"The problem is, that candidate is not going to win."
There is no way to know that.
You can't have it both ways, claiming that voting matters but your vote is such a tiny drop in the bucket the person you actually support couldn't possibly win. Either your vote matters and it is a serious thing to throw it away on someone you don't support, voting against the person you do, or it doesn't matter at all and voting is a waste of time. The only way to know the candidate you support is not going to win is to not vote for them. You can't make everyone else get that but you can stop being part of the problem and stop supporting the fallacy that it's hopeless and you should give up out of the gate by voting for the establishment with interests counter to 99.99% of us.
There are several solutions to our voting system but you can start voting for the candidate you support most right away. Spread the word and watch how other candidates magically start progressing toward being viable. As an added bonus you could even stop listening when biased media announces a victor in an undecided election BEFORE anyone votes. I for one don't appreciate people trying to manipulate me by telling me to quit and everything is hopeless while there is still a viable chance of success.
"There have been PCs constructed the way you describe, but they have never been designed as a standard... because you can't come up with one such standard that won't be wasteful."
You'd need standards for the card edge, the motherboard connection, and the case bus. The case bus itself would just need to be able to handle decent power distribution with dedicated channels to the motherboard which will need isolated wide paths supporting enough rails routed to the cards so you can eliminate external power connectors on video cards. There is nothing stopping you from having power breakouts for smaller form factor boards and/or cases that can't accommodate a full power bus or a SATA breakout. The data bus for system monitoring information could be simpler and smaller and for inexpensive devices it's all you would need along with breakouts for the heavier bits.
A lot of this tech exists in blade chassis in the enterprise segment already it just needs scaled down. I don't think you'd have trouble selling the gaming and home geek market on a new standard "Streamline" with multiple sub standards for these components. Gamers, Small business who can't afford enterprise gear, fanatic geeks, early adopters in general would pay a premium for streamline certified gear. Eventually the tech would be mature enough and costs would come down and everything would be streamline enabled.
Instead of paying a premium just for a case that didn't slice your fingers and allowed you route cables properly, you'd pay a premium for a case that integrated with your smart home. If you want LEDs in your case and on devices so be it, let them be RGB leds that you can adjust from your smart home app. Your case need not be smart enough to provide an ilo/ipmi type functionality (although it could, in an arduino/rpi world that is $20-50 tech) but it could certainly enable remote powercycle and monitoring capabilities.
Hillary will say whatever, she can always spin it into what her sponsors want later. The same with Trump.
Do not fall for the false dichotomy you are presented. The major parties want one to believe that one needs to vote for the lesser of two evils to block "the other guy" from winning. Either one's vote is too small and insignificant to matter and that is a waste of one's time or one's vote does matter and that is support you should reserve for the candidate you actually want to win.
If voting does matter then it is only true that the two factions of the ruling party are the only viable options as long as one continues to believe and vote in accord with this fallacy. It will always be true that the candidate one supports won't win if one votes for a different candidate in order to block yet another candidate. Stop doing it and stop spreading the logical fallacy that causes others to do it. One can do better than that.
"The App had more access than they needed or intended, and more than the Android equivalent."
Actually as android permissions go this one was relatively reasonable just poorly named. From my understanding it gave access to your account profile details and was just very very poorly named. They are only creating a more restrictive permission because of the lashback. Honestly, I think they should have just renamed the existing permission.
"The accusation was that the app had "full access" to google account data."
Which is false. While named something like "full account access" the issue here was poor naming not improper access. The permission only granted access to the account profile information. They did not fuck up, this is currently the permission they must request to access account details such as username and email address. Because they are a Google company Google is responding by creating an entirely new more fine grained permission to access just those two items which the app will then use.
I know it's a slashsin but reading the story reveals that "full account access" is full access to account profile information and nothing else. Since they are a division of google they are getting a new permission created for just the username and email address as it's all they need.
According to TFS "full account access" is synonymous with "full account profile access." They aren't just choosing not to use more, the priv doesn't grant more it's just poorly named.
The change they are making is to create an all new more fine grained permission for just the username and email address because they don't need the entire profile.
Oh, I've installed hundreds of motherboards and seen a lot of things but nothing like what I just described. The closest I've seen to those kind of interfaces have been on a server chassis.
