To claim Netflix doesn't advertise omits a very background, but present form of advertising. It's called product placement, and it's where instead of buying some generic Cola or use a generic computer, or random cellphone, they clearly show it's a Coca-Cola, or an Apple iMac or a Samsung. If you ever wonder why they show closeups of a phone's screen or something, it's usually to show the logo for a second or two. Normally they'd just have the actor say it out loud (oh look, a call from Dad, etc), but if it's a product placement, you'll see a closeup on screen with "Dad" printed on it.
And really, I'd be surprised if Netflix's original shows aren't doing this - it's been generally marked as the least objectionable form of advertising because it adds realism (who drinks Cola? You know it's either a Coke or a Pepsi), and sometimes, the efforts of hiding logos is just plain silly.
And it's usually done during the writing stages where the show producers generally solicit sponsorship.
I know Netflix doesn't currently run normal commercials other than brief clips of other Netflix originals, but I'd be surprised if they aren't doing the product placement thing.
I could have used this knowledge not just on my first job but when I was interviewing for my current job 14 years ago. The interviewer asked me what salary I was seeking which was, in hindsight, an obvious trap. If I gave too low a figure, they'd "grant" me that instead of the higher figure they were thinking of. I had a figure in mind but got nervous that I wouldn't get the job if I went too high. I wound up taking about five thousand off my "figure in my mind" - and was promptly awarded that. I'll never know if I would have gotten more money had I gone higher, but that moment of insecurity still bothers me to this day.
This is where soft skills comes in.
The goal is to not be specific, but to make it such that you lob it back to them. Remember, let them make the first move - you should never ever announce a number.
So if they ask, try to deflect it back to them - "I don't have a specific number in mind, however, I do know what similar positions pay elsewhere and I expect Initech to pay comparable rates".
If they ask for a specific number, then again, deflect it - "Well, according to this survey, someone in my position with the responsibilities given would be making anywhere from $XXX to $YYY" If you know the median salary, then state that "... with a median of $ZZZ".
Yes, you DID research what similar positions pay in your area, right? I mean, that's how you decided you were underpaid?
Let them pick the specific number - you choose whether or not to accept based on that number. By giving them a range, you let them figure out and guess what you'll take. You stated a range which you researched and let them figure it out. If they decide the low end is all you deserve, it's better to find that out rather than wonder.
And $5000 is not a lot of money at the end of the day - after taxes, you're really only looking at $3600 or so, which is $300 a month.
The key to negotiations, especially salary, is to let the other guy pick the first number. If it's too low, you're free to reject the offer, and you can respond "to be honest, I didn't feel the compensation or benefits were adequate for my needs to change positions". Again, no numbers. If they ask, go ahead and mention the range. If another salary survey comes out, mention that too.
A job has to be considered for the whole - realizing that there are big changes, and there are little ones. $5000 is not a lot of pay in the end to worry about if you're already making $95k or so. If they are grossly up or down, then something might be up - $12K might be the smallest unit where salary matters because that's $1K/month or after taxes the better part of a grand still.
The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones.
So no, they can't do anything they like with your content. Worst they can do is use it in an ad for the Photos service, or use it in a training dataset.
And what part of and to develop new ones in that sentence you quoted are you unclear about?
If they decided to launch a Google dating service, those photos could very well be used to help "develop" it (i.e., pre-populate the data set, promote it, etc). The new services is even worse as it's even more open-ended as anything could come under "develop" - use your family photo on a billboard advertising it? Promotion could be argued as a form of developing the service - growing the userbase, say.
Or if Google develops some sort of new advertising service or thing that works with third parties - could sharing the data be a form of development?
Hell, they could very well close down Photos, and re-develop Picasa Cloud or something and "helpfully" import your photos into it. As it is a new service, well, new agreement and all.
They were demanding severance pay that was already owed them by the company and had not been paid. The financial condition of the company is of no consequence.
Except now EVERYONE is screwed. By the company going under, no one gets paid anymore. The ex-employees basically screwed themselves because the company was on the brink - it could survive given installment payments (which are legally protected), but since the courts awarded full compensation immediately, there was insufficient assets to cover the new expense and bankruptcy ensues.
Which means NO ONE gets paid their due - the employees who were there are screwed their pay, and the ex-employees line up like everyone else to collect pennies on the dollar.
Yes, the company was wrong to screw the ex-employees, and perhaps if they worked out a payment plan things would've gotten better. But the ex-employees were also wrong in insisting on instant payments. It's winning the battle (court case for the severance owed) and losing the war (the company goes under). Now everyone gets to line up while the assets are sold for whatever little money is left.
Yes, they got their victory. Pyrrhic one, that is for now they're out that money, AND it's not like the company can pay legal fees any more. Hope they liked their moral victory - because if the lawyers have their way, they're first in line and everyone else gets the scraps.
I suppose for some people, getting 5 cents now is better than getting a dollar paid out over a year or so.
By the time something similar is offered, hopefully ipv6 (ok, I lol a touch as I type that) will fill the need (it has multi cast I think).
