Is there any fidelity lost plugged your corded headphone into the lightning-to-3.5mm dongle on the iPhone, or a similar one that Samsung would use?
My understanding as a non-audiophile was actually that moving the DAC further away from the other components would actually reduce certain types of electrical noise. But even without that, it should be no worse from an audio quality point of view.
The only pages that appear to be exempt from the throttling are those that play audio.
So every page is now going to play a silent audio track in a loop in order to work around this limitation?
This is a common trick in iOS applications to prevent the system from backgrounding you when off-screen. It won't take long to migrate to the web . . .
Of course, heaviness means inertia, but travelling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, and inertia doesn't seem to be an impediment in any of the movies.
And yet TIE Fighters and X-Wings still zip around doing gee-whiz flips and turns while Imperial Star Destroyers and other big ships plod along.
Maybe consistency of physics isn't an impediment to movies either?
Hold on a second, to perform a search you have to send the query off to the search engine (probably Google). So, by intent, the engine has to get your query in order to provide the correct results.
Your claim is that it's helping them spy by giving them access to something that you already had the intent of giving them.
it has garbage collection, it doesn't carry the baggage of a runtime around with it
Sigh. Of course it has a runtime. Where else would the garbage collection that you just mentioned be implemented? Or GoRoutines. Or reflection.
I think you're confusing not having a runtime with having the Go compiler statically link the runtime into each executable. That has some benefits that you were alluding to (e.g. "no baggage") but it also has drawbacks such as increased executable size, increased memory usage (with a dynamic runtime, different instances all share the same library in memory), decreased cache usage (since if you have two Go executables, they are constantly evicting each others runtimes from cache, even though they are identical and could be shared) and the maintenance issues having to recompile to take advantage of security/bug/performance improvements in the runtime itself.
I have no issue if you claim that in some (your) use cases the advantages of a statically compiled runtime are worth the disadvantages. But that's not the same as claiming that either the runtime doesn't exist or that it's always advantageous.
To be fair though, from 1996 to the present, oil went up considerably (and then recently dropped back down) and so the decline in prices in the face of rising costs (gas is 30% of the total bill) is actually fairly impressive.
Just maybe, we might just sorta think about how we could not even book flights until the intertoobz came along. All of those jets sitting on the runwaysnot in use because without the internet, there was absolutely no way to reserve a flight. Sarcasm much intended.
Look at the history of airfare (chart or articleand before the internet, flying also cost twice as much (even after adding in the dreaded "fees" for shit that most people don't need) and was far less accessible to people of modest means. When people talk about how dignified air service was in the 70s, what they usually meant is that poor people weren't flying.
Of course the internet isn't responsible for the entire drop in prices. But the direct-booking (vs paying travel agents for working the system) and fare comparison contributed something.
The actual story is "the Russians hacked a couple of people at the Democratic Party (maybe) and embarrassed the hell out of them"
The actual actual story is that the Russians hacked some people at both parties, but selectively chose to release only a selection of the ones stolen from the Democratic party.
A condom is just a mechanism of birth control. You aren't going to "cap" the population unless you persuade (precise meaning varies) the whole world to start using them.
Heck, how did Samsung release an exploding phone, if all these companies' "advanced and extensive" internal testing is infallible?
Actually, given that many hundreds of consumer devices hit the market each year and there are a handful of really bad failures like antenna-gate and the exploding Note, I'd say they're running around 3-sigma. To me, that seems just about in-line with expectations that we'd see 99.7% or so reliability of the testing mechanisms.
Building a testing regimen that moves it to 99.99 or 99.999% of products released without a defect would likely double the testing costs and add weeks (or months) to the release schedule. At some point you have to stop and accept some risk that, out of a few hundred releases, some will have an undiscovered flaw. Better to correct the flaw and institute testing around that area than to be paralyzed by fear of failure.
No, that is not a requirement at all. Just look at Apple. They could have built their new headquarters out of literal stacks of cash they were sitting on before they finally started to pay a dividend. Ditto with Microsoft. These are not non-profits, they are allowed to accumulate cash if they wish.
I understand they've got her physical body back into stable condition, but she likely went 10-15 minutes without oxygen to her brain. Irreversible damage starts at 4 minutes.
Who the fuck buys a plane ticket and doesn't show up?
It makes a lot of sense if there are a few plausible options but you can't commit to one but want to be sure to have a seat. For instance, you're flying to Chicago on Wednesday to meet with a customer, the meeting may be done that day or it may drag on. You can buy a single changeable/refundable ticket for MDW-SJC on Southwest for $500, say for Friday. But if the meeting finishes early, there may not be any seats on the earlier flights and you're stuck even though you paid for a super-expensive ticket.