The last I've seen you are still pushing cards down in slots and trying to route those usb cables to their sockets on the board. There are still wires aplenty clogging up a case.
These things have come a long way since the year 2000 but considering this is tech and that was 16 years ago... they actually aren't all that much different. The led and button connectors that interface from the case to the board are somewhat more standard than they used to be and solidified into a single connector that is keyed like old IDE and floppy links used to be but not yet secured like power connections and sometimes, if the card fits well, you don't have to screw down individual cards anymore, they clamp down. Woohoo. Oh, and it's now actually kind of a pain to find decent fans without stupid leds on them.
The hardest part of building a PC is, was, and always will be selecting components but assembly could be much easier than it is. Hell by this point not only should there be a case bus sliding your motherboard card into connects with but your case bus should have a network link and you should be able to specify an OS list resulting in the drivers to be downloaded to a small piece of memory on your board which can then be checked by the OS so every device becomes truly plug n play.
"It is a well tested legal principle you can't change existing contracts unless all parties involved agree."
And that is true of contracts between civilians. But laws and even court rulings can and do alter the enforcability, interpretation, and validity of contracts... existing contracts. You don't have to alter the contract itself to change the law in a manner that will cause a court to interpret that contract differently.
Change the interface of cards so that they are T type connectors that cards slip in. Motherboard and cards all have a metal plate at the back (not the bottom, the back) which thumb screws into the case or even simple locking tabs. Need to swap a motherboard? Lift the locking panel on the front of the case, Unscrew the two thumb screws and remove the motherboard card from the case.
What about fans, on case temp readings, lights, etc? When the motherboard slides into the case it's own connector slides into the connector for the case bus which can largely take the form of stickers with copper paths on them inside the case. Don't really need wires in your case at all.
Yes, but not as dangerous as you make it sound. The telcos are massive international corporations, they can probably afford to degrade service in Europe more than the elected officials can afford to be seen as the cause of degraded service in Europe.
Why play the all or none cord cut game when you can simply stop service the network, make even more on the saved costs, and let the service go to shit. In the meantime you can simply finger point claiming you did nothing at all you are doing the best you can under these new net neutrality rules.
Here in the US they've done away with that unlimited stuff. There are grandfathered plans out there but the minute you need even the slightest change they will use it as an excuse to take the whole thing away.
"Their is a huge amount of competition in this space in the EU, but as it stands nobody wants to implement 5G as it is not commercially viable under current laws. not sure what is so hard to understand about that."
Nothing. You just need to clarify what "commercially viable" means to people. Commercially viable doesn't mean they won't make money doing it, it just means they will make more money doing something else.
In this case it is more profitable to charge at both ends, maintain ridiculously low data caps, and refuse to upgrade infrastructure by continuing to sell the existing service than it is to upgrade infrastructure, raise or eliminates caps, and only charge the person they are providing access to. That doesn't mean they wouldn't make ridiculous profits either way, they just wouldn't make as much.
The only way competition is actually useful is when something hurts one party more than another by a margin wide enough that the gains are worth breaking from the pack. Large corporations have learned how to avoid races to the bottom that benefit consumers.
If you have 3 plumbers and 21 customers. There is a pipe fix that costs the plumber 15 minutes, requires having a vendor account which in turn requires at least $1000 worth of pending services (a term negotiated by the first plumber), but only costs $1 in parts. The consumer is caught in a vice and would have to pay anything they can come up with for the fix. The plumbers could charge $1000 for the first fix and then race to the bottom and the result might be an hour labor $55 + parts $2 providing 100% profit on the parts. The plumbers could fight to get the vendor to remove the $1000 requirement. Instead the plumbers all charge $1000 for the first fix, they do compete on pricing but only within a hundred bucks or so but make sure their price is less than $1000 soon enough. Why? Because $1,000x21 is $21,000 divided among the three plumbers that is $7000 a piece and $1000 + $57 * 20 is only $2140. The question isn't why they don't compete on price against their common interest but why even compete within $100. Actual collusion isn't needed, only the ability to math and confidence that everyone is greedy. Instead of a race to the bottom you have a race to equality, the plumbers will compete instead on sales ability and upcharges. They'll talk about loyalty or use a better tape that costs a couple dollars more. Potential new competition can also math and figure out it's probably not worth it. Even if a new player did join the game they'd see everyone else is charging $950+ and they aren't going to drop to the race to the bottom price when they could make so much more. Greed wins every time and that is why the free market doesn't benefit the consumer.
