State prisons would come under state laws. Of course these private businesses are lobbying the government so a quiet word and promise of campaign funding will help get the laws softened.
Of course they are. There is no such thing as absolute and un-compromised human rights. Welcome to reality, where people don't exist in their own private bubble.
Frequency control is a big part of stable power and batteries are very good at instantaneous adjustments. Better and more efficient than gas. People have it kind of wrong when they think of batteries powering 100s of 1000s of homes for a number of hours, it will never be used loke that. Instead when systems detect a short term drop in power generation they use the batteries for a few minutes to stop it cascading into something worse. That's what stops brownouts and flickering power.
Got to love the hypocrisy. Let's be honest... everyone is just trying to make a buck and neither the filtered niceties nor the unfiltered gutter trash is about anything more than getting people to join whatever shit heap social platform they're trying to flog.
It's as complicated as I'm suggesting. It covers all the use cases, not just attempts to stream simultaneously, that's why it's a useful analytics solution. If it was only about the number of concurrent streams then it wouldn't really need AI, something like that could be coded in a day. Read the press release from synamedia, it provides a bit more detail on the kinds of things it looks at, including specifically the case where "they have shared credentials with friends or grown-up children who live away from home". That's where the location detection comes into it. Netflix made the clarification that "the terms of use is sharing within the household and that's our expectation". So a kid is living at home, using the family Netflix account. That's totally OK. The kid goes away to college and still uses the same account. Still mostly OK, it's a premium service after all. The kid gets a job and starts renting their own place and shares same account details with their new room mates. Now not so much OK. The whole time the number of concurrent connections could stay unchanged and Netflix wouldn't want to offer a simple package upgrade in that case so that his new room mates could join in. They would want the kid to get his/her own account. That's just one scenario out of probably 100s that the tool would deal with and I'd say most of them are related to location.
It's not out of the question for a single household to have more than one internet connection. Maybe the TV in the main room is hooked up to a fibre landline service but then little Johnny wants to watch on a mobile device in his room and he doesn't always connect to wifi and instead uses his cell service. That would show up as two IPs and unless this company is able to track physical locations of IPs across multiple services then it will red-flag with Netflix and they would unfairly cancel your service. Or someone sublets a part of their home that has it's own DSL service, but the person who sublets is actually a member of the family on their way to becoming independent. Might not be terribly common, but these things will happen.
Plus there are the concerns that a company is out there aligning IPs with physical locations. Who gives them permission to do this and can you easily opt-out? Anyone with a bit of tech savvy can redirect through a VPN. What does the tracking service make of multiple logins that all use the same VPN? That would effectively cripple it and so anyone who wants to share their Netflix just has to make sure everyone is using the same VPN service. Even if they are not sharing illegitimately is still a perfectly sensible thing to do for privacy-minded folks.
Zuckerberg would have to fundamentally change who he is in order to come out the other side of these "debates" and actually do something useful. He's never going to be an advocate for important social issues, personal privacy or putting limits on technology invading every part of our lives. He made facebook. That's who Mark Zuckerberg is. His strengths and talents are in making facebook successful, not figuring out how to nicely integrate it into a more healthy society. If he wants to see something actually change then he needs to be willing to let go and give some control to someone else who cares about different things rather than the success of his tech baby. He's never going to be suitably motivated to actually get it right.
A small number of asshats behaving like asshats shouldn't be news. We're making far too big a deal out of this and giving the asshats far too much publicity. I'd put this up there with a situation like a handful of errant teenagers loitering around a gas station making it an unpleasant situation for motorists to gas up. People are, and will continue to be, douche bags. Someone will inevitably not like what you're doing with your life, how you spend your money, what your political affiliations are. Most folks will keep quiet and grumble to themselves, others will feel like they have to do something about it and thus express their douchebaggery in a more direct and confronting way. These idiots will eventually be bored with what they're doing and get on with their lives.
This doesn't go away by using electronic processes, you still need to do your accounts. Likely it's just easier than when using cash, but you're paying the banks in transaction fees and perhaps another fee for accounting software. Small businesses used to have efficient and manageable processes for handling cash, it was part of the skillset you needed. Now that's been partially forgotten but it's not like some lost secret knowledge. Laws will catch up with this eventually and businesses will have to reintegrate proper cash management processes. Crying about it being "hard" is kind of pathetic.
