If you read the article, it mentions that the diamonds are up to 100 micrometers across. Human hair diameter ranges from 17 to 181 micrometers, so these diamonds are roughly as big across as the thickness of a human hair. What they're describing is more appropriately used for industrial abrasive than as gems.
Please, no... I already get enough utterly useless email at work because someone sends out an email to the department distribution list, for example, requesting that everyone do some particular task (i.e., timecards), and almost invariably at least a dozen people reply to the entire distribution list that they've done it. I can only imagine how much utter spam I'd be getting if I had to wade through the tsunami of "[user] liked this" notifications from some of the mailing lists I get email from.
That makes it too easy for the bastards to hide a high tax rate.
The shelf tags in the supermarkets I shop at have the price in large numbers, and smaller text arrayed around the central price sort of like the ancillary values in a periodic table entry, giving data like package size, cost per ounce, etc.; it would be simple enough to require that the tags have total price in the largest font, but also list base price and tax amount in smaller text for the computationally challenged.
From TFA: "The culprit is a chemical produced in the bean roasting process that is a known carcinogen". Acrylamide in foods, including coffee, appears to be a byproduct of the Maillard reaction (the darker you make your toast, the more acrylamide you consume, for example, and bread crust itself contains acrylamide); it's also found in cigarette smoke, and is the primary source of exposure by smokers. An article about acrylamide points out that it has been part of humanity's diet for as long as we've been cooking our food.
The problem, as I see it, is that you are misconstruing what Facebook is. Facebook's business model depends on getting the users of its social media system to willingly (and also, as it appears, unwittingly) reveal personal and private information about themselves so that information can be sold to other business to use for their marketing. As such, you are not a customer of Facebook; you are its product. The companies Facebook sells your information (and access to, by serving as a platform to feed you targeted ads) to are its customers. As such, your desire not to have targeted ads presented to you is irrelevant to Facebook, except insofar as the lack of ability to opt out of targeted advertising causes a mass exodus of Facebook participants, which would negatively impact its bottom line.
That was my first thought, too; just make the repair room a Faraday cage. The government has been using TEMPEST certified spaces to prevent the leakage of classified electronic signals for decades, ranging from individual rooms to entire buildings; the expertise to make one -- particularly since you only need to be able to block cellphone signals, which is one fairly narrow band -- should be readily available..
As a concession to obstructing the execution of random code from unknown sites to slow the wholesale scraping of my browsing habits, I have execution blocked by default, and when I go to a site and find that it doesn't display right, I get to play JavaScript roulette, wading through a list that can show a dozen or more hosts completely unrelated to the site I'm viewing to find the one(s) that will make the content display correctly. The Gizmodo sites, for example, will sometimes require running a script from pbs.twimg.com to display images, there's the ongoing [randomstring].cloudfront.com hostnames that can change from day to day on the same page, and many more. Some of them, like googleadsyndication.com, google.pageads.com, or anything in the doubleclick.net domain, are readily identifiable as adserving scripts and left disabled, while others, like js-sec.indexww.com and www.googletagservices.com, are less clear.
That's funny, because I'm pretty sure the social media giants - and even wikipedia - were doing a pretty decent job of regulating speech with these magical rules in place.
You play in Facebook's garden, or Twitter's, it's their choice what you can do there. They decide what is acceptable use for their environment. YouTube is perfectly free to lay down rules about what you can post on their service. What net neutrality says is that an ISP can't decide that a connection to YouTube gets enough bandwidth to stream 4K 30fps videos, but a connection to NewStart Streaming's video streaming service only gets enough bandwidth for 640x480 video at 10fps. Nor is the ISP allowed to go to NewStart Streaming and tell them that they can have full bandwidth service just like YouTube's for the low, low price of $100,000 per month over and above what they're paying for their Net connection now.
I tend to refer to the Starship Troopers movie as the 'Nutri-Matic tea' version of the book -- something almost, but not quite, completely unlike the original source.