"Besides, changing a contract after it was signed is only applicable for new contracts, the existing contracts are excluded from the change"
Only if the government decides that is the case. Governments decide what the rules are regarding contracts as they are the makers and agents of contract law.
Unless they pass a provision that automatically revokes such licenses upon collusion and renders such agreements null and void. Government is not just another business. They are the makers and enforcers of contract law and can change and/or selectively enforce it at all.
Corporations can not and should not be allowed to act as terrorists strong arming governments. The minute a corporation shows up with a carrot and a stick they should be trampled immediately.
Bullshit, the telcos are making massive profits while refusing to upgrade their infrastructure. When a telco has fully updated infrastructure and isn't growing then I'll be willing to listen a bit. Currently, telcos want to provide only tiny increments in capacity a trickle at a time and are upset their already massive profits aren't growing massively enough.
Currently, the only bit of sympathy I have for telcos is that chip makers are treating 10g+ link circuitry like diamonds. They've been making the same arguments about 10g being so much more complex and expensive for over a decade now while ignoring that this problem has been solved for that long and Moore's law makes liars of them. There is absolutely no reason for 10g links not to have replaced 100mbit and 1000mbit links in consumer devices by now except for artificially high prices in the underlying chips and IP.
Have you looked at the chips for backbones in server racks?
"Well - in the states i have worked in, you weren't eligible for unemployment benefits if you were fired for cause."
They have to prove you were fired for cause which generally amounts to their word against yours. It takes money to fight an unemployment claim as well and almost no company does it. In practice you can even file when you actually quit indicating you were laid off and get unemployment. And really, you should, because you paid for unemployment insurance (arguably even the employer portion is part of your salary you don't get and therefore still paid by you). It's just your own money.
Congress extends the time of eligability but being eligable doesn't fund your account, you did that.
As for your ability to get hired somewhere else you only have to worry about having references and word of mouth. Your employer can't say anything that damages your ability to get hired somewhere else or you can sue them. Even "eligable for rehire" doesn't mean anything, the answer is almost universally no on this regardless of who ended employment or why.
Yup, the point being that most of these fears about angering previous employers are unfounded. At least at larger companies, smaller companies might well say more or not even require a supervisor getting that call to forward to HR at all.
This is a myth spread from older times before people were so successful suing companies that were hindering their ability to find new gainful employment. It's spread through both ignorance and a deliberate misleading by employers.
Yes, it is this way. In most corporate environments this is standard procedure. Unless they are mad at you the escort is normally your supervisor or what have you not security. And usually they will tell you at the end of the day or before you start your day. This way an employee has no opportunity to steal company property, sabotage systems, etc.
Things are generally very different in an environment with 20 people. When I've worked in small environments two weeks notice was never an issue and leaving was treated with dignity and discretion. Although not severance, most small businesses couldn't afford severance. When people are talking about corporations and profit machines they aren't talking about incorporated small organizations. Large organizations including publicly traded are a different animal and it isn't the same problem scaled they enjoy efficiency of scale that allows for larger cash flow and substantially greater profit and can/should be passing the benefits on to their staff. Small business on the other hand has to try to compete with those advantages and trying to do so actually just makes it even more difficult for them... which of course just gives that much more benefit to the large entities.
It's definitely the norm. Any "courtesy" a company extends to employees always has some sort of benefit to the company attached. Even what people indicated about severance above. Companies give severance packages because they have contracts saying they must, because there are terms attached like agreements not to file unemployment (which can cost them much more than you make when rates go up for the company) and gag requirements.
Slashdot Mirror
Well google is creating the new permission for them so presumably google could rename the existing permission.
"The problem is, that candidate is not going to win."
There is no way to know that.
