Well, "any extra work" is probably exaggerating a bit. However, this is a flaw in IE rather than the OS itself, and they were already releasing it for Server 2003 x86 (which is supported for another year) anyway, so it's basically just setting the flag in the installer to allow it to install on XP. I agree that they're setting a bad precedent by supporting a recently-unsupported OS, but at the same time it was probably considered fairly high ROI in terms of both general internet safety and keeping a few people in the Windows camp.
This week's IE vulnerability (https://technet.microsoft.com/security/bulletin/MS14-021) is not "rendered dead" by running as a non-admin. It (like many other vulns) is limited to the rights of the user account running IE, but it can still do anything you can, such as deleting all your photos or uploading your tax details somewhere. This fact actually benefits the rest of the internet more than it does the affected user. We appreciate that grandma's limited account keeps the box from becoming a complete zombie, but she's probably more upset by losing pictures of little Timmy than by Windows' system files getting corrupted.
The article seems to state that the problem is the constant changing of the time forward and backward due to DST. The proposed solution involves one final change at a regular DST interval, then no longer using DST. However, that change also involves redefining our four US timezones into two as well. I understand that it may be easier to make major timezone changes all at once, but I'm not sure the second is really related to the first.
I've seen other suggestions about simply not using DST anymore. It sure seems to me that today's modern technology and 24x7 scheduling make the idea of shifting daylight hours to different parts of the clock seem a bit outdated. Do we really save that much electricity on lighting to counteract the issues of dealing with changing the time around every six months?
Something I read previously suggested switching to Summer time and no longer using Winter time. Here in Michigan, it starts getting colder and darker earlier, then the DST change hits and it's suddenly dark pretty much as soon as you leave work. I'm not a fan of the author's suggestion to switch to Winter time (even if it is the "Standard" time) permanently. I'd much rather deal with dark mornings and have a little bit of light after work during the winter. I'm at the later edge of Eastern Time, so this effect should be even worse for those on the East Coast who would be seeing sunrise and sunset before me.
The author seems to make some reasonable points about people matching their activities to other timezones. I don't have enough experience to say whether that's really true for the majority of people, so as to justify converting the whole timezone. If we were to do this timezone rearrangement, the DST change might be a good time to do it, since people are already accustomed to moving their clocks an hour. However, I don't think it really has anything to do with the DST change, and personally I don't like the idea of my timezone moving to Winter time permanently.
Just looking at my 1GB-memory Firefox process with only simple two tabs makes me cry. I think they have a lot to improve.
Extensions and plugins? In Cyberfox (a 64-bit build of Firefox), I currently have 10 tabs open, 53 enabled extensions (26 more disabled), and pretty much all the standard content plugins other than Silverlight, even Flash and Java. On my 16GB system, Cyberfox is using 609MB. Try about:memory to see what's sucking up so much RAM.
The "pay as you go" is a very valuable concept. Take a common man and offer him two choices:
* a new car for $10K and $1K in gas fees every year for 20 years
* a new car for $30K and no fuel fees for 30 years
The common man will pick the first option. Why?
I understand what you're saying, and I agree with the general idea. However, I don't think the numbers you chose match up well to the ICE vs. EV comparison. What about these numbers instead?
* a new car for $20K and $3K in fuel costs every year for 10 years
* a new car for $30K and $0.5K in fuel costs every year for 10 years
Even "cheap" cars have gotten more expensive, so there's much less difference in the initial cost - more like an extra 50%, not 200%. Based on my own research comparing my Cobalt to a Volt, I think there's probably going to be more savings in recurring fuel costs too. Whereas your example shows that people will choose a low initial cost plus a recurring cost to get 20 years of service over paying that same amount upfront for 30 years of service, my example shows that the break-even point would come after just four years. Assuming you get 10 years of service out of the vehicle (I'm from the Rust Belt, not Cali), you're looking at a TCO of $50K vs. $35K. That's an extra 43% that you're paying for the comfort of the ICE you're used to. If you extend that out to 20 years, you get $80K vs. $40K. A break-even point of 20 years is completely different from 4 years when you're talking about something that's usually bought with a 5-year loan.
At this point, the long term reliability and maintenance costs of EVs aren't well known. If you have to spend $10K to replace your battery pack in 10 years, that puts it a lot closer to the TCO of the ICE. On the other hand, if the 20-year TCO of the ICE is $80K (remember that only 25% of that is the actual purchase cost), you can still save money by buying two of the EVs with a 10-year TCO of $35K. As others have stated, electric motors are quite reliable, so you may have some savings in maintenance costs there, and there are Priuses over a decade old that are still doing fine on the original batteries. The overall maintenance costs of ICE and EV could end up being a wash, or even in favor of the EV. At this point, we don't know what a 10-year-old Tesla will be like, but there's no guarantee that an ICE will be cheaper to maintain, and hopefully the existing hybrids and EVs can help us estimate.
I perfectly understand that Tesla has a [luxury] market. It is not the market for everyone, where a steel mill worker (assuming there is one left in the USA) could walk into the dealership (well, into a Tesla Store, I guess...) and order a Tesla car for his family use. I also understand that they are doing whatever they can. It's a harsh world, and Fisker's fiery demise is not making Tesla people too happy.