Then you'll have to buy IPv6 capable DVRs. But cable companies are moving that "into the cloud" (in fact, streaming services can be considered a form of DVR in the cloud), so unless you go tell your DVR to record some IP address at some time or you'll miss it... which seems to defeat the entire purpose of streaming a show. (And really, the chances two people will stream the same show at the same time is probably quite slim, so either your DVR has to spy on you and opportunistically catch it ahead of time, or it'll sit there for a few minutes while it hopes others will join in on the stream).
America, you will be getting all your science fiction and fantasy in Avengers form in Galactic Basic. This is a win if you like big scifi movies that make billions of dollars, it's a loss if you liked a little bit of diversity in your movies. Disney will now double down on sequels and reboots.
That's everyone, actually. Sci-Fi is hard, and original sci-fi even harder.
It's so bad that the reason Hollywood avoids original stuff is because it usually does badly. Either it doesn't click, or other thing. Either way, original stuff is risky, and despite everyone's call for "More originals less sequels!", that is not translating into asses in seats. Which is the only factor that matters.
Now, sometimes it's just bad (like Tomorrowland), but it's original. And it's probably Disney's attempt at trying something new to see if it works. Since it bombed, that just means more Avengers 3, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, and other stuff. Stuff original - that doesn't make money and is far more risky. Or in general, the people who request "original" films generally don't belong to the set of people who buy tickets.
Even a rather decent movie like Edge of Tomorrow (rebranded as Live Die Repeat) failed to do "well" - which basically means the death of anything original.
It's useless to call for more original films - Hollywood believes that the two groups (people who call for original films instead of sequels and rehashed plots. and movie goers) are two distinct sets.
Not only spy agencies, heck opensource organizations like Mozilla will fire you if you give money to the wrong organizations. Seriously, we are living in the liberal fascist state.
Then do what everyone else does - donate and just check the box that marks it anonymous.
Everyone says Steve Jobs didn't donate a penny to charity, yet he did. Of course, he did it anonymously, because you never know how it's going to appear. And no, he decided his image didn't need the afterglow from the charities he gave to. I'm sure the charities wanted to publicize the fact to get some more money, but they have to respect the wishes of the donor
And plenty of people have lost their jobs doing questionable things. The key is to make it anonymous, because maybe donating to causes today may backfire tomorrow. And if charity is supposed to make you feel good, then that act should be it. Why bother making it non-anonymous, unless you intended to glow in the publicity?
Oh, and most charities do have a minimum limit for anonymous donations, but if you're under that, those donations tend to be anonymous anyways because keeping track of every $5 and $10 thing just creates paperwork. (And if you give that low, you'll end up disappearing into the noise).
Charity - you do it to feel good for yourself, not to bask in the publicity. If you want publicity, it can be bought. Even big charitable foundations don't give willy-nilly - they go through tons of due diligence to make sure it doesn't backfire. And even then, they probably give far more anonymously because it's easier cheaper and protected.
still no idea how comcast et.al. can be serious about data caps when this shift happens. people are used to letting their TV's sit all day on some random channel. if you do that with IPTV you're going to blow by 250GB or whatever in a week or so. caps are totally infeasible.
Why not? TV is really profitable, internet service less so. If data caps means Comcast etc., keep people subscribing to cable, that's a more profitable combination than just selling internet service.
And given Comcast can't give their own service any priority, it may steer some to keep their regular cable TV service.
The SAT is one of the most useless measures of knowledge or capability the world has ever seen. Standardized tests don't work, they've never worked and we know they don't tell us about a persons true intelligence. So if China wants to take a SAT for me, go ahead.
The SATs aren't for measuring intelligence. They're for measuring approximate education on a standard scale. That's their entire purpose - because if you're trying to compare two people who are from two different schools, how can you tell if candidate A's grade of a B+ makes him a better or worse student than candidate B's grade of a A in the same class? Assuming the same curriculum, that is. Is B better than A? Is there grade inflation going on (extremely common)?
In Canada, provinces have provincial exams - which basically test students on the curriculum material. All students take them to get their final mark for the course. There have been many cases where a student may score A/A+ on the course, and only a C on the provincial exam. A few cases have happened where they maybe score a C in class, but A-/B+ on the exams because the teacher grilled them hard, marked them hard and probably churned out better students.
Yes, they are cheap pieces of crap. But they caught on. Now even bicycle helmets have mount points for them.
And they're cheap. So much so that many TV shows that are reality-based often have a "GoPro budget" because they know they're doing to destroy a dozen or more of those cameras in the course of filming the series.
One wonders if they buy retail boxed GoPros or they just say they're from Discovery channel and just get a pallet of them shipped sans boxes, accessories (other than batteries and the case) etc.
Assuming that's true, it shouldn't be. Manufacturers shouldn't do proprietary customizations. Why they even want to do this and incur the expense is beyond me.
It's called differentiation. Manufacturers want to make their phones unique, distinct and more desirable on the shelves. So if you're deciding between two phones with otherwise identical specs (same processor, RAM, flash), you'd look to their customizations as the differentiating factor. Because there's only so much a manufacturer can do - processor choices are limited, RAM choices are limited, flash choices a limited, and there's only so much you can charge for it.
