Let me be clear: You are wrong. You are ignorant on this subject. Please refrain from posting about things you know less than zero about in the future.
My 6-year-old kid was born preemie because... well, if you can *definitively* explain what causes preeclampsia, then you can make a lot of money (they don't call it the "disease of theories" for nothing). My kid was born 6 weeks early and weighed about 3-1/2 pounds. Now, my kid is perfectly healthy and normal with zero signs of being a preemie. If I never told you, you would never know. People are shocked when they find out my kid spent almost 3 weeks in the NICU.
A former co-worker of mine has two kids. Both were born preemie; one at 26 weeks (just under 2 pounds) and one at 28 weeks (just under 3 pounds). The mom is an extremely healthy woman and did "all the right things," which includes none of the assumptions you've made (*especially* the second time around!). Now, both kids about as normal as you can get. They have *some* signs of being a preemie, but only if you understand what to look for, which -- I assure you -- you don't. It's not like Downs Syndrome or kids in wheelchairs or anything more obvious like that. It's all fairly subtle... unless you know. Still, they both have way *fewer* issues than several kids I know who were not preemie.
A professor I know is well into his 60s and is a thought leader in his field. He's an amazing man who has not only contributed a ton to his field, he's also provided many free online courses that have demonstrably helped numerous entrepreneurs in developing countries. He was born preemie... well over 60 years ago when NICU medicine wasn't near what it is today. He shows no signs of being a preemie. In fact, I was shocked when I shared that my kid was preemie and he told me his story.
None of these people are or were smokers. None of these people are or were drinkers. None of these people are or were drug users. Neither while pregnant or not. And, even when not caused by the parent, all of the babies recovered... fully!... and have a fantastic quality of life, costing the medical system no more than the average kid. And these are not one-offs. Every other year, our NICU has a reunion that our family attends and we see hundreds upon hundreds of kids who just needed a bit more time in the hospital before going on to live fully normal lives. Go do some research and you'll see these success rates are not anecdotal.
So, next time you have the desire to make a post like this, stop. Put down the keyboard. Go find someone who knows something about the subject and ask some questions. Go find someone who has *actually* experienced what you want to write about and ask some questions. Heck, go ask your favorite search engine. You'll learn a lot and you'll also prevent yourself from showing your extreme ignorance.
I suspect that that FIDO U2F would be immune from this type of attack. Or a Google Authenticator keyboard similar to what password safe does.
I don't see how any type of authentication would be immune from this attack. This malware does zero authentication; it's all done by the user. The malware *prompts* the user to login and, after the user completes all authentication, the malware then "steps in and mimics the user’s clicks to send money to the attacker’s PayPal address."
This is the equivalent of someone posing as a computer repairman for a 95-year-old and asking them to login to their bank account so the repairman can give it a "security check" and then the repairman transfers all the funds to their own account. No authentication in the world is going to stop that because the user has granted too much permission to someone that never should have had permission in the first place.
First Problem: "At the time of writing, the malware is [...] distributed via third-party app stores." I searched Google Play and confirmed it's not listed. Your average user doesn't even know third-party app stores exist.
Second Problem: "[The malware sends a request that] is presented to the user as being from the innocuous-sounding 'Enable statistics' service." The screen states that the service will "Observe your actions: Receive notifications when you're interacting with an app" and "Retrieve window content: Inspect the content of a window you're interacting with." Do the authors know the definition of the word innocuous? Because those permissions do not seem to fit the standard definition. At a minimum, it reads like spyware.
Third Problem: The "PayPal" alert that appears is identified in the notification as "Optimization Android," not "PayPal." If you're wandering around third-party Android app stores, you should be knowledgeable enough to recognize this. I don't wander around third-party Android app stores, but if I receive a notification I'm not expecting, I *always* check the source at the top of the notification.
So, if I manage to download a "battery optimization" app from somewhere other than the Google Play store and then enable what reads like spyware and have PayPal installed and decide that it's completely okay/normal for PayPal to coincidentally alert me to confirm my account right after agreeing to spyware privileges, I'm at risk.
Also, it seems like this is not just a PayPal issue, but a "user giving too many privileges to an app" issue since TFA shows the malware's phishing screen overlays for Gmail, Google Play, WhatsApp, Viber, and Skype. And, given how the malware works, it seems that it could be applied to any installed app, so are they targeting PayPayl simply because of the number of installs and not because of any inherent flaws in PayPal's app?
That's not how election night (or general post-election) coverage works.
