There is Public Radio(NPR) that have very few ads, and fantastic quality programming.
Perhaps you should pull your head out of the internet for a moment and take a look around at what else is out there.
As a long time supporter of my local NPR station, who actually listens to it on an FM radio, I am well aware of what is out there. That has no bearing on whether or not the campaign is an attempt by FM to remain relevant in a changing marketplace.
Guess what, friend? We can enable the FM receiver on your phone right now, without your permission -- and nobody is forcing you to use it at all. You can go on about your business as usual, using up your dataplan to listen to streaming services, or your own music, or whatever, and it won't change anything for you. On the other hand, people who'd like to use it on their own phone are then free to do so, and profit thereby. If I didn't know any better, I'd be tempted to think that in so many words you're saying 'Stop liking what I don't like!', but of course that would be silly, now wouldn't it? I'd also be tempted to wonder if you're a paid shill for the telecom companies or some other competing interest, but that would be rather silly, too, wouldn't it?
Fair points, it's when I hear somebody doing something "for me" and is part of an organization that stands to benefit by their doing it "for me" I tend to question their true motives.
Here's where we disagree. Just because a device has a capability doesn't mean the manufacture should make it available. They may not want the support headaches, they may be concerned that it would interfere with the proper operation of the device, or simply decide it's not a feature they want to provide. The consumer then votes with their wallet and decides if a device that has it is more valuable than one without it.
I wonder how much of this is actual consumer demand for listening to ads and the same songs every hour to avoid data overages vs. FM radio's last desperate gasp to remain relevant now that streaming is offering an alternative?
This "hidden workforce" arrives on B1/B2 visas, which federal authorities acknowledge are subject to "widespread abuse" in Silicon Valley
If everyone realises that wide spread abuse is going on, then why the hell do they allow the practice to continue? I am not generally one who bashes big business and the tech giants, but give me a break. Create a points system for bringing new people in with the right skills and education, and make sure they are paid a similar wage, so that local wages do not reduce rapidly.
That is an interesting approach; just be sure your jurisdiction doesn't allow them to move it from small claims or appeal and tie you up in years of expensive litigation.
> So what are the realistic expectations of privacy in a public space,
The legal limitations seem to depend very much on the state. Unless the records were of people personally aware that they were being recorded, or at least one party was aware of the recording, I cannot see how the FBI's recordings of _personal_ conversations meets even the minimum requirements of states wehre a single party can record without the knowledge of the other party. In states where both parties must consent to record a personal conversation, I don't see any way these recordings could have been legal.
They are the feds and there laws and rules trump a state's. If they are allowed to do so by federal law or regulation then there isn't a lot a state can do about it.
It's clear abuse of their monopoly position. You'll notice that Comcast isn't capping customers in areas where even minimal competition exists. That won't last though as the natural oligarchy behavior of a single competitor will just have that competitor introduce Caps as well. Not like you could switch to something without Caps.
Competition is good but the natural inclination off all competitors in this market is to hang on the the cable side as well an not simply be a dumb pipe; thus as you point out the market will gravitate to this model unless a new computer comes in and focuses only on the ISP part. Ideally the technology would get to the point where you don't need to run fiber to get high speed access and be independent of existing mobile operators.
If the net neutrality regulations missed this loophole, then they really screwed up. There is a clear tie between service limitations and preferred content.
This has nothing to do with net neutrality. The ISP is not favoring any type of content, nor are they limiting your service in any way. Without the TV you will pay more after the data cap is exceeded. For people that want no data cap, they are offering a different tier of service if you buy a bundle rather than al la cart; it is the inevitable response to the threat of cord cutting costing them revenue. The upside, of rme at least, is I now pay less of more services and no cap than I did before with a cap. YMMV HAND
ATT UVerse doe this as well. It makes cord cutting less attractive since what you pay for the bundle could be less than Internet, excess use fees and al la carte access to programing.
