Honestly, the primary add-on that kept me in Firefox was TabGroups, which at least for FF57 won't be possible with WebExtensions. They finally came to an agreement on an API in early August that would re-enable extensions like TabGroups to work under WebExtensions, but before that work is completed it won't even be possible.
So yeah - once they announced the move to WebExtensions from XUL I started looking at Chrome since it was clear that Mozilla didn't really care about their users or why people actually used Firefox to start with. I may reconsider once TabGroups is available in Firefox again, but the ship may have already sailed on the future viability of Firefox now that they're killing all their XUL extensions.
Which laws by Congress does it contradict? Be specific.
No, there's nothing to say that the Executive is not the branch that gets to decide how to prioritize which aliens are to be deported immediately, and which aliens get *deferred* deportation.
That's what the "D" in DACA stands for, right? DACA was supposed to be a temporary action that *DEFERS* deportation for these individuals until Congress can actually get its shit together and pass immigration reform.
handing out work permits (which are controlled by quota by Congress) to those that don't even qualify? Yeah - that's in there too. But DACA pretty much flaunts the various immigration laws as a whole.
And DACA was never really a "temporary action until Congress gets its act together" - it was done in explicitly after Congress refused to pass such a measure (Dreamer's Act) that would have done exactly that. It was done for political points only, not because it was actually legal to do - but rather that Obama knew he had enough control via Democrats in Congress to keep any Articles of Impeachment tossing him from office, and the Democrats (generally, but not entirely, supporting it) wouldn't be an issue with it.
Had a Republican President implemented DACA the Democrats would have impeached him outright.
The power to create laws, such as would cover DACA, comes from congress.
Except Congress passed a law. Many, in fact. Over a period of decades. Those laws left virtually all implementation details up to the Executive branch.
That wiggle room provided by Congress provides plenty of space for DACA. It's not like DACA was granting citizenship.
And yet Congress chose not to pass the Dreamer's Act which is what would have authorized DACA if it had passed. But it was never passed, and Obama decided to enact DACA through Executive Order instead because Congress chose not to. Yet, anyone familiar with both Dreamer's Act and DACA would recognize that Dreamer's Act is required for DACA to be legal - and since it wasn't passed DACA is therefore an illegal overreach of the Executive branch.
The Executive Branch is allowed to execute Congress's laws as they see fit. The Obama Administration gave guidance on how the deportation of undocumented immigrants was supposed to work. That's DACA. Completely constitutional.
Not quite. Yes, the Executive Branch is the enforcer and executor of the Laws passed by Congress. Guidance (e.g Executive Orders, Regulations, etc) are required to be within the written (Statutory) laws.
DACA was an Executive Order from Obama, however, it contradicts the written laws passed by Congress. DACA explicitly prevents portions of the government from doing their job according to the written law passed by Congress.
I would gander that the level of protection is determined by (a) was anyone hurt before the recall was issued and (b) was there sufficient attempts to give notice before injury occurred. In this case, the injuries did not occur until well after the recall was underway, and were very widely published. Can everyone be notified? No, that's an impossibility; which is why it's typically looked at as did they make every possible attempt to contact effected people. The courts use similar kinds of methods for other things (subpoena's, etc) before entering judgment against someone.
Now, does that mean protection is guaranteed? No; you can still break through the protection under various conditions (negligence being one). Thus my language that Amazon is "likely" protected because the plaintiff would have to prove that (a) there wasn't sufficient attempts to communicate the recall, and (b) that co-mingling of products occurred such that people that should not have been effected were, which thus led to the injury of the plaintiff. Point 'a' will not likely be possible to prove; so they'll have to rely on point 'b' which is going to be very difficult to prove.
Point 'b' can even fail if during the proceedings the received product was tested and found to be a non-counterfeit product (the real thing) but either (i) faulty or (ii) misused. If 'i' then the manufacturer is at fault; if 'ii' then the plaintiff is at fault. So you can probably expect the manufacturer may get pulled into the lawsuit in some form in order to prove whether or not the received product is fake or not.
They're not suing APO. Why would they? What part of counterfeit don't you understand?
I would call you stupid for not reading the article, but it seems confused as well. Amazon sourced glasses from third parties that claimed to be glasses made by APO, they were sold by Amazon in the listing as APO-made glasses, but they were actually counterfeits made in China with fraudulent branding. That's why APO had to make a page on their website telling people how to identify the counterfeits. And Amazon did not contact every customer who bought them to warn them.
