I think the New York Times is the only major news organization that didn't cover it from what I can google, but I don't have a subscription so I may have missed their coverage.
"Instead, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, students seem to have shifted their view of what they should be studying—in a largely misguided effort to enhance their chances on the job market." "Students aren’t fleeing degrees with poor job prospects. They’re fleeing humanities and related fields specifically because they think they have poor job prospects." "If the whole story were a market response to student debt and the Great Recession, students would have read the 2011 census report numbering psychology and communications among the fields with the lowest median earnings and fled from them. Or they would have noticed that biology majors make less than the average college graduate, and favored the physical sciences. Most 18-year-olds are not econometricians, and those that are were probably going to major in economics anyway." "But most of the differences are slight—well within the margins of error of the surveys."
I think this is where Schmidt really messes up. Maybe some students are still not avoiding some of the bad economic choices, but I think after story after story of people who go bankrupt from choosing the wrong college degree and suffering from the college debts and being worse off financially than if they had gotten no degree at all, I think students listened to those stories.
"The top-paying college majors earn $3.4 million more than the lowest-paying majors over a lifetime." Source: https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew...
I agree with you. I think the fine is a little heavy handed in the initiative; my perfect version would have the fines from the legislative version. Personally, I don't think either version goes far enough as I would much rather an opt-in system like GDPR than an opt-out system. Ideally a statement in the bill that said a company that is GDPR compliant is complaint with this bill would be nice (making it easier for companies to have fewer compliance requirements).
The legislative version has a few major loopholes: * If a company ties your information to a device ID instead of to your name, they avoid the regulation and don't have to tell you about the information they have on you. * The initiative includes both selling and sharing while the legislative one is selling only so companies that enter agreements to share information with each other have a loophole. * The initiative prevents companies from charging more to those who opt out while the legislative version has a loophole that allows it. * The initiative requires them to tell you which company they sold your information to while the legislative version just requires that they tell you the category (like insurance company). This is not sufficiently informative in my opinion.
You are assuming that financial earning reports are itemized. They aren't. They only have broad categories. Search Ads and News Ads show up in the earnings report as "Apple Services." If they sell customer data that would probably fall under "Apple Services" also, but is probably under NDA with any company they did sell to. Their privacy policy allows them to sell data, but if they did so I would imagine it would be very limited. They want to gather massive amounts of data to make their ad networks profitable, but if they sold the data to other companies that would allow the other companies to make ad networks.
According to this article, Apple makes $1 billion a year off Search Ads. That is not Apple's only ad product. I don't know where they got that number, but I assume Apple released it somewhere as their earnings report does not itemize Search Ads.
In the interview, Cook said “The truth is, we could make a ton of money if we monetized our customer — if our customer was our product. We’ve elected not to do that.”
I agree that Apple doesn't make most of their money from advertising like some other tech companies, but they still monetize their customer's personal data.
I think that this is just marketing. If you read Apple's privacy policy it is actually pretty bad. It's basically the extreme case of "all your data are belong to us" and we'll use it however we want.
Apple's ad platform allows advertisers to purchase ads based on previous purchases according to news articles. I've never personally placed an ad, but I think the above statement is intentionally misleading. Maybe they don't use the data from Apple Pay specifically, but they allow advertisers to target based on past purchases in the App Store and iTunes at least.
Non-personal information according to Apple:
occupation
language
zip code
area code
unique device identifier
referrer URL
location
time zone
customer activities on our website, iCloud services, our iTunes Store, App Store, Mac App Store, App Store for Apple TV and iBooks Stores and from our other products and services
We may collect and store details of how you use our services, including search queries.
"We may collect, use, transfer, and disclose non-personal information for any purpose."
"At times Apple may make certain personal information available to strategic partners that work with Apple to provide products and services, or that help Apple market to customers."
"Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device."
I'm sorry if I'm disappointing you, but Apple is making money off your personal information just like every other major tech company. Apple doesn't document how much they make from ads. This article claims they probably make about $1 billion a year off search ads, but that doesn't include Apple News adds, iTunes ads, App Store ads, and in-app ads. The total mobile ad market is estimated at $20.86 billion, but I don't know how much of that is Apple's share. Based on Apple's earning's report, their share isn't more than $8.5 billion (total for Apple "services"), but I don't know where in the $1 to 8.5 billion range the total is. https://mobiledevmemo.com/appl...
