The site which describes the two time zone solution in detail is: http://www.standardtime.com/
I think it would be a great solution and even have written letters to my senators and congressman about it. Of course, I got crickets. We're only on Standard Time for about 4 months a year now... at the very least just leave everything at DST year around. I especially dislike the fact that in the dead of winter the sun sets in SoCal at about 16:30... seriously?
Oh for pete sake...
It doesn't matter who created the feature... it was viewed as relevant and worthwhile otherwise Linus wouldn't have allowed it in the kernel. You'll have the kernel feature if it is backported. This appears to be all about Debian. If they choose not to backport either switch distributions or use another browser. Most people aren't going to be impacted by this. It's kinda of silly... it's the feigned internet outrage of the day.
Well, that depends. New hardware support is added all the time. LTS means that changes can be made. It doesn't mean you are frozen to a specific set of hardware. Chrome development is on the fast track. If the distribution you are using thinks that you are using a "stupid web browser" perhaps it is time to switch to another distribution. Fedora and Ubuntu will work just fine; and I'm sure there are others.
This is really a non-issue. Chrome decided to use a recent feature in the kernel. This happens all the time. Most distributions that are using the older kernel have patched. If Debian doesn't want to patch, move to another distribution or switch to Firefox. Both Fedora 20 and 21 are on 3.17 - so it isn't an issue there. Debian is notorious for using old stuff, so it may be the kernel they are using requires a multitude of changes and because of their policies they don't want to move to a more recent version. You buy into that logic when you choose to use Debian - so expect this stuff to happen. This has nothing to do with RMS or Google; rather the mismatch of using a slow to update distribution with a browser that is on the fast track.
Yeah, especially if they come from "Techcrunch" or "The Verge"... right.
Like I said, haters gonna hate, and they can't keep a pesky thing like facts getting in the way of their narrative. Thank you for proving my point.
Facebook is apparently extremely successful and they still have a real names policy:
https://www.facebook.com/help/...
Google had one and now no longer has it; but people keep pointing to the real names policy as a major reason that G+ isn't more popular.
If that was the case, no one would be using FB.
There isn't an issue with having multiple accounts:
https://support.google.com/acc...
The framework now allows people who don't want multiple accounts to have just one, easily. The vast majority of people don't want to futz with multiple accounts, plus it's much easier for Google to have an unifying framework on the backend.
I've never really understood the vitriol toward G+. The press doing what they do (and no doubt strongly encouraged by Facebook, Microsoft, Apple) created a narrative of Google taking aim at Facebook and how they will most certainly fail. Google has repeated many times what the G+ initiative was about, but the press either ignored the facts or said Google was lying. How dare Google try to disrupt their narrative with something as inconsequential as facts. G+ is a framework to unify Google services. Before, it was a complete mess. You had different userids and passwords, Google App accounts were completely walled off from non-app services, every service had it's own comment engine. This was because each of those services were developed in their own bubble. Now, Google has a unifying framework for existing and new services as they are created. Yes, I'm sure they would have been thrilled if the G+ stream would be more popular than FB, but that wasn't the goal. They had to do something with the mess of unrelated services. It was becoming an administrative nightmare for them. Making hangouts and photos available through their own entry point is a good thing. Some people didn't want to deal with the stream or even see it. They figured fine, make a separate entry point. The important thing to remember though is the framework did exactly what they wanted it to do, and it is a success. You have one Google account that accesses all their services. Apps users can access all services. The more people use the services they'll find it's easy to just click a button to put it in the stream if they wish.
Yeah, I think alot of people like the novelty of it... and think it's cool. Plus if you're getting some type of reward for using it, that could be an incentive. CurrentC is suppose to be offering all kinds of bribery in return for use of it's method. Depending on what it is, I could be convinced to lug out my phone and use their app.