First, election websites only show what polling locations report AFTER the polling locations are closed. All polling locations in a locality close at the same time (unless they stay open later for long lines, etc.) and then begin tallying and reporting to the election authorities. As the election authorities receive and validate results after the closure of all polling locations, they update the website. [Source: my best friend is an officer of election]
Second, all (legitimate) news outlets refrain from projecting/declaring a winner until after all polls related to that election are closed to prevent this very thing. For example, CNN makes this expressly clear in their editorial policy: "CNN editorial policy strictly prohibits reporting winners or characterizing the outcome of a statewide contest in any state before all the polls are scheduled to close in every precinct in that state." http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI...
The projections you see/hear immediately after the polls close is based on exit polls, pre-election polls, past elections, etc. It's why they're sometimes wrong. It's also why news outlets will hold off on projecting a winner if exit poll numbers aren't aligning with their pre-election projections.
So, no, hacking an election website is not a big deal. It's the equivalent of hacking ESPN. Changing the score on the website does not actually change the score of the match.
And I'm thankful for that! Many months ago, I made the switch to Inbox by Gmail and haven't looked back since. I can now create and schedule reminders *IN MY EMAIL* that also carry over to my calendar. So now I have a representation of something I need to get done in the two most important apps I use. And Inbox also allows me to "snooze" an email so I can deal with it later. My kid needs to dress up like an old person for a 100-day party at school? Cool! I appreciate the email two weeks ahead of time, but I don't really need to pay attention to it until the night before. Snoozed!
The list goes on and on for how Inbox is superior to basic Gmail. I've shown it to friends and co-workers and told them to give it a week to get used to the new ecosystem (it really is a different way to think about email) and the far majority of them stick with it and love it.
The original VentureBeat article states "One of the key benefits of AMP for email will be that content within an email can be updated, and recipients will be able to browse email content much like they would a web page." Given that Booking.com is already signed up, this means when my wife and I are trading emails about a vacation we're planning, we could have up-to-date search results in the email without having to load it up elsewhere or be looking at an out-dated screen capture?! Nice! Or someone can email me an article about a breaking news event and the AMP content actually loads more up-to-date articles along side it (like Google recommendations for similar pages in search results)?! Nice! Or I no longer get the annoying "You are not replying to the latest message" alert and the email simply loads up the other emails and/or combines them all into a single thread and/or gives me actionable options that are better than closing the current message and looking for the latest one?! Nice!
The TechCrunch article reads like the same people who screamed, "I don't want internet on my phone! I just want a phone!" and 10+ years later they can't live without internet on their phone because they simply could not envision that having internet on a phone would mean much more than browsing desktop websites on a tiny browser.
I'm certainly not saying AMP for email is going to be fantastic, but I'm certainly not going be a detractor before I see some examples simply because I pine for the days of Pine.
Weirdly, a full 12% of consumers would prefer to shop after Christmas, to capitalize on the post-holiday sales, even though their recipients would get their presents a little late.
So, you ENJOY paying more for the exact same product simply because society says you have to celebrate a holiday on a particular day?
To me, saving money after the holidays isn't weird. It's just different from mainstream thinking. We do this all the time in my household. We celebrate Christmas day as a family (me, wife, 5-year-old) with a couple small, personal gifts. However, we completely avoid the holiday buying frenzy and visiting the extended family because of all the manufactured stress involved. Who should I buy for? What should I buy? Will they like it? Did I get a gift receipt? Who should I visit? Who should come over? What time are they visiting? What time do we need to leave? Do we need to prepare food? Did we remember to pack the gifts? How much time should we visit with my family? How much time with your family? And on and on and on.
Instead of celebrating with extended family and friends on Christmas Day, we invite everybody over the weekend of MLK Day and that's when we open the bigger gifts and exchange gifts. Almost everybody has a three-day weekend and comes over, we get to shop for gifts at discounted prices, and it's a great way to extend the holiday spirit for a couple of weeks with no real drawbacks. Even if you want to celebrate MLK Day, that's on Monday, so have at it!
I got the idea from my mom when she did something similar for Thanksgiving. When I was in high school and my two older brothers had moved out and were married, she saw all of the manufactured stress occurring with our family and friends in terms of where they were going to be and for how long. She declared that we would celebrate the weekend before Thanksgiving and suddenly ALL the family and ALL the friends showed up and stayed the entire time. And shopping for Thanksgiving food a week early prevented any shopping stress. It was a blast!
At the end of the day, most holidays are manufactured and the date has very little to do with what is being celebrated. Just celebrate them when it works best for you and yours.
According to WaPo article: "High school graduates are guaranteed admission to one of the city’s community colleges, if they apply, and about 40percent of the Class of 2015 enrolled in a four-year college, approaching the national average (44 percent) that year."