I don't think this law requires them to sell replacement BGA chips. However, they generally sell the whole board to swap out. If it's not under warranty, for some electronics buying a replacement board is more expensive than buying a new one. I don't know if this law changes that.
Meaning we should always browse to the search engine and search from there, instead of from the Safari top bar. The average joe is screwed. Firefox might help a little on an Apple device.
Only if you are using a search engine that respects privacy like DuckDuckGo. If you are using Google, Bing, Yahoo or any of the other major search engines, I think they all have about the same privacy (none).
While none of what you quoted was incorrect, the bolding and selections appear to me to be either a misinterpretation or promotion of a false narrative.
I disagree. You give them a whole lot more benefit of the doubt than I do. I will agree that the legalese can probably be interpreted different ways, but when it is open to interpretation, you should assume it will be interpreted to the detriment of the user.
unique device identifier
However, a device ID on its own doesn't seem very compromising without tying it to a person
It is only treated as personally identifiable, if Apple combines it before selling it. A lot of advertisers have ways to combine it with other data themselves. For example, here is one article on how advertisers use the unique device identifier to identify users: https://www.wired.com/2011/05/...
Referrers and IPs are just a reality across the whole of the web. I consider myself more sensitive to privacy issues than most and I've just come to accept it.
Yes, but my point is that they should be treated as personal information. Referral URLs often even include personal information like your address. Apple treats the Web sites you visit as non-personal information that they can do whatever they want with.
locationshare precise location data
Unless you provide consent, this location data is collected anonymously in a form that does not personally identify you.
I'm sorry, but even if your precise location history isn't tied to your name or any other information by Apple, it is trivial to do so. Someone can easily look at your location at night and see where you sleep and tie that to your identity.
You didn't highlight the our bit before it.
This is a news article about Apple, so I didn't think emphasizing that it was about Apple was necessary.
"We may collect, use, transfer, and disclose non-personal information for any purpose."
They might share a bunch of anonymized and/or aggregated information.
That's not what it says at all. They can use data tied to your unique identifier, location, and Web history for whatever purpose they want. That isn't anonymous or aggregate..
"At times Apple may make certain personal information available to strategic partners that work with Apple to provide products and services, or that help Apple market to customers."
Again, you omitted the Apple part which indicates it's for their own purposes only.
You are leaving out the part where they can share your personal information with "strategic partners." A "strategic partner" could be anyone who pays them if they want it to be. Where does it say for their own purposes? It says your personal information is used by Apple to market to Apple's customers, but it doesn't say they aren't providing that service to advertisers or even selling it as just mentioned.
They might share your email address with a company that handles their direct marketing campaigns, conduct surveys for them, or whatever. I'm their customer, it's not unexpected for them to try to contact me about future purchases. I don't opt-in to their marketing when asked and I've never gotten any direct marketing from them. The same is true for most of the large companies I've done business with, really.
I think that is just marketing. If you read their privacy policy it is actually pretty bad. It's basically the extreme case of "all your data are belong to us" and we'll use it however we want.
Apple considers the "unique device identifier", "location", and "search queries" as non-personal information which they can do anything they want with including sell. They consider information that is personal as non-personal (even your location) and even if they did consider it personal, they say they share personal information for marketing purposes.
Non-personal information according to Apple:
occupation
language
zip code
area code
unique device identifier
referrer URL
location
time zone
customer activities on our website, iCloud services, our iTunes Store, App Store, Mac App Store, App Store for Apple TV and iBooks Stores and from our other products and services
We may collect and store details of how you use our services, including search queries.
"We may collect, use, transfer, and disclose non-personal information for any purpose."
"At times Apple may make certain personal information available to strategic partners that work with Apple to provide products and services, or that help Apple market to customers."
"Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device."
It definitely was one of Obama's worst speeches as he is reading from his notes, rather than a teleprompter. If you take one word clips of Trump you could make it sound like all sorts of things too.
“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.”
Yes, Obama technically appointed Pai, but he didn't pick him.
In November 2011, Obama appointed Jessica Rosenworcel for the Democratic seat and Ajit Pai to the Republican seat. Ajit Pai was picked by Mitch McConnell who was minority leader at the time. Only 3 FCC commissioners may belong to the same political party.
