Well, to begin with, can you please advise what "optimization" is taking place?
Stating that the stream is "optimized for mobile" implies something more than just rate-limiting the video stream.
Oops. I'm sorry, they meant "optimized for T-Mobile" not "optimized for the customer."
It, like most advertising, means absolutely nothing, at least in a technical sense. They say you get 3x the video so in that context optimized for mobile simple means reducing the amount streamed by 1/3 "optimizes" the video for mobile. The result may be poor if the video provider does not adjust for the drop in throughput; but T-mobile doesn't consider that their problem to fix; so in the end they are "optimizing" it even if what they are doing isn't necessarily what the customer may think it means. My guess is one reason to do that is to avoid having customers go over their monthly cap and pay extra and then complain that "you said it didn't count..." I would not be surprised if the selected reduction in throughput corresponds to reducing data usage on video to the pain that most customers, based on historical usage, would not exceed their monthly data cap.
The difference is Uber provides the service of locating small business X providing ridesharing; TaxiCo provides the service of taxi, and hires employees as operators.
If anything, Uber connects you to thousands of independently-operated taxi businesses.
Except many taxi companies don't hit ether drivers. Drivers pay a flat fee for use of the cab and dispatch service and need to make enough to cover that and make a profit. The cab companies don't want to get stuck with bunch of cars and expensive medallions that are worth a lot less now then that were pre-Uber and so fight Uber tooth and nail. Drivers don't like it because it costs them money and they may not make enough to cover their cost for the shift.
No no no.. haven't you been paying attention to what Uber says?
Taxis are a commercial service, requiring a commercial license, a taxi license, proper insurance and liability.
This will be random people under no regulations driving you around for a fee.
See, due to the magical thinking of Uber, a car for hire through an app isn't anything like a taxi and isn't subject to regulations because they say so.
Nothing at all like a taxi.
I plan on starting a service called "nothing at all like a lawyer" where for a fee I will show up and defend you in court. Only I'll not know anything about the law, not be covered under any regulations, and bear no professional responsibility, so when your ass gets sent off to prison that's your damned problem.
I'm also thinking of buying a dremmel tool and branching out into the "nothing at all like a dentist" business. That's probably pretty lucrative too.
Of course, apparently the real money is in having the app which connects you to a "nothing at all like an X", take a cut, and pretend that you're not really just illegally plying a trade and ignoring the regulations around it. If you can convince enough suckers of this they'll throw billions of dollars at you, apparently.
Nah, start "nothing like a girl friend." It's an old business model ripe for updating...
The right to free speech only protects you from retaliation from the government. The KKK protesters were not arrested for trying to voice their deplorable garbage on the university campus so their right to free speech was not infringed in the least. Deal with it.
I never said it was, although as a public institution UofM the first amendment applies to them, unlike a private institution. At any rate, a counter protest is certainly not unreasonable, as I said. Allowing the KKK to spew their garbage, however, is preferable to banning it at public institution, because not only does it give someone the opportunity to counter them but the government acting to ban speech is a slippery slope, an date notion that you can change people's minds by not letting them hear vile opinions is simply wrong.
That's the fundamental problem. If you don't protect despicable speech sooner or later someone will decide to silence yours because they don't like what you are saying. where the line is drawn is tricky. Counter protesters have the right to speak as well; which, IMHO, is different than preventing the others from speaking by knocking the site out via DOS attack or say pulling the plug on their power supply for a live rally.
It's beautifully ironic that free speech is fine as long as you say what people want to hear. I don't like trump but he has every right to spew what he wants. You can't have a claim to free speech whilst simultaneously stifling someone else's.
It's a simple dynamic - free speech for me but not for thee; with apologies to Nate Hentoff
The E6B is a rite of passage for all student pilots, but I haven't found anyone that kept using it. An electronics calculator from the 70s is much faster and easier to use in a cockpit, but despite not being part of the practical test, every designated pilot examiner wants to see every student use one, because they used one as a student.
Only the smart ones who know batteries die and electronics fail.
The problem would be proving the code in question was written by someone, due to "coding styles". That sounds legally sketchy as all hell.
