In the quest to make it thinner and lighter, they will pioneer anti-gravity and artificial singularities in the forms of a zero mass object with negative thickness.
It's so thin and light that it actually makes you thinner and lighter!
I'm more concerned with them laboriously pointing out the support for Amazon EC2 NFS shares (wtf is that? an EC2 instance with NFS exports? Why wouldn't that be supported for as long as EC2 has existed?) and support for Amazon Elastic File System... which is just hosted clustering NFSv4.1.
Seriously, did this not work before? NFSv4.1 has been out for like 6 years now. I know FreeBSD moves slow, but is it really _that_ slow?
So what you're saying is that Slack's resource utilization increases linearly as you add more accounts to your Slack desktop client? But does it increase linearly as you add more accounts?
(for the sarcasm impaired, the summary is basically the same sentence repeated)
Yeah, because brutally punishing success always works out to society's benefit in the end.
If there's anything our tax code has taught us, it is that the people with means will find ways of still being people of means. You start passing laws that limit people arbitrarily, and you'll find the people that applies to will no longer be above that arbitrary limit - instead transferring that wealth to holding entities, relatives, trust funds, etc.
Also, on-paper wealth versus liquid currency. Just as Amazon's stock is up today, making Mr. Bezos worth $90B, it could just as easily have a bloodbath cutting that worth substantially. Yes, he'll still be okay in the end should that happen, but just how would you plan to enact such a statute on people that don't have that $90B sitting in a vault or checking account.
Anyone (i.e. you) who says "there outta be a law" probably never even thought about it much more than "I don't like that, so I want the government to do something about it."
Really? Asking for a source? How about "there is a finite volume to the inside of the Earth, and we know that 100% of the volume is not oil"
Any resource that has a finite volume can be exhausted if it is continually used. The only way it would not 'run out' is if we aren't using it any more, and then nobody cares.
Gee, you don't think that might be why they are using a fighter jet engine on their demonstrator hardware, do you?
Use what you have available to validate the design and concept, and create the market that gets the aerospace firms working on the better supersonic-capable engines.
Now where do you think that NASA could get their hands on some fighter jet engines...
I imagine that part of the Concorde problem was that it could only fly transatlantic, because the governmental regulatory bodies in various countries banned it from flying over populated areas, for good reason (sonic boom).
The more time a plane is in the air, the faster it pays for itself. The more of that model that are produced, the cheaper the per-unit cost. If you can only run back and forth between Heathrow and JFK twice a day, you don't need 100+ of that aircraft manufactured, and you jack up the ticket price accordingly. With ticket prices sufficiently high, there's only so much demand for that service, which further reduces the amount of aircraft needed.
Except for the VW defeat device in question being the software sensing when the vehicle was in test conditions and de-tuning the engine in order to pass the test, you are absolutely correct.
No wait, you are wrong. And that's how VW got away with it for years until an independent research effort sought to confirm the emissions rates under actual road conditions, and couldn't. In fact, they found the emissions were many times worse when on a real road then when the same car was going the same speed on a dynomometer.
Insurance companies are profit motivated. If the thing doesn't settle, they risk spending more in legal fees than the casualty settlement they are attempting to recover, and it's not worth it.
Yes, they use some resources. Nobody ever claimed they don't. The article claims that leaving them in the background uses less resources than force quit and re-launch. I don't know why that's hard to understand - it's exactly the same as putting a Windows PC into standby or hibernate instead of shutting down and rebooting.
And it's also demonstrably faster to use the app when it's "thawed" than relaunched - this is the assertion I'm making. Launching the lock app takes a good few seconds before it's available to respond to the bluetooth radio, at which point the lock stops trying in order to preserve it's own battery. In fact, when you force quit the app, you even get a notification on exit saying that you need to re-open it to resume access to locks. The app needs to be open / frozen in order to have hooks into the Bluetooth LE stack, so that when it sees the lock turn on it's radio, it can connect and exchange keys.
Really? There are some apps that take a good 10 seconds or so to become useable. It's assumed that it's not just on a 10 second timer, but actually doing things - running something on the CPU, moving information across a network, SSD I/O, etc.
Unpausing doesn't do this for the most part, and is usually rather instant on modern hardware.
My girlfriend is one of those people that habitually closes everything on her phone. She then complains when the "smart lock" on my front door won't open for her, because the app that controls it is no longer running, and can't make a Bluetooth LE connection to the lock to verify the crypto key.
Don't know how many times I've told her not to close all the apps - it's unnecessary since about iOS 7 except for badly behaved apps, and things actually work better if you don't.
Honestly though - the workplace, and particularly manufacturing and industry, is where this product makes a whole lot of sense. Do you really want people reaching for a phone or tablet (or even looking away from what they are doing) when operating an industrial press, or some other dangerous machinery? And, because this product is likely completely controlled by the company that provides it, the worker wearing it is far less likely to be distracted by non-work text messages and other banal content not related to the hazardous activity they are performing.
