You seem to be responding to several things I didn't say....and if I click the parent of your post, it just goes to mine. Do you not understand there may be a difference between having absolutely everyone involved in every single action of gov, and gov being "the few enforcing their will on the many" - you seem to be taking dramatic liberties in assuming things I didn't say, and then extrapolating those event further. Here, I'll make it less controversial for you - I also don't think people should play Dr Google, nor do I think marketing people should get equal say on cybersecurity issues as the cybersecurity people. Take the crazy money out of it (reversing a certain recent SCOTUS ruling would help loads...) and enforcing certain things a bit better (emoluments, anyone?) and then force every bill to be public - but then back the fark off and stop pretending like congress is some sort of reality tv show for our instant entertainment 24/7.
Maybe having the unwashed masses be involved in every single decision the gov makes turns it into a popularity contest and strips actual merit from ideas anyway, and facebook is just the latest doing exactly that?
The post, here, literally finishes with the walmart bit. If you finish out a sandwich and I see a large glob of feces coming out of side, I'm gonna assume the whole thing is a feces sandwich (I'd use a more presidential word for it, but it probably gets filtered here)
The combined income of the employees walmart has laid off since that announcement substantially dwarfs the "bonus" offered. The "bonus" was to people who had worked for Walmart for at least 20 years, btw. A pretty sad group.
Are you positive that Jan2018 is 18 months after Nov2016? Repeating that twice would make the rest of your drivel suspect for anyone who didn't know anything about anything that has happened since then, nor anything about the candidates (ie, someone non-biased looking to evaluate the soundness of your overall comment). Just a heads-up.
when you go to insist that those without a facecrack account really are such a tiny fraction, factor in that there are 22m people in US between age 0 to 4, who arguably can't have any account at all (so, now we're down to 301m),another 22m from 5-9 who a large part of still wouldn't understand what facebook is thus their parents are the real "user," and another 12m that are over 80 and yeah, say what you will but a lot of those folks also don't have an account. Let's be conservative and just pull 11m of those 33 in the second 2 groups, and then you have 290m people who are vaguely possible to be on facebook...then you gota think that between homeless, the clinically depressed, the disabled, and etc some portion of those don't get on. Then the 2.5m people in jail - some portion of those aren't getting on. Before long you're down to the 240m number, which would suggest only 4 of us are smart enough not to be on facebook. No. Their numbers are, and always have been, extremely hyper-inflated, for purposes of appealing to their investors and advertisers.
It may have that many/accounts/, but it does not have that many/users/. It lists 240m in the US, for instance, when there's only 323m people here; I know a lot of people without a facebook account. Almost everyone I know that has a facebook account, has/multiple/ facebook accounts. I also know that facebook creates shadow accounts for people, attempting to track their activities online, despite those people not really having an opt-in facebook "account." I'd really like to see some data on how they come up with these absurd numbers, and proof that they're figuring out who has multiple accounts and only counting them as one "user."
altitude is dramatically less accurate than lat/long, and GPS in general tends to be thrown off a lot by the types of things tall buildings are made from.
huh, I guess at some point this site stopped doing a href, or I must have done a typo. Anyway, I think this earlier post should answer whether I'm aware of E911: https://slashdot.org/comments....
I'm well aware of E911. I find it a bit confusing that you somehow thing 911 call centers wouldn't have to change their infrastructure to accommodate it. BTW, if you know of a place to "call" Uber to get a ride, and can convince them to show up without you being able to pre-approve your credit card and identity, then hey man - good on you. Also also ps - you're a bit paranoid. And a bit missing the point.
you say that happened in 2005? It was 2014 that Ford first announced a F150 EV (yes, I know the history of that has been slightly re-written since then). It would be one thing if what you're saying happened in 2016 and Ford had a lessons-learned moment, but their reveal was almost a decade after your buyback posit.
I've had the dash do a couple glitchy things, and I'm going to have to hack the thing to figure out why because the dealership just shrugs it's shoulders and says "it's not happening now, so I can't fix it" regardless how many videos I have, but...I mean...what's a couple glitches between friends. But it drives well, though if you floor it it in sport mode it almost doesn't feel like the speed is applied uniformly - the steering gets a bit wobbly for a sec. IE, don't floor it in speed mode while on ice or rain slick. A normal ICE sports car floored probably does a bit of the same though, I'd guess. Good visibility 360degrees around, comfortable, roomy, tiny enough to park pretty easy given the interior room and acceleration, and etc. Working out pretty well.
Ford was going to have an F150 by 2016, then 2017, then 2018, now it's off the table with a hybrid F150/maybe/ in 2020. I'm happy with being an early adopter, and I'd love an electric truck. I have no interest in a Mustang or any SUV. Given a choice between a Bolt and some giant SUV thing, I'll stick with the Bolt (which I already have). Much easier to park, among other things.
