He seized five shops in a country of 29 million people. Don't you think you're being a little alarmist proclaiming the end of imports?
I read the article, which claimed that this was to set an example. Also, retailers are attempting to price their products based on the hyperinflation that the country is experiencing, and the government is attempting to force them to stop doing this.
Are you prepared to invest your money in a business venture to import consumer goods into Venezuela?
There's a profit to bringing in illegal drugs, as there's a market for the drugs that isn't state-regulated and when state-seized, are destroyed rather than sold.
By contrast, since companies, importers, what have you, expect to and need to make money on their importation of products, this grab will show that there's no good in above-board importing into that country. If they can seize and sell electronics, they can seize and sell anything. It's not safe to do legitimate business in Venezuela anymore.
What I expect to happen is that grey-market and black-market importers will smuggle products in, sell them for considerably more money than they should even go for legitimately, and attempt to hide their revenue, indeed much like drug smugglers do here.
Why would you ever have to touch their computer? Put up a sacrificial server with a virtual host running Samba, and modify their login script and group to have them interface to this virtual host. Have something on the virtual host analyze and sanitize their crap, and physically isolate their network services so that they're not on the same network as everyone else. Give them their porn and keep them off of the corporate network.
How do you keep colleagues abreast of your work without having exponentially many needless conversations?
Generally by having periodic staff meetings with one's working group that are there for everyone to keep everyone informed. This means everyone sits down in a room together, someone chairs the meeting, and calls everyone to speak in-turn. It means that everyone has an opportunity to hear what everyone else is working on and to ask questions.
Yes, it sucks, having to take precious time out of one's busy schedule to listen to others if their projects don't have much if anything to do with one's own project, but if that's happening then perhaps it's time for the organization to reorganize its working groups to reduce that sort of excessive disparity in working groups.
Probably because weev's lawyers didn't do a good job arguing that by putting content on a public web server, AT&T was publishing it for all to see.
Analogies like printing free newspapers with this information at the bottom of page 36 and placing them in those hoppers on street corners could have been drawn; it's unlikely that very many people will get to page 36 and read the bottom, as that's usually buried among all of the crap advertising spots, but that information was made available in published form.
By concrete curb, I was referring to those pre-cast 5' long parking bump-stops that are held in place with two driven pieces of rebar, driven into the asphalt below. I've regularly seen them displaced from where they're supposed to be, and I've run over a couple myself, admittedly with the wheels, but a foot one way or at a different angle to make it longitudinally, and it could have struck the underside of the car.
I don't care if he struck a pintle-hitch that fell out of the receiver of a deuce and a half, it shouldn't have resulted in a fire. Failing in of itself is acceptable, but it needs to fail safe, not in a way that leads to the loss of the vehicle or to a potential loss of life. They designed the car so that kids sit in rearward-facing seats in the back, what if this had happened with a full load of passengers and the kids couldn't be gotten out in time?
Gas tanks have plagued automotive manufacturers as problematic for as long as cars have had them.
GM had sporadic issues with "saddle" fuel tanks mounted outboard of the frame rails of some of their pickup trucks. This got downplayed because Dateline couldn't properly reproduce the problems and ended up cheating to set them off, but the positioning got changed later.
Ford had several issues. Pintos had tanks mounted too-far aft, making them vulnerable to rear-end collisions. Ford also experimented with making the tank integral with the trunk floor, basically the trunk floor was also the top of the fuel tank itself, and collisions would rupture it. They further had problems with the Crown Victoria, when rear-ended with significant force, puncturing the tank.
All American automakers had trouble with tanks mounted with the fuel filler necks behind the license plates.
There have been incidents where debris on the road was kicked up so that it contacted the fuel tank underneath, rupturing it and causing a fire.
