This is me, as well (though I'm not retired). I always hated having to store and curate hundreds/thousands of books/DVDs/CDs - I'm interested in the message, not the medium. All my old stuff got ripped/scanned/uploaded, backed up, and I got rid of the physical media. For new stuff, all-you-can-eat services are perfect for me. For the few pieces of media I want to own, I get a digital version, and I'm done. No extra piece of plastic in my house, nothing had to be manufactured or transported, and I still get to enjoy it.
The state spelled out exactly what Charter had to do in order to be allowed to purchase Time Warner. Charter agreed to the conditions. Now, Charter is being punished for not adhering to the specific details of the agreement (and for lying and saying that they had). The state tells them to GTFO and sell back the property, per their agreement
This is exactly how this should work, and good on New York for following through.
I don't really understand why anyone still uses big banks instead of credit unions for their everyday banking needs. Better customer service, FAR fewer fees, almost all the same options.
Apple's catalog is as big as any of the other services, and except for a few obscure comedy albums, there's never been something I've looked for and not found on the service.
As for access, I live in the suburbs. I commute to a bigger city nearby. 98% of my vacationing is to northern California, Nevada, and Arizona, and there's cell coverage/internet access everywhere but inside the national parks. Regardless, Apple lets you download music from its service to your device, and I do have a few thousand songs from my CD collection available as well for those rare off-the-grid times. I'm never lacking for music.
You're welcome to purchase and modify your few hundred songs if you have an issue with these services. I'll enjoy my 30,000,000+, whenever I want them.
With Apple Music (or Spotify, or Pandora), I could listen to 10 new albums every single day for that $180/year - more than 3,500 albums. Or I can listen to any given specific song, anytime I want - new stuff, old stuff, obscure stuff. I don't feel like I need to own music anymore, given how many other places there are to listen.
ANYTHING you can do to help your case, you should do
I would recommend NOT drinking and driving. There's zero excuse. Of course you could be pulled over or arrested for seeming drunk, but if you're not drinking, you're not going to be busted after the test.
You don't just get to delay until you're sober - they have a formula for determining your BAC at the time of your arrest, even if you take the blood test hours later.
Learning to read cursive without writing it would be like just learning to understand German without being able to speak it.
Not at all. Learning to read cursive involves knowing what English letters look like in what's effectively a different font. The syntax, words, letter groupings, meaning, and grammar are all identical to printed/typed text. This is nothing like learning a new language.
1. You can read cursive without having to write it.
2. A signature doesn't have to be written in cursive. It doesn't have to be your name. It doesn't have to be anything - no one checks or compares them in 99.99% of transactions.
Anyone habitually using a typewriter (and there are still quite a few who do)
Citation please. How many people still habitually use a typewriter for writing sentences and paragraphs (instead of labels or forms, which I do see them used for)?
What the hell does anyone need cursive writing for anymore? It existed entirely because inkwell-dipped pens function better if the point stays on the paper. Somewhere along the way people decided it was fancy and proper, for no real reason.
If you want real protection, you're gonna have to change the way records are made and kept public. FB is an easy target (and Slashdot stories in the past few months show how obsessed people are with FB, but not anyone else), but it's not as big of a deal as large aggregating data companies like LexisNexis. And where do they get the bulk of their data? Public records.
Mortgage records, public housing data, court records, public directories, etc. They've got other stuff, of course, but the public stuff are all the things that can really screw with you (compared to your advertising preferences, which is the bulk of what FB, Twitter and others deal in). But anyone interested can do the same as those companies do, with just a visit to the local courthouse or library.
The problem here, however, is that public records are important for everyone. It's good and important to know who owns property. It's good to know who's involved in a court case, who's been sued, and who owns a business. So do we limit this information? Or somehow limit how it's collected? Are there free speech issues involved if individuals are allowed to access public information, but companies can't? Does the answer to that question change when it's the private companies that make the data useful to the public (because otherwise, it's hard to get at, all in one place)?
There are a lot of questions, and the answers are never as easy as "just stop sharing things" or "Make Facebook stop". Living in a large society necessitates having public records easily available, for the sake of all of us. And feeling high and mighty because you don't use Facebook is just fooling yourself. This is a complex issue, and we'll need to decide what we want to give up for the sake of the privacy we think we need/deserve.
Disclaimer: I used to work in journalism as a reference librarian and researcher.
There are MANY legitimate reasons for many public records to be public. It's in the public's interest to know if one person or company is buying all the land/homes/businesses in an area (and who's lending them the money to do it). It's in our interest to know who owns businesses. It's in the government's interest to know where people live and how to contact them, and it's in the public's interest to know what the government knows about us.
When records are public, people are going to collect them, analyze them, and put them together in more useful ways (and often provide them for sale). It's certainly not a perfect system, and it makes people feel funny when someone knows things about them. But I'm not sure catering to your funny feeling (even if you think it's somehow a threat to democracy) is worth the tradeoff of not having this information be publicly accessible.
