You're probably thinking of the San Bernardio iPhone case. Most people think the phone belonged to the shooter. It didn't. It belonged to the San Bernardino County government. They assigned it to the shooter for work use. Apple refused to help the legal owner of the phone unlock it.
The 60 GHz band (57-64 GHz) is open for unlicensed operation. It coincides with the resonance of oxygen gas, which rapidly attenuates any signal so the maximum usable range is about 1 km. That makes it ideal for things like home WiFi use (you can broadcast at higher power without interfering with your neighbors' WiFi at the same frequency), while strongly discouraging companies trying to use it for long-range commercial service like T-Mobile is planning in TFA.
It's conceivable that a parasite that has evolved to control host behavior could have adverse psychological effects on human hosts, thus the research into it.
My theory is that it modifies the behavior of human hosts, causing them to dismiss the idea that parasites from cats could modify the behavior of humans.
The problem with freezing your credit is that as of a couple years ago the credit agencies used that lame personal background service to confirm your identity. You know, the one where your bank asks you what high school you went to, which bank you took out a car loan with, what city you were born in, etc. and gives you multiple choice answers. The identity thief usually has the answers to all these questions, or can make a good guess which of the multiple choice answers is correct - they stole your identity after all.
Yes the credit freeze is supposed to be protected by a PIN or password. The thief just calls the credit agency posing as you, and says that they forgot the PIN or password. Then the credit agency asks those lame questions, the thief gets three right, and they lift the credit freeze. (If they're real jerks, they'll change the PIN or password so you can't freeze it again.
Some banks have dumped these canned questions, and are now allowing you yourself to make up questions and answers they'll ask if you say you forgot your PIN or password. I don't know if the credit agencies have switched to this type of question system in the last couple years.
You feed a dog, house it, pet it, shower it with love, and take care of its every want and need. The dog looks at you and thinks, "Wow, he must be a god."
You feed a cat, house it, pet it, shower it with love, and take care of its every want and need. The cat looks at you and thinks, "Wow, I must be a god."
That's the way it looks to enthusiasts, but that's not what Intel has been doing. About a decade ago, we hit the point where processors were "fast enough" for mainstream tasks. People stopped buying i5 and i7 processors, in favor of i3, Celeron, and Pentium. For the last 10 years, only enthusiasts and gamers have cared about improved performance. The vast majority of the market cared more about power consumption. Intel hasn't been worried about AMD, but they were scared to death of ARM. They rushed to bring Atom to market to keep the low-end on x86/x64, instead of moving to ARM.
So they haven't been resting on their laurels. They've been working hard at reducing power consumption. That's what really hurt AMD after they lost their performance lead. For a few years AMD still offered more performance per Watt, making AMD the natural choice for moderate-load servers and systems meant to be left on 24/7. But Intel soon beat AMD there, taking away AMD's only advantage. (That's when AMD used their ATI acquisition to integrate a GPU which could beat Intel's integrated GPU - essentially carving out a spot in the low-price gamer market.)
A Core 2 Duo system would use about 70 Watts idle, 150 Watts under load. A Sandy Bridge system would use about 45 Watts idle, 120 Watts under load. A modern Skylake system uses about 35 Watts idle, 80 Watts under load. Subtract the 20-30 Watts consumed by components other than the CPU, and the reduction in CPU power consumption over the last 10 years has been remarkable.
I remember the heyday where AMD actually overtook Intel. Their CPUs were actually better and cheaper.
Not cheaper by much. I remember comments here asking why if AMD had overtaken Intel, why were their high-end CPUs now almost as expensive as Intel's had been. The replies stating that if you're the market leader, you can set your prices as high as you want.
I think that's where they screwed up. Instead of keeping their prices low so they could gain market share, they raised their prices to try to recoup their R&D expenses. If they'd aimed for market share, that would've resulted in much greater industry support - AMD motherboards, chipsets, compatible memory, retailers stocking their CPUs, brand names offering more models using AMD processors, etc. Instead they chose short-term gains over long-term, meaning Intel had an easy time reasserting its dominance as soon as they managed to convert their laptop CPU cores to desktop use.
If they're keeping the price down at half Intel's prices, it sounds like they learned their lesson.
