Why would network jitter matter on a buffered Netflix stream? When people are talking about jitter on streaming video, they are usually talking about their devices ability to render fast enough or the quality of the source material, rather than the network.
Don't forget that they name products after common terms ".NET" and "SQL Server." They even conflict internally: they have two tools name ICE: Image Configuration Editor which configures Windows embedded operating systems, and the Image Composition Editor which seams together panoramic images.
Which is why he probably has people to do this for him.
The assertion that someone would run for president just to help their business portfolio is silly. It's the suckiest job on the planet. And there's plenty of other motivation to do it. "Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity."
That means 10% of their passengers would not be able to board the flight. And most of that 10% would not actually have the flu. This would destroy the airline industry completely. Their margins aren't high enough to simply discard 10% of their customers. Or are you saying those people still have to pay? Boy, the law suites from that would never end. Even if they got a refund, and even if the airlines still survived -- how many people would take a plane flight, knowing that they have a random 1 in 10 chance of not actually boarding. What if they were returning to their home country? What if they had a child who tested positive?
This test would need to be more like 99.99% accurate before anyone would use it in such a large scale.
If you investments in an industry you knew was going to die, would you run for political office and try and prop the industry up, or would you call your broker and make a 5-year plan to divest into something else? Heck, if he really just wanted money, he would probably move his money into green power companies and hasten the death of oil and gas.
His motive for doing this isn't greed, it is stupidity.
In what field are visa holders working 80+ hours a week under thread of deportation? What geographic location? I say that is fiction.
I can't speak for all fields, but if they are in any kind of computer-related field, they should move to the east coast. They will find a job making 60k easily, working 40 hours a week, guaranteed minimum 1-year contract. There's so much demand here it isn't funny. Nobody should put up with 80+ hours a week crud. Heck, why would anybody do that? They could probably do better in their home country.
I *honestly* don't see why anyone thinks that this is a big deal.
Imagine that you had lived and worked in the US for 5 years, were on a plane to return home to the US from the Sudan, arrived, then were turned down entry and sent back. You would think it is a big deal!
It doesn't affect 87% of all Muslims, so it isn't a ban.
I think you mean to say it is not a "Muslim ban." Agreed there. It is just a "ban."
And the DHS has further clarified the executive order by saying that it doesn't affect green-card holders.
This is the really heart of the problem, and the reason it is a big deal. As-written, the executive order didn't say anything about green-card holders or visa holders. It was only after it was challenged, and courts intervened, that sensible discretion was added. Trump wrote the executive order too broadly, probably since he rushed to do it and didn't solicit advice from the state department. As a result, people got screwed, the courts had to intervene, and we gave ammunition to ISIS. 5 minutes with someone from the state department would have fixed these issues, and I would be defending the ban along with you.
Obama used this same law at least six times between 2010 and 2014 against people in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Crimea without even a whimper
There was no outrage because he didn't stop green card holders and visa folders, he didn't stop people mid-flight, and he used it during a time of war.
So now you can say you know why people think it is a big deal. Hopefully, next time Trump issues an executive order he will seek appropriate legal council before writing it.
Who modded this up? The AC poster doesn't even seem to understand what a visa is.
Trump's attempt to force those countries to vet the people getting visas
You don't know what you are talking about. It is the US that vets the people and issues the visa, not the other country. And the ban affects people *returning* to the US who live in the US. They don't need to be vetted, they don't need new visas.
As soon as those idiots stop thinking coming to the US to kill us is a good idea
Ummm... that isn't happening.
You realize you are arguing to benefit ISIS?
Again, they don't know what they are talking about. The state department claims this ban is going to increase our risk of terrorism, not decrease it. And ISIS doesn't want to send people to the US. They want Muslims from the US to immigrate to those 7 countries and fight for them.
I guess the informative thing about the post is it shows that the fiction is working. People think ISIS wants to attack the US, they think people from those countries are killing us, and they don't understand how international travel works.
Unlikely. The countries are: Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen, and Somalia. The total sum of US visa workers from those countries is probably very low. Probably most of them are hired *because* they came from those countries. They probably do something specific to that country, like translation, marketing, distribution, or legal, and as such can't readily be replaced by an American worker.
The parent's claim is totally consistent with Apple's recent move to stop supporting 32-bit applications. They probably don't want to bother emulating 32-bit code, and they only can guarantee the cross-compiler can target 64-bit applications.