So don't buy a house, get a mortgage, register to vote, start a business, have a phone number, or any of the other hundreds of things we do that get our information scraped?
People complain about FB because it's an easy target. Most would freak out if they knew what Lexis-Nexis and dozens of similar companies have on them, collected mainly from public records. Your life is already in the public domain.
Yes, I did this from about 2000 until 2010 or so. But in that time, a lot of people didn't write regularly, because they felt like short updates weren't worth a post. And a lot more just weren't interested in maintaining a website at all.
Facebook and Twitter are popular, in part, because it's easy to share short updates (or longer ones, if you want). That combined with the critical mass of users makes them useful in ways blogs/RSS feeds just can't.
My distant family, college friends and other people I like keeping up with aren't available by going outside. I can contact them individually, but I love being able to keep up with them, see what they're doing/sharing, and letting them do the same with me. I don't want to talk to these people every day, but I don't want our relationship to turn into just Christmas letters and an occasional phone call.
Your comment isn't helpful at all in a thread like this, asking for alternatives.
The idea of keeping wages secret exists mainly because employers don't want everyone knowing what others make. If they did, they might all want to be "more equal" (deservedly or otherwise). For the most, the secrecy is still a tool employers use to maintain low wages.
Transparency puts the onus on employers to explain wage inequality.
So you're taking your kids to morgues and showing them Faces of Death? Most kids can cope just fine, but young ones especially don't need any extra violence or gore in their lives. There's nothing wrong with limiting everyone's exposure to violence.
I used Pandora and Spotify until I got my iPhone 6, which was my first that had Siri. Being able to use voice control for my music in the car made Apple Music the obvious choice.
Since the catalog is pretty much the same for on-demand specific music between the major services, the one that is integrated into my phone just makes sense. If Amazon or Spotify stood out in some other way, I would consider them, but they don't.
There could very well be some upcoming feature that limits certain commands to certain voices (and is user-defined). There have been a lot of features added in the last year.
Generally, though, there aren't many people in my house that aren't my family and friends, so I'm not too worried.
Actually, I bet there is something preventing someone from doing this - the law. Even if there's not, your license plate will still be part of the group - I'm not sure the software cares which is the 10 is you if they're trying to track you or any specific plate.
Slashdot Mirror
The current prevailing "virtue" is not being a Nazi, and not advocating genocide. I'm okay with that.
This is me, as well (though I'm not retired). I always hated having to store and curate hundreds/thousands of books/DVDs/CDs - I'm interested in the message, not the medium. All my old stuff got ripped/scanned/uploaded, backed up, and I got rid of the physical media. For new stuff, all-you-can-eat services are perfect for me. For the few pieces of media I want to own, I get a digital version, and I'm done. No extra piece of plastic in my house, nothing had to be manufactured or transported, and I still get to enjoy it.
The state spelled out exactly what Charter had to do in order to be allowed to purchase Time Warner. Charter agreed to the conditions. Now, Charter is being punished for not adhering to the specific details of the agreement (and for lying and saying that they had). The state tells them to GTFO and sell back the property, per their agreement
This is exactly how this should work, and good on New York for following through.
I don't really understand why anyone still uses big banks instead of credit unions for their everyday banking needs. Better customer service, FAR fewer fees, almost all the same options.
Yeah, I mean, who wants the world's 5th largest economy, anyway?
Apple's catalog is as big as any of the other services, and except for a few obscure comedy albums, there's never been something I've looked for and not found on the service.
As for access, I live in the suburbs. I commute to a bigger city nearby. 98% of my vacationing is to northern California, Nevada, and Arizona, and there's cell coverage/internet access everywhere but inside the national parks. Regardless, Apple lets you download music from its service to your device, and I do have a few thousand songs from my CD collection available as well for those rare off-the-grid times. I'm never lacking for music.
You're welcome to purchase and modify your few hundred songs if you have an issue with these services. I'll enjoy my 30,000,000+, whenever I want them.
With Apple Music (or Spotify, or Pandora), I could listen to 10 new albums every single day for that $180/year - more than 3,500 albums. Or I can listen to any given specific song, anytime I want - new stuff, old stuff, obscure stuff. I don't feel like I need to own music anymore, given how many other places there are to listen.
If Pluto is a planet, aren't a large number of other bodies in the solar system also planets?
ANYTHING you can do to help your case, you should do
I would recommend NOT drinking and driving. There's zero excuse. Of course you could be pulled over or arrested for seeming drunk, but if you're not drinking, you're not going to be busted after the test.
You don't just get to delay until you're sober - they have a formula for determining your BAC at the time of your arrest, even if you take the blood test hours later.
Learning to read cursive without writing it would be like just learning to understand German without being able to speak it.
Not at all. Learning to read cursive involves knowing what English letters look like in what's effectively a different font. The syntax, words, letter groupings, meaning, and grammar are all identical to printed/typed text. This is nothing like learning a new language.