Want your diploma and don't have any real plans for the future? Just apply to one of the city's (soon-to-be-extremely-overcrowded) community colleges, get your acceptance letter, show your acceptance letter, get your diploma in May/June, then go do whatever you feel like doing and never show up for community college in August/September.
Given how obvious the loophole is, it makes you wonder if increased community college applications is the real end goal they're wanting...
Get past all the political mumbo jumbo that has nothing to do with the situation and read the last sentence, which comes from a Customs and Border Protection spokesperson: "“Please know that we process 1.2 million people every day—around 700 are denied entry for various reasons. Having an approved ESTA does [not] guarantee a foreign national free entry into the US All travelers including those coming from visa waiver countries must clear all 60 grounds of inadmissibility.”
So, this guy is one of 700 people who are daily denied entry for NOTHING related to Trump's travel ban, but because he has a Twitter account and is a Mozilla employee, "AHHHH!!! TRUMP TRAVEL BAN!!! AHHHH!!! IT'S GOING TO GET EVERYBODY!!! AHHHH!"
Which part? I'm browsing around in Firefox and can do all the same functionality as using it in Chrome. Mass selection, snoozing, reminders, all of it.
Inbox by Gmail does have this functionality. I use it quite often.
It also has the ability to snooze emails (hide, then reappear at the top on a specified date/time), use reminders (same thing as an email to yourself with just a subject line), scrape pertinent info from a common email (like an Amazon purchase) and display it in an easy-to-read format at the top of the email, and save links as a clickable item instead of sending them in the body/subject of an email. And the bundling of emails is MUCH better than how it's handled in Gmail, including the ability to mass delete, snooze, or archive an entire bundle with one click.
Honestly, I'm not sure why Google hasn't completely switched from Gmail over to Inbox by Gmail, except for the terrible calendar request handling in Inbox. It's a far superior product and every friend I've recommended it to (with the caveat that they have to give it good week of use) has kept it and sees Gmail as antiquated.
I *GUARANTEE* you the bidding will get to AND surpass $20. It's happened every time I've ever seen the auction experiment happen. Follow along...
Bidder A: Sure, why not? I'll bid $1. Bidder B: (Thinking: So, I can bid $2 and profit $18?) I'll bid $2. Bidder C: (Thinking: So, I can bid $3 and profit $17?) I'll bid $3. Bidder D: (Thinking: Duh! I'll take $16 profit!) I'll bid $4. Bidder B: (Thinking: There's still $15 profit to be had.) I'll bid $5. [Bidder A drops out because they're getting a bit confused about everything] Bidder D: (Thinking: $14 profit, baby!) $I'll bid $6. Bidder C: $7 Bidder D: $8 Bidder B: $9 Bidder C: $10 Bidder D: $11 [Bidder B now realizes that the auctioneer is going to make $21 for a $20 bill because both Bidders C and D have to pay up. Bidder B drops out.] Bidder C: (Thinking: At least I'll still profit $8.) $12 Bidder D: (Thinking: At least I'll still profit $7) $13 Bidder C: $14 Bidder D: $15 Bidder C: (Thinking: I don't really care about $4 profit, but I don't want to pay $14 for nothing) $16 Bidder D: (Thinking: I don't really care about $3 profit, but I don't want to pay $15 for nothing) $17 Bidder C: $18 Bidder D: $19 Bidder C: (Thinking: I don't want to pay $20 for a $20 bill, but I DEFINITELY don't want to pay $18 for nothing. Fine. We'll just end this whole thing and everything's even) $20 Bidder D: (Thinking: Dammit! Now I'm screwed! He's getting $20 for $20 and I'm getting shafted with nothing, but I still have to pay $19! Screw it! I'll take a $1 loss instead of a $19 loss!) $21 Bidder C: (Thinking: WTF?!?! He just bid $1 more than what he's getting in return and now I'm stuck paying $20 for nothing?! No way! I'll take a $2 loss instead of a $20 loss!) $22 Bidder D: (Thinking: $3 loss is better than $21 loss) $23 Bidder C: (Thinking: $4 loss is better than $22 loss) $24 [etc., etc., etc.]
It's not unheard of for the bidding to surpass $100 ($80 loss is better than a $98 loss!) before the experiment is ended due to the point having been made many bids earlier.