Google Glass for every day knuckleheads on the street just wasn't a useful thing, which is why it died. It was a solution looking for a problem that nobody had. This seems like a good use for that R&D, especially if the companies using it are seeing marked improvements in productivity and product quality, which TFA claims.
Pure Astroturf. Do you get paid by the post, or is there a quality metric involved? Or hopefully, you only get paid if nobody refutes your bullshit.
Comcast demonstrably doesn't care about the customer insofar as to give them any choices other than "how much more do you want to pay us." They care about locking the customer in, and rent-seeking their wallet empty. They don't give two shits about the customer's well-being or satisfaction, because they don't have to. That's what being a regional monopoly means. Would you have posted that AT&T cared about their customers right before they were broken up? They were a profitable enterprise too, and according to you, profits = caring about your customers that you are siphoning those profits from.
In case the first two sources weren't enough, here's another that you can't astroturf away: Comcast's customer satisfaction has been below the industry average for 16 years running. And that's in an industry that everybody dislikes. If they care so god damn much, why don't they take the feedback from these surveys that happen every year since the millennium turned, and act on them? Why are these scores basically a flat line barely over 50% Again, because they don't fucking need to. The money rolls in whether the customer is happy or not - why marginally decrease the all-important profits on something as silly as customer happiness when they aren't going anywhere?
Oh, but yeah, they care about their customers. Right. I think you misspelled "institutional investors" - that's who Comcast and their telco friends really care about making happy. And the only thing that does that is profits and increased stock value.
Exactly. By making the whole thing so confusing and weighed down with technicality that nobody would understand it, they get the vast majority of people to switch off and not care. At that point, they get to do whatever the fuck they want, and only a tiny minority will notice until it's already enacted and too late.
I ordered a water heater via Prime this year. Saved a good amount of money on the heater itself, and got the free shipping where every big box in town wanted to charge >$50 to deliver one. That one transaction payed for half a years worth of the prime membership.
Slashdot Mirror
In the quest to make it thinner and lighter, they will pioneer anti-gravity and artificial singularities in the forms of a zero mass object with negative thickness.
It's so thin and light that it actually makes you thinner and lighter!
Because there is only one way to implement facial recognition on a mobile device, and it can never be improved upon.
Being first isn't everything, no matter what fanboys of $BRAND tell you. Is Apple's implementation better? Nobody knows, outside of Apple.
I'm more concerned with them laboriously pointing out the support for Amazon EC2 NFS shares (wtf is that? an EC2 instance with NFS exports? Why wouldn't that be supported for as long as EC2 has existed?) and support for Amazon Elastic File System... which is just hosted clustering NFSv4.1.
Seriously, did this not work before? NFSv4.1 has been out for like 6 years now. I know FreeBSD moves slow, but is it really _that_ slow?
Considering that he was arrested and extradited, he just might be. That tends to put a real crimp in your week.
So what you're saying is that Slack's resource utilization increases linearly as you add more accounts to your Slack desktop client? But does it increase linearly as you add more accounts?
(for the sarcasm impaired, the summary is basically the same sentence repeated)
Yeah, because brutally punishing success always works out to society's benefit in the end.
If there's anything our tax code has taught us, it is that the people with means will find ways of still being people of means. You start passing laws that limit people arbitrarily, and you'll find the people that applies to will no longer be above that arbitrary limit - instead transferring that wealth to holding entities, relatives, trust funds, etc.
Also, on-paper wealth versus liquid currency. Just as Amazon's stock is up today, making Mr. Bezos worth $90B, it could just as easily have a bloodbath cutting that worth substantially. Yes, he'll still be okay in the end should that happen, but just how would you plan to enact such a statute on people that don't have that $90B sitting in a vault or checking account.
Anyone (i.e. you) who says "there outta be a law" probably never even thought about it much more than "I don't like that, so I want the government to do something about it."
And he (rightly) doesn't want to be the richest guy in the graveyard.
Looks like it's going according to plan.
especially startups that don't actually have a product or plan except wishes and other people's money.
drive around the circumference? That would be 11,000 miles.
No, I don't know why anyone would do that either.
Are you saying he only has a one gallon tank?
Really? Asking for a source? How about "there is a finite volume to the inside of the Earth, and we know that 100% of the volume is not oil"
Any resource that has a finite volume can be exhausted if it is continually used. The only way it would not 'run out' is if we aren't using it any more, and then nobody cares.
People probably said the same thing about researching jet propulsion.
How'd that work out for everyone?
Gee, you don't think that might be why they are using a fighter jet engine on their demonstrator hardware, do you?
Use what you have available to validate the design and concept, and create the market that gets the aerospace firms working on the better supersonic-capable engines.
Now where do you think that NASA could get their hands on some fighter jet engines...
I imagine that part of the Concorde problem was that it could only fly transatlantic, because the governmental regulatory bodies in various countries banned it from flying over populated areas, for good reason (sonic boom).
