If this reduces Mozilla's reliance on Google's money then that can only be a good thing. Especially since Mozilla's main sponsor is now also a competitor:/
And where do you think the sponsored links come from? Google is a virtual monopoly on online advertising, has the vast majority of mobile, and is branching out to other forms of advertising.
Sure Mozilla may be doing it with someone who's "Not Google", but who really knows if they're not some "A Google Company" through many layers of acquisitions (yes, those popups and popunders that you think Google would never do? Most likely gone by a Google-owned ad company. Ditto malware filled ads).
Then again, perhaps Google might be in talks to acquire them, too.
There is a lights arms race on the streets. I wonder if we already passed the point of "more is safer".
Problem is, we still have "ghosts" - you know, those idiotic pedestrians who insist on wearing all black on those dark wintry days and jaywalking. No problem with all black at legal intersections, or jaywalking if they look for traffic. It's those ones that suddenly come up on you inching across the road oblivious to the fact you may not see them in time. (If they'd hurry across, then at least the natural human motion detection vision goes off).
Perhaps instead of better headlights, we need IR headlamps and thermal imagers that cause those idiots to at least light up.
And yes, I do admit to wearing dark clothes as well. However, I do not use my phone while I'm walking along the road and I try to be aware of traffic because well, I'd like to not be injured or killed and I don't want to assume the driver (who may be tired, distracted, etc) will see me in time to stop).
Alas, for now, brighter is cheaper than IR cameras or thermal imagers. (And where did all those innovations go? We've heard all about concept of IR illumination and thermal imaging for years now).
And what about Singapore which uses Simplified Chinese? I don't imagine they will be pleased to suffer Mainland censorship either.
Is it censorship or just what different people search for? After all, perhaps they're looking at travel or other things and are not interested in the incident?
And Singapore has its own "great firewall" (in fact, a lot of countries do). It's just the Chinese one is a lot more publicized. (They were in the planning ages around 1995 or so and I think It came in a few years later).
You want to encourage people to use mass transit, especially for long trips where they'd otherwise be driving into the city. Why charge them more!?!
Well, a lot of places charge zoned rates - where travel is sort of based on distance.
Let's say you need to go across 3 zones, 1-2-3. If you can team up with someone going the other way, 3-2-1, you can both benefit by swapping - because a 2 zone ticket (1-2 and 2-3) is cheaper than a 3-zone ticket. So you'd buy a 2 zone ticket for 1-2, and they'd buy a 2-zone ticket for 2-3. In zone 2, you'd meet, and exchange tickets - they're travelling back from zone 2 to zone 1, so your 1-2 ticket is fine, and you're travelling to from zone 2 to zone 3, so your 2-3 ticket you got from them is also good.
Both of you save a buck or so doing this. Such could apply to monthly passes as well.
I never understood what that sentence means anyway. How could you even create a device that doesn't "accept" interference? If you figure out a clever way to filter out noise, you're not allowed to use it?
Basically it means that if there's some interference that occurs from a licensed user that results in your product exploding when powered on, it's your fault. You cannot redirect blame to the licensed spectrum user. Your product may accept it by handling it safely (i.e., not blowing up) using filters and whatnot, or it may decide it's immune enough to handle it.
It's basically saying that your device is responsible for all interference, even ones that lead to undesired, unknown or unspecified behavior.
The Part 15 manufacturer cannot deflect blame for the product malfunctioning to the licensed user even if it's the licensed user operating not-quite-to-spec, even if the only area where it fails is in the licensed user's location, etc. Effectively, it's "if it doesn't work because of RFI, tough."
Amazingly, pretty much nothing about people's income has kept pace with the cost of living during the last 30 years. And they are wondering why less people are flying airplanes?
Well, the cost of flying lessons is mostly dependent on the per-hour airplane costs.
Ground school is so cheap, most flying schools (Flight Training Units) ask for $200 and it's a lifetime membership - take it as many times as you want. Or you can take online courses for a little more.
But the plane rental is fairly expensive. Though there are several innovations in the area. Like Light Sport, which has far lower rental costs, far lower training requirements (half the time), and while it's a bit restrictive, it is a cheap stepping stone to a full private pilot's license. Plus, no medical - if you hold a valid driver's license, you can self-certify.
The other innovation is flight simulation - many schools are getting new RedBird full motion simulators (cheap - something like $30K fully equipped). Some schools even offer free use of the simulators to practice as much as you want, minimizing the amount of propeller spinning time because you can practice maneuvers over and over again at a much lower cost.
And it's not news - AOPA in 2011 did an extensive survey of why aviation has an 80+% dropout rate. Barring financial difficulties, they discovered there's a lot of systemic problems - imagine you're spending $20,000 on flight training - you'd like to be treated with respect, courtesy, and everything else due a customer, right? Surprisingly, they found a good portion of horror stories.
Of course, the other big reason is, well, pilots aren't paid very much. If you intend to make it a career, you're looking at $40-80K+ in education (comparable to many degrees). However, the starting pay for a right seater (copilot) on a regional is barely $20k. And that's the shit routes with shit times and shit layovers. Give it a good 15 years, and maybe you can get into big iron like a 737 and start making $100K+. Provided your airline hasn't folded, merged, or anything else (one of the biggest things during airline mergers is seniority - the longer you have been with the airline, the more you're paid, and it takes years).