The context is in how people think about risk, loss, and similar factors. Consider an RFP process for a $1-million project with a major, multi-national corporation (MMC) with billions of dollars in market cap. Winning the contract for the project would be a MAJOR windfall for the winning company (WC) on the assumption that a successful project might lead to more work. But, to win the contract, the bidding companies (BC) are going to have to travel to MMC headquarters several times over the course of the next several months on their own dime. They'll also need to create prototypes and other proof-of-concept materials on their own dime. Let's say that over the first month or so of the RFP process that most BC are eliminated and only two BC remain. We'll call them BC1 and BC2.
Now that things are getting real, BC1 checks in with the group leading the RFP bid and finds out they've spent approximately $100k so far on the bid process. That's okay because their estimates suggest the project will cost $750k to complete successfully ($850k total; $150k profit). BC2 checks in with their group and finds they've also spent approximately $100k and they also estimate the project will cost $750k to complete successfully ($850k; $150k profit). BC1 and BC2 are aware that they are the last remaining companies bidding for the contract and that each very likely has similar expenses and estimated project costs.
BC1 decides to up the game a bit and tells the RFP group to setup a special one-on-one meeting with BC1 CEO and the head of the project for MMC. They want further refined prototypes and a WORKING proof-of-concept. They estimate the additional meeting/work will cost $25k, but that still has them at $125k of profit. Meanwhile, BC2 catches wind of the special meeting and works up their own special meeting. Estimated $25k expenses, but that still has them at $125k profit as well. If both companies stopped at this point, one would win
iOS didn't kill Flash. Nor did Steve Jobs. Nor did Adobe. MACROMEDIA KILLED FLASH!... because they allowed it to become what it was never intended to be.
Way back in the mid 1990s, Macromedia acquired FutureSplash -- an ANIMATION product used by Disney, FOX (for the Simpsons), and others -- and renamed it Flash. I used Flash 2 for ANIMATION and it was a great tool.
Along comes Flash 3 and the introduction of MovieClips and transparency. Transparency was pretty straightforward, but MovieClips were not. MovieClips contained an animation (and timeline) that could then be placed in the main animation timeline. So, if you had an animation of a character dancing in a MovieClip, you could add that MovieClip to the main animation timeline and make the dancing character move up, down, sideways, whatever.
The introduction of MovieClips also brought some basic programming beyond the even more basic timeline actions that previously existed (solely for the purpose of starting, stopping, etc. an animation). You could now add your (stopped) dancing character MovieClip to the main timeline, and then add a button to the main timeline and add a "Tell Target" action to tell the MovieClip to start playing. This "Tell Target" programming was VERY basic, but it was sooooooooo confusing to most Flash animators because the FAR majority of them were truly animators, not programmers. In fact, MovieClip programming was so confusing to the animators' mindset that the "macromedia.flash" user group was constantly inundated with questions about "Tell Target." The concept of targeting "_level0" or the "_parent" or such made absolutely no sense to most animators. As a regular contributor to macromedia.flash, I eventually made a small website of "Tell Target" FAQs that was quite popular at the time.
What happened after that is what eventually killed Flash. Some people are great animators. Some people are great programmers. A very rare few are great at both. The ones that were great at both and using Flash started making some of the best Flash websites around. They were getting accolades left and right and being featured everywhere Flash was talked about. Gabocorp, 2Advanced, Der Bauer, etc. were thrust into the spotlight with their ability to combine great animation with great Flash programming to make jaw-dropping Flash websites.
With these kinds of websites garnering a lot of attention, the ever-increasing demand for more/better Flash programming started. Flash 4 add variables, input fields, the first real ActionScript, and other programming-based enhancements. Read through the list of versions after Flash 3 and most include more and more and more programming enhancements. Flash 5 introduced ActionScript 1.0 and Flash 7 had ActionScript 2.0 and on and on and on... until Flash died.
Security issues? Not a problem if Flash isn't a programming platform. Resource hog? Not (as much of) a problem if Flash ins't a programming platform. Unable to run on a mobile device? It's VECTOR GRAPHICS!!! Not a problem if Flash isn't a programming platform.
The interesting part is that in the wake of Flash's death, Animate survives... as an ANIMATION platform. Want to meet Flash developers who aren't looking for work right now? They're the ones who never stopped using it for Animation. Personally, I used Flash for a LOT of programming, but I also used it for a LOT of animation. With the shift of branding from Flash to Animate, I'm happy to see the return to the core purpose of Flash 1.0: ANIMATION!
If you look at the enhancements for Animate 2015 and 2017, you'll see a lot of items related to animation and graphics and not a lot related to programming. This is the way it should be... and probably the way it always should have been. Flash as a programming platform always should have been a separate product, like Flex, so it could live/die on its own merits, or lack thereof.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me be clear: You are wrong. You are ignorant on this subject. Please refrain from posting about things you know less than zero about in the future.