Never said they were suing APO. Just stated that APO is likely protected; their lawyers probably said there was no point in suing APO b/c the bar was too high. Amazon, however, is likely protected but their lawyers probably said there's a possibility they could break the protection.
The counterfeit glasses were claiming to be made by American Paper Optics, but were actually made in China. Despite sourcing from a third party, Amazon held them in their warehouses, processed payment for them, shipped them, and did not warn that they were counterfeit despite recognizing that they had been selling counterfeit glasses. The plaintiffs have a reasonably strong case.
Not likely - see https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... for more details, but essentially given how big a deal was made over the recall, Amazon is likely protected. American Paper Optics, given their information at https://www.eclipseglasses.com... in addition to the warnings on the glasses themselves to not look for more than 3 minutes is also likely protected.
Amazon recalled some glasses which they believed to be counterfeit. Amazon has also said that customers who did not receive an email purchased glasses that were safe to use.
The instructions on the legitimate glasses I saw specifically said not to look at the sun for more than momentary glances, even with the glasses on. If they had legitimate eclipse glasses but failed to follow the instructions, they still could have easily cooked their eyes and it would not be anyone's fault but their own.
So the issue is that there were a number of fakes that looked almost exactly like the real thing. Even looking at American Paper Optic's website (https://www.eclipseglasses.com/pages/safety) shows that it can be extremely hard to visually tell the difference.
I find it hard to blame amazon in this situation. Someone listed counterfit goods on their site, they discovered it BEFORE anyone was hurt, issued a recall and it was widely publicized to check your glasses. These people stared directly at the sun long enough to cause permanent damage, all the while IGNORING the SEARING PAIN their eyeballs would have felt. What more was Amazon supposed to do? The manufacturer should have some liability here, not the retailer.
While I agree that Amazon is likely protected (see here), the damage is done without any knowledge of it being done, with blindness/pain/etc coming hours to a few days after the fact.
That's likely the angle the litigant is pursuing. Regardless, whether the case goes anywhere, hopefully it focuses more attention on Amazon inventory commingling and counterfeits.
It would have to focus on that; however, as I point out in here Amazon is still likely protected.
Especially since Amazon issued a recall.
Of course I get the feeling that Amazon has a smidge more cash than American Paper Optics. I mean, just guessing, of course.
I doubt American Paper Optics (APO) would have any issue fighting it off as they were one of the few official glasses. APO even had information on their website on how to spot a counterfeit. They're probably pretty well covered.
If (as others have claimed) Amazon co-mingled vendor's products then it would be on Amazon.
If, however, a vendor co-mingled their own APO and non-APO products or didn't have proper products then that's on the vendor. Sadly, too many vendors sourced counterfeit APO products.
Now as to Amazon - they actually issued a recall on numerous vendors products - both direct communications to customers, canceling of orders, and massive announcements via numerous sources - all-in-all, highly likely they followed the laws and regulations on how to do a recall and are probably covered by that alone as they did everything they potentially could to notify people of the potential problems. When done right, issuing a recall does protect from liability - it's in the public interest to do so in order to encourage recalls to happen.
Which is pretty much the sort of "range degradation" you'll see in a gasoline vehicle as well, since gas engines become less efficient with age and thus you don't go as far on a fixed-size tank.
With proper engine maintenance, you shouldn't see any degradation of mileage on a vehicle outside of the change in gasoline formulas.
My Mazda3 generally had really good, consistent mileage until it started eating oil - for a reason I still can't pin-point but have a good potential idea that basically requires an engine rebuild. Until then, it got very consistent 100 miles per quarter tank - even exceeding that on long haul trips. My 1994 Grand Marquis was the same way. Keep the engine well tuned, and in good maintenance condition and you won't see a mileage drop. (I could tell typically tell my tires were a little low by a decrease in MPG with both vehicles.) Our 2010 Grand Caravan is the same way.
"High Assurance Platform" sounds to me like it's a mode to ensure that the CPU doesn't receive SMM interrupts. This is one of the reasons why Intel is not the platform of choice for safety-critical systems that depend on hard real-time guarantees.
If you need a "hard real-time guarantee" then you wouldn't be using a micro-processor and be using a micro-controller instead.
Now consider who you're talking about...
The cable content producers (Disney, HBO, etc) are basically the ones creating and threating to create their own walled garden services and then block licensing deals with any other streaming service, and then complaining that their proliferation of services makes cord-cutting more costly than Cable TV services to start with...