All I want to say is that Tesla will not get anywhere until they have a model for the mass market. They will remain a curiosity car maker for a few rich people, but they will not grow. Small market, especially the luxury market, is a dangerous place to be. It may take just one bad accident where the hardware is at fault to lose your reputation - and your sales.
I think if you sit down and look at the hard numbers, which will contain some variances for each individual as well as some not-very-proven data for EVs, I think you'll find that a $30K practical Tesla (not a $60-90K S) is a lot closer to the standard brand-new family car than you realize. With some incremental improvements to range and recharging (so that it could be refilled for another "tankful" of miles in the time it takes to do an average stop at a gas station/convenience store) to make it comparable to ICEs for extended trips, I think it could be a practical replacement for a lot of families. For example, a combination of improvements could bump the full-charge range up to 600 miles and m
At this point Tesla does not have a market, and it does not have a vehicle that would fit into the spending pattern of a common man. It is known that luxury companies do exist, and can exist - as long as they are acutely aware of their audience. Jewelers, for example, remain in business, even though the only use of a diamond I can think of is to cut glass with it. Tesla can supply into that market for a while, but that won't make them a player.
IMO, Tesla needs to produce an EV that costs under $20K new. A $15K would be even better. It should have range... as good as it gets. Beggars can't be choosers. But probably 100 miles per charge would be OK for many. A $15K car that costs little to run would be an excellent reason to buy - and that would appeal to the mass market, to the people who have to count each dollar when they fuel up their current vehicles. The mass market will make Tesla.
Have you looked at new car pricing lately? $15K is basically where new cars start. The Chevy Sonic and Ford Fiesta both start at $14,xxx. The Dodge Dart starts at $15,995. There are some subcompacts for a little less, but even the Smart Coupe starts at $12,490. Kia has the Forte starting at $15,900 and the Rio at $13,600. If you want to get into higher-quality imports, the Toyota Corolla starts at $16,230 and the Honda Civic is $17,965. My very base model Cobalt LS (superseded by the Cruze, which starts at $17,130) for $15K a few years ago went so far as to consider the spare tire an option (the standard is a can of Fix-A-Flat) and its power accessories are limited to steering and brakes (not locks and windows). Short of stripped-down econoboxes, you should plan to spend close to $20K for any new car these days.
I have a commute of approximately 19 miles round trip between two little towns. My 25/37mpg Cobalt uses about $2,000 worth of gas yearly. I looked into the Volt (as I could still have long range trips come up with short notice, so the hard limit of a pure electric won't fly for me) and figured out that it should cut my fuel bill to about $500 a year. Let's just assume that a pure EV would result in the same 3/4 reduction in fuel cost for simplicity's sake.
Let's say you could make a decent EV (with acceptable range, whatever that works out to be), comparable to the base version of the second-lowest ICE model, that also managed to eliminate 75% of your fuel costs. If you sold it for the equivalent of one year's worth of fuel savings over the price of the ICE model, it should be a no-brainer. For two years' worth of savings, it should still be a pretty easy sell. Well, compared to current ICE compact cars, that's right around your $20K mark (depending on each individual's varying fuel costs). $25-30K is obviously a harder sell, but could still result in overall savings depending on the person's driving details and the cost of gas. Depending on how the long term maintenance costs work out (simpler driveline parts vs. battery pack costs), that could add more savings when looking at the TCO. If you could somehow pull it off for $15K, you would beat the ICE compact market in every respect. You wouldn't "have a market", you'd crush the existing market.
Then again, my $3600 motorcycle does 0-60 in under 4 seconds and I've spent less than $300 on gas for it in the last 11 months (50mpg average). However, it's not so great in inclement weather or with large loads.
What good is a browser that makes you use about:config to undo all the "improvements"?
It's better than a browser that doesn't give you a way to undo all the "improvements".
I don't expect any browser to ever match exactly what I want, short of rolling my own. However, it's rare to find something with Firefox that can't be changed via a simple plugin or even just a setting in about:config. While Firefox may not be exactly what I want right out of the box, its configuration options allow me to turn it into exactly what I want (or pretty darn close).
Revert to old download window
on
Firefox 21 Arrives
·
· Score: 5, Informative
This is what enthusiasts refer to as using positive pressure. Fans force air into the case, creating slightly higher than atmospheric pressure inside. The excess air then escapes out whatever holes and cracks it can find in the case. With negative pressure, the fan sucks warm air out of the case and creates lower pressure inside. Air comes in through the tiny holes and cracks in the case.
There's not a whole lot of performance difference between the two overall, but with positive pressure you have a small number of obvious entry points for air, which are easy to filter. With negative pressure, the air enters from a bunch of random spots that are nearly impossible to filter. While there's not much performance difference, one way makes it a whole lot easier to keep dust out of your system.
A number of comments here have mentioned it, but nobody has flat out said it. The big problem from dust is that it acts as an insulator, trapping heat in the components. It also inhibits airflow, which makes the insulation that much worse. I've not heard of any dusty PC components suffering from electrostatic problems, but there are tons of PCs and components that run hotter than they need to due to tons of dust clogging up fans and heatsink fins.
