People put up with FedEx/UPS parking in red parking zones all over cities, or at least the cops do; they do not let them drive or park on the sidewalk, as the delivery trucks are vehicles.
Incorrect. Practical cops may choose to not ticket the vehicles, but delivery vehicles get ticketed on a regular basis. In general, because they're there for only a few minutes, it's not worth ticketing but if someone feels they are parked in a manner that is causing a danger to traffic or blocking the sidewalk causing pedestrians to spill out on the street, then it won't be overlooked. (And yes, they park on sidewalks all the time, though most park in such a way that it doesn't force pedestrians to walk into traffic)
And yes, these companies have procedures for dealing with tickets as well - it's often just the cost of doing business. I believe there was a big fuss one day when a cop ticketed an armored car for parking in a no-parking zone in order to do a pickup. The driver objected to the ticket in the press saying they needed to park there, but very little sympathy was had. (I'm sure everyone else who got a ticket in the area "needed to park there"). This was especially so after the armored car company said that they had procedures to deal with tickets (which usually just meant paying it off).
He is basically right on all counts -- she does have a strong case, and it would be better for Canada if the US just dropped the issue.
Perhaps he's a useful idiot (ambassadors aren't necessarily smart people, just diplomatic ones). By outlining why Meng has a strong case, he's just given the US lawyers preparing their case the potential Chinese defense strategy, and what parts they need to focus on to bolster their case. In effect, he's just outlined how China intends to resist the extradition and the US needs to prepare rebuttals to all those points.
Sure, a good lawyer would already do so, but it doesn't hurt to have someone make sure you're prepared for the defense arguments.
He is probably a great ambassador, but these diplomats when the spotlight suddenly shines on them sometimes have no idea what to do.
No, he knew what he was doing. He actually invited the Chinese newspaper reporters to a meeting where he spewed why he thinks China has a strong case. Note he didn't invite over "reporters" in general - none of the many English speaking news reporters were present, just the ones working for Chinese newspapers and TV. (Note that by "Chinese newspapers and TV" does not mean "TV and news from China" - there are plenty of Canadian Chinese newspapers and TV networks, most of whom would've shared newsrooms with the normal English press and who may have tipped them off as well).
Y2K was mostly a non-problem. Some companies expended a lot of effort, and avoided problems. Other companies did absolutely nothing, and they didn't have any problems either.
The story was, that to save memory, programmers would store the year in two bytes instead of four. But this was mostly nonsense. In the olden days programmers would store the year in ONE binary byte, and add it to 1900. So the real crash will happen on January 1st, 2156.
False. Lots of companies expended lots of money fixing the issue, making it a non-problem. People that didn't, often only seen minor issues (year 19100, computers that wouldn't boot because the BIOS wrapped, etc). There were plenty of real world non-computer Y2K issues as well, often with date fields that pre-populated "19" in the year.
And also false that one binary byte was used - dates are almost always stored in a form of BCD. This is exceptionally true if you had a mainframe computer because BCD was its primary mode of operation. In fact, Y2K issues cropped up in the 70s, because banks tried to issue 25 year mortgages and found out their computers gave errors trying to arrange the mortgages. So the financial industry was long aware of Y2K issues for decades before everyone else and they often had them fixed well before everyone else heard of them. Even industries like insurance would've ran into issues in the early 90s when term insurance started extending into the 2000s.
About the only issues were infrastructure and utilities who had little need for long term planning in their computer systems and thus would run into things only in real time. But they managed to survive, mostly because the issues lay within the billing and logging systems and not generally within control systems. This was also pre-smart meter era so even if the billing computer said you haven't paid in 100 years, they wouldn't cut your electricity off automatically.
USA to large tech: hey company with whom we have a large contract - we'd like to see details on X. If you can't show us, that's cool, but don't forget we're a big fan of your services...today anyway
Trump said to dump iPhones for Samsungs. He did, for a couple of months, but has since switched back. This was after the FBI-Apple lawsuits and data requests.
And unless everyone is lying, not all warranted data requests were fulfilled, either. The companies are even pushing back asking to reveal even more detailed statistics, rather than just broad quantities.
'Open source' is a threat to Microsoft profits therefore acquiring and destroying Open Source is on their 'to do' list. Microsoft wants to be the one and only source of an operating system and software in the world and they don't care what they have to do to achieve that.