When they moved from PowerPC to x86, they did so with emulation. That was possible because they were moving to a faster, power powerful processor. But in this case, they are actually moving to a slower, less powerful architecture. So emulation is probably not an option this time.
Here's the thing. You didn't even read what he said. Here it is again
You linked to the Muslim ban tweet, but this thread of discussion wasn't about the Muslim ban. I was responding to your statement that logically analyzing his goals and policies was a useful approach. It didn't work during the election. He goes against his own advisors. He event says that they agree with him when their written statements and testimonies in congress say the opposite. He doesn't listen to anyone, and the voters didn't care.
So let us talk about this travel ban.
First, I appreciate that Trump's "tweets" now consist of sane-sounding statements instead of just shouting. That's good.
Trump is going to have a hard time getting me to believe his policy isn't racist or religous-ist (is that a word?). He uses the term "Muslim countries" and during the election he talked about how "The Muslim's have to work with us." He blamed domestic terrorist attacks on Islam even if they were conducted by non-Muslims. Bah, there's so many examples of his blatent racism that I won't bother recanting them. He has a big hill to climb to get someone to believe he isn't racist.
Trump's tweet doesn't mention that his actual executive order specifically allows for travel by people of other religions. The truth is, this probably actually makes sense, because in many of those countries minority religions are persecuted. Our existing visa process makes openings for people who are fleeing a country for religious protection though. Despite his claim, his actions seem different from Obama's, because Obama blocked issuing new visas, not blocking people who already had visas. And when Obama blocked Iraq, it was a country we were actively at war with, that had no government. Obama didn't stop family members who were returning home from getting on their planes like Trump did. This fits with Trump's general "blanket" approach to things. No time for nuance or subtlety here.
I think radl33t (900691)'s comment below is spot-on. This, like his executive order about the wall, was just a hasty attempt to fulfill a campaign promise without any actual thought into what would be fair and effective.
dispassionately analyzing goals and policy objectives will be more effective
I used to think that way too. But intelligent people dispassionately analyzed his policy statements during the election, and arrived at two conclusions: 1. The few concrete policy statements he made, would never work. (Ex: Building a wall, tax plans, etc.) 2. He made so few coherent statements that it was hard to figure out what his policy objectives are.
Even now, most of his executive orders are nonsense. Hiring freezes don't work (gee, if only we had a businessman at the helm who knew such things...), an executive order can't build a wall or conjure up more border agents. Not that more border agents is what we need.
Ultimately, it didn't matter what he said. A large group of people voted for him because of the (R) next to his name, and because he spoke powerfully. It really didn't matter *what* he said, more like *how* he said it and *who* he is.
Developers traditionally make efficient, functional, ugly interfaces. They did this by using standardized UI controls. They were largely constrained. Today, without those constraints, those same developers make inefficient, semi-functional, pretty interfaces. And with the focus on form over function, they are pushed in this direction by management. (Thanks Apple, for telling me that I want to get rid of all the jacks in my laptop so that it can be be 0.00001 inches thinner.)
A good UX person -- not the kind of BS "UX" that I see lambasted here -- but a real one -- can improve the look and feel of an application, optimize the workflow, and make it pretty too. I work with a UX engineer who uses statistics on the average hand size of our target demographic, and can quote the average size and resolution of the displays they are using. On touch-screen apps, our UX team optimizes for right handedness, and organized the screen so your hand doesn't cover the things you are looking at and so you make minimal movements. A few years ago we even created a mock-up, and had actual users go through a workflow and timed them, counted number of clicks, etc. This is good UX. It's human factors engineering + graphic design.
A sad anecdote: A few years ago I had the pain of designing a UI with a bunch of managers. It was a screen to add/edit/delete users who had access to an account. I drew-up a typical text box with a list, and then an add/edit/delete button at the bottom. You could fit 50 users on a typical screen, quite readably. They HATED it. Their design fit about 10 users on the screen. Big margins all around. Each row had a separate add, edit, and delete button, a large single-color icon of a person. All the icons were the same, so they communicated nothing. The text was so large that long names needed an ellipsis to fit. The add/edit/delete buttons were tiny icons without text. It was pretty, wasteful, and slow. They loved it.