You are correct that Tesla needs to analyze why the batteries are being compromised from what should be survivable incidents, a car's batteries should be protected better to keep them from being damaged by even the most severe road debris. After all, a car could strike a concrete curb in a parking lot at high speed and high-center across it, or could be forced to take an evasive maneuver and strike something like a milemarker sign post and run that along under the car. These kinds of strikes shouldn't even particularly phase the car, let alone lead to its destruction.
Well, there are two forms of monopoly. One is a horizontal monopoly, where one owns all of everything across a market, so players in that market must go through that party, and then there's a vertical monopoly, where one locks the product from the very bottom to the very top, so that others cannot integrate their products in.
I think that the EU antitrust prosecutors are trying to call Google a vertical monopoly, citing how various Google services tie into other Google services tightly. Thing is, they don't make use of other companies' services break one's use of Google services.
I'd argue that ActiveX from Microsoft is massively, significantly more antitrust than anything from Google or any other web-services company, as ActiveX is designed for Microsoft browsers on Microsoft OSes to interface to Microsoft web daemons running on Microsoft servers.
But, if I install Windows, I either have to use IE in order to get to another browser, downloading it and installing it, or I have to go through a bunch of other hoops to get that other browser without opening IE. Since the average user can't use a command-line FTP interface without loading the documentation on how to use it (again, going back to opening the web browser) it's not practical for a user to avoid IE, at least in the US. Admittedly I haven't used a euro-centric Windows installation.
By contrast, Yahoo, Microsoft, and even other companies like Mapquest have made no secret that they have websites that provide maps. One can visit these sites without ever visiting Google. Microsoft even makes that easy, since their default search engine is Bing, not Google, when one loads their browser. One can even type "yahoo maps" into Google's search engine and it'll give them a link to, *gasp* Yahoo Maps, and no links to Google Maps, not even a recommendation on a sidebar. Same for "bing maps" and "mapquest maps". Even simply searching for "maps" gives Google Maps first, then Yahoo Maps, then Mapquest, then Bing. And for those that plug in an address in the regular search engine, they probably want a map, and I don't really have a problem with Google fulfilling that want through their own internal APIs. If a user wanted a map from Bing or Yahoo or any other search engine they'd go to that search engine to get it.
I guess I still don't see what the problem is. I go where I find the best experience. Right now Yahoo News seems to be a better aggregator than Google News. I use Mozilla because I prefer it and it seems to have more plugins at the moment. I don't use ChromeOS on anything, at all, laptop, netbook, etc. I use either LibreOffice or Microsoft Office depending on where I'm at, and basically use Google Docs/Drive for only a few things I need for reference. Google has not locked me into anything, everything of theirs I use because of choice, and they do a good job making that choice easy by providing a very smooth experience when going from one service to another, and those services themselves work very well.
I'm attempting to figure out what Google has done that has functioned as an antitrust-type of scenario...
Search engines? At the time they came out there was a crowded market in Internet search. There are still competitors that come and go, and Google does not appear to be interested in buying them out. Advertising? Last time I checked, Doubleclick was not the only ad-delivery that's blocked by my adblocker...
Mail? Gmail is certainly not the only e-mail provider, by a longshot, and most of us who've migrated to it have done so because it's proven to be long-term reliable so our e-mail addresses haven't had to change.
Calendaring, collaboration, productivity suites, file storage? No, lots of companies do those things.
Web Browsers? Given that I'm typing this using a Mozilla browser...
Operating Systems? Android has competition with iOS, and to a lesser extent with Windows Phone and Blackberry. Chrome is in its relative infancy, competing with MacOS, Windows, GNU/Linux, and even Android.
Maps? I can get maps from several providers.
I won't deny, Google does one hell of a good job integrating their various services, and they're also willing to modify their services at-will. They provide platforms for which others can develop things to either use features of Google's services or can integrate their own services, but they are willing to yank the floor out from under someone's creation with little or no notice. But, they're not usually charging the developer or user of this third-party addon either, so it's hard to claim that they're not in their rights to do this.