That was probably true 10 years ago, but Microsoft has moved on and figured out how to make money off open source as well. Namely, stuff like Azure means Microsoft found a way to work with Linux and other open source technologies and make money off it.
Nadella likes to make money, and if it means upsetting the old Microsoft apple cart, he's done it. That's why there's the Linux subsystem for Windows, SQL Server for Linux, Azure supports Linux extremely well, etc. Windows and Office are old standbys but you can bet he'd port Office to Linux if it would make money.
Because Apple is well-known for being lenient when it comes to their IP.
History doesn't seem to bear that out - ARDI Executor has been around for years SheepShaver and Basilisk II have been left alone for just as long (and they require ROM images).
Heck, System 7.5 disk images have been freely available off Apple's web site for ages now too.
The only time Apple's really sued for something like this was when that company was making clones using Hackintoshes. And even then the Hackintosh community was cheering Apple on (turns out they were violating the license of the hackintosh software as well).
And yeah, Apple's left the Hackintosh community surprisingly alone as well.
But if Ford is giving Wheel of Fortune a free/cheap/discounted/whatever car to give away on the show in return for promotion of the car by Wheel of Fortune, Wheel should absolutely be required to tell people that they have received that stuff from Ford.
Or if Nike is paying a studio to have a character in a sitcom wear Nike shoes (and to show those Nike shoes off on camera) the studio should be required to tell the audience that Nike has paid for those shoes to be in there.
Just like if someone running a PC-related YouTube channel is required to tell someone that the Gigabyte motherboard they are using in their video was donated by Gigabyte. Or that the promotion of Squarespace on the channel is in fact paid promotion.
The TV shows already do - and usually pretty damn early in the credits. Usually it goes under the heading "Promotional consideration given by" followed by a list of companies who have given money or product to the show.
Sometimes they even put it up on screen of "Courtesy of". Though you can pretty much assume all prizing given out was either donated/given/provided cheaply to the show.
Most YouTube personalities already identify their sponsors - Brilliant.org, Squarespace, TunnelBear and NordVPN, etc.
Is 30,000 really the 'magic number'? Has any research been done on if citizen representation is improved by having 1 rep per 30,000 versus 1 rep for 300,000? Could district area/dimensions be more important than the population it contains? The real "while we're at it" should be nonpartisan redistricting, to slay the Gerrymander (which will probably require a Constitutional amendment).
Well, 1 per 30,000 means around 10,000 representatives. Imagine you're trying to buy out a law - you need to convince 5001 of them to swing your way. It's certainly going to be more expensive to do so - a million bucks only ends up being around $100 each. At that rate, the citizens of the district can easily buy them out. Even at $10M, that's $1000 each, still hard to buy people out.
At 1 per 300,000, that's 1000 representatives, not much different from what we have now, and still too easy to buy them out.
Maybe 1 per 30,000 people isn't enough, but the numbers are such that it seems buying out laws has gone from mere millions to a billion dollar activity.
They already have that. Essentially every service your average Chinese citizen uses is now located in China. They could sever themselves from internet entirely and average citizens wouldn't really care. They'll still have their wechat, baidu, etc. Tencent et al have more than enough capability to replace whatever is needed within months should such need arise.
Which is why they can block at will. Their own people won't really care, beyond the certain small percentage. And that certain percentage is exactly the kind of people that authoritarian regime would want to look at carefully and limit freedom of.
Exactly. They already block (or rather "fake news!") anything the state deems inconvenient. The funny thing is WeChat actually captured the headlines and even put a little mark beside it saying the link was banned. This was especially common around the Huawei CFO arrest - any non-Chinese site not stating the party line got blocked, but amusingly, WeChat users saw the headlines still and noted that there was more "broken links" and "fake news" marked on them than normal.
Well that's what they get for burning down our capital. #neverforget
It was just the White House, actually. And it didn't burn completely down - it was rebuilt and there is still some blackened arches and beams which remain as evidence of the torching.
And very few commercial projects have world wide distribution - it's often far more profitable to sell distribution rights on a piece by piece basis - you can make more money selling the US and Canadian distribution rights separately than you can selling the rights to both combined.