I don't really understand how much say the president has over the seats belonging to the other party. In practice, I believe the senate leader of the other party picks them, but I don't think that is a requirement by law. However, even if it isn't the law and the other party is in the minority, you can only piss them off so much without grinding things to a standstill (Trump hasn't figured this out).
The article is really biased claiming the USPS "deficit has ballooned to $61.86 billion," however, even in the article this is due to "$73.4 billion in unfunded pension and benefits liabilities."
As others have pointed out, the USPS is in the black unless you take pensions into account. However, most businesses prefund their pensions because it is required for them under Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) so the USPS should be required to also.
Paying cash doesn't cut the fees out of the equation, it just lowers the fees. Most businesses that deal with cash have to pay their bank a cash processing fee, but from my understanding it's around 0.003% which is less than the fees for debit ($0.21 + 0.05%) and credit cards (1.4%-3.5%). Someone who deals with this professionally is welcome to correct my numbers if I got them wrong.
Geosynchronous orbit does not count as LEO. However, my post was in reply to existing geosynchronous service providers and their 600+ ms of latency.
LEO is between 99 and 1,200 miles. Typically, LEO satellites will aim for less than 620 miles so that they don't have to deal with Van Allen Radiation Belts. The Iridium satellites, for example, are at approximately 483 miles.
Ya, this sounds exactly like what Iridium was originally supposed to be. Except it ended up costing around $6 billion to make the Iridium network and the company went bankrupt. The company ended up getting sold for $33 million and even at that price service is expensive (they have had to replace satellites and they are launching a second generation system). Iridium was changed to being used for satellite phones and can only handle short bursts of 2K of data.
Not even if it went around the world across the Atlantic ocean, Europe, Asian, and the Pacific ocean rather than directly unless you made a trip out of the way (for example, from Europe to northern African along the way).
Current satellite Internet uses geosynchronous orbits of 22,000 miles away. The equatorial circumference of the earth is about 24,900 miles.
The circumference at the Chicago and New York latitudes of 41.9 and 40.7 respectively is less. The radius of the earth is about 3,959 miles. The circumference at a latitude of 41.3 is approximately: =2*pi*r = 18,687 mi Or you can also do: (equatorial circumference) * cos (latitude in radians) 24,900 miles * cos((41.3/180)*pi) = 18,706 mile Which is slightly different because the earth isn't exactly a circle.
Ajit Pai keeps claiming that this just restores things to the way they were in 2015 before the Open Internet Order of 2015. While that is technically true, it was only prior to 2005 and between 2014-2015 that net neutrality wasn't in place. The statements by Ajit Pai, Ted Cruz, and others that the Internet did fine without regulation is not true.
The FCC first established some net neutrality concepts in 2005 as an "Internet Policy Statement": Net neutrality was not needed before then because ISPs did not start the bad behavior until 2004-2005, for example, Madison River Communications blocking competing VoIP services. The FCC didn't establish regulations until they were needed.
The 2005 "Internet Policy Statement" was pretty basic: "(1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; (2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; (3) consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and (4) consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers." https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...
Unfortunately, on January 14, 2014, the DC Circuit Court ruled in Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission that the FCC had no authority to enforce the Open Internet Order on service providers unless they were identified as "common carriers." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
To still be able to regulate ISPs after this court decision, the FCC established the new "Open Internet Order of 2015" that classified ISPs as common carriers: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...
Broadband investment being down since 2015 is another Ajit Pai flat out lie. Investment was actually at its lowest between 2014 and 2015 when there was no net neutrality rules.
"In December 2015, AT&T’s CEO told investors that the company would 'deploy more fiber' in 2016 than it did in 2015 and that Title II would not impede its future business plans. In December 2016, Comcast’s chief financial officer admitted to investors that any concerns it had about reclassification were based only on 'the fear of what Title II could have meant, more than what it actually meant.' That same month, Charter’s CEO told investors, 'Title II, it didn’t really hurt us; it hasn’t hurt us.'"
Somewhat moot now that Moore lost. Although still relevant that the RNC funded a credibly accused child molester.
It was analyzed by "Arthur T. Anthony, a court-certified document examiner in Georgia." They just ignore that because they claim the expert was hired by her attorney.
"Nelson is willing to submit the yearbook for independent examination, but only in the context of a formal proceeding, such as a Senate investigation, in which both Nelson and Moore can be called to testify under oath." No, she wasn't willing to hand the yearbook over to Moore, but do you blame her? "Oops", I lost it.