Basically the crust is expanding at mid-oceanic ridges. The molten magma that surfaces in those regions solidifies into thin crustal plates. These plates are pushed apart until they meet resistance (other plates), and begin to bump up against each other. When they do that, the crust squashes and thickens - both above and below the water. The part that thickens above the water form continents and land masses.
The argument here is that the crust under New Zealand is one such thickened region, just that most of it is still underwater. However, every map of the plates I've seen places New Zealand at the edge of the Australian plate (i.e. there is no major tectonic activity between New Zealand and Australia). So it would seem to me to be more correct to say the Australian continent is actually larger than Australia and encompasses New Zealand and Papua New Guinea.
If there's a revision to the continents that's needed, Europe and Asia need to be combined into a single Eurasian continent.
However, for the "donor" country - i.e. the one that is not collecting any tax revenues from the sales achieved by that company, the problem gets much, much worse. The literally billions in taxes not being paid to these countries still has to be collected from somewhere. And that is exactly what happens - the individual, personal tax payers of those nations end up footing the bill.
If the company is not consuming any resources in the donor nation, it has minimal to no impact on the tax payers in the donor nation. If Apple only has a one-room office in the Cayman Islands with a single employee who sits there doing nothing but signing, scanning, and emailing back paperwork saying that subsidiary received $x licensing fees for y purpose, then it makes almost zero difference to the citizens of the Cayman Islands that he's paying zero taxes.
A population granted this extra income would:-
1. Spend more - thus helping to keep the economy moving
2. Save more - thus helping to reduce the burden on the state for things like pensions
3. Invest more - thus helping UK business to grow and prosper
Taxes per se cannot do any of those things. Taxes are merely shifting money from one purse to another. There is not productivity increase associated with collecting taxes, so it cannot increase the GDP, cannot increase standard of living, cannot keep the economy moving.
How those taxes are used is what determines whether productivity increases. And it can only do that if the way the government spends it increases productivity more than if the tax hadn't been collected and the person/company had been free to spend it as they wished.
Basically, you're arguing with the assumption that taxation is by its very nature always a benefit to the economy. It is not. Just like you have to make decisions regarding which purchases will benefit you more (e.g. food for the table vs. a big screen TV), or a company has to make decisions on what to purchase (new computers for staff, or an all-expenses paid retreat to Tahiti), how tax revenue is spent vs how it would've been spent if not taxed in the first place determines whether or not taxation is a net benefit to the economy. Whichever spending decision increases productivity more is the one which helps the economy more.
In most cases, you can make an argument that tax shelters results in disproportionately greater income (in the form of stock dividends) for extremely wealthy stockholders. And that their purchasing habits are distorted by their wealth towards economic inefficiency (e.g. gold toilet seats). So taxing that money would've been a net benefit to the economy.
However, that reveals the crucial flaw in the concept of taxing corporations: The corporation never pays the tax. It ends up being paid by for by its customers in the form of higher prices. Or by its employees in the form of lower wages. Or by its stockholders in the form of reduced dividends. The corporation is a pass-through paper entity. Basically the glue that allows a bunch of employees and stockholders to pool their labor and financial resources together so into a synchronized activity. The corporation itself doesn't contribute anything, so it generates no productivity, so cannot pay taxes. Any corporate taxes are paid for by people - customers, employees, stockholders.
So instead of playing this unproductive whack-a-mole game trying to stomp out corporate tax havens, just reduce the corporate tax rate to zero and tax those people directly. If you dislike wealthy stockholders making so much profit, increase their income tax. If you think employees at successful companies are not paying their fair share, you increase their income taxes. If you dislike that the money your citizens are paying for Apple products are being shifted out of the country, you increase the sales tax rate. etc.
That's not really true in this case. The music industry's U.S. revenue was $7 billion in 2015. The TV and movie industry's revenue was $131 billion in 2014 So about $140 billion total.
U.S. ISP revenue was $97 billion in 2016. The U.S. consumer electronics industry revenue is over $200 billion. The Internet publishing, broadcasting, and search industry's revenue was about $110 billion in 2014. Total is over $400 billion. Nearly 3x bigger than music, movies, and TV. Yet they're made to bend over and comply with the wishes of the studios. The tail is literally wagging the dog.
