstanding might not just be a blind devotion to the Bible, but an actual misunderstanding of science. Take his statements on historical CO2 levels:
Today we have about 388 parts per million [CO2] in the atmosphere. I think in the age of dinosaurs, when we had the most flora and fauna, we were probably at 4,000 parts per million. There is a theological debate that this is a carbon-starved planet — not too much carbon. And the cost of a cap-and-trade on the poor is now being discovered."
He thinks he knows what he's talking about. He's a typical politician. He reads about a fact that, on the surface, seems to support his theory without acknowledging or being completely ignorant of other facts. I'd love to read the rest of the hearing's transcript.
Every interview I've seen where Brian Greene talks about the multiverse, he's always qualified his statements by saying something like "We still have to figure out the mathematics to explain it. We still have no experiments to test this yet."
Let's agree not to call this a "Republican" or "Democratic" position. The problem is that there are adherents to scientific claims who don't know the truth on both sides. I don't claim to know much about climate science, evolution, natural history or reproductive biology. So me claiming a "scientific" position on global warming, creationism, evolution or abortion is to some extent who I want to have faith in. Generally I choose respected scientists, but its still faith on my part because I haven't done the research myself.
It most certainly is a Republican/Democrat position. The difference is that Republicans who don't understand something dismiss is altogether, while OTOH as the Sokal incident pointed out, some Democrats held too much faith in scientists. I would hope that, in matters of science, politicians have more faith in scientists and in, say, religion. I mean, this is pretty chilling.
As John Shimkus of Illinois, who also sits on the [House Energy and Commerce Committee]— as well as on the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment — has said that the government doesn’t need to make a priority of regulating greenhouse-gas emissions, because as he put it late last year, “God said the earth would not be destroyed by a flood.”
This kind of ignorance is dangerous and baffling. It's not as if he's arguing against anthropogenic global warming using science. Hell, maybe he believes in global warming and that it really is man-made. But he refuses to accept what will happen because the Bible says otherwise. What. The. Fuck.
The case will likely center on one point of contention. Was the vehicle in a public place when the device was attached? Was it on the street? Was it in a driveway? If so, is a driveway considered private property? What if it was fenced in? Was it in a garage? If so, was the garage locked? As noted in this story last year, a federal judge ruled that is is legal to plant a device on your car to track you, even it if was in an unenclosed driveway.
The biggest hurdle in this case will be convincing a judge to allow the suit to proceed and go to trial. If it does, it wouldn't surprise me if a jury rules in the young man's favor, seeing that civil court juries only need a simple majority to reach a decision.
Most people probably don't mind the refurb (as long as it is a good one) for the much faster turnaround - you just have to restore your phone from backup when you get it. Takes about 15 minutes.
Most people would probably prefer to just replace the battery themselves like almost all other manufacturers allow. It's still a hassle to have to mail in your phone or find an Apple store and do it there (assuming they can just swap it in store).
Their replacement policy truly is ridiculous. See here for your self.
You have to pay $80 to replace it out of warranty. This means you're paying Apple $80 for a different used phone, while they take your phone to farm for replacement parts. It's obvious they do this when you consider that damaged in any way that makes it unusable or in this case, unsellable. The fact that they won't even replace the battery for a non-functioning phone or one with "unauthorized modifications" is ludicrous. Have fun in the iron grip of Apple. I'm sure the extra 3mm of space is worth it.
Steve Jobs has determined that 1024x768 is the optimal resolution for a screen that size. You should be thankful that Dear Leader has decided to impart his wisdom to us.
Remember when iPhone users found out that the phone they got back after sending their old one in for a "battery repair" was just a totally different phone? I'm willing to bet that if Apple stated this policy to consumers, a non-trivial amount of users would decide not to buy one.
I never get the point about rats leaving a sinking ship. Where the fuck are the rats going anyway???
Actually, Brown Rats are excellent swimmers.
The phrase "Comcast can't interfere with Internet video traffic flowing over its broadband network." Sounds pretty universal to me.
Really? To me it sounds like it applies only to Comcast.
I assumed this was known. Why would they care about anyone but Comcast for the merger? I am taking the term "universal" to apply to their content and the rival companies who want to stream it.
here is a more detailed press release from the DoJ itself. It has more specific language such as:
The settlement also includes other relief aimed at ensuring that Comcast cannot evade the provisions designed to protect competition. For example:
What this actually does is accept the fact that a corporate merger can specify what is blocked and what isn't. This is actually a dangerous trend for network neutrality, because we are seeing the Justice Department agree with the idea that what is blocked and what isn't is a matter of contractual language between corporations, instead of the inherent right to a free internet.
The article certainly doesn't paint it that way. FTFA:
Still, in approving the deal, federal officials attached dozens of conditions, including several big ones to protect Internet video: Comcast must sell its content to online video services. That gives them access to marquee NBC Universal programming. Comcast can't interfere with Internet video traffic flowing over its broadband network. That means that it cannot prevent its subscribers from accessing Netflix and other Web video services, or slow down traffic from these services to make them jerky, unreliable and hard to watch. Comcast must sell stand-alone Internet access at a reasonable price, without tying it to a cable TV package, to enable cord-cutting. That includes offering a standard 6-megabit-per-second plan, which is fast enough to handle Internet video, for roughly $50 a month.