Conversely, you can buy 3 non-refundable tickets, one for Wed, one for Thursday and one for the last one out Friday for $164 each, or $492. And then you have a confirmed seat for whichever day you want to go, for $8 less than the refundable ticket.
I'm sure there's some way in which this price structure is what Southwest wants, or else they wouldn't intentionally price their refundable tickets so high:-/
Sooner or later Amazon has to start paying dividends...
No, they don't. They just need to keep their share price afloat. Dividends are not a requirement of any company, and there are plenty out there that don't pay them.
Well, sure, in one scenario a company never turns a profit. In fact, many sole proprietorships and other small companies do just this, they just "zero out" by paying the principals the remaining profit as a bonus each year.
If, on the other hand, a company makes a profit, that profit must either be reinvested in the company or returned to shareholders in the form of dividends or stock buybacks. That extra money has to go somewhere, if only into the company's bank account (or embezzled by the CFO to pay for blow, but I digress). In Amazon's case, it's being spent expanding the company into new market areas. That process of reinvesting profits, however, is necessarily bounded -- they cannot become infinitely rich* or control infinitely many market sectors. So one of two things need to happen eventually: either they stop making a profit or else they start returning the profit to the shareholders. Any other state is transient -- although if they go through a number of profit/loss/profit/loss cycles, I suppose it could just wash out for a very long time.
So yeah, dividends are not a requirement. But they are a logical outcome of long term profitability because the opportunities for expansion are finite.
Good thing the Pentagon has an unblemished record of never claiming anything to not have military purpose that wasn't a lie. That record of honesty will give their word a lot of weight when they are in the right like this.
And here I was thinking that the Pentagon (and everyone else) was within their right to conduct military training or other intelligence operations in internal waters. So the purpose hardly seems to matter.
Actually, did you know that Navies even have the right to sail warships through territorial waters if they are not as part of a belligerent attack?
We want to make a PR stunt to show that regulation is killing innovation in the industry and that we're the hip and cool future while our legal team thinks we'll be able to backpedal in time to avoid major economic penalties.
Or, our legal team actually thinks we don't need such a permit and the CA DMV is incorrect in their conclusion.
Believe it or not, sometime entities disagree about the interpretation of the law. And, even more shocking, the disagreement often breaks along the lines of government agencies believing that the regulation is expansive and the regulated entity believes that the regulation is permissive[1].
I mean, I'm curious to learn really which party has the better of the law as it currently exists. And if that's not right from a policy perspective, I'm keen to see how the rule can be changed in the future.
[1] This is Miles' law and happens without any conscious effort.
This is the exact logical flip-side of not being able to sign away your various rights, a policy that much (not all) of/. seems to be strongly in favor of.
For instance, in this case, there's no legal structure ('merican here) that would allow Samsung to propose that you can keep your phone in exchange for a waiver of liability for the defects in the product. So basically, the claim of "I want to own my device" implies that (a) you can turn down their request to swap it for a non-exploding device and (b) they are still liable if it explodes and kills a schoolbus full of kids.
No sane company would agree to that arrangement.
[ Or to put it another way, they can't stipulate that it's not a phone now but a fire-starter brick whose intended function is to explode. That's not how product liability law works. And we have to understand that by placing non-dischargeable legal responsibilities onto companies, we have changed the relationship between the company and the consumer. For the better, I think -- the world was much worse in the era of caveat emptor. ]
If the tickets are being sold for $60, but people are willing to pay $150, then why aren't they offered first for $150? I see the big problem being the middlemen sucking money out without adding value. Let the entertainers get that money.
I agree that the entertainers should get a cut of the excess value. At the same time, there are other non-monetary factors that entertainers also want out of their performances. First, they want to keep their fan base engaged in the long term, which is easier if ordinary fans believe they can score tickets. Having tickets that are auctioned off to the highest bidder is bad for their image. They would rather have a third party gouge the customers than be perceived as money-grubbers -- what's an extra few million.
The second is that, frankly, folks that pay a ton of money for shows tend to be more passive observers. I'm not sure if it's directly due to paying more and thus not thinking they need to contribute more, but Kid Rock did a cool thing where the first few rows were reserved for randomly-selected folks from the $20 GA. You can bet that those people were stoked!
If you have a smart TV connected to the internet, it's sending screen shot hashes back to the mothership regularly so that your viewing habits can be sold.[CITATION NEEDED]
Roku and Apple send Facebook, and anyone else that cares the pay, the information on what you are streaming, along with your IP and whatever else they care to send. Facebook then uses that information to send an ad to you.
Exactly wrong. It's not the device-side that's selling out your privacy at all.