If you bought a phone on a two year contract with a wireless company, I'd argue that you don't actually own the phone until you complete the contract and pay off the "mortgage." By unlocking the phone you are undermining the contract you made. You are defaulting on the interest-free loan that you used to transform your $600 iPhone into a $200 iPhone. If you don't like that and don't hyave $600 handy, pay full price for the iPhone through a credit card loan instead.
There's no reason the phone hardware has to be tied to the service contract. As long as I keep paying AT&T my $X/mo, why should they care if I also want to pay T-Mobile $Y/mo to use my phone with their service instead? The Early Termination Fee is designed to cover the cost of subsidized hardware in the event that you cancel your contract. Why should AT&T care if I buy the $200 contract phone, then pay a $400 ETF to break the contract vs. just buying the $600 phone to begin with?
Secondly, this law makes no distinction between having your contract phone one day or if you've already completed your full contract term. Circumventing the carrier lock is now illegal once again, period.
The only justification I can see for the carrier lock on the hardware itself is that it helps to make the phone less useful if you try to break the contract without paying the ETF. Think of it as a lien on the hardware, but in that case it should automatically be removed once the contract obligations have been met.
Yes, you've completely misunderstood unlocking. This refers only to the lock tying the phone to a specific carrier. This doesn't having anything to do with jailbreaking or rooting (unlocking the phone's software to run unauthorized programs).
Last August, Google indicated that it would start lowering the search-result rankings of Websites with high numbers of 'valid' copyright removal notices. 'This ranking change should help users find legitimate, quality sources of content more easily—whether it's a song previewed on NPR's music website, a TV show on Hulu or new music streamed on Spotify,' Amit Singhal, Google's senior vice president of Engineering, wrote in a corporate blog posting at the time.
Maybe it's just that even after demotion, the pirate sites are still the best possible result, ranking above the sites that the RIAA would like to see at the top...
Right - based on the opinion of a non-elected buearucrat.
There's something inherently wrong with that in a country that, supposedly, has democratically elected representation.
If you don't like that your elected officials are delegating powers to non-elected people, let them know and/or vote them out. There are a whole bunch of government employees who aren't elected, but still have power over citizens. The first example that comes to mind are the cops who enforce (or not) the laws. The point is that this is a specific duty outlined in a law that was passed by elected representatives, and there are similar duties and powers delegated to other non-elected positions. Should we have a popular vote for every single thing the entire government does?
And in case you missed it, these exemptions are open for public opinion before the decision is made. How come nobody threw a fit and made sure unlocking remained exempt last year, rather than waiting until the extension ran out (1/26) after the initial expiration (10/28)?
Agreed. There's really no need for a technical lock on the phone when you're already bound by the contract. As long as you're still following your contract and paying the monthly charge or ETF, why should the carrier care if you also want to pay someone else for service too?
Everyone seems to realize the petition itself isn't worth the imaginary paper it's printed on. Even if you get a response, it could be as simple as, "That's nice. You're wrong. The decision stands."
As TheSpoom stated above, there's no reason you can't have a binding contract to make sure the carrier doesn't lose money subsidizing the phone (in fact, you're probably under one of these contracts now) completely unrelated to a carrier lock on the phone. As long as you're in a legally binding contract to pay them the money, they shouldn't really care if you can use your phone on another network. If you want to keep paying AT&T $80/month for the subsidized phone and also pay T-Mobile another $50/month for service on the same phone, why should AT&T care? They're still getting their money that you agreed to pay.
On the other hand, due to the dismal state of cell phone technology in the US, most people don't really need an unlocked phone. The major carriers are on completely different technologies and bands - a Verizon CDMA phone simply won't work on AT&T's GSM network (and they use different LTE bands too). T-Mobile is also GSM, but they use different bands, so (currently) you won't get 4G and maybe even 3G depending on the phone's hardware. Hooray for buying a brand new $700 iPhone 5 to get 2G data speeds on it. Even if you could make a satisfactory switch from one carrier to another, would you want to keep paying AT&T the $80 monthly fee (or the large ETF) under your contract while also paying T-Mobile $50/month for the actual service? In the not-so-extensive looking I've done, there doesn't really seem to be much discount for having a non-subsidized phone anyway; if you're going to be paying the same $X per month, you might as well have the carrier throw in a subsidized phone. Most people are going to keep the phone and service they have for the full duration of the contract, making unlocking completely irrelevant.
Granted, there are some exceptions (relocating unexpectedly, international travel, etc.). I'm used to the iPhone world (it's supplied by my employer), so maybe Androids are very different. But from what I've seen, it's a non-issue for most people in the US. Verizon will unlock the GSM portion of an iPhone for international use (it didn't work for me on AT&T's domestic network, but I didn't end up using it internationally, so the unlock might not have actually been in effect yet) and AT&T unlocked my old off-contract iPhone by simply filling out a web form. In my experience, the carriers seem fairly willing to allow you to do things if it's actually for a legitimate use, as opposed to you simply wanting your phone completely unlocked for no good reason.