It already destroyed Sony's audio electronics division. Sony was the top name in audio equipment in the 1970s and 1980s. Then in 1987 they acquired CBS records and renamed it Sony Music Entertainment. SME coexisted with Sony Electronics until 1998, when the MP3 player came to market. Sony Electronics came up with an MP3 player, but SME forced them to add DRM to it. Customers avoided it because it was impossible to take their existing CDs and simply copy the music over to a Sony MP3 player.
Sony's 1998 revenue was 1,128 billion Yen for the audio division (page 14), 660 billion Yen for the music division (page 15).
Their 2000 revenue was 935 billion Yen for the audio division (page 47), 709 billion Yen for the music division (page 498).
By 2003 their audio sales had atrophied to 683 billion Yen (page 20), vs 636 billion Yen in music sales (page 18). Music sales were about the same as 1998, but their audio electronics sales had been cut nearly in half because of SME demanding their products comply with their copyright protection requirements. (In 2004 their music division began a joint venture with BMG, so financials are not comparable from then on.)
This is actually a fairly recent development. When I was putting together a file server in 2012, I really wanted to use ECC RAM. But 2x4GB ECC cost more than $250 vs $50 for regular 2x4GB RAM. Add in the extra cost of a server motherboard that supported ECC RAM and the processor restrictions, and I gave up and just built the file server using regular RAM.
A couple years later, the price of ECC RAM had dropped to only about 50% more than the cost of regular RAM.
. If Samsung started using ECC memory in all their phones, the cost would be nearly the same with the volume they would be ordering/making.
The difference is that in the EU, regulations are made by stuffy bureaucrats disconnected from what they are regulating. While this has problems, it at least results in consistent laws.
In the U.S., laws are made with special interest input (lobbying). Manufacturers don't care about recycling, so recycling laws are almost entirely dictated by environmentalist lobbying. Consequently they tend to be excessively strict. Mining laws OTOH have a vested special interest (mining and refining companies) who will lobby against the environmentalist lobbyists. So those laws tend to be a better balance of environmental and industry interests.
The net result is that the regulations and red tape for recycling materials are more strict than for mining and refining the same materials. And it thus becomes cheaper to build things out of new materials than with recycled materials, killing the economic incentive to recycle.
While your EU solution would work, it would probably be opposed by environmentalists. By making manufacturers economically responsible for recycling, you create an incentive for them to get involved in lobbying during the creation of recycling laws. This will result in environmentalists losing sole control over the crafting of recycling laws.
TFA (which summary quotes) implies the fix was in the February update which Microsoft delayed. So the courteous thing to do would've been to extend disclosure beyond 90 days until after the March update.
OTOH, the entire reason Microsoft had to delay the February update was because they insisted on lumping all the patches into one huge mega-update. If they'd stuck with individual updates as before, then the crucial security patches would've gone out on time, while only the problem patch would've been delayed. So it's still Microsoft's fault.
You don't need to have everything in triplicate unless you're in a seriously noisy environment. Most error rates due to cosmic radiation are low enough that simply adding one parity bit per 8 data bits (increasing transistor count by 12.5%. not 200%) is enough to eliminate virtually all bit flip errors.
As the minimum detail slze of the IC process gets smaller, the potential for radiation to flip a bit gets higher.
I suspect the math works out the same as Shannon's noisy channel theorem. And that as the chance of bit flips (noise) increases due to die shrinking, you can increase the error correction coding to compensate for it up to some theoretical limit.
e.g.. instead of ECC memory having one parity bit for every 8 data bits, you increase it to two parity bits per 8 data bits, and it can withstand a higher error rate.
The last three cars I've rented had bluetooth to let you make calls over the car's speakers. But the bluetooth functionality also does other stuff like sync contacts and call logs. I could view previous renters' call logs and sometimes the names associated with the calls. The latest car I rented was new so there was no previous renter. But it would also load your text messages over bluetooth and read them back to you over the speakers. I made sure to wipe those before I returned the car, but I'm pretty sure most renters won't know to do that.
That wasn't a change, it was maintaining the status quo. The U.S. operates several extra-territorial checkpoints in Canada (and other countries). If you're leaving certain Canadian airports for a flight to the U.S., you clear U.S. customs and immigration while in Canada. This simplifies things at the U.S. end (there are a lot fewer Canadian airports than U.S. airports, so fewer staff are needed this way), as well as allows Canadian flights to travel directly to U.S. airports without any U.S. customs and immigration presence.
