That is such a naive post, I don't know where to begin. I guess I'll bypass the "government doesn't do anything well" BS (firefighters, US Mail, EMS services, public water/sewer systems, uncountable other examples prove you wrong)... But, apparently, every industrialized country other than the USA either has free healthcare or a hybrid system like Australia with a combination of free care plus private.
Let's move on to this mythical health "market" you mention. Markets require competition to work. Most areas only have one or two hospitals within the geographic region which can provide most health care services. That's not a free market... it's a monopoly or oligopoly. Monopolies and Oligopolies require government oversight because they tend to abuse their power. Granted, the Dentistry market is far more competitive than say, thoracic surgery.
Still, Insurance isn't a market either. It's also an oligopoly situation where you have to have one of the major carriers to have health providers ACCEPT the coverage you have -- and picking an insurance carrier may give you perks with one hospital or other health care provider, but none with another, so this also limits your market choices. Health care providers are not required to accept your insurance.
So, let's talk about pricing - you won't find it listed most places. It's complex... it's deceitful - intentionally. If you have no insurance, you have one price. If you have insurance, it's another price. Then, when billed, you pay a different amount and the insurance company pays the rest -- but not actually. You see, the insurance company negotiates the prices. Say you have a bill for $100K. You pay $5K, the insurance company pays $45K, and the rest just goes unpaid, yet considered to be paid in full. Another individual who has no insurance gets the bill for the full amount - OR if the physician knows in advance you have no insurance will sometimes negotiate a different price - sometimes much lower than what they'd have gotten from the insurance company.
Doctors HATE the insurance companies. They have to hire lots of staff for medical coding to report correctly to insurance companies, fight with them over the billing, and often get paid late -if at all. Doctors also have high malpractice insurance bills and high medical school loan bills. Many other countries don't have these issues -- they even send their doctors to medical school for next to nothing - imagine that! It drives the cost of being a doctor down, increases supply of doctors and drives the costs of medical care down along with it.
The USA medical system is a mess. I'm not a doctor myself, but I have many family and friends in the medical field. They would LOVE a single payer system to simplify everything. They could have less staff because there's no need to deal with multiple insurance companies, less confusion on pricing, and more customers as everyone is covered. Government health insurance doesn't have to be government run healthcare - just insurance. Why have thousands of companies complicating everything when one agency could give you insurance right out of your paycheck with your taxes (just like a company benefit would), and you're insured everywhere for everything except cosmetic surgeries beyond dental. But, I digress.
I'm not sure what dental plans you're concerned about. Most don't cover things like crowns and Hollywood veneers. Most cover regular checkups and fillings - maybe braces for kids if you pay extra. That's not a huge burden on the USA economy... not with 15 Trillion in debt - mostly spent on the military.
The trouble with all these different metrics is that it really comes down to "How much extra will I pay if I get the gas guzzler that allows me to comfortably use the vehicle for its intended purpose over a more fuel efficient vehicle."
MPG doesn't tell the whole story... even difference in MPG doesn't - even a percent difference doesn't. One needs to know whether another vehicle could perform the necessary tasks, and if so, if the total cost of ownership is higher for one than the other - sale price, gas, maintenance costs, etc.... and to know the monthly gas, that would depend on driving habits.
For your vehicle which currently averages 17 MPG, you are correct that an average minivan from 2014 would get a combined 20 MPG to 24 MPG depending on the make/model. So, a minivan would be between 3 and 7 mpg better. That's between 18% and 41% improvement over your vehicle. Granted, for your purposes and income level, that's probably not a big deal. For someone commuting hours a day, maybe that percentage improvement would matter - maybe not.
I think it's far too simplistic to compare MPG. My father has a Jeep - it's a gas guzzler... but, he uses it mostly for long family trips and puts a carrier on top and/or hauls stuff behind, so it's economical in that it fits more stuff and people - otherwise, we'd be using 2 or 3 cars that each got better MPG individually, but not if we're using all 2 or 3 rather than 1 Jeep.
I am right there with ya, brother. I have a flip phone. My tablet was my way of testing out this mobile nonsense. Eh, it's a cheap toy that has worked out rather well for me, though.
The problem with mobiles is they have to flash the OS onto the device and rather than a standard x64 chip, there's bloody dozens of processors and configurations to support. Basically, it's the whole embedded OS market that's the issue. Give it another decade when they've settled on some standard architectures and storage media for the OS and maybe - maybe they'll work like your Ubuntu setup. There are already variations on vanilla Android out there and even FirefoxOS and others. It's still a new market. People will figure out they want control over their devices rather than buying new ones every couple years and just taking whatever setup comes with them.
Man, those RAZRs were awesome. I'm actually looking for something similar now for my father who is just now learning to text - he has a flip phone now and a slide-out keyboard would be best. It's getting more difficult to find one that doesn't require a data plan. Verizon charges for data based on the type of phone - doesn't matter if you actually intend to use the data or not:-/
Ah. No worries. In your defense, Google has not been very good about advertising this unique aspect of the Nexus line of products. Other than Apple, it's not exactly the norm for how devices are updated either. Still, it's unique in that, apparently, Google is pushing some of the support to the hardware manufacturers instead of handling it themselves (though I could be mistaken). I find this disheartening as it's Google's flagship name and I believe Google should handle any issues unless there's a hardware malfunction rather than a software glitch - possibly caused by Google's update.
Basically, Google chooses a specific manufacturer and works with them to develop a model that has its requirements, labels the product a "Nexus" , then supports the OS directly. They even sell Nexus items straight from Google rather than through a carrier. Nexus phones can typically switch carriers as long as the phone supports the proper tech and frequencies - same for the tablets. My Nexus 7 is made by ASUS, but I knew buying it that I'd be supported by Google - which is why I got it instead of a similar ASUS tablet with a standard USB port (Nexus products are notorious for not having expansion ports - Google thinks you should use them and the cloud for everything). I'd rather have the assurance that my hardware will be supported by the latest Android (so many manufacturers sell you a device, then don't bother updating it) than to have a few extra features.
I could be wrong, but last I checked, Nexus 5 had the proper tech to run on Verizon's network, but Verizon won't approve it - I suspect because the don't like that it's not locked down. They already hate that the iPhone doesn't have their bloatware and artificial restrictions.
But, yeah, if you see the name Nexus, that's Google's flagship product line and they'll update it first and directly while all other Android devices will take you months to get an update - if ever.
Not sure why you're confused. The post clearly begins with "The whole point of the Nexus branded devices." Yes, this is true for Nexus branded hardware. It's Google's Android OS with no carrier bloatware. The updates come straight from Google. I own a Nexus 7 2013. I've updated many times - comes straight from Google.
Here's the link on Google's support site to confirm it: Click on the "Nexus Devices" to expand to see the below text.
Nexus 4, Nexus 5, Nexus 6, Nexus 7, Nexus 9, and Nexus 10 devices receive the latest version of Android directly from Google. Once an update is available, it can take up to two weeks for it to reach your device. Based on your carrier, it may take longer than two weeks after release to get an update.
Nexus devices may not receive the latest version of Android if they fall outside of the update window, which is usually around 18 months after a device has been released.
No, the gp post is right. Moore's law can't break physical laws.
10 nm means the pathways are about 40 silicon atoms wide. 7 nm is 30 silicon atoms wide, but they're planning to move to GaAs or another III IV semiconductor, and those atoms are larger than Si, so even fewer atoms across at that width. Another shrink to 5 nm is about 20 wide.
I don't think we'll go much smaller than that. The smaller you go, the more quantum effects interfere with the electrical properties of the materials. Also, heat means movement, and those chips get really hot. Go too small, and with enough heat, atoms will move out of alignment.
No worries, though. Chips are presently mostly 2D which means a lot of space is taken up by connections between components - like power and clock pulses. 3D opens a doorway for alternative smaller structures and better cooling techniques... maybe liquid cooling between chip components on nano pipes.
Intriguing suggestion, but perhaps based on a false premise that "data, programs and operating system components are equally vulnerable to writes by viruses." That's most certainly not the case even on a Windows platform. System files and folders usually require an admin to modify, and drivers and other OS components typically must be signed drivers to update. On "trusted computing platforms", there's even more security on what can even boot on the machine. A virus should only have privileges based upon the user that allowed the infection (who should not be admin or root for daily tasks) or an elevation if it found a flaw to escalate privileges. This is part of why OS X and Linux rarely have viruses, but Android and Windows with their lax security have more than their fair share. (And I say this even though I have many Windows machines along with a Nexus 7 running Android).
