That... it the strangest thing. That makes literally no sense. Why on earth?
It's not like when Netflix FIRST arrived in NZ it was without "Orange is the New Black" because they'd licensed the rights to that off to a local TV station earlier, but the latest season?
I'm assuming there wasn't some stupid deal where they'd sold first broadcast rights to a local provider?
Likely something like that. They claim "licensing issues", whatever that means. As far as I recall it wasn't available on local TV, but then I don't subscribe to any premium channels.
I haven't really understood why they don't just say that your subscription fee only covers the region in which you subscribe. Then they'd at least get double the subscription fee from someone who uses it in their own country + another country.
That would be rather annoying for people who travel a lot, but Netflix could do something related. They could lock the content to the home address you have given them for payment. Then you can watch from anywhere in the world but your content is locked to your home country.
This is probably one of the driving forces behind their shift towards original content.
Which they also geolock. The last season of House of Cards appeared on US Netflix weeks and weeks before it aired locally. I pay for Netflix, but I still ended up looking on Torrent sites to watch their content without waiting.
I tried it briefly and found that commands such as htop and nload didn't work. So it seems like little the Linux sub-system is little more than a curiosity at present.
Grad students are paid barely above minimum wage, if that. They actually aren't expected to produce *any* research output, and anything they get out of their project is regarded as a bonus.
I don't know what field you're coming from, but that's not the case in neuroscience. Anyone coming out of a PhD in this field with no publications isn't going to be happy with their performance and it will likely count against them in looking for a good Post Doc.
... but the FDA is still finding something to complain about.
I can't see it say anywhere that the diagnostic test from Theranos works. It just says that there are problems with associated protocols. Seems like yet another example of their corner cutting behavior. Theranos doesn't exactly have a good history of producing reliable diagnostic tests.
We, in the west, can not and should not change China to what we feel is the "right" way.
We don't have to "change China" to affect change. We could just not buy from companies which behave unethically. Apple would cease to strong-arm its supplies if it became obvious that doing so led to a decrease in sales and a tarnishing of its brand name.
Every time time humans appear to run up against a resource limitation, we've found ways around it.
This has so far been the case in our recent history. It is not the case in general. There are numerous examples of past civilizations that have declined and disintegrated due to resource depletion. Jared Diamond's "Collapse" provides a great overview of the more prominent examples and is soberly written. The only difference between the past and modern times is that our civilization is now global and we've been able to use technology to stretch resources. That doesn't mean that our behavior is sustainable or that we'll be able to continue coming up with solutions indefinitely to allow for ever-greater resource use. At some point we have to scale back. That will happen either by choice or be forced upon us.
You see population growth is rapidly decelerating, albeit still positive. Hence our impact is likely to be decelerating too.
Population is one factor, the other is per capita emissions and resource usage. It's the latter that's increasing. A common theme in the news recently has been the alarm expressed by scientists at the rapidity with which changes are happening. Nobody is saying that things are progressing at lower than expected rates. They're all shocked at how fast it's hitting home. People can make cute comments about Malthus to imply that there's nothing to worry about, but that's not what we're seeing. Just because Malthus wasn't right in his lifetime, that doesn't make him wrong. Malthus died in 1834: that's really not that long ago.
I've never even heard of this metric. Is this based on real science or climate activism?
Whether or not this particular number is "real" or "climate activism" is somewhat irrelevant. The real science is very clearly telling us that our negative impact on the planet is substantial and that this is accelerating. This is the reason for the activism.
Take it with a grain of salt when Backblaze say a drive is crap since it may only be crap in their very hostile environment, but if they didn't break it then it's very likely to work well anywhere.
What's the typical drive temperature in Backblaze's cases in their environment?
Any Swiss citizens are equal, and are free to vote directly on each subject without any consideration to the political parties. Might be obvious to any Swiss citizens but it's important to remain this on an international site as this is sadly still today very uncommon around the world.
I'm not really sure where you're going with your posts or why you think I'm saying anything very different to what you're saying, but I'm not sure about this particular statement of yours. In Switzerland you often have referendums on various topics. As you say, you can be affiliated to any political party and vote however you like in a referendum. You then say that this is uncommon elsewhere in the world. What is uncommon? The ability to have a referendum? Or the ability to vote how you like in a referendum. It seems to be the latter, which is clearly not true. I'm confused.