This should be a warning sign to anyone who thinks Foxconn operating plants in the US will mean lots of local jobs and/or extra tax dollars. The company operates on razor thin margins and works it's employees under conditions to the absolute legal limit it can get away with. If opening a plant in the US comes with lots of tax breaks and cash rewards then of course they'll do it, but that's money coming directly out of the taxpayer's pocket. It will probably be a mostly automated factory with small numbers of actual employees on the ground. No matter how you mix it up, this is a company that is profitable because it's dwindling numbers of existing employees are not well paid and it will do everything it can to avoid paying any tax at all. Neither of those are good for the local community.
I think it fits into a "smart city" niche which is the next big thing in a lot of places around the world. In densely populated areas, and with green transport being high on the list of priorities, we might find a lot of future city planning being willing to put money into community shared electric bikes. If governments want to invest in bike sharing for city areas then the volumes can get pretty big. Establish yourself as the main player in that line of business and you could soon have 100s of local city councils around the world putting in orders. So it's not a big market now but the potential is there.
Technically speaking it wouldn't be difficult to track electric bikes, give them some kind of wireless connectivity and thus make them "connected" but you need something behind that to make it actually useful. There aren't a lot of companies out there that can immediately tap into a network like OnStar with all it's existing technology and support base. This is something GM can just add on to what they already do, and so it actually makes a lot of sense. They can release a connected bike with some of the features of their connected cars without needing to make a massive investment. GM can hook their beta up with live OnStar agents so it's fully functional from day one. Think about how hard that would be for a start-up, to have some kind of reliable service on the other end that could interact with a small customer base during a trial period. Maybe there isn't a market for what it can do, but if there is and they get the service component right then this could be an instant success.
Annoying your customers is stupid, not evil. Netflix don't have ads and ensure it is a pleasurable viewing experience because that's a good business model for them. That doesn't make them more or less evil, it makes them smart enough to know how to keep the revenue coming in. But people are naive if they think Netflix won't push the boundaries of what their customers will accept in order to try and make more money. That's exactly what they're doing here.
And you, sir or madam, are the nincompoop
They effectively already did this and had to be strongly pressured by content providers to put any kind of limitation on it. It was a big selling point of netflix that all you needed was a DNS hack to watch any region you wanted. They certainly knew this and knew it bought them a truck load of customers.
We shouldn't be surprised that they are testing the possibility of simply making more money, although we may have been fooled these past few years into thinking that Netflix's low prices were based on some kind of nice-guy philosophy rather than being an aggressive market-share-grabbing tactic. Now that they've got the market share they are in a position to make a bit more of a squeeze out of their customers. This is just what marketing departments do. If people show that they are willing to pay then the new tier will be a permanent thing. The customer base would do well to not screw itself over and strongly resist this trend but I'm guessing we'll be surprised by the outcome i.e. it will prove successful. Not all of their customers are price-savvy.
Diameter is just a protocol i.e. it's a guideline, there is no enforcement. Network operators are typically going to do whatever they need to do in order to just get stuff working. Apart from straight out abusing the protocol by making up their own session rules they can also simply neglect to make basic security considerations. In this ultra-competitive world where everyone is scrambling to build their next gen networks many will happily forgo extra testing or security design in order to just get something running so that customers can start paying for the service. That's not to mention even having the expertise in the first instance to be able to make those security considerations. Diameter is complicated and hard. If a provider gets it working and customers can use the service and be billed for that usage then that's often the end of the story.
Breaking addictive habits is difficult and requires a lot of strong motivation that needs to be maintained over a long time. And with food it's not as if you can go cold turkey, you always have to eat something. A successful diet requires changing a lifetime of habits and maintaining the change over a number of years. It's just a really hard thing for most people to do, regardless of what style of diet they actually choose. So I would guess that the mental and behavioral aspect of dieting would have a far greater influence on success than genetics. The smaller the effect compared to other more prevalent effects then the harder it's going to be to statistically prove anything. Plus the science on all of this stuff is still pretty immature, we've got a ton to learn about how our bodies process food, how the gut biome can influence it, how even different forms of the same kinds of food are processed differently. Seems obvious enough that trying to find a clear and notable effect for "genetics" in this mess of factors is doomed to fail in the short term.