Yes, the early career of a pilot is poverty. Most people have done the math and realized they could just get an engineering degree (even in aerospace!) and make twice that as a new grad. Or more.
Of course, the final thing is that people think flying is "for the rich" - but all you need is a decent middle-class income. It greatly extends the reach of the "weekend getaway" from a state away to several states away. Or you can go from coastal California (say, San Diego) to Vegas for a weekend and still have a lot of time to gamble, see a show, and partake lunch, while arriving home in time for dinner.
I know that Microsoft still likes to think of itself as the 800lb gorilla that can just walk into any area it chooses and dominate, but in the eBook market, Microsoft is a mouse and Amazon is the 800lb gorilla. For better or worse, Amazon essentially *is* the eBook market. (Source - Amazon has 67% of the market. Next is Barnes & Noble with 11.8% and Apple with 8.2%.)
And the DoJ has decided that was a good thing - because as long as Amazon can dump ebooks, no competitor can come in and end the practice because it causes ebook prices to rise. (See Apple). Amazon's marketshare was much higher prior to 2010 (when the iBookstore opened) - closer to 95% or so.
Of course, competition hurts consumers when the monopolist is dumping because prices rise and people pay more. (Yes, Amazon was selling ebooks below cost).
And B&N has just laid off a bunch of people from its Nook business. And the DoJ is seeking massive punishments from Apple.
In the end, if you're not Amazon, you can't run an ebook store as there's no way to make money and if you cause prices to rise because you're not dumping the books like Amazon is, well.
Also with Mavericks gatekeeper would preset you with a nice juicy dialog preventing you from running this untrusted and unsigned malware. You would have to take several steps of your own volition to run it at all...
You Mac haters are saying you don't want the Mac to turn into iOS. Well which is it? Let users run unapproved software after several "Are you sure" kinds of stopping points? Or only allow signed binaries on the system?
All the Apple haters have missed the fact that Gatekeeper is remarkably balanced. You can choose - go all the way with a walled garden, all the way with unsigned binaries, or go walled garden with the option to allow people to sign the code (semi-walled garden) (the default setting, too).
It costs a developer $99, or for orgs like Mozilla, they have two from Apple - a production signing version and a beta signing version, in case either one gets revoked for whatever reason.
But it allows apps that doesn't require Apple to approve - the developer buys a cert and Apple has no say in what it's used to sign. Of course, if it's hacked or stolen, Apple can revoke it (happened a few times already when some trojan hijacked a developer's certificate - Apple revoked it and that trojan couldn't run easily anymore).
Of course, there's another subtlety that is not mentioned about Gatekeeper - it only triggers on stuff downloaded from the Internet. The output of your program you just compiled? Will not trigger Gatekeeper as it's assumed the dev tools are "safe".
And since developers need to develop, and companies like Adobe, Microsoft and others need to get around the App Store limitations (or even Autodesk, who wants to use the App Store, but finds the $999.99 max price limiting), ensures the Mac will never "close off" and be walled like iOS. After all, on a Mac, it needs to run untrusted binaries somehow in order for developers to well, develop.
That, and it's so bloody easy to jailbreak a Mac if you really needed to - just pop out the hard drive, or plug it into the PCIe slot in your PC. Or just run Windows and a Windows based jailbreak app. Or Linux.
And then of course counter that with the reduced happiness in some people's lives as they can no longer fill entire jars with pennies and reduced income from places that run 'wishing wells' which tend to be another dumping ground for pennies.
Maybe then we can actually start looking at the cost of a penny in an all-encompassing manner. Or we can just accept that the penny in general is a dumb idea at this - time no matter how much any associated costs are stretched out over the lifetime of a single penny.
The big problem with getting rid of the penny happens to be with the poorest of the poor - they deal almost exclusively in cash, and having to deal with rounding means they often spend more cents than they have.
When you're dealing with saving every penny, having things cost 2 cents more can hurt (usually 1, 2 gets rounded down to 0, while 3, 4 gets rounded to 5, and likewise 6, 7 rounds to 5, 8 and 9 round up to 0.
And having experienced it, I've found stores that cheat, and round UP always (and no, they refuse to do business if you're short a nickel to cover the extra penny of cost). And I've also found that rounding down (benefiting you) happens rarely to never, but roudning up happens almost always.
RMS knows that (and has made statements to that effect): GPL exists precisely because it's not a perfect world. While you may call it a freedom, "freedom" to kill would not be a beneficial one. Speaking metaphorically, that's what BSD license grants you: A way to murder free software in the black hole of proprietary software. Do companies contribute back? Sure, some do, some of the things. But everything else is competition. And therein lies the real difference: GPL is against proprietary software, it aims to provide free software to everyone. BSD isn't and doesn't. Kinda like free vs open. TL;DR: No.
You know what? EVERY GPL advocate says "Companies will steal your BSD code!!!!!! NOOOO!!! BAD!!!!"
But you know what really irks people? GPL does exactly the same thing. You see, GPL projects can take code from BSD projects, but that BSD project cannot take any improvements the GPL project makes.
