Not sure why it's never been very popular. It's one of the most useful add-ons I have. Unlike the proposed add-on in TFA which only uses the Wayback Machine, Resurrect Pages lets you pick from four possible sources (Google cache in full and text-only mode for those annoying pages which won't show the text until all the nonexistent pics finish loading first, Wayback Machine, WebCite, archive.is) for a cached version of the page. There used to be more, but I guess some of those archiving projects died.
It's be stupid to use this with your bank account. But I do have a dozen or so forums I occasionally post on and other sites which really shouldn't require an account, but they force you to make one to get access (e.g. they only let you read 3 forum posts a day anonymously). Those are basically throwaway accounts so I use the same password with them anyway. Something like this would be handy for that. Though as it's been pointed out, OpenID already tries to do that.
It's actually safer than re-using the same password on multiple sites as I've been doing. If you use the same password, if one site gets hacked, they have your password to all the other sites. With YOLO or OpenID, since the login confirmation is between the site and YOLO/OpenID, the damage is limited to the site which got hacked. They only get access to all your accounts if they hack YOLO/OpenID or your computer.
The research division became Bell Labs, which is now Nokia Bell Labs (Microsoft only owns Nokia Mobile).
The left-over telephone sanitisers, account executives, hair dressers, tired TV producers, salesmen, personnel officers, security guards, public relations executives and management consultants became the AT&T Long Distance that SBC eventually bought.
Once of the nice things about using Google News as your aggregator is that if you see a clickbait headline for what looks like something you might actually be interested in ("You Won't BELIEVE What the Mars Rover Just Found!"), you can just click the little triangles to the right and get a bunch of related news articles with the same story, and read one of those instead.
that Apple has a habit of quietly revving its current computers without much fanfare, upgrading their computers on a regular basis.
This is actually a huge problem. I'm the computer guru among my circle of friends, so they usually come to me for recommendations when buying a laptop. With the PC laptops it's pretty easy. Listen to what they need, find a model which fits their needs, and give them an exact model number(s) to go out and buy.
With the Macbooks... oh boy. You either need the serial number (which on some models required removing the battery to read it), or you need physical access to the machine while it's turned on and not locked down with some sales software so you can look up the model number via the Finder. It's gotten to the point where I either need to go with them to the store, or have to be on the phone with them while they read me the serial number before I can tell them if it's the right one for them to buy.
As for TFA, the gap is because Apple mostly skipped Broadwell, and they have this thing about keeping an older processor in their lineup as a "cheaper" option. Normally I'm pretty critical of Apple, but Skylake hasn't been that impressive compared to Haswell, both in terms of computing power and in terms of battery life (the Core M series excepted). I still see a lot of Haswell PC laptops for sale, and if the person doesn't need USB-C or 4k video output over HDMI 2.0, I don't really see a problem with Haswell laptops. (Though I should mention not all Skylake laptops can do 4k@60 Hz over HDMI.)
Actually, for phone service,a lot of those roaming charges are because of government taxes and tariffs on international voice calls. Why do you think companies have been clamoring to switch to VoIP for international operations?
I've been on an ancient Sprint unlimited data plan (true unlimited data - I've used up to 112 GB in a month with no complaints and no throttling) for $50/mo for over a decade now. They had a rough spot with the WiMax bungle, but I stuck with them gambling that they'd pull through. And they have. I almost always have LTE service now in Southern California. TFA lists Sprint's (and AT&T's) LTE coverage as 93% vs Verizon's 98% (then uses a graph whose scale is apparently 90%-100% to exaggerate the difference). It's the LTE coverage which is key. It was really painful when Sprint was down near 50%, but it's actually pretty rare for me to see my phone in 3G mode nowadays.
As for LTE speed, the average of the other carriers is 21.2 Mbps down, 9.3 Mbps up. Sprint's is 15.8 Mbps down, 4.9 Mbps up, or 75% down and 53% up vs the other carriers. Unless you're streaming 4k video to your cell phone, or regularly shoot a lot of videos and insist that they be uploaded to cloud backup immediately, these differences simply don't matter. They're all "fast enough" - they correspond to a few seconds or even a split second difference in most use cases.
The speeds are to the point where consistency (better coverage, fewer dead spots) is a more important factor. And by that metric there's now only a 5% difference between the best and worst mobile carrier in the U.S. Hardly worth the 2x price Verizon wants for service. That's why I gambled and decided not to give up my unlimited plan on Sprint by switching carriers. Once your coverage reaches about 90% (which was where Verizon was at when Sprint was around 50%), you're pretty close to maxed out. There's simply not much more improvement you can make. Whereas Sprint at 50% had a lot of room for possible improvement. (Your experience will vary with location. I hear Sprint still sucks in the Bay Area.)
(And if you're curious, no I'm not a bandwidth hog. My monthly data use is usually down around 1-3 GB. Just every now and then I go on a business trip or vacation, and use my phone as a hotspot so I and my family/friends can get Internet on our laptops and tablets. I'd have to pay $15/GB for overage if I switched to Verizon. The month I used 112 GB would've cost me over $1500. No thanks.)
"A bargained-for exchange of information for service is a perfectly acceptable and widely used model throughout the U.S. economy, including the Internet ecosystem,"
Yes, when both parties have a choice whether or not to enter into that agreement. I don't trust Microsoft, so I don't use their free services. Google so far hasn't abused my info, so I use their free services. (I set up a different email for each company, and google@myname.com hasn't gotten spam. microsoft@myname.com regularly gets spam. Indicating Google has kept my email address with them secret, while Microsoft has sold it for profit.)
All this goes out the window when the ISP is a government-granted monopoly. Monopoly = I don't have a choice. So hell no. A government-granted monopoly should not be able to obtain anything from its customers except a government-approved amount of cash.
2) You're mistakenly concluding that having an employee composition which doesn't reflect society means you don't care about diversity. It's the talent pool which is relevant to a business, not society overall. If your employee composition doesn't reflect the talent pool, then all you're doing is depriving qualified people of jobs so you can give them to less qualified people.
