This must be a second tax on the internet. Seems excessive.
This must be a second tax on the internet. Seems excessive.
it has no utility for anything other than payments. The use scenarios other devices use NFC for (because they can't be used for payments due to carrier interference) are better handled by better technologies, like Bluetooth LE.
So you think that the NFC tag I have on my bedside drawer, that I can place my phone on when I'm ready to sleep and have it turn off my house lights would be better handled by Bluetooth LE or some better technology? Ditto for all the other tasks floating around that I handle with NFC tags?
I doubt it. Please explain.
TFS states he has farsightedness, which means that he can already see all those things without glasses. Up until now, he would only have needed glasses to read - which apparently he was OK with, and so didn't think it was worth the surgery.
Now that the oculus rift has come along, wearing glasses in that thing are annoying in that and he's opted for surgery. Makes sense to me.
Your experience as a shortsighted person bears very little relevance to his experience as a farsighted person.
How do you recommend governments act to reduce carbon emissions?
If I were the government, I would do it by mandated carbon emission levels per watt of power generated by power companies. The idea is similar to the way that fuel efficiency standards were mandated for automobiles and led to vastly more fuel efficient cars.
This is something that a government can mandate, because the technology is here, and power plants can already make a profit from a mix of renewables (solar/hydro/wind/etc), it just isn't as profitable in the short term as coal because renewables tend to have a longer ROI period than fossil fuels. But if the government mandates the mix the power supplier must have, then the power companies will have to comply. The power companies will still make sufficient profit in the long term.
I am a firm believer in climate change, but I think a tax designed to reduce power consumption is wrong-headed. The progress of civilization is related to the power usage of that civilization. Individuals in first world countries now use more power in a day than people 1000 years ago would use in several months. In the future to continue to progress, our civilization will use more power.
So from the other side, if an Afghani intelligence agency was recording every call in America, that's OK too because it's their job?
I fairly certain I recall Obama stating in the past that he would consider it an act of war if any country did that sort of thing to the US. (Unless of course it is one of the five eyes countries, who share what they record in the US back to the NSA to create a nice little bypass of the rule which does not allow the NSA to spy domestically).
TFA correctly states what the defendant did, so why is the summary for Slashdot, the supposed "news for nerds" site, dumbed down?
Why do you automatically believe the athlete?
I believe the athlete in this situation because everything that comes out of the drone operator's mouth is being proven to be either false or purposefully misleading. It turns out that he wasn't even operating the drone at the time - he had given someone else a go at the controls. From The Age
Mr Abrams told Fairfax he held a licence to fly, but would not say whether his company had one.
It's understood Mr Abrams has a fixed-wing pilot licence, but not the type that allows him or his company to operate quadcopter drones for commercial purposes.
Photographs show the drone involved in Sunday's incident was a quadcopter.
The Geraldton Triathlon Club said Mr Abrams' company was not paid a fee to take footage using the drone on Sunday.
Instead it filmed in return for having ads placed on event promotional material, the club said.
Whether the drones were filming for commercial purposes will be important to CASA's investigation, as different regulations apply to commercial and recreational operators.
Mr Abrams said he was in charge at the time of the incident and that another person had their hands on the controller.
He would not name who was flying it, nor say whether they had a licence to fly.
"I am licensed and I was there with the pilot," Mr Abrams told Fairfax.
Asked repeatedly if the pilot was licensed, Mr Abrams refused to answer and became defensive.
He is full of it. He's lying about being having the correct license for that class of vehicle, and he is refusing to even say who was flying the drone at the time.
Then he goes and blames hackers as an out... So, why do you automatically believe the drone operator?
He's basing his claim on the drone footage showing it crash to the ground. That doesn't mean she didn't get hit: Depending on how fast the drone was going, the shrapnel could have been pretty nasty - particularly pieces from the propeller.
None of that gives him any evidence or indication to support his claim that his drone was hacked. He's completely plucked that excuse out of thin air to avoid personal responsibility for his actions.
If you had ever been to Geraldton, you would know that it is a small country town on the edge of nowhere, and that the idea that there are some uber-hackers floating around a local triathlon hacking into drones is ridiculous.
Reads like bullshit anyway..
This is correct. According to the drone operator: "She looks over her shoulder and gets frightened, falling to the ground and bumping her head, but the drone didn't actually strike her"
But according to the triathlete: "I have lacerations on my head from the drone and the ambulance crew took a piece of propeller from my head"
I reckon the drone operator is full of shit and just making up whatever comes to mind. In the same breath he claims that the drone didn't hit her, that she fell on her own, and that anyway the drone was hacked so it isn't his fault. Typical blame everyone but himself personality disorder.
...do any other, ahem, organs become more spherical? Because that could be a deal breaker.
How so? I thought the general consensus was that girth is always preferable to length.
The only thing I can think of that is more pure profitable than telephone service is telephone company text messages.
Profitable is an understatement - telcos are making up to 90 000% profit on text messages,
I mean, since he was retired, the shooter would've paid around $10 for the privilege of being in that cinema. So he's entitled to shoot anyone who slightly annoys him during that time. Especially considering it was a Mark Wahlberg movie.
That was sarcasm. But this isn't: You are an idiot.