I agree; but there is a difference between what would hold up in court and using the results to identify who may have written the code and using that to narrow the scope of an investigation or even to prove original authorship. Based on the article, it seems to work on very specific snippets of code written to perform a specific task; weather it would be useful to analyze large swaths of code is another question altogether; especially since such code is likely to have a number roof contributors as well as standard routines incorporated into the code.
Of course, all they'll do is add a recycling fee to the purchase. California has one for monitors, for example.
Which is fine. The cost of recycling is part of the cost of doing business, so can and should be charged to the buyer. Paying for it out of general taxation means there's no incentive for ecological efficiency to the manufacturer.
Except that as long as the manufacturer simply passes the cost on then their is no incentive for the manufacturer to design a product that is easier to recycle. They simply collect a fee, pass it on and avoid the issue altogether. Now, if they kept the fee but had to take the product back and assume responsibility for it's disposal, then they would have an incentive to make it as easy as possible to recycle the product. I recall an article a number roof years ago about Germany requiring manufacturers to recycle cars, which resulted in them changing designs, such as the number and types of plastics used, to make it easier to recycle the car at EOL. Not sure how that worked out in the long run.
People have been analyzing writing styles for a long time to try to identify authors. Expecting your coding style to be obfuscated by compiling it has proven to be as wrong as thinking your identity is shielded if you publish under a pseudonym. If you make your code publicly available you really shouldn't have any expectation of privacy.
Bah -- federalism is effectively dead. We still have many places where the federal government lets states do their thing, but if anything comes up that seems sufficiently dire, a magical solution will be found in some passage of the Constitution that will authorize federal power to trump states' rights.
I would hazard a guess that the "promote the general welfare" clause, if interpreted broadly, would give the Federal government broad powers to trump state law. Clearly the founders desired to avoid a replay of the Articles of Confederation and the associated problems it caused, but just how far they intended to allow Federal supremacy is open to debate.
... for the environmental cost of dumping the toxic waste that is millions of perfectly fine but "obsolete" chargers every year, they might also rethink this pseudo-innovation stuff.
However, regulating the production seems to be just more practical than searching through all trash cans for illegal dumping of toxic waste.
Of course, all they'll do is add a recycling fee to the purchase. California has one for monitors, for example.
If some websites are getting tired of adblock, then instead of using anti-adblock scripts (which people create filters to work around these all the time, see the adblock forum) they might try doing the sensible thing and stop using assfucking annoying ads. Either that or if the acceptable ads don't pay enough, then show the regular annoying ads to people who don't use adblock and show acceptable ads to adblock users. Either that or they get nothing at all from adblock users who will either simply opt for a competitor site that has similar content or just find a way to circumvent their anti-adblock script.
My favorite sites do just that. Their ads are unobtrusive and I don't block them because I value their content. They also sell their own branded items as well as offer a voluntary donation program to help keep the site free. As a result, I get to enjoy great content for free; although I do make donations as well.
I understand and agree with the argument that I should decide what gets displayed on my computer; however that also applies to the website owner who gets to decide under what terms the site's material will be provided. If they chose to not allow adblocker users to view content then that's their right. What I find hypocritical is people who seem to think they have a right to circumvent anti-adblocking because they want the content but don't want it on the terms offered; any of them no doubt are the first to whine when someone finds a way around their precious scripts. If you don't like the ads, avoid the site. It's that simple.
Evidence suggests that piracy boosts profits, so perhaps you should consider other reasons why revenue declined. Did you expect it to go up for some reason, or have a control to compare it with?
Chances are you wasted a lot of effort that could have been invested in promoting and creating new content.
I don't doubt it; the problem is far too many people think "found on internet" equates to "free to use." One company I used to work for had copyrighted material in some of their training material used for public, paid seminars. When I pointed out that was not a good idea since the stuff was copyrighted a senior VP said "We found it on the internet so we're free to use it..." Schmuck was a lawyer to boot. I pointed out I can find our copyrighted training materials, books, etc on the internet as well so are they free for everyone to use as well? As for users of the music, if they paid megauplaod for access they may very well have assumed they have a right to use it and were not knowingly infringing.
