Here's the real question: Why would any judge allow anything from a website that isn't provably from the person it claims to be from?
Because that is an absurd threshold for evidence.
My fingerprint on a gun isn't provably from me... you could have picked up a discarded pop can and made a rubber imprint of my thumb print and then planted that on the gun. Therefore all fingerprints should be disallowed.
It's trivial for Lawyer X to set up an account purporting to be Claimant X. He could then say all sorts of things about how fun it's going to be to defraud Company X, or how Claimant X loves to get stoned, or whatever. Even vacation photos can be lifted from some other site, like flickr, and the EXIF data can be changed to make it look like the claimant was enjoying a nice vacation after allegedly getting paralyzed in an accident, or whatever.
Yep, you can try it. And people have been successfully framed before. But if you get caught you are done for.
Remember the guy that planted child pornography on someone elses laptop to get him in trouble... he got caught... are you really sure nobody is going to unravel the truth behind your fake facebook account? Really? Like the fact that it was never accessed from the ip address belong to the defendant? Or the fact that all his friends will testify which account is real? Or the fact the original photos with the original EXIF data might be presented... along with credit card receipts showing plane tickets that line up with the date and destination depicted in those vacation photos?
Something tells me you haven't really thought this through very carefully. "Trivial" is not the word I'd use to describe the endeavour. It might be trivial to create a facade that will pass casual inspection... but if you've a court case hinging on its authenticity... you are going to have to put a LOT more effort into it if you don't want it torn to shreds in seconds.
The last prize was given to a man (Obama) as a tool to promote peace...
Actually the last prize was given to Liu Xiaobo.
The prize for Obama... I'm mixed. I think his rhetoric and election message was a genuine force for world peace, even though he wasn't president and hadn't done anything policy-wise. He was an advocate for peace, and that message reached and affected a lot of people.
I don't necessarily know that he was the single most significant advocate for peace of the year... but I don't begrudge him the award.
I cannot see how people can remain objective when it comes to considering Wikileaks as a candidate for the peace prize given the political controversy surrounding it.
Given the political nature of peace itself, its hard to imagine that candidates won't be politically controversial from time to time.
Say the defendant (maybe an insurance company) says "we were informed that the plaintiff was an a skiing trip two days after allegedly breaking both legs while slipping over a banana skin that our client allegedly left on the sidewalk. We want to see all holiday photos that the plaintiff put on facebook after the alleged accident".
Is that what is ACTUALLY happening though. We're they REALLY informed of a skiing trip or is more like:
"Hey, we think the plaintiff is lying, and we'd like to go fishing through his facebook profile, sms history, trawl around his hard drive, and read his private diary too, and see what we find."
If they actually have reason to beleive he was on a skiing trip, and they actually have reason to beleive there is evidence of it on facebook that's one thing... but I'm concerned these are just fishing expeditions -- possibly with a hint of blackmail thrown in for good measure.
And how do you know the link is from wikipedia? It is because google tells you or labels it as such.
I know the link goes to wikipedia.
I don't know why google decided to presented in the top 10.
Google doesn't tell us how they got that information. But we do know that google makes use of a LOT of information that other people put on the web in order to determine their search results... and they aren't being credited. Pagerank after all is in large part "hey lets see what other people on the web is important and return that first"
This is not a good example. Try dictating machines, such as belts and discs, and special cartridges. Some of those are probably both not used and not made any more. However, the principles of magnetic recording are still in use, even for audio. If the form factor is your issue, well, I thinkl that's maybe not applicable and not the point of the article.
I read the article pretty carefully, and it appears to me that any tool not being actively made today would qualify.
The idea that some application of the technology that unpinned the tools utility might still be in production doesn't qualify.
The x-ray shoe sizer is a dead tool. The fact that we still use x-ray machines to look at broken bones at hospitals is a different tool. (Although one could reasonably argue that its the same technology.)
Looking at history we can see examples of a technology that was used, that was lost, and that was later rediscovered. The mechanical reaper for example was invented, and then lost for hundreds of years, and then re-invented.
It is entirely plausible something else was lost which we haven't rediscovered yet.
However, the fact that we know the mechanical reaper was lost for a while by itself invalidates the articles premise... technology and tools can be lost, and have been lost.
In literature, using someone else's work requires a citation. For all ethical purposes, Bing should be labelled "powered by Google".