Yes he does. Because if no one carried them, there wouldn't be the expectation that you were reachable 24/7. Just like the days before cell phones when people would be out of contact almost entirely during travel. Wouldn't be fun to go back to that now, but that would be his dream.
No, it's not that no one's carrying them, it's that everyone is carrying them and he'll find a kind soul to lend him a phone.
The problem is, if everyone did this (there are a lot of people without cellphones), then despite you asking dozens of people to use their phone, you might not get a chance to use it because they see all the leeches and deny use of the phone.
I for one, don't lend my phone out to anyone unless I know them, and even then it's risky. After all, they'll have access to your fully unlocked phone.
Stallman's views might be tainted by his celebrity status - basically if he needs anything, people toss it to him (be it food, shelter or internet access). The problem is for everyone else, that solution isn't necessarily available (otherwise we'd have solved the homeless problem already).
Of course, one also hopes he's shaved and showered - I'm sure if he comes up to anyone looking like a hobo his chance of actually using a phone will be close to nil. At least outside of the MIT campus.
Rather, the interesting questions is whether a lower-cost or free ad-subsidized tier would bring in enough additional subscribers to offset the loss from subscribers in the ad-free tier switching to that ad-subsidized tier.
No they won't. Because it goes against their existing business model for content.
You have to remember, Netflix makes content to attract subscribers. They look at the demographics of their subscriber base and figure out what kind of programming they'd like, then make that content so they'd stay. The content exists to attract subscribers which helps generate new content.
Of course, some people hate the new content - as the demographics of Netflix subscribers change, so will the kind of content Netflix makes - they're making content to retain their current subscriber base. If you become a niche subscriber, Netflix may not make content for you.
This is in contrast to ad supported services. Here the goal is to have programming that attracts the most eyeballs in general, which will generate higher ad rates and more money for this kind of content. Thus this kind of content generally appeals to the lowest common denominator because the goal is eyeballs, not subscriber count.
Sure, you can make content that appeals to both, but in general, the type of content will differ simply because I'm sure Netflix subscribers don't care for reality TV drivel.
For example, I can use MS Word under VirtualBox and most things work fine, but do something like update the Table of Contents and *boom* Word crashes.
First, don't run the latest and greatest Office. I generally stick to a version behind if you can, because you're probably running into a Word bug. The latest and greatest basically have all the bugs in them, while the previous release would have most of their bugs fixed.
Second, apply all the Office updates from Microsoft. I had a the misfortune of having to run unpatched Office because the IT department where I was contracted to basically locked down their configurations. It's terrible using Office where anything you do might crash it. Of course, the same version of Office on my work laptop (the one I work for, not who I was contracted to) worked just fine on hardware that was wimpier and weaker, just because it was patched completely.
Life sucks when dealing with word documents that are especially crashy. Save often.
if you pay 100 bucks / year and have the source then sure you can.
No, you don't need to pay $100/year. You just need a Mac. Since iOS 8 you can sideload apps you compiled yourself with XCode. (The SDK is free)
The $100/year is if you want to submit apps to the app store.
There's a nice repository of emulators and such for iOS these days. All open source because Apple requires you to compile the code yourself. No, RMS will not blow his head off that a proprietary OS has support for open-source.
The credit card market is an oligopoly and therefore must be regulated. The EU is right to force Mastercard into lowering its fees.
It's not about lowering the fees, it's about the rules MasterCard put in place to keep businesses from shopping around. As in they couldn't deal with a bank outside their country who may offer them a lower fee.
I guess they forgot to turn off the flash. Amature photographer move.
Hey now, they only started photographing the moon a couple of weeks ago. They're bound to make a few mistakes being so new to space photography. Heck, I'm sure half the images either have the lens cap on, or a thumb in it.
Please. The old imac screens were magnet'ed on. A simple suction cup and the glass is removed.
The parent is right, all new screens since around 2013 have been glued on. Why would they do this if not to prevent people upgrading their hardware or changing components?
Because quite likely, Apple found their repair and warranty costs went up when users were given the option.
How? Because of idiots who shouldn't be given a tool decided "Hey, I can do this" then screw it up so badly that they take it to an Apple store and have Apple fix their blunder. Of course, the reports come back that costs go up and the engineers are forced to design things so it's sealed and less repairable.