Please recheck your assumptions. There are many international airports in the USA: most large airports near US borders have international flights.
Not just large airports near borders, there are many smaller airports that are international ones as well. All it basically takes is customs and immigration to be able to clear passengers.
The screening is done at boarding time not because US authorities have long arms. US authorities have no jurisdiction over who does or doesn't board in the UK. What they are saying is "we won't admit this passenger if he shows up at the US border", Since the airline doesn't want to be stuck with passengers with no place to go once they arrive at the US border, they won't even let you board the flight if you wouldn't be admitted.
Airlines, IIRC, are also subject to fines if the allow someone to board and enter the US without a valid visa / passport / etc.; plus finding them a return flight. I don't know about the UK but th eUS does have Customs and Immigration officers abroad, often to allow people to percale customs and immigration before entering the US. As a side note, airlines often don't seem to realize that you can percale. When I tried to book a connector from abroad the airline's computer wouldn't allow it since I had less than their minimum time for international flights, and the rep kept saying "You won't clear customs and immigration in time..." even after I explained I percolated it at my departure point so the arrival in the US was to a domestic gate right next to the departure gate of the flight I wanted to take. I could book spirit flights but the cost was 2x as much so I booked connector and tried to get on the flight I wanted by being asking the gate agent to help me out.
An actual pharmacist still needs to sign on the bottom line as a professional for pill delivery.
One could argue this is needless government-required cost (especially when it could be replaced by pre-filled bottles, cheaper) but it will be there for the forseeable future.
The real value in a pharmacist is recognizing drug interactions and unusual doses / prescriptions as a second check against the prescribing doctor; which is why it is important to get prescriptions filled at one place, which ensures the pharmacist has a complete list of your meds to evaluate. Yes, a computer could do the same checking and is a good tool for notifying the pharmacist who can then check with the doctor and patient to ensure the prescription is correct and safe. In addition, I think we will see pharmacists being able to prescribe certain drugs as part of their license or work with NP's to prescribe; reducing the cost of treatment by cutting out a doctor visit.
From the quoted BW article:Developers employ widespread private covenants and deed restrictions, which serve a comparable role as zoning. These privately prescribed land use controls are effective because they have a legal precedence and local government has chosen to assist in enforcing them.
Some investors are understandably apprehensive about the lack of clearly defined rules. Houston developers have long recognized these concerns and have responded, particularly in suburban markets, by producing planned business and industrial parks that have rigorous covenants and deed restrictions. Not surprisingly, the sites receiving the attention of institutional investors, especially in suburban markets, tend to be in planned parks.
So Houston simply replaced zoning with restricted deeds and covenants, i.e. zoning laws by any other name except they are not decided by the local government.
Data caps. If they lose revenue from cable cutting they will make it up by charging more for internet access. As long a they control the last mile to the user they will be simply change their revenue model. Those that own content as well will price the content to makeup for the shift in how it is delivered. The real losers will be the sparsely watch ed channels that, because eo fetch current revenue distribution model, make mor money than they would if the were priced separately.
The polls are a bit misleading in that if Trump has 30% in Iowa it doesn't mean he has 30% of all voters, or even registered Republicans. He has 30% of those likely to vote in the primary; a demographic that is generally more conservative than the average voter. That translates to maybe 6% of the general election's voters; and is why the Republican Party is scared to death of him. He can't win, given his lack of broad appeal,but a third party run dooms any hope they have of winning the Presidency. He'd peel off just enough votes from their base to give the Democratic candidate a plurality if not a majority in key states.
You've got it backwards. Tesla is the company with the big supercharger network.
I realize that. Right now, the big players don't care about charging stations. Once EV sales becom noticeable they'll work to create a network of SAE chargers and Tesla will be odd man out unless they adopt the standard as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, to begin with, can you please advise what "optimization" is taking place?
Stating that the stream is "optimized for mobile" implies something more than just rate-limiting the video stream.
Oops. I'm sorry, they meant "optimized for T-Mobile" not "optimized for the customer."