On another project, which was an industrial machine, they wanted icon buttons. Their previous version used 16-color EGA graphics so it needed an update. So I used actual 3D renderings of the parts as icons. Initially everyone loved it because it was clear what the icons did. 3 years later, it laughed-at because it is too "realistic." So on the next project they replaced the realistic icons with single-color conceptual representational icons. Unless you were on the project, you had no idea what the icon meant. The customers came-up with names for the icons: the "one-eyed cat" let you search. The "disney castle" was to load a tray into the device. The "laser broom" was the barcode scanner. This interface is loved by development because it is so pretty, and is the new standard moving forward. The customers (and training department) complain that unless someone uses the device regularly, they forget if they should start the workflow by clicking the "one-eyed cat" or the "laser broom."
At with the next project, they are using text under the icons again, so users know what they are.
I used to use Google Assistant daily, and I liked it. Now I almost never do, because it is buggy, and it gets buggier with each release. It's highly accurate, *when it works at all*.
Voice recognition quality: The voice recognition quality is stunningly accurate. It almost never gets things wrong. This is the hardest part, and they nailed it. But it seems like they had an intern write the rest of the code. Maybe it just wasn't exciting enough?
Speed: My Galaxy S5, in 2015: "Okay google" *beep* "Send a text to..." My Galaxy S5, in 2017: "Okay google" (45 second delay) *screen flash* "Send a text to..." (15 second delay) This isn't just my specific phone, because my wife has the same model, but with almost no apps installed, and it performs the same way.
Bad parsing code: If you give Google assistant a command that is more that some arbitrary limit, like 256 characters or something, it gets stuck in a loop. I say "Okay Google, send a text to Harold Smith, saying that... 2 paragraphs of text..." Google shows me the exact correct text I spoke, in a text box, then promptly says "Who do you want to send this text to?" Confused, I respond "Harold Smith" then it correctly finds the contact, then says "What would you like the text to be?" I say the text, it transcribes it perfectly, then says "Who do you want to send this text to?"
Bad contact lookup: I say "Okay Google, send text to Dad" then it says "I cannot find a contact named Dad." Then I open my contact list, and there is a single entry named "Dad" with a cell phone number on it. Same spelling, same case.
No retry logic: Sometimes it tells me something like "I'm sorry, I wasn't able to contact the server, please repeat that again." Why would I have to repeat it? Didn't it just record my voice? Other times, it actually transcribes the text, then tells me it couldn't contact the server. Ummm.... what? And it does that even if the action is local and doesn't require the server, like running an app or adding an appointment to my local calendar.
Must look down at the screen to use it: On my iPhone, it would repeat back to me the message and prompt me to confirm. With Google Assistant, I have to look down at my phone and read it. I used my iPhone to send voice texts while on the road. I can't do that with Google Assistant since the whole point is to not have to take my eyes off the road.
Poor app integration: After I send a text, it isn't in my text history.
Since I am concerned that duckduckgo might leak search information, I prefer duckduckduckgo, which uses duckduckgo internally, but hides my searches even better. Should we ever find that duckduckduckgo is also storing personal information, we could always create duckduckduckduckgo, which would solve the problem once and for all.
My mother-in-law got a phone call saying that she owed back taxes and would be arrested if she didn't pay. Now, this is a woman who has no income other than her pension. She went to a Western Union and tried to transfer money to pay the fraudster, and the agent refused to let her send the money. She was furious, and called my wife, who fortunately told her mom that she is an idiot who should thank the agent.
If this is the kind of fraud they are talking about, I sympathize with Western Union. How exactly do they determine what is fraudulent, and what should they do?
The ftc.gov filing says:
Western Union’s failure to comply with anti-money laundering laws provided fraudsters and other criminals with a means to transfer criminal proceeds and victimize innocent people
Can anyone post what those "anti-money laundering laws" say? I am curious how the average Western Union employee would really know if something is fraud, and deal with it.
Yes, the dot pitch will be very accurate. But the paper can shift, which is why any professional printing requires what is called a "bleed" area of 1/8 of an inch. It can also bend or stretch from heat or moisture. I just ordered prints from a professional photographer, and I saw more than 1/8" shift. The left-most wallet-size picture was missing the left part of the picture, and the right-most wallet-size picture showed more of the right side of the picture than any of the others.
This applies to machining parts as well Ex: Suppose one can machine a part to 1/1000th of an inch. But how accurately did I load the block of metal into the machine? Was the machine head mounted at a 0.01 degree angle, causing the part to be skewed? That slight angle could make a large part an inch off.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember this story from when it was posted last week.
Why would network jitter matter on a buffered Netflix stream? When people are talking about jitter on streaming video, they are usually talking about their devices ability to render fast enough or the quality of the source material, rather than the network.