Honestly, I don't think the market will fall for their shenanigans. HBO basically has success with their streaming service b/c you get it automatically if you're a customer via Cable TV, which is probably the vast majority of their streaming customers. The same will probably happen with Disney. And the market will probably continue on with Amazon, Hulu, and Netflix and no one watching the HBO/Disney/etc content that they refuse to share.
IOW, those content producers are going to have a big wakeup call when they realize they've been left behind b/c of their failure to do license deals with other services. Because that's all their wall gardens are going to do. Kids in 5-10 years may not even think about Disney...
The biggest problem is the big content companies are starting to pull their shows from existing streaming services and plan to start their own.
Sorry, but by the time you subscribe to multiple streaming services just to get all the varied content you want, you're better off with cable and the big bite vs. being nibbled to death by all the little ones combined....
Agreed that is a big problem; but I don't think it'll be a long lasting problem unless they're willing to accept that only a small fraction of people will pay for their service in that style. Most are going to stick with just Netflix, Amazon Video, and Hulu - in some mix. I think HBO's competitor made it only b/c they linked in CableTV subscriptions for free - but I doubt Disney will have a long term success with it without doing the same - and those really aren't competitors to Netflix/Amazon/Hulu b/c they not truly in the same market - they basically end up as services for Cable TV subscribers.
My wife complained about our cable bill and wanted other options after hearing some of her co-workers talk about cord-cutting and streaming. So I had her make a list of the shows/channels she wanted and that we'd need for our daughter. Then we started a research quest to fond out where we could get them. It would have taken 4 different streaming services to get most of what we wanted...
And what was the cost difference? If you spend $40-$60 ($10-$15/each) for 4 streaming services and you're bill is $60+ lower, then you've saved money.
We have Amazon Prime Video only b/c we already have Amazon Prime since we save enough on shipping and other expenses to cover it. Otherwise we only use Netflix at $10/month. That's our entire "streaming services" bill. Any cable TV/sat TV bill would easily add at minimum $15-$20/month just for regional, $30-$40/month for basic subscriptions - and then you get additional equipment fees on top of that.
Simply put do a real cost analysis and not just a what services would we need analysis. That's only half the job.
You seem to contradict yourself. First you say that Netflix lets you watch whatever you want, then you admit that HBO lets you watch on demand.
So, HBO has a competing service to Netflix that is very Netflix like (but what I hear really really sucks). That's how they do the On-Demand aspect. HBO is otherwise like any other Premium CableTV channel. If you have an appropriate Cable TV subscription you get free access to their Netflix-like service; but you're still in their walls - and limited to their content.
If you cut the cord, you can buy access to HBO's On-Demand Netflix-like service too - it's about the same cost as Netflix IIRC. Several other content producers (Disney being the latest) are doing the same thing, falsely assuming they provide enough value on their own to demand their own walled garden. I think HBO got successful simply because they linked in their Cable TV subscribers as a complimentary service...but I haven't looked into how many use it outside of that; I do, however, suspect it would have a hard time truly competing with Netflix in an apples-to-apples market.
So all-in-all, the SatTV/CableTV experience just sucks and you're forced to use a DVR to time-shift for your on-demand aspect or create and sign-in to various walled gardens for their on-demand functionality linking them back to your CableTV service to get free access; but then you're usually paying north of $150/mo for that.
people are complaining that they are paying $99.99/month for the 3 or 4 channels
People complaining about this are basically those who want to have the premium movie channels like HBO, Starz, Cinemax, etc, and don't care about any other programming. This small group of people is indeed served well by something like Netflix.
On the other hand, I and a lot of people like me belong to the opposite group. We want live news, more than one channel, sports, AMC+FX, Comedy, Cartoons, and a few mostly "documentary" show channels like Discovery, History, and Travel. My group is served really really poorly by something like Netflix or Amazon Prime.
I'm going to have to disagree. We pretty much only use Netflix - which has lots of variety. The kids don't even know what a commercial is, and use Netflix on their own tablets to watch cartoons, etc. The AMC+FX/Comedy/Cartoons/Documentation/DIscovery/History/Travel stuff is pretty much all there.