The phrase "Comcast can't interfere with Internet video traffic flowing over its broadband network." Sounds pretty universal to me. I just hope the author wasn't paraphrasing a document that specified Internet video only from certain providers and not others, i.e. youtube, netflix, hulu, etc.
This reminds me of the story that came out not too long ago about the composer who lost millions, believing an even more elaborate hoax than this guy.
You have to admit that unfettered access to the internet for citizens inside an oppressive regime seems to be quite the game changer these days, to the point that it can be used strategically.
Indeed, much less messy than a physical show of force with the military. I've heard testimony from Libyans asking foreign powers to help them oust Gaddafi, but they'll have to deal with it themselves in that regard. Hopefully we are doing something directly other than scrambling for a UN sanction.
According to Holmes, the general wanted the IO team to provide a "deeper analysis of pressure points we could use to leverage the delegation for more funds." The general’s chief of staff also asked Holmes how Caldwell could secretly manipulate the U.S. lawmakers without their knowledge. "How do we get these guys to give us more people?" he demanded. "What do I have to plant inside their heads?"
It might not be ethical, but how is this different than organizations that lobby congress? This seems blown up. Would it be ok if instead of being called "Psy-Ops" they were called "Public Relations?"
It's all about buying time for the United States to attempt to push the SHIELD bill through Congress.
Maybe I'm not seeing something, but how would the SHIELD Act help the US extradite Assange?
It's an amendment to existing law. I read over the amendments and the original code, and I can't see anything damning.
Here's the text of the act and here is the law it amends.
The penalty in the law states that the convicted
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years or both.
I dont see anything about the death penalty in there or references to extradition.
I should also point out that this only measures traffic, and attributes any decrease to "filtering." While that is possible, and probably true, I can't help but wonder how much of a decrease in traffic is due to people not being at home using the Internet and instead protesting out on the streets. I point out Bahrain as an example.
where as Groupon (which I've never heard of) had a low estimated growth,
Seriously? Groupon is one of the fastest growing companies...ever. Less than 3 years old now, and experts are already pegging them to be the fastest company to generate $1bn in revenue ever. I'd say their growth is certainly on par, if not higher, than Facebook. The question is can they sustain that growth. Clearly there is a market out there (you haven't even heard of them, as I'm sure others haven't either). I still think it's insane to value Facebook at that much considering their revenue. The only way I can see profiting from this kind of investment is convincing someone else to pay more for it. In the end, someone is going to get fucked when the bubble bursts.
Facebook 09 estimated revenue is indeed $800 million...yet Goldman Sach's offer could place the total value near $50bn. That's laughable compared to Groupon, who saw profits around $350 million, yet were only offered $6bn. If Facebook really is worth $50bn (it's not) then Groupon was right to reject the offer. Hell, that $800 million is only revenue. I'm sure it's probably not by very much, but their income is going to be less.
The smart investor won't dump money into a company so overpriced as Facebook when you look at the money they can get. Besides, how long will it be until Facebook is unseated? 5, 10, 15 years?
I would surely expect the FiOS folks to be getting the best speeds of all.
You would be correct. At least in my case. I don't know what the speed is when I'm watching netflix, but I've never had to buffer a video.
i doubt there is someone in the U.S. that believes there is an ISP that doesn't treat their customers like cornholio. i guess this intended for other nations.
So for I have had zero problems with Verizon FiOS. They treat me pretty well right now, even 6 months into the contract nothing has changed.
Consideration of performing an action is news now?
It shouldn't be, but in this case it seems that's the case. They're just trying to gain some attention so everyone is listening when they do release the report. I don't really see why they wouldn't release this information.
Civil court != Criminal court
Considering the circumstances, she would never be found guilty in a court of law. There's just too much reasonable doubt.
Was the sun in her eyes like she and another witness said?
Can they prove she was actually driving when she posted to Facebook?
Why was the victim in the road and not on the sidewalk?
Veloz had exited his vehicle after getting into a minor accident with another motorist at around 7:30 AM. He was standing near the other driver’s vehicle exchanging information when he was struck by Beas. His right leg was partially severed, and he lost too much blood. Veloz was pronounced dead at around 9:30 AM in a nearby hospital. Beas told police that she had been temporarily blinded by the sun at the time of the collision, which resulted in a ticket for striking a pedestrian in the roadway. The driver involved in the earlier minor collision with Veloz told officers at the time that they had been temporarily blinded by the sun as well. Beas’ mother, Rosario Rodriguez, came to her daughter’s defense claiming that she posted the Facebook update as she sat in her car while waiting for it to warm up outside her boyfriend’s home, which is located two miles away from where the crash occurred.
So. The woman could very well have been unable to see due to the sun. Was the victim standing in the road? Did they move their vehicles to the side of the road? It's impossible to prove that the driver was using her phone at the time of the accident.