And I guess google for all ethical purposes should be labeled "powered by Wikipedia" since a wp link is returned in the top 10 for an inordinate number of searches, right?:p
No. I enjoyed it too. But it -also- gave me a headache. I don't doubt that you didn't, but I did, and many others did.
I found the 3D so realistic that I didn't even notice the effect of it after the first five minutes
Just don't look at that out of focus flower just off to the left...because you can't. Even though your eyes are telling you its a 3D object 3 feet away.
Looking at an out of focus element in a 2D movie doesn't work either, but your brain successfully focuses on the flat projection itself at 20 or 30 feet away, and there is no conflicting messages. It is a picture of an out of focus flower, 30 feet away. QED.
vs
It is 3D flower 3 feet away, but you can't focus on it...WTF.
Personally, I thought it was a cliched story (with some very two dimensional characters!) but nevertheless a story that I didn't mind hearing told again
Yeah, I honestly enjoyed it enough the first time through. I don't find it survives re-watching.
The point about Avatar, though, is that nobody (or very few) people went to see it primarily because of the 3D effect.
Hmmm. I strongly disagree. I went to see it in theatres because it was supposed to be amazing in 3D. Most people I know did too. I'm glad I did, because it was amazing in 3D, but take away the 3D and its keeping company with independence day... which isn't bad, and was huge summer blockbuster as well... but its not that good either.
The error of film makers post-Avatar has been to assume that Avatar's success was all due to 3D. The error of film makers post-Avatar has been to assume that Avatar's success was all due to 3D, and that by kludging bad 3D onto bad films they would somehow draw in the masses by recreating some of Avatar's magic.
I disagree in part. I feel Avatar was good 3D on a weak movie, and it had novelty and hype surrounding that 3D. And it delivered on the 3D.
The follow up movies, we can agree have just been weak all round. Weak movies, badly tacked on 3D.
The 3D novelty isn't there, and they aren't even living up to the 3D hype because the 3D itself doesn't deliver either.
I'm not sure this comparison to technicolour helps your case.
The first film in Technicolour "Process 1" was "The Gulf Between" (1917) a movie that has been lost.
Ironically, wikipedia mentions this about it:
"the story is dull, trite, and drawn out interminably.
The first film in Technicolor "Process 4" (the 3 strip process used for Wizard of Oz) was a Disney short called: "Flowers and Trees" (1932)
The first feature-length movie in three-strip Technicolor was Becky Sharp (1935)
Disney's Snow White was released in 1937.
The Wizard of Oz wasn't released until 1939, and while I agree that it is an important classic it was by no means the "first"... it wasn't even a bleeding edge early example.
And while it made excellent use of color and special effects for the time, it stands the test of time on its story and acting as well.
Avatar's 3D is impressive but it really adds little to the movie except to serve as a distraction that there is no movie. Without the novelty the movie is utterly trite.
Wizard of Oz was a great movie. The directors use of colour was brilliantly done. I watched it in the 70s on a black and white TV and it was still good, although the loss of color was a genuine loss. I don't think the "Wizard of Oz" equivlaent has been made yet... although I personally thought Coraline 3D was particularly well done. (And that one tells a story worth watching, and is entirely watchable in 2D too.)
TSA pat-downs are less necessary for trains than planes simply because trains can't be redirected into, say, large office buildings or nuclear plants. They're kind of stuck on the rails.
So what. You get the people on the trains, and the destroying the rail infrastructure itself is highly effective.
The local commuter train "West Coast Express" carried 2970 people in a single load during the recent Winter Olympics. That's more people than died in total in the 9/11 attacks (not counting first responders who have died since). Granted that's not a particularly fast train, and a 100% fatality in a wreck might not be likely.
But the Japanese Shinkasen high speed train has a capcity of 1634 *seated* passengers and double that at max 'standing room' capacity. That's 3200+ people at 200km/h...
Seriously. You DON'T have to hijack multiple jumbo jets and fly them into sky scrapers to kill lots of people.
My data plan INCLUDES tethering (because it makes zero mention of it
It includes free ice-cream by that logic.
it's a DATA PLAN and I get DATA to do with as I please).
If tethering was an available feature, enabled in the phone at the time of the contract, then I'd say yes.
Otherwise... honestly... yes and no. The AT&T site for example states that:
AT&T DataPlus/AT&T DataPro plans with Tethering may be used to tether such SMARTPHONE and BlackBerry devices to a personal computer. If you are on a data plan that does not include a monthly megabyte allowance and additional data usage rates, the parties agree that AT&T has the right to impose additional charges if you use more than 5 GB in a month. Prior to the imposition of any additional charges, AT&T shall provide you with notice and you shall have the right to terminate your Service.