Don't forget that they name products after common terms ".NET" and "SQL Server." They even conflict internally: they have two tools name ICE: Image Configuration Editor which configures Windows embedded operating systems, and the Image Composition Editor which seams together panoramic images.
Which is why he probably has people to do this for him.
The assertion that someone would run for president just to help their business portfolio is silly. It's the suckiest job on the planet. And there's plenty of other motivation to do it. "Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity."
even with a confidence of 90%,
That means 10% of their passengers would not be able to board the flight. And most of that 10% would not actually have the flu. This would destroy the airline industry completely. Their margins aren't high enough to simply discard 10% of their customers. Or are you saying those people still have to pay? Boy, the law suites from that would never end. Even if they got a refund, and even if the airlines still survived -- how many people would take a plane flight, knowing that they have a random 1 in 10 chance of not actually boarding. What if they were returning to their home country? What if they had a child who tested positive?
This test would need to be more like 99.99% accurate before anyone would use it in such a large scale.
If you investments in an industry you knew was going to die, would you run for political office and try and prop the industry up, or would you call your broker and make a 5-year plan to divest into something else? Heck, if he really just wanted money, he would probably move his money into green power companies and hasten the death of oil and gas.
His motive for doing this isn't greed, it is stupidity.
Right. I said "citizen" not "green card holder."
They should be citizens by now, so the ban shouldn't affect them.
Do you have a name? A link to an article? It's believable, I just want to show this to some people.
Only if they get sponsorship from their new employer. Some employers will do it, others won't.
In what field are visa holders working 80+ hours a week under thread of deportation? What geographic location? I say that is fiction.
I can't speak for all fields, but if they are in any kind of computer-related field, they should move to the east coast. They will find a job making 60k easily, working 40 hours a week, guaranteed minimum 1-year contract. There's so much demand here it isn't funny. Nobody should put up with 80+ hours a week crud. Heck, why would anybody do that? They could probably do better in their home country.
I *honestly* don't see why anyone thinks that this is a big deal.
Imagine that you had lived and worked in the US for 5 years, were on a plane to return home to the US from the Sudan, arrived, then were turned down entry and sent back. You would think it is a big deal!
It doesn't affect 87% of all Muslims, so it isn't a ban.
I think you mean to say it is not a "Muslim ban." Agreed there. It is just a "ban."
And the DHS has further clarified the executive order by saying that it doesn't affect green-card holders.
This is the really heart of the problem, and the reason it is a big deal. As-written, the executive order didn't say anything about green-card holders or visa holders. It was only after it was challenged, and courts intervened, that sensible discretion was added. Trump wrote the executive order too broadly, probably since he rushed to do it and didn't solicit advice from the state department. As a result, people got screwed, the courts had to intervene, and we gave ammunition to ISIS. 5 minutes with someone from the state department would have fixed these issues, and I would be defending the ban along with you.
Obama used this same law at least six times between 2010 and 2014 against people in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Crimea without even a whimper
There was no outrage because he didn't stop green card holders and visa folders, he didn't stop people mid-flight, and he used it during a time of war.
So now you can say you know why people think it is a big deal. Hopefully, next time Trump issues an executive order he will seek appropriate legal council before writing it.
Who modded this up? The AC poster doesn't even seem to understand what a visa is.
Trump's attempt to force those countries to vet the people getting visas
You don't know what you are talking about. It is the US that vets the people and issues the visa, not the other country. And the ban affects people *returning* to the US who live in the US. They don't need to be vetted, they don't need new visas.
As soon as those idiots stop thinking coming to the US to kill us is a good idea
Ummm... that isn't happening.
You realize you are arguing to benefit ISIS?
Again, they don't know what they are talking about. The state department claims this ban is going to increase our risk of terrorism, not decrease it. And ISIS doesn't want to send people to the US. They want Muslims from the US to immigrate to those 7 countries and fight for them.
I guess the informative thing about the post is it shows that the fiction is working. People think ISIS wants to attack the US, they think people from those countries are killing us, and they don't understand how international travel works.
Unlikely. The countries are: Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen, and Somalia. The total sum of US visa workers from those countries is probably very low. Probably most of them are hired *because* they came from those countries. They probably do something specific to that country, like translation, marketing, distribution, or legal, and as such can't readily be replaced by an American worker.
The parent's claim is totally consistent with Apple's recent move to stop supporting 32-bit applications. They probably don't want to bother emulating 32-bit code, and they only can guarantee the cross-compiler can target 64-bit applications.