Now where it breaks down is when companies like Disney and HBO go and setup their own services. Having competing services is great; but it doesn't work when the major content producers wall off their stuff like that. Netflix and Amazon got into original content primarily because of the other content producers refusing to enter into licensing agreements (or refusing to renew their agreements) after the popularity showed. (I didn't say Hulu b/c Hulu is basically a front for a number of existing producers.)
Some of the limitations of only using Netflix would be overcome by also getting Amazon Video and Hulu...but it's not important enough to us.
So while some content producers are making it a problem (HBO, Disney) with their own walled gardens; TFA fails in that its a matter of choice in what you want and healthy competition (which is severely lacking in the Cable/SatTV businesses) is a good thing.
I don't think you understand how massive the Windows API is. Their stats page lists 114312 functions, granted 18k of those are forwards but that's still 96k real functions and 28k of them are just stubs in the WINE project. Of the 68k functions that do have a real implementation it's near impossible to say how many of them are completely and correctly implemented, since they don't actually conform to a specification only "whatever Windows does". And it's not like they're simple formulas, they're interfaces to huge state engines like DirectX. They could concentrate on one version all they want and probably still never finish the first one to perfection.
Fortunately for us there's a long tail of rarely used functions and dependencies on obscure bugs and behaviors. Implementing the mostly used functionality of the mostly used APIs does make the most common application work and then there's a never ending TODO list of bugs you could investigate. WINE is always going to be a band aid, they do more good staying current and relevant than trying to solve every corner case. And I think the argument really works just as well in reverse, by spending some effort on the small deltas they get a lot of software working and find bugs that benefit older software too. It's happened to me many times that old software works better with newer wine versions, even though they haven't had any patches directed at them.
Of course it also happens that they break things, regressions happen. But they're pretty good at fixing those if you can point to a working version (or better yet, bisect to find the offending patch). Overall I'd say the progress is positive, but it's no substitute for native applications.
Oh I understand. I also understand how much they're intertwined, built-off each other etc. You have to build a certain base level - starting with the NT Kernel - and them move up and out of the stack.
But what you're missing is that it's far easier to hit a stable-target than it is to hit one that's constantly moving. If you get NT4 (a much smaller target complete), then move to Win2k - the delta isn't that great. Move to XP, and again - the delta isn't that great (smaller than NT4->XP); and keep moving on. Additionally you'll have more and better software compatibility across the board instead of the hit-and-miss that it currently is.
You can't avoid it yet, but if it was oss could finally make wine work more reliably...
Wine doesn't work reliably b/c they haven't ever focused on a single version of Windows and gotten that right before moving to a new version. They always try to mimic the latest release. They can change their process and probably get full compatibility sooner by actually focusing on the APIs available in a specific release of Windows. Win7 would probably be a good target right now; Win8/8.1/10 wouldn't be hard to add after that - again, one at a time - since the deltas are smaller once the base is completely there.
The rate at which automation eliminates jobs is not at all tied to increases in minimum wage, but rather in efficiencies gained by automation.
Well...not quite. The push for the $15/hr minimum wage has put a lot of pressure on certain industries, and some - the fast food industry - have come out and blatantly said they're replacing workers with automated terminals because of it since the terminals are cheaper, more efficient, etc. Yes, they've been evaluating the terminals for years, but they never had a major pressure to actually implement their usage until the minimum wage was pushed high enough that they couldn't afford not to move to the terminals.
Now that's not always true. There are plenty of Bank Tellers still working in conjunction with ATM terminal usage - ATMs didn't really put anyone of a job, just slowed down hiring. This is the more typical case, but when minimum wage is artificially inflated - as it has been with the push for $15/hr - it changes the valuation in favor of technology over workers.
Very much agree; though paying more won't necessarily bring in more or equal candidates - it will increase the pool of people interested as some that wouldn't otherwise consider it will consider it due to the higher pay; that doesn't mean they're good at the job.
And in fact the software/tech industry has had a long history of showing that where there have been many that went to the field just because it had a higher pay - in it for the money; but they're no good at it, hate it, and eventually leave after making a lot of contributions that may be hard for others to fix later. Hiring the wrong people for the job - even if for the right reason - does not help, but only hurts. It's costly - not just in terms of needing to higher again (which is thousands of dollars, typically a percentage of the salary), but also in terms of the technical debt introduced or caused by them.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, the primary add-on that kept me in Firefox was TabGroups, which at least for FF57 won't be possible with WebExtensions. They finally came to an agreement on an API in early August that would re-enable extensions like TabGroups to work under WebExtensions, but before that work is completed it won't even be possible.