Or in other words, they are going to impose a limit if they want. If you don't like it, you can leave.
And the real kicker is this bit of boiler plate that is in pretty much all such contracts.
Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time after your Service Commitment ends with thirty (30) days notice to the other party.
There is no getting around this one. Once your initial contract is up, if they don't wish to continue service on the terms you originally signed up on, they can simply notify you, wait a month, and end it.
No. The photos they use are, by definition, tagged already. They already have the information. They are just asking you to confirm it.
They already have "information". They may not have "good information".
Images with a statistically high "miss rate" can be rated "poor representations" of so-and-so. Images with a statistically low "miss rate" can be rated "good representations" of so-and-so.
As usual with facebook you are feeding them more information than you think.
whats the point of going to a classical music concert, or a shakespeare play, or watching a classic movie again then ?
Because they are classics. (As opposed to merely old.) Lots of old movies aren't worth ever watching again. The one's that are classics are. Usually for the great acting, clever script, etc. And sure a solid plot helps make them watchable.
What will Avatar be in 20 years? An early example of stereoscopic 3D, and about as much of a classic as the first movie filmed with "technicolour". Of interest to people interested in the history of film technology... and that's about it.
Its "mid Range" in Nvidia's line of cards. In that its not near the bottom, and its not near the top. I think its fair.
When you look at 'mid range' from the perspective of the buyer I think you are more or less right. But the upper "mid range" product is where enthusiasts with brains AND money tend to buy in at.
i watched avatar in 3d huge screen, and it worked well enough for me to be impressed by it and not to regret 15 bucks i poured into it
Ok. Yeah. It worked well enough for me to impressed and not regret the 15 bucks.
Although I developed a headache, and my wife developed a migraine. And the plot was complete and utter predictable rubbish. Its basically unwatchable garbage. So stereotypical and cliched to the point that it is painful.
But, I'll concede the headache inducing 3D was "neat", and I'm glad I saw it. I don't want to see it again though, and have little interest in seeing much else in 3D either. It's like a strobe ultraviolet light (black light)... pretty neat effect; kind of cool for them to pull it out for a bit at a night club. But I wouldn't ever in a million years want to switch all my lights over.
Same with stereoscopic 3D movies, there's a niche for it. From time to time a movie will be worth watching with the effect, but not in a million years do I want network television to switch to the format.
In 2009, in the US, Google had 72.1% of online ads. One company is almost three out four ads. Yahoo, Microsoft, and Ask.com had another 17%, 5.5% and 3.7% respectively.
The only difference is that you don't pay FICA, and due to not paying in, you also don't get any out. So, what is the issue?
If you read the full SUMMARY even, you'd know that the individual in question did exactly that, to avoid paying FICA and medicaid. The IRS sued him for tax evasion for structuring his income that way, and the IRS won.
Why does joe-normal get sued by the IRS for this, while mega-corp-ceo's do not? That is the "issue".
Meh, I admit hyperbole when I said wiped out. But if the coastlines are submerged by rising ocean levels, or another ice age covers 2/3rds of the surface with ice... i expect humanity will survive, but some pretty nasty stuff is going to happen to a very large number of us.
People don't realize that the Earth is been around for millions of years
Believe it or not, people actually do realize this. They also realize that for many of those millions of years the climate in areas we live in now was not nearly as habitable.
and just because we see a changing in a cycle doesn't mean we are causing it.
That's really a completely separate question. The first question is: "Is the climate changing?" If the answer to that is -yes-, then obviously we want to know what is it going to be like. If its going to be less habitable than it is now, then we want to know whether there are changes we can make to change the outcome to something we would like more.
Really, the question of what the cause is largely irrelevant except possibly as a subtext to what changes we might want to make if its heading in a direction we don't like.
Bottom line, if the earth enters another ice age, wipes most of us out, and we could have prevented it somehow but didn't because some idiot convinced us "It was a natural cycle"... that is not a "win". In other words, who exactly is going to be any happier getting wiped out by an ice age that occurs naturally vs one that we caused. Not me. Wiped out is wiped out. Arguing who's fault it is really isn't that important.
SAT are a class of problems of "is this boolean expression satifiable" or "is there a truth value (true/false) that we can assign each variable such that the boolean expression is true. "-a and a" is not satifiable for example.