My 6-year-old kid was born preemie because... well, if you can *definitively* explain what causes preeclampsia, then you can make a lot of money (they don't call it the "disease of theories" for nothing). My kid was born 6 weeks early and weighed about 3-1/2 pounds. Now, my kid is perfectly healthy and normal with zero signs of being a preemie. If I never told you, you would never know. People are shocked when they find out my kid spent almost 3 weeks in the NICU.
A former co-worker of mine has two kids. Both were born preemie; one at 26 weeks (just under 2 pounds) and one at 28 weeks (just under 3 pounds). The mom is an extremely healthy woman and did "all the right things," which includes none of the assumptions you've made (*especially* the second time around!). Now, both kids about as normal as you can get. They have *some* signs of being a preemie, but only if you understand what to look for, which -- I assure you -- you don't. It's not like Downs Syndrome or kids in wheelchairs or anything more obvious like that. It's all fairly subtle... unless you know. Still, they both have way *fewer* issues than several kids I know who were not preemie.
A professor I know is well into his 60s and is a thought leader in his field. He's an amazing man who has not only contributed a ton to his field, he's also provided many free online courses that have demonstrably helped numerous entrepreneurs in developing countries. He was born preemie... well over 60 years ago when NICU medicine wasn't near what it is today. He shows no signs of being a preemie. In fact, I was shocked when I shared that my kid was preemie and he told me his story.
None of these people are or were smokers. None of these people are or were drinkers. None of these people are or were drug users. Neither while pregnant or not. And, even when not caused by the parent, all of the babies recovered... fully!... and have a fantastic quality of life, costing the medical system no more than the average kid. And these are not one-offs. Every other year, our NICU has a reunion that our family attends and we see hundreds upon hundreds of kids who just needed a bit more time in the hospital before going on to live fully normal lives. Go do some research and you'll see these success rates are not anecdotal.
So, next time you have the desire to make a post like this, stop. Put down the keyboard. Go find someone who knows something about the subject and ask some questions. Go find someone who has *actually* experienced what you want to write about and ask some questions. Heck, go ask your favorite search engine. You'll learn a lot and you'll also prevent yourself from showing your extreme ignorance.
I suspect that that FIDO U2F would be immune from this type of attack. Or a Google Authenticator keyboard similar to what password safe does.
I don't see how any type of authentication would be immune from this attack. This malware does zero authentication; it's all done by the user. The malware *prompts* the user to login and, after the user completes all authentication, the malware then "steps in and mimics the user’s clicks to send money to the attacker’s PayPal address."
This is the equivalent of someone posing as a computer repairman for a 95-year-old and asking them to login to their bank account so the repairman can give it a "security check" and then the repairman transfers all the funds to their own account. No authentication in the world is going to stop that because the user has granted too much permission to someone that never should have had permission in the first place.
First Problem: "At the time of writing, the malware is [...] distributed via third-party app stores." I searched Google Play and confirmed it's not listed. Your average user doesn't even know third-party app stores exist.
Second Problem: "[The malware sends a request that] is presented to the user as being from the innocuous-sounding 'Enable statistics' service." The screen states that the service will "Observe your actions: Receive notifications when you're interacting with an app" and "Retrieve window content: Inspect the content of a window you're interacting with." Do the authors know the definition of the word innocuous? Because those permissions do not seem to fit the standard definition. At a minimum, it reads like spyware.
Third Problem: The "PayPal" alert that appears is identified in the notification as "Optimization Android," not "PayPal." If you're wandering around third-party Android app stores, you should be knowledgeable enough to recognize this. I don't wander around third-party Android app stores, but if I receive a notification I'm not expecting, I *always* check the source at the top of the notification.
So, if I manage to download a "battery optimization" app from somewhere other than the Google Play store and then enable what reads like spyware and have PayPal installed and decide that it's completely okay/normal for PayPal to coincidentally alert me to confirm my account right after agreeing to spyware privileges, I'm at risk.
Also, it seems like this is not just a PayPal issue, but a "user giving too many privileges to an app" issue since TFA shows the malware's phishing screen overlays for Gmail, Google Play, WhatsApp, Viber, and Skype. And, given how the malware works, it seems that it could be applied to any installed app, so are they targeting PayPayl simply because of the number of installs and not because of any inherent flaws in PayPal's app?
That's not how election night (or general post-election) coverage works.
