The companies said they expect synergies of about $43 billion...
Even for corporatespeak I don't think this is correct usage of this word. If they were investing $43 bil, maybe, but "synergy" is generally defined as shared effort in an area or towards a goal.
The company itself doesn't appear to be well managed, seemingly having never recovered from that disastrous Nextel merger.
Exactly why I don't want them merging with T-Mobile, and also a reason the last merger talks never went through. Sprints management wanted to be in control of the new company and the other side didn't want that. What's their new idea now, that is allowing these talks to start again is what I want to know. Unless it's pretty much "T-Mobile takes over Sprint" I'm not seeing any reason to support this merger -- in fact how 'bout they just not, and stay the course to save us any worrying. T-Mobile has been making good gains the last several years, gains that are benefiting their customers as well as their shareholders, without mergers being involved.
While some/.'ers might point out the ability to do this with cheaper hardware and rolling your own using rsync, I defy you to find a similarly simple solution.
You don't even need to "roll your own r-sync" anything. You can set up an AFP share on a FreeNAS server and point Time Machine to it. You might need to configure user permissions for the machines to access the dataset they back up to, but it's a pretty easy one-time thing, and you can make a homemade "Time Capsule" this way with redundant hot-swappable disks through ZFS. A more robust backup solution than Apple's appliance.
There an old saying: "A fool and his money are soon parted"... and there are a lot of fools in this world. Social networking services that market to the masses will attract a lot of them.
They also weren't dumb enough to make the antenna part of the exterior case, causing a hand holding it normally to both block the signal AND detune the antenna by changing its electrical length.
Actually, I had a Nokia feature phone where the antenna was connected to a small metal nameplate on the back of the case. The manual mentioned you shouldn't touch it while using the phone as it would effect reception. It was right in the middle upper-body, so if you held the phone with your index finger extended up the body for stability it would rest on it (kinda like where they put fingerprint sensors on smartphone backs nowadays).
But at least it was just that one small rectangle on the back. Not all the way around the edge of the case.
I don't know how Shazam works; but do you have to tell it what Streaming Music Service you might (or might not) belong to to use it? If not, then this is a horseshit suggestion.
You don't tell it what you subscribe to, it's a standalone app. But once it identifies a song it gives you links to music services to obtain the track. The fear here is that Apple will remove links to rival services and make Apple Music the only service you can easily follow through on.
I haven't used the headphone jack in years... good Bluetooth has replaced the wired equipment.
Whatever. That doesn't explain why Apple needs to remove the headphone jack. You can continue to use the Bluetooth equipment you enjoy even if the older technology is present. Why must it be a choice between one or the other? In the words of a certain little girl on a television commercial, "Why not both?"
Funny enough, I heard the same thing about the auto-darkening eyeglasses that came out several years back. They worked great when you first got them, but after a few years they stop darkening as well and develop a permanent yellow tinge when they're "clear". I guess this wouldn't matter so much if they were disposable contacts you only wore for 3-6 months.
Well, I imagine those rural locations have no special sales tax rates.
If their residence is truly rural. That's what I meant about people disagreeing with being considered part of a city area (and thereby subject to its tax laws). City Limits can stretch a pretty good ways past the last home in town in some areas.
I don't see why SD will have to compile all that information in one place for online stores. They don't for physical stores.
Because, as the parent poster said, for physical stores the tax rate is based on the store's physical location -- which makes it a single tax rate for all customers. If the tax rate is now going to be based on the location of the buyer the rate is going to vary on a per-customer basis. A retailer shouldn't have to be burdened with figuring out the rate for every single person in a state separately.
You know lots of these rural people don't even know their physical location? That's not a joke. I deal with them every day. They have a P.O. Box for getting letters and they only know their physical location from rough driving directions. If you asked them to state the actual standard identifying information they couldn't tell you. Even the ones that can have disagreements about what city they are really considered a part of or if they are an address on the highway -- things that will definitely come into play when computing local taxes.
That it eventually got shut down, and nobody cared.
They are hedging their bets on the idea Facebook's time in the sun is ending. Social networks were folding before because Facebook became the de facto one. Now with a mass exodus possible, someone wants to be the "place everyone moves to".
If the King is dying, a new battle for the throne is about to begin.
giving in exchange for something, i.e. paid advertising IS SELLING.
