"Spoken like a non-parent. Look its fine to say all that but the problem comes when Tiny Tim..."
As a former parent of small children, it's fine to teach them about advertising and fads. If they still want X in a year, fine, otherwise there's a life lesson about marketing, peer pressure, and temporality to be taught, which is far more valuable than a Cabbage Patch doll or Pet Rock.
If you get outside your bubble and use a dictionary, "crypto" refers to "a person who secretly supports or adheres to a group, party, or belief." Neither the prefix crypto- (from the Greek kryptos - hidden) nor the shorthand crypto are exclusively owned by cryptographers, who themselves misappropriated it from it's (former) definition.
If you want to mean cryptography unambiguously, just say cryptography. But don't complain when someone else uses crypto as shorthand. Pot, meet kettle.
And, there's nothing wrong with calling them "cryptocurrencies," they're a medium of exchange based on cryptography.
An individual satisfies the signing requirement when someone who has been duly authorized to sign for him does so. In the event a statute mandates an instrument be signed in person, the signature must be made in the signer's own hand or at his request and in his presence by another individual.
Artwork is also commonly created from paper and ink. People wear bracelets and necklaces most commonly as jewelry, but sometimes as medical alerts. The medium doesn't determine whether it's art or a document, the context does. Someone who tattoos a signed Do Not Resuscitate on themselves as artwork is best removed from the gene pool anyway. No harm, no foul.
There's 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray. You can get 4K via Netflix, Amazon and Youtube. I get a lot of cable channels (Charter) at 1080i, which is the native format for many channels. Most providers use 1080i. It's the distributors
(e.g. Verizon FIOS, Comcast) who downscale that to 720p.
Instead of asking why you would want a TV better than 720p, you should be asking why you're sticking with a distributor who reduces the quality of the content provided.
Let's not forget, most cell companies today have contractual privacy policies in place which promise to safeguard such information unless disclosed "to comply with valid legal process." Additionally, Federal law (47USC222) specifically burdens cellcos with maintaining such records in confidence. It's not "their data" to do with as they want.
Contrast to Smith v. Maryland, where the court's reasoning for not requiring a warrant for so-called "meta-data" hinged on a lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy. At the time, there was no promise of privacy for the data as there is today.
It is like getting the video from the liquor store cameras to ID the bastard that just robbed it....No warrant needed."
But a warrant is needed if the liquor store owner doesn't want to voluntarily give up the video. And a warrant is justified for a reasonable search, since it's virtually a certainty that the thief is on the video.
Getting location records for thousands of cellular customers is an unreasonable search. No only is it not certain that the perp is in the data, it is a certainty that the vast majority of data (which the cellco's had promised to keep confidential) is related to innocent citizens.
The 4th Amendment is there to protect against fishing expeditions, which this is.
You keep making untrue and unsupported claims. When you get into that community college and learn to not be an idiot, come back with some reasoned argument.
...and absolutely noting in net neutrality prevents an ISP from limiting bandwidth, as long as they do it equitably (e.g. everyone gets X Mbps, regardless of whether they're trying to stream video or getting email or web browsing. There's no need for "traffic prioritizing," that's a red herring, you can do traffic shaping without regard to the content. First you said "just Netflix," and now you say "Netflix and Hulu etc." Make up your mind and try to form a cogent argument. You obviously don't understand networking.
"What choices do you have to stay in touch with friends and family online? Honestly. Either you be the weird guy, or use facebook. "
Or, you know, simply call them on the phone, or send them a letter, or even an email if Internet you must. Duh. The Bookface is almost as evil as Uber.
ISPs in many cases are a singular chokepoint for Internet access, hence the need for net neutrality. Don't like Facebook or Google? There are ready alternatives to both.
Whoosh. It's the paying customers who are wanting Netflix. Netflix doesn't "push" anything, paying customers pull the content they want. And it's not the ISP's place to determine what customers want. o, there's absolutely no legitimate reason to throttle "just Netflix" - if demand exceeds capacity, under net neutrality an ISP can throttle everyone equally without regard to the content provider. If they do so and limit everyone equally, it doesn't violate net neutrality, so maybe everyone can get email and no one can get a reasonable video stream, but it's equitable=neutral. Why should they be able to limit "just Netflix," when customers could just as well be streaming Youtube, or HBO Go, or Amazon video, or myriad or other streaming services?
Double whoosh, because this is obviously all way, way, over your head in understanding.
You continue to demonstrate that you don't know a thing about net neutrality. The FCC net neutrality rules never prevented limiting traffic for bona fide network management purposes, they only prevented such things on an inequitable basis (e.g. throttling Netflix, but providing unlimited bandwidth for the provider's own content service).
There is absolutely nothing about net neutrality which would prevent a small ISP from doing "things like fixed wireless solutions with modest backhaul without reserving the right to shape their traffic to best serve their smaller groups of customers at rational prices" as you claim.
" Installing it leaves persistent services running on your phone forever, and those persistent services maintain open network connections to servers in China. With it's extensive list of required permissions, you basically give it complete and total control of your phone."
This may be naive - I don't have a DJI drone. Can't you just install it on an older phone you're no longer using as a phone, making it a dedicated remote for the drone. Is anything more than WiFi needed?
Slashdot Mirror
But dad, all my friends are taking oxy, why can't I have some of your's?
"Spoken like a non-parent. Look its fine to say all that but the problem comes when Tiny Tim..."
As a former parent of small children, it's fine to teach them about advertising and fads. If they still want X in a year, fine, otherwise there's a life lesson about marketing, peer pressure, and temporality to be taught, which is far more valuable than a Cabbage Patch doll or Pet Rock.