Ideally, I'd like to see service and hardware priced separately, with or without contracts. Plan A is $80/month with your own phone, $75 if you agree to a X-month contract (think of it as a bulk discount since the carrier knows you won't ). If you want a new $600 SuperPhone with your Plan A, it costs you $150 plus an extra $20/month with a 2-year contract. You end up paying a little more for the phone ($630 total), but you don't have to drop $600 right now on something you're used to getting for free. If you want to cancel the contract early, you're responsible for whatever the remainder of the amount owed is. If you have your own phone that you already bought with your own money, you know that you're saving $20/month on it. The carriers don't need locks because you're signing a contract to pay them enough to cover the cost of whatever you're getting, regardless of whether or not you get service through some other carrier. And to make those unlocked phones actually useful, let's see the carriers standardize (along with the rest of the world) on a network, so you can use your (paid-for) phone with the service of your choice.
This could result in some price increases if the carriers know that whatever contract they come up with for subsidizing the phone (monthly cost + ETF) needs to cover
What this petition is doing is asking the White House to get Congress to repeal a law they passed to make the act illegal.
Except, this isn't a law Congress passed - it's a mandate from the Librarian of Congress, who is not an elected legislator.
Hey, maybe that's what we need to make illegal: unelected bureaucrats creating laws by proxy.
Except, this is a law passed by Congress (the DMCA).
Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of on-line services for copyright infringement by their users.
Per 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1), the LoC is in charge of reviewing related items on a regular schedule and deciding if "fair use" exemptions need to be made. One of these exemptions was made in '06 to cover phone unlocking, and was not renewed this time.
This type of unlocking has been illegal since '98, with an exemption being granted from '06 - '12. It's not that it's suddenly illegal, it's now just no longer not-illegal (again).
This is incorrect, it *is* illegal to unlock your phone regardless of contract. This issue is not about breach of contract, it's about a DMCA exemption which has expired.
No, it's illegal to violate the DMCA in "cracking" the protection around the carrier lock in your phone's software. Under the recently-expired exemption, you were allowed to violate the DMCA for the purpose of unlocking your phone (via software hack of the carrier lock). The simple act of unlocking your phone is not illegal, only the act of cracking the software used for the carrier lock; there are other ways to unlock your phone, which are completely unaffected by this DMCA exemption.
So if I am working from home, how do you propose I send mail using my corporate address? With strict SPF, the old Best Practice, handing it over to my ISP relay, breaks.
If your answer is to set up a VPN to work, I say fuck that shit. SPF is a broken solution searching for a problem.
Send it through your work mail server. Depending on exactly how it's set up, that could be as simple as changing your mail client's settings from "mail.isp.net" to "mail.work.com". It's possible that it's much more complicated than that, but it could be nearly painless.
Keep in mind that your method of sending "me@work.com" emails from mail.isp.net would also fail the old reverse MX lookup that people used to use to block spam. When receiving an email from me@work.com, it would look up work.com and see that it uses mail.work.com as its MX. It would compare that to the sending mail.isp.net server and decide that it was spoofed mail, and reject it.
SPF is reverse MX lookups, but able to be configured by the mail server admin. Instead of tying only the MX records to the domain name, the admin can put whatever he wants in the SPF record.
I don't really have a suggestion, other than a standardized process for detecting events like this and reporting them to the sending organization. But it's hard to notify a company to let them know that their website has been hacked; I imagine it must be horrendously hard to find whomever is in charge of their mail infrastructure to point out to him that he's doing SPF wrong.
DMARC (which I just learned about from another comment) seems to be the answer to this problem. It's another layer to install and configure, but it allows senders and receivers to communicate about mail authentication.
consider someone spams you from a faked domain (the thing spf should prevent). Then you send backscatter-spam to the real domain.
fail.
Your argument applies to any spam filter, not just SPF. If you do the rejection during the delivery, the sending mailserver (the spammer) gets it. If you accept the email, then later send the NDR based on the (possibly forged) details in the email, you may be contributing to backscatter. This has nothing to do with SPF, and everything to do with how your mail system accepts and rejects messages.
winapp2.ini is not property of Piriform. It is a separate project by other people and even notes the compatibility with BleachBit as a feature. Piriform is just being a bunch of assholes. Fuck them.
If the OP is advocating that the user download some other company's cleaner program so that your cleaner program can read its definitions to more effectively clean things up, that seems like a bit of a jerk move, even if it is 100% legal (compare to taking a GPL project and simply rebranding it with your own logos and rereleasing it).
However, Winapp2.ini seems to be completely separate from Piriform and CCleaner, as pointed out. Simply remove all references to Piriform and CCleaner from your site (Are you SEO-mooching off their name?) and point out that BleachBit can use Winapp2.ini, just like the Winapp2.ini site states. As far as I can tell, there's no need to mention the other company or product on your site at all, so just remove them. Piriform will have much less to stand on if both products simply have the ability to read in some third party definition file, and your product has nothing at all to do with CCleaner.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, "any extra work" is probably exaggerating a bit. However, this is a flaw in IE rather than the OS itself, and they were already releasing it for Server 2003 x86 (which is supported for another year) anyway, so it's basically just setting the flag in the installer to allow it to install on XP. I agree that they're setting a bad precedent by supporting a recently-unsupported OS, but at the same time it was probably considered fairly high ROI in terms of both general internet safety and keeping a few people in the Windows camp.