So rather than a manufacturer having to compete against a dozen otherwise identical phones and the consumer pretty much randomly choosing one of them, they hope to make theirs custom so the user will choose theirs over everyone else because it works the way the user does. Hopefully.
As long as manufacturers do not start making Apple of themselves by having their own proprietary port, that's fine.
Rumor has it that the reason we have USB C is because of Apple. Basically Apple got fed up of the USB guys for having rather annoying connectors (especially ones that only go in one way - a royal PITA for mobile devices).
So rather than having yet another designed-by-committee connector, Apple basically gave it to the USB IF for free, with knowledge that it contains all the things Apple likes - like the ability to have A/V data sent through the connector, it fixes the nasty problem of well, having it only go one way, and it's symmetrical on both sides.
Probably Apple looked at what they did for USB 3.0 and decided it was fairly stupid, since now a USB 3.0 cable won't fit in anything other than USB 3 ports.
Call me when you figure out how to run a house air conditioner or full sized refrigerator off of 5v@1A
Therein lies the problem with LVDC in the home. There's a reason why we use high voltage to transmit power - either HVAC or HVDC. You lose a crapload of power at low voltages because losses increase with the square of the current. So double the voltage, halve the current, quarter the losses! (It's called IIR losses). Lower currents also mean your wires can be thinner (though your insulation needs to be thicker - not a problem for transmission lines which are uninsulated).
Running 5V through a house just to power devices may mean easily having to supply 50-60A of current (that's only 300W!), which makes for wildly thick cables. So unless you want to have 6V close to the supply and 4V at the far end of the house...
Hell, take a server that consumes 360W, that's 30A at 12V. If we have a rack of 18, that's 540A. People weld stuff using 100A or so. even a 0.01 ohm junction at 540A is dissipating nearly 3kW! If you do it well and get it down to 0.001 ohm (1 milliohm), that's still 300W in heat generated at the junction (which could be a connector, say).
It's why the battery packs of electric cars run at 400V or higher.
Most people I talk to about their iPhones gush about how great it is and I see hardware that is behind "state of the art" for other things. Very few iPhone owners have I been able to have a real conversation with about the merits of restricted hardware platforms vs the innovation nightmare of an open "wild west" hardware environment.
In other words, iPhone users care about the experience of using a phone while Android users care about openness, specs and other things.
That's really what it boils down to - and Apple is going after people who just want a phone. It doesn't matter how many gigglehurtz it has, or superbytes, or wigglypixels. They want a phone. Sure it does things better than their old one, but in the end, teraquads and such don't matter.
Android though is all about the quad/octo/hexa/million cores and terabytes and all that. A bunch of gobbledegook people some people care about (we usually call them "measurebaters" because my device (and likewise ego in some instances) is depending on the numbers being bigger or better than yours. (And you've never see it until you see these tiny Asian women carrying huge phones they can barely grasp with two hands - it's that big).
Don't get me wrong, both are valid ways of selling a product - Apple concentrates on user experience, Android concentrates on openness, freedom, or more typically, specs. Though in Asia you generally have an advantage on Android since running pirated apps is the rule of thumb.
so I wonder how much damage this "rise in piracy" is actually doing.
None. Piracy increases income.
I say the answer is actually more nuanced than that.
If you're a popular author, perhaps writing some rather popular erotic fiction, or vampires, or something, piracy probably has a measurable impact on the bottom line. But measurable in the sense that well, so instead of making $1,050,000, you only made $1M. Of course, in the grand scheme of things, it's a tiny amount of money.,
For indie authors, piracy does have great positive benefits because the problem with anything indie is well, 99% of it is crap. Doesn't matter what it is - a book, a videogame, music, movies, apps, etc., The vast majority of it is utter crap. The goal is to somehow rise above the noise - which requires either spending money to market yourself, or trying to get your word out there that you exist (usually a more common problem - people can't find you if they don't know about you).
So piracy greatly helps in this case because it helps you rise above the noise that's drowning you out otherwise.
(And yes, 99% is crap. The good thing is, you don't hear about it because no one generally spreads crap so it just dies a silent death).
These are the equivalent of cars with built-in iPod docks, not aux jacks. Both of these standards are incompatible with each other, brand new, and controlled by companies that change/drop their old "standards" at the drop of a hat. In five to ten years, these systems will be just as obsolete as the cars with slots to fit a first-gen iPod, 30-pin connectors, and firewire level power output.
Cars provided USB power only recently, say 10 years ago.
Apple introduced the 30 pin dock connector 12 years ago, in 2003, which supported USB charging AND Firewire charging. The iPod was only 2 years old at this point. Incidentally, the 3rd gen iPod is the first million unit iPod model shipped, so the Firewire iPods were a curiosity (the 3rd Gen iPod was also the first to support Windows directly).
The 30 pin connector lasted 11 years. In the same time, USB changed from B ports to mini B ports to the current micro B ports. Since few cars used specific iPod cables (most were USB to iPod), the situation is just the same as USB plugs changing.