Unfortunately, the EU really likes using such programs to put pressure to non-member states for completely unrelated negotiations, and as a result has recently excluded Switzerland from Horizon 2020. I wouldn't be surprised if they used the same tactics also against the UK in the future.
It was Switzerland's choice. They voted to restrict immigration and what you outline was the result. Maybe one shouldn't be tied to the other, but they knew what they were getting themselves into when they voted. Don't forget it barely got through. As is often the case with these motions pushed by Switzerland's right-wing party, it's the more rural cantons that vote for them and the urban areas that vote against them. i.e. it's the people who actually interact with foreigners that want them in Switzerland.
I think the idea is that people who keep an iPhone for four years are less likely to spend money, and vendors aren't going to worry about selling to such people.
I'm sure that's true. People who change their phone often are likely have more money and so more likely to spend it on software as well as hardware. Certainly my gripe is on the software side, but whether it's purely with the App vendors isn't clear to me. It seems plausible that Apple is updating iOS in a way that makes backward compatibility difficult. It's in their interest to do this since it drives hardware sales. Given the high adoption rate of newer iOS releases and the apparent backward compatibility issues these create, it may be that App vendors just aren't in a position to support older versions of iOS. Their hand is forced to a degree.
Apple supports their phones with updates longer than any other manufacturer. Even without updates, you can still use a first generation iPhone today
For what definition of "use it"? A lot of Apps won't work if you have older phone. I have an iPod touch which I bought about 4 years ago. I can use it, sure. But I can't have Spotify on it because the latest version of iOS supported by the device isn't capable of running the latest version of Spotify. That's a bit shit, if you ask me.
In passenger cars, nothing less than a 100% reliable, full-time autopilot function is acceptable, and we're not even slightly close to that being a reality.
Why does it have to be 100%? Nothing in this domain is 100%. It just has to be more reliable than people on average. The failure modes may be different from those committed by people, but that's not relevant. Only the final accident statistics are relevant. With enough semi-autonomous vehicles on the highway, I think we'd see a reduction in traffic jam severity because there would be fewer people driving like jerks and trying to get ahead.
I agree, the lack of any real change was a big problem for them. Without a format shift it was Top Gear without Clarkson and Co and that just didn't work. Top Gear worked because of the chemistry the three presenters had; they obviously got on and were having fun, which drew you in as a viewer. There was no chemistry between Evans and LeBlanc so everything felt contrived. I think if the BBC want it to survive they should keep LeBlanc and just let him pick two other people who he really wants to work and go with that. If they fail a second time around the series is dead on the BBC.
Personally I'm happy Evans has gone. I hadn't heard of him before the show was announced,
Yes, he's been broadcasting for years and years and he's always been annoying. He's had several talk shows on TV in addition to the radio work. For some reason a lot of people seem to like listening to him rabbit on about nothing in particular. I can't see the attraction myself.
The people I know who are knowledgeable about Linux actually use it. The ones who aren't knowledgeable tend not to know about it.
I don't know what the numbers are, but I know a few people who indeed are knowledgeable on Linux but use Windows or OS X on their desktop. The core reason is that they don't feel strongly about the OS they use so will just run whatever is most convenient. They might use Linux on severs or clusters for high-power work but don't use it on their laptop. They might want to avoid the temptation of having an OS they fiddle with and waste time on when they can get their work done on Windows/Mac. They may develop software that is Windows-based and so run Windows on their laptop/desktop. These are all reasons that I've seen for people with good Linux skills not running it on their desktop.
In fact, I almost fall into this camp. I've been using Macs as my laptop of choice for 8 years now, but Linux on work desktops.
What is forgotten by people bashing GMO is that there is no one thing that is GMO. Any modification you make renders something GMO. Some are clearly innocuous, like tweaking the expression level of an existing gene, and some may potentially be dangerous, like expressing an insecticide in a plant. Making blanket statements about GMO foods is never going to cut it.
To give you an idea, my vote has never counted in a UK election, despite always participating. My chosen candidate never wins locally, so I have zero influence over who governs the country. That's how our unfair system works, if your local candidate doesn't win your vote is discarded and ignored.
It's not just a different kind of democracy, it's fundamentally unfair. Whenever anyone sets up a new democracy they base it on proportional representation, not the first-past-the-post system.
But you are represented and can lobby your representative. You are also free to run yourself. That's why it's a democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
That... it the strangest thing. That makes literally no sense. Why on earth?