So yeah - once they announced the move to WebExtensions from XUL I started looking at Chrome since it was clear that Mozilla didn't really care about their users or why people actually used Firefox to start with. I may reconsider once TabGroups is available in Firefox again, but the ship may have already sailed on the future viability of Firefox now that they're killing all their XUL extensions.
Which laws by Congress does it contradict? Be specific.
No, there's nothing to say that the Executive is not the branch that gets to decide how to prioritize which aliens are to be deported immediately, and which aliens get *deferred* deportation.
That's what the "D" in DACA stands for, right? DACA was supposed to be a temporary action that *DEFERS* deportation for these individuals until Congress can actually get its shit together and pass immigration reform.
handing out work permits (which are controlled by quota by Congress) to those that don't even qualify? Yeah - that's in there too. But DACA pretty much flaunts the various immigration laws as a whole.
And DACA was never really a "temporary action until Congress gets its act together" - it was done in explicitly after Congress refused to pass such a measure (Dreamer's Act) that would have done exactly that. It was done for political points only, not because it was actually legal to do - but rather that Obama knew he had enough control via Democrats in Congress to keep any Articles of Impeachment tossing him from office, and the Democrats (generally, but not entirely, supporting it) wouldn't be an issue with it.
Had a Republican President implemented DACA the Democrats would have impeached him outright.
The power to create laws, such as would cover DACA, comes from congress.
Except Congress passed a law. Many, in fact. Over a period of decades. Those laws left virtually all implementation details up to the Executive branch.
That wiggle room provided by Congress provides plenty of space for DACA. It's not like DACA was granting citizenship.
And yet Congress chose not to pass the Dreamer's Act which is what would have authorized DACA if it had passed. But it was never passed, and Obama decided to enact DACA through Executive Order instead because Congress chose not to. Yet, anyone familiar with both Dreamer's Act and DACA would recognize that Dreamer's Act is required for DACA to be legal - and since it wasn't passed DACA is therefore an illegal overreach of the Executive branch.
The Executive Branch is allowed to execute Congress's laws as they see fit. The Obama Administration gave guidance on how the deportation of undocumented immigrants was supposed to work. That's DACA. Completely constitutional.
Not quite. Yes, the Executive Branch is the enforcer and executor of the Laws passed by Congress. Guidance (e.g Executive Orders, Regulations, etc) are required to be within the written (Statutory) laws.
DACA was an Executive Order from Obama, however, it contradicts the written laws passed by Congress. DACA explicitly prevents portions of the government from doing their job according to the written law passed by Congress.
The no-profit thing has nothing to do with piracy. It's to do with screwing people on their contracts.
Exactly; The piracy narrative is just gravy.
I would gander that the level of protection is determined by (a) was anyone hurt before the recall was issued and (b) was there sufficient attempts to give notice before injury occurred. In this case, the injuries did not occur until well after the recall was underway, and were very widely published. Can everyone be notified? No, that's an impossibility; which is why it's typically looked at as did they make every possible attempt to contact effected people. The courts use similar kinds of methods for other things (subpoena's, etc) before entering judgment against someone.
Now, does that mean protection is guaranteed? No; you can still break through the protection under various conditions (negligence being one). Thus my language that Amazon is "likely" protected because the plaintiff would have to prove that (a) there wasn't sufficient attempts to communicate the recall, and (b) that co-mingling of products occurred such that people that should not have been effected were, which thus led to the injury of the plaintiff. Point 'a' will not likely be possible to prove; so they'll have to rely on point 'b' which is going to be very difficult to prove.
Point 'b' can even fail if during the proceedings the received product was tested and found to be a non-counterfeit product (the real thing) but either (i) faulty or (ii) misused. If 'i' then the manufacturer is at fault; if 'ii' then the plaintiff is at fault. So you can probably expect the manufacturer may get pulled into the lawsuit in some form in order to prove whether or not the received product is fake or not.
They're not suing APO. Why would they? What part of counterfeit don't you understand?
I would call you stupid for not reading the article, but it seems confused as well. Amazon sourced glasses from third parties that claimed to be glasses made by APO, they were sold by Amazon in the listing as APO-made glasses, but they were actually counterfeits made in China with fraudulent branding. That's why APO had to make a page on their website telling people how to identify the counterfeits. And Amazon did not contact every customer who bought them to warn them.