You can't have it both ways, claiming that voting matters but your vote is such a tiny drop in the bucket the person you actually support couldn't possibly win. Either your vote matters and it is a serious thing to throw it away on someone you don't support, voting against the person you do, or it doesn't matter at all and voting is a waste of time. The only way to know the candidate you support is not going to win is to not vote for them. You can't make everyone else get that but you can stop being part of the problem and stop supporting the fallacy that it's hopeless and you should give up out of the gate by voting for the establishment with interests counter to 99.99% of us.
There are several solutions to our voting system but you can start voting for the candidate you support most right away. Spread the word and watch how other candidates magically start progressing toward being viable. As an added bonus you could even stop listening when biased media announces a victor in an undecided election BEFORE anyone votes. I for one don't appreciate people trying to manipulate me by telling me to quit and everything is hopeless while there is still a viable chance of success.
"There have been PCs constructed the way you describe, but they have never been designed as a standard... because you can't come up with one such standard that won't be wasteful."
You'd need standards for the card edge, the motherboard connection, and the case bus. The case bus itself would just need to be able to handle decent power distribution with dedicated channels to the motherboard which will need isolated wide paths supporting enough rails routed to the cards so you can eliminate external power connectors on video cards. There is nothing stopping you from having power breakouts for smaller form factor boards and/or cases that can't accommodate a full power bus or a SATA breakout. The data bus for system monitoring information could be simpler and smaller and for inexpensive devices it's all you would need along with breakouts for the heavier bits.
A lot of this tech exists in blade chassis in the enterprise segment already it just needs scaled down. I don't think you'd have trouble selling the gaming and home geek market on a new standard "Streamline" with multiple sub standards for these components. Gamers, Small business who can't afford enterprise gear, fanatic geeks, early adopters in general would pay a premium for streamline certified gear. Eventually the tech would be mature enough and costs would come down and everything would be streamline enabled.
Instead of paying a premium just for a case that didn't slice your fingers and allowed you route cables properly, you'd pay a premium for a case that integrated with your smart home. If you want LEDs in your case and on devices so be it, let them be RGB leds that you can adjust from your smart home app. Your case need not be smart enough to provide an ilo/ipmi type functionality (although it could, in an arduino/rpi world that is $20-50 tech) but it could certainly enable remote powercycle and monitoring capabilities.
Hillary will say whatever, she can always spin it into what her sponsors want later. The same with Trump.
Do not fall for the false dichotomy you are presented. The major parties want one to believe that one needs to vote for the lesser of two evils to block "the other guy" from winning. Either one's vote is too small and insignificant to matter and that is a waste of one's time or one's vote does matter and that is support you should reserve for the candidate you actually want to win.
If voting does matter then it is only true that the two factions of the ruling party are the only viable options as long as one continues to believe and vote in accord with this fallacy. It will always be true that the candidate one supports won't win if one votes for a different candidate in order to block yet another candidate. Stop doing it and stop spreading the logical fallacy that causes others to do it. One can do better than that.
Does it matter? Even if something has valid reason for access there is nothing that guarantees it isn't also abusing the access.
"The App had more access than they needed or intended, and more than the Android equivalent."
Actually as android permissions go this one was relatively reasonable just poorly named. From my understanding it gave access to your account profile details and was just very very poorly named. They are only creating a more restrictive permission because of the lashback. Honestly, I think they should have just renamed the existing permission.
"The accusation was that the app had "full access" to google account data."
Which is false. While named something like "full account access" the issue here was poor naming not improper access. The permission only granted access to the account profile information. They did not fuck up, this is currently the permission they must request to access account details such as username and email address. Because they are a Google company Google is responding by creating an entirely new more fine grained permission to access just those two items which the app will then use.
I know it's a slashsin but reading the story reveals that "full account access" is full access to account profile information and nothing else. Since they are a division of google they are getting a new permission created for just the username and email address as it's all they need.
According to TFS "full account access" is synonymous with "full account profile access." They aren't just choosing not to use more, the priv doesn't grant more it's just poorly named.
The change they are making is to create an all new more fine grained permission for just the username and email address because they don't need the entire profile.
Google is bad about fine grained permissions.
If standardized it would ultimate be as cheap as the current (good enough for you but not everyone) solution.
Oh, I've installed hundreds of motherboards and seen a lot of things but nothing like what I just described. The closest I've seen to those kind of interfaces have been on a server chassis.