3 SAT is just a special case of the general sat problem in that its structure of the expression to evaluate is precisely:
(a or b or c) and (-a or b or -e) and ("another clause with exactly 3 variables") and ("another clause with exactly 3 variables")... and so on.
Most of the other items from that specific time frame are not known to us anymore.
Sounds like a good reason to MAKE records.
Its not primarily about age, its about how much is known about a decade/century/era in general. If 2000 years pass and about all computer games from the 80s are still known by then, the obscure game will still be... well, obscure. And only marginally more notable than it is today.
That sounds like an entirely reasonable GOAL. Lets ensure that all computer games from the 80s are still known... you know, by documenting them in some way.
The alternative appears to be: lets actively refuse to document stuff, wait 1000 years and then make a big deal out of a fragment of box art for some stinker because that's all we have left.
I despise Motorola and their rubbish. My parents had motorola phones previously, and they were so proprietary they wanted $90 for a program just to let us transfer pictures from the phone to the computer.
Most of the BS there was related to the carriers telling motorola what the software could and could not do. The carriers wanted to sell ring tones, and screen backgrounds. So motorola's phones that were more than capable were told not to. And the software that let you do anything at all to bypass the carrier etc was priced by the carriers.
As for the handsets and accessories Motorola was 'proprietary' the same as anyone else, but they were the least of all annoying to deal with. Tons of phones used the same battery, even from generation to generation. Connectors for charging were only changed 3 or 4 times over a period of 10 years. Contrast that with some other vendors who had a different charger for every 2nd phone.
Motorola was on mini usb and micro usb standards right at the front of the line, well before several other vendors finally broke down. (And even today some still require some bizarre proprietary connector.)
Motorola phones historically tended to be well built... the from the old 8000s to the DPC550/650s to the StarTACs to the Razr line. They had their misses too, and their tech has been lagging a bit lately in features. But the droids appear to be doing alright, so they are on the right path.
You are entitled to your opinions, but Motorola is not the first company I'd choose to pick on by a long shot.
Listowel has FiOS not to be pedantic. The fact that Rogers and Bell has nearly every other company by there balls makes it even harder to tell if this is fair market value on these connections. Capping or no capping.
Well, its not just rogers and bell; there's telus and shaw and a few others... sasktel, mts, etc but there's only a couple in any given region. and everyone else just resells from them... so 'by the balls' as you say.
But trying to establish "fair market value" in a market defined by government subsidized and regulated infrastructure of a natural monopoly* is something of a non sequitur. Its not a fair market and it inherently can't be fair... so how does one even define what "fair market value" means here.
The regulatory system we have certainly isn't perfect, but its necessary, and overall I think its working. I'd like to see faster speeds and higher bandwidth for cheap as much as anyone... but its a complicated market.
--- *Without which we'd have multiple small independant carriers only serving customers who paid them to run a phone or cable line to their home, and each carrier would have to negotiate with the government separately for all the easements and right-of-ways to get those lines to you, and when you bought a home it would have connections only to a subset of the carriers... or perhaps none at all... there are VERY good reasons its not a "free market".
Seriously, 200$/month for high-speed internet with a cap of only 0.6TB is pretty expensive. Too bad our CRTC is corrupt and the conservative government won't do shit about it.
Sure compared to a few isolated parts of Asia and Europe or one ISP in the USA we still suck.
Compared to most of the world including most of the USA we're doing pretty darn good. Compared to our own part of the world a year ago, things are actually getting better. Compared to our own part of the world 4 years ago things are much better.
Shaw Nitro's burst speed today is twice as fast as it was a year ago, and the up stream is more than double. The caps in place may as well not even exist for over 90% of its users. And the remaining 10%... there didn't used to be an option to drop the per GB price to 20 cents/GB for overage like there is now. There used to be nothing to do but get a T1 line" once you started hitting the 'soft caps' enough to trigger their 'your abusing your service' notifications. (And you can still get a T1 line for that matter, although they aren't cheap.)
Bottom line, access is getting better and cheaper for everyone except for a small 1% minority that were allowed to get away with abusing $30/month unlimited internet access plans that were effectively subsidized by everyone else on the plan.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the real question: Why would any judge allow anything from a website that isn't provably from the person it claims to be from?
Because that is an absurd threshold for evidence.
My fingerprint on a gun isn't provably from me... you could have picked up a discarded pop can and made a rubber imprint of my thumb print and then planted that on the gun. Therefore all fingerprints should be disallowed.