A Bolt. It's great. My solar production covers it fine, and it does indeed get the range advertised. Very peppy - can zoom well past most cars at most reasonable speeds, with a light press of the pedal. Oh wait, was it not a sincere question? Sorry...yeah, some of us actually do indeed want EV:P
It absolutely is a technical question. There are a lot of people who sincerely wonder why Uber can find them and 911 can't, and don't understand it's because the communication channels are entirely different. I do love the idea that you think the unwashed masses sit around pontificating on rhetorical questions, though.
"mobile company does know your location" - I already addressed this. The issue isn't you, it's the place you're calling. THEY are just a phone bank. So there are 2 options, as I mentioned. First, let the police always know where you are at all times, so that they can then do a simple lookup of your number to your address, OR somehow change ALL the infrastructure along the way to handle data streams all along the way that can send data (you know, the GPS info). And keep in mind that's not going to be nearly as useful of info as what 911 has on landlines in places that are 3 dimensional (ie, buildings that go up, not just GPS coordinates). The telephone systems weren't designed to carry that info. Your wireless carrier too would have to triangulate your location, for that matter, unless they tap into a data stream that is yanking your GPS info and sending it to them - they don't just immediately "know" your exact location information otherwise. And your wireless carrier knows this info independently of any phone calls you make - it knows via a lower level communication. If you're having a heart attack, you need precise location information...not "near X tower." So ask yourself - do you want your phone constantly telling the police exactly where you are at all times? Or, perhaps, would it maybe be better to come up with an entirely different solution that didn't assume that calls over a telephone line work the same as data streams over the internet.
Remember when Slashdot was a place for people slightly more tech saavy than the average? Bloody hell, my elderly relatives understand the answer to this question - it's pretty simple really. The answer is "because Uber and 911 don't communicate the same way." Another fun question to ask is why is it possible for me to mail a feather to someone via USPS, but there's no place to put a feather on my cell phone to sext it to my wife for kinky-time. The possibilities are endless, when you compare completely different things that work in completely different ways! Why can my stove cook food, but my iphone can't? Why does my dog bark, instead of doing my taxes? The second biggest reason is 911 isn't consistent...I'd say "standardized" but there is a standard available, it's just not overwhelmingly used. Check out John Oliver's segment on this like 2 years ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Or, and just stick with me a sec, this will be complicated - it's because you contact UBER VIA A DATA STREAM THAT CAN SEND LOCATION INFORMATION and regular telco systems were not orignally designed to have a data carrier signal. Caller ID was strapped on at some point, but EVERY SWITCH ALONG THE WAY has to be updated, and the entire 911 center changed from being a telephone line, to a data endpoint on the internet.
It boggles my mind that anyone, anywhere, with any degree of a tech background, could ever ask "why can Uber find me but 911 can't?" Walk over to a payphone and call Uber. Can they find you then? Is there even a number to call? 911 mapped your number to your address via info from the phone companies. Mobile phones are mobile. They move around. They can't be just mapped via a simple lookup. And unless you can send a datastream to the person you're calling and give them your gps info...why in the holy hell would you think they can just know here you are? ALSO, think hard before you give the police the ability to always track your location, independently of the phone company. Whatever solution you do, might be best as one that only works for the 911 call itself, not just in general (some solutions suggest the former, for "simplicity," since it would require less infrastructure changes on the local gov).
"operate at about 20 millikelvin -- 250 times colder than deep space" - I assume he's referring to areas of outer space that are a near-complete vacuum, and are far away from anything. Guess what - no temp there. Only 'things' can have a temperature, non-things can't. It would be like saying deep space was hairy, or had a nice singing voice.
Mobile devices have a restricted UI because of the way they are used. Then one day, people at Microsoft got the stupid idea to make desktops look like restricted mobile devices. Wanna know why PC sales are down? Because the overall productivity goes down with the change to the gadget BS. It's great that someone decided it was the future and decide to shove it down everyone's throats, but until the future is now...it makes people slower.
touchpad devices will never be for content creation, sans maybe drawing. Consumption? Fine. Great! Ostensibly better for content consumption (so long as you're the type person that can only consume one content stream at a time). But content creation? No.
"To be fair, if Snowden says a protest action is worthy, I do agree it makes it more interesting for me"
Well, that's one of us. When I see his name, I just think "oh cool, a mediocre cybersecurity guy that, instead of using domestic whistle-blower options, took state secrets to our only real enemy...yeah, credibility=zero." He's successfully keeping himself in the news, I guess. I suppose that's what internet "celebrities" are supposed to do.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be responding to several things I didn't say....and if I click the parent of your post, it just goes to mine. Do you not understand there may be a difference between having absolutely everyone involved in every single action of gov, and gov being "the few enforcing their will on the many" - you seem to be taking dramatic liberties in assuming things I didn't say, and then extrapolating those event further. Here, I'll make it less controversial for you - I also don't think people should play Dr Google, nor do I think marketing people should get equal say on cybersecurity issues as the cybersecurity people. Take the crazy money out of it (reversing a certain recent SCOTUS ruling would help loads...) and enforcing certain things a bit better (emoluments, anyone?) and then force every bill to be public - but then back the fark off and stop pretending like congress is some sort of reality tv show for our instant entertainment 24/7.