--User points his media player (e.g. Roku) at some streaming service (e.g. A&E). As a result, A&E knows the IP address that is requesting streaming video.
--Streaming service shares data with some other party (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) using this IP as an identifier
--Other party correlates those IPs with the IPs making requests against its services and makes decisions (e.g. ads) based on that.
It is a fundamental part of the design of the internet (as it exists today) that two different service providers can cross-correlate requests based on a semi-stable* identifier (IP) if they chose to share data. There's literally nothing the client application can do to remedy this, it's in the network-layer. You can try to fix this at the network layer with some multi-VPN setup (not just a VPN, one that assigns a different external IP to each outgoing request) but that's sort of not how the internet was designed to work. The internet was designed to be sort-of pseudonymous, but it was not designed with true anonymity (in the sense of having no identifiers) in mind.
If you want a meatspace analogy, this is like two different dead-tree newspapers comparing their subscribers for home addresses. You want the newspapers to end up on your driveway in the morning, so you either have to give them your home address or use a different PO Box for each newspaper (which seems expensive).
[*] Yes, IPs are not really stable identifiers. But within the timespan of a few hours/days, it's good enough to get a few extra ad views. In other words, the downside of using a stale/incorrect identifier here (multiple parties on the same IP, router rebooted and got a new DHCP) is pretty low -- they show an irrelevant ad to those folks.
Brexit prevents most EU military cooperation so this supply failure seriously weakens British power.
Spot on for the rest of the comment, but I think NATO is still alive and well (OK, maybe Trump something, for now I haven't the foggiest what he'll do with NATO and I'm betting he doesn't either) and is the primary conduit for military cooperation amongst the European states.
In any event, Brexit,Natexit or otherwise, EADS isn't going to be split apart.
y thought on it is that if the nation went to war in which naval battles were a possibility (or actually happening), the budget would be instantaneously available to them to do whatever necessary to protect their seas. I'm sure they also have a rather large stockpile they could draw on in the meantime as well
Where is this stockpile going to come from if you don't develop, test, build and train with it in advance?
And how is the budget going to help when you've got a lead time in years to get something through the pipeline? I know PHBs are fond of the idea they can have 9 women make a baby in a month by throwing money at her, but that's just not how it works.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there any fidelity lost plugged your corded headphone into the lightning-to-3.5mm dongle on the iPhone, or a similar one that Samsung would use?
My understanding as a non-audiophile was actually that moving the DAC further away from the other components would actually reduce certain types of electrical noise. But even without that, it should be no worse from an audio quality point of view.
The only pages that appear to be exempt from the throttling are those that play audio.
So every page is now going to play a silent audio track in a loop in order to work around this limitation?
This is a common trick in iOS applications to prevent the system from backgrounding you when off-screen. It won't take long to migrate to the web . . .
Of course, heaviness means inertia, but travelling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, and inertia doesn't seem to be an impediment in any of the movies.
And yet TIE Fighters and X-Wings still zip around doing gee-whiz flips and turns while Imperial Star Destroyers and other big ships plod along.
Maybe consistency of physics isn't an impediment to movies either?
Hold on a second, to perform a search you have to send the query off to the search engine (probably Google). So, by intent, the engine has to get your query in order to provide the correct results.
Your claim is that it's helping them spy by giving them access to something that you already had the intent of giving them.
it has garbage collection, it doesn't carry the baggage of a runtime around with it
Sigh. Of course it has a runtime. Where else would the garbage collection that you just mentioned be implemented? Or GoRoutines. Or reflection.
I think you're confusing not having a runtime with having the Go compiler statically link the runtime into each executable. That has some benefits that you were alluding to (e.g. "no baggage") but it also has drawbacks such as increased executable size, increased memory usage (with a dynamic runtime, different instances all share the same library in memory), decreased cache usage (since if you have two Go executables, they are constantly evicting each others runtimes from cache, even though they are identical and could be shared) and the maintenance issues having to recompile to take advantage of security/bug/performance improvements in the runtime itself.
I have no issue if you claim that in some (your) use cases the advantages of a statically compiled runtime are worth the disadvantages. But that's not the same as claiming that either the runtime doesn't exist or that it's always advantageous.
Pretty much agreed.
To be fair though, from 1996 to the present, oil went up considerably (and then recently dropped back down) and so the decline in prices in the face of rising costs (gas is 30% of the total bill) is actually fairly impressive.
Also Southwest :-)
(1) More room for your legs
(2) Fewer seats per plane
(3) Higher ticket prices
What do these three things have in common?