First, election websites only show what polling locations report AFTER the polling locations are closed. All polling locations in a locality close at the same time (unless they stay open later for long lines, etc.) and then begin tallying and reporting to the election authorities. As the election authorities receive and validate results after the closure of all polling locations, they update the website. [Source: my best friend is an officer of election]
Second, all (legitimate) news outlets refrain from projecting/declaring a winner until after all polls related to that election are closed to prevent this very thing. For example, CNN makes this expressly clear in their editorial policy: "CNN editorial policy strictly prohibits reporting winners or characterizing the outcome of a statewide contest in any state before all the polls are scheduled to close in every precinct in that state."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI...
The projections you see/hear immediately after the polls close is based on exit polls, pre-election polls, past elections, etc. It's why they're sometimes wrong. It's also why news outlets will hold off on projecting a winner if exit poll numbers aren't aligning with their pre-election projections.
So, no, hacking an election website is not a big deal. It's the equivalent of hacking ESPN. Changing the score on the website does not actually change the score of the match.
And I'm thankful for that! Many months ago, I made the switch to Inbox by Gmail and haven't looked back since. I can now create and schedule reminders *IN MY EMAIL* that also carry over to my calendar. So now I have a representation of something I need to get done in the two most important apps I use. And Inbox also allows me to "snooze" an email so I can deal with it later. My kid needs to dress up like an old person for a 100-day party at school? Cool! I appreciate the email two weeks ahead of time, but I don't really need to pay attention to it until the night before. Snoozed!
The list goes on and on for how Inbox is superior to basic Gmail. I've shown it to friends and co-workers and told them to give it a week to get used to the new ecosystem (it really is a different way to think about email) and the far majority of them stick with it and love it.
The original VentureBeat article states "One of the key benefits of AMP for email will be that content within an email can be updated, and recipients will be able to browse email content much like they would a web page." Given that Booking.com is already signed up, this means when my wife and I are trading emails about a vacation we're planning, we could have up-to-date search results in the email without having to load it up elsewhere or be looking at an out-dated screen capture?! Nice! Or someone can email me an article about a breaking news event and the AMP content actually loads more up-to-date articles along side it (like Google recommendations for similar pages in search results)?! Nice! Or I no longer get the annoying "You are not replying to the latest message" alert and the email simply loads up the other emails and/or combines them all into a single thread and/or gives me actionable options that are better than closing the current message and looking for the latest one?! Nice!
The TechCrunch article reads like the same people who screamed, "I don't want internet on my phone! I just want a phone!" and 10+ years later they can't live without internet on their phone because they simply could not envision that having internet on a phone would mean much more than browsing desktop websites on a tiny browser.
I'm certainly not saying AMP for email is going to be fantastic, but I'm certainly not going be a detractor before I see some examples simply because I pine for the days of Pine.
Weirdly, a full 12% of consumers would prefer to shop after Christmas, to capitalize on the post-holiday sales, even though their recipients would get their presents a little late.
So, you ENJOY paying more for the exact same product simply because society says you have to celebrate a holiday on a particular day?
To me, saving money after the holidays isn't weird. It's just different from mainstream thinking. We do this all the time in my household. We celebrate Christmas day as a family (me, wife, 5-year-old) with a couple small, personal gifts. However, we completely avoid the holiday buying frenzy and visiting the extended family because of all the manufactured stress involved. Who should I buy for? What should I buy? Will they like it? Did I get a gift receipt? Who should I visit? Who should come over? What time are they visiting? What time do we need to leave? Do we need to prepare food? Did we remember to pack the gifts? How much time should we visit with my family? How much time with your family? And on and on and on.
Instead of celebrating with extended family and friends on Christmas Day, we invite everybody over the weekend of MLK Day and that's when we open the bigger gifts and exchange gifts. Almost everybody has a three-day weekend and comes over, we get to shop for gifts at discounted prices, and it's a great way to extend the holiday spirit for a couple of weeks with no real drawbacks. Even if you want to celebrate MLK Day, that's on Monday, so have at it!
I got the idea from my mom when she did something similar for Thanksgiving. When I was in high school and my two older brothers had moved out and were married, she saw all of the manufactured stress occurring with our family and friends in terms of where they were going to be and for how long. She declared that we would celebrate the weekend before Thanksgiving and suddenly ALL the family and ALL the friends showed up and stayed the entire time. And shopping for Thanksgiving food a week early prevented any shopping stress. It was a blast!
At the end of the day, most holidays are manufactured and the date has very little to do with what is being celebrated. Just celebrate them when it works best for you and yours.
According to WaPo article: "High school graduates are guaranteed admission to one of the city’s community colleges, if they apply, and about 40percent of the Class of 2015 enrolled in a four-year college, approaching the national average (44 percent) that year."