In fact, GPL advocates do the same thing to BSD that they accuse "companies" of doing Even more hypocritically, they claim the GPL is superior because you cannot "close off" the code.
So, the "superiority" of GPL is that it does to BSD projects (closing off the code) what RMS claims "companies" do. And argues that it's the superior license.
So now the BSD guys can't even get the improvements back from an open-source project! What difference does it make if BSD allows companies AND open-source people to close off the code?
Funny how the GPL was created to "prevent" the very thing it does! Even worse, it's even iffier for the BSD project to accept contributions from the GPL project because that code could be GPL tainted. Companies giving back the code generally make it available under the same BSD license.
In fact, this very thing could be happening with GCC and LLVM - the LLVM guys make a fix for a problem, the GCC guys take it and fix GCC. Great, that's how open-source should work. But now, if the GCC guys fix a problem, the LLVM guys cannot take it, or even look at it (GPL taint). They may not even be able to take a patch. They have to independently fix it themselves.
Why are we still writing books using text (for the most part)? Doing it with pictures or other methods is frequently not clear enough even for fiction. Text is concise, or at least more-so than other methods.
Well, perhaps why are we still using text-only to code?
I mean, the thing is, books are mostly text, but there are also illustrations (photos, artwork, graphs, charts, etc) that help enhance the content in the book.
A picture is worth 1000 words does happen quite a bit, and it shows how one picture can remove a ton of wordy description in both clarity, conciesness and ease of expression.
Heck, we can start with basic charts and tables - when you need to consult a chart or table, why do we have to literally code them in? Can't we just say "this is a chart with input X and output(s) y". and just include it, and the compiler automatically generates the code to handle looking up data? Same with a table of data - you put it in the code as a table, the computer figures it out and may even offer interpolation.
Now you have source code where the chart is easy to understand and the amount of written code is less because the compiler generates the actual translations and encoding of the table.
Streaming does cost some incremental $$$ so NBC serves paid subscribers only.
Except streaming you can block people from fast forwarding and force them to watch ads.
It is streaming's big advantage - you can't fast-forward through commercials on streaming TV - wither it be watching it on a station's streaming service, Hulu or what haveyou.
All you need is interactive ads, like every 5 seconds make them click on some part of the ad otherwise the entire stream stops until it proceeds, so no running to the bathroom while it pays - it'll auto stop and wait for you to re-watch the part you missed.
Why is this important? Because it's all about the ad views - and streaming is in a perfect position for people to be forced to watch the ads. When NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. set ad rates, they buy "C3" (Live + 3 days ratings, commercials only) ratings. The programming is used to bring the eyeballs, and the more eyeballs, the higher the ad rates (non-Superbowl, prime time TV is usually commanding around $100-150K per 30 second spot).
Of course, DVR usage has cut into C3 numbers quite a bit as people skip ads. Now with cord cutters, streaming TV is a perfect opportunity to ensure that commercial numbers stay up there for programming as streamers can't fast-forward through them, and can be made to forcibly watch them, too, bringing up those ratings.
Likewise, those who decide to just download it? They don't count because without commercials, the rating on that show is zero.
Many phones already have this capability. Google and Apple can be remotely delete apps from user's phones, and many carriers can lock out SIM cards. We know Apple can perform remote wipes too, as a few people have already fallen victim to hackers doing just that after gaining access to their accounts.
Wrong.
Google can remotely remote apps from phones. Apple hasn't done so, though it is suspected they can, but they haven't shown they do. The only thing we do know is if any app uses CoreLocation, it can be remotely disabled, but not removed from iOS. Amazon and Valve have also demonstrated they can remove content from user's libraries.
So far, Apple hasn't demonstated a need to remove apps from users devices - removed apps continue to work as long as you have a copy of them.
As for remote wiping - that's because the guy cracked the Apple ID - once you do that, you can log into iCloud.com and do a remote wipe. In this case, there is nothing Apple can do since there are legit reasons to offer the ability to remote wipe. Namely, to wipe your phone should it get stolen. Of course, if a hacker breaks into your account and wipes your phone...
And you can do it with Android as well. All you need is to hack their Google ID.
Can we please spam the firehose with articles on this? Perhaps if we can get it repeatedly on the front page itself? Just post it and get people to upvote the story on the beta, rather than just on the comments.
The beta is bad at showing comments, so maybe if the headlines are "Slashdot Beta Sucks"..
Nothing Amazon can do in the near future will ever measure up to Nintendo or take that covetted third place in the console ecosystem. They'll be lucky if they pull of an Ouya by the time they're done.
I don't think Amazon is releasing a console. It's against their business model.
Apple sells content to sell hardware. Apple doesn't make much on iTunes (sure, it brought in $1B in revenue, but they don't break out how much it costs to run).
Amazon, however, sells hardware to sell content. Their Kindles are basically sold at cost so they can sell you books, movies, apps, games and music. And it looks like Amazon bought them so Amazon could create original games and apps that would only be in Amazon's app store, not Google's.
Google is locking down Android by close-sourcing most of the apps, most likely because Amazon is a worthwhile competitor that's able to actually lock Google out (something Google was afraid of with iOS, is now happening to Google on something Google released).
A few good games available only through Amazon could draw people and other developers to Amazon's app store.
