Very true, but 1) that is up to China and I haven't heard anything about them tackling the problem at the source and 2) trapping it coming out of the river would do nothing about the plastic already in the ocean.
How many aircraft have an AOA sensor with no redundancy, and software that will automatically force the nose down if the sensor incorrectly reads a stall condition? If it's most of them, then maybe this was just bad luck. But I suspect it isn't.
There are some differences. For example, there is no reasonable way to secure a road against bags of nails without making it useless. The same is not true of computer systems. Second, you have to actually be at the road to sabotage it. Anyone can attack an internet-connected computer from anywhere in the world.
I already hit my monthly data cap sometimes. I assume this would use a great deal more data than normal gaming since usually the video is all local. So that would make it an expensive proposition for me.
I think either you're mistaken, or I'm misunderstanding you. I believe companies serving their customers in Europe generally choose data centers in Europe, not the US. Similarly for Asia. In addition, there are now serious legal issues with sending EU users' data outside the EU. You seem to be arguing that these companies mostly want to use data centers in the US for various reasons, and I don't think this is correct.
What I know for certain is that the big cloud providers do in fact have data centers all over the world. If everyone preferred US data centers, why would they go to all that expense and trouble?
The cost saving that was to allow the USA to out bid any nations domestic service for cloud support.... That all changed withe EU laws, EU censorship, EU nations tax rates, the censorship demands of a Communist gov in China.
Citation needed. It seems much more likely to me that customers want a data center that's relatively close rather than halfway around the world, for performance reasons. Besides which about half your cost saving factors probably aren't a cost saving compared to other developed economies anyway.
We're already seeing people being denied financial services like Paypal, Patreon, and even bank accounts simply because they speak their opinions in public.
Meaning specific companies have decided not to do business with a specific customer, or the government has decided that a person is not allowed to have a bank account? Because those are very different things.
I don't understand why people insist that the way of the future is to fork over a few percent of your income to credit card companies.
The merchant pays that fee, not you. Either they pass it on to all their customers in pricing or eat it, so whether you use cash or card makes no difference to how much you pay.
I assume by "your income" you mean the income of the buyer, not the income of the merchant. Obviously there are good reasons to accept credit and debit cards as a merchant.
I thought he was talking about cell phones. But thanks so much for your kind response and giving others the benefit of the doubt. You're really elevating the discourse./s in case you can't figure that out.
It's claimed this process requires a "trickle" of electricity. I don't think that's an SI unit so who knows really but it seems this hinges on how much power it uses. If it's a lot, then yeah better to just use renewable power to displace coal. But if it is very little, it could be worthwhile, especially if it produces other useful byproducts. It sounds like something worth researching, as we'll most likely need lots of different solutions working together.
What are the courts to do? They have to rule based on the law, not what they think the law ought to be. If it's a bad law then criticism should be directed at the legislature, not at the courts. I'm not saying there is no room for interpretation of any laws, but if a lawsuit is brought to the court, and there appears to be enough evidence to indicate the plaintiff could prevail, it's appropriate and necessary for the court to take the case.
Besides the point about where the population increase is happening, the rate of increase has also stopped increasing and is now or will soon be going down. Meaning the population is still increasing but at a slower and slower rate, and the population is not expected to double from where it is now.
Between 9am and 5pm, really? That's when college students are up and around campus anyway (OK not all of them by 9 but you get the idea). This service might actually see some use if it operated between 7pm and 3am. Why only run a robot during the day? Is it going back to home base where a tech checks on it regularly or something?
Also from the story:
Matt Camino, Director of e-Commerce at University of the Pacific, remarked, "This innovative technology from PepsiCo is enhancing campus life for our students, staff, and faculty alike, who have embraced this new way of snacking from PepsiCo."
Does he have a job lined up with Pepsi or something?
Slashdot Mirror
I honestly can't tell if this is parody or serious. I suspect serious.
Very true, but 1) that is up to China and I haven't heard anything about them tackling the problem at the source and 2) trapping it coming out of the river would do nothing about the plastic already in the ocean.
How many aircraft have an AOA sensor with no redundancy, and software that will automatically force the nose down if the sensor incorrectly reads a stall condition? If it's most of them, then maybe this was just bad luck. But I suspect it isn't.
There are some differences. For example, there is no reasonable way to secure a road against bags of nails without making it useless. The same is not true of computer systems. Second, you have to actually be at the road to sabotage it. Anyone can attack an internet-connected computer from anywhere in the world.