The last I've seen you are still pushing cards down in slots and trying to route those usb cables to their sockets on the board. There are still wires aplenty clogging up a case.
These things have come a long way since the year 2000 but considering this is tech and that was 16 years ago... they actually aren't all that much different. The led and button connectors that interface from the case to the board are somewhat more standard than they used to be and solidified into a single connector that is keyed like old IDE and floppy links used to be but not yet secured like power connections and sometimes, if the card fits well, you don't have to screw down individual cards anymore, they clamp down. Woohoo. Oh, and it's now actually kind of a pain to find decent fans without stupid leds on them.
The hardest part of building a PC is, was, and always will be selecting components but assembly could be much easier than it is. Hell by this point not only should there be a case bus sliding your motherboard card into connects with but your case bus should have a network link and you should be able to specify an OS list resulting in the drivers to be downloaded to a small piece of memory on your board which can then be checked by the OS so every device becomes truly plug n play.
"It is a well tested legal principle you can't change existing contracts unless all parties involved agree."
And that is true of contracts between civilians. But laws and even court rulings can and do alter the enforcability, interpretation, and validity of contracts... existing contracts. You don't have to alter the contract itself to change the law in a manner that will cause a court to interpret that contract differently.
Change the interface of cards so that they are T type connectors that cards slip in. Motherboard and cards all have a metal plate at the back (not the bottom, the back) which thumb screws into the case or even simple locking tabs. Need to swap a motherboard? Lift the locking panel on the front of the case, Unscrew the two thumb screws and remove the motherboard card from the case.
What about fans, on case temp readings, lights, etc? When the motherboard slides into the case it's own connector slides into the connector for the case bus which can largely take the form of stickers with copper paths on them inside the case. Don't really need wires in your case at all.
Next problem?
Yes, but not as dangerous as you make it sound. The telcos are massive international corporations, they can probably afford to degrade service in Europe more than the elected officials can afford to be seen as the cause of degraded service in Europe.
Why play the all or none cord cut game when you can simply stop service the network, make even more on the saved costs, and let the service go to shit. In the meantime you can simply finger point claiming you did nothing at all you are doing the best you can under these new net neutrality rules.
Here in the US they've done away with that unlimited stuff. There are grandfathered plans out there but the minute you need even the slightest change they will use it as an excuse to take the whole thing away.
True enough but with net neutrality broken there are no legal risks deliberately degrading service. That is what net neutrality is about.
"Their is a huge amount of competition in this space in the EU, but as it stands nobody wants to implement 5G as it is not commercially viable under current laws. not sure what is so hard to understand about that."
Nothing. You just need to clarify what "commercially viable" means to people. Commercially viable doesn't mean they won't make money doing it, it just means they will make more money doing something else.
In this case it is more profitable to charge at both ends, maintain ridiculously low data caps, and refuse to upgrade infrastructure by continuing to sell the existing service than it is to upgrade infrastructure, raise or eliminates caps, and only charge the person they are providing access to. That doesn't mean they wouldn't make ridiculous profits either way, they just wouldn't make as much.
The only way competition is actually useful is when something hurts one party more than another by a margin wide enough that the gains are worth breaking from the pack. Large corporations have learned how to avoid races to the bottom that benefit consumers.
If you have 3 plumbers and 21 customers. There is a pipe fix that costs the plumber 15 minutes, requires having a vendor account which in turn requires at least $1000 worth of pending services (a term negotiated by the first plumber), but only costs $1 in parts. The consumer is caught in a vice and would have to pay anything they can come up with for the fix. The plumbers could charge $1000 for the first fix and then race to the bottom and the result might be an hour labor $55 + parts $2 providing 100% profit on the parts. The plumbers could fight to get the vendor to remove the $1000 requirement. Instead the plumbers all charge $1000 for the first fix, they do compete on pricing but only within a hundred bucks or so but make sure their price is less than $1000 soon enough. Why? Because $1,000x21 is $21,000 divided among the three plumbers that is $7000 a piece and $1000 + $57 * 20 is only $2140. The question isn't why they don't compete on price against their common interest but why even compete within $100. Actual collusion isn't needed, only the ability to math and confidence that everyone is greedy. Instead of a race to the bottom you have a race to equality, the plumbers will compete instead on sales ability and upcharges. They'll talk about loyalty or use a better tape that costs a couple dollars more. Potential new competition can also math and figure out it's probably not worth it. Even if a new player did join the game they'd see everyone else is charging $950+ and they aren't going to drop to the race to the bottom price when they could make so much more. Greed wins every time and that is why the free market doesn't benefit the consumer.
