The real issue is they're looking at an era when high quality recordings first became available and people switched to that new media en masse, causing an artificial blip as people not only bought new music, but replaced their favorite current recordings as they came available. It also came at a time that singles (45s) were phased out, forcing people that wanted their latest band to purchase full albums. That time is past, and we should be looking at numbers that take into account those artificial boosting effects. So total revenue is a bad number. Don't forget to factor in that CDs cost a fortune to manufacture in the 80s and early 90s, and are less than $1 today.
? The only argument I have heard is that insurance companies might charge more, and employers may be reluctant to hire people with bad health.
Note that the first is illegal under the ACA, and the second is likely either illegal or actionable under the ADA.
Gee, there's this law back in 1967, ADEA, that was passed to make it illegal to discriminate against people 40+. Seems to have worked. Silicon Valley openly discriminates against 30+.
Why should I care if everyone sees my medical records? The only argument I have heard is that insurance companies might charge more, and employers may be reluctant to hire people with bad health. But I don't have any health problems, so if my records are public, I should get lower insurance rates and better employment offers, and potential GFs can verify that I am STD free. So it seems like a win-win for me to just store everything in the cloud, and hope it leaks. Is there some downside that I am overlooking?
Yep, there's a whole list of them. Your father (who may not actually be your father) has diabetes and parkinsons. You're a risk. Better go to the next one that doesn't. You have a series of qualities that make you susceptible to the next flu that breaks out. Your genetics indicate you're susceptible to one or another rare cancer, or perhaps will wind up with rheumatoid arthritis. Or perhaps they're someone else's partial records or relatives. After all, dumping all that data into cloud insures that no errors will ever happen like that, right? This is one of those cases where the less info on you is out there, the better.
Oh, on iOS? I missed that detail. Messages on OSX integrates with jabber etc. On the phone, yeah, you're correct. iMessage and SMS only. I need to drink caffeine BEFORE posting.
The problem lies with those with a mix. For them you just configure an iMessage contact for their phone, whatever device it might be, and the rest can be a different contact. Not really a problem after all.
Apparently you can slow or stop photons. The speed of light c in a vacuum is constant as far as we know.
AFAIK, although you can slow the net propagation of photons (aka the electromagnetic wave dual of a photon) through a material, you cannot slow a photon.
Read the linked article, that was exactly the point of that experiment, not only to slow it, but to stop and then make it go again.
Actually, rounded corners not withstanding, that looks an awful lot like the 2007 iphone. And, iphones were already in manufacturing in June, 2014, so the design came earlier. It's much more likely that Shenzhen lifted the design from the specs sent to Apple's manufacturers.
Most physicists would define a photon as having no mass, yet it would carry momentum proportional to its energy. Mass is seen as a property of a particle that makes it resist changes in speed, but photons always travel at the speed of light (in a vacuum) -- never speeding up, or slowing down... and never at rest.
Apparently you can slow or stop photons. The speed of light c in a vacuum is constant as far as we know.
There are many reasons for them to want to control the UI. One is that it is a platform where advertisements could be placed and they don't want to give that potential revenue up or let anyone else profit from placing ads there. Nevermind that consumers are revolting against the ads inserted into their television programs by their Samsung TVs; there's a potential that they could get it right.
Then there's the issue where they want to make sure that it is a human watching the cable and not a device.
Those are 2 reasons I would drop cable entirely. As it is, I watch nothing live, and much of my recorded video is replayed through my (not windows) HTPC which allows for all sorts of things to occur as I wish, including rewind, skip back and forth, and stop and restart at any time, from where I left off or some regular chapter markers. VOD and all the other things the ISPs try to sell me are of 0 interest to me, much like cloud anything. It's not different, if it's not on my HD, it's not mine. So why should I pay more for it than a netflix rental (less than $1)?
I don't think there's a timeout, it doesn't behoove FB to "delete" an account. I still get email (auto-junk) from several FB accounts on some junk email addresses I still have access to (OMG, really? I have multiples? Guess there's some ToS I didn't read:) I'll be wholesale changing junk accounts permanently, as it's about time to cut off the old ones. It's mostly a junk rule exercise than anything else.
You are talking now. Just because Google pulls it down now doesn't mean youtube did prior to the Google acquisition. IIRC, Google added the take down mechanism post youtube purchase, and prior to that it was pretty shoddy.
That's was the state of affairs basically until around the the late 1980s to early 1990s for television news. The first big change was CNN and the 24 hour news cycle. The second was the internet (specifically the web) in the 1990s.
Neither of those really mattered to the current downward spiral in news reporting. The first thing that affected news was the rejection of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 by the Republican controlled FCC. It was a bad decision then, and it's still a bad decision. This led directly to:
While it may because of more polarization, but it is also because people are getting exposed to different ideas thus need to make their decisions from more data.
The evidence seems to show people doing exactly the opposite. People are now able to seek out niche news sources that support their already existing world view and disregarding contrary view points regardless of their validity.