A better solution would be for XP to have had better security levels (User/Power User/ Admin were great as a start, but EVERYONE had to be an admin just to add a printer, sync their phone, random stupid task, etc.) Windows 7 and 8 are much better about this... and even an Admin isn't really full Admin - still has popups to verify and you must take ownership of some files in order to modify them, etc. A better question would be - how many viruses would have been prevented if people logged in as USERS instead of Admins for their everyday tasks?
I have this fancy Read Only Compact Disk with Linux on it... and another with a version of Windows. I also have them on bootable USB flash drives. One even has a persistent install - so there's the compressed image plus changes and other installed software on another area of the drive. They're basically what I boot into when I think a system is infected to try to repair/clean them with various antivirus tools and system cleaners. Your proposal is not without merit - as obviously I use these read-only or difficult-to-modify entire OSes to clean such infections.
I'm just not sure what issue your proposal would resolve, and how you'd expect to implement it. It's not a bad idea in principle, but I'm not sure how you'd pick and choose which bits to be read-only and which to be re-writable.... and I'm not sure why a virus couldn't simply modify the code to ignore your read-only memory and point to it's virus-ridden duplicates instead?
Some viruses infect boot loaders, so you could write a BIOS/EUFI that uses "trusted computing" and point a windows startup to a ROM.. maybe even one with crypto keys that will allow the next 10 or 20 updates of various windows files (signed/hashed kernels, etc) to load on startup and nothing else. The more you make read-only, the more you obsolete your system. You might even be baking bugs into the system that can't be removed through updates! As for flash memory, I know of viruses that have infected the flash memory on ethernet cards and sound cards. I don't know if you want to have parts of the OS in imbedded chips that could be tampered with or become permanently infected with the wrong virus.
Even if you could somehow protect the primary OS from corruption through this method (unlikely - it's more likely to freeze bugs in place for future exploits), you'd still be open to running viruses - even if the virus is wiped by a simple reboot. Some viruses only take 1 run to do their damage. One virus I know simply scanned the system for media files and deleted any.jpg,.jpeg,.mp3 files. It could run in userland as a script from double clicking on a malformed file attachment (like a pdf). Once it runs, it's damage is done. Only a file restore utility or a backup could undo it. Others run, but infect programs rather than the OS. So, MS Outlook gets infected - virus spams your contacts, they get infected, and so on. There's just too many kinds of viruses and worms to protect against them all by this method.
I think maybe a system restore, a virus scanner, or mayb
I think the assertion is (and I'm not a lawyer, etc) that a defendant cannot suppress the evidence which was possibly obtained illegally if the defendant doesn't have standing to contest the search. If he says they're his servers, then he can contest how the servers were searched. If he says they are not his servers, then he has no standing and cannot prevent the evidence found on the servers from being used against him at trial.
Seems odd to me, though. I would think any improperly obtained evidence should be contestable. For instance, if his buddy's statement that he was behind Silk Road was coerced, that should be contestable. I'd like to hear a lawyer's opinion on the subject.
I'm sure there's plenty of loopholes for the prosecution with multiple 3 letter agencies involved as well as multiple nationalities. There's probably a clause that lets them do whatever they want if they suspect terrorist activity on/through Silk Road, too.
I hear the ending has The Others win, all the main characters die -- and the white walkers reanimate Joffrey's corpse so he can rule as the Litch King of Westeros!
Diskworld books averaged less than 300 pages each (I'm too lazy to do the math, so I took a random sample. Many were in the mid to low 200s, but more were just at or slightly above 300, so I think 300 is a generous guess).
RR Martin's averaged about 900 pages so far. His latest is his biggest yet, so if you include how much is written so far plus the side novellas he's written, I'd say he's at least on par.
Now RR Martin: 900*5 books = 4500 pages + 140+160 + 832 (novellas and short stories) = 5632 plus 1000 or so pages already written on book 6 and 7 = about 6600 pages plus, it's not like he hasn't done other non-"Game of Thrones" work in the meantime. He's also doing consulting work for the HBO series as well.
RR gets a lot of flack for taking time between releases, but his books are so thick and his plot lines and characters are so numerous, it's a wonder he publishes at all. Many publishers won't print a book that's nearly 1000 pages - the'll send it back for editing or force the author to split it into multiple volumes. RR has trouble deciding where to end and begin books b/c to him, it's all one big story and he doesn't want to leave the reader waiting for years hanging on a plotline.... but it happens anyway. hahaha
The Dune series is a definite case of "the search for more money," but RR Martin's work is very different. You can tell when a writer is out of ideas or throws something together with a new book. With the Dune series, it's especially obvious when they change authors or when characters and plot lines don't overlap between books.
RR was a well established writer long before Game of Thrones, and from how these books are written -- especially how they've progressed -- He's got an ending in mind and multiple plot arcs and story lines to complete - there's just too much to fit into a short book. His books are easily twice as thick as a normal novel. He considers this to be his masterpiece, so he's going to do it the way he wants it done, then only return to it in largely independent novellas. He spoke about how he progresses. His books are between 700 and 1100 pages each. He starts from one character's perspective, then shifts perspectives to another on another plot line, then decides what he thought of as a minor character deserves their own background story and side story... and down the rabbit hole he goes. 600 pages later and he hasn't finished his original train of thought from when he sat down -- and now he has even MORE stories to tie up because he went off on a tangent. This is why he already has an ending in mind - he thought of it at least a book or two ago and all this is tying up loose ends to get there, yet he keeps inventing new characters and back-stories to weave new webs.
He has a hard time deciding where to just STOP a book and publish already and then push his remaining ideas down the road to the next book.
Having characters on multiple continents and so many locations, plot lines, and characters... I'll honestly be surprised if he really only has 2 books left in the series. He started out thinking he'd only have 3 books... now it's up to 7. I'm betting there will be an 8th. He just can't help himself.
I do wonder if this is just how his mind works... like if you sat down to talk with the man if he'd change subjects 10 times and fail to express his thoughts fully on the original topic... which he'll try to get back to you on later... much later.
Exactly. I have a Nexus 7 2013 tablet. Samsung has some very tempting products, but I prefer to have Google's flagship products that get the longest support and the fastest updates.
Apple has the clout to fight the carriers on crapware, bloatware, and lock-in. I hope Google in conjunction with hardware manufacturers get the same leverage soon.
'Til then, buy what you like, but know that if it's not supported directly by Google, your support may be lacking.
No. It isn't. Seriously. PC/Laptop CPUs are all either x86 or i64 (mostly i64) compatible and standardized. The various modified ARM versions in mobiles are not. ARM tech is licensed and various core manufacturers make their own changes - but also, there are ARM4, ARM5, ARM6, ARM7, and ARM8 based CPUs out there with incompatible binaries. MS and Apple just compile once and go (Though Apple compiles for A5, etc for tablets and MS compiles for 32 bit and 64 bit)- but you have to compile for each architecture for various devices running Android. In fact, it's smarter for the manufacturer to compile it specifically for the configuration they created - as well as enabling/disabling features to optimize memory, speed, etc. Manufacturers also may have to recompile any other binaries/drivers to inter-operate with the updated code.
Also, MS and Apple have standardized OSes. Android is not - it's a base for the manufacturers and carriers to modify. Because it's modified, it's up to the manufacturer who made the modifications to update the systems to be compatible. It simply is not possible for Google to maintain a list of all manufacturer's various hardware and software modifications for each device produced (assuming manufacturers would even give them that info).
"What does a pure software component, WebView, have anything to do with hardware drivers? Nothing."
Now, here is where you have a solid argument. Google could release a patch for each Android version affected rather than require an upgrade to a new Android version to resolve the issue. That's not an unreasonable request for maintenance on 2 year old software. Even then, it would be up to the manufacturers to compile and test the code for their devices, then to release it.
I'm not sure there's much of an argument if the devices could be upgraded instead of patched. MOST of them can be upgraded to Android 5 - it was designed to have a smaller footprint so that even older devices that couldn't take previous updates could upgrade to 5. Either way, it'd be the device manufacturers' responsibility to test and push out the update.
Your device manufacturer chose the hardware configuration, modified the OS, and accepted responsibility for supporting the hardware AND software updates for the device. That's why it's their fault and not Google's. Android 5 can be run with few modifications on practically any device that could run Android 4 (ice cream sandwich) which came out 3 or 4 years ago. There's no reason each and every device manufacturer couldn't recompile from source, test, and push out the very latest Android to just about every device out there. Why haven't they? Because they don't care about long term support. They are in the business of selling you a NEW device, not maintaining your old one beyond a reasonable time for them not to be sued.
Want to blame someone? Manufacturer FIRST, then Carrier, then Google. Google's done their part IMHO by releasing free fully patched OSes for the manufacturer. It's not their fault if the manufacturer refuses to compile, test, and push out the updates (with their carriers' blessings) which they accepted full responsibility for doing.