When they moved from PowerPC to x86, they did so with emulation. That was possible because they were moving to a faster, power powerful processor. But in this case, they are actually moving to a slower, less powerful architecture. So emulation is probably not an option this time.
Here's the thing. You didn't even read what he said. Here it is again
You linked to the Muslim ban tweet, but this thread of discussion wasn't about the Muslim ban. I was responding to your statement that logically analyzing his goals and policies was a useful approach. It didn't work during the election. He goes against his own advisors. He event says that they agree with him when their written statements and testimonies in congress say the opposite. He doesn't listen to anyone, and the voters didn't care.
So let us talk about this travel ban.
First, I appreciate that Trump's "tweets" now consist of sane-sounding statements instead of just shouting. That's good.
Trump is going to have a hard time getting me to believe his policy isn't racist or religous-ist (is that a word?). He uses the term "Muslim countries" and during the election he talked about how "The Muslim's have to work with us." He blamed domestic terrorist attacks on Islam even if they were conducted by non-Muslims. Bah, there's so many examples of his blatent racism that I won't bother recanting them. He has a big hill to climb to get someone to believe he isn't racist.
Trump's tweet doesn't mention that his actual executive order specifically allows for travel by people of other religions. The truth is, this probably actually makes sense, because in many of those countries minority religions are persecuted. Our existing visa process makes openings for people who are fleeing a country for religious protection though. Despite his claim, his actions seem different from Obama's, because Obama blocked issuing new visas, not blocking people who already had visas. And when Obama blocked Iraq, it was a country we were actively at war with, that had no government. Obama didn't stop family members who were returning home from getting on their planes like Trump did. This fits with Trump's general "blanket" approach to things. No time for nuance or subtlety here.
I think radl33t (900691)'s comment below is spot-on. This, like his executive order about the wall, was just a hasty attempt to fulfill a campaign promise without any actual thought into what would be fair and effective.
dispassionately analyzing goals and policy objectives will be more effective
I used to think that way too. But intelligent people dispassionately analyzed his policy statements during the election, and arrived at two conclusions:
1. The few concrete policy statements he made, would never work. (Ex: Building a wall, tax plans, etc.)
2. He made so few coherent statements that it was hard to figure out what his policy objectives are.
Even now, most of his executive orders are nonsense. Hiring freezes don't work (gee, if only we had a businessman at the helm who knew such things...), an executive order can't build a wall or conjure up more border agents. Not that more border agents is what we need.
Ultimately, it didn't matter what he said. A large group of people voted for him because of the (R) next to his name, and because he spoke powerfully. It really didn't matter *what* he said, more like *how* he said it and *who* he is.
Depression will be the killer app,
Hardly: Military use, video games, and sex will be the killer apps.
Developers traditionally make efficient, functional, ugly interfaces. They did this by using standardized UI controls. They were largely constrained. Today, without those constraints, those same developers make inefficient, semi-functional, pretty interfaces. And with the focus on form over function, they are pushed in this direction by management. (Thanks Apple, for telling me that I want to get rid of all the jacks in my laptop so that it can be be 0.00001 inches thinner.)
A good UX person -- not the kind of BS "UX" that I see lambasted here -- but a real one -- can improve the look and feel of an application, optimize the workflow, and make it pretty too. I work with a UX engineer who uses statistics on the average hand size of our target demographic, and can quote the average size and resolution of the displays they are using. On touch-screen apps, our UX team optimizes for right handedness, and organized the screen so your hand doesn't cover the things you are looking at and so you make minimal movements. A few years ago we even created a mock-up, and had actual users go through a workflow and timed them, counted number of clicks, etc. This is good UX. It's human factors engineering + graphic design.
A sad anecdote: A few years ago I had the pain of designing a UI with a bunch of managers. It was a screen to add/edit/delete users who had access to an account. I drew-up a typical text box with a list, and then an add/edit/delete button at the bottom. You could fit 50 users on a typical screen, quite readably. They HATED it. Their design fit about 10 users on the screen. Big margins all around. Each row had a separate add, edit, and delete button, a large single-color icon of a person. All the icons were the same, so they communicated nothing. The text was so large that long names needed an ellipsis to fit. The add/edit/delete buttons were tiny icons without text. It was pretty, wasteful, and slow. They loved it.