Android Auto and Apple CarPlay also connect to your phone using USB - the same standard USB plug. So when Android phones move to USB C, and Apple still uses Lightning (oh - USB C's coming, time to buy new sets of cables over the next couple of years), it will still all work. Will Apple support USB C? Maybe - Apple gave the USB-IF guys the design for USB C gratis in an effort to make the USB plug more useful for everyone (because it was obvious they were just going to stick with micro USB rather than try to incorporate any useful consumer-friendly things like the ability to not worry which end you plug in which way).
The bigger worry in the end is there aren't many platforms that last over 10 years - PalmOS started in the mid 90s and was wiped out in the mid 2000's, Windows Mobile started late 90s and was wiped out in the mid 2000's. Symbian started in the 80s as EPOC and probably lasted the longest, but again, dead. Ditto say, Blackberry. There's a good possibility that say, 2020 would bring about a new platform or innovation that renders iOS and Android both obsolete.
I also see those messages, but I don't use any ad blocking software. Java is disabled, plug-ins are disabled, javascript is enabled and cookies are limited to the same domain. Whoever wrote those "ad blocking detection" functions is an idiot.
it's most likely using the JavaScript detection - if you don't run the ad javascript, then you're most likely blocking it (are there any modern browsers that don't support javascript?).
Of course, it's a basic check - there are more advanced checks that could be done. But right now, few enough people do extensive ad blocking to matter.
Eventually you'll probably see things alone the lines of "use an adblocker and it's paywalled" scheme - so if you have an adblocker, you have to pay to view the content, or you can view the ads and get it for free.
The real concern though is that these websites use some sort of common paywall system, which may not have the best privacy protections and is vulnerable to hacking.
Or if people are outdoors, they actually try to drink enough cool water to survive.
One thing that the Israeli army has right is they require their soldiers to take regular water breaks if conditions are safe to do so, and they enforce that enough water is drunk each break. It's amazing how high the temps can be and still be survivable if one isn't dehydrated.
That's fine for Israel, a modern developed country with good infrastructure, and relatively civilized people who don't try to treat everyone as slaves.
Indie is far less developed, and access to water itself is scarce. Even electricity is scarce - if you have it, you only have it for a few hours a day, especially if you're not in the city. (And during the worst heat, even that's not guaranteed).
Couple that with bosses who don't care and consider breaks to be the sign of a lazy workforce...
No testing provides 100% coverage, especially for the number of combinations of possible Unicode characters in a 160-character/byte message. Only a complete moron would blame this bug on lack of testing.
Let's not forget that Unicode is a standard that's constantly evolving - new glyphs are constantly added (there's already a new proposed set for Unicode 9 including glyphs for "selfie", "avocado" and others)
People keep arguing that/. doesn't support Unicode, when it really does - it just uses a narrow whitelist of characters. The reason for this is obvious if you think about it - to prevent situations like this from happening.
Heck, there might be strings out there that will crash any Unicode library implementation, just we haven't found them yet because the search space is huge.
The "sound" of a badly encoded MP3 is already influencing the way people sing - it's almost as if they think those artefacts and unwanted harmonics are something that makes a voice a good singing voice, because that's what they hear when someone holds a long or high note. Bloody hateful.
The other scary thing is, if you played back the MP3 and the original lossless source material, you'll find the new crowd prefers the lossy encoded one.
I'm not saying using LAME on 256+VBR, but crappy encoded 128kbps stuff where there are audible differences.
Listening to poorly encoded music in poor listening environments has changed the preferences of the music. Even the recording engineers now have to optimize their music for the lossy encodes with reduced dynamic range and pre-echo distortion.
There's still a few who go by the "if it's clean going in, it'll be the cleanest it can be coming out", while others are realizing that they need to adjust their mixers to sound better.
Bing returns the same results so unless both knowledge graphs are operating the same I would imagine it's a much simpler explanation: both sites rely on "answer" websites for answers. If you ask any question most often the results are Yahoo.Answers, Answers.com and wikihow. My guess would be that "Answers in Genesis" overloads their weighting for "answers" URLs associated with "Questions" on this topic.
If they actually overloaded the Knowledge Graph it would appear in a special box at the top of the results. In this instance it's still just a link. If you search "Circumference of the earth" you'll get a knowledge graph result with an "official answer".
FTFA, it was in a special box - there's a screenshot of the result right there.
It wasn't just a set of links, it was an actual knowledge box with the answer being found in Genesis.
Links, fine, that's just a SEO thing. But this was being presented as facts - Google returning it as definitive "truth" and answer, and appearing before the actual search results.
He might have been a disaster as a manager. Now they want to replace him.
I doubt it. As a VP, he's not really having a direct hand in managing his subordinates, more like general guidelines who his direct reports then interpret and control. And in his new title, I doubt he even has many direct reports at all.
If anything, it's likely in his new position he's given more creative freedom to test out and experiment without having traditional business issues get in the way. He's free to travel, seek input, explore and examine materials.