The program has been in operation since the 1950s. Absent any disagreement on immigration policies, it is logistically the more efficient way to operate.
The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution only applies to U.S. territory. That was the whole rationale for putting a prison in Guantanamo Bay - it is not U.S. territory. Technically it is Cuban territory being leased to the U.S.
CBP operates under the policy that U.S. border stations (including at International airports) straddle the border between U.S. territory and not-U.S. territory, hence the 4th Amendment doesn't apply if you haven't yet been granted admission into the U.S. If you're trying to enter the country, their contention is that they can search whatever they damn well want to. The Constitution does state the Federal government shall protect states against invasion, so border searches vs the 4th Amendment pits one section of the Constitution against another. The SCotUS needs to decide which takes precedence, but given that all countries need to protect themselves from unlawful entry in order to maintain their existence, I suspect they'll side with the former.
Ironically, all the court decisions blocking states from protecting their own borders against illegal immigrants (e.g. Texas' and Arizona's laws) work in Trump's favor. Those cases established that the Federal government controls immigration policy and enforcement, not the states. When we had an administration favoring lenient policies towards illegal immigrants, the states had no choice but to comply. Now that we have an administration favoring harsh policies towards illegal immigrants, the states again have no choice but to comply.
Yeah, this ranks right up there with online newspapers who sued Google for including snippets of their articles on Google News. They won in court, and expected Google to pay them for the snippets. Instead, Google simply removed articles from these newspapers from Google News, and the newspapers' web traffic dropped by 75%-90% essentially putting them out of business.
Registered mail is for tracking a package. If you're sending your tax returns on the day of the deadline and want proof you did your part on time, you send it registered mail. If the package contains valuable, unique and irreplaceable goods, being able to track down who lost it or even receiving insurance compensation won't help you - you're still out the irreplaceable goods.
You don't want to be sending such packages via postal mail, or even via UPS / FedEx / DHL. Instead, you want to buy the person sending it a round trip plane ticket from their town to yours. That way they can hand-carry the package as carry-on baggage and deliver it to you in person. Toss in a few night's hotel and rental car expenses as a courtesy, so they can do a bit of sightseeing before flying back.
The next step down from that is using an air courier. The shipping company pays a random person to escort your package from airport to airport, while they handle the legs from sender to airport and airport to destination. But this is usually done for time-sensitive materials (important docs, live cargo, etc). As it doesn't offer the much protection above regular package delivery service. The only added protection is that the air courier won't get paid if they don't deliver your package. It can still be lost by the shipping company before or after the air leg, or by the airline (if checked in).
Bullshit - Facebook's terms of use allow them to redistribute ANYTHING you post to any and all 3rd parties, and even to charge for it.
you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
I was going to say that's the standard legalese any online service needs to use to give themselves the right to make the service function (you need to grant them the right to reproduce your stuff on the computers of people who are viewing it). But then I noticed a subtle difference in the wording. Here's the equivalent portion of YouTube's terms of service:
For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels.
I've emphasized the important parts. At first glance they seem identical. But if you look carefully, although both ToS use the term "in connection with [the service]", it modifies different things.
In the Facebook ToS, it modifies "content that you post". That is, anything you post on Facebook, you're giving them a license to do anything they want with. Basically, anything you post on Facebook, they own and can do whatever they want with, including selling it, up until you delete it or your account.
In the YouTube ToS, it modifies "perform the Content". That is, the license you're granting is only for the purposes of playing the video on YouTube. Anything you post on YouTube, you still own, and YouTube only has rights to broadcast it to people viewing it via YouTube (or an embedded link).
That would be a valid argument in the product development stage.
The FM receiver is already in your phone. It's just been disabled at the request of carriers so they can make more money via data plans used to listen to music, or in the case of Apple because the manufacturer makes money from streaming services.
I mean, like many sites, slashdot started in the US, but have international following. Would be interesting to know if the US readership is bigger than the rest of the world combined.
Every country's population is less than half the world population. So by your reasoning, no news relevant to a single country (or groups of countries less than half the world population - e.g. the EU) should be posted to slashdot.
