IIRC they sent the phone sanitizers on the "B" ship and all the elites on the "A" ship died from infections they got from using the phones.
If you read the Mars One, you'll see that they're counting on revenue from a reality program to fund the project.
So, the candidates must not only be emotionally stable and qualified, but be photogenic and charming enough to sustain the interest of viewers.
Imagine the horror if, after three years, all of the surviving colonists turn out to be phlegmatic, agreeable, no-drama workaholics and stable family-minded folks.
"These rating are terrible! My God, it's turned into The Waltons in space! Can we ship in some ninjas or a killer robot to liven things up?"
Emotionally stable is the exact opposite of what is needed for a successful reality TV show. People want to watch others on TV who are batshit crazy. It helps them feel like their own only slightly less batshit decisions are more rational than they really are.
1) Why do YOU pay for a company phone?
2) If you can truly BYOD, why would anyone want to support that?
If it's not YOD, it's not BYOD.
1) It isn't a company phone. It's my phone. The company doesn't require me to have it. Sure, it makes my job easier, but I could do without if I wanted to. Which I don't. There are cases where I have chosen not to purchase a device. For example, an iPad would help me do demos of our products, but I don't want to buy one, and the company does not want to buy one for me. So I don't use one. Everyone's fine with that.
2) Are you asking why would anyone want to have the flexibility to buy an iPhone, or a Nexus 4, or whatever other kind of device they prefer and then use that single device as their mobile platform? Have fun carrying two phones forever, I guess.
You're still paying for work hardware; you're not too bright.
They don't require me to use a smartphone, and it's not used for work unless I choose to do so. Which I do, because it makes my life easier. That has value to me. But go ahead and call me stupid if that makes you feel like a man.
A company paying $75 or so for monthly smartphone service pays for itself many times over in keeping employees tethered to the business and available for around-the-clock email and messaging. I expect companies will continue paying for service even for BYOD shops. If forcing employees to purchase a phone discourages them from using a phone for work then it will be a huge loss for companies.
This is how it works where I am (Fortune 500 technology company). The company pays all the service, including my personal calls and data use, and I pay for the phone. They negotiate shorter contract terms and lower up-front device costs. I get my choice of carriers and devices. They also negotiate discounted service pricing for my family.
The company does not wipe my entire device when I disconnect it from their system and remove their MDM, they just delete their content and leave everything else alone. They do enforce screen lock timeouts and require a PIN or password. They will wipe my device in its entirety if it's stolen.
This is a sane BYOD policy that balances the desire of the employees to have a choice in their electronic tether with their needs to secure their IP.
yes, but not a plan contract....
Does T-Mobile make that distinction plainly in their advertisements?
If not, then it's deceptive. Period.
Yes, they do. It's very easy to understand what their plan entails by simply reading what's on their site. I know, so many werdz, it makes my head hurt! But seriously, it's not at all a hidden or masqueraded charge.
Yes but some of us do prefer to run Linux than OSX. Granted this laptop is too expensive. I'm going to be shopping for a laptop soon and frankly I'll probably be caught between this and another MacBook Air... sigh.
So... why not just run Linux on the MacBook Air, if that's what you prefer?
Indeed. I own several dozen guns - almost all of which I shoot regularly and none of which have ever killed someone.
What is the purpose of owning them? Why are you shooting them? It's not because you really love to put holes in pieces of paper from 50 feet away. It's because you are practicing to KILL PEOPLE WITH THE GUN. I'd love to hear any other explanation. Just because you haven't been in a situation that merited that you use your practiced skill and tool doesn't mean that it's for a different purpose.
According to Logical Fallacy Bingo your argument is an example of a Ludic Fallacy. I can mark that one off now.
I think of it like golf. While it's very easy to swing a club and hit a golf ball, it's incredibly difficult to get the ball to wind up exactly where you want it to go.
Target shooting is the same, for me at least. It's very easy to fire a gun, but it's incredibly difficult to hit exactly where you are aiming. It takes patience, time, and a lot of practice to achieve even small incremental improvements. Many people enjoy this sort of challenge.
Your supposition that all gun owners own and shoot them for the express purpose of practicing to kill a human being is wrong. It certainly does not apply to me. I've no intention of ever being in a position where I'd want to kill someone, and if I did it's unlikely that I'd have the means to do so at my immediate disposal.
Now, you can sit there and think "well that's just fine but I know in my heart of hearts that deep, deep down this random Internet asshole just wants to blow someone away" and I can't possibly argue with that. But it's not a reasonable position.
As opposed to paid Microsoft shills and astroturfers posting their lies and modding down anyone who posts the truth about that evil empire?
I don't work for Microsoft (I'm with the networking evil empire) but I still know a bullshit story about a common practice when I see one.
Keep in mind that zfsonlinux is different than ZFS in *BSD, and any testaments to the stability of ZFS in *BSD are impertinent.
Or irrelevant. But true enough.
That's the kind of information that could be mentioned in the summary.
Isn't that kind of like saying articles about the sun should mention it's a star?
Who cares about cell phones during takeoff? I'd just like to continue reading my book during the 20 minutes of taxi/takeoff and the 20 minutes of approach/landing on my airplane-mode tablet.
And what I meant by the public accepting restrictions is that they would provided evidence the restrictions actually accomplish something. I think this was fairly obvious but I'm happy to have provided the clarification.
This is kind of like asking for a real analysis of the effects of an asteroid strike in central Kansas. I have a hard enough time tracking down intermittent issues with real systems to even imagine trying to get hard documented proof of exactly which consumer devices (out of billions) in which aircraft (out of hundreds of thousands) in which locations (out of tens of thousands) will cause interference.
Mobile communication protocols aren't voodoo. The rules are so well-understood that you can go damn near anywhere on the planet where there's even basic infrastructure and use the same mobile device you bought at Walmart in Des Moine. Pilots seem to be fond of repeating that we simply can't understand all the possible effects of all mobile devices on aircraft instrumentation, but this is false. All these mobile devices communicate outside of themselves in a predictable, understood manner.
The public will accept that there are good reasons for disabling devices on takeoff and landing. The FAA needs to provide those reasons with an evidence-based approach. I suspect they will have a hard time doing so.
It's a good thing when companies with deep pockets stand up patent trolls and win, but I worry that they'll just move to smaller, softer targets who can't afford to fight. Even after widely-publicized losses like this we'll continue to suffer from patent trolls until we have some meaningful legal reforms.
What would airplane mode have to do with a wired interface?