I already hit my monthly data cap sometimes. I assume this would use a great deal more data than normal gaming since usually the video is all local. So that would make it an expensive proposition for me.
I think either you're mistaken, or I'm misunderstanding you. I believe companies serving their customers in Europe generally choose data centers in Europe, not the US. Similarly for Asia. In addition, there are now serious legal issues with sending EU users' data outside the EU. You seem to be arguing that these companies mostly want to use data centers in the US for various reasons, and I don't think this is correct.
What I know for certain is that the big cloud providers do in fact have data centers all over the world. If everyone preferred US data centers, why would they go to all that expense and trouble?
Hosting in the USA under a US brand has to offer something over services offered in a Germany, France, Japan...
Why?
Yeah there are a few businesses with a lower cash price, but that's pretty unusual in my experience.
The cost saving that was to allow the USA to out bid any nations domestic service for cloud support....
That all changed withe EU laws, EU censorship, EU nations tax rates, the censorship demands of a Communist gov in China.
Citation needed. It seems much more likely to me that customers want a data center that's relatively close rather than halfway around the world, for performance reasons. Besides which about half your cost saving factors probably aren't a cost saving compared to other developed economies anyway.
Every cloud product they push is a total piece of unusable **** (sharepoint, onedrive, skype for business, etc..)
Isn't this mainly talking about Azure?
We're already seeing people being denied financial services like Paypal, Patreon, and even bank accounts simply because they speak their opinions in public.
Meaning specific companies have decided not to do business with a specific customer, or the government has decided that a person is not allowed to have a bank account? Because those are very different things.
I don't understand why people insist that the way of the future is to fork over a few percent of your income to credit card companies.
The merchant pays that fee, not you. Either they pass it on to all their customers in pricing or eat it, so whether you use cash or card makes no difference to how much you pay.
I assume by "your income" you mean the income of the buyer, not the income of the merchant. Obviously there are good reasons to accept credit and debit cards as a merchant.
I thought he was talking about cell phones. But thanks so much for your kind response and giving others the benefit of the doubt. You're really elevating the discourse. /s in case you can't figure that out.
I don't know who's right, but this is talking about fixed broadband, so phone technologies are a different topic.
It's claimed this process requires a "trickle" of electricity. I don't think that's an SI unit so who knows really but it seems this hinges on how much power it uses. If it's a lot, then yeah better to just use renewable power to displace coal. But if it is very little, it could be worthwhile, especially if it produces other useful byproducts. It sounds like something worth researching, as we'll most likely need lots of different solutions working together.
You needn't wait. Look in the acknowledgments section.
https://www.nature.com/article...
Because just using the energy doesn't remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
That's the meaning of the phrase, not the origin.
The statutory copyright infringement penalty is per work infringed, not per instance of infringement.
and your 1980s technology metal cans
Here is an example that shows the difference between modern cars and 1980s tech: http://www.thedrive.com/news/5...
I don't think it's a business' duty to inform the customer that they could get a possible substitute good elsewhere for cheaper.
What are the courts to do? They have to rule based on the law, not what they think the law ought to be. If it's a bad law then criticism should be directed at the legislature, not at the courts. I'm not saying there is no room for interpretation of any laws, but if a lawsuit is brought to the court, and there appears to be enough evidence to indicate the plaintiff could prevail, it's appropriate and necessary for the court to take the case.
Many people have been wondering when this would happen since California courts are notoriously friendly to ADA complaints and lawsuits.
notorious: famous or well known, typically for some bad quality or deed.
I wonder if the person who wrote that meant "famously friendly" or was editorializing about how receptive courts ought to be toward ADA suits.
Besides the point about where the population increase is happening, the rate of increase has also stopped increasing and is now or will soon be going down. Meaning the population is still increasing but at a slower and slower rate, and the population is not expected to double from where it is now.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog...
Between 9am and 5pm, really? That's when college students are up and around campus anyway (OK not all of them by 9 but you get the idea). This service might actually see some use if it operated between 7pm and 3am. Why only run a robot during the day? Is it going back to home base where a tech checks on it regularly or something?
Also from the story:
Matt Camino, Director of e-Commerce at University of the Pacific, remarked, "This innovative technology from PepsiCo is enhancing campus life for our students, staff, and faculty alike, who have embraced this new way of snacking from PepsiCo."
Does he have a job lined up with Pepsi or something?