This week's IE vulnerability (https://technet.microsoft.com/security/bulletin/MS14-021) is not "rendered dead" by running as a non-admin. It (like many other vulns) is limited to the rights of the user account running IE, but it can still do anything you can, such as deleting all your photos or uploading your tax details somewhere. This fact actually benefits the rest of the internet more than it does the affected user. We appreciate that grandma's limited account keeps the box from becoming a complete zombie, but she's probably more upset by losing pictures of little Timmy than by Windows' system files getting corrupted.
EaseUS Disk Copy (http://www.easeus.com/disk-copy/home-edition/) has worked great for me on several occasions.
The article seems to state that the problem is the constant changing of the time forward and backward due to DST. The proposed solution involves one final change at a regular DST interval, then no longer using DST. However, that change also involves redefining our four US timezones into two as well. I understand that it may be easier to make major timezone changes all at once, but I'm not sure the second is really related to the first.
I've seen other suggestions about simply not using DST anymore. It sure seems to me that today's modern technology and 24x7 scheduling make the idea of shifting daylight hours to different parts of the clock seem a bit outdated. Do we really save that much electricity on lighting to counteract the issues of dealing with changing the time around every six months?
Something I read previously suggested switching to Summer time and no longer using Winter time. Here in Michigan, it starts getting colder and darker earlier, then the DST change hits and it's suddenly dark pretty much as soon as you leave work. I'm not a fan of the author's suggestion to switch to Winter time (even if it is the "Standard" time) permanently. I'd much rather deal with dark mornings and have a little bit of light after work during the winter. I'm at the later edge of Eastern Time, so this effect should be even worse for those on the East Coast who would be seeing sunrise and sunset before me.
The author seems to make some reasonable points about people matching their activities to other timezones. I don't have enough experience to say whether that's really true for the majority of people, so as to justify converting the whole timezone. If we were to do this timezone rearrangement, the DST change might be a good time to do it, since people are already accustomed to moving their clocks an hour. However, I don't think it really has anything to do with the DST change, and personally I don't like the idea of my timezone moving to Winter time permanently.
http://www.zdnet.com/hackers-crowdfund-bounty-to-hack-iphone-5s-fingerprint-scanner-on-istouchidhackedyet-com-7000020879
I will pay the first person who successfully lifts a print off the iPhone 5s screen, reproduces it and unlocks the phone in < 5 tries $100.
Why would a lockscreen bug have anything to do with this fingerprint scanner bounty?
Just looking at my 1GB-memory Firefox process with only simple two tabs makes me cry. I think they have a lot to improve.
Extensions and plugins? In Cyberfox (a 64-bit build of Firefox), I currently have 10 tabs open, 53 enabled extensions (26 more disabled), and pretty much all the standard content plugins other than Silverlight, even Flash and Java. On my 16GB system, Cyberfox is using 609MB. Try about:memory to see what's sucking up so much RAM.
The "pay as you go" is a very valuable concept. Take a common man and offer him two choices:
The common man will pick the first option. Why?
I understand what you're saying, and I agree with the general idea. However, I don't think the numbers you chose match up well to the ICE vs. EV comparison. What about these numbers instead?
Even "cheap" cars have gotten more expensive, so there's much less difference in the initial cost - more like an extra 50%, not 200%. Based on my own research comparing my Cobalt to a Volt, I think there's probably going to be more savings in recurring fuel costs too. Whereas your example shows that people will choose a low initial cost plus a recurring cost to get 20 years of service over paying that same amount upfront for 30 years of service, my example shows that the break-even point would come after just four years. Assuming you get 10 years of service out of the vehicle (I'm from the Rust Belt, not Cali), you're looking at a TCO of $50K vs. $35K. That's an extra 43% that you're paying for the comfort of the ICE you're used to. If you extend that out to 20 years, you get $80K vs. $40K. A break-even point of 20 years is completely different from 4 years when you're talking about something that's usually bought with a 5-year loan.
At this point, the long term reliability and maintenance costs of EVs aren't well known. If you have to spend $10K to replace your battery pack in 10 years, that puts it a lot closer to the TCO of the ICE. On the other hand, if the 20-year TCO of the ICE is $80K (remember that only 25% of that is the actual purchase cost), you can still save money by buying two of the EVs with a 10-year TCO of $35K. As others have stated, electric motors are quite reliable, so you may have some savings in maintenance costs there, and there are Priuses over a decade old that are still doing fine on the original batteries. The overall maintenance costs of ICE and EV could end up being a wash, or even in favor of the EV. At this point, we don't know what a 10-year-old Tesla will be like, but there's no guarantee that an ICE will be cheaper to maintain, and hopefully the existing hybrids and EVs can help us estimate.
I perfectly understand that Tesla has a [luxury] market. It is not the market for everyone, where a steel mill worker (assuming there is one left in the USA) could walk into the dealership (well, into a Tesla Store, I guess...) and order a Tesla car for his family use. I also understand that they are doing whatever they can. It's a harsh world, and Fisker's fiery demise is not making Tesla people too happy.