Yeah, you hit the nail on the head. I've been able to use a chip enabled card at Walmart / Sams and it's extremely simple and secure. Google Wallet or ApplePay aren't any more secure. Until they come up with a virtual ID you're gonna have to carry your wallet; and as you point out if your battery goes out or you have an electronics malfunction, you're kinda screwed if you're relying solely on your phone. I view it as a novelty and possibly a convenience if you happen to have your phone out at the time you're ready to pay. Otherwise, it's faster, simpler, more reliable and just as if not more secure to use a chip enabled card. As a wallet replacement? Not there yet...
SCE defines peak periods for residential use as follows:
10:00 - 18:00 Weekdays, all year, except Holidays
All other times are non-peak. During the winter time, the sun sets in SoCal about 16:30 - so you're not going to get any sunlight anyway.
I've always heard that peak usage occurs during the day, when businesses are operating at full tilt. Yes, when people are at home they use energy, but when compared to business use, it's not as great. Southern California Edison in fact has a program that gives use credits called "Save Power Days" where they encourage you to reduce usage from 14:00-18:00. Here is the link: http://goo.gl/TT0q7a
Additionally, during peak periods there are rotating outages... these happen during the day, not after 17:00... that said, seems to me it's more better to send that extra power to the grid during the day rather than after 17:00...
As an experiment: try to get by without using google. The argument is that by being so successful and ubiquitous, people are forced to use it, giving google powers that society might not want to give them for very specific reasons. If it's "their fault" or not is completely besides the point
Because if Google was a German company, it would have never been allowed to become the privacy busting, surveillance octopus from hell it is now.
That is just ridiculous... there are many choices for a search engine... bing, yahoo, etc; as there are a multitude of alternatives for the other services they offer. I would wager that Bill Gates doesn't use Google search, GMail, Google Calender, etc. - and I'm sure there are many others that don't either.
Yup... this is just Microsoft and their paid off politicians trying to do what they do best... generate FUD. I have to hand it to them... they sure are experts at it. Just when you think they could think up nothing more scatterbrained than the "right to make public information hard to find" they come up with "let's recommend a company be broken up because it is successful and it's competitors suck".
Because your fixated on whether there is competition. Whether or not there is competition is beside the point. If your bank forces you to open savings accounts and credit cards with them to have a mortage that bundling is anti-consumer and illegal... period. Because that sort of product tying has been deemed harmful
Well, the fact of the matter is that Google isn't forcing anyone to do anything. They provide methods to extract your data and stop using their services if you wish. What people seem to be upset about is that they are really good at what they do and everyone wants to use their services. It isn't a crime to be successful, contrary to what Microsoft and their paid off politicians in the EU are trying to connive.
Add to the fact that Google is an American company. If Google was a German company we wouldn't be talking about this. No one has alleged any crime or harm to consumers... rather this is about competitor profits. Microsoft is just playing their old FUD game. They figure even if they don't win the lawsuit or get Google to split up (which they won't) they'll sow enough FUD to make people believe Google is the evil empire.
This is just a bunch of sabre rattling. At the end of the day the only way the EU is going to stop people from using Google is to order their IP addresses be blocked - and that just ain't gonna happen. People would just freak out.
This is one of the most ridiculous rulings ever... if there is incorrect information out there it should be corrected at the source... not removed from a search engine. If the information is true, then too bad. People don't have a right to try to hide public information... that's why it's called public. This was just a half-ass ruling shifting the responsibility of policing information to search engines. Search engines don't create the information, they just make it easier to find.
Once upon a time, long long ago, the news media was objective and reported facts. Think Edward Murrow, Walter Cronkike. These days it's like a page from the 1976 movie "Network" - where news isn't suppose to be informative... it's suppose to be entertainment, the facts be damned. Now we live in a time of "balanced" journalism... which means when two sides of a story are presented the journalist pretends that both are equally valid. Global Warming is just one example of many where this has allowed the public to be mislead. I'm surprised that I haven't yet seen a discussion about whether the earth revolves around the sun, or the sun revolves around the earth... or the earth is flat vs. the earth is round. Perhaps that has already occurred and I have missed it. I wouldn't be surprised. The media needs to pull their collective heads out of their asses and do some actual journalism - however since the media is now controlled by multinational corporations, that probably isn't going to happen. Ratings is the name of the game... so I guess we're the blame also. We need to stop patronizing media outlets that spread bullshit. People need to decide what they want. Do they want to be entertained, or do they want to be informed?