If you go into the KB settings in iOS 9 you'll see an 'about keyboard privacy' link that spells out that 'Full Access' explicitly means access to all of the data that the AC spelled out. I'm not sure if you have to opt in or opt out (not willing to try it...), but your options basically are all-or-nothing.
Shame on Apple.
Opt in. Full access is of by default so you need to enable it. That said, I use gboard and find it useful.
That's a bizarre one. The TCAS was disabled because the transponder had been "inadvertently deactivated", and - like you said - the only thing to tell the pilots was an indicator with white text.
What I don't understand is how they determined the pilots deactivated the transponder. It's mentioned nowhere in the Wikipedia article (the font of all knowledge). I'm going to have to read the two reports now. It's also not mentioned why the Embraer was experiencing communication issues.
Air Disaster did a show on it and much of the focus was on ATC errors that resulted in them routing 2 planes in opposite directions at the same flight level. There seems to be no explanation of why TCAS was off in the Embraer without the crew noticing it. While AD tends to sensationalize situations, making it hard to draw independent conclusions, it looked like poor communications was a probable cause of the accident. The accident reports point to the same issue as the PC.
What I cannot understand at all, however, is why some important functionality is activated by some esoteric feature as this, in a car with a 200 square inch touch screen. Seems like this should be a menu option of some kind, in which the vehicle operator is able to clearly describe his intentions, with no room for ambiguity. "Want to turn on the feature that lets the car drive without you in it? Yes or no? Are you sure?" Doesn't seem hard. If they want to couple that with some actuation of "driver only" features like the gear selector, to reduce ambiguity over whether or not the driver actually wanted to enable this mode, all the better.
This is not a new phenomenon; the aviation industry has wrestled with this quite some time with automation in flight controls. Systems can silently shift from one mode to the other or get activated without the pilot realizing it has transitioned, resulting in unexpected actions and or unplanned contact with the ground. Absent a way to clearly let the operator know what mode the system is in results in confusion because the system doesn't responds as the operator expects leading to adverse outcomes.
Which was a great improvement over the old bang paths; at least you could be reasonably assured your message would reach the intended recipient. It also established a uniform way to address someone without having to decipher a path to the recipient.
I wonder if this is just a ploy to get MS to negotiate a better deal. That seems to be what happens after an announcement that some major government organization is dumping MS Office.
Except Google does own the font. It's not an off the shelf font. They took Futura and tweaked it to their liking. Googe used Google's version with all the tweaks.
Except the font is not the displayed letters, in legal terms; that is the typeface which are not copyrightable. Unless Google has a design patent on the typeface (the letters, numbers, etc...) they do not own its appearance. The font is the program that generates the typeface and it is copyrightable. The font name can be trademarked as well.
I had a prof that used his textbook in class. He gave each student a free copy. Years later I, and a number of classmates, repaid the favor with a nice donation to the department to fund scholarships and pay forward.
Yes. While they have a right to present the information in any manner they want, to censor some while saying all they do is present the trending topics is duplicitous. A larger issue, however, is doing that prevents people from being both sides of the argument and perhaps think critically abut their positions instead of getting tehi news from an echo chamber. I would imagine conservatives would tend to ignore the trending sections since it has nothing of interest to them and those avoid seeing the liberal items trending and those following trending get a false sense of what is important to FB users since one viewpoint is omitted.
Sorry, everything in German.
The English version of the City Website only contain tourist-oriented information. These news aren't translated.
But might be useful to other/.er fluent in Goethe's mother tongue (Official media is written in Schriftdütsch, not in dialect).
One thing the article left out is how Zug will convert BC to SF. I would guess they want to do that immediately since they would not want to expose themselves to BC's volatility but rather ensure the expected revenues are matched by actual ones. Since it is a small trial the volatility wouldn't be enough to make much of a difference but large scale adoption of BC for payments would require them to address the volatility and conversion to SF issues. It will be interesting to see if other cantons / cities get on the train as it leaves the station or merely get pulled along into it by Zug...