All I want to say is that Tesla will not get anywhere until they have a model for the mass market. They will remain a curiosity car maker for a few rich people, but they will not grow. Small market, especially the luxury market, is a dangerous place to be. It may take just one bad accident where the hardware is at fault to lose your reputation - and your sales.
I think if you sit down and look at the hard numbers, which will contain some variances for each individual as well as some not-very-proven data for EVs, I think you'll find that a $30K practical Tesla (not a $60-90K S) is a lot closer to the standard brand-new family car than you realize. With some incremental improvements to range and recharging (so that it could be refilled for another "tankful" of miles in the time it takes to do an average stop at a gas station/convenience store) to make it comparable to ICEs for extended trips, I think it could be a practical replacement for a lot of families. For example, a combination of improvements could bump the full-charge range up to 600 miles and m
At this point Tesla does not have a market, and it does not have a vehicle that would fit into the spending pattern of a common man. It is known that luxury companies do exist, and can exist - as long as they are acutely aware of their audience. Jewelers, for example, remain in business, even though the only use of a diamond I can think of is to cut glass with it. Tesla can supply into that market for a while, but that won't make them a player.
IMO, Tesla needs to produce an EV that costs under $20K new. A $15K would be even better. It should have range ... as good as it gets. Beggars can't be choosers. But probably 100 miles per charge would be OK for many. A $15K car that costs little to run would be an excellent reason to buy - and that would appeal to the mass market, to the people who have to count each dollar when they fuel up their current vehicles. The mass market will make Tesla.
Have you looked at new car pricing lately? $15K is basically where new cars start. The Chevy Sonic and Ford Fiesta both start at $14,xxx. The Dodge Dart starts at $15,995. There are some subcompacts for a little less, but even the Smart Coupe starts at $12,490. Kia has the Forte starting at $15,900 and the Rio at $13,600. If you want to get into higher-quality imports, the Toyota Corolla starts at $16,230 and the Honda Civic is $17,965. My very base model Cobalt LS (superseded by the Cruze, which starts at $17,130) for $15K a few years ago went so far as to consider the spare tire an option (the standard is a can of Fix-A-Flat) and its power accessories are limited to steering and brakes (not locks and windows). Short of stripped-down econoboxes, you should plan to spend close to $20K for any new car these days.
I have a commute of approximately 19 miles round trip between two little towns. My 25/37mpg Cobalt uses about $2,000 worth of gas yearly. I looked into the Volt (as I could still have long range trips come up with short notice, so the hard limit of a pure electric won't fly for me) and figured out that it should cut my fuel bill to about $500 a year. Let's just assume that a pure EV would result in the same 3/4 reduction in fuel cost for simplicity's sake.
Let's say you could make a decent EV (with acceptable range, whatever that works out to be), comparable to the base version of the second-lowest ICE model, that also managed to eliminate 75% of your fuel costs. If you sold it for the equivalent of one year's worth of fuel savings over the price of the ICE model, it should be a no-brainer. For two years' worth of savings, it should still be a pretty easy sell. Well, compared to current ICE compact cars, that's right around your $20K mark (depending on each individual's varying fuel costs). $25-30K is obviously a harder sell, but could still result in overall savings depending on the person's driving details and the cost of gas. Depending on how the long term maintenance costs work out (simpler driveline parts vs. battery pack costs), that could add more savings when looking at the TCO. If you could somehow pull it off for $15K, you would beat the ICE compact market in every respect. You wouldn't "have a market", you'd crush the existing market.
Then again, my $3600 motorcycle does 0-60 in under 4 seconds and I've spent less than $300 on gas for it in the last 11 months (50mpg average). However, it's not so great in inclement weather or with large loads.
Reminds me of http://developers.slashdot.org/story/11/12/14/1725205/firefox-too-big-to-link-on-32-bit-windows... As one commenter in that thread asked, haven't they switched to x64 compilers yet? (Apparently there are issues getting the x86 version to compile properly on x64.)
What good is a browser that makes you use about:config to undo all the "improvements"?
It's better than a browser that doesn't give you a way to undo all the "improvements".
I don't expect any browser to ever match exactly what I want, short of rolling my own. However, it's rare to find something with Firefox that can't be changed via a simple plugin or even just a setting in about:config. While Firefox may not be exactly what I want right out of the box, its configuration options allow me to turn it into exactly what I want (or pretty darn close).
FYI, you can revert to the old download window by setting the browser.download.useToolkitUI option to true in about:config. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/955204
This is what enthusiasts refer to as using positive pressure. Fans force air into the case, creating slightly higher than atmospheric pressure inside. The excess air then escapes out whatever holes and cracks it can find in the case. With negative pressure, the fan sucks warm air out of the case and creates lower pressure inside. Air comes in through the tiny holes and cracks in the case.
There's not a whole lot of performance difference between the two overall, but with positive pressure you have a small number of obvious entry points for air, which are easy to filter. With negative pressure, the air enters from a bunch of random spots that are nearly impossible to filter. While there's not much performance difference, one way makes it a whole lot easier to keep dust out of your system.