I think the Facebook's attempted sleight-of-hand here is they are claiming they are not selling the user data itself, they are selling the advertising space. The user data is being given to those clients, but Facebook is trying to pretend it's okay if it's a "complimentary service" and not technically billed.
No, it is surprising, given the quality of their updates. I mean, think about it... This bug is so bad even Microsoft is not willing to ship with it still open. That must be a seriously nasty bug if they wont let it go.
They could never collect consent from someone that didn't sign up for FB, so how is data collection could be legal?
"Anyone can turn off and opt out of any data collection for ads, whether they use our services or not"
I'd like to know how one would go about opting out of data collection on Facebook if they don't use the service. If it's a [shadow] profile they have no personal access to, how do you change preferences on it?
How Slashdot and others keep referring to this as the "Cambridge Analytics scandal" as if Facebook's business model is only wrong when one side takes advantage of it.
I'm sorry? I don't recall Slashdot ever getting a hard-on for Facebook and their business model. A site that's very existence is to spy on you for an advertising business has never been loved around here. If people are referring to this as the "Cambridge Analytics Scandal" it might be because they are referring to this specific current event and it's links to the current administration.
Since you seem to claim this is a repeat issue and partisan politics are involved in the response here, would you be so kind as to name a similar data collection issue that was widely reported in the news and triggered actual action by law enforcement officials but benefited the Democratic party?
is this the same click-bait article I saw posted on Reddit where it was titled Woz "leaving Facebook" (like he was an employee there), only to have the article explain they meant closing his account, and then at the end of the article reveal he didn't even delete the profile in the end, because he didn't want someone else taking his username?
Slashdot Mirror
The companies said they expect synergies of about $43 billion...
Even for corporatespeak I don't think this is correct usage of this word. If they were investing $43 bil, maybe, but "synergy" is generally defined as shared effort in an area or towards a goal.
However, if Sprint execs start running things, ...we likely would get added fees and surcharges.
...it seems that most people who were on Sprint moved to Verizon.
As a T-Mobile subscriber, this sounds like "out of the frying pan, into the fire" to me.
The company itself doesn't appear to be well managed, seemingly having never recovered from that disastrous Nextel merger.
Exactly why I don't want them merging with T-Mobile, and also a reason the last merger talks never went through. Sprints management wanted to be in control of the new company and the other side didn't want that. What's their new idea now, that is allowing these talks to start again is what I want to know. Unless it's pretty much "T-Mobile takes over Sprint" I'm not seeing any reason to support this merger -- in fact how 'bout they just not, and stay the course to save us any worrying. T-Mobile has been making good gains the last several years, gains that are benefiting their customers as well as their shareholders, without mergers being involved.
While some /.'ers might point out the ability to do this with cheaper hardware and rolling your own using rsync, I defy you to find a similarly simple solution.
You don't even need to "roll your own r-sync" anything. You can set up an AFP share on a FreeNAS server and point Time Machine to it. You might need to configure user permissions for the machines to access the dataset they back up to, but it's a pretty easy one-time thing, and you can make a homemade "Time Capsule" this way with redundant hot-swappable disks through ZFS. A more robust backup solution than Apple's appliance.
There an old saying: "A fool and his money are soon parted"... and there are a lot of fools in this world.
Social networking services that market to the masses will attract a lot of them.
They also weren't dumb enough to make the antenna part of the exterior case, causing a hand holding it normally to both block the signal AND detune the antenna by changing its electrical length.
Actually, I had a Nokia feature phone where the antenna was connected to a small metal nameplate on the back of the case. The manual mentioned you shouldn't touch it while using the phone as it would effect reception. It was right in the middle upper-body, so if you held the phone with your index finger extended up the body for stability it would rest on it (kinda like where they put fingerprint sensors on smartphone backs nowadays).
But at least it was just that one small rectangle on the back. Not all the way around the edge of the case.
Weren'tt there multiple breaches? This fine is specifically for the 2014 one.
I don't know how Shazam works; but do you have to tell it what Streaming Music Service you might (or might not) belong to to use it? If not, then this is a horseshit suggestion.
You don't tell it what you subscribe to, it's a standalone app. But once it identifies a song it gives you links to music services to obtain the track. The fear here is that Apple will remove links to rival services and make Apple Music the only service you can easily follow through on.