That the Moore signing in the yearbook was forged was fake news that Fox put out and they retracted the story after they had spread it around. Breitbart and other news kept their copies of the stories even after Fox retracted the source story.
I find it twisted that Republicans are the ones who complain about fake news the most, except the news they watch and read puts out much more fake news than most mainstream media. I guess it's the same as Trump having called Clinton a liar, when he's Mr. 5 public lies a day.
The DoubleClick is a false positive dealing with key pinning (as pointed out below it just looked for the string "doubleclick.net"). It prevents other Web sites from impersonating DoubleClick when a Web page includes a DoubleClick tracker. There is no DoubleClick tracking built into Firefox.
Leanplum is open source spyware that is built into mobile Firefox (the desktop has similar). However, the spyware is disabled if you turn off telemetry/data sharing in the Firefox settings.
Slashdot Mirror
When I watched it I thought something looked wrong, but I couldn't say exactly what.
All the major news outlets and FOX covered it:
FOX:
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/f...
CNN:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/18...
ABC:
https://www.abcactionnews.com/...
NBC:
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/new...
https://www.nbcchicago.com/new...
https://www.nbc-2.com/clip/147...
CBS:
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/...
Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
New York Post:
https://nypost.com/2018/12/19/...
Huffington Post:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
BBC:
https://www.bbc.com/news/techn...
I think the New York Times is the only major news organization that didn't cover it from what I can google, but I don't have a subscription so I may have missed their coverage.
"Instead, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, students seem to have shifted their view of what they should be studying—in a largely misguided effort to enhance their chances on the job market."
"Students aren’t fleeing degrees with poor job prospects. They’re fleeing humanities and related fields specifically because they think they have poor job prospects."
"If the whole story were a market response to student debt and the Great Recession, students would have read the 2011 census report numbering psychology and communications among the fields with the lowest median earnings and fled from them. Or they would have noticed that biology majors make less than the average college graduate, and favored the physical sciences. Most 18-year-olds are not econometricians, and those that are were probably going to major in economics anyway."
"But most of the differences are slight—well within the margins of error of the surveys."
I think this is where Schmidt really messes up. Maybe some students are still not avoiding some of the bad economic choices, but I think after story after story of people who go bankrupt from choosing the wrong college degree and suffering from the college debts and being worse off financially than if they had gotten no degree at all, I think students listened to those stories.
"The top-paying college majors earn $3.4 million more than the lowest-paying majors over a lifetime."
Source:
https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/s...
Millions of dollars seems more than a "slight" difference to me.
Schmidt left off a few important graphs: 1) The decline of humanities compared to the cost of college over time. 2) The average income by degree.
I agree with you. I think the fine is a little heavy handed in the initiative; my perfect version would have the fines from the legislative version. Personally, I don't think either version goes far enough as I would much rather an opt-in system like GDPR than an opt-out system. Ideally a statement in the bill that said a company that is GDPR compliant is complaint with this bill would be nice (making it easier for companies to have fewer compliance requirements).
The legislative version has a few major loopholes:
* If a company ties your information to a device ID instead of to your name, they avoid the regulation and don't have to tell you about the information they have on you.
* The initiative includes both selling and sharing while the legislative one is selling only so companies that enter agreements to share information with each other have a loophole.
* The initiative prevents companies from charging more to those who opt out while the legislative version has a loophole that allows it.
* The initiative requires them to tell you which company they sold your information to while the legislative version just requires that they tell you the category (like insurance company). This is not sufficiently informative in my opinion.
I have no evidence that Apple sells data to third-parties, but there is plenty of evidence that they monetize customer data for their own ad networks.
Apple has ad networks like Search Ads and News Ads:
https://searchads.apple.com/
https://developer.apple.com/li...
You are assuming that financial earning reports are itemized. They aren't. They only have broad categories. Search Ads and News Ads show up in the earnings report as "Apple Services." If they sell customer data that would probably fall under "Apple Services" also, but is probably under NDA with any company they did sell to. Their privacy policy allows them to sell data, but if they did so I would imagine it would be very limited. They want to gather massive amounts of data to make their ad networks profitable, but if they sold the data to other companies that would allow the other companies to make ad networks.