If the issue is the very nature of the tight integration, where a user will go from using Google's search engine to using their maps, calendar, e-mail, etc, again I point out that they've made the entire process of using these systems very smooth, and that when a Google service has proven to be clunky people don't use it. They also don't stop competitors like Microsoft or even Yahoo from developing their own integrated suites.
I'd really like to know what's considered antitrust...
IR doesn't always need to be direct line-of-sight. Most peoples' experience with IR is from TV remotes which generally do have to be aimed, but I've got a couple of devices whose remotes are powerful enough that pointing them just about anywhere in the room will control the device. It is possible to use refraction if the setup is designed for it.
I've seen similar issues all over the place, someone designs some proprietary-yet-essential service to use a proprietary plugin or other technology that's very platform andversion specific. One just ends up using two web browsers, the old one that's required in order to make the stupid proprietary thing work, and the new one for one's normal browsing. It SUCKS from a support perspective as both browsers fight to be default, and users can't keep track of what pages load with what browser, etc, and that's not even beginning to address the security problems.
I would bet that it's more tuned to commercial markets. For density in classrooms it's not uncommon to place two WAPs in one room for the express purposes of serving the 30+ devices in that room, and with the bleed-over between rooms all of the WAPs have to step-down their power to avoid interfering with each other.
A wireless medium that doesn't use something capable of penetrating through walls would actually be an advantage in these kinds of environments. Granted, to be practical it would require peoples' devices to have both WIFI and LIFI, but they often have both WIFI and copper capability now anyway, so more than one interface isn't a stretch.
...am I supposed to maintain my pasty-pale complexion if I have any light sources on? The tan from my six monitors and blue LEDs is already bad enough!
If you're crossing utilities rights-of-way with your trench then you could be in trouble without getting a permit from the municipality. You also need to know the actual depth that low-voltage needs to reach (which may be in 2' increments per utility, so you may have to go six or eight feet down to avoid the high-voltage electrical, telephone/cable, and natural gas elevations) and have to spend considerable amounts of money with both properties requiring building permits.
Don't get me wrong, pulling in a 2" or bigger conduit with a couple of copper cables and a multipair fiber is a great solution for both now and future-proofed installations, but it's expensive to start and probably not worth the hassle, even if it turns out that no real permitting is required to do it, especially when one can simply swap between a couple of hard disk drives or removable media or could run a private wireless bridge between locations.
One can argue that any weapon specifically designed to be used against people could count, and those designed to be used against people that carry fairly large amounts of ammunition would easily qualify.
The news showed the rifle, it looked like an AR-15/M-16 derivative. That program was created to provide a military rifle for antipersonnel use. Not for personal defense, not for hunting. I would argue that makes it qualify as an assault rifle.
They showed a picture of the firearm, it looked like an AR-15-derivative. I don't think that it's irrational to call it an assault rifle, as the AR-15/M-16 program was designed for a military/antipersonnel scope.
I've been through Heathrow, in fact I was flying internationally the day that the Christmas Day Bomber attempted to blow up a plane, and a few days later for the return home.
The experience in Heathrow was far, far different than any experience that I've had in American airports. It felt like there was a level of professionalism in London that I've never seen in American airports since the aftermath of September 11th. Honestly I felt like there was more professionalism before the Jihadis changed the status quo.
I find beauty in most people, clothed, as they are now. I can picture them based on their kindness or their accomplishments. I don't picture them with rolls of fat or cellulite or distended and stretched tissues. I don't care if that's how they are, that is not beautiful.
Have you seen most people? Do you really want to see them naked?
I'd guess that only about fifteen percent of people are in the right condition to look good while naked. That means most viewers would only want to see about seven to eight percent of people, in totality, naked.
I really don't want to see Naked Airlines. For every Christina Ricci there'd be five Rosie O'Donnells.
Slashdot Mirror
"I'm not dead."
...
"What?"
"Nothing. There's your ninepence."
"I'm not dead."
"'Ere, he says he's not dead."
"Yes he is."
"I'm not."
"He isn't."