It's trivial for Lawyer X to set up an account purporting to be Claimant X. He could then say all sorts of things about how fun it's going to be to defraud Company X, or how Claimant X loves to get stoned, or whatever. Even vacation photos can be lifted from some other site, like flickr, and the EXIF data can be changed to make it look like the claimant was enjoying a nice vacation after allegedly getting paralyzed in an accident, or whatever.
Yep, you can try it. And people have been successfully framed before. But if you get caught you are done for.
Remember the guy that planted child pornography on someone elses laptop to get him in trouble... he got caught... are you really sure nobody is going to unravel the truth behind your fake facebook account? Really? Like the fact that it was never accessed from the ip address belong to the defendant? Or the fact that all his friends will testify which account is real? Or the fact the original photos with the original EXIF data might be presented... along with credit card receipts showing plane tickets that line up with the date and destination depicted in those vacation photos?
Something tells me you haven't really thought this through very carefully. "Trivial" is not the word I'd use to describe the endeavour. It might be trivial to create a facade that will pass casual inspection... but if you've a court case hinging on its authenticity... you are going to have to put a LOT more effort into it if you don't want it torn to shreds in seconds.
The last prize was given to a man (Obama) as a tool to promote peace...
Actually the last prize was given to Liu Xiaobo.
The prize for Obama... I'm mixed. I think his rhetoric and election message was a genuine force for world peace, even though he wasn't president and hadn't done anything policy-wise. He was an advocate for peace, and that message reached and affected a lot of people.
I don't necessarily know that he was the single most significant advocate for peace of the year... but I don't begrudge him the award.
I cannot see how people can remain objective when it comes to considering Wikileaks as a candidate for the peace prize given the political controversy surrounding it.
Given the political nature of peace itself, its hard to imagine that candidates won't be politically controversial from time to time.
Say the defendant (maybe an insurance company) says "we were informed that the plaintiff was an a skiing trip two days after allegedly breaking both legs while slipping over a banana skin that our client allegedly left on the sidewalk. We want to see all holiday photos that the plaintiff put on facebook after the alleged accident".
Is that what is ACTUALLY happening though. We're they REALLY informed of a skiing trip or is more like:
"Hey, we think the plaintiff is lying, and we'd like to go fishing through his facebook profile, sms history, trawl around his hard drive, and read his private diary too, and see what we find."
If they actually have reason to beleive he was on a skiing trip, and they actually have reason to beleive there is evidence of it on facebook that's one thing... but I'm concerned these are just fishing expeditions -- possibly with a hint of blackmail thrown in for good measure.
And how do you know the link is from wikipedia? It is because google tells you or labels it as such.
I know the link goes to wikipedia.
I don't know why google decided to presented in the top 10.
Google doesn't tell us how they got that information. But we do know that google makes use of a LOT of information that other people put on the web in order to determine their search results... and they aren't being credited. Pagerank after all is in large part "hey lets see what other people on the web is important and return that first"
This is not a good example. Try dictating machines, such as belts and discs, and special cartridges. Some of those are probably both not used and not made any more. However, the principles of magnetic recording are still in use, even for audio. If the form factor is your issue, well, I thinkl that's maybe not applicable and not the point of the article.
I read the article pretty carefully, and it appears to me that any tool not being actively made today would qualify.
The idea that some application of the technology that unpinned the tools utility might still be in production doesn't qualify.
The x-ray shoe sizer is a dead tool. The fact that we still use x-ray machines to look at broken bones at hospitals is a different tool. (Although one could reasonably argue that its the same technology.)
Looking at history we can see examples of a technology that was used, that was lost, and that was later rediscovered. The mechanical reaper for example was invented, and then lost for hundreds of years, and then re-invented.
It is entirely plausible something else was lost which we haven't rediscovered yet.
However, the fact that we know the mechanical reaper was lost for a while by itself invalidates the articles premise... technology and tools can be lost, and have been lost.
In literature, using someone else's work requires a citation. For all ethical purposes, Bing should be labelled "powered by Google".
And I guess google for all ethical purposes should be labeled "powered by Wikipedia" since a wp link is returned in the top 10 for an inordinate number of searches, right? :p
One man's headache is another man's enjoyment.
No. I enjoyed it too. But it -also- gave me a headache. I don't doubt that you didn't, but I did, and many others did.
I found the 3D so realistic that I didn't even notice the effect of it after the first five minutes
Just don't look at that out of focus flower just off to the left...because you can't. Even though your eyes are telling you its a 3D object 3 feet away.