I'm pretty sure it's a parody of the Apple ads because I don't see how this would work. The two holes in the straw are at fixed positions so you're still sucking in mostly one layer half the time, the second layer the other half, and you have no way to suck the rest of the drink once the top hole is exposed.
I presume the problem is the two materials in the shake have a different density, so separate out even when mixed? The solution then is to eliminate that gravitational separation. Divide the cup in half with a plastic partition. The chocolate shake goes in one half, the shamrock shake goes in the other half. Take two straws and glue them together at the top. One straw goes in the chocolate shake, the other into the shamrock shake. You suck on both straws at once, and get both shakes at once, from beginning to end.
I agree the first submission about him didn't belong on slashdot.
Assuming the claims in this second submission are true, then it belongs here. It falls in the Your Rights Online category. It's not just the government which can deprive you of your rights.
Slashdot Mirror
The Echo belongs to the suspect. (Alternate link if you don't trust that site.
You're probably thinking of the San Bernardio iPhone case. Most people think the phone belonged to the shooter. It didn't. It belonged to the San Bernardino County government. They assigned it to the shooter for work use. Apple refused to help the legal owner of the phone unlock it.
The 60 GHz band (57-64 GHz) is open for unlicensed operation. It coincides with the resonance of oxygen gas, which rapidly attenuates any signal so the maximum usable range is about 1 km. That makes it ideal for things like home WiFi use (you can broadcast at higher power without interfering with your neighbors' WiFi at the same frequency), while strongly discouraging companies trying to use it for long-range commercial service like T-Mobile is planning in TFA.
My theory is that it modifies the behavior of human hosts, causing them to dismiss the idea that parasites from cats could modify the behavior of humans.
The problem with freezing your credit is that as of a couple years ago the credit agencies used that lame personal background service to confirm your identity. You know, the one where your bank asks you what high school you went to, which bank you took out a car loan with, what city you were born in, etc. and gives you multiple choice answers. The identity thief usually has the answers to all these questions, or can make a good guess which of the multiple choice answers is correct - they stole your identity after all.
Yes the credit freeze is supposed to be protected by a PIN or password. The thief just calls the credit agency posing as you, and says that they forgot the PIN or password. Then the credit agency asks those lame questions, the thief gets three right, and they lift the credit freeze. (If they're real jerks, they'll change the PIN or password so you can't freeze it again.
Some banks have dumped these canned questions, and are now allowing you yourself to make up questions and answers they'll ask if you say you forgot your PIN or password. I don't know if the credit agencies have switched to this type of question system in the last couple years.
Difference between cats and dogs:
You feed a dog, house it, pet it, shower it with love, and take care of its every want and need. The dog looks at you and thinks, "Wow, he must be a god."
You feed a cat, house it, pet it, shower it with love, and take care of its every want and need. The cat looks at you and thinks, "Wow, I must be a god."
That's the way it looks to enthusiasts, but that's not what Intel has been doing. About a decade ago, we hit the point where processors were "fast enough" for mainstream tasks. People stopped buying i5 and i7 processors, in favor of i3, Celeron, and Pentium. For the last 10 years, only enthusiasts and gamers have cared about improved performance. The vast majority of the market cared more about power consumption. Intel hasn't been worried about AMD, but they were scared to death of ARM. They rushed to bring Atom to market to keep the low-end on x86/x64, instead of moving to ARM.
So they haven't been resting on their laurels. They've been working hard at reducing power consumption. That's what really hurt AMD after they lost their performance lead. For a few years AMD still offered more performance per Watt, making AMD the natural choice for moderate-load servers and systems meant to be left on 24/7. But Intel soon beat AMD there, taking away AMD's only advantage. (That's when AMD used their ATI acquisition to integrate a GPU which could beat Intel's integrated GPU - essentially carving out a spot in the low-price gamer market.)
A Core 2 Duo system would use about 70 Watts idle, 150 Watts under load. A Sandy Bridge system would use about 45 Watts idle, 120 Watts under load. A modern Skylake system uses about 35 Watts idle, 80 Watts under load. Subtract the 20-30 Watts consumed by components other than the CPU, and the reduction in CPU power consumption over the last 10 years has been remarkable.