I never understood the appeal of the Sony laptops. It seemed like they were trying to hit the Apple price point but with reliability that made the Apple laptops look like the greatest feat of engineering since the wheel. Add to that all the bloatware that Sony installed as standard and I really can't find an advantage.
Well, they were trying to also "Apple-ify" the PC - actually putting in some really nice design and all that.
They basically tried to target the high end PC market like Apple does - nicer cases and all that.
Of course, the problem is, though, Apple could pull it off because they're sufficiently "different", Sony, not so much - as everything there really did reek of the "Sony Tax" - what you got could be obtained cheaper elsewhere. Unlike Apple, which at least provided stuff that people did find different (like unique ports - Thunderbolt, FireWire (6 wire, not the 4 wire crap) and unique power plugs.
Of course, Sony also ruined it all by installing gobs of crapware. SO they tried to be Apple hardware wise, but unlike Apple (who practically installs very little software by default), they load it up with gobs of crap that make it so it's a really painful experience to use.
Actually, it's been Unicode aware since forever. In fact, may years ago you could use Unicode with aplomb.
What happened was due to repeated abuse of Unicode that screwed up page layout, the site uses a very strict whitelist of acceptable Unicode characters.
Damn nice to see that last part about competing ad platforms. That sort of clause is the sort of thing I would expect Apple to do. It's pretty blatently ant-competitive.
One has to wonder how much Google pays Apple to keep up the idea of competition with iAds. Given the only reason Google could acquire AdMob (THE largest mobile advertising company out there) was because earlier that year, Steve Jobs announced iAds. Which is quite curious since AdMob advertises everywhere, while iAds was very restrictive. It's like saying that Ferrari and Toyota are competitors.
(iAds initially required a $1M commitment (reduced to $100K now I believe), and Apple opened it ot developers when few, if any, people actually use it. I think the only reason it's still "running" at all is because Google keeps it there to offer "competition").
I bet some police officers are mighty pissed off about this ruling, but as someone who frequently drives with the lights on to warn fellow motorists of speed traps, I am pleased.
Depends on the laws.
Some places have laws that say that flashing your high beams unnecessarily is against the law, regardless of purpose (be it to signal to the drivers of speed traps, to tell someone to pull over, etc).
And yes, you can tell drivers of upcoming speed traps. Just don't flash your headlights.
Heck, haven't truckers been doing this ever since they put in CB radios?
I know there is a fashion lately to try and force people to be "gender neutral" in their writing, but "he" has for a very long time been a standard reference that you use in English when the sex of the person being referred to is unspecified. It's perfectly acceptable and anyone who is offended by it is either incapable of critical thinking, uneducated or simply looking for something to be offended by. It's not any more insulting to a female reader to refer to "he" in the generic when writing something generic than referring to a ship as "her" is insulting to males who happen to work on "her".
Which is perfectly fine.
Someone decided to be more inclusive and fix the documentation. Just a minor change to be more inclusive. And it was rejected, which is also fine. Except it was done in such a way that was NOT fine, and highlighted the maintainer's sexist and bigoted beliefs. In fact, when an upstream maintainer decided to quell the argument by just accepting the change, he blew up.
We're talking about changing "he" to "they". In documentation. Not code. A minor change, that was rejected in a very offensive way, and someone higher up decided to just get rid of the hassle, fix it, and let things be. Except things blew up even more.
And that's when things went downhill revealing the maintainer's true nature.
What started as minor edit to be more inclusive turned into an all out war of bigotry. What could've ended with a simple rejection of "doesn't improve things too much" instead was turned into a complete bigoted and nasty thread.
It could've been resolved professionally. It was a really minor change that affected nothing - accept it, don't accept it, you can make very good very neutral reasons going either way. But it turned into an all out bigot justification
No one would've gotten offended by the change or lack thereof, but the upstream maintainers wanted to be "better" and more inclusive and really just fix it to set a good example.But it takes one bigot to suddenly cast the entire community into darkness. You don't care, I don't care, nor do many other people. Just one person however took so much offense of changing "he" to "they" that this mountain was created.
And I suspect projecting the FOSS community as a bunch of boorish men doesn't impress the women, who would be more than happy to contribute in a great professional environment. Not one where the guy you submit code to may decide you're a female and reject the change as "women suck".
It was a relatively minor thing - a pull request was rejected because the documentation was updated to be more gender neutral. Unfortunately, the reasons given for said rejection were less than... honorable, and when it happened again, it devolved into a giant show of bigotry by the maintainer.
Perhaps that's why women don't want to go into tech - us geeks despite wanting to show we're more "educated" and learned, still have some real bigots among us who justify their positions in dubious ways. Hell, perhaps tech is no more evolved than construction labourers gawking and cat-calling.
because it makes it harder for them to play along at home
And that's the big issue. Because guess who pays his prize money? The people watching it on TV!
Jeopardy is pretty popular (so it's not a question of being "too smart"), and most viewers know the people on the show are damned smart. But one thing people love to do is try to answer the question themselves, but being more "normal", they have to take time to understand the category and the answer.
And the writers of Jeopardy often have fun - not just puns, but put a lot of effort making "fun" categories where things are totally oddball. Follow it top down and everyone gets a laugh at the end. Do it randomly and it's just a sucky experience for everyone.