Maybe having the unwashed masses be involved in every single decision the gov makes turns it into a popularity contest and strips actual merit from ideas anyway, and facebook is just the latest doing exactly that?
you seem to have missed that the entire point is "user" and "account" are not the same thing.
The post, here, literally finishes with the walmart bit. If you finish out a sandwich and I see a large glob of feces coming out of side, I'm gonna assume the whole thing is a feces sandwich (I'd use a more presidential word for it, but it probably gets filtered here)
The combined income of the employees walmart has laid off since that announcement substantially dwarfs the "bonus" offered. The "bonus" was to people who had worked for Walmart for at least 20 years, btw. A pretty sad group.
Are you positive that Jan2018 is 18 months after Nov2016? Repeating that twice would make the rest of your drivel suspect for anyone who didn't know anything about anything that has happened since then, nor anything about the candidates (ie, someone non-biased looking to evaluate the soundness of your overall comment). Just a heads-up.
Nothing. He's miss-using the word. choose / acceptable != X with a remainder of like, or any other rearrangement of the 3 components.
that does not, however, make them a "user" - it means they have an "account." FB conflates the two to appeal to investors and advertisers.
when you go to insist that those without a facecrack account really are such a tiny fraction, factor in that there are 22m people in US between age 0 to 4, who arguably can't have any account at all (so, now we're down to 301m),another 22m from 5-9 who a large part of still wouldn't understand what facebook is thus their parents are the real "user," and another 12m that are over 80 and yeah, say what you will but a lot of those folks also don't have an account. Let's be conservative and just pull 11m of those 33 in the second 2 groups, and then you have 290m people who are vaguely possible to be on facebook...then you gota think that between homeless, the clinically depressed, the disabled, and etc some portion of those don't get on. Then the 2.5m people in jail - some portion of those aren't getting on. Before long you're down to the 240m number, which would suggest only 4 of us are smart enough not to be on facebook. No. Their numbers are, and always have been, extremely hyper-inflated, for purposes of appealing to their investors and advertisers.
It may have that many /accounts/, but it does not have that many /users/. It lists 240m in the US, for instance, when there's only 323m people here; I know a lot of people without a facebook account. Almost everyone I know that has a facebook account, has /multiple/ facebook accounts. I also know that facebook creates shadow accounts for people, attempting to track their activities online, despite those people not really having an opt-in facebook "account." I'd really like to see some data on how they come up with these absurd numbers, and proof that they're figuring out who has multiple accounts and only counting them as one "user."
altitude is dramatically less accurate than lat/long, and GPS in general tends to be thrown off a lot by the types of things tall buildings are made from.
huh, I guess at some point this site stopped doing a href, or I must have done a typo. Anyway, I think this earlier post should answer whether I'm aware of E911: https://slashdot.org/comments....
I'm well aware of E911. I find it a bit confusing that you somehow thing 911 call centers wouldn't have to change their infrastructure to accommodate it. BTW, if you know of a place to "call" Uber to get a ride, and can convince them to show up without you being able to pre-approve your credit card and identity, then hey man - good on you. Also also ps - you're a bit paranoid. And a bit missing the point.
you say that happened in 2005? It was 2014 that Ford first announced a F150 EV (yes, I know the history of that has been slightly re-written since then). It would be one thing if what you're saying happened in 2016 and Ford had a lessons-learned moment, but their reveal was almost a decade after your buyback posit.
I've had the dash do a couple glitchy things, and I'm going to have to hack the thing to figure out why because the dealership just shrugs it's shoulders and says "it's not happening now, so I can't fix it" regardless how many videos I have, but...I mean...what's a couple glitches between friends. But it drives well, though if you floor it it in sport mode it almost doesn't feel like the speed is applied uniformly - the steering gets a bit wobbly for a sec. IE, don't floor it in speed mode while on ice or rain slick. A normal ICE sports car floored probably does a bit of the same though, I'd guess. Good visibility 360degrees around, comfortable, roomy, tiny enough to park pretty easy given the interior room and acceleration, and etc. Working out pretty well.
Ford was going to have an F150 by 2016, then 2017, then 2018, now it's off the table with a hybrid F150 /maybe/ in 2020. I'm happy with being an early adopter, and I'd love an electric truck. I have no interest in a Mustang or any SUV. Given a choice between a Bolt and some giant SUV thing, I'll stick with the Bolt (which I already have). Much easier to park, among other things.