Warranty fraud is a real thing, and it's quite rampant - "No I did not drop it in water" even as a puddle forms around said computer on the counter. (Happens way more often than you think).
Nowadays it's a built in IQ test - if you can acquire the right tools for the job then quite likely you're competent enough to not only fix it properly, but to not break it or demand warranty service if you do.
That's sort of boggling. If I'm thinking about this correctly, it means that there are people out there who know enough to forward a port or two, but who don't know enough to know that's a bad idea. Wow.
No, it's not amazing or boggling. I can show a clueless newbie how to do something involving ssh if I wanted - all that matters is what the newbie gets out of it. If i tell them it's a way to get unlimited movies and music for free, they'd probably follow my instructions and I can get them to set up ssh-server and all that on Linux.
It's not hard, as long as they get a payoff they want, and you write baby step clear instructions with plenty of screenshots and all that. You can get them to open ports, use ssh, set up ssh server, etc.
It's actually got a term for it - Dancing Bunnies (or Dancing Pigs).
Unless you go with an iOS-like lockdown attitude, no OS is safe.
How about this. Someone accuses you of sexual assault. It's proven to be false and you're cleared of all charges, but now, when you Google your name, details of your sexual assault accusation show up.
Right to be forgotten lets you remove that because you're innocent. But the Court of Google means you're a sexual predator forever.
Is that fair?
How about something else - you get arrested for pot smoking when you're 17. When you turn 18, your record gets wiped. But the Court of Google indexed that so now everyone thinks you're a pothead because you got arrested, even though legally you're in the clear, and even worse, your record was actually expunged upon turning 18. But Google and the Internet doesn't care.
Of course, no one would notice - a criminal background check will reveal nothing of either situation - the first was cleared, the second was expunged. But now someone does a simple Google and everyone is suddenly looking at you funny, thinking you're a pothead and sexual predator and why aren't you fired yet.
People lose jobs because of their social media postings, which is why it's generally a good idea to go through what you post and clean it up. But while you can clean up your social media, you can't clean up what Google and the Internet have heard about you, even if it's no longer true. Imagine being denied a job just because of something you were accused of, but didn't do. Even a court of law says you didn't go it. But just because you allegedly did it, you did it.
Is the pedantic distinction between "Internet" and "web" still useful? Especially in the context of TFA?
Yes, because even if a site likes Facebook goes down, there are plenty of alternative mechanisms to communicate. But if a country shuts off the pipes, then there are no alternatives if they rely on the Internet.
Just because there's no Messenger or whatever doesn't mean there isn't Signal or other means to chat. But if the internet is down, then it's back to regular phone lines and such.
I'm all for 24-bit audio as long as the hardware is of sufficient quality that it can make any conceivable difference, and if it doesn't cost a lot more. Otherwise, CD quality is at least adequate, if not ideal. I'd rather have more tracks and more channels than more bits (and with the ability to assign the former to the latter dynamically.)
The dynamics of a 16 bit converter are sufficient for practically any real world situation, listening OR recording.
The average living room will have around 40dB of dynamic range - it's got a relatively high noise floor.
Even an sound chamber will rarely get you more than 80dB of dynamics.
A 16 bit converter has 96dB of dynamics - and your recording equipment, be it tape (90dB tops, -3dB per generation copy, so after a backup copy for safety, you'll be mastering from an 87dB, producing a 84dB "master" which you replicate at 81dB, for an all analog path). or other equipment (microiphone, etc) will generally have far less dynamic range.
Granted, to get full hearing range is around 120dB or so (a 20 bit converter) though the situations involving such large dynamic range in volume is rather limited practically.
And to DSD fans with their "1bit" converter, well, at 6dB, all DSD did was push the noise above 22.05kHz. (You can tell when you have a DSD recording that's improperly filtered as you get normal audio below 22.05kHz (1/2 44.1kHz, which is the equivalent sampling for DSD running at 2.something MHz) and a brick wall of crap above 22.05 on a spectral plit).
Since when are any of these consumer devices' firmware actually upgradable??
Maybe we need to have manufacturers buy everyone new devices so they'd actually learn their lesson.