It's fairly obvious that people fighting for these kinds of issues are focused on some specific group or another. It's beside the point to get uptight because they might use the word "equality". That reduces it to some petty argument over semantics when I think we can mostly all admit that each of us is focused on helping ourselves and whatever groups we identify with. The important issues are the ones that highlight a genuine inequality, and the sentencing and incarceration rates for men are a genuine inequality. That isn't going to get addressed by heckling feminists and complaining that they're not universally addressing every possible instance of gender inequality in the world. If you think something should be done, get on it yourself. It's taken women 100s of years of activism to get to where they are today, it's not necessarily going to be any easier for men to get the same results.
It's a really good example of a wage gap with a good breakdown of how that gap occurs. What you make of that is another discussion, but at least there is now some robust data to fuel that discussion.
But clearly these were all still players with long football careers, certainly having played from high school through to going pro, so still likely to have similar issues due to many years of head smashing activity. This hardly redeems the NFL of responsibility, it just means that for the problems to occur doesn't require playing at the highest level.
You're claiming that companies can't afford to pay a minimum wage for their workers in their current position, but somehow there is a job out there for everyone that they just need to apply for where those same companies will pay them more. You understand that's not possible, right? Someone has to end up at the bottom of the pile, that's just unavoidable. That you get to make the fairly absurd claim that this is a "choice" they make is nice for you, I guess it helps you feel better about the 40 million or so people in the US living below an acceptable standard. You clearly have made the "choice" to not be in that position while they've all made the "choice" to live in poverty. Apart from your astonishing ignorance about what keeps people in that position, it's ultimately a logical fallacy to claim that there are jobs out there for all of them to be paid more. It just can't be done.
You'd rather have low skill workers competing with bots in a race to the bottom to see who can do it cheaper? Do you seriously not think that as this technology advanced that the wages on offer wouldn't have started dropping? People will continue say "but a low paying job is better than no job" when in fact that's not true. Ultra-low wages distort employment figures and lead to people dropping off the radar of social security. They can come begging and say they don't have enough to live on but when the records show that they are working 40 hours a week they get dismissed out of hand. You create a whole class of workers that are effectively slaves, living below the poverty line while still slogging their guts out working a full time job.
But sure... "socialism is bad, it will destroy all of society".
Slashdot Mirror
State prisons would come under state laws. Of course these private businesses are lobbying the government so a quiet word and promise of campaign funding will help get the laws softened.
No shit. Private prisons are only about one thing. Actual rehabilitation is a looong way down the list of priorities.
Of course they are. There is no such thing as absolute and un-compromised human rights. Welcome to reality, where people don't exist in their own private bubble.
Frequency control is a big part of stable power and batteries are very good at instantaneous adjustments. Better and more efficient than gas. People have it kind of wrong when they think of batteries powering 100s of 1000s of homes for a number of hours, it will never be used loke that. Instead when systems detect a short term drop in power generation they use the batteries for a few minutes to stop it cascading into something worse. That's what stops brownouts and flickering power.
Got to love the hypocrisy. Let's be honest ... everyone is just trying to make a buck and neither the filtered niceties nor the unfiltered gutter trash is about anything more than getting people to join whatever shit heap social platform they're trying to flog.
It's those damned underwater trees with forked branches
It's as complicated as I'm suggesting. It covers all the use cases, not just attempts to stream simultaneously, that's why it's a useful analytics solution. If it was only about the number of concurrent streams then it wouldn't really need AI, something like that could be coded in a day. Read the press release from synamedia, it provides a bit more detail on the kinds of things it looks at, including specifically the case where "they have shared credentials with friends or grown-up children who live away from home". That's where the location detection comes into it. Netflix made the clarification that "the terms of use is sharing within the household and that's our expectation". So a kid is living at home, using the family Netflix account. That's totally OK. The kid goes away to college and still uses the same account. Still mostly OK, it's a premium service after all. The kid gets a job and starts renting their own place and shares same account details with their new room mates. Now not so much OK. The whole time the number of concurrent connections could stay unchanged and Netflix wouldn't want to offer a simple package upgrade in that case so that his new room mates could join in. They would want the kid to get his/her own account. That's just one scenario out of probably 100s that the tool would deal with and I'd say most of them are related to location.