Want your diploma and don't have any real plans for the future? Just apply to one of the city's (soon-to-be-extremely-overcrowded) community colleges, get your acceptance letter, show your acceptance letter, get your diploma in May/June, then go do whatever you feel like doing and never show up for community college in August/September.
Given how obvious the loophole is, it makes you wonder if increased community college applications is the real end goal they're wanting...
Get past all the political mumbo jumbo that has nothing to do with the situation and read the last sentence, which comes from a Customs and Border Protection spokesperson: "“Please know that we process 1.2 million people every day—around 700 are denied entry for various reasons. Having an approved ESTA does [not] guarantee a foreign national free entry into the US All travelers including those coming from visa waiver countries must clear all 60 grounds of inadmissibility.”
So, this guy is one of 700 people who are daily denied entry for NOTHING related to Trump's travel ban, but because he has a Twitter account and is a Mozilla employee, "AHHHH!!! TRUMP TRAVEL BAN!!! AHHHH!!! IT'S GOING TO GET EVERYBODY!!! AHHHH!"
In other news, water is wet.
Which part? I'm browsing around in Firefox and can do all the same functionality as using it in Chrome. Mass selection, snoozing, reminders, all of it.
Inbox by Gmail does have this functionality. I use it quite often.
It also has the ability to snooze emails (hide, then reappear at the top on a specified date/time), use reminders (same thing as an email to yourself with just a subject line), scrape pertinent info from a common email (like an Amazon purchase) and display it in an easy-to-read format at the top of the email, and save links as a clickable item instead of sending them in the body/subject of an email. And the bundling of emails is MUCH better than how it's handled in Gmail, including the ability to mass delete, snooze, or archive an entire bundle with one click.
Honestly, I'm not sure why Google hasn't completely switched from Gmail over to Inbox by Gmail, except for the terrible calendar request handling in Inbox. It's a far superior product and every friend I've recommended it to (with the caveat that they have to give it good week of use) has kept it and sees Gmail as antiquated.
I *GUARANTEE* you the bidding will get to AND surpass $20. It's happened every time I've ever seen the auction experiment happen. Follow along...
Bidder A: Sure, why not? I'll bid $1.
Bidder B: (Thinking: So, I can bid $2 and profit $18?) I'll bid $2.
Bidder C: (Thinking: So, I can bid $3 and profit $17?) I'll bid $3.
Bidder D: (Thinking: Duh! I'll take $16 profit!) I'll bid $4.
Bidder B: (Thinking: There's still $15 profit to be had.) I'll bid $5.
[Bidder A drops out because they're getting a bit confused about everything]
Bidder D: (Thinking: $14 profit, baby!) $I'll bid $6.
Bidder C: $7
Bidder D: $8
Bidder B: $9
Bidder C: $10
Bidder D: $11
[Bidder B now realizes that the auctioneer is going to make $21 for a $20 bill because both Bidders C and D have to pay up. Bidder B drops out.]
Bidder C: (Thinking: At least I'll still profit $8.) $12
Bidder D: (Thinking: At least I'll still profit $7) $13
Bidder C: $14
Bidder D: $15
Bidder C: (Thinking: I don't really care about $4 profit, but I don't want to pay $14 for nothing) $16
Bidder D: (Thinking: I don't really care about $3 profit, but I don't want to pay $15 for nothing) $17
Bidder C: $18
Bidder D: $19
Bidder C: (Thinking: I don't want to pay $20 for a $20 bill, but I DEFINITELY don't want to pay $18 for nothing. Fine. We'll just end this whole thing and everything's even) $20
Bidder D: (Thinking: Dammit! Now I'm screwed! He's getting $20 for $20 and I'm getting shafted with nothing, but I still have to pay $19! Screw it! I'll take a $1 loss instead of a $19 loss!) $21
Bidder C: (Thinking: WTF?!?! He just bid $1 more than what he's getting in return and now I'm stuck paying $20 for nothing?! No way! I'll take a $2 loss instead of a $20 loss!) $22
Bidder D: (Thinking: $3 loss is better than $21 loss) $23
Bidder C: (Thinking: $4 loss is better than $22 loss) $24
[etc., etc., etc.]
It's not unheard of for the bidding to surpass $100 ($80 loss is better than a $98 loss!) before the experiment is ended due to the point having been made many bids earlier.