Why? I'm sure Sony and Microsoft will update their game consoles - both are supported devices still and can be updated during the next software update that gets pushed out. I'm pretty certain the Microsoft Surface will be updated as well.
Ditto the Chromebook since that gets regular updates.
Maybe the smartphone won't get updates, but everyone else pretty much will.
The raw results are not in question. The story itself says that the raw data was nearly identical, as one would expect. It is only the extrapolation of that data to infer ethic lineage that didn't line up so well.
And that's the important point - the interpretation can differ. Yet if you look at all the ads, they imply an exact location. Spit in the tube and you'll find which neighbourhood your ancestors grew up in.
Of course, your results are basically guesses by the site - if you ask it for your real location, the best it can give is your continent. If you want what you see in the ad, you get a guess.
Serious question- I know some people do send that many texts a month, but is that amount commonplace? Several thousand a month?
Damn, I don't know if I've sent 1000 in the last 5 years. I don't communicate with gobs of people, but still...several thousand a month?
If someone is sending several thousand texts a month, when do they find time to eat and sleep? I'm not judging, it just seems like a massive amount of time to me.
1000 texts a month is, on average, only 33 a day. SEveral thousand will be say, 100 texts a day. Which is not much, given a lot of it is IM-chat. "Hey" "Hi" "You There" "Wanna go for dinner" "where" "Restaurant on Main Street" "which one?" "the one we went to" "Yesterday", "What time" "6PM?" "Fine" "I'm running late" "I'm Here"
That's 14 average texts, which is just under halfway the daily amount for 1000 texts a month.
Google never did a good job overseeing their app store. It has always been a malwarefest. If anything, it was even worse in the past.
My spouse has an app business, and I have helped her with releases. It is a real struggle to get an iOS app approved for Apple's app store. But for Google, you just shovel it in. I don't recall them ever rejecting anything, even when we had inadvertent bugs that made the app totally malfunction.
You have to remember Apple started out with a draconian approval process for apps. Google wanted to be the opposite, so they ran an app store that let anyone and everyone in without approvals required.
So that's why the Google Play Store (Google Marketplace back in the day) was filled with crap - for a $25 one time fee, you could list your app with no oversight. It was only when the amount of malware and crapware in the Marketplace threatened to collapse the entire ecosystem did Google attempt to fix it.
But the problem is, it's harder to restrict what you have than it is to go more lenient. So Google is having a harder time policing their store and even trying to do a modicum of crapware removal thatn Apple is at slowly loosening the reins and letting things in that would've been rejected before. The only thing Apple has is backlashes when they attempt to enforce rules they didn't use to enforce before.
Slashdot Mirror
Incorrect. Practical cops may choose to not ticket the vehicles, but delivery vehicles get ticketed on a regular basis. In general, because they're there for only a few minutes, it's not worth ticketing but if someone feels they are parked in a manner that is causing a danger to traffic or blocking the sidewalk causing pedestrians to spill out on the street, then it won't be overlooked. (And yes, they park on sidewalks all the time, though most park in such a way that it doesn't force pedestrians to walk into traffic)
And yes, these companies have procedures for dealing with tickets as well - it's often just the cost of doing business. I believe there was a big fuss one day when a cop ticketed an armored car for parking in a no-parking zone in order to do a pickup. The driver objected to the ticket in the press saying they needed to park there, but very little sympathy was had. (I'm sure everyone else who got a ticket in the area "needed to park there"). This was especially so after the armored car company said that they had procedures to deal with tickets (which usually just meant paying it off).
Perhaps he's a useful idiot (ambassadors aren't necessarily smart people, just diplomatic ones). By outlining why Meng has a strong case, he's just given the US lawyers preparing their case the potential Chinese defense strategy, and what parts they need to focus on to bolster their case. In effect, he's just outlined how China intends to resist the extradition and the US needs to prepare rebuttals to all those points.
Sure, a good lawyer would already do so, but it doesn't hurt to have someone make sure you're prepared for the defense arguments.
No, he knew what he was doing. He actually invited the Chinese newspaper reporters to a meeting where he spewed why he thinks China has a strong case. Note he didn't invite over "reporters" in general - none of the many English speaking news reporters were present, just the ones working for Chinese newspapers and TV. (Note that by "Chinese newspapers and TV" does not mean "TV and news from China" - there are plenty of Canadian Chinese newspapers and TV networks, most of whom would've shared newsrooms with the normal English press and who may have tipped them off as well).