Never said they were suing APO. Just stated that APO is likely protected; their lawyers probably said there was no point in suing APO b/c the bar was too high. Amazon, however, is likely protected but their lawyers probably said there's a possibility they could break the protection.
The counterfeit glasses were claiming to be made by American Paper Optics, but were actually made in China. Despite sourcing from a third party, Amazon held them in their warehouses, processed payment for them, shipped them, and did not warn that they were counterfeit despite recognizing that they had been selling counterfeit glasses. The plaintiffs have a reasonably strong case.
Not likely - see https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... for more details, but essentially given how big a deal was made over the recall, Amazon is likely protected. American Paper Optics, given their information at https://www.eclipseglasses.com... in addition to the warnings on the glasses themselves to not look for more than 3 minutes is also likely protected.
Amazon recalled some glasses which they believed to be counterfeit. Amazon has also said that customers who did not receive an email purchased glasses that were safe to use.
The instructions on the legitimate glasses I saw specifically said not to look at the sun for more than momentary glances, even with the glasses on. If they had legitimate eclipse glasses but failed to follow the instructions, they still could have easily cooked their eyes and it would not be anyone's fault but their own.
Funny thing is according to https://www.eclipseglasses.com... even a lot of the fakes had the same warning :P
So the issue is that there were a number of fakes that looked almost exactly like the real thing. Even looking at American Paper Optic's website (https://www.eclipseglasses.com/pages/safety) shows that it can be extremely hard to visually tell the difference.
I find it hard to blame amazon in this situation. Someone listed counterfit goods on their site, they discovered it BEFORE anyone was hurt, issued a recall and it was widely publicized to check your glasses. These people stared directly at the sun long enough to cause permanent damage, all the while IGNORING the SEARING PAIN their eyeballs would have felt. What more was Amazon supposed to do? The manufacturer should have some liability here, not the retailer.
While I agree that Amazon is likely protected (see here), the damage is done without any knowledge of it being done, with blindness/pain/etc coming hours to a few days after the fact.
That's likely the angle the litigant is pursuing. Regardless, whether the case goes anywhere, hopefully it focuses more attention on Amazon inventory commingling and counterfeits.
It would have to focus on that; however, as I point out in here Amazon is still likely protected.
Especially since Amazon issued a recall. Of course I get the feeling that Amazon has a smidge more cash than American Paper Optics. I mean, just guessing, of course.
I doubt American Paper Optics (APO) would have any issue fighting it off as they were one of the few official glasses. APO even had information on their website on how to spot a counterfeit. They're probably pretty well covered.
If (as others have claimed) Amazon co-mingled vendor's products then it would be on Amazon.
If, however, a vendor co-mingled their own APO and non-APO products or didn't have proper products then that's on the vendor. Sadly, too many vendors sourced counterfeit APO products.
Now as to Amazon - they actually issued a recall on numerous vendors products - both direct communications to customers, canceling of orders, and massive announcements via numerous sources - all-in-all, highly likely they followed the laws and regulations on how to do a recall and are probably covered by that alone as they did everything they potentially could to notify people of the potential problems. When done right, issuing a recall does protect from liability - it's in the public interest to do so in order to encourage recalls to happen.
Which is pretty much the sort of "range degradation" you'll see in a gasoline vehicle as well, since gas engines become less efficient with age and thus you don't go as far on a fixed-size tank.
With proper engine maintenance, you shouldn't see any degradation of mileage on a vehicle outside of the change in gasoline formulas.
My Mazda3 generally had really good, consistent mileage until it started eating oil - for a reason I still can't pin-point but have a good potential idea that basically requires an engine rebuild. Until then, it got very consistent 100 miles per quarter tank - even exceeding that on long haul trips. My 1994 Grand Marquis was the same way. Keep the engine well tuned, and in good maintenance condition and you won't see a mileage drop. (I could tell typically tell my tires were a little low by a decrease in MPG with both vehicles.) Our 2010 Grand Caravan is the same way.
"High Assurance Platform" sounds to me like it's a mode to ensure that the CPU doesn't receive SMM interrupts. This is one of the reasons why Intel is not the platform of choice for safety-critical systems that depend on hard real-time guarantees.
If you need a "hard real-time guarantee" then you wouldn't be using a micro-processor and be using a micro-controller instead.
Now consider who you're talking about... The cable content producers (Disney, HBO, etc) are basically the ones creating and threating to create their own walled garden services and then block licensing deals with any other streaming service, and then complaining that their proliferation of services makes cord-cutting more costly than Cable TV services to start with...