Not cheaper by much. I remember comments here asking why if AMD had overtaken Intel, why were their high-end CPUs now almost as expensive as Intel's had been. The replies stating that if you're the market leader, you can set your prices as high as you want.
I think that's where they screwed up. Instead of keeping their prices low so they could gain market share, they raised their prices to try to recoup their R&D expenses. If they'd aimed for market share, that would've resulted in much greater industry support - AMD motherboards, chipsets, compatible memory, retailers stocking their CPUs, brand names offering more models using AMD processors, etc. Instead they chose short-term gains over long-term, meaning Intel had an easy time reasserting its dominance as soon as they managed to convert their laptop CPU cores to desktop use.
If they're keeping the price down at half Intel's prices, it sounds like they learned their lesson.
This isn't a simple case of whether or not water is on top of land. The Earth's crust is thinner under the oceans than under land masses.
Basically the crust is expanding at mid-oceanic ridges. The molten magma that surfaces in those regions solidifies into thin crustal plates. These plates are pushed apart until they meet resistance (other plates), and begin to bump up against each other. When they do that, the crust squashes and thickens - both above and below the water. The part that thickens above the water form continents and land masses.
The argument here is that the crust under New Zealand is one such thickened region, just that most of it is still underwater. However, every map of the plates I've seen places New Zealand at the edge of the Australian plate (i.e. there is no major tectonic activity between New Zealand and Australia). So it would seem to me to be more correct to say the Australian continent is actually larger than Australia and encompasses New Zealand and Papua New Guinea.
If there's a revision to the continents that's needed, Europe and Asia need to be combined into a single Eurasian continent.
If the company is not consuming any resources in the donor nation, it has minimal to no impact on the tax payers in the donor nation. If Apple only has a one-room office in the Cayman Islands with a single employee who sits there doing nothing but signing, scanning, and emailing back paperwork saying that subsidiary received $x licensing fees for y purpose, then it makes almost zero difference to the citizens of the Cayman Islands that he's paying zero taxes.
Taxes per se cannot do any of those things. Taxes are merely shifting money from one purse to another. There is not productivity increase associated with collecting taxes, so it cannot increase the GDP, cannot increase standard of living, cannot keep the economy moving.
How those taxes are used is what determines whether productivity increases. And it can only do that if the way the government spends it increases productivity more than if the tax hadn't been collected and the person/company had been free to spend it as they wished.
Basically, you're arguing with the assumption that taxation is by its very nature always a benefit to the economy. It is not. Just like you have to make decisions regarding which purchases will benefit you more (e.g. food for the table vs. a big screen TV), or a company has to make decisions on what to purchase (new computers for staff, or an all-expenses paid retreat to Tahiti), how tax revenue is spent vs how it would've been spent if not taxed in the first place determines whether or not taxation is a net benefit to the economy. Whichever spending decision increases productivity more is the one which helps the economy more.
In most cases, you can make an argument that tax shelters results in disproportionately greater income (in the form of stock dividends) for extremely wealthy stockholders. And that their purchasing habits are distorted by their wealth towards economic inefficiency (e.g. gold toilet seats). So taxing that money would've been a net benefit to the economy.
However, that reveals the crucial flaw in the concept of taxing corporations: The corporation never pays the tax. It ends up being paid by for by its customers in the form of higher prices. Or by its employees in the form of lower wages. Or by its stockholders in the form of reduced dividends. The corporation is a pass-through paper entity. Basically the glue that allows a bunch of employees and stockholders to pool their labor and financial resources together so into a synchronized activity. The corporation itself doesn't contribute anything, so it generates no productivity, so cannot pay taxes. Any corporate taxes are paid for by people - customers, employees, stockholders.
So instead of playing this unproductive whack-a-mole game trying to stomp out corporate tax havens, just reduce the corporate tax rate to zero and tax those people directly. If you dislike wealthy stockholders making so much profit, increase their income tax. If you think employees at successful companies are not paying their fair share, you increase their income taxes. If you dislike that the money your citizens are paying for Apple products are being shifted out of the country, you increase the sales tax rate. etc.
That's not really true in this case. The music industry's U.S. revenue was $7 billion in 2015. The TV and movie industry's revenue was $131 billion in 2014 So about $140 billion total.