It's not out of the question for a single household to have more than one internet connection. Maybe the TV in the main room is hooked up to a fibre landline service but then little Johnny wants to watch on a mobile device in his room and he doesn't always connect to wifi and instead uses his cell service. That would show up as two IPs and unless this company is able to track physical locations of IPs across multiple services then it will red-flag with Netflix and they would unfairly cancel your service. Or someone sublets a part of their home that has it's own DSL service, but the person who sublets is actually a member of the family on their way to becoming independent. Might not be terribly common, but these things will happen. Plus there are the concerns that a company is out there aligning IPs with physical locations. Who gives them permission to do this and can you easily opt-out? Anyone with a bit of tech savvy can redirect through a VPN. What does the tracking service make of multiple logins that all use the same VPN? That would effectively cripple it and so anyone who wants to share their Netflix just has to make sure everyone is using the same VPN service. Even if they are not sharing illegitimately is still a perfectly sensible thing to do for privacy-minded folks.
Zuckerberg would have to fundamentally change who he is in order to come out the other side of these "debates" and actually do something useful. He's never going to be an advocate for important social issues, personal privacy or putting limits on technology invading every part of our lives. He made facebook. That's who Mark Zuckerberg is. His strengths and talents are in making facebook successful, not figuring out how to nicely integrate it into a more healthy society. If he wants to see something actually change then he needs to be willing to let go and give some control to someone else who cares about different things rather than the success of his tech baby. He's never going to be suitably motivated to actually get it right.
A small number of asshats behaving like asshats shouldn't be news. We're making far too big a deal out of this and giving the asshats far too much publicity. I'd put this up there with a situation like a handful of errant teenagers loitering around a gas station making it an unpleasant situation for motorists to gas up. People are, and will continue to be, douche bags. Someone will inevitably not like what you're doing with your life, how you spend your money, what your political affiliations are. Most folks will keep quiet and grumble to themselves, others will feel like they have to do something about it and thus express their douchebaggery in a more direct and confronting way. These idiots will eventually be bored with what they're doing and get on with their lives.
This doesn't go away by using electronic processes, you still need to do your accounts. Likely it's just easier than when using cash, but you're paying the banks in transaction fees and perhaps another fee for accounting software. Small businesses used to have efficient and manageable processes for handling cash, it was part of the skillset you needed. Now that's been partially forgotten but it's not like some lost secret knowledge. Laws will catch up with this eventually and businesses will have to reintegrate proper cash management processes. Crying about it being "hard" is kind of pathetic.
This should be a warning sign to anyone who thinks Foxconn operating plants in the US will mean lots of local jobs and/or extra tax dollars. The company operates on razor thin margins and works it's employees under conditions to the absolute legal limit it can get away with. If opening a plant in the US comes with lots of tax breaks and cash rewards then of course they'll do it, but that's money coming directly out of the taxpayer's pocket. It will probably be a mostly automated factory with small numbers of actual employees on the ground. No matter how you mix it up, this is a company that is profitable because it's dwindling numbers of existing employees are not well paid and it will do everything it can to avoid paying any tax at all. Neither of those are good for the local community.
I think it fits into a "smart city" niche which is the next big thing in a lot of places around the world. In densely populated areas, and with green transport being high on the list of priorities, we might find a lot of future city planning being willing to put money into community shared electric bikes. If governments want to invest in bike sharing for city areas then the volumes can get pretty big. Establish yourself as the main player in that line of business and you could soon have 100s of local city councils around the world putting in orders. So it's not a big market now but the potential is there.
Technically speaking it wouldn't be difficult to track electric bikes, give them some kind of wireless connectivity and thus make them "connected" but you need something behind that to make it actually useful. There aren't a lot of companies out there that can immediately tap into a network like OnStar with all it's existing technology and support base. This is something GM can just add on to what they already do, and so it actually makes a lot of sense. They can release a connected bike with some of the features of their connected cars without needing to make a massive investment. GM can hook their beta up with live OnStar agents so it's fully functional from day one. Think about how hard that would be for a start-up, to have some kind of reliable service on the other end that could interact with a small customer base during a trial period. Maybe there isn't a market for what it can do, but if there is and they get the service component right then this could be an instant success.
Annoying your customers is stupid, not evil. Netflix don't have ads and ensure it is a pleasurable viewing experience because that's a good business model for them. That doesn't make them more or less evil, it makes them smart enough to know how to keep the revenue coming in. But people are naive if they think Netflix won't push the boundaries of what their customers will accept in order to try and make more money. That's exactly what they're doing here. And you, sir or madam, are the nincompoop
They effectively already did this and had to be strongly pressured by content providers to put any kind of limitation on it. It was a big selling point of netflix that all you needed was a DNS hack to watch any region you wanted. They certainly knew this and knew it bought them a truck load of customers.
nooo!