Honestly, I don't think the market will fall for their shenanigans. HBO basically has success with their streaming service b/c you get it automatically if you're a customer via Cable TV, which is probably the vast majority of their streaming customers. The same will probably happen with Disney. And the market will probably continue on with Amazon, Hulu, and Netflix and no one watching the HBO/Disney/etc content that they refuse to share.
IOW, those content producers are going to have a big wakeup call when they realize they've been left behind b/c of their failure to do license deals with other services. Because that's all their wall gardens are going to do. Kids in 5-10 years may not even think about Disney...
The biggest problem is the big content companies are starting to pull their shows from existing streaming services and plan to start their own.
Sorry, but by the time you subscribe to multiple streaming services just to get all the varied content you want, you're better off with cable and the big bite vs. being nibbled to death by all the little ones combined....
Agreed that is a big problem; but I don't think it'll be a long lasting problem unless they're willing to accept that only a small fraction of people will pay for their service in that style. Most are going to stick with just Netflix, Amazon Video, and Hulu - in some mix. I think HBO's competitor made it only b/c they linked in CableTV subscriptions for free - but I doubt Disney will have a long term success with it without doing the same - and those really aren't competitors to Netflix/Amazon/Hulu b/c they not truly in the same market - they basically end up as services for Cable TV subscribers.
My wife complained about our cable bill and wanted other options after hearing some of her co-workers talk about cord-cutting and streaming. So I had her make a list of the shows/channels she wanted and that we'd need for our daughter. Then we started a research quest to fond out where we could get them. It would have taken 4 different streaming services to get most of what we wanted...
And what was the cost difference? If you spend $40-$60 ($10-$15/each) for 4 streaming services and you're bill is $60+ lower, then you've saved money.
We have Amazon Prime Video only b/c we already have Amazon Prime since we save enough on shipping and other expenses to cover it. Otherwise we only use Netflix at $10/month. That's our entire "streaming services" bill. Any cable TV/sat TV bill would easily add at minimum $15-$20/month just for regional, $30-$40/month for basic subscriptions - and then you get additional equipment fees on top of that.
Simply put do a real cost analysis and not just a what services would we need analysis. That's only half the job.
You seem to contradict yourself. First you say that Netflix lets you watch whatever you want, then you admit that HBO lets you watch on demand.
So, HBO has a competing service to Netflix that is very Netflix like (but what I hear really really sucks). That's how they do the On-Demand aspect. HBO is otherwise like any other Premium CableTV channel. If you have an appropriate Cable TV subscription you get free access to their Netflix-like service; but you're still in their walls - and limited to their content.
If you cut the cord, you can buy access to HBO's On-Demand Netflix-like service too - it's about the same cost as Netflix IIRC. Several other content producers (Disney being the latest) are doing the same thing, falsely assuming they provide enough value on their own to demand their own walled garden. I think HBO got successful simply because they linked in their Cable TV subscribers as a complimentary service...but I haven't looked into how many use it outside of that; I do, however, suspect it would have a hard time truly competing with Netflix in an apples-to-apples market.
So all-in-all, the SatTV/CableTV experience just sucks and you're forced to use a DVR to time-shift for your on-demand aspect or create and sign-in to various walled gardens for their on-demand functionality linking them back to your CableTV service to get free access; but then you're usually paying north of $150/mo for that.
people are complaining that they are paying $99.99/month for the 3 or 4 channels
People complaining about this are basically those who want to have the premium movie channels like HBO, Starz, Cinemax, etc, and don't care about any other programming. This small group of people is indeed served well by something like Netflix.
On the other hand, I and a lot of people like me belong to the opposite group. We want live news, more than one channel, sports, AMC+FX, Comedy, Cartoons, and a few mostly "documentary" show channels like Discovery, History, and Travel. My group is served really really poorly by something like Netflix or Amazon Prime.
I'm going to have to disagree. We pretty much only use Netflix - which has lots of variety. The kids don't even know what a commercial is, and use Netflix on their own tablets to watch cartoons, etc. The AMC+FX/Comedy/Cartoons/Documentation/DIscovery/History/Travel stuff is pretty much all there.