A number of comments here have mentioned it, but nobody has flat out said it. The big problem from dust is that it acts as an insulator, trapping heat in the components. It also inhibits airflow, which makes the insulation that much worse. I've not heard of any dusty PC components suffering from electrostatic problems, but there are tons of PCs and components that run hotter than they need to due to tons of dust clogging up fans and heatsink fins.
If you bought a phone on a two year contract with a wireless company, I'd argue that you don't actually own the phone until you complete the contract and pay off the "mortgage." By unlocking the phone you are undermining the contract you made. You are defaulting on the interest-free loan that you used to transform your $600 iPhone into a $200 iPhone. If you don't like that and don't hyave $600 handy, pay full price for the iPhone through a credit card loan instead.
There's no reason the phone hardware has to be tied to the service contract. As long as I keep paying AT&T my $X/mo, why should they care if I also want to pay T-Mobile $Y/mo to use my phone with their service instead? The Early Termination Fee is designed to cover the cost of subsidized hardware in the event that you cancel your contract. Why should AT&T care if I buy the $200 contract phone, then pay a $400 ETF to break the contract vs. just buying the $600 phone to begin with?
Secondly, this law makes no distinction between having your contract phone one day or if you've already completed your full contract term. Circumventing the carrier lock is now illegal once again, period.
The only justification I can see for the carrier lock on the hardware itself is that it helps to make the phone less useful if you try to break the contract without paying the ETF. Think of it as a lien on the hardware, but in that case it should automatically be removed once the contract obligations have been met.
Yes, you've completely misunderstood unlocking. This refers only to the lock tying the phone to a specific carrier. This doesn't having anything to do with jailbreaking or rooting (unlocking the phone's software to run unauthorized programs).
Last August, Google indicated that it would start lowering the search-result rankings of Websites with high numbers of 'valid' copyright removal notices. 'This ranking change should help users find legitimate, quality sources of content more easily—whether it's a song previewed on NPR's music website, a TV show on Hulu or new music streamed on Spotify,' Amit Singhal, Google's senior vice president of Engineering, wrote in a corporate blog posting at the time.
Maybe it's just that even after demotion, the pirate sites are still the best possible result, ranking above the sites that the RIAA would like to see at the top...
Right - based on the opinion of a non-elected buearucrat.
There's something inherently wrong with that in a country that, supposedly, has democratically elected representation.
If you don't like that your elected officials are delegating powers to non-elected people, let them know and/or vote them out. There are a whole bunch of government employees who aren't elected, but still have power over citizens. The first example that comes to mind are the cops who enforce (or not) the laws. The point is that this is a specific duty outlined in a law that was passed by elected representatives, and there are similar duties and powers delegated to other non-elected positions. Should we have a popular vote for every single thing the entire government does?
And in case you missed it, these exemptions are open for public opinion before the decision is made. How come nobody threw a fit and made sure unlocking remained exempt last year, rather than waiting until the extension ran out (1/26) after the initial expiration (10/28)?
Agreed. There's really no need for a technical lock on the phone when you're already bound by the contract. As long as you're still following your contract and paying the monthly charge or ETF, why should the carrier care if you also want to pay someone else for service too?
Everyone seems to realize the petition itself isn't worth the imaginary paper it's printed on. Even if you get a response, it could be as simple as, "That's nice. You're wrong. The decision stands."
As TheSpoom stated above, there's no reason you can't have a binding contract to make sure the carrier doesn't lose money subsidizing the phone (in fact, you're probably under one of these contracts now) completely unrelated to a carrier lock on the phone. As long as you're in a legally binding contract to pay them the money, they shouldn't really care if you can use your phone on another network. If you want to keep paying AT&T $80/month for the subsidized phone and also pay T-Mobile another $50/month for service on the same phone, why should AT&T care? They're still getting their money that you agreed to pay.
On the other hand, due to the dismal state of cell phone technology in the US, most people don't really need an unlocked phone. The major carriers are on completely different technologies and bands - a Verizon CDMA phone simply won't work on AT&T's GSM network (and they use different LTE bands too). T-Mobile is also GSM, but they use different bands, so (currently) you won't get 4G and maybe even 3G depending on the phone's hardware. Hooray for buying a brand new $700 iPhone 5 to get 2G data speeds on it. Even if you could make a satisfactory switch from one carrier to another, would you want to keep paying AT&T the $80 monthly fee (or the large ETF) under your contract while also paying T-Mobile $50/month for the actual service? In the not-so-extensive looking I've done, there doesn't really seem to be much discount for having a non-subsidized phone anyway; if you're going to be paying the same $X per month, you might as well have the carrier throw in a subsidized phone. Most people are going to keep the phone and service they have for the full duration of the contract, making unlocking completely irrelevant.
Granted, there are some exceptions (relocating unexpectedly, international travel, etc.). I'm used to the iPhone world (it's supplied by my employer), so maybe Androids are very different. But from what I've seen, it's a non-issue for most people in the US. Verizon will unlock the GSM portion of an iPhone for international use (it didn't work for me on AT&T's domestic network, but I didn't end up using it internationally, so the unlock might not have actually been in effect yet) and AT&T unlocked my old off-contract iPhone by simply filling out a web form. In my experience, the carriers seem fairly willing to allow you to do things if it's actually for a legitimate use, as opposed to you simply wanting your phone completely unlocked for no good reason.