The proper way to measure whether a company is acting responsibly would be to compare the gender and ethnic makeup of all the people who apply for a job, and compare to the gender and ethnic makeup of all the people who are hired. If there is no statistical difference between these two groups, then the company is hiring responsibly. Unfortunately, the Equal Employment Opportunity ordinances make it illegal to ask job applicants their gender or race. So the government makes it impossible to ascertain just how responsibly companies are hiring.
3) You're again assuming that not having an employee pool which reflects society means you're discriminating. As I said, it's the composition of the talent pool which matters. If you ignore the composition of the talent pool, you can set up impossible-to-achieve standards. If I need to hire 10 programmers, get 100 applicants, and only 4 of them are women, it is mathematically impossible to make sure 50% of your hirees women.
As for lack of qualified non-white applicants, what can I as a business owner do? I cannot force non-whites to stay in school. I cannot force non-whites to study harder. I cannot force non-whites to get a STEM degree. I suppose I could set up a charity scholarship open only to minorities, but I'm in California. Whites are only 42% of the population here. So if I tried to set up a scholarship for only non-whites, I could be sued for discriminating against the white minority.
These problems need to be addressed at the educational and government level, not the business level. Trying to address it at the business level is like trying to address poor kids growing up shorter in height by lopping off the feet of non-poor kids, instead of instituting a program to feed poor kids better.
Building diversity in your business can be a competitive advantage because it's good public relations
This in particular is especially troublesome. The economy doesn't work off of good intentions. It works off of productivity. The more productive an employee or company is, the more economic activity it creates, and the wealthier people become.
Certain hits to productivity, we as a society have decided to accept. The ADA requires everyone to go to extra expense to make sure handicapped people are given the same opportunity as abled people. But this is a decision we as a society made together, using the democratic principle of majority decides what laws to make.
You can argue diversity is also important enough that we as a society should require it despite the economic hit it creates. If that is your argument, then you need to get a majority of legislators to make it a law. Without that process, coercing unwilling businesses to conform to your ideals by arguing it is good public relations is just that - coercion.
It's angular resolution which matters. That is, not display size, but the ratio of display size to viewing distance.
If you use the one pixel per arc-minute definition (20/20 vision is defined as the ability to distinguish a line pair with one arc-minute of separation), then a VR headset like the Samsung Gear VR with a 96 degree FOV would require about 11.5k horizontal resolution. So two 8k displays side-by-side would come very close to achieving this threshold. Obviously you wouldn't want to do that with two 120" screens. Instead, displays small enough to fit in a VR headset would be preferable.
From talking with friends and clients, about a quarter to third of people who took advantage of the free Win 10 upgrade decided to roll back to their previous OS.
There are two ways to go about this. 20/20 vision is defined as the ability to distinguish a line pair with one arc-minute of separation.
Some people interpret this to mean each pixel should be one arc-minute or smaller. If that's your standard, then the pixel size has to be 1 / tan (1 arc-minute) = 3438 smaller than the viewing distance. If you're holding your phone 12 inches from your eye, that corresponds to 286 PPI being all that's needed. That's what the Retina displays target - 326 PPI before the iPhone 6+.
Other people interpret this to mean you need two pixels per arc-minute. After all, to form a line pair with a separation, you need a row of white pixels with a row of black pixels in between. So then the pixel size becomes 1 / (0.5 arc-minutes) = 6875.5 smaller than the viewing distance. If you're holding your phone 12 inches from your eye, that corresponds to 573 PPI.
It should be noted though that this is for luminosity resolution - your ability to resolve details of any color. This is why printers target 600 PPI - because they print in black and white. Within a specific color, your eye's resolution is substantially worse. Especially for blue, and somewhat for red (the density of your red and blue cones is lower than for green cones and rods). This is the basis behind Pentile displays, which cuts the blue and red resolution in half.* All the bad press coverage they've gotten is by ignorant reporters who compare magnified photos of it completely oblivious that magnifying it defeats the whole purpose. This strategy of reducing red and blue resolution has been used since NTSC video transmissions, and is still used today in JPEG and MPEG encoding. You've been seeing pictures on the web and digital videos all this time with reduced red and blue resolution. If you've never notice this before, then you've basically affirmed that Pentile works.
Anyway, it's a moot point on the Samsung displays because they design them to be used in the Gear VR headsets. Those provide a 96 degree wide angle of view, which to fool 20/20 vision would require 5760 pixels for each eye. Which which correspond to a 11520x6480 resolution display on a 5.7 screen, or 2319 PPI. Any lower than that and you can "see this pixels." This is why the 3D graphics and display screen industries still have a lot of room left to grow, even though CPUs have pretty much hit the point where a low-end CPU is "good enough" for most people's needs.
* The more clever displays take further advantage of this difference between color resolution and luminosity resolution, and use something called subpixel rendering. For an RGB stripe, this corresponds to shifting the "pixel" by 1/3 pixel increments. So if you're trying to display a white dot using two pixels, you actually have 4 possible locations. RGB rgb, rGB Rgb, rgB RGb, and rgb RGB. The problem (for displays you can rotate) is that this extra resolution is only along one axis - usually the horizontal. Windows subpixel rendering for fonts (ClearType) basically turns your 1920x1080 display into a 5760x1080 display for fonts. Pentile overcomes this by using a subpixel layout which is symmetric in both the horizontal and vertical axes. So you can use the same subpixel rendering algorithm regardless of whether the display is in landscape or portrait mode. It really is a superior subpixel layout, which has gotten a bad rap because early implementations had too low a PPI and thus the pixels were visible and lines and fonts were "fuzzy".
This is also why these super-high resolution screens aren't as important for Windows as they are for Macs. Subpixel rendering like ClearType shifts the location of letters by up to 1/3 pixel to make them line up with the subpixel grid. Apple knew their computers were used by most page layout professionals which would find this unacceptable. So their font rendering engine (based o
That's pretty much what NR-1 was built for. Ostensibly it was for researching the deep ocean environment. But really, when you build a nuclear powered deep ocean submersible which can stay on the ocean floor for weeks at a time, it's pretty obvious the purpose is to tap undersea cables.