Maybe he was a terrible manager, so they moved him in a spot where he doesn't have to manage people and is more free to do as his creative wishes desire. He's a designer after all, so he does need space in order to be creative.
So, WTF is an e-mail client doing on a POS terminal in the first place? It doesn't need one, it shouldn't have one. Ditto a Web browser. You don't have to worry about vulnerabilities in software that isn't present on the machine in the first place. There are of course other things to be looked at, but those are a good starting point.
In a small business of 1-4 people, the POS system is usually the only computer on the premises. POS systems are cheap and readily available and help businesses out, at least with stuff like inventory management. (This is especially tricky with stores where there's a breadth of products, but not much depth).
And being the only computer, it's often used for online commerce - the store may have a simple Shopify style website that sells products, and thus have email and everything. Do it right and the two can often work together, so online sales draws down from the inventory database.
And no, these companies are way too small to have a proper client-server POS solution, and often don't have the space for more than one computer, period.
Though, usually they're also too small to have an integrated POS solution - a manual terminal to process card payments is usually the standard rather than even working with the POS system...
Yeah, wouldn't it make sense to see where the GPS signal dies, and when it comes back, and persume they took transport from one position to the other? No inertia guessing needed. The Yellow to the Red line is the only way to connect those dots without looping or doubling back. So why do you need to have the accelerometer to confirm?
Because the accelerometer is often free to use. Accessing GPS requires permission and often has an indicator.
With this, an app can use the accelerometer surreptitiously while leaving no indication that movement is being tracked - so many apps use it that no one gives a second thought. Using GPS often brings up an alert so the user knows they're being tracked. If your app uses the accelerometer anyways, you can sell that information for tracking. Whereas If you app suddenly popped up "MyCoolApp needs to use the GPS - Allow/Deny?" then people get suspicious.
At least it does on iOS. I don't know - do apps have free reign over the GPS on Android or do you get alerts when they attempt to use it?
No. Hence why I said that they can't have a third-party web engine. They have to use the system-provided WebKit.
Ironically, Firefox for iOS uses system WebKit as well. This could result in an interesting situation where Firefox on Android runs like crap, but Firefox on iOS runs pretty nicely (still like crap because embedded WebKit disables Nitro).
As for why, Safari runs with reduced permissions that allow JIT code compiling, embedded WebKit runs with standard (i.e., greater) permissions so JIT code is a security vulnerability.
But apparently it's not about the HTML renderer that matters - it's everything around it that matters in a browser.
Slashdot Mirror
To claim Netflix doesn't advertise omits a very background, but present form of advertising. It's called product placement, and it's where instead of buying some generic Cola or use a generic computer, or random cellphone, they clearly show it's a Coca-Cola, or an Apple iMac or a Samsung. If you ever wonder why they show closeups of a phone's screen or something, it's usually to show the logo for a second or two. Normally they'd just have the actor say it out loud (oh look, a call from Dad, etc), but if it's a product placement, you'll see a closeup on screen with "Dad" printed on it.
And really, I'd be surprised if Netflix's original shows aren't doing this - it's been generally marked as the least objectionable form of advertising because it adds realism (who drinks Cola? You know it's either a Coke or a Pepsi), and sometimes, the efforts of hiding logos is just plain silly.
And it's usually done during the writing stages where the show producers generally solicit sponsorship.
I know Netflix doesn't currently run normal commercials other than brief clips of other Netflix originals, but I'd be surprised if they aren't doing the product placement thing.
This is where soft skills comes in.
The goal is to not be specific, but to make it such that you lob it back to them. Remember, let them make the first move - you should never ever announce a number.
So if they ask, try to deflect it back to them - "I don't have a specific number in mind, however, I do know what similar positions pay elsewhere and I expect Initech to pay comparable rates".
If they ask for a specific number, then again, deflect it - "Well, according to this survey, someone in my position with the responsibilities given would be making anywhere from $XXX to $YYY" If you know the median salary, then state that "... with a median of $ZZZ".
Yes, you DID research what similar positions pay in your area, right? I mean, that's how you decided you were underpaid?
Let them pick the specific number - you choose whether or not to accept based on that number. By giving them a range, you let them figure out and guess what you'll take. You stated a range which you researched and let them figure it out. If they decide the low end is all you deserve, it's better to find that out rather than wonder.
And $5000 is not a lot of money at the end of the day - after taxes, you're really only looking at $3600 or so, which is $300 a month.
The key to negotiations, especially salary, is to let the other guy pick the first number. If it's too low, you're free to reject the offer, and you can respond "to be honest, I didn't feel the compensation or benefits were adequate for my needs to change positions". Again, no numbers. If they ask, go ahead and mention the range. If another salary survey comes out, mention that too.
A job has to be considered for the whole - realizing that there are big changes, and there are little ones. $5000 is not a lot of pay in the end to worry about if you're already making $95k or so. If they are grossly up or down, then something might be up - $12K might be the smallest unit where salary matters because that's $1K/month or after taxes the better part of a grand still.
And what part of and to develop new ones in that sentence you quoted are you unclear about?