From what I've seen, critics' reviews correlate very well to viewers' responses for art movies, where the cinematography, character development, and other techniques of the film are fundamental aspects of the film -- where you're judging all of these aspects of the film all the way through the piece. They do much less well in matching viewer response when the point of the film is entertainment -- when the film might have exquisite camerawork, or an incredible score, or a solid, character-driven plot, but all of that is secondary to pulling the viewer into the events of the film and taking them away from their life for a few hours; thinking about the camerawork or the score or the characterization is something you do afterwards, if at all.
Enough of the ambiguity. Enough of the bullshit. Word it in black and white terms. Electronic devices with rechargeable batteries should be designed in such a way that they are easily replaceable by the end user. See? It's not hard to remove the ambiguity and put a stop to relentless greed that continues to fuck over the consumer
No. You have left a loophole in your example, one that allows manufacturers to ignore the legislation. However, it's a one-word fix. Electronic devices with rechargeable batteries must be designed in such a way that they are easily replaceable by the end user. Replacing 'should' by 'must' makes the design requirement compulsory, instead of being indeterminate.
May she go forth in the sunrise boat, May she come to port in the sunset boat, May she go among the imperishable stars, May she journey in the Boat of a Million Years
— The Book of Going Forth by Daylight (Theban recension, ca. 18th Dynasty)
I doubt the fixed it, but the new Quantum "faster" Firefox was really dragging down my system. At first, I thought some malicious add-on was mining cryptocurrency on my machine. But it turns out Firefox was just spawning orphan processes.
Aha... This bids fair to be the issue I have been having. Prior to getting upgraded to Firefox Quantum, I could open a tabset with a dozen or more tabs, and I wouldn't see any effect on the rest of my system. Once I upgraded to Quantum, though, opening more than one or two new tabs at a time was causing not only other Firefox tabs (i.e., a YouTube video) to stutter, but also Windows Media player playing a music file -- even with WMP's priority set to 'realtime' (24) in Process Explorer. Thank you for the link to the solution; I will have to try that when I get home and see if it helps.
If it keeps this up, it will take a lot of hot weather to make up for this...geez its cold in the south!!!!
You're forgetting the fundamental definition in the AGC community -- if the temperatures in an area are warmer than average, it's climate change. If the temperatures in an area are lower than average, it's just weather. And NOAA will ensure, through it's ongoing and declared practice of "adjusting" improperly-recorded historical temperature data, that the temperature record shows an ongoing rise in temperature 'proving' AGC.
When it arrives without his digital signature, the message ID gets forwarded to IA as a spearfishing attack and they pull it off the server and dissect it to find out where it came from. And even if it does arrive with his digital signature, the message ID gets forwarded to IA as a spearfishing attack, because invoices never come to me, and my boss knows that.
And that's the whole premise behind net neutrality; you've paid for your access, it shouldn't matter where you're connecting to.
Unfortunately, with the regulations that will govern what ISPs can do once this change goes into effect, as long as the ISP tells you up front what they're doing, it's all hunky-dory and legal. So if your ISP announces a change in terms of service that states that, because of the religious beliefs of the ISP management, customers will no longer be able to access any website that offers medical information about birth control or abortions, you're SOL. It's potentially like the opening narration of the TV series "The Outer Limits" -- "There is nothing wrong with your internet connection. Do not attempt to adjust your cablemodem. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to improve your access to a site, we will increase the bandwidth. If we wish to impede your access to a site, we will reduce its bandwidth. We will deny you access to any website critical of our actions, policies, or beliefs, and inject advertising for sites that pay us to do so into all web pages you access. Until Congress passes a law preventing us from doing this, sit back and we will control all that you see and hear on the internet."
If I start a new youtube I can't imagine ISPs would bother to throttle it, until such time that my new youtube it huge but then it seems like a fair game.
The problem is that, without building out new bandwidth, ISPs will only have a fixed amount of bandwidth for all their traffic, so if they sell expanded bandwidth to some customers, it's going to come out of the bandwidth that would have been allocated elsewhere under an even-handed distribution. So an ISP could arbitrarily decide that streaming video would, by default, get an amount of bandwidth sufficient only to stream 640x480 video, and if a streaming service wanted more, they would have to pay for it. Netflix is big enough that it can afford to pay for the higher-tier access package, and if your ISP were, say, Time-Warner, streaming from their own service would automatically get all the bandwidth it needs. But your putative startup streaming service wouldn't have the market share to have the income to be able to pay for the 'enhanced experience' access package, so all their video would either be limited to 640x480 resolution or buffer incessantly, making the startup less competitive against Netflix and Time-Warner's streaming service.