It's like people who complain about movies - the movie's goal is not to entertain you, but to put asses in seats. Now, entertainment generally makes it easier to do so, hence special effects laden summer blockbusters. Jeopardy is the same - the writers have a little fun because the point is to entertain the home viewers so they return night after night to watch it.
What this guy does is probably "right" and "correct", but it makes for a boring and annoying game.
It's a case of where the "product" is at risk (viewer's eyeballs) in the eyes of the customer (advertisers) because viewers are turned off by what they see and it's not entertaining. In other words, this guy, by playing "smart", he makes the whole thing boring for everyone.
It would be nice to have something I could use to write up blog posts and the like, without having to resort to touchscreen keyboards or breaking out the 5 lb, 17" powerhouse I use for *real* work.
Linux yes, Windows no (unless it has a BIOS - of which only the Pixel is known to have).
But unless you use the chroot Linux, it isn't a pleasant experience - developer mode requires you hit a key combo on startup to acknowledge it. if you wait too long (30 seconds) it times out and complains of wanting to go into recovery mode., So you have to reboot and hit the key combo within 30 seconds every boot and recoot.
Or it could be the other way - you have to wait 30 seconds at the screen while it tells you how to recover the thing.
One of the biggest changes in Firefox was that JavaScript was permanently enabled.
But a side effect of the removal of "Enable JavaScript" checkbox was the removal of the "Advanced" button which limited what scripts could do - move/resize windows, bring windows to front/back, allow scrpits to write to status bar, disable context-click (right click), etc.
Which is annoying because those options were good to have - especially sites that disable right-click.
On Firefox, it's possible to re-enable right click if you hold down Shift then right-click - this will force Firefox to display the proper right-click menu. But that's a PITA
While extensions like NoScript work, they don't prevent permitted sites from playing around with stuff like that - a site needs javascript ot work and then they promptly open a bunch of windows or disable right-click while it's enabled.
Slashdot Mirror
And where do you think the sponsored links come from? Google is a virtual monopoly on online advertising, has the vast majority of mobile, and is branching out to other forms of advertising.
Sure Mozilla may be doing it with someone who's "Not Google", but who really knows if they're not some "A Google Company" through many layers of acquisitions (yes, those popups and popunders that you think Google would never do? Most likely gone by a Google-owned ad company. Ditto malware filled ads).
Then again, perhaps Google might be in talks to acquire them, too.
Problem is, we still have "ghosts" - you know, those idiotic pedestrians who insist on wearing all black on those dark wintry days and jaywalking. No problem with all black at legal intersections, or jaywalking if they look for traffic. It's those ones that suddenly come up on you inching across the road oblivious to the fact you may not see them in time. (If they'd hurry across, then at least the natural human motion detection vision goes off).
Perhaps instead of better headlights, we need IR headlamps and thermal imagers that cause those idiots to at least light up.
And yes, I do admit to wearing dark clothes as well. However, I do not use my phone while I'm walking along the road and I try to be aware of traffic because well, I'd like to not be injured or killed and I don't want to assume the driver (who may be tired, distracted, etc) will see me in time to stop).
Alas, for now, brighter is cheaper than IR cameras or thermal imagers. (And where did all those innovations go? We've heard all about concept of IR illumination and thermal imaging for years now).
Is it censorship or just what different people search for? After all, perhaps they're looking at travel or other things and are not interested in the incident?
And Singapore has its own "great firewall" (in fact, a lot of countries do). It's just the Chinese one is a lot more publicized. (They were in the planning ages around 1995 or so and I think It came in a few years later).
Well, a lot of places charge zoned rates - where travel is sort of based on distance.
Let's say you need to go across 3 zones, 1-2-3. If you can team up with someone going the other way, 3-2-1, you can both benefit by swapping - because a 2 zone ticket (1-2 and 2-3) is cheaper than a 3-zone ticket. So you'd buy a 2 zone ticket for 1-2, and they'd buy a 2-zone ticket for 2-3. In zone 2, you'd meet, and exchange tickets - they're travelling back from zone 2 to zone 1, so your 1-2 ticket is fine, and you're travelling to from zone 2 to zone 3, so your 2-3 ticket you got from them is also good.
Both of you save a buck or so doing this. Such could apply to monthly passes as well.
Basically it means that if there's some interference that occurs from a licensed user that results in your product exploding when powered on, it's your fault. You cannot redirect blame to the licensed spectrum user. Your product may accept it by handling it safely (i.e., not blowing up) using filters and whatnot, or it may decide it's immune enough to handle it.
It's basically saying that your device is responsible for all interference, even ones that lead to undesired, unknown or unspecified behavior.
The Part 15 manufacturer cannot deflect blame for the product malfunctioning to the licensed user even if it's the licensed user operating not-quite-to-spec, even if the only area where it fails is in the licensed user's location, etc. Effectively, it's "if it doesn't work because of RFI, tough."
Well, the cost of flying lessons is mostly dependent on the per-hour airplane costs.
Ground school is so cheap, most flying schools (Flight Training Units) ask for $200 and it's a lifetime membership - take it as many times as you want. Or you can take online courses for a little more.