It was most likely retired because ROVs and telepresence had become advanced enough that they could do the tapping remotely, without the need to put people right next to the cable.
Mens rea is irrelevant to cases concerning classified information. All that's required is gross negligence, not intent. Kristian Saucier is currently serving 6 years in jail because he took photos of the reactor room where he worked aboard a U.S. Navy submarine. He didn't intend to distribute them, and AFAIK the Navy never found any evidence he intended to distribute them. Merely possessing them (gross negligence by taking the photos) was enough to bring him up on charges, to which he eventually pled guilty last month.
I don't plan on voting for Trump so I haven't been following what he said about Russian hackers. But I suspect his quip was aimed at getting the Russians to reveal if they had in fact hacked Clinton's email server. If they did, that would pretty much seal the case that Clinton's negligence in setting it up was in fact gross.
(I'm sorry for the outdated article, but nearly all of the manstream media is refusing to carry anything about this story. And that old article was the one with the most details. People like you who believe Mens rea is required are eating up the lie being fed to you by those in the media who support Clinton. Talk to anyone with a security clearance and ask them what the standard is. Clinton's polling numbers actually dropped after the FBI announced no charges were going to be filed, not increased as you would expect after having this shadow lifted from her future. I suspect that was due to her losing the support of lots of people with security clearances. Most of us weren't expecting jail time like the Right wanted; we were however expecting something minor like a reprimand, and rescinding her access to classified info (if she still has it). But for there to be no charges at all...)
So Vietnam and the Philippines oppose what they see as China's invasive territorial claims to parts of the ocean which by International treaty belong to Vietnam and the Phillippines. The UN tribunal sides with them. And these Chinese hackers figure the best way to protest the UN ruling is... by hacking into computers in Vietnam? Way to go - you've just confirmed most Vietnamese's impression that the Chinese are dicks who don't care about other countries territorial rights.
Go visit a forest some time. Lots of stuff growing without people maintaining the soil, without people keeping pests away. There is only a harvesting step.
You need to compare on the basis of cost, not simplicity. You can have a complex process which is cheap, or a simple process which is expensive. If the cost to harvest (and refine if necessary) is less than the cost to build regular PV panels or these new type of solar cells, then the energy biol-fuels produce will be cheaper than solar (putting aside environmental cost for now). Cost to maintain soil and keep pests away become a factor only when you're trying to optimize the process, which isn't always necessary or possible (e.g. cod fishing, truffles).
This is why oil is cheaper than solar. All those plants millions of years ago grew without any human involvement, turned into oil without human intervention, so we're able to tap into that energy for just the cost of harvesting the oil. The dream is to be able to convert generic plant matter (cellulose) into biofuel. Since we already "harvest" a ton of waste plant matter anyway (waste product from growing food crops, green waste from landscaping, food plants which spoil and get thrown out), this would essentially be free fuel whose only cost is processing to convert it to biofuel.
As for these new solar cells vs PV cells, it boils to conversion efficiency and effectiveness as a storage medium. These new cells store solar energy chemically. PV cells store the solar energy electrically. Currently chemical energy storage completely kicks electrical storage's ass. Cheaper, lighter, easier to transport (and thus easier and quicker to power up your car). In fact, charging a battery with electricity is a chemical process - they can only sometimes beat out chemical storage in efficiency because converting chemical energy to electricity bypasses the Carnot efficiency limit that constrains chemical to mechanical energy conversion. (Which is also why when the desired product is heat, chemical heating like a gas stove is cheaper than electrical heating. Converting chemical energy to heat locally is 100% efficient.)
Chernobyl is at 51 degrees North latitude. That far north, the angle of the sun and the earth's tilt significantly reduces the the available solar power throughout the year. It's about the same latitude as Germany, which only manages a solar capacity factor of about 0.10 (i.e. if you have a fixed panel with 100 Watts peak generating capacity at that location, over a year it will on average generate 10 watts). Capacity factor incorporates weather, night, average angle of the sun, and less sunlight reaching the ground because it has to travel through more air due to its oblique angle through the atmosphere.
The continental U.S. sits closer to 40 degrees North latitude, and has an average solar capacity factor of 0.145. The best locations for solar are closer to the equator, and in arid environments with few clouds. Solar capacity factor in Southern California and Arizona for example is about 0.185. That is, you can get nearly double the energy production of Germany for the same surface area of panels, simply by putting them in a better location. Chernobyl sits along Ukraine's northern border. Unless there are huge differences in average cloud cover, Ukraine would be much better served by building the solar plant along its southern border.
I thought the U.S. screwed up too at first. But then I read an article that in Europe, you basically can't contest fraud on your card. The reasoning is that because the chip cannot be defeated, and you're not supposed to tell your PIN to anyone, any use of "your" card must be legit. Either you made the purchase yourself, or you loaned the card to someone else and told them the PIN. So it must be your fault, therefore you are on the hook for the fraudulent purchases. Even if you're talking with the bank on the phone while sitting at home with your card in your hand, and there are transactions showing up on your account from Indonesia, they'll insist it's your fault. You are presumed guilty, and have to work to prove your innocence.
The problem is the chip isn't hack-proof. A researcher (can't find the article right now) showed that the specs for the terminals have several different protocols, one of which confusingly uses the same signal for "the correct PIN was entered" and "a PIN (any PIN) was entered." He rigged up a card which would make the terminal accept his PIN via this message (card connected to a computer in his backpack via a cable hidden in his sweatshirt), grabbed a half dozen volunteers, and demonstrated his hack allowing him to put charges on their cards at a bunch of random stores in France. Criminals have already been caught using this hack in the wild. There are probably other ways to defeat it too which we haven't figured out yet.
The chip and signature system allows an American cardholder to contest a charge simply by pointing out the signature doesn't match their signature. The system is more secure than magnetic swipe cards, but not so secure that banks and the government start to assume fraud is "impossible" and thus shift the burden of proof onto the victim to prove that s/he was victimized.