Landing craft are much more numerous than submarines, so it is disingenuous to claim that boat means submarine. Almost every ship includes a bunch of boats. And most small craft are boats, even when not assigned to a ship. Tugs are boats, and outnumber submarines even without the help of life boats.
In the age of sail, anything with less than three masts was a boat. Using that as a standard, all but the largest modern yachts are boats, not ships. Potentially including this class of science vessel. Even when it comes to commercial craft, there are many more fishing boats than factory fishing ships.
Even police boats outnumber submarines.
Sorry land-lubber, you didn't really know that one.
Spoken like a true skimmer who has never known the joy of a green board and a klaxon announcing your return to the deep.
They were up front about the fact that a name would have to be approved before it was applied to the ship.
Boaty MacBoatface was obviously never going to be approved. Whatever snowball's chance in hell it might have had despite its deep irreverence toward Her Majesty's navy was eliminated by the fact that it's calling a ship a boat.
If you want to be a inventor, you should work for (or start) a company that actually produces products.
In addition, they should be required to produce a commercial product within a year of filing that implements the patent or lose the rights. That way, companies couldn't come up with new ideas and patent them in hopes of using them isn some unspecified future product. Keep the idea a trade secret and don't patent until you are ready to release a product; and if someone else beats you to it too bad.
You'll note I've made no mention whatsoever of geography. I only talked of the way they work with not quite the same rules everywhere. Their actual location should be irrelevant, beside convenience.
They do operate under the same rules; but often their interpretation is different. Thus, different districts can operate under different precedents until a higher court issues a ruling; which then binds them to follow the precedent set by the higher court.
not to install any software on it = no updates and that is bad as well when they get hacked with something that was fixed months ago in an os update.
No, it means we control any changes to the configuration. We pull the data sets, move them to a new drive and test run the setup to ensure it works. Then we go to the server, pull the old drive, install the new one and reboot into the updated setup. Quite simple.
Slashdot Mirror
There is Public Radio(NPR) that have very few ads, and fantastic quality programming. Perhaps you should pull your head out of the internet for a moment and take a look around at what else is out there.
As a long time supporter of my local NPR station, who actually listens to it on an FM radio, I am well aware of what is out there. That has no bearing on whether or not the campaign is an attempt by FM to remain relevant in a changing marketplace.
Guess what, friend? We can enable the FM receiver on your phone right now, without your permission -- and nobody is forcing you to use it at all. You can go on about your business as usual, using up your dataplan to listen to streaming services, or your own music, or whatever, and it won't change anything for you. On the other hand, people who'd like to use it on their own phone are then free to do so, and profit thereby. If I didn't know any better, I'd be tempted to think that in so many words you're saying 'Stop liking what I don't like!', but of course that would be silly, now wouldn't it? I'd also be tempted to wonder if you're a paid shill for the telecom companies or some other competing interest, but that would be rather silly, too, wouldn't it?
Fair points, it's when I hear somebody doing something "for me" and is part of an organization that stands to benefit by their doing it "for me" I tend to question their true motives.
Here's where we disagree. Just because a device has a capability doesn't mean the manufacture should make it available. They may not want the support headaches, they may be concerned that it would interfere with the proper operation of the device, or simply decide it's not a feature they want to provide. The consumer then votes with their wallet and decides if a device that has it is more valuable than one without it.
I wonder how much of this is actual consumer demand for listening to ads and the same songs every hour to avoid data overages vs. FM radio's last desperate gasp to remain relevant now that streaming is offering an alternative?
This "hidden workforce" arrives on B1/B2 visas, which federal authorities acknowledge are subject to "widespread abuse" in Silicon Valley
If everyone realises that wide spread abuse is going on, then why the hell do they allow the practice to continue? I am not generally one who bashes big business and the tech giants, but give me a break. Create a points system for bringing new people in with the right skills and education, and make sure they are paid a similar wage, so that local wages do not reduce rapidly.
Money
That is an interesting approach; just be sure your jurisdiction doesn't allow them to move it from small claims or appeal and tie you up in years of expensive litigation.