But the plane rental is fairly expensive. Though there are several innovations in the area. Like Light Sport, which has far lower rental costs, far lower training requirements (half the time), and while it's a bit restrictive, it is a cheap stepping stone to a full private pilot's license. Plus, no medical - if you hold a valid driver's license, you can self-certify.
The other innovation is flight simulation - many schools are getting new RedBird full motion simulators (cheap - something like $30K fully equipped). Some schools even offer free use of the simulators to practice as much as you want, minimizing the amount of propeller spinning time because you can practice maneuvers over and over again at a much lower cost.
And it's not news - AOPA in 2011 did an extensive survey of why aviation has an 80+% dropout rate. Barring financial difficulties, they discovered there's a lot of systemic problems - imagine you're spending $20,000 on flight training - you'd like to be treated with respect, courtesy, and everything else due a customer, right? Surprisingly, they found a good portion of horror stories.
Of course, the other big reason is, well, pilots aren't paid very much. If you intend to make it a career, you're looking at $40-80K+ in education (comparable to many degrees). However, the starting pay for a right seater (copilot) on a regional is barely $20k. And that's the shit routes with shit times and shit layovers. Give it a good 15 years, and maybe you can get into big iron like a 737 and start making $100K+. Provided your airline hasn't folded, merged, or anything else (one of the biggest things during airline mergers is seniority - the longer you have been with the airline, the more you're paid, and it takes years).
Yes, the early career of a pilot is poverty. Most people have done the math and realized they could just get an engineering degree (even in aerospace!) and make twice that as a new grad. Or more.
Of course, the final thing is that people think flying is "for the rich" - but all you need is a decent middle-class income. It greatly extends the reach of the "weekend getaway" from a state away to several states away. Or you can go from coastal California (say, San Diego) to Vegas for a weekend and still have a lot of time to gamble, see a show, and partake lunch, while arriving home in time for dinner.
And the DoJ has decided that was a good thing - because as long as Amazon can dump ebooks, no competitor can come in and end the practice because it causes ebook prices to rise. (See Apple). Amazon's marketshare was much higher prior to 2010 (when the iBookstore opened) - closer to 95% or so.
Of course, competition hurts consumers when the monopolist is dumping because prices rise and people pay more. (Yes, Amazon was selling ebooks below cost).
And B&N has just laid off a bunch of people from its Nook business. And the DoJ is seeking massive punishments from Apple.
In the end, if you're not Amazon, you can't run an ebook store as there's no way to make money and if you cause prices to rise because you're not dumping the books like Amazon is, well.
All the Apple haters have missed the fact that Gatekeeper is remarkably balanced. You can choose - go all the way with a walled garden, all the way with unsigned binaries, or go walled garden with the option to allow people to sign the code (semi-walled garden) (the default setting, too).
It costs a developer $99, or for orgs like Mozilla, they have two from Apple - a production signing version and a beta signing version, in case either one gets revoked for whatever reason.
But it allows apps that doesn't require Apple to approve - the developer buys a cert and Apple has no say in what it's used to sign. Of course, if it's hacked or stolen, Apple can revoke it (happened a few times already when some trojan hijacked a developer's certificate - Apple revoked it and that trojan couldn't run easily anymore).
Of course, there's another subtlety that is not mentioned about Gatekeeper - it only triggers on stuff downloaded from the Internet. The output of your program you just compiled? Will not trigger Gatekeeper as it's assumed the dev tools are "safe".
And since developers need to develop, and companies like Adobe, Microsoft and others need to get around the App Store limitations (or even Autodesk, who wants to use the App Store, but finds the $999.99 max price limiting), ensures the Mac will never "close off" and be walled like iOS. After all, on a Mac, it needs to run untrusted binaries somehow in order for developers to well, develop.
That, and it's so bloody easy to jailbreak a Mac if you really needed to - just pop out the hard drive, or plug it into the PCIe slot in your PC. Or just run Windows and a Windows based jailbreak app. Or Linux.
The big problem with getting rid of the penny happens to be with the poorest of the poor - they deal almost exclusively in cash, and having to deal with rounding means they often spend more cents than they have.
When you're dealing with saving every penny, having things cost 2 cents more can hurt (usually 1, 2 gets rounded down to 0, while 3, 4 gets rounded to 5, and likewise 6, 7 rounds to 5, 8 and 9 round up to 0.
And having experienced it, I've found stores that cheat, and round UP always (and no, they refuse to do business if you're short a nickel to cover the extra penny of cost). And I've also found that rounding down (benefiting you) happens rarely to never, but roudning up happens almost always.
You know what? EVERY GPL advocate says "Companies will steal your BSD code!!!!!! NOOOO!!! BAD!!!!"
But you know what really irks people? GPL does exactly the same thing. You see, GPL projects can take code from BSD projects, but that BSD project cannot take any improvements the GPL project makes.
In fact, GPL advocates do the same thing to BSD that they accuse "companies" of doing Even more hypocritically, they claim the GPL is superior because you cannot "close off" the code.
So, the "superiority" of GPL is that it does to BSD projects (closing off the code) what RMS claims "companies" do. And argues that it's the superior license.
So now the BSD guys can't even get the improvements back from an open-source project! What difference does it make if BSD allows companies AND open-source people to close off the code?