If they decided to launch a Google dating service, those photos could very well be used to help "develop" it (i.e., pre-populate the data set, promote it, etc). The new services is even worse as it's even more open-ended as anything could come under "develop" - use your family photo on a billboard advertising it? Promotion could be argued as a form of developing the service - growing the userbase, say.
Or if Google develops some sort of new advertising service or thing that works with third parties - could sharing the data be a form of development?
Hell, they could very well close down Photos, and re-develop Picasa Cloud or something and "helpfully" import your photos into it. As it is a new service, well, new agreement and all.
Except now EVERYONE is screwed. By the company going under, no one gets paid anymore. The ex-employees basically screwed themselves because the company was on the brink - it could survive given installment payments (which are legally protected), but since the courts awarded full compensation immediately, there was insufficient assets to cover the new expense and bankruptcy ensues.
Which means NO ONE gets paid their due - the employees who were there are screwed their pay, and the ex-employees line up like everyone else to collect pennies on the dollar.
Yes, the company was wrong to screw the ex-employees, and perhaps if they worked out a payment plan things would've gotten better. But the ex-employees were also wrong in insisting on instant payments. It's winning the battle (court case for the severance owed) and losing the war (the company goes under). Now everyone gets to line up while the assets are sold for whatever little money is left.
Yes, they got their victory. Pyrrhic one, that is for now they're out that money, AND it's not like the company can pay legal fees any more. Hope they liked their moral victory - because if the lawyers have their way, they're first in line and everyone else gets the scraps.
I suppose for some people, getting 5 cents now is better than getting a dollar paid out over a year or so.
Then you'll have to buy IPv6 capable DVRs. But cable companies are moving that "into the cloud" (in fact, streaming services can be considered a form of DVR in the cloud), so unless you go tell your DVR to record some IP address at some time or you'll miss it... which seems to defeat the entire purpose of streaming a show. (And really, the chances two people will stream the same show at the same time is probably quite slim, so either your DVR has to spy on you and opportunistically catch it ahead of time, or it'll sit there for a few minutes while it hopes others will join in on the stream).
That's everyone, actually. Sci-Fi is hard, and original sci-fi even harder.
It's so bad that the reason Hollywood avoids original stuff is because it usually does badly. Either it doesn't click, or other thing. Either way, original stuff is risky, and despite everyone's call for "More originals less sequels!", that is not translating into asses in seats. Which is the only factor that matters.
Now, sometimes it's just bad (like Tomorrowland), but it's original. And it's probably Disney's attempt at trying something new to see if it works. Since it bombed, that just means more Avengers 3, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, and other stuff. Stuff original - that doesn't make money and is far more risky. Or in general, the people who request "original" films generally don't belong to the set of people who buy tickets.
Even a rather decent movie like Edge of Tomorrow (rebranded as Live Die Repeat) failed to do "well" - which basically means the death of anything original.
It's useless to call for more original films - Hollywood believes that the two groups (people who call for original films instead of sequels and rehashed plots. and movie goers) are two distinct sets.
Then do what everyone else does - donate and just check the box that marks it anonymous.
Everyone says Steve Jobs didn't donate a penny to charity, yet he did. Of course, he did it anonymously, because you never know how it's going to appear. And no, he decided his image didn't need the afterglow from the charities he gave to. I'm sure the charities wanted to publicize the fact to get some more money, but they have to respect the wishes of the donor
And plenty of people have lost their jobs doing questionable things. The key is to make it anonymous, because maybe donating to causes today may backfire tomorrow. And if charity is supposed to make you feel good, then that act should be it. Why bother making it non-anonymous, unless you intended to glow in the publicity?
Oh, and most charities do have a minimum limit for anonymous donations, but if you're under that, those donations tend to be anonymous anyways because keeping track of every $5 and $10 thing just creates paperwork. (And if you give that low, you'll end up disappearing into the noise).
Charity - you do it to feel good for yourself, not to bask in the publicity. If you want publicity, it can be bought. Even big charitable foundations don't give willy-nilly - they go through tons of due diligence to make sure it doesn't backfire. And even then, they probably give far more anonymously because it's easier cheaper and protected.
Why not? TV is really profitable, internet service less so. If data caps means Comcast etc., keep people subscribing to cable, that's a more profitable combination than just selling internet service.
And given Comcast can't give their own service any priority, it may steer some to keep their regular cable TV service.
The SATs aren't for measuring intelligence. They're for measuring approximate education on a standard scale. That's their entire purpose - because if you're trying to compare two people who are from two different schools, how can you tell if candidate A's grade of a B+ makes him a better or worse student than candidate B's grade of a A in the same class? Assuming the same curriculum, that is. Is B better than A? Is there grade inflation going on (extremely common)?
In Canada, provinces have provincial exams - which basically test students on the curriculum material. All students take them to get their final mark for the course. There have been many cases where a student may score A/A+ on the course, and only a C on the provincial exam. A few cases have happened where they maybe score a C in class, but A-/B+ on the exams because the teacher grilled them hard, marked them hard and probably churned out better students.