You can upgrade to Win 10, and immediately roll it back to 7. It might uninstall some programs it deems incompatible, but otherwise should put you back where you started. Microsoft's servers register the fact that you've taken advantage of the free upgrade to Win 10 (dunno if it's tied to the hardware or to the Win 7 key), so you can go back to Win 10 for free again any time in the future. This is actually the strategy I've been advising - that way you can decide whether or not to upgrade to Win 10 after seeing what features/horrors the Aug 2 update brings.
Key transfer limitations are the same as with Win 7. Retail versions can be moved to new hardware. OEM versions are tied to the original computer.
You supposedly have 30 days to roll back to the previous version of Windows that you had, but I'd advise rolling back long before then. One of my VMs was upgraded July 2. I just tried rolling it back yesterday (July 28) and it said it was too late for me to roll back. This despite the Windows.old folder still being on the drive with all the Win 7 files still in there. On well, that's what snapshots are for.
United Airlines flight 232 crashed into an Iowa cornfield while attempting to land. A turbine in the #2 engine flew apart mid-flight due to a manufacturing defect, severing all the hydraulic lines. The crew controlled the plane with differential thrust from the two remaining engines, and frankly it was a miracle they even made it to the runway. Roughly a third of the people aboard were killed.
One of those killed was a lap child - a child flying without a paid seat, and thus held on a parent's lap during the flight. This presented a problem during the emergency landing. Lead flight attenand Jan Lohr followed FAA procedure and instructed the parents to put the child underneath the seat in front like a carry-on bag. After the accident, the mother (who survived) came up to Jan and, in tears, told her "I did what you told me to do, and I can't find my child."
Jan was beset with guilt, and began a quarter-century crusade to outlaw the practice of lap children. That any child flying should be required to have their own seat with a crash safety seat like we use in cars. She even testified about her experience before Congress. It all came for naught when in 2012 the FAA issued its final decision that lap children would still be allowed. A victory for the selfish, self-centered stockholders and management behind the evil airlines, right?
Not so fast. See, here's the thing. Flying is really, really safe. Due to the irrational nature of people's emotional mind, we fixate on large accidents while multiple small ones slip by unnoticed. So every time an airliner crashes, it makes national if not worldwide headlines. But if there's a car accident nearby, even your local news station is unlikely to cover it. Consequently we've spent decades concentrating on making flying disproportionately super-safe. The FAA crunched the numbers, and determined that if a family with a child decided to travel for vacation, the odds of the child dying in a plane accident - as a lap child - were lower than the odds of the child dying in a car accident while strapped into a car seat. So to encourage people to fly instead of drive with their child on vacation, they allow the family to fly without having to pay for an extra seat for the child.
The lap child policy saves lives, despite its horrific outcome when the statistics don't work your way and there's a lap child aboard a plane which does crash. (As for forcing airlines to give children a free seat, that doesn't work either because they don't know until the time of the flight exactly how many people will be aboard. The way the industry operates is to slightly overbook because on average a certain percentage of people will miss their flights. When that gambit fails and more people show up for the flight than there are seats on the plane, someone has to be bumped off the flight. Forcing them to hold an unknown number of seats in reserve for "surprise" undeclared children would shift the number of passengers for a "booked" flight down, forcing them to raise the per-seat price, which again would encourage parents of young children to drive instead of fly.)
This is something I've noticed about iPhone owners. Not all of them mind you, just a disproportionately larger share of them. They like the product not because it works well for them, but because it's popular. That is, their sense of the product's value is externalized. They feel better about their purchase because they know they're buying something lots of other people bought. That's why you get those silly iPhone covers with a cutout letting other people see the Apple logo - because it's important to them that other people know they have an iPhone.
When one of these people is a reporter, they'll write articles exaggerating how "popular" the iPhone is, because it makes themselves (and other iPhone users) feel better about their purchase. The best evidence of this is when iPhone users are proud that the iPhone has the biggest profit margin of any cell phone. As a customer, a big profit margin is against your best interests. If you had to choose between buying two cars and one had a 20% profit margin and the other a 5% profit margin, all other things being equal, you as the purchaser would take the one with the 5% profit margin. But because their sense of self-worth is based more on popularity, and profit correlates to popularity, they basically like that they are over-paying for a product, simply because lots of other people are also over-paying for the same product.
They're not free. When you buy a CD (or DVD) of stock photos, the fee you paid for the CD or DVD includs licensing rights for you to use those photos commercially.
That's the way it used to work. The web changed all that by cutting out the middleman so to speak. You didn't need to buy an entire DVD full of images 99.9% of which you'd never use. You could go to the website of a stock photos company and license only the photos you wanted to use. Getty is one of those companies.
I'm more curious how Getty ended up thinking they owned the copyright on those images. If they misappropriated her photos, it's possible they misappropriated photos belonging to less-famous people by simply lifting them off web sites. I would propose Getty be forced to produce documentation (contracts for photos shot as work for hire, licensing rights for photos licensed, etc) for every single one of the photos they offer for sale. It's not unreasonable - that's what they ask you to do if they claim you're using one of their photos in violation of copyright. Now that their copyright "chain of custody" has been found to be flawed, they need to do the same for every photo they're using.
The music industry set the bar at $22,500 per violation ($675,000 for 30 works) for an individual violating copyright without a profit motive. $1 billion for 18,000 works is only $55,555 per violation, which is relative to the Tenenbaum case is not unreasonable when you consider this is commercial copyright violation. Her lawyers are actually being nice by "only" asking for $1 billion. Copyright law allows her to sue for up to $150,000 per violation, which would be a cool $2.7 billion.
In other words, if she gets less than $22,500 * 18,000 = $405 million out of this, there's been a gross miscarriage of justice either in her case or the Tenenbaum cause. Unlike filesharing, what Getty Images did is precisely the sort of thing copyright law was made to prohibit - profiting off the work of others.
It is very useful. The vast majority of wifi access points have fixed locations (homes, businesses). In my experience (I used my phone with GPS off in an older handset because it wasn't implemented properly and drained the battery), it's nearly as good as GPS - usually able to pinpoint you to about 20 meters.