It's not like when Netflix FIRST arrived in NZ it was without "Orange is the New Black" because they'd licensed the rights to that off to a local TV station earlier, but the latest season?
I'm assuming there wasn't some stupid deal where they'd sold first broadcast rights to a local provider?
Likely something like that. They claim "licensing issues", whatever that means. As far as I recall it wasn't available on local TV, but then I don't subscribe to any premium channels.
I haven't really understood why they don't just say that your subscription fee only covers the region in which you subscribe. Then they'd at least get double the subscription fee from someone who uses it in their own country + another country.
That would be rather annoying for people who travel a lot, but Netflix could do something related. They could lock the content to the home address you have given them for payment. Then you can watch from anywhere in the world but your content is locked to your home country.
This is probably one of the driving forces behind their shift towards original content.
Which they also geolock. The last season of House of Cards appeared on US Netflix weeks and weeks before it aired locally. I pay for Netflix, but I still ended up looking on Torrent sites to watch their content without waiting.
I tried it briefly and found that commands such as htop and nload didn't work. So it seems like little the Linux sub-system is little more than a curiosity at present.
Grad students are paid barely above minimum wage, if that. They actually aren't expected to produce *any* research output, and anything they get out of their project is regarded as a bonus.
I don't know what field you're coming from, but that's not the case in neuroscience. Anyone coming out of a PhD in this field with no publications isn't going to be happy with their performance and it will likely count against them in looking for a good Post Doc.
Ditto here. Been running my PS3 via ethernet for ages. Cable is always less flaky than Wifi.
... but the FDA is still finding something to complain about.
I can't see it say anywhere that the diagnostic test from Theranos works. It just says that there are problems with associated protocols. Seems like yet another example of their corner cutting behavior. Theranos doesn't exactly have a good history of producing reliable diagnostic tests.
We, in the west, can not and should not change China to what we feel is the "right" way.
We don't have to "change China" to affect change. We could just not buy from companies which behave unethically. Apple would cease to strong-arm its supplies if it became obvious that doing so led to a decrease in sales and a tarnishing of its brand name.
Apparently .xls is an acceptable format -- which is not irrational.
Yes it is. Why not CSV? These are just data tables.
Every time time humans appear to run up against a resource limitation, we've found ways around it.
This has so far been the case in our recent history. It is not the case in general. There are numerous examples of past civilizations that have declined and disintegrated due to resource depletion. Jared Diamond's "Collapse" provides a great overview of the more prominent examples and is soberly written. The only difference between the past and modern times is that our civilization is now global and we've been able to use technology to stretch resources. That doesn't mean that our behavior is sustainable or that we'll be able to continue coming up with solutions indefinitely to allow for ever-greater resource use. At some point we have to scale back. That will happen either by choice or be forced upon us.
[citation needed]
You see population growth is rapidly decelerating, albeit still positive. Hence our impact is likely to be decelerating too.
Population is one factor, the other is per capita emissions and resource usage. It's the latter that's increasing. A common theme in the news recently has been the alarm expressed by scientists at the rapidity with which changes are happening. Nobody is saying that things are progressing at lower than expected rates. They're all shocked at how fast it's hitting home. People can make cute comments about Malthus to imply that there's nothing to worry about, but that's not what we're seeing. Just because Malthus wasn't right in his lifetime, that doesn't make him wrong. Malthus died in 1834: that's really not that long ago.
I've never even heard of this metric. Is this based on real science or climate activism?
Whether or not this particular number is "real" or "climate activism" is somewhat irrelevant. The real science is very clearly telling us that our negative impact on the planet is substantial and that this is accelerating. This is the reason for the activism.
Take it with a grain of salt when Backblaze say a drive is crap since it may only be crap in their very hostile environment, but if they didn't break it then it's very likely to work well anywhere.
What's the typical drive temperature in Backblaze's cases in their environment?
An other point regarding you text.
Any Swiss citizens are equal, and are free to vote directly on each subject without any consideration to the political parties. Might be obvious to any Swiss citizens but it's important to remain this on an international site as this is sadly still today very uncommon around the world.
I'm not really sure where you're going with your posts or why you think I'm saying anything very different to what you're saying, but I'm not sure about this particular statement of yours. In Switzerland you often have referendums on various topics. As you say, you can be affiliated to any political party and vote however you like in a referendum. You then say that this is uncommon elsewhere in the world. What is uncommon? The ability to have a referendum? Or the ability to vote how you like in a referendum. It seems to be the latter, which is clearly not true. I'm confused.
