I don't get it. Context is everything - when you're watching TV, you expect the controls in your hand to be able to control TV functions. When you're using a map, you expect the controls in your hand to set destinations, points of interest, identify features etc. Once you're there, you sometimes need to indicate one of several things, select multiple things, etc. A discrete button that says "press me and something will happen" is useful as a hint how to do the thing. A hidden magical swipe of the fingertips does not provide any usable way to accomplish the task. iOS gestures are among the worst design choices Apple has ever made: tap, tap and hold, swipe up, swipe down, swipe right, swipe left, slide two fingers, pinch with two fingers, expand with two fingers, grab with four fingers, tilt the whole phone to the left or right - WHAT THE HELL, APPLE? How do I even know all these options exist without external training or external clues? There is absolutely no way to guess at a gesture. But put a physical button there, and now I know there are things it will do, so I know I can press it to do something. Add two buttons and now I know there are at least two things I can do.

I've been using iOS for many years, and it just keeps getting worse. When I pick up an Android phone, I feel that at least I can find ways to accomplish the basics, even though most apps are inconsistent and have screwball interfaces. And this proves there is a disciplined middle approach that allows for a better UI, but Apple refuses to go there even though they own the entire platform. They'd rather have cutesy flicks and swishes, so that only those "on the inside" know the magic gestures, and can feel superior to the unwashed masses who don't have iPhones. [Sorry, it's an I-hate-Apple-for-this-shit topic with me.]

Water on the moon is a non-renewable resource. The rest of the world is likely to say "Hey, that belongs to all of us, not just to the nation who first has the technology to extract it."

The article says "Although NASA paid for the $100,000 report it is unlikely to immediately embrace its conclusions." $100,000 is perhaps half an engineer-year of analysis. It may be a good start, but I'd want to be a whole lot more thorough before deciding how to spend tens of billions of dollars.
 

Mea culpa. I did not read my own second paragraph. I meant to (and remembered writing) a point to the effect that the carrier does exert control, and that discretion or lack of concern is *certainly* part of their final product. That is implied (but not explicitly stated) in my original comment where I note that I will leave and no longer patronize a site with popups or any ad that makes noise unprompted.

And of course, as I *do* state in the second paragraph, some scammers will get annoying ads that violate the site's rules or are criminal in intent now and then, even with a genuine effort on the part of the carrier. Thus the occasional prominent note similar to "Sorry about the autoplay video ads; I'm working to eliminate them with my ad service." So long as it is handled promptly and in good faith, I have no problem, any more than a health hazard being handled at a restaurant in a prompt and safe manner is fine.

I'm fairly certain you're just restating the point I made in the second paragraph which you did not quote (or seem to read).

Maybe. Maybe not.

In my experience the tests "test" you on your knowledge of how the VENDOR would like you to "solve" a "problem".

I haven't seen any test were there is something objectively "wrong" about any of the questions or answers.

But I have seen a lot of questions and answers that are phrased somewhat inaccurately for someone with more experience than just the vendor's training materials.

So if you know the subject, a quick read of the vendor's materials should tell you where the "tricky" areas are. But if you want to skip that step, you should be able to pass most certifications without a problem.

While my initial point of puzzlement is why you would ever click on an ad, the core issue you're bringing up seems flawed: I'm not quite sure why the product is the responsibility of the carrier. A newspaper isn't responsible for the food in a restaurant that advertises in them, nor is PBS responsible for what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does -- even though they namecheck them as sponsors quite often. The telephone company and postal service carry scams without intent to do so, but Verizon is not generally seen as culpable for the mess a computer can get in when "Microsoft called" somebody in the house to walk them through "free support."

You are of course correct in that carriers do bear an onus to reasonably and in good faith remove scams when they are brought to them. There's always a struggle there, and there will likely always be, as the scammers are adept at countering such effort.

well sort of
#123# or some sort ussd code. might change from network to network.

however, one thing is certain, it's only going to show that you're a cheapskate(because of using prepaid)!

also, even if you're not a cheapskate, you're not really going to have more than ten bucks loaded into your prepaid anyways likely.

so.. the whole concept of using your prepaid balance to decide which adverts to show for you seems rather dull.

Amazon tried doing that to me with prime instant video on my Kindle, until I pointed out that I paid good money for the option of not having advertising on my Kindle, and that in my opinion that included while watching prime instant video. They quickly modified my account so I no longer see those ads.

In all seriousness, I do not use ad blockers, and I have the "disable advertising" off, although it is offered to me. I view my use of a web site and their ads the same way as walking into a restaurant and paying for the meal. They are putting content into a rectangle, and if I like the content, I will return. Some smaller groups provide free food or community supported food (heck, I do that on Wednesday game nights at my home), and some smaller sites provide free content. But in general, it's part of the assumption. If the cost is too high (too many ads, or even one that makes any kind of noise), I don't go back.

I do, however, block the hell out of popups. The agreement is a page of content. You don't get further access to my desktop unless and until I agree.

Other than some common generic services you still have to engineer solutions to fit your business needs.

And even those generic services will still need someone to provide them. Whether that person is directly employed by your company or is an employee of the "cloud" company you're contracting with.

People who "know how it works", or IT people will still be needed regardless.

Most definitely. Particularly when there is a problem with your company's Internet link and everything "in the cloud" is unavailable.

Or a problem with the "cloud" company's Internet link.

In either case, you will be dealing with someone who will view you as just-another-client. It doesn't matter if you're not happy. Or if your business suffers. Because your payments will not make-or-break THEIR company.

With a machine AI we shouldn't be competing for the same, scarce, resources.

Skynet would do better trying to colonize the moon and the asteroid belt.

So many times I'm driving correctly and then some idiot pulls into the "safe" space that I had AND THEN HITS HIS BRAKES BECAUSE HE ALMOST HITS THE GUY IN FRONT!!!

With an autonomous car the situation will still be the same BUT there will be a lot more data showing the circumstances that lead to the accident.

guess what cpu the handheld pos terminals have..

fm (and am even less) can't be better than a good stream.

that's not what he cares about. he cares about the pono and selling lossless-better-than-cd music through it.

and he's hating that all the internet is calling him a jackass for that, for saying that his magic digital audio player is just another player which it is.

of course they're going to include traditional windows software in the store.

and it's not really a rumor, since it's been their operating motivation since launching windows 8. of course they went it with ass backwards route, the software they _wanted_ to go into the store _couldn't_ go into the store in the first place(traditional sw).

also why do you think adobe went with a subscription model about the time of windows 8 release? it was a contingency plan and a middle finger to microsoft which was hoping to start getting 30% cuts of 1000$ softwares.

anyways, there will be an iso to download. it's the product key you care about getting anyways.