Remember when Google got in trouble with the EU because their Google Street View cars were capturing too much wifi info? They were recording wifi info to build a global map of wifi hotspots specifically for wifi-based location services. Remember when Apple got in hot water for iPhones sending people's GPS location history back to Apple? They were doing that for the same reason - to build up a global map of wifi hotspots.
Bottled tap water - Aquafina (Pepsi), Dasani (Coca-Cola), as well as many store brands like Kirkland - is usually reverse osmosis filtered and shouldn't have these sorts of contaminants. RO is so effective you actually have to add minerals back to the water after filtering to improve the taste and prevent it from leeching minerals out of your teeth and body because it's so pure.
Bottled spring water is from a natural source, and will have things objective test equipment considers to be contaminants, including organics like algae. But people like to buy it because it's "natural."
Slashdot Mirror
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/resurrect-pages/
Not sure why it's never been very popular. It's one of the most useful add-ons I have. Unlike the proposed add-on in TFA which only uses the Wayback Machine, Resurrect Pages lets you pick from four possible sources (Google cache in full and text-only mode for those annoying pages which won't show the text until all the nonexistent pics finish loading first, Wayback Machine, WebCite, archive.is) for a cached version of the page. There used to be more, but I guess some of those archiving projects died.
It's be stupid to use this with your bank account. But I do have a dozen or so forums I occasionally post on and other sites which really shouldn't require an account, but they force you to make one to get access (e.g. they only let you read 3 forum posts a day anonymously). Those are basically throwaway accounts so I use the same password with them anyway. Something like this would be handy for that. Though as it's been pointed out, OpenID already tries to do that.
It's actually safer than re-using the same password on multiple sites as I've been doing. If you use the same password, if one site gets hacked, they have your password to all the other sites. With YOLO or OpenID, since the login confirmation is between the site and YOLO/OpenID, the damage is limited to the site which got hacked. They only get access to all your accounts if they hack YOLO/OpenID or your computer.
Once of the nice things about using Google News as your aggregator is that if you see a clickbait headline for what looks like something you might actually be interested in ("You Won't BELIEVE What the Mars Rover Just Found!"), you can just click the little triangles to the right and get a bunch of related news articles with the same story, and read one of those instead.
This is actually a huge problem. I'm the computer guru among my circle of friends, so they usually come to me for recommendations when buying a laptop. With the PC laptops it's pretty easy. Listen to what they need, find a model which fits their needs, and give them an exact model number(s) to go out and buy.
With the Macbooks... oh boy. You either need the serial number (which on some models required removing the battery to read it), or you need physical access to the machine while it's turned on and not locked down with some sales software so you can look up the model number via the Finder. It's gotten to the point where I either need to go with them to the store, or have to be on the phone with them while they read me the serial number before I can tell them if it's the right one for them to buy.
As for TFA, the gap is because Apple mostly skipped Broadwell, and they have this thing about keeping an older processor in their lineup as a "cheaper" option. Normally I'm pretty critical of Apple, but Skylake hasn't been that impressive compared to Haswell, both in terms of computing power and in terms of battery life (the Core M series excepted). I still see a lot of Haswell PC laptops for sale, and if the person doesn't need USB-C or 4k video output over HDMI 2.0, I don't really see a problem with Haswell laptops. (Though I should mention not all Skylake laptops can do 4k@60 Hz over HDMI.)
Actually, for phone service,a lot of those roaming charges are because of government taxes and tariffs on international voice calls. Why do you think companies have been clamoring to switch to VoIP for international operations?
I've been on an ancient Sprint unlimited data plan (true unlimited data - I've used up to 112 GB in a month with no complaints and no throttling) for $50/mo for over a decade now. They had a rough spot with the WiMax bungle, but I stuck with them gambling that they'd pull through. And they have. I almost always have LTE service now in Southern California. TFA lists Sprint's (and AT&T's) LTE coverage as 93% vs Verizon's 98% (then uses a graph whose scale is apparently 90%-100% to exaggerate the difference). It's the LTE coverage which is key. It was really painful when Sprint was down near 50%, but it's actually pretty rare for me to see my phone in 3G mode nowadays.
As for LTE speed, the average of the other carriers is 21.2 Mbps down, 9.3 Mbps up. Sprint's is 15.8 Mbps down, 4.9 Mbps up, or 75% down and 53% up vs the other carriers. Unless you're streaming 4k video to your cell phone, or regularly shoot a lot of videos and insist that they be uploaded to cloud backup immediately, these differences simply don't matter. They're all "fast enough" - they correspond to a few seconds or even a split second difference in most use cases.
The speeds are to the point where consistency (better coverage, fewer dead spots) is a more important factor. And by that metric there's now only a 5% difference between the best and worst mobile carrier in the U.S. Hardly worth the 2x price Verizon wants for service. That's why I gambled and decided not to give up my unlimited plan on Sprint by switching carriers. Once your coverage reaches about 90% (which was where Verizon was at when Sprint was around 50%), you're pretty close to maxed out. There's simply not much more improvement you can make. Whereas Sprint at 50% had a lot of room for possible improvement. (Your experience will vary with location. I hear Sprint still sucks in the Bay Area.)
(And if you're curious, no I'm not a bandwidth hog. My monthly data use is usually down around 1-3 GB. Just every now and then I go on a business trip or vacation, and use my phone as a hotspot so I and my family/friends can get Internet on our laptops and tablets. I'd have to pay $15/GB for overage if I switched to Verizon. The month I used 112 GB would've cost me over $1500. No thanks.)
Yes, when both parties have a choice whether or not to enter into that agreement. I don't trust Microsoft, so I don't use their free services. Google so far hasn't abused my info, so I use their free services. (I set up a different email for each company, and google@myname.com hasn't gotten spam. microsoft@myname.com regularly gets spam. Indicating Google has kept my email address with them secret, while Microsoft has sold it for profit.)
All this goes out the window when the ISP is a government-granted monopoly. Monopoly = I don't have a choice. So hell no. A government-granted monopoly should not be able to obtain anything from its customers except a government-approved amount of cash.
2) You're mistakenly concluding that having an employee composition which doesn't reflect society means you don't care about diversity. It's the talent pool which is relevant to a business, not society overall. If your employee composition doesn't reflect the talent pool, then all you're doing is depriving qualified people of jobs so you can give them to less qualified people.