And Facebook won't 'accidentally' use the nude image as a picture when sending out 'potential friend' notices to other people after datamining your shadow profile...
And that's another problem with copyright as it's been implemented. When you publish a work, you are contracting with the government to protect your work for the period of copyright at the time you publish the work; if the term of copyright is later extended, it should not retroactively apply to already-published work. Those works were published with the full knowledge and agreement of the creator knowing what the term of protection was; if they weren't satisfied with the term of protection, they were free not to publish.
You kids with your 20-digit UIDs all talking 'bout how it was.
It's irrelevant to the discussion, but this brought up a memory of my father telling me about going to REI to buy something, and when the cashier asked him for his membership card to put in the member number, she looked at it and said "This doesn't have enough numbers!" My father had been stationed in Seattle in the early 1960s, and had received a five-digit membership number when he joined the REI co-op (mine is seven digits, about thirty years later). One of the more entertaining memories I have of my father.
'But we would never block or restrict access to the Internet' many ISPs say. Fine. Then Net Neutrality rules won't affect the way you do business, so shut up.
Exactly. I wonder why no one has bearded Ajit Pai on the record -- preferably on camera -- and asked him outright, "Mr. Pai, if the Internet corporations say they're not violating net neutrality now, and they have no intentions of violating net neutrality, then the existence of net neutrality regulations has no effect on them. Why would you want to waste the FCC's resources in the repeal of something which won't affect them unless they want to engage in practices that are prohibited under its provisions? This creates the appearance of your acting solely for the benefit of the corporations, rather than for the citizens of the United States."
Slashdot Mirror
If you read the article, it mentions that the diamonds are up to 100 micrometers across. Human hair diameter ranges from 17 to 181 micrometers, so these diamonds are roughly as big across as the thickness of a human hair. What they're describing is more appropriately used for industrial abrasive than as gems.
Email has no like or share button ...
Please, no... I already get enough utterly useless email at work because someone sends out an email to the department distribution list, for example, requesting that everyone do some particular task (i.e., timecards), and almost invariably at least a dozen people reply to the entire distribution list that they've done it. I can only imagine how much utter spam I'd be getting if I had to wade through the tsunami of "[user] liked this" notifications from some of the mailing lists I get email from.
That makes it too easy for the bastards to hide a high tax rate.
The shelf tags in the supermarkets I shop at have the price in large numbers, and smaller text arrayed around the central price sort of like the ancillary values in a periodic table entry, giving data like package size, cost per ounce, etc.; it would be simple enough to require that the tags have total price in the largest font, but also list base price and tax amount in smaller text for the computationally challenged.
From TFA: "The culprit is a chemical produced in the bean roasting process that is a known carcinogen". Acrylamide in foods, including coffee, appears to be a byproduct of the Maillard reaction (the darker you make your toast, the more acrylamide you consume, for example, and bread crust itself contains acrylamide); it's also found in cigarette smoke, and is the primary source of exposure by smokers. An article about acrylamide points out that it has been part of humanity's diet for as long as we've been cooking our food.
Unfortunately, the Tibetan plateau has few coastlines to supply the salt water for desalinization.
The problem, as I see it, is that you are misconstruing what Facebook is. Facebook's business model depends on getting the users of its social media system to willingly (and also, as it appears, unwittingly) reveal personal and private information about themselves so that information can be sold to other business to use for their marketing. As such, you are not a customer of Facebook; you are its product. The companies Facebook sells your information (and access to, by serving as a platform to feed you targeted ads) to are its customers. As such, your desire not to have targeted ads presented to you is irrelevant to Facebook, except insofar as the lack of ability to opt out of targeted advertising causes a mass exodus of Facebook participants, which would negatively impact its bottom line.