It, like most advertising, means absolutely nothing, at least in a technical sense. They say you get 3x the video so in that context optimized for mobile simple means reducing the amount streamed by 1/3 "optimizes" the video for mobile. The result may be poor if the video provider does not adjust for the drop in throughput; but T-mobile doesn't consider that their problem to fix; so in the end they are "optimizing" it even if what they are doing isn't necessarily what the customer may think it means. My guess is one reason to do that is to avoid having customers go over their monthly cap and pay extra and then complain that "you said it didn't count..." I would not be surprised if the selected reduction in throughput corresponds to reducing data usage on video to the pain that most customers, based on historical usage, would not exceed their monthly data cap.
The difference is Uber provides the service of locating small business X providing ridesharing; TaxiCo provides the service of taxi, and hires employees as operators.
If anything, Uber connects you to thousands of independently-operated taxi businesses.
Except many taxi companies don't hit ether drivers. Drivers pay a flat fee for use of the cab and dispatch service and need to make enough to cover that and make a profit. The cab companies don't want to get stuck with bunch of cars and expensive medallions that are worth a lot less now then that were pre-Uber and so fight Uber tooth and nail. Drivers don't like it because it costs them money and they may not make enough to cover their cost for the shift.
No no no .. haven't you been paying attention to what Uber says?
Taxis are a commercial service, requiring a commercial license, a taxi license, proper insurance and liability.
This will be random people under no regulations driving you around for a fee.
See, due to the magical thinking of Uber, a car for hire through an app isn't anything like a taxi and isn't subject to regulations because they say so.
Nothing at all like a taxi.
I plan on starting a service called "nothing at all like a lawyer" where for a fee I will show up and defend you in court. Only I'll not know anything about the law, not be covered under any regulations, and bear no professional responsibility, so when your ass gets sent off to prison that's your damned problem.
I'm also thinking of buying a dremmel tool and branching out into the "nothing at all like a dentist" business. That's probably pretty lucrative too.
Of course, apparently the real money is in having the app which connects you to a "nothing at all like an X", take a cut, and pretend that you're not really just illegally plying a trade and ignoring the regulations around it. If you can convince enough suckers of this they'll throw billions of dollars at you, apparently.
Nah, start "nothing like a girl friend." It's an old business model ripe for updating...
The right to free speech only protects you from retaliation from the government. The KKK protesters were not arrested for trying to voice their deplorable garbage on the university campus so their right to free speech was not infringed in the least. Deal with it.
I never said it was, although as a public institution UofM the first amendment applies to them, unlike a private institution. At any rate, a counter protest is certainly not unreasonable, as I said. Allowing the KKK to spew their garbage, however, is preferable to banning it at public institution, because not only does it give someone the opportunity to counter them but the government acting to ban speech is a slippery slope, an date notion that you can change people's minds by not letting them hear vile opinions is simply wrong.
Which is? Consider a KKK rally where the speaker is shouted down by protesters.
That's the fundamental problem. If you don't protect despicable speech sooner or later someone will decide to silence yours because they don't like what you are saying. where the line is drawn is tricky. Counter protesters have the right to speak as well; which, IMHO, is different than preventing the others from speaking by knocking the site out via DOS attack or say pulling the plug on their power supply for a live rally.
I guess free speech also includes the ability to protest others free speech. Painful really.
There's a difference between protesting and silencing.
It's beautifully ironic that free speech is fine as long as you say what people want to hear. I don't like trump but he has every right to spew what he wants. You can't have a claim to free speech whilst simultaneously stifling someone else's.
It's a simple dynamic - free speech for me but not for thee; with apologies to Nate Hentoff
The E6B is a rite of passage for all student pilots, but I haven't found anyone that kept using it. An electronics calculator from the 70s is much faster and easier to use in a cockpit, but despite not being part of the practical test, every designated pilot examiner wants to see every student use one, because they used one as a student.
Only the smart ones who know batteries die and electronics fail.
The problem would be proving the code in question was written by someone, due to "coding styles". That sounds legally sketchy as all hell.