Ideally, I'd like to see service and hardware priced separately, with or without contracts. Plan A is $80/month with your own phone, $75 if you agree to a X-month contract (think of it as a bulk discount since the carrier knows you won't ). If you want a new $600 SuperPhone with your Plan A, it costs you $150 plus an extra $20/month with a 2-year contract. You end up paying a little more for the phone ($630 total), but you don't have to drop $600 right now on something you're used to getting for free. If you want to cancel the contract early, you're responsible for whatever the remainder of the amount owed is. If you have your own phone that you already bought with your own money, you know that you're saving $20/month on it. The carriers don't need locks because you're signing a contract to pay them enough to cover the cost of whatever you're getting, regardless of whether or not you get service through some other carrier. And to make those unlocked phones actually useful, let's see the carriers standardize (along with the rest of the world) on a network, so you can use your (paid-for) phone with the service of your choice.
This could result in some price increases if the carriers know that whatever contract they come up with for subsidizing the phone (monthly cost + ETF) needs to cover
What this petition is doing is asking the White House to get Congress to repeal a law they passed to make the act illegal.
Except, this isn't a law Congress passed - it's a mandate from the Librarian of Congress, who is not an elected legislator.
Hey, maybe that's what we need to make illegal: unelected bureaucrats creating laws by proxy.
Except, this is a law passed by Congress (the DMCA).
Per 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1), the LoC is in charge of reviewing related items on a regular schedule and deciding if "fair use" exemptions need to be made. One of these exemptions was made in '06 to cover phone unlocking, and was not renewed this time.
This type of unlocking has been illegal since '98, with an exemption being granted from '06 - '12. It's not that it's suddenly illegal, it's now just no longer not-illegal (again).
This is incorrect, it *is* illegal to unlock your phone regardless of contract. This issue is not about breach of contract, it's about a DMCA exemption which has expired.
No, it's illegal to violate the DMCA in "cracking" the protection around the carrier lock in your phone's software. Under the recently-expired exemption, you were allowed to violate the DMCA for the purpose of unlocking your phone (via software hack of the carrier lock). The simple act of unlocking your phone is not illegal, only the act of cracking the software used for the carrier lock; there are other ways to unlock your phone, which are completely unaffected by this DMCA exemption.
So if I am working from home, how do you propose I send mail using my corporate address? With strict SPF, the old Best Practice, handing it over to my ISP relay, breaks.
If your answer is to set up a VPN to work, I say fuck that shit. SPF is a broken solution searching for a problem.
Send it through your work mail server. Depending on exactly how it's set up, that could be as simple as changing your mail client's settings from "mail.isp.net" to "mail.work.com". It's possible that it's much more complicated than that, but it could be nearly painless.
Keep in mind that your method of sending "me@work.com" emails from mail.isp.net would also fail the old reverse MX lookup that people used to use to block spam. When receiving an email from me@work.com, it would look up work.com and see that it uses mail.work.com as its MX. It would compare that to the sending mail.isp.net server and decide that it was spoofed mail, and reject it.
SPF is reverse MX lookups, but able to be configured by the mail server admin. Instead of tying only the MX records to the domain name, the admin can put whatever he wants in the SPF record.
I don't really have a suggestion, other than a standardized process for detecting events like this and reporting them to the sending organization. But it's hard to notify a company to let them know that their website has been hacked; I imagine it must be horrendously hard to find whomever is in charge of their mail infrastructure to point out to him that he's doing SPF wrong.
DMARC (which I just learned about from another comment) seems to be the answer to this problem. It's another layer to install and configure, but it allows senders and receivers to communicate about mail authentication.
you are destroying the sense of SPF.
consider someone spams you from a faked domain (the thing spf should prevent). Then you send backscatter-spam to the real domain.
fail.
Your argument applies to any spam filter, not just SPF. If you do the rejection during the delivery, the sending mailserver (the spammer) gets it. If you accept the email, then later send the NDR based on the (possibly forged) details in the email, you may be contributing to backscatter. This has nothing to do with SPF, and everything to do with how your mail system accepts and rejects messages.
winapp2.ini is not property of Piriform. It is a separate project by other people and even notes the compatibility with BleachBit as a feature. Piriform is just being a bunch of assholes. Fuck them.
If the OP is advocating that the user download some other company's cleaner program so that your cleaner program can read its definitions to more effectively clean things up, that seems like a bit of a jerk move, even if it is 100% legal (compare to taking a GPL project and simply rebranding it with your own logos and rereleasing it).
However, Winapp2.ini seems to be completely separate from Piriform and CCleaner, as pointed out. Simply remove all references to Piriform and CCleaner from your site (Are you SEO-mooching off their name?) and point out that BleachBit can use Winapp2.ini, just like the Winapp2.ini site states. As far as I can tell, there's no need to mention the other company or product on your site at all, so just remove them. Piriform will have much less to stand on if both products simply have the ability to read in some third party definition file, and your product has nothing at all to do with CCleaner.