That was my first thought, too; just make the repair room a Faraday cage. The government has been using TEMPEST certified spaces to prevent the leakage of classified electronic signals for decades, ranging from individual rooms to entire buildings; the expertise to make one -- particularly since you only need to be able to block cellphone signals, which is one fairly narrow band -- should be readily available..
"All Americans deserve equal rights online."
And you'll get them as long as you're willing to pay through the nose for the privilege.
As a concession to obstructing the execution of random code from unknown sites to slow the wholesale scraping of my browsing habits, I have execution blocked by default, and when I go to a site and find that it doesn't display right, I get to play JavaScript roulette, wading through a list that can show a dozen or more hosts completely unrelated to the site I'm viewing to find the one(s) that will make the content display correctly. The Gizmodo sites, for example, will sometimes require running a script from pbs.twimg.com to display images, there's the ongoing [randomstring].cloudfront.com hostnames that can change from day to day on the same page, and many more. Some of them, like googleadsyndication.com, google.pageads.com, or anything in the doubleclick.net domain, are readily identifiable as adserving scripts and left disabled, while others, like js-sec.indexww.com and www.googletagservices.com, are less clear.
That's funny, because I'm pretty sure the social media giants - and even wikipedia - were doing a pretty decent job of regulating speech with these magical rules in place.
You play in Facebook's garden, or Twitter's, it's their choice what you can do there. They decide what is acceptable use for their environment. YouTube is perfectly free to lay down rules about what you can post on their service. What net neutrality says is that an ISP can't decide that a connection to YouTube gets enough bandwidth to stream 4K 30fps videos, but a connection to NewStart Streaming's video streaming service only gets enough bandwidth for 640x480 video at 10fps. Nor is the ISP allowed to go to NewStart Streaming and tell them that they can have full bandwidth service just like YouTube's for the low, low price of $100,000 per month over and above what they're paying for their Net connection now.
I tend to refer to the Starship Troopers movie as the 'Nutri-Matic tea' version of the book -- something almost, but not quite, completely unlike the original source.
From what I've seen, critics' reviews correlate very well to viewers' responses for art movies, where the cinematography, character development, and other techniques of the film are fundamental aspects of the film -- where you're judging all of these aspects of the film all the way through the piece. They do much less well in matching viewer response when the point of the film is entertainment -- when the film might have exquisite camerawork, or an incredible score, or a solid, character-driven plot, but all of that is secondary to pulling the viewer into the events of the film and taking them away from their life for a few hours; thinking about the camerawork or the score or the characterization is something you do afterwards, if at all.
Enough of the ambiguity. Enough of the bullshit. Word it in black and white terms. Electronic devices with rechargeable batteries should be designed in such a way that they are easily replaceable by the end user. See? It's not hard to remove the ambiguity and put a stop to relentless greed that continues to fuck over the consumer
No. You have left a loophole in your example, one that allows manufacturers to ignore the legislation. However, it's a one-word fix. Electronic devices with rechargeable batteries must be designed in such a way that they are easily replaceable by the end user. Replacing 'should' by 'must' makes the design requirement compulsory, instead of being indeterminate.
May she go forth in the sunrise boat,
May she come to port in the sunset boat,
May she go among the imperishable stars,
May she journey in the Boat of a Million Years
— The Book of Going Forth by Daylight
(Theban recension, ca. 18th Dynasty)
I doubt the fixed it, but the new Quantum "faster" Firefox was really dragging down my system. At first, I thought some malicious add-on was mining cryptocurrency on my machine. But it turns out Firefox was just spawning orphan processes.
Aha... This bids fair to be the issue I have been having. Prior to getting upgraded to Firefox Quantum, I could open a tabset with a dozen or more tabs, and I wouldn't see any effect on the rest of my system. Once I upgraded to Quantum, though, opening more than one or two new tabs at a time was causing not only other Firefox tabs (i.e., a YouTube video) to stutter, but also Windows Media player playing a music file -- even with WMP's priority set to 'realtime' (24) in Process Explorer. Thank you for the link to the solution; I will have to try that when I get home and see if it helps.
If it keeps this up, it will take a lot of hot weather to make up for this...geez its cold in the south!!!!