I've been against DRM for years... the EFF has a good website on it so I won't go into all the specifics, if you're interested, read it here: https://www.eff.org/issues/drm
It has been proven time and again that if manufacturers would sell their products at a reasonable rather than inflated price, people would buy in vast numbers. All DRM does is piss off your customers. When you buy a product, you want to be able to do with it what you wish. Telling customers the solution to a broken Blu-ray is to buy another is unacceptable.
As an aside, I read recently where the MPAA is banning Google Glasses from their theaters to stop piracy. Like people who want to view a movie at home would be interested in viewing a Google Glass recording of that movie on their 60 inch Plasma with Dolby surround sound. If they do, it's because they're extreme fans of that movie and are going to buy it anyway.
As noted here: http://crooksandliars.com/2014...
If you watch the video you'll see Valerie Harper in "Dancing with the Stars" playing in the background. That happened on or after September 16, 2013.
"According to Attkisson's own timeline her computer was 'hacked' in October 2012, she came forward with this allegation in May 2013, but then waited until September 2013 to take video 'evidence.'"
"We are supposed to believe that Sharyl Attkisson was hacked by the government and just said, "Oops, I'm hacked!" while she went merrily along with no additional examination, security and a nine-month lag between when she originally believed she was hacked and when she shot the video?"
This is buffoonery at it's best!
There is actually a website with a proposal getting rid of the time change which seems fairly well thought out and logical:
http://www.standardtime.com/pr...
Well, Google doesn't charge any additional fees to anyone for using Google Wallet. Apple charges for using Apple Pay.
The fact of the matter is the merchants are supporting CurrentC. Kind of hard to use Apple Pay if they turn it off.
Slashdot Mirror
The site which describes the two time zone solution in detail is: http://www.standardtime.com/ I think it would be a great solution and even have written letters to my senators and congressman about it. Of course, I got crickets. We're only on Standard Time for about 4 months a year now... at the very least just leave everything at DST year around. I especially dislike the fact that in the dead of winter the sun sets in SoCal at about 16:30... seriously?
Oh for pete sake... It doesn't matter who created the feature... it was viewed as relevant and worthwhile otherwise Linus wouldn't have allowed it in the kernel. You'll have the kernel feature if it is backported. This appears to be all about Debian. If they choose not to backport either switch distributions or use another browser. Most people aren't going to be impacted by this. It's kinda of silly... it's the feigned internet outrage of the day.
Well, that depends. New hardware support is added all the time. LTS means that changes can be made. It doesn't mean you are frozen to a specific set of hardware. Chrome development is on the fast track. If the distribution you are using thinks that you are using a "stupid web browser" perhaps it is time to switch to another distribution. Fedora and Ubuntu will work just fine; and I'm sure there are others.
This is really a non-issue. Chrome decided to use a recent feature in the kernel. This happens all the time. Most distributions that are using the older kernel have patched. If Debian doesn't want to patch, move to another distribution or switch to Firefox. Both Fedora 20 and 21 are on 3.17 - so it isn't an issue there. Debian is notorious for using old stuff, so it may be the kernel they are using requires a multitude of changes and because of their policies they don't want to move to a more recent version. You buy into that logic when you choose to use Debian - so expect this stuff to happen. This has nothing to do with RMS or Google; rather the mismatch of using a slow to update distribution with a browser that is on the fast track.
Google Plus no longer has a real names policy. Facebook still does.
Yeah, especially if they come from "Techcrunch" or "The Verge"... right. Like I said, haters gonna hate, and they can't keep a pesky thing like facts getting in the way of their narrative. Thank you for proving my point.
Again with the FB lite pejorative talking point. Sigh...
Google no longer requires real names.