The more time a plane is in the air, the faster it pays for itself. The more of that model that are produced, the cheaper the per-unit cost. If you can only run back and forth between Heathrow and JFK twice a day, you don't need 100+ of that aircraft manufactured, and you jack up the ticket price accordingly. With ticket prices sufficiently high, there's only so much demand for that service, which further reduces the amount of aircraft needed.
Except for the VW defeat device in question being the software sensing when the vehicle was in test conditions and de-tuning the engine in order to pass the test, you are absolutely correct.
No wait, you are wrong. And that's how VW got away with it for years until an independent research effort sought to confirm the emissions rates under actual road conditions, and couldn't. In fact, they found the emissions were many times worse when on a real road then when the same car was going the same speed on a dynomometer.
How do you think they got caught?
Insurance companies are profit motivated. If the thing doesn't settle, they risk spending more in legal fees than the casualty settlement they are attempting to recover, and it's not worth it.
Yes, they use some resources. Nobody ever claimed they don't. The article claims that leaving them in the background uses less resources than force quit and re-launch. I don't know why that's hard to understand - it's exactly the same as putting a Windows PC into standby or hibernate instead of shutting down and rebooting.
And it's also demonstrably faster to use the app when it's "thawed" than relaunched - this is the assertion I'm making. Launching the lock app takes a good few seconds before it's available to respond to the bluetooth radio, at which point the lock stops trying in order to preserve it's own battery. In fact, when you force quit the app, you even get a notification on exit saying that you need to re-open it to resume access to locks. The app needs to be open / frozen in order to have hooks into the Bluetooth LE stack, so that when it sees the lock turn on it's radio, it can connect and exchange keys.
Really? There are some apps that take a good 10 seconds or so to become useable. It's assumed that it's not just on a 10 second timer, but actually doing things - running something on the CPU, moving information across a network, SSD I/O, etc.
Unpausing doesn't do this for the most part, and is usually rather instant on modern hardware.
My girlfriend is one of those people that habitually closes everything on her phone. She then complains when the "smart lock" on my front door won't open for her, because the app that controls it is no longer running, and can't make a Bluetooth LE connection to the lock to verify the crypto key.
Don't know how many times I've told her not to close all the apps - it's unnecessary since about iOS 7 except for badly behaved apps, and things actually work better if you don't.
Honestly though - the workplace, and particularly manufacturing and industry, is where this product makes a whole lot of sense. Do you really want people reaching for a phone or tablet (or even looking away from what they are doing) when operating an industrial press, or some other dangerous machinery? And, because this product is likely completely controlled by the company that provides it, the worker wearing it is far less likely to be distracted by non-work text messages and other banal content not related to the hazardous activity they are performing.
Google Glass for every day knuckleheads on the street just wasn't a useful thing, which is why it died. It was a solution looking for a problem that nobody had. This seems like a good use for that R&D, especially if the companies using it are seeing marked improvements in productivity and product quality, which TFA claims.
Pure Astroturf. Do you get paid by the post, or is there a quality metric involved? Or hopefully, you only get paid if nobody refutes your bullshit.
Comcast demonstrably doesn't care about the customer insofar as to give them any choices other than "how much more do you want to pay us." They care about locking the customer in, and rent-seeking their wallet empty. They don't give two shits about the customer's well-being or satisfaction, because they don't have to. That's what being a regional monopoly means. Would you have posted that AT&T cared about their customers right before they were broken up? They were a profitable enterprise too, and according to you, profits = caring about your customers that you are siphoning those profits from.
In case the first two sources weren't enough, here's another that you can't astroturf away: Comcast's customer satisfaction has been below the industry average for 16 years running. And that's in an industry that everybody dislikes. If they care so god damn much, why don't they take the feedback from these surveys that happen every year since the millennium turned, and act on them? Why are these scores basically a flat line barely over 50% Again, because they don't fucking need to. The money rolls in whether the customer is happy or not - why marginally decrease the all-important profits on something as silly as customer happiness when they aren't going anywhere?
Oh, but yeah, they care about their customers. Right. I think you misspelled "institutional investors" - that's who Comcast and their telco friends really care about making happy. And the only thing that does that is profits and increased stock value.
I don't trust those fuckers to get a grumpy-cat meme email to it's destination. Why would I trust them with life-critical data?
Not really communist, but definitely an oligopoly. Or legally-backed market collusion (which is illegal normally)
Exactly. By making the whole thing so confusing and weighed down with technicality that nobody would understand it, they get the vast majority of people to switch off and not care. At that point, they get to do whatever the fuck they want, and only a tiny minority will notice until it's already enacted and too late.
I ordered a water heater via Prime this year. Saved a good amount of money on the heater itself, and got the free shipping where every big box in town wanted to charge >$50 to deliver one. That one transaction payed for half a years worth of the prime membership.