On another project, which was an industrial machine, they wanted icon buttons. Their previous version used 16-color EGA graphics so it needed an update. So I used actual 3D renderings of the parts as icons. Initially everyone loved it because it was clear what the icons did. 3 years later, it laughed-at because it is too "realistic." So on the next project they replaced the realistic icons with single-color conceptual representational icons. Unless you were on the project, you had no idea what the icon meant. The customers came-up with names for the icons: the "one-eyed cat" let you search. The "disney castle" was to load a tray into the device. The "laser broom" was the barcode scanner. This interface is loved by development because it is so pretty, and is the new standard moving forward. The customers (and training department) complain that unless someone uses the device regularly, they forget if they should start the workflow by clicking the "one-eyed cat" or the "laser broom."
At with the next project, they are using text under the icons again, so users know what they are.
Well crap, I just gave them some traffic. Sorry!
I used to use Google Assistant daily, and I liked it. Now I almost never do, because it is buggy, and it gets buggier with each release. It's highly accurate, *when it works at all*.
Voice recognition quality:
The voice recognition quality is stunningly accurate. It almost never gets things wrong. This is the hardest part, and they nailed it. But it seems like they had an intern write the rest of the code. Maybe it just wasn't exciting enough?
Speed:
My Galaxy S5, in 2015: "Okay google" *beep* "Send a text to..."
My Galaxy S5, in 2017: "Okay google" (45 second delay) *screen flash* "Send a text to..." (15 second delay)
This isn't just my specific phone, because my wife has the same model, but with almost no apps installed, and it performs the same way.
Bad parsing code: ... 2 paragraphs of text..." Google shows me the exact correct text I spoke, in a text box, then promptly says "Who do you want to send this text to?" Confused, I respond "Harold Smith" then it correctly finds the contact, then says "What would you like the text to be?" I say the text, it transcribes it perfectly, then says "Who do you want to send this text to?"
If you give Google assistant a command that is more that some arbitrary limit, like 256 characters or something, it gets stuck in a loop.
I say "Okay Google, send a text to Harold Smith, saying that
Bad contact lookup:
I say "Okay Google, send text to Dad" then it says "I cannot find a contact named Dad." Then I open my contact list, and there is a single entry named "Dad" with a cell phone number on it. Same spelling, same case.
No retry logic:
Sometimes it tells me something like "I'm sorry, I wasn't able to contact the server, please repeat that again." Why would I have to repeat it? Didn't it just record my voice? Other times, it actually transcribes the text, then tells me it couldn't contact the server. Ummm.... what? And it does that even if the action is local and doesn't require the server, like running an app or adding an appointment to my local calendar.
Must look down at the screen to use it:
On my iPhone, it would repeat back to me the message and prompt me to confirm. With Google Assistant, I have to look down at my phone and read it. I used my iPhone to send voice texts while on the road. I can't do that with Google Assistant since the whole point is to not have to take my eyes off the road.
Poor app integration:
After I send a text, it isn't in my text history.
Since I am concerned that duckduckgo might leak search information, I prefer duckduckduckgo, which uses duckduckgo internally, but hides my searches even better. Should we ever find that duckduckduckgo is also storing personal information, we could always create duckduckduckduckgo, which would solve the problem once and for all.
No, I'm looking at it now. I think you are right, the details are there.
My mother-in-law got a phone call saying that she owed back taxes and would be arrested if she didn't pay. Now, this is a woman who has no income other than her pension. She went to a Western Union and tried to transfer money to pay the fraudster, and the agent refused to let her send the money. She was furious, and called my wife, who fortunately told her mom that she is an idiot who should thank the agent.
If this is the kind of fraud they are talking about, I sympathize with Western Union. How exactly do they determine what is fraudulent, and what should they do?
The ftc.gov filing says:
Western Union’s failure to comply with anti-money laundering laws provided fraudsters and other criminals with a means to transfer criminal proceeds and victimize innocent people
Can anyone post what those "anti-money laundering laws" say? I am curious how the average Western Union employee would really know if something is fraud, and deal with it.
You misunderstand the problem with printing.
Yes, the dot pitch will be very accurate. But the paper can shift, which is why any professional printing requires what is called a "bleed" area of 1/8 of an inch. It can also bend or stretch from heat or moisture. I just ordered prints from a professional photographer, and I saw more than 1/8" shift. The left-most wallet-size picture was missing the left part of the picture, and the right-most wallet-size picture showed more of the right side of the picture than any of the others.
This applies to machining parts as well Ex: Suppose one can machine a part to 1/1000th of an inch. But how accurately did I load the block of metal into the machine? Was the machine head mounted at a 0.01 degree angle, causing the part to be skewed? That slight angle could make a large part an inch off.