"Besides, changing a contract after it was signed is only applicable for new contracts, the existing contracts are excluded from the change"
Only if the government decides that is the case. Governments decide what the rules are regarding contracts as they are the makers and agents of contract law.
Unless they pass a provision that automatically revokes such licenses upon collusion and renders such agreements null and void. Government is not just another business. They are the makers and enforcers of contract law and can change and/or selectively enforce it at all.
Corporations can not and should not be allowed to act as terrorists strong arming governments. The minute a corporation shows up with a carrot and a stick they should be trampled immediately.
Bullshit, the telcos are making massive profits while refusing to upgrade their infrastructure. When a telco has fully updated infrastructure and isn't growing then I'll be willing to listen a bit. Currently, telcos want to provide only tiny increments in capacity a trickle at a time and are upset their already massive profits aren't growing massively enough.
Currently, the only bit of sympathy I have for telcos is that chip makers are treating 10g+ link circuitry like diamonds. They've been making the same arguments about 10g being so much more complex and expensive for over a decade now while ignoring that this problem has been solved for that long and Moore's law makes liars of them. There is absolutely no reason for 10g links not to have replaced 100mbit and 1000mbit links in consumer devices by now except for artificially high prices in the underlying chips and IP.
Have you looked at the chips for backbones in server racks?
Their service has already begun to suck.
They are charging more while providing less than a year ago, two years ago, etc.
"Well - in the states i have worked in, you weren't eligible for unemployment benefits if you were fired for cause."
They have to prove you were fired for cause which generally amounts to their word against yours. It takes money to fight an unemployment claim as well and almost no company does it. In practice you can even file when you actually quit indicating you were laid off and get unemployment. And really, you should, because you paid for unemployment insurance (arguably even the employer portion is part of your salary you don't get and therefore still paid by you). It's just your own money.
Congress extends the time of eligability but being eligable doesn't fund your account, you did that.
As for your ability to get hired somewhere else you only have to worry about having references and word of mouth. Your employer can't say anything that damages your ability to get hired somewhere else or you can sue them. Even "eligable for rehire" doesn't mean anything, the answer is almost universally no on this regardless of who ended employment or why.
http://employmentlaw101.blogspot.com/2011/03/what-can-my-former-emploe-say-about-me.html
Yup, the point being that most of these fears about angering previous employers are unfounded. At least at larger companies, smaller companies might well say more or not even require a supervisor getting that call to forward to HR at all.
This is a myth spread from older times before people were so successful suing companies that were hindering their ability to find new gainful employment. It's spread through both ignorance and a deliberate misleading by employers.
Yes, it is this way. In most corporate environments this is standard procedure. Unless they are mad at you the escort is normally your supervisor or what have you not security. And usually they will tell you at the end of the day or before you start your day. This way an employee has no opportunity to steal company property, sabotage systems, etc.
Things are generally very different in an environment with 20 people. When I've worked in small environments two weeks notice was never an issue and leaving was treated with dignity and discretion. Although not severance, most small businesses couldn't afford severance. When people are talking about corporations and profit machines they aren't talking about incorporated small organizations. Large organizations including publicly traded are a different animal and it isn't the same problem scaled they enjoy efficiency of scale that allows for larger cash flow and substantially greater profit and can/should be passing the benefits on to their staff. Small business on the other hand has to try to compete with those advantages and trying to do so actually just makes it even more difficult for them... which of course just gives that much more benefit to the large entities.
It's definitely the norm. Any "courtesy" a company extends to employees always has some sort of benefit to the company attached. Even what people indicated about severance above. Companies give severance packages because they have contracts saying they must, because there are terms attached like agreements not to file unemployment (which can cost them much more than you make when rates go up for the company) and gag requirements.