"Well, he will be soon, he's very ill."
"I'm getting better."
"No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment."
"I feel fine!"
I read the article, which claimed that this was to set an example. Also, retailers are attempting to price their products based on the hyperinflation that the country is experiencing, and the government is attempting to force them to stop doing this.
Are you prepared to invest your money in a business venture to import consumer goods into Venezuela?
There's a profit to bringing in illegal drugs, as there's a market for the drugs that isn't state-regulated and when state-seized, are destroyed rather than sold.
By contrast, since companies, importers, what have you, expect to and need to make money on their importation of products, this grab will show that there's no good in above-board importing into that country. If they can seize and sell electronics, they can seize and sell anything . It's not safe to do legitimate business in Venezuela anymore.
What I expect to happen is that grey-market and black-market importers will smuggle products in, sell them for considerably more money than they should even go for legitimately, and attempt to hide their revenue, indeed much like drug smugglers do here.
Why would you ever have to touch their computer? Put up a sacrificial server with a virtual host running Samba, and modify their login script and group to have them interface to this virtual host. Have something on the virtual host analyze and sanitize their crap, and physically isolate their network services so that they're not on the same network as everyone else. Give them their porn and keep them off of the corporate network.
I shudder to think of how this'll impact the BYOD policy...
Generally by having periodic staff meetings with one's working group that are there for everyone to keep everyone informed. This means everyone sits down in a room together, someone chairs the meeting, and calls everyone to speak in-turn. It means that everyone has an opportunity to hear what everyone else is working on and to ask questions.
Yes, it sucks, having to take precious time out of one's busy schedule to listen to others if their projects don't have much if anything to do with one's own project, but if that's happening then perhaps it's time for the organization to reorganize its working groups to reduce that sort of excessive disparity in working groups.
Probably because weev's lawyers didn't do a good job arguing that by putting content on a public web server , AT&T was publishing it for all to see.
Analogies like printing free newspapers with this information at the bottom of page 36 and placing them in those hoppers on street corners could have been drawn; it's unlikely that very many people will get to page 36 and read the bottom, as that's usually buried among all of the crap advertising spots, but that information was made available in published form.
By concrete curb, I was referring to those pre-cast 5' long parking bump-stops that are held in place with two driven pieces of rebar, driven into the asphalt below. I've regularly seen them displaced from where they're supposed to be, and I've run over a couple myself, admittedly with the wheels, but a foot one way or at a different angle to make it longitudinally, and it could have struck the underside of the car.
I don't care if he struck a pintle-hitch that fell out of the receiver of a deuce and a half, it shouldn't have resulted in a fire. Failing in of itself is acceptable, but it needs to fail safe, not in a way that leads to the loss of the vehicle or to a potential loss of life. They designed the car so that kids sit in rearward-facing seats in the back, what if this had happened with a full load of passengers and the kids couldn't be gotten out in time?
Uh, that $80,000 I don't have will stop them...
Gas tanks have plagued automotive manufacturers as problematic for as long as cars have had them.
GM had sporadic issues with "saddle" fuel tanks mounted outboard of the frame rails of some of their pickup trucks. This got downplayed because Dateline couldn't properly reproduce the problems and ended up cheating to set them off, but the positioning got changed later.
Ford had several issues. Pintos had tanks mounted too-far aft, making them vulnerable to rear-end collisions. Ford also experimented with making the tank integral with the trunk floor, basically the trunk floor was also the top of the fuel tank itself, and collisions would rupture it. They further had problems with the Crown Victoria, when rear-ended with significant force, puncturing the tank.
All American automakers had trouble with tanks mounted with the fuel filler necks behind the license plates.
There have been incidents where debris on the road was kicked up so that it contacted the fuel tank underneath, rupturing it and causing a fire.