According to this article, Apple makes $1 billion a year off Search Ads. That is not Apple's only ad product. I don't know where they got that number, but I assume Apple released it somewhere as their earnings report does not itemize Search Ads.
https://mobiledevmemo.com/appl...
No, Apple is gathering deep knowledge data and monetizing it. Tim Cook is just lying about it.
https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...
https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...
See my post above:
https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...
In the interview, Cook said “The truth is, we could make a ton of money if we monetized our customer — if our customer was our product. We’ve elected not to do that.”
From what I can tell, Apple does monetize their customers for their ad networks like iTunes Ads and News Ads:
https://searchads.apple.com/
https://developer.apple.com/li...
I agree that Apple doesn't make most of their money from advertising like some other tech companies, but they still monetize their customer's personal data.
I think that this is just marketing. If you read Apple's privacy policy it is actually pretty bad. It's basically the extreme case of "all your data are belong to us" and we'll use it however we want.
You are aware that Apple runs an Ad network, right?
https://developer.apple.com/ne...
https://developer.apple.com/ne...
Apple's ad platform allows advertisers to purchase ads based on previous purchases according to news articles. I've never personally placed an ad, but I think the above statement is intentionally misleading. Maybe they don't use the data from Apple Pay specifically, but they allow advertisers to target based on past purchases in the App Store and iTunes at least.
Non-personal information according to Apple:
occupation
language
zip code
area code
unique device identifier
referrer URL
location
time zone
customer activities on our website, iCloud services, our iTunes Store, App Store, Mac App Store, App Store for Apple TV and iBooks Stores and from our other products and services
We may collect and store details of how you use our services, including search queries.
"We may collect, use, transfer, and disclose non-personal information for any purpose."
"At times Apple may make certain personal information available to strategic partners that work with Apple to provide products and services, or that help Apple market to customers."
"Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device."
Source:
https://www.apple.com/legal/pr...
Apple also uses differential privacy which according to these articles isn't as non-personal as they claim:
https://www.wired.com/story/ap...
http://appleinsider.com/articl...
I'm sorry if I'm disappointing you, but Apple is making money off your personal information just like every other major tech company. Apple doesn't document how much they make from ads. This article claims they probably make about $1 billion a year off search ads, but that doesn't include Apple News adds, iTunes ads, App Store ads, and in-app ads. The total mobile ad market is estimated at $20.86 billion, but I don't know how much of that is Apple's share. Based on Apple's earning's report, their share isn't more than $8.5 billion (total for Apple "services"), but I don't know where in the $1 to 8.5 billion range the total is.
https://mobiledevmemo.com/appl...
I don't think this law requires them to sell replacement BGA chips. However, they generally sell the whole board to swap out. If it's not under warranty, for some electronics buying a replacement board is more expensive than buying a new one. I don't know if this law changes that.
Meaning we should always browse to the search engine and search from there, instead of from the Safari top bar. The average joe is screwed. Firefox might help a little on an Apple device.
Only if you are using a search engine that respects privacy like DuckDuckGo. If you are using Google, Bing, Yahoo or any of the other major search engines, I think they all have about the same privacy (none).
While none of what you quoted was incorrect, the bolding and selections appear to me to be either a misinterpretation or promotion of a false narrative.
I disagree. You give them a whole lot more benefit of the doubt than I do. I will agree that the legalese can probably be interpreted different ways, but when it is open to interpretation, you should assume it will be interpreted to the detriment of the user.
unique device identifier
However, a device ID on its own doesn't seem very compromising without tying it to a person
It is only treated as personally identifiable, if Apple combines it before selling it. A lot of advertisers have ways to combine it with other data themselves. For example, here is one article on how advertisers use the unique device identifier to identify users:
https://www.wired.com/2011/05/...
Referrers and IPs are just a reality across the whole of the web. I consider myself more sensitive to privacy issues than most and I've just come to accept it.
Yes, but my point is that they should be treated as personal information. Referral URLs often even include personal information like your address. Apple treats the Web sites you visit as non-personal information that they can do whatever they want with.
location share precise location data
Unless you provide consent, this location data is collected anonymously in a form that does not personally identify you.
I'm sorry, but even if your precise location history isn't tied to your name or any other information by Apple, it is trivial to do so. Someone can easily look at your location at night and see where you sleep and tie that to your identity.
You didn't highlight the our bit before it.