Looking at an out of focus element in a 2D movie doesn't work either, but your brain successfully focuses on the flat projection itself at 20 or 30 feet away, and there is no conflicting messages. It is a picture of an out of focus flower, 30 feet away. QED.
vs
It is 3D flower 3 feet away, but you can't focus on it...WTF.
Personally, I thought it was a cliched story (with some very two dimensional characters!) but nevertheless a story that I didn't mind hearing told again
Yeah, I honestly enjoyed it enough the first time through. I don't find it survives re-watching.
The point about Avatar, though, is that nobody (or very few) people went to see it primarily because of the 3D effect.
Hmmm. I strongly disagree. I went to see it in theatres because it was supposed to be amazing in 3D. Most people I know did too. I'm glad I did, because it was amazing in 3D, but take away the 3D and its keeping company with independence day... which isn't bad, and was huge summer blockbuster as well... but its not that good either.
The error of film makers post-Avatar has been to assume that Avatar's success was all due to 3D. The error of film makers post-Avatar has been to assume that Avatar's success was all due to 3D, and that by kludging bad 3D onto bad films they would somehow draw in the masses by recreating some of Avatar's magic.
I disagree in part. I feel Avatar was good 3D on a weak movie, and it had novelty and hype surrounding that 3D. And it delivered on the 3D.
The follow up movies, we can agree have just been weak all round. Weak movies, badly tacked on 3D.
The 3D novelty isn't there, and they aren't even living up to the 3D hype because the 3D itself doesn't deliver either.
I'm not sure this comparison to technicolour helps your case.
The first film in Technicolour "Process 1" was "The Gulf Between" (1917) a movie that has been lost.
Ironically, wikipedia mentions this about it:
"the story is dull, trite, and drawn out interminably.
The first film in Technicolor "Process 4" (the 3 strip process used for Wizard of Oz) was a Disney short called: "Flowers and Trees" (1932)
The first feature-length movie in three-strip Technicolor was Becky Sharp (1935)
Disney's Snow White was released in 1937.
The Wizard of Oz wasn't released until 1939, and while I agree that it is an important classic it was by no means the "first"... it wasn't even a bleeding edge early example.
And while it made excellent use of color and special effects for the time, it stands the test of time on its story and acting as well.
Avatar's 3D is impressive but it really adds little to the movie except to serve as a distraction that there is no movie. Without the novelty the movie is utterly trite.
Wizard of Oz was a great movie. The directors use of colour was brilliantly done. I watched it in the 70s on a black and white TV and it was still good, although the loss of color was a genuine loss. I don't think the "Wizard of Oz" equivlaent has been made yet... although I personally thought Coraline 3D was particularly well done. (And that one tells a story worth watching, and is entirely watchable in 2D too.)
TSA pat-downs are less necessary for trains than planes simply because trains can't be redirected into, say, large office buildings or nuclear plants. They're kind of stuck on the rails.
So what. You get the people on the trains, and the destroying the rail infrastructure itself is highly effective.
The local commuter train "West Coast Express" carried 2970 people in a single load during the recent Winter Olympics. That's more people than died in total in the 9/11 attacks (not counting first responders who have died since). Granted that's not a particularly fast train, and a 100% fatality in a wreck might not be likely.
But the Japanese Shinkasen high speed train has a capcity of 1634 *seated* passengers and double that at max 'standing room' capacity. That's 3200+ people at 200km/h...
Seriously. You DON'T have to hijack multiple jumbo jets and fly them into sky scrapers to kill lots of people.
My data plan INCLUDES tethering (because it makes zero mention of it
It includes free ice-cream by that logic.
it's a DATA PLAN and I get DATA to do with as I please).
If tethering was an available feature, enabled in the phone at the time of the contract, then I'd say yes.
Otherwise... honestly... yes and no. The AT&T site for example states that:
AT&T DataPlus/AT&T DataPro plans with Tethering may be used to tether such SMARTPHONE and BlackBerry devices to a personal computer. If you are on a data plan that does not include a monthly megabyte allowance and additional data usage rates, the parties agree that AT&T has the right to impose additional charges if you use more than 5 GB in a month. Prior to the imposition of any additional charges, AT&T shall provide you with notice and you shall have the right to terminate your Service.
Or in other words, they are going to impose a limit if they want. If you don't like it, you can leave.
And the real kicker is this bit of boiler plate that is in pretty much all such contracts.
Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time after your Service Commitment ends with thirty (30) days notice to the other party.
There is no getting around this one. Once your initial contract is up, if they don't wish to continue service on the terms you originally signed up on, they can simply notify you, wait a month, and end it.
No. The photos they use are, by definition, tagged already. They already have the information. They are just asking you to confirm it.
They already have "information".
They may not have "good information".
Images with a statistically high "miss rate" can be rated "poor representations" of so-and-so. Images with a statistically low "miss rate" can be rated "good representations" of so-and-so.
As usual with facebook you are feeding them more information than you think.
whats the point of going to a classical music concert, or a shakespeare play, or watching a classic movie again then ?
Because they are classics. (As opposed to merely old.) Lots of old movies aren't worth ever watching again. The one's that are classics are. Usually for the great acting, clever script, etc. And sure a solid plot helps make them watchable.
What will Avatar be in 20 years? An early example of stereoscopic 3D, and about as much of a classic as the first movie filmed with "technicolour". Of interest to people interested in the history of film technology... and that's about it.
Its "mid Range" in Nvidia's line of cards. In that its not near the bottom, and its not near the top. I think its fair.
When you look at 'mid range' from the perspective of the buyer I think you are more or less right. But the upper "mid range" product is where enthusiasts with brains AND money tend to buy in at.
i watched avatar in 3d huge screen, and it worked well enough for me to be impressed by it and not to regret 15 bucks i poured into it
Ok. Yeah. It worked well enough for me to impressed and not regret the 15 bucks.
Although I developed a headache, and my wife developed a migraine. And the plot was complete and utter predictable rubbish. Its basically unwatchable garbage. So stereotypical and cliched to the point that it is painful.
But, I'll concede the headache inducing 3D was "neat", and I'm glad I saw it. I don't want to see it again though, and have little interest in seeing much else in 3D either. It's like a strobe ultraviolet light (black light)... pretty neat effect; kind of cool for them to pull it out for a bit at a night club. But I wouldn't ever in a million years want to switch all my lights over.
Same with stereoscopic 3D movies, there's a niche for it. From time to time a movie will be worth watching with the effect, but not in a million years do I want network television to switch to the format.
You talk as if there was a single advertiser.
Its pretty close actually.
Have you looked at the numbers.
In 2009, in the US, Google had 72.1% of online ads. One company is almost three out four ads.
Yahoo, Microsoft, and Ask.com had another 17%, 5.5% and 3.7% respectively.
Adding all 4 up is 98.3% of online ads.
The only difference is that you don't pay FICA, and due to not paying in, you also don't get any out. So, what is the issue?
If you read the full SUMMARY even, you'd know that the individual in question did exactly that, to avoid paying FICA and medicaid. The IRS sued him for tax evasion for structuring his income that way, and the IRS won.
Why does joe-normal get sued by the IRS for this, while mega-corp-ceo's do not? That is the "issue".
Meh, I admit hyperbole when I said wiped out. But if the coastlines are submerged by rising ocean levels, or another ice age covers 2/3rds of the surface with ice... i expect humanity will survive, but some pretty nasty stuff is going to happen to a very large number of us.
Right... but that is precisely the same sort thing this CPA tried to do from the look of things... except he didn't get away with it...
People don't realize that the Earth is been around for millions of years
Believe it or not, people actually do realize this. They also realize that for many of those millions of years the climate in areas we live in now was not nearly as habitable.
and just because we see a changing in a cycle doesn't mean we are causing it.
That's really a completely separate question. The first question is: "Is the climate changing?" If the answer to that is -yes-, then obviously we want to know what is it going to be like. If its going to be less habitable than it is now, then we want to know whether there are changes we can make to change the outcome to something we would like more.
Really, the question of what the cause is largely irrelevant except possibly as a subtext to what changes we might want to make if its heading in a direction we don't like.
Bottom line, if the earth enters another ice age, wipes most of us out, and we could have prevented it somehow but didn't because some idiot convinced us "It was a natural cycle"... that is not a "win". In other words, who exactly is going to be any happier getting wiped out by an ice age that occurs naturally vs one that we caused. Not me. Wiped out is wiped out. Arguing who's fault it is really isn't that important.
"3 SAT" is just a boolean expression
SAT are a class of problems of "is this boolean expression satifiable" or "is there a truth value (true/false) that we can assign each variable such that the boolean expression is true. "-a and a" is not satifiable for example.