1. You can read cursive without having to write it.
2. A signature doesn't have to be written in cursive. It doesn't have to be your name. It doesn't have to be anything - no one checks or compares them in 99.99% of transactions.
Anyone habitually using a typewriter (and there are still quite a few who do)
Citation please. How many people still habitually use a typewriter for writing sentences and paragraphs (instead of labels or forms, which I do see them used for)?
What the hell does anyone need cursive writing for anymore? It existed entirely because inkwell-dipped pens function better if the point stays on the paper. Somewhere along the way people decided it was fancy and proper, for no real reason.
If you want real protection, you're gonna have to change the way records are made and kept public. FB is an easy target (and Slashdot stories in the past few months show how obsessed people are with FB, but not anyone else), but it's not as big of a deal as large aggregating data companies like LexisNexis. And where do they get the bulk of their data? Public records.
Mortgage records, public housing data, court records, public directories, etc. They've got other stuff, of course, but the public stuff are all the things that can really screw with you (compared to your advertising preferences, which is the bulk of what FB, Twitter and others deal in). But anyone interested can do the same as those companies do, with just a visit to the local courthouse or library.
The problem here, however, is that public records are important for everyone. It's good and important to know who owns property. It's good to know who's involved in a court case, who's been sued, and who owns a business. So do we limit this information? Or somehow limit how it's collected? Are there free speech issues involved if individuals are allowed to access public information, but companies can't? Does the answer to that question change when it's the private companies that make the data useful to the public (because otherwise, it's hard to get at, all in one place)?
There are a lot of questions, and the answers are never as easy as "just stop sharing things" or "Make Facebook stop". Living in a large society necessitates having public records easily available, for the sake of all of us. And feeling high and mighty because you don't use Facebook is just fooling yourself. This is a complex issue, and we'll need to decide what we want to give up for the sake of the privacy we think we need/deserve.
Disclaimer: I used to work in journalism as a reference librarian and researcher.
There are MANY legitimate reasons for many public records to be public. It's in the public's interest to know if one person or company is buying all the land/homes/businesses in an area (and who's lending them the money to do it). It's in our interest to know who owns businesses. It's in the government's interest to know where people live and how to contact them, and it's in the public's interest to know what the government knows about us.
When records are public, people are going to collect them, analyze them, and put them together in more useful ways (and often provide them for sale). It's certainly not a perfect system, and it makes people feel funny when someone knows things about them. But I'm not sure catering to your funny feeling (even if you think it's somehow a threat to democracy) is worth the tradeoff of not having this information be publicly accessible.
So don't buy a house, get a mortgage, register to vote, start a business, have a phone number, or any of the other hundreds of things we do that get our information scraped?
People complain about FB because it's an easy target. Most would freak out if they knew what Lexis-Nexis and dozens of similar companies have on them, collected mainly from public records. Your life is already in the public domain.
Yes, I did this from about 2000 until 2010 or so. But in that time, a lot of people didn't write regularly, because they felt like short updates weren't worth a post. And a lot more just weren't interested in maintaining a website at all.
Facebook and Twitter are popular, in part, because it's easy to share short updates (or longer ones, if you want). That combined with the critical mass of users makes them useful in ways blogs/RSS feeds just can't.
My distant family, college friends and other people I like keeping up with aren't available by going outside. I can contact them individually, but I love being able to keep up with them, see what they're doing/sharing, and letting them do the same with me. I don't want to talk to these people every day, but I don't want our relationship to turn into just Christmas letters and an occasional phone call.
Your comment isn't helpful at all in a thread like this, asking for alternatives.
The idea of keeping wages secret exists mainly because employers don't want everyone knowing what others make. If they did, they might all want to be "more equal" (deservedly or otherwise). For the most, the secrecy is still a tool employers use to maintain low wages.
Transparency puts the onus on employers to explain wage inequality.
So you're taking your kids to morgues and showing them Faces of Death? Most kids can cope just fine, but young ones especially don't need any extra violence or gore in their lives. There's nothing wrong with limiting everyone's exposure to violence.
I used Pandora and Spotify until I got my iPhone 6, which was my first that had Siri. Being able to use voice control for my music in the car made Apple Music the obvious choice.
Since the catalog is pretty much the same for on-demand specific music between the major services, the one that is integrated into my phone just makes sense. If Amazon or Spotify stood out in some other way, I would consider them, but they don't.
Alexa can already differentiate between different voices:
https://www.theverge.com/circu...
There could very well be some upcoming feature that limits certain commands to certain voices (and is user-defined). There have been a lot of features added in the last year.
Generally, though, there aren't many people in my house that aren't my family and friends, so I'm not too worried.
This is the most insightful troll post I've ever read on Slashdot.
Actually, I bet there is something preventing someone from doing this - the law. Even if there's not, your license plate will still be part of the group - I'm not sure the software cares which is the 10 is you if they're trying to track you or any specific plate.