Just maybe, we might just sorta think about how we could not even book flights until the intertoobz came along. All of those jets sitting on the runwaysnot in use because without the internet, there was absolutely no way to reserve a flight. Sarcasm much intended.
Look at the history of airfare (chart or articleand before the internet, flying also cost twice as much (even after adding in the dreaded "fees" for shit that most people don't need) and was far less accessible to people of modest means. When people talk about how dignified air service was in the 70s, what they usually meant is that poor people weren't flying.
Of course the internet isn't responsible for the entire drop in prices. But the direct-booking (vs paying travel agents for working the system) and fare comparison contributed something.
The actual story is "the Russians hacked a couple of people at the Democratic Party (maybe) and embarrassed the hell out of them"
The actual actual story is that the Russians hacked some people at both parties, but selectively chose to release only a selection of the ones stolen from the Democratic party.
A condom is just a mechanism of birth control. You aren't going to "cap" the population unless you persuade (precise meaning varies) the whole world to start using them.
Heck, how did Samsung release an exploding phone, if all these companies' "advanced and extensive" internal testing is infallible?
Actually, given that many hundreds of consumer devices hit the market each year and there are a handful of really bad failures like antenna-gate and the exploding Note, I'd say they're running around 3-sigma. To me, that seems just about in-line with expectations that we'd see 99.7% or so reliability of the testing mechanisms.
Building a testing regimen that moves it to 99.99 or 99.999% of products released without a defect would likely double the testing costs and add weeks (or months) to the release schedule. At some point you have to stop and accept some risk that, out of a few hundred releases, some will have an undiscovered flaw. Better to correct the flaw and institute testing around that area than to be paralyzed by fear of failure.
No, that is not a requirement at all. Just look at Apple. They could have built their new headquarters out of literal stacks of cash they were sitting on before they finally started to pay a dividend. Ditto with Microsoft. These are not non-profits, they are allowed to accumulate cash if they wish.
Both stock paid dividends this year buddy.
I understand they've got her physical body back into stable condition, but she likely went 10-15 minutes without oxygen to her brain. Irreversible damage starts at 4 minutes.
Who the fuck buys a plane ticket and doesn't show up?
It makes a lot of sense if there are a few plausible options but you can't commit to one but want to be sure to have a seat. For instance, you're flying to Chicago on Wednesday to meet with a customer, the meeting may be done that day or it may drag on. You can buy a single changeable/refundable ticket for MDW-SJC on Southwest for $500, say for Friday. But if the meeting finishes early, there may not be any seats on the earlier flights and you're stuck even though you paid for a super-expensive ticket.
Conversely, you can buy 3 non-refundable tickets, one for Wed, one for Thursday and one for the last one out Friday for $164 each, or $492. And then you have a confirmed seat for whichever day you want to go, for $8 less than the refundable ticket.
I'm sure there's some way in which this price structure is what Southwest wants, or else they wouldn't intentionally price their refundable tickets so high :-/
Sooner or later Amazon has to start paying dividends...
No, they don't. They just need to keep their share price afloat. Dividends are not a requirement of any company, and there are plenty out there that don't pay them.
Well, sure, in one scenario a company never turns a profit. In fact, many sole proprietorships and other small companies do just this, they just "zero out" by paying the principals the remaining profit as a bonus each year.
If, on the other hand, a company makes a profit, that profit must either be reinvested in the company or returned to shareholders in the form of dividends or stock buybacks. That extra money has to go somewhere, if only into the company's bank account (or embezzled by the CFO to pay for blow, but I digress). In Amazon's case, it's being spent expanding the company into new market areas. That process of reinvesting profits, however, is necessarily bounded -- they cannot become infinitely rich* or control infinitely many market sectors. So one of two things need to happen eventually: either they stop making a profit or else they start returning the profit to the shareholders. Any other state is transient -- although if they go through a number of profit/loss/profit/loss cycles, I suppose it could just wash out for a very long time.
So yeah, dividends are not a requirement. But they are a logical outcome of long term profitability because the opportunities for expansion are finite.
Good thing the Pentagon has an unblemished record of never claiming anything to not have military purpose that wasn't a lie. That record of honesty will give their word a lot of weight when they are in the right like this.
And here I was thinking that the Pentagon (and everyone else) was within their right to conduct military training or other intelligence operations in internal waters. So the purpose hardly seems to matter.
Actually, did you know that Navies even have the right to sail warships through territorial waters if they are not as part of a belligerent attack?
We want to make a PR stunt to show that regulation is killing innovation in the industry and that we're the hip and cool future while our legal team thinks we'll be able to backpedal in time to avoid major economic penalties.
Or, our legal team actually thinks we don't need such a permit and the CA DMV is incorrect in their conclusion.
