We actually had an interesting candidate in my district that I felt gave insight into this issue. It was a young guy with no experience or thoughts on issues - basically he said that he was going to ask the people what they thought. He got 30% of the vote.

That leads me to believe that 50-60% of people are voting purely based on party. Sure there may have been some intentional votes, but his platform seems more appropriate for a third party aimed at freedom, etc - and third parties around here don't get more than 2-3% of the overall vote.

He was running as a Democrat, but I don't think that's relevant - I'd expect to see the same numbers if you ran him as a republican.

Since Netflix already paid off Comcast I'd wager they're willing to do the same for Verizon. However, Verizon is probably trying to bleed them for more than they're willing to pay. In other words, this is just their way of negotiating the contract down to a "reasonable" amount. (as if they should even have to make payoffs to the cable companies in the first place)

This is a smart move on Australia's part - they can let the world dump all the nuclear waste in their vast desert, and then when it's financially viable they can start reprocessing it for their own fuel (or to sell back to the people who dumped it). They also have a ton of coastline or open land where a special port or airport could be built to bring deliveries directly to the remote area, rather than passing it through normal channels - so NIMBY complaints shouldn't be a big issue.

If I remember correctly the NIMBY complaints at Yucca mountain were from the towns along the route that the spent fuel would have to be transported through. It was stupid that they terminated it due to that pressure after so many studies showed it was the perfect location.

You really sound like an Apple sales person. It's weasley to claim that a novice user enabling knows they've given permission to Apple to reroute their messages. For the handful of people that I've dealt with on the issue they had no idea.

You're also making a lot of things out to be obvious that really aren't. If you switch phones without disabling iMessaging (because you didn't know it was on in the first place), other Apple users will continue sending your texts via that route. The non-obvious fix is to log into the Apple site and delete the phone from your account, after which it will take up to 24 hours to stop delivering texts via iMessage.

At that point it starts failing them for the senders - and allowing them to resend via SMS. However, instead of just always using SMS from the first failure it requires repeated manual resends before it remembers. There's a reason that phone salesmen I've talked to think it's an intentional tactic to lock people into Apple. It could just be a shortsighted design from people who think they're the best, but either way it needs to be fixed in a clear and logical way.

In other words, it sounds like you have a lot of theoretical knowledge on how iMessaging should work fantastically - without a grasp of how the convoluted design can go very wrong.

I've dealt with this issue for people at work, and it's enough of a pain that for business accounts you just pony up the extra cash for a new iPhone, rather than trying to explain to multiple clients why their text messages are failing.

I'm glad someone is suing Apple for it, because it's a terrible design to hijack SMS messages without explicit user permission - especially if you don't immediately switch back over to using normal SMS after a failed iMessage delivery. It should be automatic, or at very most one manual resend - but they require multiple failures to be manually resent before switching back.

I really don't understand why anyone would defend this behavior since transparently hijacking any type of data without permission is obviously a violation of user trust, and possibly a privacy issue as well.

No it doesn't - the person sending you a text has to manually resend it as SMS.

I would expect it to remember the last successful option and use that, but it doesn't - it tries using iMessage again after it fails. Someone in another comment mentioned it may remember after "a few" failed attempts, but we never tried that many times - ended up just switching back to another Apple phone. This is the intended reaction in my opinion, I can't see any other reason why they would silently hijack your texts without permission.

I deal with mostly video game content on YouTube, but the Content ID system is the same across the board. The publisher is either lying or incompetent, because they definitely can release claims on content, even if it's a match. YouTube even has one match type (I don't know why it isn't default) that just notifies the claimant of detected matches so they can manually screen for validity and claim them.

If you bother the publisher enough maybe a manager will tell some peon that knows what they're doing to fix it.

The summary made it sound like a domain registrar just transferred the name without their permission, but that totally is not the case according to the article:

So really the company just decided they want control of the server now instead of pointing their domain to a third party. Nonstory.

I think the main question is whether a mac is necessary or not. Certain industries require it for software compatibility and if that's the case you don't really have a choice. If you do have a choice though then it's usually cheaper to spec out a Windows computer of equivalent power from a vendor like Dell or HP (and by cheaper I mean drastically). No IT person in a normal business is even going to consider actually building their own - even on a large scale companies like Dell are going to be cheaper since they offer nice bulk discounts.

Well, either they emailed him a trojan and are trying to make it sound fancy, or Yahoo was letting them run exploits on the mail site targeted at specific users. Probably the former, but the latter is technically possible and wouldn't surprise me considering all the companies that have bent over for the government surveillance machine so far.

I feel like the editorial comment in the summary is woefully inaccurate. I remember reading an article (probably on Slashdot) a year or two ago about the Apple outsourcing - and someone in electronics manufacturing in the US was talking about how they could do it with robots for the same price as China. The speculation was that they decided to go with China instead because they can make design changes (tell workers to do things differently) in a matter of hours - robot assembly lines aren't quite as flexible.

You also have high level automation in places like the Amazon warehouses, so unless they're just talking about driving down costs I suspect it's far more innovative. Robotic delivery systems to go along with self-driving cars delivering your packages, stuff like that. "manufacturing and logistics markets" has a very broad meaning.

A while ago they were trying to get rid of one of the large denominations - I think it was the 500 euro note - because it was used mostly for money laundering. I'm not sure what ever happened though since they apparently still exist.

Actually by killing someone important you'd probably be more likely to live these days. They'd want to know if you were working alone, so you'd end up in some black site across the globe being tortured.

After that was over they might kill you, or more likely make a public example out of you.

It's not surprising he'd try to bash Mint, considering they ate part of Ubuntu's marketshare when Ubuntu made stupid design decisions. That's what happens when you try to cram weird GUI changes down peoples throats in open source.

Don't move my Close, Minimize, and Maximize buttons to the left side by default unless you're going provide some spectacular improvements in return. I tried using it that way for a couple days and was still reflexively clicking on the empty right side to close the window. Eventually I found a config mod that fixed it, but then they went to the stupid Ubuntu mobile desktop and I couldn't be assed to work around it any longer so I switched.

It's worth mentioning that if you don't like Ubuntu repos, Mint also has a version based directly on Debian.