This is a news article about Apple, so I didn't think emphasizing that it was about Apple was necessary.
"We may collect, use, transfer, and disclose non-personal information for any purpose."
They might share a bunch of anonymized and/or aggregated information.
That's not what it says at all. They can use data tied to your unique identifier, location, and Web history for whatever purpose they want. That isn't anonymous or aggregate. .
"At times Apple may make certain personal information available to strategic partners that work with Apple to provide products and services, or that help Apple market to customers."
Again, you omitted the Apple part which indicates it's for their own purposes only.
You are leaving out the part where they can share your personal information with "strategic partners." A "strategic partner" could be anyone who pays them if they want it to be. Where does it say for their own purposes? It says your personal information is used by Apple to market to Apple's customers, but it doesn't say they aren't providing that service to advertisers or even selling it as just mentioned.
They might share your email address with a company that handles their direct marketing campaigns, conduct surveys for them, or whatever. I'm their customer, it's not unexpected for them to try to contact me about future purchases. I don't opt-in to their marketing when asked and I've never gotten any direct marketing from them. The same is true for most of the large companies I've done business with, really.
IMO, that is a very naive response. You are aware that Apple runs an Ad network, right?
https://developer.apple.com/ne...
https://developer.apple.com/ne.
I think that is just marketing. If you read their privacy policy it is actually pretty bad. It's basically the extreme case of "all your data are belong to us" and we'll use it however we want.
Apple considers the "unique device identifier", "location", and "search queries" as non-personal information which they can do anything they want with including sell. They consider information that is personal as non-personal (even your location) and even if they did consider it personal, they say they share personal information for marketing purposes.
Non-personal information according to Apple:
"We may collect, use, transfer, and disclose non-personal information for any purpose."
"At times Apple may make certain personal information available to strategic partners that work with Apple to provide products and services, or that help Apple market to customers."
"Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device."
Source:
https://www.apple.com/legal/pr...
Manjaro actually got 4%. Mint above it on the graph got 7%.
I agree. Msmash misread the poll and the summary is wrong.
That's totally misleading. This is the actual speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Obama starts at 6:30.
It definitely was one of Obama's worst speeches as he is reading from his notes, rather than a teleprompter. If you take one word clips of Trump you could make it sound like all sorts of things too.
Are you trying to claim Trump is more coherent than Obama? Trump loses his train of thought mid-sentence all the time when giving speeches.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/op...
https://www.theguardian.com/tv...
I love this example of a Trump speech:
“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.”
https://www.snopes.com/donald-...
https://www.theguardian.com/tv...
Here are some more examples:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and...
Yes, Obama technically appointed Pai, but he didn't pick him.
In November 2011, Obama appointed Jessica Rosenworcel for the Democratic seat and Ajit Pai to the Republican seat. Ajit Pai was picked by Mitch McConnell who was minority leader at the time. Only 3 FCC commissioners may belong to the same political party.
I don't really understand how much say the president has over the seats belonging to the other party. In practice, I believe the senate leader of the other party picks them, but I don't think that is a requirement by law. However, even if it isn't the law and the other party is in the minority, you can only piss them off so much without grinding things to a standstill (Trump hasn't figured this out).
Actually shorter terms I believe leads to more corruption. The shorter the terms, the more time spent campaigning vs. working.
The article is really biased claiming the USPS "deficit has ballooned to $61.86 billion," however, even in the article this is due to "$73.4 billion in unfunded pension and benefits liabilities."
As others have pointed out, the USPS is in the black unless you take pensions into account. However, most businesses prefund their pensions because it is required for them under Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) so the USPS should be required to also.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Paying cash doesn't cut the fees out of the equation, it just lowers the fees. Most businesses that deal with cash have to pay their bank a cash processing fee, but from my understanding it's around 0.003% which is less than the fees for debit ($0.21 + 0.05%) and credit cards (1.4%-3.5%). Someone who deals with this professionally is welcome to correct my numbers if I got them wrong.
Geosynchronous orbit does not count as LEO. However, my post was in reply to existing geosynchronous service providers and their 600+ ms of latency.
LEO is between 99 and 1,200 miles. Typically, LEO satellites will aim for less than 620 miles so that they don't have to deal with Van Allen Radiation Belts. The Iridium satellites, for example, are at approximately 483 miles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.universetoday.com/...