False. Lots of companies expended lots of money fixing the issue, making it a non-problem. People that didn't, often only seen minor issues (year 19100, computers that wouldn't boot because the BIOS wrapped, etc). There were plenty of real world non-computer Y2K issues as well, often with date fields that pre-populated "19" in the year.
And also false that one binary byte was used - dates are almost always stored in a form of BCD. This is exceptionally true if you had a mainframe computer because BCD was its primary mode of operation. In fact, Y2K issues cropped up in the 70s, because banks tried to issue 25 year mortgages and found out their computers gave errors trying to arrange the mortgages. So the financial industry was long aware of Y2K issues for decades before everyone else and they often had them fixed well before everyone else heard of them. Even industries like insurance would've ran into issues in the early 90s when term insurance started extending into the 2000s.
About the only issues were infrastructure and utilities who had little need for long term planning in their computer systems and thus would run into things only in real time. But they managed to survive, mostly because the issues lay within the billing and logging systems and not generally within control systems. This was also pre-smart meter era so even if the billing computer said you haven't paid in 100 years, they wouldn't cut your electricity off automatically.
Trump said to dump iPhones for Samsungs. He did, for a couple of months, but has since switched back. This was after the FBI-Apple lawsuits and data requests.
And unless everyone is lying, not all warranted data requests were fulfilled, either. The companies are even pushing back asking to reveal even more detailed statistics, rather than just broad quantities.
That was probably true 10 years ago, but Microsoft has moved on and figured out how to make money off open source as well. Namely, stuff like Azure means Microsoft found a way to work with Linux and other open source technologies and make money off it.
Nadella likes to make money, and if it means upsetting the old Microsoft apple cart, he's done it. That's why there's the Linux subsystem for Windows, SQL Server for Linux, Azure supports Linux extremely well, etc. Windows and Office are old standbys but you can bet he'd port Office to Linux if it would make money.
History doesn't seem to bear that out - ARDI Executor has been around for years SheepShaver and Basilisk II have been left alone for just as long (and they require ROM images).
Heck, System 7.5 disk images have been freely available off Apple's web site for ages now too.
The only time Apple's really sued for something like this was when that company was making clones using Hackintoshes. And even then the Hackintosh community was cheering Apple on (turns out they were violating the license of the hackintosh software as well).
And yeah, Apple's left the Hackintosh community surprisingly alone as well.
The TV shows already do - and usually pretty damn early in the credits. Usually it goes under the heading "Promotional consideration given by" followed by a list of companies who have given money or product to the show.
Sometimes they even put it up on screen of "Courtesy of". Though you can pretty much assume all prizing given out was either donated/given/provided cheaply to the show.
Most YouTube personalities already identify their sponsors - Brilliant.org, Squarespace, TunnelBear and NordVPN, etc.
Well, 1 per 30,000 means around 10,000 representatives. Imagine you're trying to buy out a law - you need to convince 5001 of them to swing your way. It's certainly going to be more expensive to do so - a million bucks only ends up being around $100 each. At that rate, the citizens of the district can easily buy them out. Even at $10M, that's $1000 each, still hard to buy people out.
At 1 per 300,000, that's 1000 representatives, not much different from what we have now, and still too easy to buy them out.
Maybe 1 per 30,000 people isn't enough, but the numbers are such that it seems buying out laws has gone from mere millions to a billion dollar activity.
Exactly. They already block (or rather "fake news!") anything the state deems inconvenient. The funny thing is WeChat actually captured the headlines and even put a little mark beside it saying the link was banned. This was especially common around the Huawei CFO arrest - any non-Chinese site not stating the party line got blocked, but amusingly, WeChat users saw the headlines still and noted that there was more "broken links" and "fake news" marked on them than normal.
It was just the White House, actually. And it didn't burn completely down - it was rebuilt and there is still some blackened arches and beams which remain as evidence of the torching.
And very few commercial projects have world wide distribution - it's often far more profitable to sell distribution rights on a piece by piece basis - you can make more money selling the US and Canadian distribution rights separately than you can selling the rights to both combined.