The "niche" news sources, which mostly aren't actually news sources but are blogs or some sort of forums, are the direct result of newspapers completely missing the boat in the 90s with the advent of the internet and failing to properly take the steps to continue their subscriber base. Had they given accounts and access via the web to subscribers, they likely would not have been doomed to extinction.
I live in a large metroplex. I've gone through all the stations and do so every 6-9 months. With 2 exceptions for any of the genres of music I listen to, all stations fit that no variety / small playlist scenario. I will also add that the single classical station obviously plays a reasonable variety, but that's not the kind of music we're discussing here.
But he's not wrong that youtube was built mostly on copyrighted works. Once it was large enough, other content started making its way there, but the growth factor was copyrighted works compared to numerous other services available. Now the real question is whether that was largely fair use or was it full copies in violation of copyright? I'd say quite of bit of the former initially, but then more and more of the latter showed up as its popularity grew.
Then I thought about this for a moment, and realized their target audience with this is Management. And given our opinion of Management, what is the likelihood that they will respond positively to those adverts? (Sadly, I think 50% won't be overstating it)
If you use LinkedIn as anything other than a public advertising board, you're doing it wrong. As for business ethics, I guess I need to be exposed to whatever you're objecting to. I see very little from LinkedIn, and don't do much there at all since I have little compunction to do anything on LinkedIn. I generally batch process things and do nothing in between them. If someone contacts me, I almost always have their real email, so nothing else ever goes through LinkedIn.
This is one of the stupidest acquisitions I have ever heard of.
Not at all, they get pretty much a real list of millions of people along with some real data. Far more valuable for MS than say FBs data IMNSHO. The bad part for MS? Anyone intelligent only uses LinkedIn as a public advertising board. That still doesn't diminish the value of full access to the data. I can see me adding all LinkedIn email to an auto-delete rule in the near future.
Most people who think homosexuality is something horrible think so because Abrahamic religions in general and Islam in particular have been saying that for 2000 years.
Sunni Islam is the oldest at only 1300 years. Christianity, from what history states, didn't really form as anything more than essentially a Jim Jones or David Koresh cult for about 300 years, so really only Judaism is 2000+ years old.
Slashdot Mirror
The real issue is they're looking at an era when high quality recordings first became available and people switched to that new media en masse, causing an artificial blip as people not only bought new music, but replaced their favorite current recordings as they came available. It also came at a time that singles (45s) were phased out, forcing people that wanted their latest band to purchase full albums. That time is past, and we should be looking at numbers that take into account those artificial boosting effects. So total revenue is a bad number. Don't forget to factor in that CDs cost a fortune to manufacture in the 80s and early 90s, and are less than $1 today.
I'm in a 100+ person project with people in two countries. Agile works for us.
Then you're doing it wrong.
Note that the first is illegal under the ACA, and the second is likely either illegal or actionable under the ADA.
Gee, there's this law back in 1967, ADEA, that was passed to make it illegal to discriminate against people 40+. Seems to have worked. Silicon Valley openly discriminates against 30+.
Why should I care if everyone sees my medical records? The only argument I have heard is that insurance companies might charge more, and employers may be reluctant to hire people with bad health. But I don't have any health problems, so if my records are public, I should get lower insurance rates and better employment offers, and potential GFs can verify that I am STD free. So it seems like a win-win for me to just store everything in the cloud, and hope it leaks. Is there some downside that I am overlooking?
Yep, there's a whole list of them. Your father (who may not actually be your father) has diabetes and parkinsons. You're a risk. Better go to the next one that doesn't. You have a series of qualities that make you susceptible to the next flu that breaks out. Your genetics indicate you're susceptible to one or another rare cancer, or perhaps will wind up with rheumatoid arthritis. Or perhaps they're someone else's partial records or relatives. After all, dumping all that data into cloud insures that no errors will ever happen like that, right? This is one of those cases where the less info on you is out there, the better.
Oh, on iOS? I missed that detail. Messages on OSX integrates with jabber etc. On the phone, yeah, you're correct. iMessage and SMS only. I need to drink caffeine BEFORE posting.
Yep, jabber works just fine.
The problem lies with those with a mix. For them you just configure an iMessage contact for their phone, whatever device it might be, and the rest can be a different contact. Not really a problem after all.
Apparently you can slow or stop photons. The speed of light c in a vacuum is constant as far as we know.
AFAIK, although you can slow the net propagation of photons (aka the electromagnetic wave dual of a photon) through a material, you cannot slow a photon.
Read the linked article, that was exactly the point of that experiment, not only to slow it, but to stop and then make it go again.
Actually, rounded corners not withstanding, that looks an awful lot like the 2007 iphone. And, iphones were already in manufacturing in June, 2014, so the design came earlier. It's much more likely that Shenzhen lifted the design from the specs sent to Apple's manufacturers.
Mooncoin will rise again, you'll see! To the moon!
Also, does anyone want to buy one million Flappycoins?
I've got a $500 bill from Life....
Most physicists would define a photon as having no mass, yet it would carry momentum proportional to its energy. Mass is seen as a property of a particle that makes it resist changes in speed, but photons always travel at the speed of light (in a vacuum) -- never speeding up, or slowing down... and never at rest.
Apparently you can slow or stop photons. The speed of light c in a vacuum is constant as far as we know.
No, they don't say "Thank you", Citigroup says "Thankyou". If AT&T would just say "Thank you", there wouldn't be any problem.
FTFA: AT&T is saying "thanks". Apparently there is a problem, since there's no "you" there in any way.
There are many reasons for them to want to control the UI. One is that it is a platform where advertisements could be placed and they don't want to give that potential revenue up or let anyone else profit from placing ads there. Nevermind that consumers are revolting against the ads inserted into their television programs by their Samsung TVs; there's a potential that they could get it right.
Then there's the issue where they want to make sure that it is a human watching the cable and not a device.
Those are 2 reasons I would drop cable entirely. As it is, I watch nothing live, and much of my recorded video is replayed through my (not windows) HTPC which allows for all sorts of things to occur as I wish, including rewind, skip back and forth, and stop and restart at any time, from where I left off or some regular chapter markers. VOD and all the other things the ISPs try to sell me are of 0 interest to me, much like cloud anything. It's not different, if it's not on my HD, it's not mine. So why should I pay more for it than a netflix rental (less than $1)?
Because perhaps I want to see my recording with the furry bunny ears pasted on top of "The New Guy 2.0"'s head?
Oh, and I'm not interested in the ISP knowing when, where, or how often I watch New Guy 2.0.
The AC has a better solution - remove FB, and might as well remove twitter and any other social media app.
I don't think there's a timeout, it doesn't behoove FB to "delete" an account. I still get email (auto-junk) from several FB accounts on some junk email addresses I still have access to (OMG, really? I have multiples? Guess there's some ToS I didn't read :) I'll be wholesale changing junk accounts permanently, as it's about time to cut off the old ones. It's mostly a junk rule exercise than anything else.
You are talking now. Just because Google pulls it down now doesn't mean youtube did prior to the Google acquisition. IIRC, Google added the take down mechanism post youtube purchase, and prior to that it was pretty shoddy.
That's was the state of affairs basically until around the the late 1980s to early 1990s for television news. The first big change was CNN and the 24 hour news cycle. The second was the internet (specifically the web) in the 1990s.
Neither of those really mattered to the current downward spiral in news reporting. The first thing that affected news was the rejection of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 by the Republican controlled FCC. It was a bad decision then, and it's still a bad decision. This led directly to:
While it may because of more polarization, but it is also because people are getting exposed to different ideas thus need to make their decisions from more data.
The evidence seems to show people doing exactly the opposite. People are now able to seek out niche news sources that support their already existing world view and disregarding contrary view points regardless of their validity.
The "niche" news sources, which mostly aren't actually news sources but are blogs or some sort of forums, are the direct result of newspapers completely missing the boat in the 90s with the advent of the internet and failing to properly take the steps to continue their subscriber base. Had they given accounts and access via the web to subscribers, they likely would not have been doomed to extinction.
I live in a large metroplex. I've gone through all the stations and do so every 6-9 months. With 2 exceptions for any of the genres of music I listen to, all stations fit that no variety / small playlist scenario. I will also add that the single classical station obviously plays a reasonable variety, but that's not the kind of music we're discussing here.
But he's not wrong that youtube was built mostly on copyrighted works. Once it was large enough, other content started making its way there, but the growth factor was copyrighted works compared to numerous other services available. Now the real question is whether that was largely fair use or was it full copies in violation of copyright? I'd say quite of bit of the former initially, but then more and more of the latter showed up as its popularity grew.
And, most importantly, is unsupported.
Well, that supposes that developers use Office.
Then I thought about this for a moment, and realized their target audience with this is Management. And given our opinion of Management, what is the likelihood that they will respond positively to those adverts? (Sadly, I think 50% won't be overstating it)
If you use LinkedIn as anything other than a public advertising board, you're doing it wrong. As for business ethics, I guess I need to be exposed to whatever you're objecting to. I see very little from LinkedIn, and don't do much there at all since I have little compunction to do anything on LinkedIn. I generally batch process things and do nothing in between them. If someone contacts me, I almost always have their real email, so nothing else ever goes through LinkedIn.
This is one of the stupidest acquisitions I have ever heard of.
Not at all, they get pretty much a real list of millions of people along with some real data. Far more valuable for MS than say FBs data IMNSHO. The bad part for MS? Anyone intelligent only uses LinkedIn as a public advertising board. That still doesn't diminish the value of full access to the data. I can see me adding all LinkedIn email to an auto-delete rule in the near future.
Most people who think homosexuality is something horrible think so because Abrahamic religions in general and Islam in particular have been saying that for 2000 years.
Sunni Islam is the oldest at only 1300 years. Christianity, from what history states, didn't really form as anything more than essentially a Jim Jones or David Koresh cult for about 300 years, so really only Judaism is 2000+ years old.