The real question is: WHEN will Google have enough leverage to force carriers and device manufacturers to allow them direct access to upgrade the devices and without crapware or disabling features?
I bet one could jailbreak a device and flash a firmware hack to patch the hole if Google or another team released a fix.
Google lets manufacturers use their base OS for free given some restrictions, and yes, many of the devices use radically different hardware with different kernel modifications, GUIs, and drivers. It's a fragmented ecosystem, and it would be pointless to push updates without consulting the manufacturers on how such changes would affect such customized systems. Think of the many different Linux distros running various window managers, kernel versions, hardware, etc. You push the wrong update to the wrong distro and you break all sorts of things. Google doesn't want that liability. Not to mention, they don't have the authority to alter a device - it would void your warranty without the manufacturer's permission.
The smartphone market is less like the laptop market and more like the embedded OS market - highly customized software specifically for one configuration of a device and also tailored for the manufacturer's preferred interface and the carrier's preferred lock-in schemes with crapware and disabled features (so they can offer premium paid features).
Blame the carriers first, the manufacturers (who stopped thinking about supporting your phone about 5 months after they released it) second, and Google very last.
Look at Google's Nexus product line - those get updates first b/c Google negotiated to have a clean OS on good hardware that would be largely portable between carriers. It's not Google's fault people choose other less supported makes and models. If consumers only purchased Nexus devices, Google would have the clout of Apple and could command more authority on the design, implementation, and upgrades of Android devices.
It would be very nice if and when the Android market were more like the laptop market, but even then -- remember all those Windows XP machines that could upgrade to Windows 7, but the manufacturers never made drivers for the hardware? XP laptops upgraded to 7 sometimes didn't have trackpad drivers or webcam drivers... same thing could happen with android devices. Fix a kernel bug and suddenly your phone loses a feature because the manufacturer didn't bother to upgrade the driver for the new kernel.
The current arrangement is Google makes the software, Manufacturers customize it for the device and carrier. Google updates the software, Manufacturers support the device with software upgrades pushed over carrier networks. If google's made a patch or update (and Android 5 can work on older devices that couldn't take the 4.4 upgrade), then it is definitely the manufacturer's fault for not supporting their hardware and testing and rolling out the patch. If the arrangement is going to change to more like the Apple model - people need to start buying Nexus products and shunning all hardware that doesn't come with updates straight from Google.
I understand that the life cycle of phones is about 2 years, so It's hard for me to be upset about 2 year old unsupported hardware (Verizon has a "new every 2 plan"), but I certainly wouldn't blame Google for he issue when manufacturers and carriers are the ones blocking their ability to provide the updates. IF Google could update any old Android device on their own, they'd wipe out crapware and bloatware, enable the features Verizon and others have disabled by default, and get rid of crappy UIs some manufacturers put on their devices in favor of the Nexus interface.
No need to begin with tl; dr as it's obvious you either didn't read it or simply have a lack of reading comprehension. Odd that you'd bother to reply without reading and comprehending, though. You clearly missed my point entirely.
My post was a response to yours, not its grandparent, so all references to such are moot. Mostly, I was trying to convey a general sense that modern astronomy lacks clear, descriptive definitions and designations - including one for "binary planet" which you were clearly arguing for.
This gem is what I was specifically replying to:
"But I take solace in the fact that the Moon is spiralling away from the Earth and long before the death of the Sun makes all this insignificant, the Earth and Moon will, in fact, become a binary planet. According to the precepts of contemporary astronomy."
The Earth and Moon will absolutely, emphatically, undeniably NOT be considered a binary planet according to contemporary astronomy because THERE IS NO SUCH DESIGNATION.
I hope this post was short enough and uses small enough words to get the point across for you.
I apologize for attempting to enlighten you on your error while simultaneously agreeing with you that the current system is extremely flawed.
Modern astronomy is still clinging to the historical method of naming things according to their influence on and by their surroundings. Yes, it's silly. I'd rather a system that describes bodies by their characteristics instead of their locations relative to other objects.
Phobos is just an asteroid captured by Mars, but because it's a satellite of Mars, it is classified as a moon. Some large moons around gas giants like Triton are thought to have once been planets or dwarf planets. Obviously, there's a huge difference between Titan with its large diameter and thick atmosphere and the tiny, irregularly shaped Deimos. Yet, they are both moons. The current system cares nothing for their characteristics or how they were formed.
Your notion regarding the Earth/Moon system having a different classification in the future than it does today is no more relevant than if Mars were to be captured by Jupiter in a few billion years due to orbital instability. We'd then call Mars a moon instead of a planet. Odd, perhaps, but that doesn't mean we should start calling Mars a Jovian moon in the meantime - even if we had mathematical models proving it was going to happen. Even more odd -- if a Jovian moon were to be hurled into deep space, there is no official designation for what to call it at that point. Rogue planet, sub-brown dwarf, and interstellar planetary body are merely suggestions.
To say that the Earth and the Moon have a special relationship is obvious, but it doesn't warrant any extraordinary classification given the absurdity of the current system. The Moon does indeed orbit Earth as evidenced by the barycenter being inside Earth as well as the Earth being the more massive of the two objects. The Moon is also tidally locked to Earth as most moons are. Yes, as you point out, both the Earth and the Moon have a sinusoidal/elliptical orbit around Sol, but I'd argue that it's not only insignificant, but its shape would change entirely if Earth/Moon were a greater distance from Sol. Earth's orbit only shows a tiny wobble while the Moon's is more pronounced, but more importantly - the shape of the Moon's orbit has little to do with the mass of the moon itself. At its current distance from Earth, given the masses and positions of Sol and Earth, any satellite would have a stronger gravitational influence from Sol than from Earth. However, if we moved Earth and the Moon to a distance say... in place of Jupiter, Sol's influence would be less, the barycenter between Earth and the Moon would stay the same, but you'd instead see a true looping orbit path for the Moon around the Earth as Earth's gravity will be significantly stronger than the Sun's at that distance. Some of Neptune's outermost moons also have a sinusoidal path around the sun, but again, it's more to do with the masses and distances to Neptune and Sol than anything unique about the moons in relation to Neptune. Alternatively, over 4 billion years ago, the Earth/Moon system would have had a barycenter closer to Earth's core and the distance between the Earth and Moon was shorter, making Earth's gravitational effect on the Moon much stronger. I haven't done the math, but given the distances, I'd bet the Moon's orbit at that time was more influenced by Earth than Sol as well and took a different shape around Sol.
Your argument that the Earth and Moon have a special relationship in our solar system is valid, but your argument to classify that relationship as a binary planet is flawed primarily because there currently is no such formal classification. One was proposed for Pluto because the barycenter for it and its moons is outside of Pluto, but that proposal was abandoned. Pluto is a dwarf planet with moons instead of a binary planet or even a binary dwarf planet with Charon. The barycenter idea isn't a rule - it's just an arbitrary argument which wasn't strong enough to convince a committee that it was important enough to warrant
The issuing bank is coded into the credit card number. International transactions could be auto-rejected. Credit Card applications tend to reject any address that isn't a physical residence, so a PO Box wouldn't work - at least not as an initial address, possibly a forwarding address would be fine (at least temporarily).
You'd likely have to travel to the US and open a bank account with proof of address in the US (something like a bill sent to a rental house or a rental agreement would do), then return to your home country and leave the account open - wire money to it and use its DEBIT or CREDIT card for the service. Of course, you'd still have to use a VPN or proxy and stay ahead of Netflix blocking such services.
Would that be through tariffs, bans on imports, or immigration laws? The US has economic sanctions forbidding business deals with North Korea and others.
I'm sure one could write laws to forbid the purchase of some product or service produced outside the states. We have something similar for the defense industry - certain products must be composed of raw materials (a certain percent at least) produced in the USA, and a certain percentage of the labor (if not all of it) must be done in the USA as well.
To have the "Made in USA" label, products have to adhere to certain labor conditions, too. Like for cars, parts can be from overseas, but if it a certain percentage of assembly was done in the USA, it can have the "Made in USA" designation. (I've read the terms for these designations, and it's really sneaky. Parts can be designated as "Made in USA" even if their components are largely not made in the USA.)
Bittorrent is fantastic, but as PirateBay has shown, it likely won't be around forever. Governments are willing and able to shut down or block every bittorrent tracker site that pops up long enough to have any credibility or usefulness. I've had some friends get cease and desist orders - some even had their ISPs to shut down their service. People are using VPNs to get around such tracking, but even those are getting IP blocks or shut down. Governments are investing a lot of money into hardware, hacking, and spying to help shut down P2P networks. The Hydra theory - lop off one P2P head, and 2 take its place is not going to work when your ISP and your government both are snooping on everything you do - and everything everyone you connect to is doing. Even Tor and other networks are easily breached.
