This wouldn't work in the U.S. While the article says they tossed out all the rules, I think more likely they just let kids be kids. But here in the U.S. the school and the teachers would be screwed if a kid got hurt even in the slightest falling from a tree. So, here they do stuff to avoid blame for anything (with the associated lawsuit), even if it's not better for the kids in the long run.
If this was deemed viable and studios signed up there'd be no consensus on how to run it. So, there'd be 2 or 3 (or more) different services, all offering you "all" of their movies for $15 a month. But you'd find Disney films only one one service, Marvel superhero movies only on another and so on...
It might be that it were possible to get all the back catalogs of movies all available to stream, but I'd strongly suspect it would take several flat fees to do it.
The microwave will cook food no matter what store it was purchased from. The TV will play programs from any cable, satellite provider or appropriate OTA station. The car will work with fuel purchased from any station.
I own all of the above but do not own a Kindle or iDevice specifically because part of their reason for being is to limit the owner's choice in apps or media content. Generic Android also limits apps to those coming from the Google Play store by default but has an option to remove that restriction that's no more difficult to change than adjusting your backlight brightness.
If there was a new Kindle that had a combination of features and price that was so compelling I wouldn't mind getting it and hacking it then I'd be tempted. But it would have to be a very attractive combination of factors.
The first "we're tracking your car" pushback on privacy was that knowing where you went was thought to be no different than a cop car following you everywhere you go, just more efficient.
How long will it be before listening in / recording your calls is explained as "it's no different than if we just walked 3 feet behind you all the time"?
Finally after most of the video it showed how the shot looked like from the camera. What I noticed though was that it doesn't appear to smooth out yaw motion. Granted you have to turn it to aim, but it's twitchy. Since the pitch and roll have been well smoothed the yaw noise really stands out.
What it needs is a steadicam-like gimble that keeps it pointed in the same direction unless you intend to change direction.
The end of the article gave me a chuckle. A guy is threatening to go on a hunger strike to keep the service going, insisting that it's a vital tool for fighting corruption ( presumably gov't corruption ) He sent his demands to the PM and others, via telegram of course. But someone at the telegraph office viewed the telegram as "objectionable" and have chosen not to deliver it.
So while India might still accept telegrams as legal documents, having a communications medium that requires a man-in-the-middle to function seems to be one that is too easily thwarted by the man in the middle.
Hopefully the guy on the hunger strike backed up his telegram with an email.
If it's true that the iris patterns change significantly as children grow, then this would seem then to be a good thing to use for ID kids from the perspective that the ID method would "expire" after some period, making it no longer useful after the original reason no longer exists. This would be different/better than fingerprints that would be useful forever.
This is not to suggest that that I'm necessarily in favor of mandatory biometric ID screening. But if there was a biometric indicator that was reliable and also "expired" after a year or to, that would be awfully handy. If you voluntarily used that form of ID for a temporary purpose you wouldn't be handing over a permanent key.
If I hear about a startup that hasn't lost any employees then I just figure they're waiting for the IPO. While l like the description of the diverse group of employees and other aspects of the company, I think not mentioning compensation at all is a little disingenuous
If they're paying the people a reasonable wage and the checks don't bounce then employees tend to stay. Add in stock options and waiting for the big IPO, or as mentioned in the article a very big buyout, then you have people waiting for the big payday. The perks ( or lack thereof ) might have had an effect on employee retention thus far, but you shouldn't ignore the hope of substantial monetary compensation as an additional big motivator.
"Rather than a free-standing slate/tablet computer, the Zenith CruisePAD was a remote terminal to one's PC. It was designed to allow the user to interact with that PC's applications from a distance over a wireless network. What made it interesting to me was that it let one do so directly on the CruisePAD's screen, using either a stylus or finger."
I don't know if it was a case of "if you can't beat them join them" but when I searched for "MTM watch" on Amazon there was a sponsored link by the plaintiff on a resulting page. So they appear to be paying Amazon ( directly or indirectly ) when someone searches there to give them a link back.
It doesn't have to be a keyword. Amazon has a feature "other people who searched for that bought this". So people could initially have searched for the exclusive watch, not found it and then looked at others. They might even have bought one. Amazon wouldn't have had to do anything specific regarding the "other watch" besides see what people who came looking for it looked at after when they didn't find it.
Scanning for ads pays for the service. Ad-Supported. Scanning for ads means you get an email service, for free. Spam filtering, for free. You get multi-gigabytes of storage, for free. So how in the heck can any Gmail user say it benefits Google and not them also?
It's legitimate for a non Gmail user to say that having their mail scanned isn't isn't worth the value of the email service. If you do have Gmail, you made the deal and you can leave any time if not happy with what you perceive as value you get for them scanning your mail.
Forget all the arguments about whether the art installation is a hack. The real hack is when someone else gets hold of the lights and make them spell out something like "Turk 182"
The civilian opportunities for this sound great. When compelled to give up a password or your devices are otherwise being examined without your permission, the same function used to protect private data.