Facebook is apparently extremely successful and they still have a real names policy: https://www.facebook.com/help/... Google had one and now no longer has it; but people keep pointing to the real names policy as a major reason that G+ isn't more popular. If that was the case, no one would be using FB.
There isn't an issue with having multiple accounts: https://support.google.com/acc... The framework now allows people who don't want multiple accounts to have just one, easily. The vast majority of people don't want to futz with multiple accounts, plus it's much easier for Google to have an unifying framework on the backend.
I've never really understood the vitriol toward G+. The press doing what they do (and no doubt strongly encouraged by Facebook, Microsoft, Apple) created a narrative of Google taking aim at Facebook and how they will most certainly fail. Google has repeated many times what the G+ initiative was about, but the press either ignored the facts or said Google was lying. How dare Google try to disrupt their narrative with something as inconsequential as facts. G+ is a framework to unify Google services. Before, it was a complete mess. You had different userids and passwords, Google App accounts were completely walled off from non-app services, every service had it's own comment engine. This was because each of those services were developed in their own bubble. Now, Google has a unifying framework for existing and new services as they are created. Yes, I'm sure they would have been thrilled if the G+ stream would be more popular than FB, but that wasn't the goal. They had to do something with the mess of unrelated services. It was becoming an administrative nightmare for them. Making hangouts and photos available through their own entry point is a good thing. Some people didn't want to deal with the stream or even see it. They figured fine, make a separate entry point. The important thing to remember though is the framework did exactly what they wanted it to do, and it is a success. You have one Google account that accesses all their services. Apps users can access all services. The more people use the services they'll find it's easy to just click a button to put it in the stream if they wish.
Yeah, I think alot of people like the novelty of it... and think it's cool. Plus if you're getting some type of reward for using it, that could be an incentive. CurrentC is suppose to be offering all kinds of bribery in return for use of it's method. Depending on what it is, I could be convinced to lug out my phone and use their app.
Yeah, you hit the nail on the head. I've been able to use a chip enabled card at Walmart / Sams and it's extremely simple and secure. Google Wallet or ApplePay aren't any more secure. Until they come up with a virtual ID you're gonna have to carry your wallet; and as you point out if your battery goes out or you have an electronics malfunction, you're kinda screwed if you're relying solely on your phone. I view it as a novelty and possibly a convenience if you happen to have your phone out at the time you're ready to pay. Otherwise, it's faster, simpler, more reliable and just as if not more secure to use a chip enabled card. As a wallet replacement? Not there yet...
Bengahzi
SCE defines peak periods for residential use as follows: 10:00 - 18:00 Weekdays, all year, except Holidays All other times are non-peak. During the winter time, the sun sets in SoCal about 16:30 - so you're not going to get any sunlight anyway.
I've always heard that peak usage occurs during the day, when businesses are operating at full tilt. Yes, when people are at home they use energy, but when compared to business use, it's not as great. Southern California Edison in fact has a program that gives use credits called "Save Power Days" where they encourage you to reduce usage from 14:00-18:00. Here is the link: http://goo.gl/TT0q7a Additionally, during peak periods there are rotating outages... these happen during the day, not after 17:00... that said, seems to me it's more better to send that extra power to the grid during the day rather than after 17:00...
As an experiment: try to get by without using google. The argument is that by being so successful and ubiquitous, people are forced to use it, giving google powers that society might not want to give them for very specific reasons. If it's "their fault" or not is completely besides the point
Because if Google was a German company, it would have never been allowed to become the privacy busting, surveillance octopus from hell it is now.
That is just ridiculous... there are many choices for a search engine... bing, yahoo, etc; as there are a multitude of alternatives for the other services they offer. I would wager that Bill Gates doesn't use Google search, GMail, Google Calender, etc. - and I'm sure there are many others that don't either.
Yup... this is just Microsoft and their paid off politicians trying to do what they do best... generate FUD. I have to hand it to them... they sure are experts at it. Just when you think they could think up nothing more scatterbrained than the "right to make public information hard to find" they come up with "let's recommend a company be broken up because it is successful and it's competitors suck".