> So what are the realistic expectations of privacy in a public space,
The legal limitations seem to depend very much on the state. Unless the records were of people personally aware that they were being recorded, or at least one party was aware of the recording, I cannot see how the FBI's recordings of _personal_ conversations meets even the minimum requirements of states wehre a single party can record without the knowledge of the other party. In states where both parties must consent to record a personal conversation, I don't see any way these recordings could have been legal.
They are the feds and there laws and rules trump a state's. If they are allowed to do so by federal law or regulation then there isn't a lot a state can do about it.
Too bad you can't fix inadvertant bad mods
It's clear abuse of their monopoly position. You'll notice that Comcast isn't capping customers in areas where even minimal competition exists. That won't last though as the natural oligarchy behavior of a single competitor will just have that competitor introduce Caps as well. Not like you could switch to something without Caps.
Competition is good but the natural inclination off all competitors in this market is to hang on the the cable side as well an not simply be a dumb pipe; thus as you point out the market will gravitate to this model unless a new computer comes in and focuses only on the ISP part. Ideally the technology would get to the point where you don't need to run fiber to get high speed access and be independent of existing mobile operators.
If the net neutrality regulations missed this loophole, then they really screwed up. There is a clear tie between service limitations and preferred content.
This has nothing to do with net neutrality. The ISP is not favoring any type of content, nor are they limiting your service in any way. Without the TV you will pay more after the data cap is exceeded. For people that want no data cap, they are offering a different tier of service if you buy a bundle rather than al la cart; it is the inevitable response to the threat of cord cutting costing them revenue. The upside, of rme at least, is I now pay less of more services and no cap than I did before with a cap. YMMV HAND
ATT UVerse doe this as well. It makes cord cutting less attractive since what you pay for the bundle could be less than Internet, excess use fees and al la carte access to programing.
If you go into the KB settings in iOS 9 you'll see an 'about keyboard privacy' link that spells out that 'Full Access' explicitly means access to all of the data that the AC spelled out. I'm not sure if you have to opt in or opt out (not willing to try it...), but your options basically are all-or-nothing.
Shame on Apple.
Opt in. Full access is of by default so you need to enable it. That said, I use gboard and find it useful.
That's a bizarre one. The TCAS was disabled because the transponder had been "inadvertently deactivated", and - like you said - the only thing to tell the pilots was an indicator with white text.
What I don't understand is how they determined the pilots deactivated the transponder. It's mentioned nowhere in the Wikipedia article (the font of all knowledge). I'm going to have to read the two reports now. It's also not mentioned why the Embraer was experiencing communication issues.
Air Disaster did a show on it and much of the focus was on ATC errors that resulted in them routing 2 planes in opposite directions at the same flight level. There seems to be no explanation of why TCAS was off in the Embraer without the crew noticing it. While AD tends to sensationalize situations, making it hard to draw independent conclusions, it looked like poor communications was a probable cause of the accident. The accident reports point to the same issue as the PC.
What I cannot understand at all, however, is why some important functionality is activated by some esoteric feature as this, in a car with a 200 square inch touch screen. Seems like this should be a menu option of some kind, in which the vehicle operator is able to clearly describe his intentions, with no room for ambiguity. "Want to turn on the feature that lets the car drive without you in it? Yes or no? Are you sure?" Doesn't seem hard. If they want to couple that with some actuation of "driver only" features like the gear selector, to reduce ambiguity over whether or not the driver actually wanted to enable this mode, all the better.
This is not a new phenomenon; the aviation industry has wrestled with this quite some time with automation in flight controls. Systems can silently shift from one mode to the other or get activated without the pilot realizing it has transitioned, resulting in unexpected actions and or unplanned contact with the ground. Absent a way to clearly let the operator know what mode the system is in results in confusion because the system doesn't responds as the operator expects leading to adverse outcomes.
Which was a great improvement over the old bang paths; at least you could be reasonably assured your message would reach the intended recipient. It also established a uniform way to address someone without having to decipher a path to the recipient.
Excellent job turning gibberish into cashflow!