U.S. ISP revenue was $97 billion in 2016. The U.S. consumer electronics industry revenue is over $200 billion. The Internet publishing, broadcasting, and search industry's revenue was about $110 billion in 2014. Total is over $400 billion. Nearly 3x bigger than music, movies, and TV. Yet they're made to bend over and comply with the wishes of the studios. The tail is literally wagging the dog.
It already destroyed Sony's audio electronics division. Sony was the top name in audio equipment in the 1970s and 1980s. Then in 1987 they acquired CBS records and renamed it Sony Music Entertainment. SME coexisted with Sony Electronics until 1998, when the MP3 player came to market. Sony Electronics came up with an MP3 player, but SME forced them to add DRM to it. Customers avoided it because it was impossible to take their existing CDs and simply copy the music over to a Sony MP3 player.
Sony's 1998 revenue was 1,128 billion Yen for the audio division (page 14), 660 billion Yen for the music division (page 15).
Their 2000 revenue was 935 billion Yen for the audio division (page 47), 709 billion Yen for the music division (page 498).
By 2003 their audio sales had atrophied to 683 billion Yen (page 20), vs 636 billion Yen in music sales (page 18). Music sales were about the same as 1998, but their audio electronics sales had been cut nearly in half because of SME demanding their products comply with their copyright protection requirements. (In 2004 their music division began a joint venture with BMG, so financials are not comparable from then on.)
A couple years later, the price of ECC RAM had dropped to only about 50% more than the cost of regular RAM.
The cost would be 12.5% more. :)
The difference is that in the EU, regulations are made by stuffy bureaucrats disconnected from what they are regulating. While this has problems, it at least results in consistent laws.
In the U.S., laws are made with special interest input (lobbying). Manufacturers don't care about recycling, so recycling laws are almost entirely dictated by environmentalist lobbying. Consequently they tend to be excessively strict. Mining laws OTOH have a vested special interest (mining and refining companies) who will lobby against the environmentalist lobbyists. So those laws tend to be a better balance of environmental and industry interests.
The net result is that the regulations and red tape for recycling materials are more strict than for mining and refining the same materials. And it thus becomes cheaper to build things out of new materials than with recycled materials, killing the economic incentive to recycle.
While your EU solution would work, it would probably be opposed by environmentalists. By making manufacturers economically responsible for recycling, you create an incentive for them to get involved in lobbying during the creation of recycling laws. This will result in environmentalists losing sole control over the crafting of recycling laws.
TFA (which summary quotes) implies the fix was in the February update which Microsoft delayed. So the courteous thing to do would've been to extend disclosure beyond 90 days until after the March update.
OTOH, the entire reason Microsoft had to delay the February update was because they insisted on lumping all the patches into one huge mega-update. If they'd stuck with individual updates as before, then the crucial security patches would've gone out on time, while only the problem patch would've been delayed. So it's still Microsoft's fault.
You don't need to have everything in triplicate unless you're in a seriously noisy environment. Most error rates due to cosmic radiation are low enough that simply adding one parity bit per 8 data bits (increasing transistor count by 12.5%. not 200%) is enough to eliminate virtually all bit flip errors.
I suspect the math works out the same as Shannon's noisy channel theorem. And that as the chance of bit flips (noise) increases due to die shrinking, you can increase the error correction coding to compensate for it up to some theoretical limit.
e.g.. instead of ECC memory having one parity bit for every 8 data bits, you increase it to two parity bits per 8 data bits, and it can withstand a higher error rate.
The last three cars I've rented had bluetooth to let you make calls over the car's speakers. But the bluetooth functionality also does other stuff like sync contacts and call logs. I could view previous renters' call logs and sometimes the names associated with the calls. The latest car I rented was new so there was no previous renter. But it would also load your text messages over bluetooth and read them back to you over the speakers. I made sure to wipe those before I returned the car, but I'm pretty sure most renters won't know to do that.
That wasn't a change, it was maintaining the status quo. The U.S. operates several extra-territorial checkpoints in Canada (and other countries). If you're leaving certain Canadian airports for a flight to the U.S., you clear U.S. customs and immigration while in Canada. This simplifies things at the U.S. end (there are a lot fewer Canadian airports than U.S. airports, so fewer staff are needed this way), as well as allows Canadian flights to travel directly to U.S. airports without any U.S. customs and immigration presence.