You are correct that Tesla needs to analyze why the batteries are being compromised from what should be survivable incidents, a car's batteries should be protected better to keep them from being damaged by even the most severe road debris. After all, a car could strike a concrete curb in a parking lot at high speed and high-center across it, or could be forced to take an evasive maneuver and strike something like a milemarker sign post and run that along under the car. These kinds of strikes shouldn't even particularly phase the car, let alone lead to its destruction.
Well, there are two forms of monopoly. One is a horizontal monopoly, where one owns all of everything across a market, so players in that market must go through that party, and then there's a vertical monopoly, where one locks the product from the very bottom to the very top, so that others cannot integrate their products in.
I think that the EU antitrust prosecutors are trying to call Google a vertical monopoly, citing how various Google services tie into other Google services tightly. Thing is, they don't make use of other companies' services break one's use of Google services.
I'd argue that ActiveX from Microsoft is massively, significantly more antitrust than anything from Google or any other web-services company, as ActiveX is designed for Microsoft browsers on Microsoft OSes to interface to Microsoft web daemons running on Microsoft servers.
But, if I install Windows, I either have to use IE in order to get to another browser, downloading it and installing it, or I have to go through a bunch of other hoops to get that other browser without opening IE. Since the average user can't use a command-line FTP interface without loading the documentation on how to use it (again, going back to opening the web browser) it's not practical for a user to avoid IE, at least in the US. Admittedly I haven't used a euro-centric Windows installation.
By contrast, Yahoo, Microsoft, and even other companies like Mapquest have made no secret that they have websites that provide maps. One can visit these sites without ever visiting Google. Microsoft even makes that easy, since their default search engine is Bing, not Google, when one loads their browser. One can even type "yahoo maps" into Google's search engine and it'll give them a link to, *gasp* Yahoo Maps, and no links to Google Maps, not even a recommendation on a sidebar. Same for "bing maps" and "mapquest maps". Even simply searching for "maps" gives Google Maps first, then Yahoo Maps, then Mapquest, then Bing. And for those that plug in an address in the regular search engine, they probably want a map, and I don't really have a problem with Google fulfilling that want through their own internal APIs. If a user wanted a map from Bing or Yahoo or any other search engine they'd go to that search engine to get it.
I guess I still don't see what the problem is. I go where I find the best experience. Right now Yahoo News seems to be a better aggregator than Google News. I use Mozilla because I prefer it and it seems to have more plugins at the moment. I don't use ChromeOS on anything, at all, laptop, netbook, etc. I use either LibreOffice or Microsoft Office depending on where I'm at, and basically use Google Docs/Drive for only a few things I need for reference. Google has not locked me into anything, everything of theirs I use because of choice, and they do a good job making that choice easy by providing a very smooth experience when going from one service to another, and those services themselves work very well.
I'm attempting to figure out what Google has done that has functioned as an antitrust-type of scenario...
Search engines? At the time they came out there was a crowded market in Internet search. There are still competitors that come and go, and Google does not appear to be interested in buying them out.
Advertising? Last time I checked, Doubleclick was not the only ad-delivery that's blocked by my adblocker...
Mail? Gmail is certainly not the only e-mail provider, by a longshot, and most of us who've migrated to it have done so because it's proven to be long-term reliable so our e-mail addresses haven't had to change.
Calendaring, collaboration, productivity suites, file storage? No, lots of companies do those things.
Web Browsers? Given that I'm typing this using a Mozilla browser...
Operating Systems? Android has competition with iOS, and to a lesser extent with Windows Phone and Blackberry. Chrome is in its relative infancy, competing with MacOS, Windows, GNU/Linux, and even Android.
Maps? I can get maps from several providers.
I won't deny, Google does one hell of a good job integrating their various services, and they're also willing to modify their services at-will. They provide platforms for which others can develop things to either use features of Google's services or can integrate their own services, but they are willing to yank the floor out from under someone's creation with little or no notice. But, they're not usually charging the developer or user of this third-party addon either, so it's hard to claim that they're not in their rights to do this.