The proper way to measure whether a company is acting responsibly would be to compare the gender and ethnic makeup of all the people who apply for a job, and compare to the gender and ethnic makeup of all the people who are hired. If there is no statistical difference between these two groups, then the company is hiring responsibly. Unfortunately, the Equal Employment Opportunity ordinances make it illegal to ask job applicants their gender or race. So the government makes it impossible to ascertain just how responsibly companies are hiring.
3) You're again assuming that not having an employee pool which reflects society means you're discriminating. As I said, it's the composition of the talent pool which matters. If you ignore the composition of the talent pool, you can set up impossible-to-achieve standards. If I need to hire 10 programmers, get 100 applicants, and only 4 of them are women, it is mathematically impossible to make sure 50% of your hirees women.
As for lack of qualified non-white applicants, what can I as a business owner do? I cannot force non-whites to stay in school. I cannot force non-whites to study harder. I cannot force non-whites to get a STEM degree. I suppose I could set up a charity scholarship open only to minorities, but I'm in California. Whites are only 42% of the population here. So if I tried to set up a scholarship for only non-whites, I could be sued for discriminating against the white minority.
These problems need to be addressed at the educational and government level, not the business level. Trying to address it at the business level is like trying to address poor kids growing up shorter in height by lopping off the feet of non-poor kids, instead of instituting a program to feed poor kids better.
This in particular is especially troublesome. The economy doesn't work off of good intentions. It works off of productivity. The more productive an employee or company is, the more economic activity it creates, and the wealthier people become.
Certain hits to productivity, we as a society have decided to accept. The ADA requires everyone to go to extra expense to make sure handicapped people are given the same opportunity as abled people. But this is a decision we as a society made together, using the democratic principle of majority decides what laws to make.
You can argue diversity is also important enough that we as a society should require it despite the economic hit it creates. If that is your argument, then you need to get a majority of legislators to make it a law. Without that process, coercing unwilling businesses to conform to your ideals by arguing it is good public relations is just that - coercion.
It's angular resolution which matters. That is, not display size, but the ratio of display size to viewing distance.
If you use the one pixel per arc-minute definition (20/20 vision is defined as the ability to distinguish a line pair with one arc-minute of separation), then a VR headset like the Samsung Gear VR with a 96 degree FOV would require about 11.5k horizontal resolution. So two 8k displays side-by-side would come very close to achieving this threshold. Obviously you wouldn't want to do that with two 120" screens. Instead, displays small enough to fit in a VR headset would be preferable.
From talking with friends and clients, about a quarter to third of people who took advantage of the free Win 10 upgrade decided to roll back to their previous OS.
It should be noted though that this is for luminosity resolution - your ability to resolve details of any color. This is why printers target 600 PPI - because they print in black and white. Within a specific color, your eye's resolution is substantially worse. Especially for blue, and somewhat for red (the density of your red and blue cones is lower than for green cones and rods). This is the basis behind Pentile displays, which cuts the blue and red resolution in half.* All the bad press coverage they've gotten is by ignorant reporters who compare magnified photos of it completely oblivious that magnifying it defeats the whole purpose. This strategy of reducing red and blue resolution has been used since NTSC video transmissions, and is still used today in JPEG and MPEG encoding. You've been seeing pictures on the web and digital videos all this time with reduced red and blue resolution. If you've never notice this before, then you've basically affirmed that Pentile works.
Anyway, it's a moot point on the Samsung displays because they design them to be used in the Gear VR headsets. Those provide a 96 degree wide angle of view, which to fool 20/20 vision would require 5760 pixels for each eye. Which which correspond to a 11520x6480 resolution display on a 5.7 screen, or 2319 PPI. Any lower than that and you can "see this pixels." This is why the 3D graphics and display screen industries still have a lot of room left to grow, even though CPUs have pretty much hit the point where a low-end CPU is "good enough" for most people's needs.
* The more clever displays take further advantage of this difference between color resolution and luminosity resolution, and use something called subpixel rendering. For an RGB stripe, this corresponds to shifting the "pixel" by 1/3 pixel increments. So if you're trying to display a white dot using two pixels, you actually have 4 possible locations. RGB rgb, rGB Rgb, rgB RGb, and rgb RGB. The problem (for displays you can rotate) is that this extra resolution is only along one axis - usually the horizontal. Windows subpixel rendering for fonts (ClearType) basically turns your 1920x1080 display into a 5760x1080 display for fonts. Pentile overcomes this by using a subpixel layout which is symmetric in both the horizontal and vertical axes. So you can use the same subpixel rendering algorithm regardless of whether the display is in landscape or portrait mode. It really is a superior subpixel layout, which has gotten a bad rap because early implementations had too low a PPI and thus the pixels were visible and lines and fonts were "fuzzy".
This is also why these super-high resolution screens aren't as important for Windows as they are for Macs. Subpixel rendering like ClearType shifts the location of letters by up to 1/3 pixel to make them line up with the subpixel grid. Apple knew their computers were used by most page layout professionals which would find this unacceptable. So their font rendering engine (based o
That's pretty much what NR-1 was built for. Ostensibly it was for researching the deep ocean environment. But really, when you build a nuclear powered deep ocean submersible which can stay on the ocean floor for weeks at a time, it's pretty obvious the purpose is to tap undersea cables.
It was most likely retired because ROVs and telepresence had become advanced enough that they could do the tapping remotely, without the need to put people right next to the cable.
Mens rea is irrelevant to cases concerning classified information. All that's required is gross negligence, not intent. Kristian Saucier is currently serving 6 years in jail because he took photos of the reactor room where he worked aboard a U.S. Navy submarine. He didn't intend to distribute them, and AFAIK the Navy never found any evidence he intended to distribute them. Merely possessing them (gross negligence by taking the photos) was enough to bring him up on charges, to which he eventually pled guilty last month.
I don't plan on voting for Trump so I haven't been following what he said about Russian hackers. But I suspect his quip was aimed at getting the Russians to reveal if they had in fact hacked Clinton's email server. If they did, that would pretty much seal the case that Clinton's negligence in setting it up was in fact gross.