Believe it or not, sometime entities disagree about the interpretation of the law. And, even more shocking, the disagreement often breaks along the lines of government agencies believing that the regulation is expansive and the regulated entity believes that the regulation is permissive[1].
I mean, I'm curious to learn really which party has the better of the law as it currently exists. And if that's not right from a policy perspective, I'm keen to see how the rule can be changed in the future.
[1] This is Miles' law and happens without any conscious effort.
This is the exact logical flip-side of not being able to sign away your various rights, a policy that much (not all) of /. seems to be strongly in favor of.
For instance, in this case, there's no legal structure ('merican here) that would allow Samsung to propose that you can keep your phone in exchange for a waiver of liability for the defects in the product. So basically, the claim of "I want to own my device" implies that (a) you can turn down their request to swap it for a non-exploding device and (b) they are still liable if it explodes and kills a schoolbus full of kids.
No sane company would agree to that arrangement.
[ Or to put it another way, they can't stipulate that it's not a phone now but a fire-starter brick whose intended function is to explode. That's not how product liability law works. And we have to understand that by placing non-dischargeable legal responsibilities onto companies, we have changed the relationship between the company and the consumer. For the better, I think -- the world was much worse in the era of caveat emptor. ]
If the tickets are being sold for $60, but people are willing to pay $150, then why aren't they offered first for $150? I see the big problem being the middlemen sucking money out without adding value. Let the entertainers get that money.
I agree that the entertainers should get a cut of the excess value. At the same time, there are other non-monetary factors that entertainers also want out of their performances. First, they want to keep their fan base engaged in the long term, which is easier if ordinary fans believe they can score tickets. Having tickets that are auctioned off to the highest bidder is bad for their image. They would rather have a third party gouge the customers than be perceived as money-grubbers -- what's an extra few million.
The second is that, frankly, folks that pay a ton of money for shows tend to be more passive observers. I'm not sure if it's directly due to paying more and thus not thinking they need to contribute more, but Kid Rock did a cool thing where the first few rows were reserved for randomly-selected folks from the $20 GA. You can bet that those people were stoked!
If you have a smart TV connected to the internet, it's sending screen shot hashes back to the mothership regularly so that your viewing habits can be sold.[CITATION NEEDED]
FTFY.
Roku and Apple send Facebook, and anyone else that cares the pay, the information on what you are streaming, along with your IP and whatever else they care to send. Facebook then uses that information to send an ad to you.
Exactly wrong. It's not the device-side that's selling out your privacy at all.
It is a fundamental part of the design of the internet (as it exists today) that two different service providers can cross-correlate requests based on a semi-stable* identifier (IP) if they chose to share data. There's literally nothing the client application can do to remedy this, it's in the network-layer. You can try to fix this at the network layer with some multi-VPN setup (not just a VPN, one that assigns a different external IP to each outgoing request) but that's sort of not how the internet was designed to work. The internet was designed to be sort-of pseudonymous, but it was not designed with true anonymity (in the sense of having no identifiers) in mind.
If you want a meatspace analogy, this is like two different dead-tree newspapers comparing their subscribers for home addresses. You want the newspapers to end up on your driveway in the morning, so you either have to give them your home address or use a different PO Box for each newspaper (which seems expensive).
[*] Yes, IPs are not really stable identifiers. But within the timespan of a few hours/days, it's good enough to get a few extra ad views. In other words, the downside of using a stale/incorrect identifier here (multiple parties on the same IP, router rebooted and got a new DHCP) is pretty low -- they show an irrelevant ad to those folks.
100% of the searches violating the 4th amendment.
Was that before or after he said he wanted to go to a judge and get a warrant?
Brexit prevents most EU military cooperation so this supply failure seriously weakens British power.
Spot on for the rest of the comment, but I think NATO is still alive and well (OK, maybe Trump something, for now I haven't the foggiest what he'll do with NATO and I'm betting he doesn't either) and is the primary conduit for military cooperation amongst the European states.
In any event, Brexit,Natexit or otherwise, EADS isn't going to be split apart.
y thought on it is that if the nation went to war in which naval battles were a possibility (or actually happening), the budget would be instantaneously available to them to do whatever necessary to protect their seas. I'm sure they also have a rather large stockpile they could draw on in the meantime as well
Where is this stockpile going to come from if you don't develop, test, build and train with it in advance?
And how is the budget going to help when you've got a lead time in years to get something through the pipeline? I know PHBs are fond of the idea they can have 9 women make a baby in a month by throwing money at her, but that's just not how it works.
Congratulations, you've just described the Evil Maid Attack that I linked from Schneier's blog post on Oct 23, 2009.