Better question: If you're being interviewed by a bot, would it recognize if you were wearing a mask?
I'm sure it's upsetting at least 70.
The headphone jack is a way into the inside of the phone for water, dirt, and dust. If it's unused it shouldn't be there.
How do other manufacturers manage to make IP68 phones that still have headphone jacks then?
I haven't used the headphone jack in years... good Bluetooth has replaced the wired equipment.
Whatever. That doesn't explain why Apple needs to remove the headphone jack. You can continue to use the Bluetooth equipment you enjoy even if the older technology is present. Why must it be a choice between one or the other? In the words of a certain little girl on a television commercial, "Why not both?"
Funny enough, I heard the same thing about the auto-darkening eyeglasses that came out several years back. They worked great when you first got them, but after a few years they stop darkening as well and develop a permanent yellow tinge when they're "clear". I guess this wouldn't matter so much if they were disposable contacts you only wore for 3-6 months.
Well, I imagine those rural locations have no special sales tax rates.
If their residence is truly rural. That's what I meant about people disagreeing with being considered part of a city area (and thereby subject to its tax laws).
City Limits can stretch a pretty good ways past the last home in town in some areas.
I don't see why SD will have to compile all that information in one place for online stores. They don't for physical stores.
Because, as the parent poster said, for physical stores the tax rate is based on the store's physical location -- which makes it a single tax rate for all customers.
If the tax rate is now going to be based on the location of the buyer the rate is going to vary on a per-customer basis. A retailer shouldn't have to be burdened with figuring out the rate for every single person in a state separately.
You know lots of these rural people don't even know their physical location? That's not a joke. I deal with them every day. They have a P.O. Box for getting letters and they only know their physical location from rough driving directions. If you asked them to state the actual standard identifying information they couldn't tell you. Even the ones that can have disagreements about what city they are really considered a part of or if they are an address on the highway -- things that will definitely come into play when computing local taxes.
I'm curious what's considered an "obsolete CPU architecture" if a Powerbook 100 is still supported.
That it eventually got shut down, and nobody cared.
They are hedging their bets on the idea Facebook's time in the sun is ending. Social networks were folding before because Facebook became the de facto one. Now with a mass exodus possible, someone wants to be the "place everyone moves to".
If the King is dying, a new battle for the throne is about to begin.
giving in exchange for something, i.e. paid advertising IS SELLING.
I think the Facebook's attempted sleight-of-hand here is they are claiming they are not selling the user data itself, they are selling the advertising space. The user data is being given to those clients, but Facebook is trying to pretend it's okay if it's a "complimentary service" and not technically billed.
No, it is surprising, given the quality of their updates. I mean, think about it... This bug is so bad even Microsoft is not willing to ship with it still open. That must be a seriously nasty bug if they wont let it go.
/It'saTrap meme
They could never collect consent from someone that didn't sign up for FB, so how is data collection could be legal?
"Anyone can turn off and opt out of any data collection for ads, whether they use our services or not"
I'd like to know how one would go about opting out of data collection on Facebook if they don't use the service.
If it's a [shadow] profile they have no personal access to, how do you change preferences on it?
They want to make sure the only people taking data are the ones paying for it.
Double-check the settings on your phone's alert app. I actually found a place to customize (and disable) those Amber alerts.
How Slashdot and others keep referring to this as the "Cambridge Analytics scandal" as if Facebook's business model is only wrong when one side takes advantage of it.
I'm sorry? I don't recall Slashdot ever getting a hard-on for Facebook and their business model. A site that's very existence is to spy on you for an advertising business has never been loved around here. If people are referring to this as the "Cambridge Analytics Scandal" it might be because they are referring to this specific current event and it's links to the current administration.
Since you seem to claim this is a repeat issue and partisan politics are involved in the response here, would you be so kind as to name a similar data collection issue that was widely reported in the news and triggered actual action by law enforcement officials but benefited the Democratic party?
is this the same click-bait article I saw posted on Reddit where it was titled Woz "leaving Facebook" (like he was an employee there), only to have the article explain they meant closing his account, and then at the end of the article reveal he didn't even delete the profile in the end, because he didn't want someone else taking his username?