"Companies making big bucks out of traditional currencies"
You don't have to be a company to do that, you can do it at home in your spare time!
But, it is correct. In the whole world no two iPhones are identical. They're each unique, just like all the rest.
Sanford Sharpies and ink pens are your friend.
Context, man, context.
If you get outside your bubble and use a dictionary, "crypto" refers to "a person who secretly supports or adheres to a group, party, or belief." Neither the prefix crypto- (from the Greek kryptos - hidden) nor the shorthand crypto are exclusively owned by cryptographers, who themselves misappropriated it from it's (former) definition.
If you want to mean cryptography unambiguously, just say cryptography. But don't complain when someone else uses crypto as shorthand. Pot, meet kettle.
And, there's nothing wrong with calling them "cryptocurrencies," they're a medium of exchange based on cryptography.
- source
Artwork is also commonly created from paper and ink. People wear bracelets and necklaces most commonly as jewelry, but sometimes as medical alerts. The medium doesn't determine whether it's art or a document, the context does. Someone who tattoos a signed Do Not Resuscitate on themselves as artwork is best removed from the gene pool anyway. No harm, no foul.
"It's also possible for people to change their minds."
Sure, just as it's possible to tattoo over the "not" in DNR.
"as a tattoo was not considered a legal DNR order in this state"
So, written and signed DNRs aren't legal? Weird.
There's 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray. You can get 4K via Netflix, Amazon and Youtube. I get a lot of cable channels (Charter) at 1080i, which is the native format for many channels. Most providers use 1080i. It's the distributors (e.g. Verizon FIOS, Comcast) who downscale that to 720p.
Instead of asking why you would want a TV better than 720p, you should be asking why you're sticking with a distributor who reduces the quality of the content provided.
Undefined acronym alert! Bad editor alert!
"Lets not forget, this is their data, not ours."
Let's not forget, most cell companies today have contractual privacy policies in place which promise to safeguard such information unless disclosed "to comply with valid legal process." Additionally, Federal law (47USC222) specifically burdens cellcos with maintaining such records in confidence. It's not "their data" to do with as they want.
Contrast to Smith v. Maryland, where the court's reasoning for not requiring a warrant for so-called "meta-data" hinged on a lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy. At the time, there was no promise of privacy for the data as there is today.
It is like getting the video from the liquor store cameras to ID the bastard that just robbed it....No warrant needed."
But a warrant is needed if the liquor store owner doesn't want to voluntarily give up the video. And a warrant is justified for a reasonable search, since it's virtually a certainty that the thief is on the video.
Getting location records for thousands of cellular customers is an unreasonable search. No only is it not certain that the perp is in the data, it is a certainty that the vast majority of data (which the cellco's had promised to keep confidential) is related to innocent citizens.
The 4th Amendment is there to protect against fishing expeditions, which this is.
You keep making untrue and unsupported claims. When you get into that community college and learn to not be an idiot, come back with some reasoned argument.
...and absolutely noting in net neutrality prevents an ISP from limiting bandwidth, as long as they do it equitably (e.g. everyone gets X Mbps, regardless of whether they're trying to stream video or getting email or web browsing. There's no need for "traffic prioritizing," that's a red herring, you can do traffic shaping without regard to the content. First you said "just Netflix," and now you say "Netflix and Hulu etc." Make up your mind and try to form a cogent argument. You obviously don't understand networking.
"What choices do you have to stay in touch with friends and family online? Honestly. Either you be the weird guy, or use facebook. "
Or, you know, simply call them on the phone, or send them a letter, or even an email if Internet you must. Duh. The Bookface is almost as evil as Uber.
ISPs in many cases are a singular chokepoint for Internet access, hence the need for net neutrality. Don't like Facebook or Google? There are ready alternatives to both.
Tesla will be selling a tractor. A "semi" is the trailer part (as in semi-trailer).
Whoosh. It's the paying customers who are wanting Netflix. Netflix doesn't "push" anything, paying customers pull the content they want. And it's not the ISP's place to determine what customers want. o, there's absolutely no legitimate reason to throttle "just Netflix" - if demand exceeds capacity, under net neutrality an ISP can throttle everyone equally without regard to the content provider. If they do so and limit everyone equally, it doesn't violate net neutrality, so maybe everyone can get email and no one can get a reasonable video stream, but it's equitable=neutral. Why should they be able to limit "just Netflix," when customers could just as well be streaming Youtube, or HBO Go, or Amazon video, or myriad or other streaming services?
Double whoosh, because this is obviously all way, way, over your head in understanding.
You continue to demonstrate that you don't know a thing about net neutrality. The FCC net neutrality rules never prevented limiting traffic for bona fide network management purposes, they only prevented such things on an inequitable basis (e.g. throttling Netflix, but providing unlimited bandwidth for the provider's own content service).
There is absolutely nothing about net neutrality which would prevent a small ISP from doing "things like fixed wireless solutions with modest backhaul without reserving the right to shape their traffic to best serve their smaller groups of customers at rational prices" as you claim.
TFA is talking about race. It should be talking about affluence. The GP's point is about the difference.
So someone else doesn't have to clean up the gory mess.
Put some rocks in your gas tank and let us know how far you get.
...and they're slightly off, it doesn't have a 10:1 aspect ratio, it's 9:4:1.
" Installing it leaves persistent services running on your phone forever, and those persistent services maintain open network connections to servers in China. With it's extensive list of required permissions, you basically give it complete and total control of your phone."
This may be naive - I don't have a DJI drone. Can't you just install it on an older phone you're no longer using as a phone, making it a dedicated remote for the drone. Is anything more than WiFi needed?