I don't disagree that the region restrictions suck for the end user - especially one that travels. But, that's not the point. The system is the way it is for valid reasons. You're dealing with an entire industry and multiple countries - not just a single corporate entity that can change its mind on a whim. It doesn't help that the EU is largely an economic union and not a political one. I don't know, but it's possible Netflix may have to have additional legal paperwork and/or negotiations for each country involved. There may be things the EU could do to ease such business negotiations within the EU for member countries. I suspect the difficulties have more to do with the various languages and cultures of the regions and trying to cater to each, but additional negotiations and time spent would cost money as well.
You have to ask yourself whether you're willing to pay for the service you describe, and if so, how much? Will it be worth it to all parties involved? If not, then why would they offer it? They're fine with not giving you a service you aren't willing to pay their price for, and you're fine with pirating the content and taking your chances with a fine or lawsuit. TV shows in the states run roughly $2/hr per household per episode from commercial sponsors. To deliver that content to you, you'd have to find a way to pay at least that much either directly or through finding commercial sponsors willing to show ads targeted to your demographic to pay for you to watch them - plus cost of whatever technical and legal hurdles to set it up for you. US series generally run 11 to 13 episodes per season, so you'd be paying between $20 to $25 minimum per season for each tv show unless you are willing to sit through ads and find someone who will pay to run ads just for you (and/or others using the service that fit your demographic. It would scale better with others.) Just selling the advertising in a region for a show can be a full time job. As to why shows are released in the states before the EU - I assume a show created by ABC, for example, would first run on ABC plus a few re-runs, then be packaged for sale to an EU network not owned by ABC for a price based upon the US ratings and EU demand, and then the EU station would set up negotiations for EU sponsors for the content and find a time slot. That negotiation would take time - plus any dubbing and subtitle translation work. If ABC owned the networks in both countries and knew EU demand was such that the show was a hit, they might simulcast, but I doubt it. I've seen the reverse happen with shows like Merlin - made for Britain, then 5 months later air on a different network in the USA. There's no language issue for the show between the UK/Canada and USA, but it still took 5 months or more to air. My guess is Syfy was showing its own programming in a time slot while SkyOne was showing Merlin, and if and when Syfy decided it could free up a slot, it paid to pull in Merlin. SkyOne probably did the same thing with some Syfy programming. So, each plays its own content, then swaps and plays the other network's if it works for them. They have the option of just not picking up a show if it stinks and going with something else.
I'd like to add that media companies are evolving - and I'm extremely excited about HBO allowing people to sign up for HBO GO - even if they don't have an HBO subscription through a cable provider. (even if it may be a limited subscription without the HBO subscription... I don't know all the terms yet)
HBO knows that Game of Thrones and other shows are pirated. They also know that the pirates are very likely to become paying subscribers of HBO GO if they can watch Game of Thrones legally without having to pay for HBO itself (and possibly the cable subscription as well). They're lucky that they're both the creator and distributor for the show, so distribution rights won't be as much of an issue.
I'm also excited that Netflix creates its own content with shows like "Orange is the New Black" and "House of Cards." I love the model where the creators are also the distributors, but I also really like that the consumers can give instant feedback through number of views or individual ratings. It's an evolution to a direct-to-consumer model with great feedback. They know every time you stream a show, so they don't need a separate ratings company to know how many viewers were watching. Netflix even has a ratings system, so they get feedback from the consumer in a great democratic format. I sincerely look forward to HBO GO, Netflix, and Amazon continuing the trend towards that new model (which will probably work well for most TV shows). Movies, however... those are likely still in the realm of Hollywood labyrinthine production and distribution channels for some time to come.
It's called tiered marketing and discriminatory pricing. I'm not sure which business school you went to, but the AACSB accredited one I went to described this situation pretty well to the undergrads, and it makes perfect sense - it's just complex. They use it because it works best in squeezing the most profit out of each segment. All media companies use it, to a degree. I recall in college, I'd order my MBA texts from India - "International Editions" that were paperback versions of my classmates' books. They were usually full color paperback versions of the exact same textbooks. I was able to buy them for around $20 (including shipping from India) where the course book in the US was hardback and $125.
With the book analogy, it's a kind of region locking. Yes, if you know how, you can get around it with a bit of time and effort.. even if it's not exactly the same quality. Also, you can just borrow the book from a friend or share as needed... or even use a photocopier for just the excerpts you need. Most people will buy the book, and the one for their region, and that works well enough to not worry about those skirting the system. Like enforcing any system (even the legal/criminal justice system), there's diminishing returns for protecting against cheating it.
Game makers and DVD/ Bluray producers do the same thing with region locking. They don't want you to buy the content for $5 from China when they can get you to pay $30 or $50 here in the states. Media distributors for movies do the same. Their model is set to get cash from theaters first, then pay-per-view and DVDs, then cable movie networks, then Netflix, and then general cable networks with commercial breaks - pretty much in that order. They have all that sliced up by regions, too - mostly because people in different regions are willing to pay different prices for the same things, but also so they can control the length of each phase of distribution for each region independently. It's not easy to untangle because there are so many different companies involved that sell distribution rights to different distribution channels in each region and then reward content-makers as a percentage based upon that distribution. That's before countries get involved with taxes, copyrights, streaming rights, etc. as well. That's not even to mention that some actors get paid a percentage of one distribution channel profits and a different percentage of another distribution channel profits - written into their movie contracts. Other actors get residuals from syndication from TV episodes. It really is licensing "all the way down" as the grandparent post suggests. Netflix follows its licensing agreements, Sony, etc follows the ones it made with producers, directors, actors, etc. Even with Hulu - watch what they do with episodes. Sometimes one episode out of a season will be missing due to licensing - and it'll be because of some obscure part of a contract not allowing the episode to be shown because of a clause for an actor or for the background music.
Netflix would love to have a simpler model. Hulu would, too (well, yes and no b/c they're currently owned by Comcast and others that want to spin it off). Hulu got streaming rights for computers, but didn't think ahead to get the licenses for streaming to any internet device... which is partly why there's Hulu Plus. I don't know about now, but when Hulu Plus first came out, I could watch some things on Hulu on my laptop, others on Hulu Plus on my smart TV, but Hulu Plus wouldn't show all of Hulu's content. I had to switch back and forth between them. Different licenses for different methods of distribution. Negotiating for other methods of distribution after the fact would almost certainly lead to higher charges for content, and then higher pricing for Hulu or Netflix subscribers (unless the subscriber growth was substantial)
Hollywood is a huge industry - and getting them to switch their model is a bit like telling the American public that we should go ahead and switch everything to
This is the crux of the "intelligent life out there" argument. We literally have no idea how probable intelligent, industrialized life is to develop - even on planets proven to have life and what time scale or necessary events must take place for it to arise. Apes likely became intelligent on Earth because of extreme changes in habitats and multiple near-extinction events which forced survivors to adapt and adopt tool use to compete and thrive. Maybe such evolutionary pressures are rare, and maybe species that endure them find other survival methods or simply go extinct. Animals only need to be "smart enough" to survive and breed. It may take extraordinary events to push them into an arms race for intelligence to better control and shape their environment.
I personally think life is common - as its components are common, and many chemical reactions necessary for life can happen with a solvent (water) and energy (sunlight) without life. I think intelligent life capable of spaceflight is exceedingly rare. Dolphins, dinosaurs, parrots, and octopus rarely dreamed of space flight, I think.
Life may exist nearly everywhere that conditions allow - as it likely spontaneously came from natural chemical reactions on Earth (or was seeded from another world where it spontaneously came into being), there's no reason to believe it's not a natural event itself which is likely to occur wherever it can given enough time. To say that such life would evolve into an intelligent, tool-using being capable of interstellar communication or even interplanetary flight is quite another issue entirely.
From an evolutionary perspective, intelligence may be highly overrated.
No. The electricity is certainly wasted if it's being spent to turn electrical resistance into heat. Any HVAC guy can tell you that electric heat strips are a terribly inefficient way to produce electricity and that it's actually FAR, FAR more efficient to suck heat out of the freezing air outside using a heat pump than it is to generate heat using electrical current through a metal filament or even heat strips designed to generate heat (as backup or extra heat for use in addition to a heat pump to heat things up quickly).
Slashdot Mirror
That is such a naive post, I don't know where to begin. I guess I'll bypass the "government doesn't do anything well" BS (firefighters, US Mail, EMS services, public water/sewer systems, uncountable other examples prove you wrong)... But, apparently, every industrialized country other than the USA either has free healthcare or a hybrid system like Australia with a combination of free care plus private.