Q: What's your password? A: Phe!ps Q: What's that smoke smell?
I can see the point made by people wanting to change the scoring. The initial letter/point associations were made based on the number of tiles in the bag and the frequency of use at the time. The "official" rules have changed by virtue of the allowable words. With new acceptable words added the letter frequency changed as well. If new words are added (or subtracted ) , to keep the game the same, then eventually the letter scoring would also need to change if the desire was to keep the game from changing. Changes were made for non-English versions, with different distribution of letters and point values: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrabble_letter_distributions
So if English has changed since 1938 it's not outrageous to suggest a new distribution/scoring mix. Desire to keep the game "the same" is also understandable, but that would require using a 1938 dictionary and not allowing new words. ( Nope, can't used "quark" )
If a dad tried this in the USA he'd probably find himself, along with the assassins, being charged with some cyberbullying statute. The kid would then sue successfully, making enough money to move out, get his own place and continue gaming full time.
This article is from 2012, so not part of the analysis from the other paper listed that is from 1999.. But as both analyze the results of previously performed studies one meta-analysis of another meta-analysis might not have been appropriate anyway. They do come up with different conclusions. As the one linked to here is from a decade later that the other one, it may be that it is bases on studies done after the the other paper was published.
In the study referenced there are LOTS of "conclusions" mentioned that can be taken out of context of the article. This be because the paper references many other studies and quotes their conclusions or observations. The bulk of the paper points out positive and negative aspects of previous studies. The paper itself does not present the conclusion of "a near doubling of the risk of fatal crashes" as suggested above. There may be another paper with that conclusion, but it's not this one. If that number came from one of the other studies that this paper cites, it would be interesting to see how this paper's authors address that conclusion. http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/2/222.full.pdf
There are three points at the end of this paper:
"Overall we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:"
1. No evidence that consumption of cannabis increases the risk of culpability for fatal traffic crashes and may decrease them. 2. The evidence for the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol relative to alcohol alone is unclear. 3 It is not possible to exclude that cannabis use, with or without alcohol leads to an increase risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage.
Slashdot Mirror
This wouldn't work in the U.S. While the article says they tossed out all the rules, I think more likely they just let kids be kids. But here in the U.S. the school and the teachers would be screwed if a kid got hurt even in the slightest falling from a tree. So, here they do stuff to avoid blame for anything (with the associated lawsuit), even if it's not better for the kids in the long run.
The US also has the "chicken tax" that adds a whopping 25% tariff on small pickup trucks and vans imported into the US.
If this was deemed viable and studios signed up there'd be no consensus on how to run it. So, there'd be 2 or 3 (or more) different services, all offering you "all" of their movies for $15 a month. But you'd find Disney films only one one service, Marvel superhero movies only on another and so on...
It might be that it were possible to get all the back catalogs of movies all available to stream, but I'd strongly suspect it would take several flat fees to do it.
http://www.gizmag.com/go/4003/
From 2005. Mercedes E320 CDI, diesel sedans on a track.
It's safe to assume:
The microwave will cook food no matter what store it was purchased from.
The TV will play programs from any cable, satellite provider or appropriate OTA station.
The car will work with fuel purchased from any station.
I own all of the above but do not own a Kindle or iDevice specifically because part of their reason for being is to limit the owner's choice in apps or media content. Generic Android also limits apps to those coming from the Google Play store by default but has an option to remove that restriction that's no more difficult to change than adjusting your backlight brightness.
If there was a new Kindle that had a combination of features and price that was so compelling I wouldn't mind getting it and hacking it then I'd be tempted. But it would have to be a very attractive combination of factors.
The first "we're tracking your car" pushback on privacy was that knowing where you went was thought to be no different than a cop car following you everywhere you go, just more efficient.
How long will it be before listening in / recording your calls is explained as "it's no different than if we just walked 3 feet behind you all the time"?
So these guys were soliciting money to build a weapon to target enemies of Israel.
Was their crime that they didn't use a drone, or that they wanted to do it in the U.S and not in Pakistan or Afghanistan?
Couldn't you just send money to General Atomics?
Finally after most of the video it showed how the shot looked like from the camera. What I noticed though was that it doesn't appear to smooth out yaw motion. Granted you have to turn it to aim, but it's twitchy. Since the pitch and roll have been well smoothed the yaw noise really stands out.
What it needs is a steadicam-like gimble that keeps it pointed in the same direction unless you intend to change direction.
The end of the article gave me a chuckle. A guy is threatening to go on a hunger strike to keep the service going, insisting that it's a vital tool for fighting corruption ( presumably gov't corruption ) He sent his demands to the PM and others, via telegram of course. But someone at the telegraph office viewed the telegram as "objectionable" and have chosen not to deliver it.
So while India might still accept telegrams as legal documents, having a communications medium that requires a man-in-the-middle to function seems to be one that is too easily thwarted by the man in the middle.
Hopefully the guy on the hunger strike backed up his telegram with an email.