No, it's not that no one's carrying them, it's that everyone is carrying them and he'll find a kind soul to lend him a phone.
The problem is, if everyone did this (there are a lot of people without cellphones), then despite you asking dozens of people to use their phone, you might not get a chance to use it because they see all the leeches and deny use of the phone.
I for one, don't lend my phone out to anyone unless I know them, and even then it's risky. After all, they'll have access to your fully unlocked phone.
Stallman's views might be tainted by his celebrity status - basically if he needs anything, people toss it to him (be it food, shelter or internet access). The problem is for everyone else, that solution isn't necessarily available (otherwise we'd have solved the homeless problem already).
Of course, one also hopes he's shaved and showered - I'm sure if he comes up to anyone looking like a hobo his chance of actually using a phone will be close to nil. At least outside of the MIT campus.
No they won't. Because it goes against their existing business model for content.
You have to remember, Netflix makes content to attract subscribers. They look at the demographics of their subscriber base and figure out what kind of programming they'd like, then make that content so they'd stay. The content exists to attract subscribers which helps generate new content.
Of course, some people hate the new content - as the demographics of Netflix subscribers change, so will the kind of content Netflix makes - they're making content to retain their current subscriber base. If you become a niche subscriber, Netflix may not make content for you.
This is in contrast to ad supported services. Here the goal is to have programming that attracts the most eyeballs in general, which will generate higher ad rates and more money for this kind of content. Thus this kind of content generally appeals to the lowest common denominator because the goal is eyeballs, not subscriber count.
Sure, you can make content that appeals to both, but in general, the type of content will differ simply because I'm sure Netflix subscribers don't care for reality TV drivel.
First, don't run the latest and greatest Office. I generally stick to a version behind if you can, because you're probably running into a Word bug. The latest and greatest basically have all the bugs in them, while the previous release would have most of their bugs fixed.
Second, apply all the Office updates from Microsoft. I had a the misfortune of having to run unpatched Office because the IT department where I was contracted to basically locked down their configurations. It's terrible using Office where anything you do might crash it. Of course, the same version of Office on my work laptop (the one I work for, not who I was contracted to) worked just fine on hardware that was wimpier and weaker, just because it was patched completely.
Life sucks when dealing with word documents that are especially crashy. Save often.
No, you don't need to pay $100/year. You just need a Mac. Since iOS 8 you can sideload apps you compiled yourself with XCode. (The SDK is free)
The $100/year is if you want to submit apps to the app store.
There's a nice repository of emulators and such for iOS these days. All open source because Apple requires you to compile the code yourself. No, RMS will not blow his head off that a proprietary OS has support for open-source.
It's not about lowering the fees, it's about the rules MasterCard put in place to keep businesses from shopping around. As in they couldn't deal with a bank outside their country who may offer them a lower fee.
Hey now, they only started photographing the moon a couple of weeks ago. They're bound to make a few mistakes being so new to space photography. Heck, I'm sure half the images either have the lens cap on, or a thumb in it.
Because quite likely, Apple found their repair and warranty costs went up when users were given the option.
How? Because of idiots who shouldn't be given a tool decided "Hey, I can do this" then screw it up so badly that they take it to an Apple store and have Apple fix their blunder. Of course, the reports come back that costs go up and the engineers are forced to design things so it's sealed and less repairable.
Warranty fraud is a real thing, and it's quite rampant - "No I did not drop it in water" even as a puddle forms around said computer on the counter. (Happens way more often than you think).
Nowadays it's a built in IQ test - if you can acquire the right tools for the job then quite likely you're competent enough to not only fix it properly, but to not break it or demand warranty service if you do.
No, it's not amazing or boggling. I can show a clueless newbie how to do something involving ssh if I wanted - all that matters is what the newbie gets out of it. If i tell them it's a way to get unlimited movies and music for free, they'd probably follow my instructions and I can get them to set up ssh-server and all that on Linux.
It's not hard, as long as they get a payoff they want, and you write baby step clear instructions with plenty of screenshots and all that. You can get them to open ports, use ssh, set up ssh server, etc.
It's actually got a term for it - Dancing Bunnies (or Dancing Pigs).
Unless you go with an iOS-like lockdown attitude, no OS is safe.