Let's move on to this mythical health "market" you mention. Markets require competition to work. Most areas only have one or two hospitals within the geographic region which can provide most health care services. That's not a free market... it's a monopoly or oligopoly. Monopolies and Oligopolies require government oversight because they tend to abuse their power. Granted, the Dentistry market is far more competitive than say, thoracic surgery.
Still, Insurance isn't a market either. It's also an oligopoly situation where you have to have one of the major carriers to have health providers ACCEPT the coverage you have -- and picking an insurance carrier may give you perks with one hospital or other health care provider, but none with another, so this also limits your market choices. Health care providers are not required to accept your insurance.
So, let's talk about pricing - you won't find it listed most places. It's complex... it's deceitful - intentionally. If you have no insurance, you have one price. If you have insurance, it's another price. Then, when billed, you pay a different amount and the insurance company pays the rest -- but not actually. You see, the insurance company negotiates the prices. Say you have a bill for $100K. You pay $5K, the insurance company pays $45K, and the rest just goes unpaid, yet considered to be paid in full. Another individual who has no insurance gets the bill for the full amount - OR if the physician knows in advance you have no insurance will sometimes negotiate a different price - sometimes much lower than what they'd have gotten from the insurance company.
Doctors HATE the insurance companies. They have to hire lots of staff for medical coding to report correctly to insurance companies, fight with them over the billing, and often get paid late -if at all. Doctors also have high malpractice insurance bills and high medical school loan bills. Many other countries don't have these issues -- they even send their doctors to medical school for next to nothing - imagine that! It drives the cost of being a doctor down, increases supply of doctors and drives the costs of medical care down along with it.
The USA medical system is a mess. I'm not a doctor myself, but I have many family and friends in the medical field. They would LOVE a single payer system to simplify everything. They could have less staff because there's no need to deal with multiple insurance companies, less confusion on pricing, and more customers as everyone is covered. Government health insurance doesn't have to be government run healthcare - just insurance. Why have thousands of companies complicating everything when one agency could give you insurance right out of your paycheck with your taxes (just like a company benefit would), and you're insured everywhere for everything except cosmetic surgeries beyond dental. But, I digress.
I'm not sure what dental plans you're concerned about. Most don't cover things like crowns and Hollywood veneers. Most cover regular checkups and fillings - maybe braces for kids if you pay extra. That's not a huge burden on the USA economy... not with 15 Trillion in debt - mostly spent on the military.
The trouble with all these different metrics is that it really comes down to "How much extra will I pay if I get the gas guzzler that allows me to comfortably use the vehicle for its intended purpose over a more fuel efficient vehicle."
MPG doesn't tell the whole story... even difference in MPG doesn't - even a percent difference doesn't. One needs to know whether another vehicle could perform the necessary tasks, and if so, if the total cost of ownership is higher for one than the other - sale price, gas, maintenance costs, etc.... and to know the monthly gas, that would depend on driving habits.
For your vehicle which currently averages 17 MPG, you are correct that an average minivan from 2014 would get a combined 20 MPG to 24 MPG depending on the make/model. So, a minivan would be between 3 and 7 mpg better. That's between 18% and 41% improvement over your vehicle. Granted, for your purposes and income level, that's probably not a big deal. For someone commuting hours a day, maybe that percentage improvement would matter - maybe not.
I think it's far too simplistic to compare MPG. My father has a Jeep - it's a gas guzzler... but, he uses it mostly for long family trips and puts a carrier on top and/or hauls stuff behind, so it's economical in that it fits more stuff and people - otherwise, we'd be using 2 or 3 cars that each got better MPG individually, but not if we're using all 2 or 3 rather than 1 Jeep.
I am right there with ya, brother. I have a flip phone. My tablet was my way of testing out this mobile nonsense. Eh, it's a cheap toy that has worked out rather well for me, though.
The problem with mobiles is they have to flash the OS onto the device and rather than a standard x64 chip, there's bloody dozens of processors and configurations to support. Basically, it's the whole embedded OS market that's the issue. Give it another decade when they've settled on some standard architectures and storage media for the OS and maybe - maybe they'll work like your Ubuntu setup. There are already variations on vanilla Android out there and even FirefoxOS and others. It's still a new market. People will figure out they want control over their devices rather than buying new ones every couple years and just taking whatever setup comes with them.
Man, those RAZRs were awesome. I'm actually looking for something similar now for my father who is just now learning to text - he has a flip phone now and a slide-out keyboard would be best. It's getting more difficult to find one that doesn't require a data plan. Verizon charges for data based on the type of phone - doesn't matter if you actually intend to use the data or not :-/
Ah. No worries. In your defense, Google has not been very good about advertising this unique aspect of the Nexus line of products. Other than Apple, it's not exactly the norm for how devices are updated either. Still, it's unique in that, apparently, Google is pushing some of the support to the hardware manufacturers instead of handling it themselves (though I could be mistaken). I find this disheartening as it's Google's flagship name and I believe Google should handle any issues unless there's a hardware malfunction rather than a software glitch - possibly caused by Google's update.
Basically, Google chooses a specific manufacturer and works with them to develop a model that has its requirements, labels the product a "Nexus" , then supports the OS directly. They even sell Nexus items straight from Google rather than through a carrier. Nexus phones can typically switch carriers as long as the phone supports the proper tech and frequencies - same for the tablets. My Nexus 7 is made by ASUS, but I knew buying it that I'd be supported by Google - which is why I got it instead of a similar ASUS tablet with a standard USB port (Nexus products are notorious for not having expansion ports - Google thinks you should use them and the cloud for everything). I'd rather have the assurance that my hardware will be supported by the latest Android (so many manufacturers sell you a device, then don't bother updating it) than to have a few extra features.
I could be wrong, but last I checked, Nexus 5 had the proper tech to run on Verizon's network, but Verizon won't approve it - I suspect because the don't like that it's not locked down. They already hate that the iPhone doesn't have their bloatware and artificial restrictions.
But, yeah, if you see the name Nexus, that's Google's flagship product line and they'll update it first and directly while all other Android devices will take you months to get an update - if ever.
Not sure why you're confused. The post clearly begins with "The whole point of the Nexus branded devices." Yes, this is true for Nexus branded hardware. It's Google's Android OS with no carrier bloatware. The updates come straight from Google. I own a Nexus 7 2013. I've updated many times - comes straight from Google.
Here's the link on Google's support site to confirm it: Click on the "Nexus Devices" to expand to see the below text.
https://support.google.com/nex...
Nexus 4, Nexus 5, Nexus 6, Nexus 7, Nexus 9, and Nexus 10 devices receive the latest version of Android directly from Google. Once an update is available, it can take up to two weeks for it to reach your device. Based on your carrier, it may take longer than two weeks after release to get an update.
Nexus devices may not receive the latest version of Android if they fall outside of the update window, which is usually around 18 months after a device has been released.
No, the gp post is right. Moore's law can't break physical laws.
10 nm means the pathways are about 40 silicon atoms wide. 7 nm is 30 silicon atoms wide, but they're planning to move to GaAs or another III IV semiconductor, and those atoms are larger than Si, so even fewer atoms across at that width. Another shrink to 5 nm is about 20 wide.
I don't think we'll go much smaller than that. The smaller you go, the more quantum effects interfere with the electrical properties of the materials. Also, heat means movement, and those chips get really hot. Go too small, and with enough heat, atoms will move out of alignment.
No worries, though. Chips are presently mostly 2D which means a lot of space is taken up by connections between components - like power and clock pulses. 3D opens a doorway for alternative smaller structures and better cooling techniques... maybe liquid cooling between chip components on nano pipes.
Intriguing suggestion, but perhaps based on a false premise that "data, programs and operating system components are equally vulnerable to writes by viruses." That's most certainly not the case even on a Windows platform. System files and folders usually require an admin to modify, and drivers and other OS components typically must be signed drivers to update. On "trusted computing platforms", there's even more security on what can even boot on the machine. A virus should only have privileges based upon the user that allowed the infection (who should not be admin or root for daily tasks) or an elevation if it found a flaw to escalate privileges. This is part of why OS X and Linux rarely have viruses, but Android and Windows with their lax security have more than their fair share. (And I say this even though I have many Windows machines along with a Nexus 7 running Android).
A better solution would be for XP to have had better security levels (User/Power User/ Admin were great as a start, but EVERYONE had to be an admin just to add a printer, sync their phone, random stupid task, etc.) Windows 7 and 8 are much better about this... and even an Admin isn't really full Admin - still has popups to verify and you must take ownership of some files in order to modify them, etc. A better question would be - how many viruses would have been prevented if people logged in as USERS instead of Admins for their everyday tasks?