Thank you. That will be $1000.00
I wonder if this is just a ploy to get MS to negotiate a better deal. That seems to be what happens after an announcement that some major government organization is dumping MS Office.
Except Google does own the font. It's not an off the shelf font. They took Futura and tweaked it to their liking. Googe used Google's version with all the tweaks.
Except the font is not the displayed letters, in legal terms; that is the typeface which are not copyrightable. Unless Google has a design patent on the typeface (the letters, numbers, etc...) they do not own its appearance. The font is the program that generates the typeface and it is copyrightable. The font name can be trademarked as well.
I had a prof that used his textbook in class. He gave each student a free copy. Years later I, and a number of classmates, repaid the favor with a nice donation to the department to fund scholarships and pay forward.
Yes. While they have a right to present the information in any manner they want, to censor some while saying all they do is present the trending topics is duplicitous. A larger issue, however, is doing that prevents people from being both sides of the argument and perhaps think critically abut their positions instead of getting tehi news from an echo chamber. I would imagine conservatives would tend to ignore the trending sections since it has nothing of interest to them and those avoid seeing the liberal items trending and those following trending get a false sense of what is important to FB users since one viewpoint is omitted.
Primary source
Sorry, everything in German. The English version of the City Website only contain tourist-oriented information. These news aren't translated. But might be useful to other /.er fluent in Goethe's mother tongue (Official media is written in Schriftdütsch, not in dialect).
One thing the article left out is how Zug will convert BC to SF. I would guess they want to do that immediately since they would not want to expose themselves to BC's volatility but rather ensure the expected revenues are matched by actual ones. Since it is a small trial the volatility wouldn't be enough to make much of a difference but large scale adoption of BC for payments would require them to address the volatility and conversion to SF issues. It will be interesting to see if other cantons / cities get on the train as it leaves the station or merely get pulled along into it by Zug...
Landing craft are much more numerous than submarines, so it is disingenuous to claim that boat means submarine. Almost every ship includes a bunch of boats. And most small craft are boats, even when not assigned to a ship. Tugs are boats, and outnumber submarines even without the help of life boats.
In the age of sail, anything with less than three masts was a boat. Using that as a standard, all but the largest modern yachts are boats, not ships. Potentially including this class of science vessel. Even when it comes to commercial craft, there are many more fishing boats than factory fishing ships.
Even police boats outnumber submarines.
Sorry land-lubber, you didn't really know that one.
Spoken like a true skimmer who has never known the joy of a green board and a klaxon announcing your return to the deep.
They were up front about the fact that a name would have to be approved before it was applied to the ship.
Boaty MacBoatface was obviously never going to be approved. Whatever snowball's chance in hell it might have had despite its deep irreverence toward Her Majesty's navy was eliminated by the fact that it's calling a ship a boat.
You don't call a ship a boat. A boat is little. A ship is big. See, e.g., http://www.marineinsight.com/t...
Actually, it's just easier to call them all targets; and leave the boat moniker where it belongs, to submarines.
If you want to be a inventor, you should work for (or start) a company that actually produces products.
In addition, they should be required to produce a commercial product within a year of filing that implements the patent or lose the rights. That way, companies couldn't come up with new ideas and patent them in hopes of using them isn some unspecified future product. Keep the idea a trade secret and don't patent until you are ready to release a product; and if someone else beats you to it too bad.
You'll note I've made no mention whatsoever of geography. I only talked of the way they work with not quite the same rules everywhere. Their actual location should be irrelevant, beside convenience.
They do operate under the same rules; but often their interpretation is different. Thus, different districts can operate under different precedents until a higher court issues a ruling; which then binds them to follow the precedent set by the higher court.
not to install any software on it = no updates and that is bad as well when they get hacked with something that was fixed months ago in an os update.
No, it means we control any changes to the configuration. We pull the data sets, move them to a new drive and test run the setup to ensure it works. Then we go to the server, pull the old drive, install the new one and reboot into the updated setup. Quite simple.