Funny how the GPL was created to "prevent" the very thing it does! Even worse, it's even iffier for the BSD project to accept contributions from the GPL project because that code could be GPL tainted. Companies giving back the code generally make it available under the same BSD license.
In fact, this very thing could be happening with GCC and LLVM - the LLVM guys make a fix for a problem, the GCC guys take it and fix GCC. Great, that's how open-source should work. But now, if the GCC guys fix a problem, the LLVM guys cannot take it, or even look at it (GPL taint). They may not even be able to take a patch. They have to independently fix it themselves.
Well, perhaps why are we still using text-only to code?
I mean, the thing is, books are mostly text, but there are also illustrations (photos, artwork, graphs, charts, etc) that help enhance the content in the book.
A picture is worth 1000 words does happen quite a bit, and it shows how one picture can remove a ton of wordy description in both clarity, conciesness and ease of expression.
Heck, we can start with basic charts and tables - when you need to consult a chart or table, why do we have to literally code them in? Can't we just say "this is a chart with input X and output(s) y". and just include it, and the compiler automatically generates the code to handle looking up data? Same with a table of data - you put it in the code as a table, the computer figures it out and may even offer interpolation.
Now you have source code where the chart is easy to understand and the amount of written code is less because the compiler generates the actual translations and encoding of the table.
Except streaming you can block people from fast forwarding and force them to watch ads.
It is streaming's big advantage - you can't fast-forward through commercials on streaming TV - wither it be watching it on a station's streaming service, Hulu or what haveyou.
All you need is interactive ads, like every 5 seconds make them click on some part of the ad otherwise the entire stream stops until it proceeds, so no running to the bathroom while it pays - it'll auto stop and wait for you to re-watch the part you missed.
Why is this important? Because it's all about the ad views - and streaming is in a perfect position for people to be forced to watch the ads. When NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. set ad rates, they buy "C3" (Live + 3 days ratings, commercials only) ratings. The programming is used to bring the eyeballs, and the more eyeballs, the higher the ad rates (non-Superbowl, prime time TV is usually commanding around $100-150K per 30 second spot).
Of course, DVR usage has cut into C3 numbers quite a bit as people skip ads. Now with cord cutters, streaming TV is a perfect opportunity to ensure that commercial numbers stay up there for programming as streamers can't fast-forward through them, and can be made to forcibly watch them, too, bringing up those ratings.
Likewise, those who decide to just download it? They don't count because without commercials, the rating on that show is zero.
Wrong.
Google can remotely remote apps from phones. Apple hasn't done so, though it is suspected they can, but they haven't shown they do. The only thing we do know is if any app uses CoreLocation, it can be remotely disabled, but not removed from iOS. Amazon and Valve have also demonstrated they can remove content from user's libraries.
So far, Apple hasn't demonstated a need to remove apps from users devices - removed apps continue to work as long as you have a copy of them.
As for remote wiping - that's because the guy cracked the Apple ID - once you do that, you can log into iCloud.com and do a remote wipe. In this case, there is nothing Apple can do since there are legit reasons to offer the ability to remote wipe. Namely, to wipe your phone should it get stolen. Of course, if a hacker breaks into your account and wipes your phone...
And you can do it with Android as well. All you need is to hack their Google ID.
Can we please spam the firehose with articles on this? Perhaps if we can get it repeatedly on the front page itself? Just post it and get people to upvote the story on the beta, rather than just on the comments.
The beta is bad at showing comments, so maybe if the headlines are "Slashdot Beta Sucks" ..
I don't think Amazon is releasing a console. It's against their business model.
Apple sells content to sell hardware. Apple doesn't make much on iTunes (sure, it brought in $1B in revenue, but they don't break out how much it costs to run).
Amazon, however, sells hardware to sell content. Their Kindles are basically sold at cost so they can sell you books, movies, apps, games and music. And it looks like Amazon bought them so Amazon could create original games and apps that would only be in Amazon's app store, not Google's.
Google is locking down Android by close-sourcing most of the apps, most likely because Amazon is a worthwhile competitor that's able to actually lock Google out (something Google was afraid of with iOS, is now happening to Google on something Google released).
A few good games available only through Amazon could draw people and other developers to Amazon's app store.
Well, they were trying to also "Apple-ify" the PC - actually putting in some really nice design and all that.
They basically tried to target the high end PC market like Apple does - nicer cases and all that.
Of course, the problem is, though, Apple could pull it off because they're sufficiently "different", Sony, not so much - as everything there really did reek of the "Sony Tax" - what you got could be obtained cheaper elsewhere. Unlike Apple, which at least provided stuff that people did find different (like unique ports - Thunderbolt, FireWire (6 wire, not the 4 wire crap) and unique power plugs.
Of course, Sony also ruined it all by installing gobs of crapware. SO they tried to be Apple hardware wise, but unlike Apple (who practically installs very little software by default), they load it up with gobs of crap that make it so it's a really painful experience to use.
Actually, it's been Unicode aware since forever. In fact, may years ago you could use Unicode with aplomb.
What happened was due to repeated abuse of Unicode that screwed up page layout, the site uses a very strict whitelist of acceptable Unicode characters.