I have this fancy Read Only Compact Disk with Linux on it... and another with a version of Windows. I also have them on bootable USB flash drives. One even has a persistent install - so there's the compressed image plus changes and other installed software on another area of the drive. They're basically what I boot into when I think a system is infected to try to repair/clean them with various antivirus tools and system cleaners. Your proposal is not without merit - as obviously I use these read-only or difficult-to-modify entire OSes to clean such infections.
I'm just not sure what issue your proposal would resolve, and how you'd expect to implement it. It's not a bad idea in principle, but I'm not sure how you'd pick and choose which bits to be read-only and which to be re-writable.... and I'm not sure why a virus couldn't simply modify the code to ignore your read-only memory and point to it's virus-ridden duplicates instead?
Some viruses infect boot loaders, so you could write a BIOS/EUFI that uses "trusted computing" and point a windows startup to a ROM.. maybe even one with crypto keys that will allow the next 10 or 20 updates of various windows files (signed/hashed kernels, etc) to load on startup and nothing else. The more you make read-only, the more you obsolete your system. You might even be baking bugs into the system that can't be removed through updates! As for flash memory, I know of viruses that have infected the flash memory on ethernet cards and sound cards. I don't know if you want to have parts of the OS in imbedded chips that could be tampered with or become permanently infected with the wrong virus.
Even if you could somehow protect the primary OS from corruption through this method (unlikely - it's more likely to freeze bugs in place for future exploits), you'd still be open to running viruses - even if the virus is wiped by a simple reboot. Some viruses only take 1 run to do their damage. One virus I know simply scanned the system for media files and deleted any .jpg, .jpeg, .mp3 files. It could run in userland as a script from double clicking on a malformed file attachment (like a pdf). Once it runs, it's damage is done. Only a file restore utility or a backup could undo it. Others run, but infect programs rather than the OS. So, MS Outlook gets infected - virus spams your contacts, they get infected, and so on. There's just too many kinds of viruses and worms to protect against them all by this method.
I think maybe a system restore, a virus scanner, or mayb
I think the assertion is (and I'm not a lawyer, etc) that a defendant cannot suppress the evidence which was possibly obtained illegally if the defendant doesn't have standing to contest the search. If he says they're his servers, then he can contest how the servers were searched. If he says they are not his servers, then he has no standing and cannot prevent the evidence found on the servers from being used against him at trial.
Seems odd to me, though. I would think any improperly obtained evidence should be contestable. For instance, if his buddy's statement that he was behind Silk Road was coerced, that should be contestable. I'd like to hear a lawyer's opinion on the subject.
I'm sure there's plenty of loopholes for the prosecution with multiple 3 letter agencies involved as well as multiple nationalities. There's probably a clause that lets them do whatever they want if they suspect terrorist activity on/through Silk Road, too.
I hear the ending has The Others win, all the main characters die -- and the white walkers reanimate Joffrey's corpse so he can rule as the Litch King of Westeros!
But, it's all written from Hodor's perspective.
Hodor. Hodor hodor hodor. Hodor!
Diskworld books averaged less than 300 pages each (I'm too lazy to do the math, so I took a random sample. Many were in the mid to low 200s, but more were just at or slightly above 300, so I think 300 is a generous guess).
RR Martin's averaged about 900 pages so far. His latest is his biggest yet, so if you include how much is written so far plus the side novellas he's written, I'd say he's at least on par.
Let's say Diskworld averaged 300 pages * 22 books = 6600 pages
Now RR Martin:
900*5 books = 4500 pages + 140+160 + 832 (novellas and short stories) = 5632 plus 1000 or so pages already written on book 6 and 7 = about 6600 pages
plus, it's not like he hasn't done other non-"Game of Thrones" work in the meantime. He's also doing consulting work for the HBO series as well.
RR gets a lot of flack for taking time between releases, but his books are so thick and his plot lines and characters are so numerous, it's a wonder he publishes at all. Many publishers won't print a book that's nearly 1000 pages - the'll send it back for editing or force the author to split it into multiple volumes. RR has trouble deciding where to end and begin books b/c to him, it's all one big story and he doesn't want to leave the reader waiting for years hanging on a plotline.... but it happens anyway. hahaha
The Dune series is a definite case of "the search for more money," but RR Martin's work is very different. You can tell when a writer is out of ideas or throws something together with a new book. With the Dune series, it's especially obvious when they change authors or when characters and plot lines don't overlap between books.
RR was a well established writer long before Game of Thrones, and from how these books are written -- especially how they've progressed -- He's got an ending in mind and multiple plot arcs and story lines to complete - there's just too much to fit into a short book. His books are easily twice as thick as a normal novel. He considers this to be his masterpiece, so he's going to do it the way he wants it done, then only return to it in largely independent novellas. He spoke about how he progresses. His books are between 700 and 1100 pages each. He starts from one character's perspective, then shifts perspectives to another on another plot line, then decides what he thought of as a minor character deserves their own background story and side story... and down the rabbit hole he goes. 600 pages later and he hasn't finished his original train of thought from when he sat down -- and now he has even MORE stories to tie up because he went off on a tangent. This is why he already has an ending in mind - he thought of it at least a book or two ago and all this is tying up loose ends to get there, yet he keeps inventing new characters and back-stories to weave new webs.
He has a hard time deciding where to just STOP a book and publish already and then push his remaining ideas down the road to the next book.
Having characters on multiple continents and so many locations, plot lines, and characters... I'll honestly be surprised if he really only has 2 books left in the series. He started out thinking he'd only have 3 books... now it's up to 7. I'm betting there will be an 8th. He just can't help himself.
I do wonder if this is just how his mind works... like if you sat down to talk with the man if he'd change subjects 10 times and fail to express his thoughts fully on the original topic... which he'll try to get back to you on later... much later.
Exactly. I have a Nexus 7 2013 tablet. Samsung has some very tempting products, but I prefer to have Google's flagship products that get the longest support and the fastest updates.
Apple has the clout to fight the carriers on crapware, bloatware, and lock-in. I hope Google in conjunction with hardware manufacturers get the same leverage soon.
'Til then, buy what you like, but know that if it's not supported directly by Google, your support may be lacking.
" a smartphone is just a shrunk down PC/laptop."
No. It isn't. Seriously. PC/Laptop CPUs are all either x86 or i64 (mostly i64) compatible and standardized. The various modified ARM versions in mobiles are not. ARM tech is licensed and various core manufacturers make their own changes - but also, there are ARM4, ARM5, ARM6, ARM7, and ARM8 based CPUs out there with incompatible binaries. MS and Apple just compile once and go (Though Apple compiles for A5, etc for tablets and MS compiles for 32 bit and 64 bit)- but you have to compile for each architecture for various devices running Android. In fact, it's smarter for the manufacturer to compile it specifically for the configuration they created - as well as enabling/disabling features to optimize memory, speed, etc. Manufacturers also may have to recompile any other binaries/drivers to inter-operate with the updated code.
Also, MS and Apple have standardized OSes. Android is not - it's a base for the manufacturers and carriers to modify. Because it's modified, it's up to the manufacturer who made the modifications to update the systems to be compatible. It simply is not possible for Google to maintain a list of all manufacturer's various hardware and software modifications for each device produced (assuming manufacturers would even give them that info).
"What does a pure software component, WebView, have anything to do with hardware drivers? Nothing."
Now, here is where you have a solid argument. Google could release a patch for each Android version affected rather than require an upgrade to a new Android version to resolve the issue. That's not an unreasonable request for maintenance on 2 year old software. Even then, it would be up to the manufacturers to compile and test the code for their devices, then to release it.
I'm not sure there's much of an argument if the devices could be upgraded instead of patched. MOST of them can be upgraded to Android 5 - it was designed to have a smaller footprint so that even older devices that couldn't take previous updates could upgrade to 5. Either way, it'd be the device manufacturers' responsibility to test and push out the update.
Your device manufacturer chose the hardware configuration, modified the OS, and accepted responsibility for supporting the hardware AND software updates for the device. That's why it's their fault and not Google's. Android 5 can be run with few modifications on practically any device that could run Android 4 (ice cream sandwich) which came out 3 or 4 years ago. There's no reason each and every device manufacturer couldn't recompile from source, test, and push out the very latest Android to just about every device out there. Why haven't they? Because they don't care about long term support. They are in the business of selling you a NEW device, not maintaining your old one beyond a reasonable time for them not to be sued.