Because your fixated on whether there is competition. Whether or not there is competition is beside the point. If your bank forces you to open savings accounts and credit cards with them to have a mortage that bundling is anti-consumer and illegal... period. Because that sort of product tying has been deemed harmful
Well, the fact of the matter is that Google isn't forcing anyone to do anything. They provide methods to extract your data and stop using their services if you wish. What people seem to be upset about is that they are really good at what they do and everyone wants to use their services. It isn't a crime to be successful, contrary to what Microsoft and their paid off politicians in the EU are trying to connive. Add to the fact that Google is an American company. If Google was a German company we wouldn't be talking about this. No one has alleged any crime or harm to consumers... rather this is about competitor profits. Microsoft is just playing their old FUD game. They figure even if they don't win the lawsuit or get Google to split up (which they won't) they'll sow enough FUD to make people believe Google is the evil empire. This is just a bunch of sabre rattling. At the end of the day the only way the EU is going to stop people from using Google is to order their IP addresses be blocked - and that just ain't gonna happen. People would just freak out.
This is one of the most ridiculous rulings ever... if there is incorrect information out there it should be corrected at the source... not removed from a search engine. If the information is true, then too bad. People don't have a right to try to hide public information... that's why it's called public. This was just a half-ass ruling shifting the responsibility of policing information to search engines. Search engines don't create the information, they just make it easier to find.
Once upon a time, long long ago, the news media was objective and reported facts. Think Edward Murrow, Walter Cronkike. These days it's like a page from the 1976 movie "Network" - where news isn't suppose to be informative... it's suppose to be entertainment, the facts be damned. Now we live in a time of "balanced" journalism... which means when two sides of a story are presented the journalist pretends that both are equally valid. Global Warming is just one example of many where this has allowed the public to be mislead. I'm surprised that I haven't yet seen a discussion about whether the earth revolves around the sun, or the sun revolves around the earth... or the earth is flat vs. the earth is round. Perhaps that has already occurred and I have missed it. I wouldn't be surprised. The media needs to pull their collective heads out of their asses and do some actual journalism - however since the media is now controlled by multinational corporations, that probably isn't going to happen. Ratings is the name of the game... so I guess we're the blame also. We need to stop patronizing media outlets that spread bullshit. People need to decide what they want. Do they want to be entertained, or do they want to be informed?
I've been against DRM for years... the EFF has a good website on it so I won't go into all the specifics, if you're interested, read it here: https://www.eff.org/issues/drm It has been proven time and again that if manufacturers would sell their products at a reasonable rather than inflated price, people would buy in vast numbers. All DRM does is piss off your customers. When you buy a product, you want to be able to do with it what you wish. Telling customers the solution to a broken Blu-ray is to buy another is unacceptable. As an aside, I read recently where the MPAA is banning Google Glasses from their theaters to stop piracy. Like people who want to view a movie at home would be interested in viewing a Google Glass recording of that movie on their 60 inch Plasma with Dolby surround sound. If they do, it's because they're extreme fans of that movie and are going to buy it anyway.
As noted here: http://crooksandliars.com/2014... If you watch the video you'll see Valerie Harper in "Dancing with the Stars" playing in the background. That happened on or after September 16, 2013. "According to Attkisson's own timeline her computer was 'hacked' in October 2012, she came forward with this allegation in May 2013, but then waited until September 2013 to take video 'evidence.'" "We are supposed to believe that Sharyl Attkisson was hacked by the government and just said, "Oops, I'm hacked!" while she went merrily along with no additional examination, security and a nine-month lag between when she originally believed she was hacked and when she shot the video?" This is buffoonery at it's best!
There is actually a website with a proposal getting rid of the time change which seems fairly well thought out and logical: http://www.standardtime.com/pr...
Well, Google doesn't charge any additional fees to anyone for using Google Wallet. Apple charges for using Apple Pay. The fact of the matter is the merchants are supporting CurrentC. Kind of hard to use Apple Pay if they turn it off.