One has to wonder how much Google pays Apple to keep up the idea of competition with iAds. Given the only reason Google could acquire AdMob (THE largest mobile advertising company out there) was because earlier that year, Steve Jobs announced iAds. Which is quite curious since AdMob advertises everywhere, while iAds was very restrictive. It's like saying that Ferrari and Toyota are competitors.
(iAds initially required a $1M commitment (reduced to $100K now I believe), and Apple opened it ot developers when few, if any, people actually use it. I think the only reason it's still "running" at all is because Google keeps it there to offer "competition").
Likewise, but if you're a 5-digit, it should be more like 15+ years of coming to /.
Depends on the laws.
Some places have laws that say that flashing your high beams unnecessarily is against the law, regardless of purpose (be it to signal to the drivers of speed traps, to tell someone to pull over, etc).
And yes, you can tell drivers of upcoming speed traps. Just don't flash your headlights.
Heck, haven't truckers been doing this ever since they put in CB radios?
Which is perfectly fine.
Someone decided to be more inclusive and fix the documentation. Just a minor change to be more inclusive. And it was rejected, which is also fine. Except it was done in such a way that was NOT fine, and highlighted the maintainer's sexist and bigoted beliefs. In fact, when an upstream maintainer decided to quell the argument by just accepting the change, he blew up.
We're talking about changing "he" to "they". In documentation. Not code. A minor change, that was rejected in a very offensive way, and someone higher up decided to just get rid of the hassle, fix it, and let things be. Except things blew up even more.
And that's when things went downhill revealing the maintainer's true nature.
What started as minor edit to be more inclusive turned into an all out war of bigotry. What could've ended with a simple rejection of "doesn't improve things too much" instead was turned into a complete bigoted and nasty thread.
It could've been resolved professionally. It was a really minor change that affected nothing - accept it, don't accept it, you can make very good very neutral reasons going either way. But it turned into an all out bigot justification
No one would've gotten offended by the change or lack thereof, but the upstream maintainers wanted to be "better" and more inclusive and really just fix it to set a good example .But it takes one bigot to suddenly cast the entire community into darkness. You don't care, I don't care, nor do many other people. Just one person however took so much offense of changing "he" to "they" that this mountain was created.
And I suspect projecting the FOSS community as a bunch of boorish men doesn't impress the women, who would be more than happy to contribute in a great professional environment. Not one where the guy you submit code to may decide you're a female and reject the change as "women suck".
Unfortunately, there are so some real bigots in the FOSS community.
Node.js had one such thing pop up..
It was a relatively minor thing - a pull request was rejected because the documentation was updated to be more gender neutral. Unfortunately, the reasons given for said rejection were less than... honorable, and when it happened again, it devolved into a giant show of bigotry by the maintainer.
Perhaps that's why women don't want to go into tech - us geeks despite wanting to show we're more "educated" and learned, still have some real bigots among us who justify their positions in dubious ways. Hell, perhaps tech is no more evolved than construction labourers gawking and cat-calling.
And that's the big issue. Because guess who pays his prize money? The people watching it on TV!
Jeopardy is pretty popular (so it's not a question of being "too smart"), and most viewers know the people on the show are damned smart. But one thing people love to do is try to answer the question themselves, but being more "normal", they have to take time to understand the category and the answer.
And the writers of Jeopardy often have fun - not just puns, but put a lot of effort making "fun" categories where things are totally oddball. Follow it top down and everyone gets a laugh at the end. Do it randomly and it's just a sucky experience for everyone.
It's like people who complain about movies - the movie's goal is not to entertain you, but to put asses in seats. Now, entertainment generally makes it easier to do so, hence special effects laden summer blockbusters. Jeopardy is the same - the writers have a little fun because the point is to entertain the home viewers so they return night after night to watch it.
What this guy does is probably "right" and "correct", but it makes for a boring and annoying game.
It's a case of where the "product" is at risk (viewer's eyeballs) in the eyes of the customer (advertisers) because viewers are turned off by what they see and it's not entertaining. In other words, this guy, by playing "smart", he makes the whole thing boring for everyone.
Linux yes, Windows no (unless it has a BIOS - of which only the Pixel is known to have).
But unless you use the chroot Linux, it isn't a pleasant experience - developer mode requires you hit a key combo on startup to acknowledge it. if you wait too long (30 seconds) it times out and complains of wanting to go into recovery mode., So you have to reboot and hit the key combo within 30 seconds every boot and recoot.
Or it could be the other way - you have to wait 30 seconds at the screen while it tells you how to recover the thing.
In the end I just left it running ChromeOS.
One of the biggest changes in Firefox was that JavaScript was permanently enabled.
But a side effect of the removal of "Enable JavaScript" checkbox was the removal of the "Advanced" button which limited what scripts could do - move/resize windows, bring windows to front/back, allow scrpits to write to status bar, disable context-click (right click), etc.
Which is annoying because those options were good to have - especially sites that disable right-click.
On Firefox, it's possible to re-enable right click if you hold down Shift then right-click - this will force Firefox to display the proper right-click menu. But that's a PITA
While extensions like NoScript work, they don't prevent permitted sites from playing around with stuff like that - a site needs javascript ot work and then they promptly open a bunch of windows or disable right-click while it's enabled.