And they're cheap. So much so that many TV shows that are reality-based often have a "GoPro budget" because they know they're doing to destroy a dozen or more of those cameras in the course of filming the series.
One wonders if they buy retail boxed GoPros or they just say they're from Discovery channel and just get a pallet of them shipped sans boxes, accessories (other than batteries and the case) etc.
It's called differentiation. Manufacturers want to make their phones unique, distinct and more desirable on the shelves. So if you're deciding between two phones with otherwise identical specs (same processor, RAM, flash), you'd look to their customizations as the differentiating factor. Because there's only so much a manufacturer can do - processor choices are limited, RAM choices are limited, flash choices a limited, and there's only so much you can charge for it.
So rather than a manufacturer having to compete against a dozen otherwise identical phones and the consumer pretty much randomly choosing one of them, they hope to make theirs custom so the user will choose theirs over everyone else because it works the way the user does. Hopefully.
Rumor has it that the reason we have USB C is because of Apple. Basically Apple got fed up of the USB guys for having rather annoying connectors (especially ones that only go in one way - a royal PITA for mobile devices).
So rather than having yet another designed-by-committee connector, Apple basically gave it to the USB IF for free, with knowledge that it contains all the things Apple likes - like the ability to have A/V data sent through the connector, it fixes the nasty problem of well, having it only go one way, and it's symmetrical on both sides.
Probably Apple looked at what they did for USB 3.0 and decided it was fairly stupid, since now a USB 3.0 cable won't fit in anything other than USB 3 ports.
Therein lies the problem with LVDC in the home. There's a reason why we use high voltage to transmit power - either HVAC or HVDC. You lose a crapload of power at low voltages because losses increase with the square of the current. So double the voltage, halve the current, quarter the losses! (It's called IIR losses). Lower currents also mean your wires can be thinner (though your insulation needs to be thicker - not a problem for transmission lines which are uninsulated).
Running 5V through a house just to power devices may mean easily having to supply 50-60A of current (that's only 300W!), which makes for wildly thick cables. So unless you want to have 6V close to the supply and 4V at the far end of the house...
Hell, take a server that consumes 360W, that's 30A at 12V. If we have a rack of 18, that's 540A. People weld stuff using 100A or so. even a 0.01 ohm junction at 540A is dissipating nearly 3kW! If you do it well and get it down to 0.001 ohm (1 milliohm), that's still 300W in heat generated at the junction (which could be a connector, say).
It's why the battery packs of electric cars run at 400V or higher.
In other words, iPhone users care about the experience of using a phone while Android users care about openness, specs and other things.
That's really what it boils down to - and Apple is going after people who just want a phone. It doesn't matter how many gigglehurtz it has, or superbytes, or wigglypixels. They want a phone. Sure it does things better than their old one, but in the end, teraquads and such don't matter.
Android though is all about the quad/octo/hexa/million cores and terabytes and all that. A bunch of gobbledegook people some people care about (we usually call them "measurebaters" because my device (and likewise ego in some instances) is depending on the numbers being bigger or better than yours. (And you've never see it until you see these tiny Asian women carrying huge phones they can barely grasp with two hands - it's that big).
Don't get me wrong, both are valid ways of selling a product - Apple concentrates on user experience, Android concentrates on openness, freedom, or more typically, specs. Though in Asia you generally have an advantage on Android since running pirated apps is the rule of thumb.
I say the answer is actually more nuanced than that.
If you're a popular author, perhaps writing some rather popular erotic fiction, or vampires, or something, piracy probably has a measurable impact on the bottom line. But measurable in the sense that well, so instead of making $1,050,000, you only made $1M. Of course, in the grand scheme of things, it's a tiny amount of money.,
For indie authors, piracy does have great positive benefits because the problem with anything indie is well, 99% of it is crap. Doesn't matter what it is - a book, a videogame, music, movies, apps, etc., The vast majority of it is utter crap. The goal is to somehow rise above the noise - which requires either spending money to market yourself, or trying to get your word out there that you exist (usually a more common problem - people can't find you if they don't know about you).
So piracy greatly helps in this case because it helps you rise above the noise that's drowning you out otherwise.
(And yes, 99% is crap. The good thing is, you don't hear about it because no one generally spreads crap so it just dies a silent death).
Cars provided USB power only recently, say 10 years ago.
Apple introduced the 30 pin dock connector 12 years ago, in 2003, which supported USB charging AND Firewire charging. The iPod was only 2 years old at this point. Incidentally, the 3rd gen iPod is the first million unit iPod model shipped, so the Firewire iPods were a curiosity (the 3rd Gen iPod was also the first to support Windows directly).
The 30 pin connector lasted 11 years. In the same time, USB changed from B ports to mini B ports to the current micro B ports. Since few cars used specific iPod cables (most were USB to iPod), the situation is just the same as USB plugs changing.
Android Auto and Apple CarPlay also connect to your phone using USB - the same standard USB plug. So when Android phones move to USB C, and Apple still uses Lightning (oh - USB C's coming, time to buy new sets of cables over the next couple of years), it will still all work. Will Apple support USB C? Maybe - Apple gave the USB-IF guys the design for USB C gratis in an effort to make the USB plug more useful for everyone (because it was obvious they were just going to stick with micro USB rather than try to incorporate any useful consumer-friendly things like the ability to not worry which end you plug in which way).