3 SAT is just a special case of the general sat problem in that its structure of the expression to evaluate is precisely:
(a or b or c) and (-a or b or -e) and ("another clause with exactly 3 variables") and ("another clause with exactly 3 variables")... and so on.
Most of the other items from that specific time frame are not known to us anymore.
Sounds like a good reason to MAKE records.
Its not primarily about age, its about how much is known about a decade/century/era in general. If 2000 years pass and about all computer games from the 80s are still known by then, the obscure game will still be ... well, obscure. And only marginally more notable than it is today.
That sounds like an entirely reasonable GOAL. Lets ensure that all computer games from the 80s are still known... you know, by documenting them in some way.
The alternative appears to be: lets actively refuse to document stuff, wait 1000 years and then make a big deal out of a fragment of box art for some stinker because that's all we have left.
I despise Motorola and their rubbish. My parents had motorola phones previously, and they were so proprietary they wanted $90 for a program just to let us transfer pictures from the phone to the computer.
Most of the BS there was related to the carriers telling motorola what the software could and could not do. The carriers wanted to sell ring tones, and screen backgrounds. So motorola's phones that were more than capable were told not to. And the software that let you do anything at all to bypass the carrier etc was priced by the carriers.
As for the handsets and accessories Motorola was 'proprietary' the same as anyone else, but they were the least of all annoying to deal with. Tons of phones used the same battery, even from generation to generation. Connectors for charging were only changed 3 or 4 times over a period of 10 years. Contrast that with some other vendors who had a different charger for every 2nd phone.
Motorola was on mini usb and micro usb standards right at the front of the line, well before several other vendors finally broke down. (And even today some still require some bizarre proprietary connector.)
Motorola phones historically tended to be well built... the from the old 8000s to the DPC550/650s to the StarTACs to the Razr line. They had their misses too, and their tech has been lagging a bit lately in features. But the droids appear to be doing alright, so they are on the right path.
You are entitled to your opinions, but Motorola is not the first company I'd choose to pick on by a long shot.
Listowel has FiOS not to be pedantic. The fact that Rogers and Bell has nearly every other company by there balls makes it even harder to tell if this is fair market value on these connections. Capping or no capping.
Well, its not just rogers and bell; there's telus and shaw and a few others... sasktel, mts, etc but there's only a couple in any given region. and everyone else just resells from them ... so 'by the balls' as you say.
But trying to establish "fair market value" in a market defined by government subsidized and regulated infrastructure of a natural monopoly* is something of a non sequitur. Its not a fair market and it inherently can't be fair... so how does one even define what "fair market value" means here.
The regulatory system we have certainly isn't perfect, but its necessary, and overall I think its working. I'd like to see faster speeds and higher bandwidth for cheap as much as anyone... but its a complicated market.
---
*Without which we'd have multiple small independant carriers only serving customers who paid them to run a phone or cable line to their home, and each carrier would have to negotiate with the government separately for all the easements and right-of-ways to get those lines to you, and when you bought a home it would have connections only to a subset of the carriers... or perhaps none at all... there are VERY good reasons its not a "free market".
So where is this line? If I play music in my house, do I need a license?
Nope.
What happens if I have some friends over?
Still no.
What happens if I have lots of friends over?
Still no.
If I have lots of friends over, and two of them just got married?
Still no.
So when does it flip over to "yes"?
Typically the trigger is hiring/paying for a DJ.
Also having the event at a rented venue can do it.
Seriously, 200$/month for high-speed internet with a cap of only 0.6TB is pretty expensive. Too bad our CRTC is corrupt and the conservative government won't do shit about it.
Sure compared to a few isolated parts of Asia and Europe or one ISP in the USA we still suck.
Compared to most of the world including most of the USA we're doing pretty darn good. Compared to our own part of the world a year ago, things are actually getting better. Compared to our own part of the world 4 years ago things are much better.
Shaw Nitro's burst speed today is twice as fast as it was a year ago, and the up stream is more than double. The caps in place may as well not even exist for over 90% of its users. And the remaining 10% ... there didn't used to be an option to drop the per GB price to 20 cents/GB for overage like there is now. There used to be nothing to do but get a T1 line" once you started hitting the 'soft caps' enough to trigger their 'your abusing your service' notifications. (And you can still get a T1 line for that matter, although they aren't cheap.)
Bottom line, access is getting better and cheaper for everyone except for a small 1% minority that were allowed to get away with abusing $30/month unlimited internet access plans that were effectively subsidized by everyone else on the plan.