We shouldn't be surprised that they are testing the possibility of simply making more money, although we may have been fooled these past few years into thinking that Netflix's low prices were based on some kind of nice-guy philosophy rather than being an aggressive market-share-grabbing tactic. Now that they've got the market share they are in a position to make a bit more of a squeeze out of their customers. This is just what marketing departments do. If people show that they are willing to pay then the new tier will be a permanent thing. The customer base would do well to not screw itself over and strongly resist this trend but I'm guessing we'll be surprised by the outcome i.e. it will prove successful. Not all of their customers are price-savvy.
Diameter is just a protocol i.e. it's a guideline, there is no enforcement. Network operators are typically going to do whatever they need to do in order to just get stuff working. Apart from straight out abusing the protocol by making up their own session rules they can also simply neglect to make basic security considerations. In this ultra-competitive world where everyone is scrambling to build their next gen networks many will happily forgo extra testing or security design in order to just get something running so that customers can start paying for the service. That's not to mention even having the expertise in the first instance to be able to make those security considerations. Diameter is complicated and hard. If a provider gets it working and customers can use the service and be billed for that usage then that's often the end of the story.
Breaking addictive habits is difficult and requires a lot of strong motivation that needs to be maintained over a long time. And with food it's not as if you can go cold turkey, you always have to eat something. A successful diet requires changing a lifetime of habits and maintaining the change over a number of years. It's just a really hard thing for most people to do, regardless of what style of diet they actually choose. So I would guess that the mental and behavioral aspect of dieting would have a far greater influence on success than genetics. The smaller the effect compared to other more prevalent effects then the harder it's going to be to statistically prove anything. Plus the science on all of this stuff is still pretty immature, we've got a ton to learn about how our bodies process food, how the gut biome can influence it, how even different forms of the same kinds of food are processed differently. Seems obvious enough that trying to find a clear and notable effect for "genetics" in this mess of factors is doomed to fail in the short term.
It's fairly obvious that people fighting for these kinds of issues are focused on some specific group or another. It's beside the point to get uptight because they might use the word "equality". That reduces it to some petty argument over semantics when I think we can mostly all admit that each of us is focused on helping ourselves and whatever groups we identify with. The important issues are the ones that highlight a genuine inequality, and the sentencing and incarceration rates for men are a genuine inequality. That isn't going to get addressed by heckling feminists and complaining that they're not universally addressing every possible instance of gender inequality in the world. If you think something should be done, get on it yourself. It's taken women 100s of years of activism to get to where they are today, it's not necessarily going to be any easier for men to get the same results.
It's a really good example of a wage gap with a good breakdown of how that gap occurs. What you make of that is another discussion, but at least there is now some robust data to fuel that discussion.
But clearly these were all still players with long football careers, certainly having played from high school through to going pro, so still likely to have similar issues due to many years of head smashing activity. This hardly redeems the NFL of responsibility, it just means that for the problems to occur doesn't require playing at the highest level.
You're claiming that companies can't afford to pay a minimum wage for their workers in their current position, but somehow there is a job out there for everyone that they just need to apply for where those same companies will pay them more. You understand that's not possible, right? Someone has to end up at the bottom of the pile, that's just unavoidable. That you get to make the fairly absurd claim that this is a "choice" they make is nice for you, I guess it helps you feel better about the 40 million or so people in the US living below an acceptable standard. You clearly have made the "choice" to not be in that position while they've all made the "choice" to live in poverty. Apart from your astonishing ignorance about what keeps people in that position, it's ultimately a logical fallacy to claim that there are jobs out there for all of them to be paid more. It just can't be done.
You'd rather have low skill workers competing with bots in a race to the bottom to see who can do it cheaper? Do you seriously not think that as this technology advanced that the wages on offer wouldn't have started dropping? People will continue say "but a low paying job is better than no job" when in fact that's not true. Ultra-low wages distort employment figures and lead to people dropping off the radar of social security. They can come begging and say they don't have enough to live on but when the records show that they are working 40 hours a week they get dismissed out of hand. You create a whole class of workers that are effectively slaves, living below the poverty line while still slogging their guts out working a full time job. But sure ... "socialism is bad, it will destroy all of society".