If it's true that the iris patterns change significantly as children grow, then this would seem then to be a good thing to use for ID kids from the perspective that the ID method would "expire" after some period, making it no longer useful after the original reason no longer exists. This would be different/better than fingerprints that would be useful forever.
This is not to suggest that that I'm necessarily in favor of mandatory biometric ID screening. But if there was a biometric indicator that was reliable and also "expired" after a year or to, that would be awfully handy. If you voluntarily used that form of ID for a temporary purpose you wouldn't be handing over a permanent key.
It came from the linked article that references a rejected appeal in a bank fraud case concerning turning over an encryption key.
If I hear about a startup that hasn't lost any employees then I just figure they're waiting for the IPO. While l like the description of the diverse group of employees and other aspects of the company, I think not mentioning compensation at all is a little disingenuous
If they're paying the people a reasonable wage and the checks don't bounce then employees tend to stay. Add in stock options and waiting for the big IPO, or as mentioned in the article a very big buyout, then you have people waiting for the big payday. The perks ( or lack thereof ) might have had an effect on employee retention thus far, but you shouldn't ignore the hope of substantial monetary compensation as an additional big motivator.
Effet Pierre-sur-Haute
Might as well make it local.
I was thinking more like this: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/bibuxton/buxtoncollection/detail.aspx?id=178
"Rather than a free-standing slate/tablet computer, the Zenith CruisePAD was a remote terminal to one's PC. It was designed to allow the user to interact with that PC's applications from a distance over a wireless network. What made it interesting to me was that it let one do so directly on the CruisePAD's screen, using either a stylus or finger."
I don't know if it was a case of "if you can't beat them join them" but when I searched for "MTM watch" on Amazon there was a sponsored link by the plaintiff on a resulting page. So they appear to be paying Amazon ( directly or indirectly ) when someone searches there to give them a link back.
It doesn't have to be a keyword. Amazon has a feature "other people who searched for that bought this". So people could initially have searched for the exclusive watch, not found it and then looked at others. They might even have bought one. Amazon wouldn't have had to do anything specific regarding the "other watch" besides see what people who came looking for it looked at after when they didn't find it.
Scanning for ads pays for the service. Ad-Supported. Scanning for ads means you get an email service, for free. Spam filtering, for free. You get multi-gigabytes of storage, for free. So how in the heck can any Gmail user say it benefits Google and not them also?
It's legitimate for a non Gmail user to say that having their mail scanned isn't isn't worth the value of the email service. If you do have Gmail, you made the deal and you can leave any time if not happy with what you perceive as value you get for them scanning your mail.
Forget all the arguments about whether the art installation is a hack. The real hack is when someone else gets hold of the lights and make them spell out something like "Turk 182"
The civilian opportunities for this sound great. When compelled to give up a password or your devices are otherwise being examined without your permission, the same function used to protect private data.
Q: What's your password?
A: Phe!ps
Q: What's that smoke smell?
I was thinking the subatomic particle. I should have gone with transistor, but wanted to use my "Q"
I can see the point made by people wanting to change the scoring. The initial letter/point associations were made based on the number of tiles in the bag and the frequency of use at the time. The "official" rules have changed by virtue of the allowable words. With new acceptable words added the letter frequency changed as well.
If new words are added (or subtracted ) , to keep the game the same, then eventually the letter scoring would also need to change if the desire was to keep the game from changing. Changes were made for non-English versions, with different distribution of letters and point values:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrabble_letter_distributions
So if English has changed since 1938 it's not outrageous to suggest a new distribution/scoring mix. Desire to keep the game "the same" is also understandable, but that would require using a 1938 dictionary and not allowing new words. ( Nope, can't used "quark" )
If a dad tried this in the USA he'd probably find himself, along with the assassins, being charged with some cyberbullying statute. The kid would then sue successfully, making enough money to move out, get his own place and continue gaming full time.
The build up and payoff was about as satisfying as "Bambi Meets Godzilla"
Following links several layers down from the original article lead to this one that cites the doubling :
http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e536
This article is from 2012, so not part of the analysis from the other paper listed that is from 1999.. But as both analyze the results of previously performed studies one meta-analysis of another meta-analysis might not have been appropriate anyway. They do come up with different conclusions. As the one linked to here is from a decade later that the other one, it may be that it is bases on studies done after the the other paper was published.
In the study referenced there are LOTS of "conclusions" mentioned that can be taken out of context of the article. This be because the paper references many other studies and quotes their conclusions or observations. The bulk of the paper points out positive and negative aspects of previous studies. The paper itself does not present the conclusion of "a near doubling of the risk of fatal crashes" as suggested above. There may be another paper with that conclusion, but it's not this one. If that number came from one of the other studies that this paper cites, it would be interesting to see how this paper's authors address that conclusion.
http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/2/222.full.pdf
There are three points at the end of this paper:
"Overall we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:"
1. No evidence that consumption of cannabis increases the risk of culpability for fatal traffic crashes and may decrease them.
2. The evidence for the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol relative to alcohol alone is unclear.
3 It is not possible to exclude that cannabis use, with or without alcohol leads to an increase risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage.