Doubt Verizon is going to tell you the REAL cost of LTE. Doubt you have any access to real data about that either. Fess up! You pulled those numbers out of your ass.
They have published unused capacity on Fios, not wireless.
You say that as if you believe it. Yet they are selling entire spectrum chunks to others simply to avoid some of the bring-your-own-device regulations that came with those blocks.
Unlimited bandwidth is not possible. You can make it illegal all you want. It doesn't trump physics.
4 Gig is a long way from unlimited.
But even unlimited was always understood to be limited because there are only so many hours in a day you could conceivably pull data over an unlimited network.
Still 10Gig used to be what the carriers were bitching about. Now its the top 5%. Here's a clue Verizon: The top 5%, like the poor, will always be with us. And punishment on a sliding percentage based scale eventually even reaches average users as average is driven ever downward. After they kill of the 4 gig gobblers, the top 5% includes the 3gig people.
Since she went all Goth, she claimed she was only wearing black till they invented something darker.
She'll wallow in this.
Re:1.8 million drivers will lose their job.
on
Autonomous Trucking
·
· Score: 1
We do have the train routes, railroads have been rail-banking surpluss rail lines for years because truck traffic took all the loads. But in most cases the rail is still in place, and bringing it up to standards is cheaper than rebuilding all of our freeways every 5 years just to keep truck drivers employed.
Re:1.8 million drivers will lose their job.
on
Autonomous Trucking
·
· Score: 1
Then when conditions are better, the automated trucks can form a train behind the automated snowplow
Here's a better Idea: Drive those trucks to a REAL TRAIN depot and get them off our roads.
The amount of long haul that is done by trucks in this country is ridiculous, dangerous, and unsustainable. Our roads are being beaten to dust by an industry that doesn't pay taxes at a rate anywhere near sufficient to cover the damage it causes.
We should be mandating rapid train routes for any transport distance greater than 500 miles, with computerized and mostly automated loading and unloading facilities instead of trying to smarten up every truck on the road.
Further more, why is Microsoft bragging about how secure OneDrive is when the NSA documents leaked by Snowden already show that the NSA has total access to your OneDrive?
Hmmm...I read that as "Apple insider says Google device bad." And...you were expecting?
Wos has used and praised lots of different Android gear.
Still there is something fishy about the whole story.
Multi-billionaire takes the time to sell something on ebay? Really? REALLY? Even having one of his "people" do that would never pay for itself. Why would he not just flip it into the trash, or give it to some kid, or donate it to some museum with a signed letter of gifting, which would quickly raise its worth by a factor of 10 or 100.
He says its worthless, and then proves it isn't, and pockets the money? Really? The whole story seems unbelievable.
Turns out you don't have to go all the way around. But still, a wall long enough to interrupt or redirect the gulf flow will change the weather, and probably make the land it tried to protect un-farm-able.
Nonsense. Curved TV's ensure you see a square picture if you are sitting exactly dead centre. That is a tangible difference.
I've never actually seen anyone watch anything in 3d in their home.
Why would I want a square picture of what is broadcast in a decidedly un-square format? You've substituted your so-called square view for glare from many angles. And you've further reduced the acceptable viewing angle.
As for not having seen anyone watching 3D in their home, I suspect you aren't invited into those homes that have a 3D telly. That hardly is a standard by which to judge.
My neighbor down the street does, and he subscribes to Comcast 3D service. It does work. Its nice. Not all that much of an improvement, if you ask me, just a novelty.
Is it a fad? Sure.
But just because your small outlook on the world doesn't include something, its no in indication that something doesn't exits, or that it doesn't work.
I'm in the large minority of people who have never got a 3D effect from a TV or movie to work,
I've never met a single normally sighted person who failed to get a 3D effect from Movies or TV to work. So this large majority of which you speak doesn't seem to exist unless this group also includes all those who have never been to a 3D movie.
The odd bit is at the end of TFS where they say that curved TVs are a gimmick like 3D TVs. There is a big difference, 3D TVs actually give an appearance of 3D when viewing 3D content, (all the brain-and-eye confusing tricks and deception notwithstanding). Every reasonably normal sighted person can see the 3D effect, most just don't think its worth the price (or the headaches).
Curved TVs on the other hand provide a picture that is indistinguishable from normal flat screens, EVEN when you see them side by side in the store.
Bullshit. Draconian rules from the EU are only trotted out against american companies.
The EU does not care about its citizens privacy at all, until there is a foreign company involved. Half the EU countries have pernicious government spying even more deeply than the NSA.
This privacy a fiction trotted out only against off shore interests.
A court does not always require two sides. And even if they do insist on a deposition from Google, an automated routine in the search engine can spit out Google's grounds for rejection.
The courts made this mess, and they can deal with it.
The court provided no guidelines other than the specific case they based the decision on.
In that case, Google doesn't have to review it. No standards for review was provided.
They shouldn't review any of these, they should simply reject all of them.
(Or at best have a computerized review, that is programmed to deny in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases. After all, if a computer algorithm was what got these links into the search engine, another algorithm can be used to reject claims that don't meet an excruciatingly tight set of criteria.)
Until the complainant comes back with a ruling from a court of competent jurisdiction, THEN and ONLY THEN, should Google review them, and they should still err on the side of rejection to force an even higher court to review.
The court made this bed - the courts can sleep in it.
Yeah, you can still find things on line. Bill Gates's mug shot for a traffic violation sufficiently serious to get him hauled into custody. (Which is rare in the US, so I'm guessing DWI).
Somehow it didn't seem to harm him much.
These situations are trifling details, which do not justify the re-write of history, and do not justify the forced de-cataloging of public information. Everybody in the US knows somebody who lost their house in the recent downturn. If anything those people are more likely to be given a break than denied employment.
The penalty for the excesses of youth is really not significant. Caught with weed and booze while joy riding in someone else's car at 16? You dog, you! Can you start next Monday, we really need another mechanic as soon as possible.
The arguments are bogus. You live with what you've done. Allowing people to erase their past is exceedingly dangerous. What deterrent remains against repeat offenders if simply paying a fine, and then forcibly erasing all evidence gets you a clean bill? People have a right to evaluate who they are hiring as a camp counselor for the Girl Guides summer camp, or who they rent an apartment to.
Almost Nobody has a unique name. I could be running for office, running a business, or selling my artwork, and have someone with the same name demand all link be removed when his name is keyed into the search engine.
How is Google to know which individual is being searched?
Slashdot Mirror
Doubt Verizon is going to tell you the REAL cost of LTE.
Doubt you have any access to real data about that either.
Fess up! You pulled those numbers out of your ass.
They have published unused capacity on Fios, not wireless.
You say that as if you believe it.
Yet they are selling entire spectrum chunks to others simply to avoid some of the bring-your-own-device regulations that came with those blocks.
Sure they are.
They get a bill every month just like everyone else.
And they pay more than it costs to provide them with their bandwidth.
Do have a look at the 10K before wringing your hands for poor pool Verizon.
Unlimited bandwidth is not possible. You can make it illegal all you want. It doesn't trump physics.
4 Gig is a long way from unlimited.
But even unlimited was always understood to be limited because there are only so many hours in a day you could conceivably pull data over an unlimited network.
Still 10Gig used to be what the carriers were bitching about. Now its the top 5%. Here's a clue Verizon: The top 5%, like the poor, will always be with us. And punishment on a sliding percentage based scale eventually even reaches average users as average is driven ever downward. After they kill of the 4 gig gobblers, the top 5% includes the 3gig people.
Its a stupid plan.
Since she went all Goth, she claimed she was only wearing black till they invented something darker.
She'll wallow in this.
We do have the train routes, railroads have been rail-banking surpluss rail lines for years because truck traffic
took all the loads. But in most cases the rail is still in place, and bringing it up to standards is cheaper
than rebuilding all of our freeways every 5 years just to keep truck drivers employed.
Then when conditions are better, the automated trucks can form a train behind the automated snowplow
Here's a better Idea: Drive those trucks to a REAL TRAIN depot and get them off our roads.
The amount of long haul that is done by trucks in this country is ridiculous, dangerous, and unsustainable. Our roads are being beaten to dust by an industry that doesn't pay taxes at a rate anywhere near sufficient to cover the damage it causes.
We should be mandating rapid train routes for any transport distance greater than 500 miles, with computerized and mostly automated loading and unloading facilities instead of trying to smarten up every truck on the road.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ar...
Google: nsa skydrive skype
Further more, why is Microsoft bragging about how secure OneDrive is when the NSA documents leaked by Snowden already show that the NSA has total access to your OneDrive?
>> Apple co-founder..."Galaxy Gear...worthless"
Hmmm...I read that as "Apple insider says Google device bad." And...you were expecting?
Wos has used and praised lots of different Android gear.
Still there is something fishy about the whole story.
Multi-billionaire takes the time to sell something on ebay? Really? REALLY?
Even having one of his "people" do that would never pay for itself.
Why would he not just flip it into the trash, or give it to some kid, or donate it
to some museum with a signed letter of gifting, which would quickly raise its worth by a factor of 10 or 100.
He says its worthless, and then proves it isn't, and pockets the money? Really?
The whole story seems unbelievable.
Turns out you don't have to go all the way around.
But still, a wall long enough to interrupt or redirect the gulf flow will change the weather, and probably make the land it tried to protect un-farm-able.
Non profit status does not equal charity status.
It simply means that after costs and salaries are paid there's no money left.
Nonsense. Curved TV's ensure you see a square picture if you are sitting exactly dead centre. That is a tangible difference.
I've never actually seen anyone watch anything in 3d in their home.
Why would I want a square picture of what is broadcast in a decidedly un-square format? You've substituted your so-called square view for glare from many angles. And you've further reduced the acceptable viewing angle.
As for not having seen anyone watching 3D in their home, I suspect you aren't
invited into those homes that have a 3D telly. That hardly is a standard by which to judge.
My neighbor down the street does, and he subscribes to Comcast 3D service.
It does work. Its nice. Not all that much of an improvement, if you ask me, just a novelty.
Is it a fad? Sure.
But just because your small outlook on the world doesn't include something, its no in indication that something doesn't exits, or that it doesn't work.
I'm in the large minority of people who have never got a 3D effect from a TV or movie to work,
I've never met a single normally sighted person who failed to get a 3D effect from Movies or TV to work.
So this large majority of which you speak doesn't seem to exist unless this group also includes all those who have never been to a 3D movie.
Further you can subscribe to 3D channels on Comcast if you were so inclined. Its not that hard to find content in 3D.
Curved TV's aren't better? I can't believe it!
The odd bit is at the end of TFS where they say that curved TVs are a gimmick like 3D TVs. There is a big difference, 3D TVs actually give an appearance of 3D when viewing 3D content, (all the brain-and-eye confusing tricks and deception notwithstanding). Every reasonably normal sighted person can see the 3D effect, most just don't think its worth the price (or the headaches).
Curved TVs on the other hand provide a picture that is indistinguishable from normal flat screens, EVEN when you see them side by side in the store.
Bullshit.
Draconian rules from the EU are only trotted out against american companies.
The EU does not care about its citizens privacy at all, until there is a foreign company involved.
Half the EU countries have pernicious government spying even more deeply than the NSA.
This privacy a fiction trotted out only against off shore interests.
A court does not always require two sides.
And even if they do insist on a deposition from Google, an automated routine in the search engine can spit out Google's grounds for rejection.
The courts made this mess, and they can deal with it.
The court provided no guidelines other than the specific case they based the decision on.
In that case, Google doesn't have to review it. No standards for review was provided.
They shouldn't review any of these, they should simply reject all of them.
(Or at best have a computerized review, that is programmed to deny in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases. After all, if a computer algorithm was what got these links into the search engine, another algorithm can be used to reject claims that don't meet an excruciatingly tight set of criteria.)
Until the complainant comes back with a ruling from a court of competent jurisdiction, THEN and ONLY THEN, should Google review them, and they should still err on the side of rejection to force an even higher court to review.
The court made this bed - the courts can sleep in it.
And different to should only be used in Australia.
Yeah, you can still find things on line. Bill Gates's mug shot for a traffic violation sufficiently serious to get him hauled into custody. (Which is rare in the US, so I'm guessing DWI).
Somehow it didn't seem to harm him much.
These situations are trifling details, which do not justify the re-write of history, and do not justify the forced de-cataloging of public information. Everybody in the US knows somebody who lost their house in the recent downturn. If anything those people are more likely to be given a break than denied employment.
The penalty for the excesses of youth is really not significant. Caught with weed and booze while joy riding in someone else's car at 16? You dog, you! Can you start next Monday, we really need another mechanic as soon as possible.
The arguments are bogus. You live with what you've done.
Allowing people to erase their past is exceedingly dangerous. What deterrent remains against repeat offenders if simply paying a fine, and then forcibly erasing all evidence gets you a clean bill? People have a right to evaluate who they are hiring as a camp counselor for the Girl Guides summer camp, or who they rent an apartment to.
But they can force Google to remove the link to the news media's site.
I read the entire ruling from the EU court. Have you?
It is NOT sufficiently explained. They don't address the fact that names are common AT ALL.
Do they really expect every single search engine hit to now be adjudicated in court?
I agree, AC 6763-of-93742234.
Half of slashdot disappears the minute Anonymous Coward contacts Google from a EU country.
Almost Nobody has a unique name.
I could be running for office, running a business, or selling my artwork, and have someone with the same name demand all link be removed when his name is keyed into the search engine.
How is Google to know which individual is being searched?