I agree; but there is a difference between what would hold up in court and using the results to identify who may have written the code and using that to narrow the scope of an investigation or even to prove original authorship. Based on the article, it seems to work on very specific snippets of code written to perform a specific task; weather it would be useful to analyze large swaths of code is another question altogether; especially since such code is likely to have a number roof contributors as well as standard routines incorporated into the code.
Of course, all they'll do is add a recycling fee to the purchase. California has one for monitors, for example.
Which is fine. The cost of recycling is part of the cost of doing business, so can and should be charged to the buyer. Paying for it out of general taxation means there's no incentive for ecological efficiency to the manufacturer.
Except that as long as the manufacturer simply passes the cost on then their is no incentive for the manufacturer to design a product that is easier to recycle. They simply collect a fee, pass it on and avoid the issue altogether. Now, if they kept the fee but had to take the product back and assume responsibility for it's disposal, then they would have an incentive to make it as easy as possible to recycle the product. I recall an article a number roof years ago about Germany requiring manufacturers to recycle cars, which resulted in them changing designs, such as the number and types of plastics used, to make it easier to recycle the car at EOL. Not sure how that worked out in the long run.
People have been analyzing writing styles for a long time to try to identify authors. Expecting your coding style to be obfuscated by compiling it has proven to be as wrong as thinking your identity is shielded if you publish under a pseudonym. If you make your code publicly available you really shouldn't have any expectation of privacy.
Bah -- federalism is effectively dead. We still have many places where the federal government lets states do their thing, but if anything comes up that seems sufficiently dire, a magical solution will be found in some passage of the Constitution that will authorize federal power to trump states' rights.
I would hazard a guess that the "promote the general welfare" clause, if interpreted broadly, would give the Federal government broad powers to trump state law. Clearly the founders desired to avoid a replay of the Articles of Confederation and the associated problems it caused, but just how far they intended to allow Federal supremacy is open to debate.
It's to correct for another government intervention, namely that of granting a patent to Apple for the Lightning cable.
Except it has no practical impact on Apple's use of the Lightning connector, and the EU has already said Apple's solution com-lies with the standard.
... for the environmental cost of dumping the toxic waste that is millions of perfectly fine but "obsolete" chargers every year, they might also rethink this pseudo-innovation stuff.
However, regulating the production seems to be just more practical than searching through all trash cans for illegal dumping of toxic waste.
Of course, all they'll do is add a recycling fee to the purchase. California has one for monitors, for example.
If some websites are getting tired of adblock, then instead of using anti-adblock scripts (which people create filters to work around these all the time, see the adblock forum) they might try doing the sensible thing and stop using assfucking annoying ads. Either that or if the acceptable ads don't pay enough, then show the regular annoying ads to people who don't use adblock and show acceptable ads to adblock users. Either that or they get nothing at all from adblock users who will either simply opt for a competitor site that has similar content or just find a way to circumvent their anti-adblock script.
My favorite sites do just that. Their ads are unobtrusive and I don't block them because I value their content. They also sell their own branded items as well as offer a voluntary donation program to help keep the site free. As a result, I get to enjoy great content for free; although I do make donations as well.
I understand and agree with the argument that I should decide what gets displayed on my computer; however that also applies to the website owner who gets to decide under what terms the site's material will be provided. If they chose to not allow adblocker users to view content then that's their right. What I find hypocritical is people who seem to think they have a right to circumvent anti-adblocking because they want the content but don't want it on the terms offered; any of them no doubt are the first to whine when someone finds a way around their precious scripts. If you don't like the ads, avoid the site. It's that simple.
percale
What do cotton sheets have to do with international travel?
Some of the rules are full of sheets?
Evidence suggests that piracy boosts profits, so perhaps you should consider other reasons why revenue declined. Did you expect it to go up for some reason, or have a control to compare it with?
Chances are you wasted a lot of effort that could have been invested in promoting and creating new content.
I don't doubt it; the problem is far too many people think "found on internet" equates to "free to use." One company I used to work for had copyrighted material in some of their training material used for public, paid seminars. When I pointed out that was not a good idea since the stuff was copyrighted a senior VP said "We found it on the internet so we're free to use it..." Schmuck was a lawyer to boot. I pointed out I can find our copyrighted training materials, books, etc on the internet as well so are they free for everyone to use as well? As for users of the music, if they paid megauplaod for access they may very well have assumed they have a right to use it and were not knowingly infringing.