Want to blame someone? Manufacturer FIRST, then Carrier, then Google. Google's done their part IMHO by releasing free fully patched OSes for the manufacturer. It's not their fault if the manufacturer refuses to compile, test, and push out the updates (with their carriers' blessings) which they accepted full responsibility for doing.
The real question is: WHEN will Google have enough leverage to force carriers and device manufacturers to allow them direct access to upgrade the devices and without crapware or disabling features?
I bet one could jailbreak a device and flash a firmware hack to patch the hole if Google or another team released a fix.
Google lets manufacturers use their base OS for free given some restrictions, and yes, many of the devices use radically different hardware with different kernel modifications, GUIs, and drivers. It's a fragmented ecosystem, and it would be pointless to push updates without consulting the manufacturers on how such changes would affect such customized systems. Think of the many different Linux distros running various window managers, kernel versions, hardware, etc. You push the wrong update to the wrong distro and you break all sorts of things. Google doesn't want that liability. Not to mention, they don't have the authority to alter a device - it would void your warranty without the manufacturer's permission.
The smartphone market is less like the laptop market and more like the embedded OS market - highly customized software specifically for one configuration of a device and also tailored for the manufacturer's preferred interface and the carrier's preferred lock-in schemes with crapware and disabled features (so they can offer premium paid features).
Blame the carriers first, the manufacturers (who stopped thinking about supporting your phone about 5 months after they released it) second, and Google very last.
Look at Google's Nexus product line - those get updates first b/c Google negotiated to have a clean OS on good hardware that would be largely portable between carriers. It's not Google's fault people choose other less supported makes and models. If consumers only purchased Nexus devices, Google would have the clout of Apple and could command more authority on the design, implementation, and upgrades of Android devices.
It would be very nice if and when the Android market were more like the laptop market, but even then -- remember all those Windows XP machines that could upgrade to Windows 7, but the manufacturers never made drivers for the hardware? XP laptops upgraded to 7 sometimes didn't have trackpad drivers or webcam drivers... same thing could happen with android devices. Fix a kernel bug and suddenly your phone loses a feature because the manufacturer didn't bother to upgrade the driver for the new kernel.
The current arrangement is Google makes the software, Manufacturers customize it for the device and carrier. Google updates the software, Manufacturers support the device with software upgrades pushed over carrier networks. If google's made a patch or update (and Android 5 can work on older devices that couldn't take the 4.4 upgrade), then it is definitely the manufacturer's fault for not supporting their hardware and testing and rolling out the patch. If the arrangement is going to change to more like the Apple model - people need to start buying Nexus products and shunning all hardware that doesn't come with updates straight from Google.
I understand that the life cycle of phones is about 2 years, so It's hard for me to be upset about 2 year old unsupported hardware (Verizon has a "new every 2 plan"), but I certainly wouldn't blame Google for he issue when manufacturers and carriers are the ones blocking their ability to provide the updates. IF Google could update any old Android device on their own, they'd wipe out crapware and bloatware, enable the features Verizon and others have disabled by default, and get rid of crappy UIs some manufacturers put on their devices in favor of the Nexus interface.
No need to begin with tl; dr as it's obvious you either didn't read it or simply have a lack of reading comprehension. Odd that you'd bother to reply without reading and comprehending, though. You clearly missed my point entirely.
My post was a response to yours, not its grandparent, so all references to such are moot. Mostly, I was trying to convey a general sense that modern astronomy lacks clear, descriptive definitions and designations - including one for "binary planet" which you were clearly arguing for.
This gem is what I was specifically replying to:
"But I take solace in the fact that the Moon is spiralling away from the Earth and long before the death of the Sun makes all this insignificant, the Earth and Moon will, in fact, become a binary planet. According to the precepts of contemporary astronomy."
The Earth and Moon will absolutely, emphatically, undeniably NOT be considered a binary planet according to contemporary astronomy because THERE IS NO SUCH DESIGNATION.
I hope this post was short enough and uses small enough words to get the point across for you.
I apologize for attempting to enlighten you on your error while simultaneously agreeing with you that the current system is extremely flawed.
Modern astronomy is still clinging to the historical method of naming things according to their influence on and by their surroundings. Yes, it's silly. I'd rather a system that describes bodies by their characteristics instead of their locations relative to other objects.
Phobos is just an asteroid captured by Mars, but because it's a satellite of Mars, it is classified as a moon. Some large moons around gas giants like Triton are thought to have once been planets or dwarf planets. Obviously, there's a huge difference between Titan with its large diameter and thick atmosphere and the tiny, irregularly shaped Deimos. Yet, they are both moons. The current system cares nothing for their characteristics or how they were formed.
Your notion regarding the Earth/Moon system having a different classification in the future than it does today is no more relevant than if Mars were to be captured by Jupiter in a few billion years due to orbital instability. We'd then call Mars a moon instead of a planet. Odd, perhaps, but that doesn't mean we should start calling Mars a Jovian moon in the meantime - even if we had mathematical models proving it was going to happen. Even more odd -- if a Jovian moon were to be hurled into deep space, there is no official designation for what to call it at that point. Rogue planet, sub-brown dwarf, and interstellar planetary body are merely suggestions.
To say that the Earth and the Moon have a special relationship is obvious, but it doesn't warrant any extraordinary classification given the absurdity of the current system. The Moon does indeed orbit Earth as evidenced by the barycenter being inside Earth as well as the Earth being the more massive of the two objects. The Moon is also tidally locked to Earth as most moons are. Yes, as you point out, both the Earth and the Moon have a sinusoidal/elliptical orbit around Sol, but I'd argue that it's not only insignificant, but its shape would change entirely if Earth/Moon were a greater distance from Sol. Earth's orbit only shows a tiny wobble while the Moon's is more pronounced, but more importantly - the shape of the Moon's orbit has little to do with the mass of the moon itself. At its current distance from Earth, given the masses and positions of Sol and Earth, any satellite would have a stronger gravitational influence from Sol than from Earth. However, if we moved Earth and the Moon to a distance say... in place of Jupiter, Sol's influence would be less, the barycenter between Earth and the Moon would stay the same, but you'd instead see a true looping orbit path for the Moon around the Earth as Earth's gravity will be significantly stronger than the Sun's at that distance. Some of Neptune's outermost moons also have a sinusoidal path around the sun, but again, it's more to do with the masses and distances to Neptune and Sol than anything unique about the moons in relation to Neptune. Alternatively, over 4 billion years ago, the Earth/Moon system would have had a barycenter closer to Earth's core and the distance between the Earth and Moon was shorter, making Earth's gravitational effect on the Moon much stronger. I haven't done the math, but given the distances, I'd bet the Moon's orbit at that time was more influenced by Earth than Sol as well and took a different shape around Sol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
Your argument that the Earth and Moon have a special relationship in our solar system is valid, but your argument to classify that relationship as a binary planet is flawed primarily because there currently is no such formal classification. One was proposed for Pluto because the barycenter for it and its moons is outside of Pluto, but that proposal was abandoned. Pluto is a dwarf planet with moons instead of a binary planet or even a binary dwarf planet with Charon. The barycenter idea isn't a rule - it's just an arbitrary argument which wasn't strong enough to convince a committee that it was important enough to warrant
The issuing bank is coded into the credit card number. International transactions could be auto-rejected. Credit Card applications tend to reject any address that isn't a physical residence, so a PO Box wouldn't work - at least not as an initial address, possibly a forwarding address would be fine (at least temporarily).
You'd likely have to travel to the US and open a bank account with proof of address in the US (something like a bill sent to a rental house or a rental agreement would do), then return to your home country and leave the account open - wire money to it and use its DEBIT or CREDIT card for the service. Of course, you'd still have to use a VPN or proxy and stay ahead of Netflix blocking such services.
Interesting concept. How would that work exactly?
Would that be through tariffs, bans on imports, or immigration laws? The US has economic sanctions forbidding business deals with North Korea and others.
I'm sure one could write laws to forbid the purchase of some product or service produced outside the states. We have something similar for the defense industry - certain products must be composed of raw materials (a certain percent at least) produced in the USA, and a certain percentage of the labor (if not all of it) must be done in the USA as well.
To have the "Made in USA" label, products have to adhere to certain labor conditions, too. Like for cars, parts can be from overseas, but if it a certain percentage of assembly was done in the USA, it can have the "Made in USA" designation. (I've read the terms for these designations, and it's really sneaky. Parts can be designated as "Made in USA" even if their components are largely not made in the USA.)