The context is in how people think about risk, loss, and similar factors. Consider an RFP process for a $1-million project with a major, multi-national corporation (MMC) with billions of dollars in market cap. Winning the contract for the project would be a MAJOR windfall for the winning company (WC) on the assumption that a successful project might lead to more work. But, to win the contract, the bidding companies (BC) are going to have to travel to MMC headquarters several times over the course of the next several months on their own dime. They'll also need to create prototypes and other proof-of-concept materials on their own dime. Let's say that over the first month or so of the RFP process that most BC are eliminated and only two BC remain. We'll call them BC1 and BC2.
Now that things are getting real, BC1 checks in with the group leading the RFP bid and finds out they've spent approximately $100k so far on the bid process. That's okay because their estimates suggest the project will cost $750k to complete successfully ($850k total; $150k profit). BC2 checks in with their group and finds they've also spent approximately $100k and they also estimate the project will cost $750k to complete successfully ($850k; $150k profit). BC1 and BC2 are aware that they are the last remaining companies bidding for the contract and that each very likely has similar expenses and estimated project costs.
BC1 decides to up the game a bit and tells the RFP group to setup a special one-on-one meeting with BC1 CEO and the head of the project for MMC. They want further refined prototypes and a WORKING proof-of-concept. They estimate the additional meeting/work will cost $25k, but that still has them at $125k of profit. Meanwhile, BC2 catches wind of the special meeting and works up their own special meeting. Estimated $25k expenses, but that still has them at $125k profit as well. If both companies stopped at this point, one would win
iOS didn't kill Flash. Nor did Steve Jobs. Nor did Adobe. MACROMEDIA KILLED FLASH!... because they allowed it to become what it was never intended to be.
Way back in the mid 1990s, Macromedia acquired FutureSplash -- an ANIMATION product used by Disney, FOX (for the Simpsons), and others -- and renamed it Flash. I used Flash 2 for ANIMATION and it was a great tool.
Along comes Flash 3 and the introduction of MovieClips and transparency. Transparency was pretty straightforward, but MovieClips were not. MovieClips contained an animation (and timeline) that could then be placed in the main animation timeline. So, if you had an animation of a character dancing in a MovieClip, you could add that MovieClip to the main animation timeline and make the dancing character move up, down, sideways, whatever.
The introduction of MovieClips also brought some basic programming beyond the even more basic timeline actions that previously existed (solely for the purpose of starting, stopping, etc. an animation). You could now add your (stopped) dancing character MovieClip to the main timeline, and then add a button to the main timeline and add a "Tell Target" action to tell the MovieClip to start playing. This "Tell Target" programming was VERY basic, but it was sooooooooo confusing to most Flash animators because the FAR majority of them were truly animators, not programmers. In fact, MovieClip programming was so confusing to the animators' mindset that the "macromedia.flash" user group was constantly inundated with questions about "Tell Target." The concept of targeting "_level0" or the "_parent" or such made absolutely no sense to most animators. As a regular contributor to macromedia.flash, I eventually made a small website of "Tell Target" FAQs that was quite popular at the time.
What happened after that is what eventually killed Flash. Some people are great animators. Some people are great programmers. A very rare few are great at both. The ones that were great at both and using Flash started making some of the best Flash websites around. They were getting accolades left and right and being featured everywhere Flash was talked about. Gabocorp, 2Advanced, Der Bauer, etc. were thrust into the spotlight with their ability to combine great animation with great Flash programming to make jaw-dropping Flash websites.
With these kinds of websites garnering a lot of attention, the ever-increasing demand for more/better Flash programming started. Flash 4 add variables, input fields, the first real ActionScript, and other programming-based enhancements. Read through the list of versions after Flash 3 and most include more and more and more programming enhancements. Flash 5 introduced ActionScript 1.0 and Flash 7 had ActionScript 2.0 and on and on and on... until Flash died.
Security issues? Not a problem if Flash isn't a programming platform. Resource hog? Not (as much of) a problem if Flash ins't a programming platform. Unable to run on a mobile device? It's VECTOR GRAPHICS!!! Not a problem if Flash isn't a programming platform.
The interesting part is that in the wake of Flash's death, Animate survives... as an ANIMATION platform. Want to meet Flash developers who aren't looking for work right now? They're the ones who never stopped using it for Animation. Personally, I used Flash for a LOT of programming, but I also used it for a LOT of animation. With the shift of branding from Flash to Animate, I'm happy to see the return to the core purpose of Flash 1.0: ANIMATION!
If you look at the enhancements for Animate 2015 and 2017, you'll see a lot of items related to animation and graphics and not a lot related to programming. This is the way it should be... and probably the way it always should have been. Flash as a programming platform always should have been a separate product, like Flex, so it could live/die on its own merits, or lack thereof.