(I'm sorry for the outdated article, but nearly all of the manstream media is refusing to carry anything about this story. And that old article was the one with the most details. People like you who believe Mens rea is required are eating up the lie being fed to you by those in the media who support Clinton. Talk to anyone with a security clearance and ask them what the standard is. Clinton's polling numbers actually dropped after the FBI announced no charges were going to be filed, not increased as you would expect after having this shadow lifted from her future. I suspect that was due to her losing the support of lots of people with security clearances. Most of us weren't expecting jail time like the Right wanted; we were however expecting something minor like a reprimand, and rescinding her access to classified info (if she still has it). But for there to be no charges at all...)
So Vietnam and the Philippines oppose what they see as China's invasive territorial claims to parts of the ocean which by International treaty belong to Vietnam and the Phillippines. The UN tribunal sides with them. And these Chinese hackers figure the best way to protest the UN ruling is... by hacking into computers in Vietnam? Way to go - you've just confirmed most Vietnamese's impression that the Chinese are dicks who don't care about other countries territorial rights.
Go visit a forest some time. Lots of stuff growing without people maintaining the soil, without people keeping pests away. There is only a harvesting step.
You need to compare on the basis of cost, not simplicity. You can have a complex process which is cheap, or a simple process which is expensive. If the cost to harvest (and refine if necessary) is less than the cost to build regular PV panels or these new type of solar cells, then the energy biol-fuels produce will be cheaper than solar (putting aside environmental cost for now). Cost to maintain soil and keep pests away become a factor only when you're trying to optimize the process, which isn't always necessary or possible (e.g. cod fishing, truffles).
This is why oil is cheaper than solar. All those plants millions of years ago grew without any human involvement, turned into oil without human intervention, so we're able to tap into that energy for just the cost of harvesting the oil. The dream is to be able to convert generic plant matter (cellulose) into biofuel. Since we already "harvest" a ton of waste plant matter anyway (waste product from growing food crops, green waste from landscaping, food plants which spoil and get thrown out), this would essentially be free fuel whose only cost is processing to convert it to biofuel.
As for these new solar cells vs PV cells, it boils to conversion efficiency and effectiveness as a storage medium. These new cells store solar energy chemically. PV cells store the solar energy electrically. Currently chemical energy storage completely kicks electrical storage's ass. Cheaper, lighter, easier to transport (and thus easier and quicker to power up your car). In fact, charging a battery with electricity is a chemical process - they can only sometimes beat out chemical storage in efficiency because converting chemical energy to electricity bypasses the Carnot efficiency limit that constrains chemical to mechanical energy conversion. (Which is also why when the desired product is heat, chemical heating like a gas stove is cheaper than electrical heating. Converting chemical energy to heat locally is 100% efficient.)
Chernobyl is at 51 degrees North latitude. That far north, the angle of the sun and the earth's tilt significantly reduces the the available solar power throughout the year. It's about the same latitude as Germany, which only manages a solar capacity factor of about 0.10 (i.e. if you have a fixed panel with 100 Watts peak generating capacity at that location, over a year it will on average generate 10 watts). Capacity factor incorporates weather, night, average angle of the sun, and less sunlight reaching the ground because it has to travel through more air due to its oblique angle through the atmosphere.
The continental U.S. sits closer to 40 degrees North latitude, and has an average solar capacity factor of 0.145. The best locations for solar are closer to the equator, and in arid environments with few clouds. Solar capacity factor in Southern California and Arizona for example is about 0.185. That is, you can get nearly double the energy production of Germany for the same surface area of panels, simply by putting them in a better location. Chernobyl sits along Ukraine's northern border. Unless there are huge differences in average cloud cover, Ukraine would be much better served by building the solar plant along its southern border.
I thought the U.S. screwed up too at first. But then I read an article that in Europe, you basically can't contest fraud on your card. The reasoning is that because the chip cannot be defeated, and you're not supposed to tell your PIN to anyone, any use of "your" card must be legit. Either you made the purchase yourself, or you loaned the card to someone else and told them the PIN. So it must be your fault, therefore you are on the hook for the fraudulent purchases. Even if you're talking with the bank on the phone while sitting at home with your card in your hand, and there are transactions showing up on your account from Indonesia, they'll insist it's your fault. You are presumed guilty, and have to work to prove your innocence.
The problem is the chip isn't hack-proof. A researcher (can't find the article right now) showed that the specs for the terminals have several different protocols, one of which confusingly uses the same signal for "the correct PIN was entered" and "a PIN (any PIN) was entered." He rigged up a card which would make the terminal accept his PIN via this message (card connected to a computer in his backpack via a cable hidden in his sweatshirt), grabbed a half dozen volunteers, and demonstrated his hack allowing him to put charges on their cards at a bunch of random stores in France. Criminals have already been caught using this hack in the wild. There are probably other ways to defeat it too which we haven't figured out yet.
The chip and signature system allows an American cardholder to contest a charge simply by pointing out the signature doesn't match their signature. The system is more secure than magnetic swipe cards, but not so secure that banks and the government start to assume fraud is "impossible" and thus shift the burden of proof onto the victim to prove that s/he was victimized.
You can upgrade to Win 10, and immediately roll it back to 7. It might uninstall some programs it deems incompatible, but otherwise should put you back where you started. Microsoft's servers register the fact that you've taken advantage of the free upgrade to Win 10 (dunno if it's tied to the hardware or to the Win 7 key), so you can go back to Win 10 for free again any time in the future. This is actually the strategy I've been advising - that way you can decide whether or not to upgrade to Win 10 after seeing what features/horrors the Aug 2 update brings.
Key transfer limitations are the same as with Win 7. Retail versions can be moved to new hardware. OEM versions are tied to the original computer.
You supposedly have 30 days to roll back to the previous version of Windows that you had, but I'd advise rolling back long before then. One of my VMs was upgraded July 2. I just tried rolling it back yesterday (July 28) and it said it was too late for me to roll back. This despite the Windows.old folder still being on the drive with all the Win 7 files still in there. On well, that's what snapshots are for.