You're forgetting the fundamental definition in the AGC community -- if the temperatures in an area are warmer than average, it's climate change. If the temperatures in an area are lower than average, it's just weather. And NOAA will ensure, through it's ongoing and declared practice of "adjusting" improperly-recorded historical temperature data, that the temperature record shows an ongoing rise in temperature 'proving' AGC.
The Francophone version of the graffiti scene from "Monty Python's Life of Brian"?
--
"People called Romanes, they go to the house?"
MIcrosoft Bob.
When it arrives without his digital signature, the message ID gets forwarded to IA as a spearfishing attack and they pull it off the server and dissect it to find out where it came from. And even if it does arrive with his digital signature, the message ID gets forwarded to IA as a spearfishing attack, because invoices never come to me, and my boss knows that.
And that's the whole premise behind net neutrality; you've paid for your access, it shouldn't matter where you're connecting to.
Unfortunately, with the regulations that will govern what ISPs can do once this change goes into effect, as long as the ISP tells you up front what they're doing, it's all hunky-dory and legal. So if your ISP announces a change in terms of service that states that, because of the religious beliefs of the ISP management, customers will no longer be able to access any website that offers medical information about birth control or abortions, you're SOL. It's potentially like the opening narration of the TV series "The Outer Limits" -- "There is nothing wrong with your internet connection. Do not attempt to adjust your cablemodem. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to improve your access to a site, we will increase the bandwidth. If we wish to impede your access to a site, we will reduce its bandwidth. We will deny you access to any website critical of our actions, policies, or beliefs, and inject advertising for sites that pay us to do so into all web pages you access. Until Congress passes a law preventing us from doing this, sit back and we will control all that you see and hear on the internet."
If I start a new youtube I can't imagine ISPs would bother to throttle it, until such time that my new youtube it huge but then it seems like a fair game.
The problem is that, without building out new bandwidth, ISPs will only have a fixed amount of bandwidth for all their traffic, so if they sell expanded bandwidth to some customers, it's going to come out of the bandwidth that would have been allocated elsewhere under an even-handed distribution. So an ISP could arbitrarily decide that streaming video would, by default, get an amount of bandwidth sufficient only to stream 640x480 video, and if a streaming service wanted more, they would have to pay for it. Netflix is big enough that it can afford to pay for the higher-tier access package, and if your ISP were, say, Time-Warner, streaming from their own service would automatically get all the bandwidth it needs. But your putative startup streaming service wouldn't have the market share to have the income to be able to pay for the 'enhanced experience' access package, so all their video would either be limited to 640x480 resolution or buffer incessantly, making the startup less competitive against Netflix and Time-Warner's streaming service.
And Facebook won't 'accidentally' use the nude image as a picture when sending out 'potential friend' notices to other people after datamining your shadow profile...
And that's another problem with copyright as it's been implemented. When you publish a work, you are contracting with the government to protect your work for the period of copyright at the time you publish the work; if the term of copyright is later extended, it should not retroactively apply to already-published work. Those works were published with the full knowledge and agreement of the creator knowing what the term of protection was; if they weren't satisfied with the term of protection, they were free not to publish.
You kids with your 20-digit UIDs all talking 'bout how it was.
It's irrelevant to the discussion, but this brought up a memory of my father telling me about going to REI to buy something, and when the cashier asked him for his membership card to put in the member number, she looked at it and said "This doesn't have enough numbers!" My father had been stationed in Seattle in the early 1960s, and had received a five-digit membership number when he joined the REI co-op (mine is seven digits, about thirty years later). One of the more entertaining memories I have of my father.
'But we would never block or restrict access to the Internet' many ISPs say. Fine. Then Net Neutrality rules won't affect the way you do business, so shut up.
Exactly. I wonder why no one has bearded Ajit Pai on the record -- preferably on camera -- and asked him outright, "Mr. Pai, if the Internet corporations say they're not violating net neutrality now, and they have no intentions of violating net neutrality, then the existence of net neutrality regulations has no effect on them. Why would you want to waste the FCC's resources in the repeal of something which won't affect them unless they want to engage in practices that are prohibited under its provisions? This creates the appearance of your acting solely for the benefit of the corporations, rather than for the citizens of the United States."