The program has been in operation since the 1950s. Absent any disagreement on immigration policies, it is logistically the more efficient way to operate.
The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution only applies to U.S. territory. That was the whole rationale for putting a prison in Guantanamo Bay - it is not U.S. territory. Technically it is Cuban territory being leased to the U.S.
CBP operates under the policy that U.S. border stations (including at International airports) straddle the border between U.S. territory and not-U.S. territory, hence the 4th Amendment doesn't apply if you haven't yet been granted admission into the U.S. If you're trying to enter the country, their contention is that they can search whatever they damn well want to. The Constitution does state the Federal government shall protect states against invasion, so border searches vs the 4th Amendment pits one section of the Constitution against another. The SCotUS needs to decide which takes precedence, but given that all countries need to protect themselves from unlawful entry in order to maintain their existence, I suspect they'll side with the former.
Ironically, all the court decisions blocking states from protecting their own borders against illegal immigrants (e.g. Texas' and Arizona's laws) work in Trump's favor. Those cases established that the Federal government controls immigration policy and enforcement, not the states. When we had an administration favoring lenient policies towards illegal immigrants, the states had no choice but to comply. Now that we have an administration favoring harsh policies towards illegal immigrants, the states again have no choice but to comply.
Yeah, this ranks right up there with online newspapers who sued Google for including snippets of their articles on Google News. They won in court, and expected Google to pay them for the snippets. Instead, Google simply removed articles from these newspapers from Google News, and the newspapers' web traffic dropped by 75%-90% essentially putting them out of business.
Registered mail is for tracking a package. If you're sending your tax returns on the day of the deadline and want proof you did your part on time, you send it registered mail. If the package contains valuable, unique and irreplaceable goods, being able to track down who lost it or even receiving insurance compensation won't help you - you're still out the irreplaceable goods.
You don't want to be sending such packages via postal mail, or even via UPS / FedEx / DHL. Instead, you want to buy the person sending it a round trip plane ticket from their town to yours. That way they can hand-carry the package as carry-on baggage and deliver it to you in person. Toss in a few night's hotel and rental car expenses as a courtesy, so they can do a bit of sightseeing before flying back.
The next step down from that is using an air courier. The shipping company pays a random person to escort your package from airport to airport, while they handle the legs from sender to airport and airport to destination. But this is usually done for time-sensitive materials (important docs, live cargo, etc). As it doesn't offer the much protection above regular package delivery service. The only added protection is that the air courier won't get paid if they don't deliver your package. It can still be lost by the shipping company before or after the air leg, or by the airline (if checked in).
I was going to say that's the standard legalese any online service needs to use to give themselves the right to make the service function (you need to grant them the right to reproduce your stuff on the computers of people who are viewing it). But then I noticed a subtle difference in the wording. Here's the equivalent portion of YouTube's terms of service:
I've emphasized the important parts. At first glance they seem identical. But if you look carefully, although both ToS use the term "in connection with [the service]", it modifies different things.
That would be a valid argument in the product development stage.
The FM receiver is already in your phone. It's just been disabled at the request of carriers so they can make more money via data plans used to listen to music, or in the case of Apple because the manufacturer makes money from streaming services.
Every country's population is less than half the world population. So by your reasoning, no news relevant to a single country (or groups of countries less than half the world population - e.g. the EU) should be posted to slashdot.
I'm pretty sure it's a parody of the Apple ads because I don't see how this would work. The two holes in the straw are at fixed positions so you're still sucking in mostly one layer half the time, the second layer the other half, and you have no way to suck the rest of the drink once the top hole is exposed.
I presume the problem is the two materials in the shake have a different density, so separate out even when mixed? The solution then is to eliminate that gravitational separation. Divide the cup in half with a plastic partition. The chocolate shake goes in one half, the shamrock shake goes in the other half. Take two straws and glue them together at the top. One straw goes in the chocolate shake, the other into the shamrock shake. You suck on both straws at once, and get both shakes at once, from beginning to end.
I agree the first submission about him didn't belong on slashdot.
Assuming the claims in this second submission are true, then it belongs here. It falls in the Your Rights Online category. It's not just the government which can deprive you of your rights.