United Airlines flight 232 crashed into an Iowa cornfield while attempting to land. A turbine in the #2 engine flew apart mid-flight due to a manufacturing defect, severing all the hydraulic lines. The crew controlled the plane with differential thrust from the two remaining engines, and frankly it was a miracle they even made it to the runway. Roughly a third of the people aboard were killed.
One of those killed was a lap child - a child flying without a paid seat, and thus held on a parent's lap during the flight. This presented a problem during the emergency landing. Lead flight attenand Jan Lohr followed FAA procedure and instructed the parents to put the child underneath the seat in front like a carry-on bag. After the accident, the mother (who survived) came up to Jan and, in tears, told her "I did what you told me to do, and I can't find my child."
Jan was beset with guilt, and began a quarter-century crusade to outlaw the practice of lap children. That any child flying should be required to have their own seat with a crash safety seat like we use in cars. She even testified about her experience before Congress. It all came for naught when in 2012 the FAA issued its final decision that lap children would still be allowed. A victory for the selfish, self-centered stockholders and management behind the evil airlines, right?
Not so fast. See, here's the thing. Flying is really, really safe. Due to the irrational nature of people's emotional mind, we fixate on large accidents while multiple small ones slip by unnoticed. So every time an airliner crashes, it makes national if not worldwide headlines. But if there's a car accident nearby, even your local news station is unlikely to cover it. Consequently we've spent decades concentrating on making flying disproportionately super-safe. The FAA crunched the numbers, and determined that if a family with a child decided to travel for vacation, the odds of the child dying in a plane accident - as a lap child - were lower than the odds of the child dying in a car accident while strapped into a car seat. So to encourage people to fly instead of drive with their child on vacation, they allow the family to fly without having to pay for an extra seat for the child.
The lap child policy saves lives, despite its horrific outcome when the statistics don't work your way and there's a lap child aboard a plane which does crash. (As for forcing airlines to give children a free seat, that doesn't work either because they don't know until the time of the flight exactly how many people will be aboard. The way the industry operates is to slightly overbook because on average a certain percentage of people will miss their flights. When that gambit fails and more people show up for the flight than there are seats on the plane, someone has to be bumped off the flight. Forcing them to hold an unknown number of seats in reserve for "surprise" undeclared children would shift the number of passengers for a "booked" flight down, forcing them to raise the per-seat price, which again would encourage parents of young children to drive instead of fly.)
Morality is hard.
This is something I've noticed about iPhone owners. Not all of them mind you, just a disproportionately larger share of them. They like the product not because it works well for them, but because it's popular. That is, their sense of the product's value is externalized. They feel better about their purchase because they know they're buying something lots of other people bought. That's why you get those silly iPhone covers with a cutout letting other people see the Apple logo - because it's important to them that other people know they have an iPhone.
When one of these people is a reporter, they'll write articles exaggerating how "popular" the iPhone is, because it makes themselves (and other iPhone users) feel better about their purchase. The best evidence of this is when iPhone users are proud that the iPhone has the biggest profit margin of any cell phone. As a customer, a big profit margin is against your best interests. If you had to choose between buying two cars and one had a 20% profit margin and the other a 5% profit margin, all other things being equal, you as the purchaser would take the one with the 5% profit margin. But because their sense of self-worth is based more on popularity, and profit correlates to popularity, they basically like that they are over-paying for a product, simply because lots of other people are also over-paying for the same product.
They're not free. When you buy a CD (or DVD) of stock photos, the fee you paid for the CD or DVD includs licensing rights for you to use those photos commercially.
That's the way it used to work. The web changed all that by cutting out the middleman so to speak. You didn't need to buy an entire DVD full of images 99.9% of which you'd never use. You could go to the website of a stock photos company and license only the photos you wanted to use. Getty is one of those companies.
I'm more curious how Getty ended up thinking they owned the copyright on those images. If they misappropriated her photos, it's possible they misappropriated photos belonging to less-famous people by simply lifting them off web sites. I would propose Getty be forced to produce documentation (contracts for photos shot as work for hire, licensing rights for photos licensed, etc) for every single one of the photos they offer for sale. It's not unreasonable - that's what they ask you to do if they claim you're using one of their photos in violation of copyright. Now that their copyright "chain of custody" has been found to be flawed, they need to do the same for every photo they're using.
The music industry set the bar at $22,500 per violation ($675,000 for 30 works) for an individual violating copyright without a profit motive. $1 billion for 18,000 works is only $55,555 per violation, which is relative to the Tenenbaum case is not unreasonable when you consider this is commercial copyright violation. Her lawyers are actually being nice by "only" asking for $1 billion. Copyright law allows her to sue for up to $150,000 per violation, which would be a cool $2.7 billion.
In other words, if she gets less than $22,500 * 18,000 = $405 million out of this, there's been a gross miscarriage of justice either in her case or the Tenenbaum cause. Unlike filesharing, what Getty Images did is precisely the sort of thing copyright law was made to prohibit - profiting off the work of others.
It is very useful. The vast majority of wifi access points have fixed locations (homes, businesses). In my experience (I used my phone with GPS off in an older handset because it wasn't implemented properly and drained the battery), it's nearly as good as GPS - usually able to pinpoint you to about 20 meters.
Remember when Google got in trouble with the EU because their Google Street View cars were capturing too much wifi info? They were recording wifi info to build a global map of wifi hotspots specifically for wifi-based location services. Remember when Apple got in hot water for iPhones sending people's GPS location history back to Apple? They were doing that for the same reason - to build up a global map of wifi hotspots.
Bottled tap water - Aquafina (Pepsi), Dasani (Coca-Cola), as well as many store brands like Kirkland - is usually reverse osmosis filtered and shouldn't have these sorts of contaminants. RO is so effective you actually have to add minerals back to the water after filtering to improve the taste and prevent it from leeching minerals out of your teeth and body because it's so pure.
Bottled spring water is from a natural source, and will have things objective test equipment considers to be contaminants, including organics like algae. But people like to buy it because it's "natural."