Please recheck your assumptions. There are many international airports in the USA: most large airports near US borders have international flights.
Not just large airports near borders, there are many smaller airports that are international ones as well. All it basically takes is customs and immigration to be able to clear passengers.
The screening is done at boarding time not because US authorities have long arms. US authorities have no jurisdiction over who does or doesn't board in the UK. What they are saying is "we won't admit this passenger if he shows up at the US border", Since the airline doesn't want to be stuck with passengers with no place to go once they arrive at the US border, they won't even let you board the flight if you wouldn't be admitted.
Airlines, IIRC, are also subject to fines if the allow someone to board and enter the US without a valid visa / passport / etc.; plus finding them a return flight. I don't know about the UK but th eUS does have Customs and Immigration officers abroad, often to allow people to percale customs and immigration before entering the US. As a side note, airlines often don't seem to realize that you can percale. When I tried to book a connector from abroad the airline's computer wouldn't allow it since I had less than their minimum time for international flights, and the rep kept saying "You won't clear customs and immigration in time..." even after I explained I percolated it at my departure point so the arrival in the US was to a domestic gate right next to the departure gate of the flight I wanted to take. I could book spirit flights but the cost was 2x as much so I booked connector and tried to get on the flight I wanted by being asking the gate agent to help me out.
An actual pharmacist still needs to sign on the bottom line as a professional for pill delivery.
One could argue this is needless government-required cost (especially when it could be replaced by pre-filled bottles, cheaper) but it will be there for the forseeable future.
The real value in a pharmacist is recognizing drug interactions and unusual doses / prescriptions as a second check against the prescribing doctor; which is why it is important to get prescriptions filled at one place, which ensures the pharmacist has a complete list of your meds to evaluate. Yes, a computer could do the same checking and is a good tool for notifying the pharmacist who can then check with the doctor and patient to ensure the prescription is correct and safe. In addition, I think we will see pharmacists being able to prescribe certain drugs as part of their license or work with NP's to prescribe; reducing the cost of treatment by cutting out a doctor visit.
by Whelen. He has a lot of good examples you could adopt for your class; although I wouldn't recommend using the book in class.
I dunno, somehow Houston copes.
From the quoted BW article:Developers employ widespread private covenants and deed restrictions, which serve a comparable role as zoning. These privately prescribed land use controls are effective because they have a legal precedence and local government has chosen to assist in enforcing them. Some investors are understandably apprehensive about the lack of clearly defined rules. Houston developers have long recognized these concerns and have responded, particularly in suburban markets, by producing planned business and industrial parks that have rigorous covenants and deed restrictions. Not surprisingly, the sites receiving the attention of institutional investors, especially in suburban markets, tend to be in planned parks.
So Houston simply replaced zoning with restricted deeds and covenants, i.e. zoning laws by any other name except they are not decided by the local government.
Data caps. If they lose revenue from cable cutting they will make it up by charging more for internet access. As long a they control the last mile to the user they will be simply change their revenue model. Those that own content as well will price the content to makeup for the shift in how it is delivered. The real losers will be the sparsely watch ed channels that, because eo fetch current revenue distribution model, make mor money than they would if the were priced separately.
The polls are a bit misleading in that if Trump has 30% in Iowa it doesn't mean he has 30% of all voters, or even registered Republicans. He has 30% of those likely to vote in the primary; a demographic that is generally more conservative than the average voter. That translates to maybe 6% of the general election's voters; and is why the Republican Party is scared to death of him. He can't win, given his lack of broad appeal,but a third party run dooms any hope they have of winning the Presidency. He'd peel off just enough votes from their base to give the Democratic candidate a plurality if not a majority in key states.
You've got it backwards. Tesla is the company with the big supercharger network.
I realize that. Right now, the big players don't care about charging stations. Once EV sales becom noticeable they'll work to create a network of SAE chargers and Tesla will be odd man out unless they adopt the standard as well.