A Bolt. It's great. My solar production covers it fine, and it does indeed get the range advertised. Very peppy - can zoom well past most cars at most reasonable speeds, with a light press of the pedal. Oh wait, was it not a sincere question? Sorry...yeah, some of us actually do indeed want EV :P
It absolutely is a technical question. There are a lot of people who sincerely wonder why Uber can find them and 911 can't, and don't understand it's because the communication channels are entirely different. I do love the idea that you think the unwashed masses sit around pontificating on rhetorical questions, though.
"mobile company does know your location" - I already addressed this. The issue isn't you, it's the place you're calling. THEY are just a phone bank. So there are 2 options, as I mentioned. First, let the police always know where you are at all times, so that they can then do a simple lookup of your number to your address, OR somehow change ALL the infrastructure along the way to handle data streams all along the way that can send data (you know, the GPS info). And keep in mind that's not going to be nearly as useful of info as what 911 has on landlines in places that are 3 dimensional (ie, buildings that go up, not just GPS coordinates). The telephone systems weren't designed to carry that info. Your wireless carrier too would have to triangulate your location, for that matter, unless they tap into a data stream that is yanking your GPS info and sending it to them - they don't just immediately "know" your exact location information otherwise. And your wireless carrier knows this info independently of any phone calls you make - it knows via a lower level communication. If you're having a heart attack, you need precise location information...not "near X tower." So ask yourself - do you want your phone constantly telling the police exactly where you are at all times? Or, perhaps, would it maybe be better to come up with an entirely different solution that didn't assume that calls over a telephone line work the same as data streams over the internet.
Remember when Slashdot was a place for people slightly more tech saavy than the average? Bloody hell, my elderly relatives understand the answer to this question - it's pretty simple really. The answer is "because Uber and 911 don't communicate the same way." Another fun question to ask is why is it possible for me to mail a feather to someone via USPS, but there's no place to put a feather on my cell phone to sext it to my wife for kinky-time. The possibilities are endless, when you compare completely different things that work in completely different ways! Why can my stove cook food, but my iphone can't? Why does my dog bark, instead of doing my taxes? The second biggest reason is 911 isn't consistent...I'd say "standardized" but there is a standard available, it's just not overwhelmingly used. Check out John Oliver's segment on this like 2 years ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Or, and just stick with me a sec, this will be complicated - it's because you contact UBER VIA A DATA STREAM THAT CAN SEND LOCATION INFORMATION and regular telco systems were not orignally designed to have a data carrier signal. Caller ID was strapped on at some point, but EVERY SWITCH ALONG THE WAY has to be updated, and the entire 911 center changed from being a telephone line, to a data endpoint on the internet.
It boggles my mind that anyone, anywhere, with any degree of a tech background, could ever ask "why can Uber find me but 911 can't?" Walk over to a payphone and call Uber. Can they find you then? Is there even a number to call? 911 mapped your number to your address via info from the phone companies. Mobile phones are mobile. They move around. They can't be just mapped via a simple lookup. And unless you can send a datastream to the person you're calling and give them your gps info...why in the holy hell would you think they can just know here you are? ALSO, think hard before you give the police the ability to always track your location, independently of the phone company. Whatever solution you do, might be best as one that only works for the 911 call itself, not just in general (some solutions suggest the former, for "simplicity," since it would require less infrastructure changes on the local gov).
"operate at about 20 millikelvin -- 250 times colder than deep space" - I assume he's referring to areas of outer space that are a near-complete vacuum, and are far away from anything. Guess what - no temp there. Only 'things' can have a temperature, non-things can't. It would be like saying deep space was hairy, or had a nice singing voice.
Mobile devices have a restricted UI because of the way they are used. Then one day, people at Microsoft got the stupid idea to make desktops look like restricted mobile devices. Wanna know why PC sales are down? Because the overall productivity goes down with the change to the gadget BS. It's great that someone decided it was the future and decide to shove it down everyone's throats, but until the future is now...it makes people slower.
touchpad devices will never be for content creation, sans maybe drawing. Consumption? Fine. Great! Ostensibly better for content consumption (so long as you're the type person that can only consume one content stream at a time). But content creation? No.
there are no "domestic whistle blower" options
As a domestic whistle blower, I disagree.
"To be fair, if Snowden says a protest action is worthy, I do agree it makes it more interesting for me"
Well, that's one of us. When I see his name, I just think "oh cool, a mediocre cybersecurity guy that, instead of using domestic whistle-blower options, took state secrets to our only real enemy...yeah, credibility=zero." He's successfully keeping himself in the news, I guess. I suppose that's what internet "celebrities" are supposed to do.