How about this. Someone accuses you of sexual assault. It's proven to be false and you're cleared of all charges, but now, when you Google your name, details of your sexual assault accusation show up.
Right to be forgotten lets you remove that because you're innocent. But the Court of Google means you're a sexual predator forever.
Is that fair?
How about something else - you get arrested for pot smoking when you're 17. When you turn 18, your record gets wiped. But the Court of Google indexed that so now everyone thinks you're a pothead because you got arrested, even though legally you're in the clear, and even worse, your record was actually expunged upon turning 18. But Google and the Internet doesn't care.
Of course, no one would notice - a criminal background check will reveal nothing of either situation - the first was cleared, the second was expunged. But now someone does a simple Google and everyone is suddenly looking at you funny, thinking you're a pothead and sexual predator and why aren't you fired yet.
People lose jobs because of their social media postings, which is why it's generally a good idea to go through what you post and clean it up. But while you can clean up your social media, you can't clean up what Google and the Internet have heard about you, even if it's no longer true. Imagine being denied a job just because of something you were accused of, but didn't do. Even a court of law says you didn't go it. But just because you allegedly did it, you did it.
Yes, because even if a site likes Facebook goes down, there are plenty of alternative mechanisms to communicate. But if a country shuts off the pipes, then there are no alternatives if they rely on the Internet.
Just because there's no Messenger or whatever doesn't mean there isn't Signal or other means to chat. But if the internet is down, then it's back to regular phone lines and such.
The dynamics of a 16 bit converter are sufficient for practically any real world situation, listening OR recording.
The average living room will have around 40dB of dynamic range - it's got a relatively high noise floor.
Even an sound chamber will rarely get you more than 80dB of dynamics.
A 16 bit converter has 96dB of dynamics - and your recording equipment, be it tape (90dB tops, -3dB per generation copy, so after a backup copy for safety, you'll be mastering from an 87dB, producing a 84dB "master" which you replicate at 81dB, for an all analog path). or other equipment (microiphone, etc) will generally have far less dynamic range.
Granted, to get full hearing range is around 120dB or so (a 20 bit converter) though the situations involving such large dynamic range in volume is rather limited practically.
And to DSD fans with their "1bit" converter, well, at 6dB, all DSD did was push the noise above 22.05kHz. (You can tell when you have a DSD recording that's improperly filtered as you get normal audio below 22.05kHz (1/2 44.1kHz, which is the equivalent sampling for DSD running at 2.something MHz) and a brick wall of crap above 22.05 on a spectral plit).
Why? I'm sure Sony and Microsoft will update their game consoles - both are supported devices still and can be updated during the next software update that gets pushed out. I'm pretty certain the Microsoft Surface will be updated as well.
Ditto the Chromebook since that gets regular updates.
Maybe the smartphone won't get updates, but everyone else pretty much will.
And that's the important point - the interpretation can differ. Yet if you look at all the ads, they imply an exact location. Spit in the tube and you'll find which neighbourhood your ancestors grew up in.
Of course, your results are basically guesses by the site - if you ask it for your real location, the best it can give is your continent. If you want what you see in the ad, you get a guess.
1000 texts a month is, on average, only 33 a day. SEveral thousand will be say, 100 texts a day. Which is not much, given a lot of it is IM-chat. "Hey" "Hi" "You There" "Wanna go for dinner" "where" "Restaurant on Main Street" "which one?" "the one we went to" "Yesterday", "What time" "6PM?" "Fine" "I'm running late" "I'm Here"
That's 14 average texts, which is just under halfway the daily amount for 1000 texts a month.
You have to remember Apple started out with a draconian approval process for apps. Google wanted to be the opposite, so they ran an app store that let anyone and everyone in without approvals required.
So that's why the Google Play Store (Google Marketplace back in the day) was filled with crap - for a $25 one time fee, you could list your app with no oversight. It was only when the amount of malware and crapware in the Marketplace threatened to collapse the entire ecosystem did Google attempt to fix it.
But the problem is, it's harder to restrict what you have than it is to go more lenient. So Google is having a harder time policing their store and even trying to do a modicum of crapware removal thatn Apple is at slowly loosening the reins and letting things in that would've been rejected before. The only thing Apple has is backlashes when they attempt to enforce rules they didn't use to enforce before.