Unfortunately, the EU really likes using such programs to put pressure to non-member states for completely unrelated negotiations, and as a result has recently excluded Switzerland from Horizon 2020. I wouldn't be surprised if they used the same tactics also against the UK in the future.
It was Switzerland's choice. They voted to restrict immigration and what you outline was the result. Maybe one shouldn't be tied to the other, but they knew what they were getting themselves into when they voted. Don't forget it barely got through. As is often the case with these motions pushed by Switzerland's right-wing party, it's the more rural cantons that vote for them and the urban areas that vote against them. i.e. it's the people who actually interact with foreigners that want them in Switzerland.
I think the idea is that people who keep an iPhone for four years are less likely to spend money, and vendors aren't going to worry about selling to such people.
I'm sure that's true. People who change their phone often are likely have more money and so more likely to spend it on software as well as hardware. Certainly my gripe is on the software side, but whether it's purely with the App vendors isn't clear to me. It seems plausible that Apple is updating iOS in a way that makes backward compatibility difficult. It's in their interest to do this since it drives hardware sales. Given the high adoption rate of newer iOS releases and the apparent backward compatibility issues these create, it may be that App vendors just aren't in a position to support older versions of iOS. Their hand is forced to a degree.
For what definition of "use it"? A lot of Apps won't work if you have older phone. I have an iPod touch which I bought about 4 years ago. I can use it, sure. But I can't have Spotify on it because the latest version of iOS supported by the device isn't capable of running the latest version of Spotify. That's a bit shit, if you ask me.
Why stop at Kirk? Have all of them be gay. If the plot is good it doesn't matter.If the plot is good.
In passenger cars, nothing less than a 100% reliable, full-time autopilot function is acceptable, and we're not even slightly close to that being a reality.
Why does it have to be 100%? Nothing in this domain is 100%. It just has to be more reliable than people on average. The failure modes may be different from those committed by people, but that's not relevant. Only the final accident statistics are relevant. With enough semi-autonomous vehicles on the highway, I think we'd see a reduction in traffic jam severity because there would be fewer people driving like jerks and trying to get ahead.
I agree, the lack of any real change was a big problem for them. Without a format shift it was Top Gear without Clarkson and Co and that just didn't work. Top Gear worked because of the chemistry the three presenters had; they obviously got on and were having fun, which drew you in as a viewer. There was no chemistry between Evans and LeBlanc so everything felt contrived. I think if the BBC want it to survive they should keep LeBlanc and just let him pick two other people who he really wants to work and go with that. If they fail a second time around the series is dead on the BBC.
Personally I'm happy Evans has gone. I hadn't heard of him before the show was announced,
Yes, he's been broadcasting for years and years and he's always been annoying. He's had several talk shows on TV in addition to the radio work. For some reason a lot of people seem to like listening to him rabbit on about nothing in particular. I can't see the attraction myself.
The people I know who are knowledgeable about Linux actually use it. The ones who aren't knowledgeable tend not to know about it.
I don't know what the numbers are, but I know a few people who indeed are knowledgeable on Linux but use Windows or OS X on their desktop. The core reason is that they don't feel strongly about the OS they use so will just run whatever is most convenient. They might use Linux on severs or clusters for high-power work but don't use it on their laptop. They might want to avoid the temptation of having an OS they fiddle with and waste time on when they can get their work done on Windows/Mac. They may develop software that is Windows-based and so run Windows on their laptop/desktop. These are all reasons that I've seen for people with good Linux skills not running it on their desktop.
In fact, I almost fall into this camp. I've been using Macs as my laptop of choice for 8 years now, but Linux on work desktops.
What is forgotten by people bashing GMO is that there is no one thing that is GMO. Any modification you make renders something GMO. Some are clearly innocuous, like tweaking the expression level of an existing gene, and some may potentially be dangerous, like expressing an insecticide in a plant. Making blanket statements about GMO foods is never going to cut it.
Is this the one that includes Bash?
To give you an idea, my vote has never counted in a UK election, despite always participating. My chosen candidate never wins locally, so I have zero influence over who governs the country. That's how our unfair system works, if your local candidate doesn't win your vote is discarded and ignored.
It's not just a different kind of democracy, it's fundamentally unfair. Whenever anyone sets up a new democracy they base it on proportional representation, not the first-past-the-post system.
But you are represented and can lobby your representative. You are also free to run yourself. That's why it's a democracy.