Bittorrent is fantastic, but as PirateBay has shown, it likely won't be around forever. Governments are willing and able to shut down or block every bittorrent tracker site that pops up long enough to have any credibility or usefulness. I've had some friends get cease and desist orders - some even had their ISPs to shut down their service. People are using VPNs to get around such tracking, but even those are getting IP blocks or shut down. Governments are investing a lot of money into hardware, hacking, and spying to help shut down P2P networks. The Hydra theory - lop off one P2P head, and 2 take its place is not going to work when your ISP and your government both are snooping on everything you do - and everything everyone you connect to is doing. Even Tor and other networks are easily breached.
I don't disagree that the region restrictions suck for the end user - especially one that travels. But, that's not the point. The system is the way it is for valid reasons. You're dealing with an entire industry and multiple countries - not just a single corporate entity that can change its mind on a whim. It doesn't help that the EU is largely an economic union and not a political one. I don't know, but it's possible Netflix may have to have additional legal paperwork and/or negotiations for each country involved. There may be things the EU could do to ease such business negotiations within the EU for member countries. I suspect the difficulties have more to do with the various languages and cultures of the regions and trying to cater to each, but additional negotiations and time spent would cost money as well.
You have to ask yourself whether you're willing to pay for the service you describe, and if so, how much? Will it be worth it to all parties involved? If not, then why would they offer it? They're fine with not giving you a service you aren't willing to pay their price for, and you're fine with pirating the content and taking your chances with a fine or lawsuit. TV shows in the states run roughly $2/hr per household per episode from commercial sponsors. To deliver that content to you, you'd have to find a way to pay at least that much either directly or through finding commercial sponsors willing to show ads targeted to your demographic to pay for you to watch them - plus cost of whatever technical and legal hurdles to set it up for you. US series generally run 11 to 13 episodes per season, so you'd be paying between $20 to $25 minimum per season for each tv show unless you are willing to sit through ads and find someone who will pay to run ads just for you (and/or others using the service that fit your demographic. It would scale better with others.) Just selling the advertising in a region for a show can be a full time job. As to why shows are released in the states before the EU - I assume a show created by ABC, for example, would first run on ABC plus a few re-runs, then be packaged for sale to an EU network not owned by ABC for a price based upon the US ratings and EU demand, and then the EU station would set up negotiations for EU sponsors for the content and find a time slot. That negotiation would take time - plus any dubbing and subtitle translation work. If ABC owned the networks in both countries and knew EU demand was such that the show was a hit, they might simulcast, but I doubt it. I've seen the reverse happen with shows like Merlin - made for Britain, then 5 months later air on a different network in the USA. There's no language issue for the show between the UK/Canada and USA, but it still took 5 months or more to air. My guess is Syfy was showing its own programming in a time slot while SkyOne was showing Merlin, and if and when Syfy decided it could free up a slot, it paid to pull in Merlin. SkyOne probably did the same thing with some Syfy programming. So, each plays its own content, then swaps and plays the other network's if it works for them. They have the option of just not picking up a show if it stinks and going with something else.
Each co
I'd like to add that media companies are evolving - and I'm extremely excited about HBO allowing people to sign up for HBO GO - even if they don't have an HBO subscription through a cable provider. (even if it may be a limited subscription without the HBO subscription... I don't know all the terms yet)
HBO knows that Game of Thrones and other shows are pirated. They also know that the pirates are very likely to become paying subscribers of HBO GO if they can watch Game of Thrones legally without having to pay for HBO itself (and possibly the cable subscription as well). They're lucky that they're both the creator and distributor for the show, so distribution rights won't be as much of an issue.
I'm also excited that Netflix creates its own content with shows like "Orange is the New Black" and "House of Cards." I love the model where the creators are also the distributors, but I also really like that the consumers can give instant feedback through number of views or individual ratings. It's an evolution to a direct-to-consumer model with great feedback. They know every time you stream a show, so they don't need a separate ratings company to know how many viewers were watching. Netflix even has a ratings system, so they get feedback from the consumer in a great democratic format. I sincerely look forward to HBO GO, Netflix, and Amazon continuing the trend towards that new model (which will probably work well for most TV shows). Movies, however... those are likely still in the realm of Hollywood labyrinthine production and distribution channels for some time to come.
you are most welcome
It's called tiered marketing and discriminatory pricing. I'm not sure which business school you went to, but the AACSB accredited one I went to described this situation pretty well to the undergrads, and it makes perfect sense - it's just complex. They use it because it works best in squeezing the most profit out of each segment. All media companies use it, to a degree. I recall in college, I'd order my MBA texts from India - "International Editions" that were paperback versions of my classmates' books. They were usually full color paperback versions of the exact same textbooks. I was able to buy them for around $20 (including shipping from India) where the course book in the US was hardback and $125.
With the book analogy, it's a kind of region locking. Yes, if you know how, you can get around it with a bit of time and effort.. even if it's not exactly the same quality. Also, you can just borrow the book from a friend or share as needed... or even use a photocopier for just the excerpts you need. Most people will buy the book, and the one for their region, and that works well enough to not worry about those skirting the system. Like enforcing any system (even the legal/criminal justice system), there's diminishing returns for protecting against cheating it.
Game makers and DVD/ Bluray producers do the same thing with region locking. They don't want you to buy the content for $5 from China when they can get you to pay $30 or $50 here in the states. Media distributors for movies do the same. Their model is set to get cash from theaters first, then pay-per-view and DVDs, then cable movie networks, then Netflix, and then general cable networks with commercial breaks - pretty much in that order. They have all that sliced up by regions, too - mostly because people in different regions are willing to pay different prices for the same things, but also so they can control the length of each phase of distribution for each region independently. It's not easy to untangle because there are so many different companies involved that sell distribution rights to different distribution channels in each region and then reward content-makers as a percentage based upon that distribution. That's before countries get involved with taxes, copyrights, streaming rights, etc. as well. That's not even to mention that some actors get paid a percentage of one distribution channel profits and a different percentage of another distribution channel profits - written into their movie contracts. Other actors get residuals from syndication from TV episodes. It really is licensing "all the way down" as the grandparent post suggests. Netflix follows its licensing agreements, Sony, etc follows the ones it made with producers, directors, actors, etc. Even with Hulu - watch what they do with episodes. Sometimes one episode out of a season will be missing due to licensing - and it'll be because of some obscure part of a contract not allowing the episode to be shown because of a clause for an actor or for the background music.
Netflix would love to have a simpler model. Hulu would, too (well, yes and no b/c they're currently owned by Comcast and others that want to spin it off). Hulu got streaming rights for computers, but didn't think ahead to get the licenses for streaming to any internet device... which is partly why there's Hulu Plus. I don't know about now, but when Hulu Plus first came out, I could watch some things on Hulu on my laptop, others on Hulu Plus on my smart TV, but Hulu Plus wouldn't show all of Hulu's content. I had to switch back and forth between them. Different licenses for different methods of distribution. Negotiating for other methods of distribution after the fact would almost certainly lead to higher charges for content, and then higher pricing for Hulu or Netflix subscribers (unless the subscriber growth was substantial)
Hollywood is a huge industry - and getting them to switch their model is a bit like telling the American public that we should go ahead and switch everything to
This is the crux of the "intelligent life out there" argument. We literally have no idea how probable intelligent, industrialized life is to develop - even on planets proven to have life and what time scale or necessary events must take place for it to arise. Apes likely became intelligent on Earth because of extreme changes in habitats and multiple near-extinction events which forced survivors to adapt and adopt tool use to compete and thrive. Maybe such evolutionary pressures are rare, and maybe species that endure them find other survival methods or simply go extinct. Animals only need to be "smart enough" to survive and breed. It may take extraordinary events to push them into an arms race for intelligence to better control and shape their environment.
I personally think life is common - as its components are common, and many chemical reactions necessary for life can happen with a solvent (water) and energy (sunlight) without life. I think intelligent life capable of spaceflight is exceedingly rare. Dolphins, dinosaurs, parrots, and octopus rarely dreamed of space flight, I think.
Life may exist nearly everywhere that conditions allow - as it likely spontaneously came from natural chemical reactions on Earth (or was seeded from another world where it spontaneously came into being), there's no reason to believe it's not a natural event itself which is likely to occur wherever it can given enough time. To say that such life would evolve into an intelligent, tool-using being capable of interstellar communication or even interplanetary flight is quite another issue entirely.
From an evolutionary perspective, intelligence may be highly overrated.
No. The electricity is certainly wasted if it's being spent to turn electrical resistance into heat. Any HVAC guy can tell you that electric heat strips are a terribly inefficient way to produce electricity and that it's actually FAR, FAR more efficient to suck heat out of the freezing air outside using a heat pump than it is to generate heat using electrical current through a metal filament or even heat strips designed to generate heat (as backup or extra heat for use in addition to a heat pump to heat things up quickly).