If the issue is the very nature of the tight integration, where a user will go from using Google's search engine to using their maps, calendar, e-mail, etc, again I point out that they've made the entire process of using these systems very smooth, and that when a Google service has proven to be clunky people don't use it. They also don't stop competitors like Microsoft or even Yahoo from developing their own integrated suites.
I'd really like to know what's considered antitrust...
Put your hands on your hips, and pull your knees in tiiiIIIIiiiight!
IR doesn't always need to be direct line-of-sight. Most peoples' experience with IR is from TV remotes which generally do have to be aimed, but I've got a couple of devices whose remotes are powerful enough that pointing them just about anywhere in the room will control the device. It is possible to use refraction if the setup is designed for it.
I've seen similar issues all over the place, someone designs some proprietary-yet-essential service to use a proprietary plugin or other technology that's very platform and version specific. One just ends up using two web browsers, the old one that's required in order to make the stupid proprietary thing work, and the new one for one's normal browsing. It SUCKS from a support perspective as both browsers fight to be default, and users can't keep track of what pages load with what browser, etc, and that's not even beginning to address the security problems.
I would bet that it's more tuned to commercial markets. For density in classrooms it's not uncommon to place two WAPs in one room for the express purposes of serving the 30+ devices in that room, and with the bleed-over between rooms all of the WAPs have to step-down their power to avoid interfering with each other.
A wireless medium that doesn't use something capable of penetrating through walls would actually be an advantage in these kinds of environments. Granted, to be practical it would require peoples' devices to have both WIFI and LIFI, but they often have both WIFI and copper capability now anyway, so more than one interface isn't a stretch.
...am I supposed to maintain my pasty-pale complexion if I have any light sources on? The tan from my six monitors and blue LEDs is already bad enough!
If you're crossing utilities rights-of-way with your trench then you could be in trouble without getting a permit from the municipality. You also need to know the actual depth that low-voltage needs to reach (which may be in 2' increments per utility, so you may have to go six or eight feet down to avoid the high-voltage electrical, telephone/cable, and natural gas elevations) and have to spend considerable amounts of money with both properties requiring building permits.
Don't get me wrong, pulling in a 2" or bigger conduit with a couple of copper cables and a multipair fiber is a great solution for both now and future-proofed installations, but it's expensive to start and probably not worth the hassle, even if it turns out that no real permitting is required to do it, especially when one can simply swap between a couple of hard disk drives or removable media or could run a private wireless bridge between locations.
I don't know. I haven't seen the roads in Beijing.
Though from what I hear, residents of Beijing haven't seen them in awhile either.
One can argue that any weapon specifically designed to be used against people could count, and those designed to be used against people that carry fairly large amounts of ammunition would easily qualify.
The news showed the rifle, it looked like an AR-15/M-16 derivative. That program was created to provide a military rifle for antipersonnel use. Not for personal defense, not for hunting. I would argue that makes it qualify as an assault rifle.
They showed a picture of the firearm, it looked like an AR-15-derivative. I don't think that it's irrational to call it an assault rifle, as the AR-15/M-16 program was designed for a military/antipersonnel scope.
I've been through Heathrow, in fact I was flying internationally the day that the Christmas Day Bomber attempted to blow up a plane, and a few days later for the return home.
The experience in Heathrow was far, far different than any experience that I've had in American airports. It felt like there was a level of professionalism in London that I've never seen in American airports since the aftermath of September 11th. Honestly I felt like there was more professionalism before the Jihadis changed the status quo.
I find beauty in most people, clothed, as they are now. I can picture them based on their kindness or their accomplishments. I don't picture them with rolls of fat or cellulite or distended and stretched tissues. I don't care if that's how they are, that is not beautiful.
Have you seen most people? Do you really want to see them naked?
I'd guess that only about fifteen percent of people are in the right condition to look good while naked. That means most viewers would only want to see about seven to eight percent of people, in totality, naked.
I really don't want to see Naked Airlines. For every Christina Ricci there'd be five Rosie O'Donnells.