The bigger worry in the end is there aren't many platforms that last over 10 years - PalmOS started in the mid 90s and was wiped out in the mid 2000's, Windows Mobile started late 90s and was wiped out in the mid 2000's. Symbian started in the 80s as EPOC and probably lasted the longest, but again, dead. Ditto say, Blackberry. There's a good possibility that say, 2020 would bring about a new platform or innovation that renders iOS and Android both obsolete.
it's most likely using the JavaScript detection - if you don't run the ad javascript, then you're most likely blocking it (are there any modern browsers that don't support javascript?).
Of course, it's a basic check - there are more advanced checks that could be done. But right now, few enough people do extensive ad blocking to matter.
Eventually you'll probably see things alone the lines of "use an adblocker and it's paywalled" scheme - so if you have an adblocker, you have to pay to view the content, or you can view the ads and get it for free.
The real concern though is that these websites use some sort of common paywall system, which may not have the best privacy protections and is vulnerable to hacking.
That's fine for Israel, a modern developed country with good infrastructure, and relatively civilized people who don't try to treat everyone as slaves.
Indie is far less developed, and access to water itself is scarce. Even electricity is scarce - if you have it, you only have it for a few hours a day, especially if you're not in the city. (And during the worst heat, even that's not guaranteed).
Couple that with bosses who don't care and consider breaks to be the sign of a lazy workforce...
Let's not forget that Unicode is a standard that's constantly evolving - new glyphs are constantly added (there's already a new proposed set for Unicode 9 including glyphs for "selfie", "avocado" and others)
People keep arguing that /. doesn't support Unicode, when it really does - it just uses a narrow whitelist of characters. The reason for this is obvious if you think about it - to prevent situations like this from happening.
Heck, there might be strings out there that will crash any Unicode library implementation, just we haven't found them yet because the search space is huge.
The other scary thing is, if you played back the MP3 and the original lossless source material, you'll find the new crowd prefers the lossy encoded one.
I'm not saying using LAME on 256+VBR, but crappy encoded 128kbps stuff where there are audible differences.
Listening to poorly encoded music in poor listening environments has changed the preferences of the music. Even the recording engineers now have to optimize their music for the lossy encodes with reduced dynamic range and pre-echo distortion.
There's still a few who go by the "if it's clean going in, it'll be the cleanest it can be coming out", while others are realizing that they need to adjust their mixers to sound better.
FTFA, it was in a special box - there's a screenshot of the result right there.
It wasn't just a set of links, it was an actual knowledge box with the answer being found in Genesis.
Links, fine, that's just a SEO thing. But this was being presented as facts - Google returning it as definitive "truth" and answer, and appearing before the actual search results.
I doubt it. As a VP, he's not really having a direct hand in managing his subordinates, more like general guidelines who his direct reports then interpret and control. And in his new title, I doubt he even has many direct reports at all.
If anything, it's likely in his new position he's given more creative freedom to test out and experiment without having traditional business issues get in the way. He's free to travel, seek input, explore and examine materials.
Maybe he was a terrible manager, so they moved him in a spot where he doesn't have to manage people and is more free to do as his creative wishes desire. He's a designer after all, so he does need space in order to be creative.
In a small business of 1-4 people, the POS system is usually the only computer on the premises. POS systems are cheap and readily available and help businesses out, at least with stuff like inventory management. (This is especially tricky with stores where there's a breadth of products, but not much depth).
And being the only computer, it's often used for online commerce - the store may have a simple Shopify style website that sells products, and thus have email and everything. Do it right and the two can often work together, so online sales draws down from the inventory database.
And no, these companies are way too small to have a proper client-server POS solution, and often don't have the space for more than one computer, period.
Though, usually they're also too small to have an integrated POS solution - a manual terminal to process card payments is usually the standard rather than even working with the POS system...
Because the accelerometer is often free to use. Accessing GPS requires permission and often has an indicator.
With this, an app can use the accelerometer surreptitiously while leaving no indication that movement is being tracked - so many apps use it that no one gives a second thought. Using GPS often brings up an alert so the user knows they're being tracked. If your app uses the accelerometer anyways, you can sell that information for tracking. Whereas If you app suddenly popped up "MyCoolApp needs to use the GPS - Allow/Deny?" then people get suspicious.
At least it does on iOS. I don't know - do apps have free reign over the GPS on Android or do you get alerts when they attempt to use it?
Ironically, Firefox for iOS uses system WebKit as well. This could result in an interesting situation where Firefox on Android runs like crap, but Firefox on iOS runs pretty nicely (still like crap because embedded WebKit disables Nitro).
As for why, Safari runs with reduced permissions that allow JIT code compiling, embedded WebKit runs with standard (i.e., greater) permissions so JIT code is a security vulnerability.
But apparently it's not about the HTML renderer that matters - it's everything around it that matters in a browser.