Now where it breaks down is when companies like Disney and HBO go and setup their own services. Having competing services is great; but it doesn't work when the major content producers wall off their stuff like that. Netflix and Amazon got into original content primarily because of the other content producers refusing to enter into licensing agreements (or refusing to renew their agreements) after the popularity showed. (I didn't say Hulu b/c Hulu is basically a front for a number of existing producers.)
Some of the limitations of only using Netflix would be overcome by also getting Amazon Video and Hulu...but it's not important enough to us.
So while some content producers are making it a problem (HBO, Disney) with their own walled gardens; TFA fails in that its a matter of choice in what you want and healthy competition (which is severely lacking in the Cable/SatTV businesses) is a good thing.
I don't think you understand how massive the Windows API is. Their stats page lists 114312 functions, granted 18k of those are forwards but that's still 96k real functions and 28k of them are just stubs in the WINE project. Of the 68k functions that do have a real implementation it's near impossible to say how many of them are completely and correctly implemented, since they don't actually conform to a specification only "whatever Windows does". And it's not like they're simple formulas, they're interfaces to huge state engines like DirectX. They could concentrate on one version all they want and probably still never finish the first one to perfection.
Fortunately for us there's a long tail of rarely used functions and dependencies on obscure bugs and behaviors. Implementing the mostly used functionality of the mostly used APIs does make the most common application work and then there's a never ending TODO list of bugs you could investigate. WINE is always going to be a band aid, they do more good staying current and relevant than trying to solve every corner case. And I think the argument really works just as well in reverse, by spending some effort on the small deltas they get a lot of software working and find bugs that benefit older software too. It's happened to me many times that old software works better with newer wine versions, even though they haven't had any patches directed at them.
Of course it also happens that they break things, regressions happen. But they're pretty good at fixing those if you can point to a working version (or better yet, bisect to find the offending patch). Overall I'd say the progress is positive, but it's no substitute for native applications.
Oh I understand. I also understand how much they're intertwined, built-off each other etc. You have to build a certain base level - starting with the NT Kernel - and them move up and out of the stack.
But what you're missing is that it's far easier to hit a stable-target than it is to hit one that's constantly moving. If you get NT4 (a much smaller target complete), then move to Win2k - the delta isn't that great. Move to XP, and again - the delta isn't that great (smaller than NT4->XP); and keep moving on. Additionally you'll have more and better software compatibility across the board instead of the hit-and-miss that it currently is.
...or at least, the Win32 API and userspace components needed to run Windows applications.
Everything is so inter-twined that you'd have to open source the whole system...it's just one big knot of spaghetti.
You can't avoid it yet, but if it was oss could finally make wine work more reliably...
Wine doesn't work reliably b/c they haven't ever focused on a single version of Windows and gotten that right before moving to a new version. They always try to mimic the latest release. They can change their process and probably get full compatibility sooner by actually focusing on the APIs available in a specific release of Windows. Win7 would probably be a good target right now; Win8/8.1/10 wouldn't be hard to add after that - again, one at a time - since the deltas are smaller once the base is completely there.
...a plant-born disease crosses over and becomes the next pandemic.
The rate at which automation eliminates jobs is not at all tied to increases in minimum wage, but rather in efficiencies gained by automation.
Well...not quite. The push for the $15/hr minimum wage has put a lot of pressure on certain industries, and some - the fast food industry - have come out and blatantly said they're replacing workers with automated terminals because of it since the terminals are cheaper, more efficient, etc. Yes, they've been evaluating the terminals for years, but they never had a major pressure to actually implement their usage until the minimum wage was pushed high enough that they couldn't afford not to move to the terminals.
Now that's not always true. There are plenty of Bank Tellers still working in conjunction with ATM terminal usage - ATMs didn't really put anyone of a job, just slowed down hiring. This is the more typical case, but when minimum wage is artificially inflated - as it has been with the push for $15/hr - it changes the valuation in favor of technology over workers.
Very much agree; though paying more won't necessarily bring in more or equal candidates - it will increase the pool of people interested as some that wouldn't otherwise consider it will consider it due to the higher pay; that doesn't mean they're good at the job.
And in fact the software/tech industry has had a long history of showing that where there have been many that went to the field just because it had a higher pay - in it for the money; but they're no good at it, hate it, and eventually leave after making a lot of contributions that may be hard for others to fix later. Hiring the wrong people for the job - even if for the right reason - does not help, but only hurts. It's costly - not just in terms of needing to higher again (which is thousands of dollars, typically a percentage of the salary), but also in terms of the technical debt introduced or caused by them.