Ya, this sounds exactly like what Iridium was originally supposed to be. Except it ended up costing around $6 billion to make the Iridium network and the company went bankrupt. The company ended up getting sold for $33 million and even at that price service is expensive (they have had to replace satellites and they are launching a second generation system). Iridium was changed to being used for satellite phones and can only handle short bursts of 2K of data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The others on your list I believe use geostationary orbits so they are high latency.
Not even if it went around the world across the Atlantic ocean, Europe, Asian, and the Pacific ocean rather than directly unless you made a trip out of the way (for example, from Europe to northern African along the way).
Current satellite Internet uses geosynchronous orbits of 22,000 miles away. The equatorial circumference of the earth is about 24,900 miles.
The circumference at the Chicago and New York latitudes of 41.9 and 40.7 respectively is less. The radius of the earth is about 3,959 miles.
The circumference at a latitude of 41.3 is approximately:
=2*pi*r
= 18,687 mi
Or you can also do:
(equatorial circumference) * cos (latitude in radians)
24,900 miles * cos((41.3/180)*pi)
= 18,706 mile
Which is slightly different because the earth isn't exactly a circle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://mathforum.org/library/d...
I think you mean, "inconceivable!"
Ajit Pai keeps claiming that this just restores things to the way they were in 2015 before the Open Internet Order of 2015. While that is technically true, it was only prior to 2005 and between 2014-2015 that net neutrality wasn't in place. The statements by Ajit Pai, Ted Cruz, and others that the Internet did fine without regulation is not true.
The FCC first established some net neutrality concepts in 2005 as an "Internet Policy Statement": Net neutrality was not needed before then because ISPs did not start the bad behavior until 2004-2005, for example, Madison River Communications blocking competing VoIP services. The FCC didn't establish regulations until they were needed.
The 2005 "Internet Policy Statement" was pretty basic:
"(1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; (2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; (3) consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and (4) consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers."
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...
The FCC then expanded those concepts into the "Open Internet Order of 2010:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Unfortunately, on January 14, 2014, the DC Circuit Court ruled in Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission that the FCC had no authority to enforce the Open Internet Order on service providers unless they were identified as "common carriers."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
To still be able to regulate ISPs after this court decision, the FCC established the new "Open Internet Order of 2015" that classified ISPs as common carriers:
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...
Broadband investment being down since 2015 is another Ajit Pai flat out lie. Investment was actually at its lowest between 2014 and 2015 when there was no net neutrality rules.
"In December 2015, AT&T’s CEO told investors that the company would 'deploy more fiber' in 2016 than it did in 2015 and that Title II would not impede its future business plans.
In December 2016, Comcast’s chief financial officer admitted to investors that any concerns it had about reclassification were based only on 'the fear of what Title II could have meant, more than what it actually meant.'
That same month, Charter’s CEO told investors, 'Title II, it didn’t really hurt us; it hasn’t hurt us.'"
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
https://arstechnica.com/inform...
https://www.wired.com/story/th...
Somewhat moot now that Moore lost. Although still relevant that the RNC funded a credibly accused child molester.
It was analyzed by "Arthur T. Anthony, a court-certified document examiner in Georgia." They just ignore that because they claim the expert was hired by her attorney.
"Nelson is willing to submit the yearbook for independent examination, but only in the context of a formal proceeding, such as a Senate investigation, in which both Nelson and Moore can be called to testify under oath." No, she wasn't willing to hand the yearbook over to Moore, but do you blame her? "Oops", I lost it.
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
That the Moore signing in the yearbook was forged was fake news that Fox put out and they retracted the story after they had spread it around. Breitbart and other news kept their copies of the stories even after Fox retracted the source story.
http://thehill.com/homenews/me...
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
I find it twisted that Republicans are the ones who complain about fake news the most, except the news they watch and read puts out much more fake news than most mainstream media. I guess it's the same as Trump having called Clinton a liar, when he's Mr. 5 public lies a day.
The DoubleClick is a false positive dealing with key pinning (as pointed out below it just looked for the string "doubleclick.net"). It prevents other Web sites from impersonating DoubleClick when a Web page includes a DoubleClick tracker. There is no DoubleClick tracking built into Firefox.
Leanplum is open source spyware that is built into mobile Firefox (the desktop has similar). However, the spyware is disabled if you turn off telemetry/data sharing in the Firefox settings.