The problem with visible light is that it is easily blocked by clothes. This is unfortunate, in more way than one.
Not in America isn't not.
The problem with visible light is that it is easily blocked by clothes. This is unfortunate, in more way than one.
Not in America isn't not.
Yeah, I understand that hope, but people are actually getting dumber, especially on this site as so many of the smart people have abandoned it.
The problem here is that you can't expect much rational and intelligent discourse on Slashdot these days, so that comment calling you paranoid is no surprise at all. Remember, this site is chock-full of far right-wing nationalists and objectivist libertarians, like much of the tech industry only much more concentrated here.
What in hell are you talking about? Have you never been inside a modern HVAC-climate-controlled building? This is the most idiotic thing I've read all day.
I happen to like cold water, at least in the summertime.
However, I really don't like icemakers in freezers. 1) They take up a lot of space, and 2) they use tap water, which is nasty. There doesn't seem to be a way to easily plumb them to use the RO water I buy, so the icemaker in my freezer just sits unused, wasting space. And no, those crappy filters they put in fridges these days are not a proper substitute. 1) They're not reverse osmosis, they're just shitty charcoal filters, and 2) they're horribly expensive to replace.
They should make icemakers easily removable. I'm perfectly capable of making ice myself with trays, which lets me use the water I prefer and not the nasty tap crap.
Um, I don't know about you, but while I do admittedly charge my phone on the bedside table, the phone is sitting usually face-up. That means the main camera is pointed at the table surface directly below it so it's useless, and the front-view camera is pointed at the ceiling. The only thing that front-view camera is ever going to see in that position is the belly of one of my cats when they decide to walk over it. (Sometimes the phone is face-down, but this isn't really any different, except that hackers will now have a higher-resolution view of my cat's underside.) The mic is definitely an issue though.
The devices that come to mind immediately as a real danger in this way are these new "smart TVs", since on these any camera is pointing directly at the users in their normal TV-viewing positions. If the TV is in a bedroom, that means it's probably pointed at the bed and has an excellent view of whatever activity happens there. And why a TV could possibly need a camera and microphone, I have no idea. If we ever get to the point where we're Skyping people over TV screens, I can see the use, but we've had Skype-like technology for ages now and it's only rarely used for video chat it seems, and never on a TV that I've ever seen or heard of.
I didn't say it was right, I said it was on to something.
When prosecution doesn't work as a deterence - and it obviously doesn't in high-stakes white collar crimes - then prevention needs the be stronger.
This could very well take the form of pre-crime investigations. I'm against imprisoning someone for something they didn't (yet) do. But why is it that police has to wait until a crime has been committed before they can even begin looking?
I was in this position once. Someone tried to run a common scam on me and I went to the police so that they could catch them in flagranti. The answer pretty much was "well, no crime has been committed so far, so we can do nothing".
A bigger stress on the part where in many crimes the attempt is a crime would help out a lot, especially with corporate crime.
Which part of "charging them in a legal system that operates on the timescale of years when their personal success depends on quarterly results" wasn't clear ?
Uber is actually a good example of what's going wrong with the world: They are openly criminal and it works. It's Al Capone all over again. Everyone knows what they are doing, but they're too slippery to be nailed.
Same with the tax evasion of multinational cooperation, wars based on invented bullshit, election frauds done almost openly (like in Turkey), and so on.
Minority Report may have been on to something: The legal system working after the fact, and with a delay often measured in years, does not deter criminals. If you can take over a country, or become a billionaire, the threat that ten years from now they might file charges which your $1000/h lawyers will then simply drag through the courts for twenty years - well, that is not a very threatening thing especially for people trained to think primarily about next quarter.
I'm very apolitical and don't care about Trump or Clinton. Trump is the elected president and therefore it makes no difference to me if he has a low approval rating or if his approvals were to spike to the highest levels on record. The American people wanted him as their president. Russia poured a lot of money into his campaign, it is reported, but they could easily do that to anyone running so I see it as a fair playing field under the current rules.
If Americans lack critical thinking methods to distinguish between astroturf or genuine appeal, then their democracy will extend that lack of intelligence and eventually it will cost them their place in the world as the #1 superpower because the only decisions that weaken the USA in the long run are the ones anyone voting should be concerned with.
I may disagree with all of Trump's policy but my opinion is not important. Only facts are important, which Trump's people are certainly deadset against; they say anything they want and deny factual accounts consistently.
This won't help the USA in the long run and they will certainly pay a high price for this administration's ineptitude in lost GDP and lost global relationships.
But at the end of the day, USA elected him and I believe in democracy.
If I place my hand in a fire and it hurts and my reaction is to place my other hand in the fire so that I notice my first hand's pain less, well then I certainly deserve the consequences of that stupidity.
This is journalism lingo for "he's not a script kiddie, and was successful at exploiting vulnerabilities on a large scale".
...its not the developers of the software rejecting the suggestions -- its users of the software that often react sourly to improvement suggestions that could, if implemented well, benefit a lot of people using the software in question.
When you arrive to some forum and post a suggestion, you are in competition with other people who use the software and might not want to divert developer attention away from bugs or improvements already slated. Another probable reason is competition between suggestions by users vying for developer time. These people shooting down your ideas probably made some other suggestions and had them shot down by other users, or alternatively have some suggestions still pending, so they view your suggestion as a threat.
There could be technical reasons why your suggestion shouldn't be implemented and users may instinctively know this because they are often experts on that particular piece of software as they use it daily.
However, as a developer myself, I can assure you that I always dig deeper to determine if the users have valid feedback or if their feedback is only playing politics.
Good ideas always influence me, even if they are imperfect ideas and would need some adjusting to become viable.
Buzzfeed seems to only link their own articles in their stories, so it's not convenient to fact-check them. I would have prefered some other information on this subject and since there is none in the TFA, I will provide you with some more info on this lobbying dollout:
f the surprising election win by President-elect Donald Trump left you feeling dispirited, you may be looking for a way to take action.
One way you could do so is donating money or time to causes you believe stand against Trump's politics. Conversely, you could hold back your money â" by boycotting companies and/or corporate executives that stand against your beliefs.
As of mid-September, no CEO of a Fortune 100 company supported Trump by donating to his campaign.
But in other ways, and in the time since, a few big companies have shown support for the president-elect â" directly or indirectly.
Here are five examples.
The day after the election, Matthew LeBretton, vice president of public affairs for the sneaker brand New Balance, told a Wall Street Journal reporter: "The Obama administration turned a deaf ear to us and frankly with President-elect Donald Trump, we feel things are going to move in the right direction."
After that message went out, angry people on Twitter shared photos showing them destroying or trashing their New Balance shoes.
In response, New Balance issued a statement to Sole Collector clarifying its position.
"As the only major company that still makes athletic shoes in the United States, New Balance has a unique perspective on trade and trade policy in that we want to make more shoes in the United States, not less," the statement reads. "New Balance publicly supported the trade positions of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump prior to Election Day that focused on American manufacturing job creation and we continue to support them today."
On a final campaign swing through Pennsylvania at the end of October, Trump's son Eric stopped by the Yuengling Brewery in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania.
Richard "Dick" Yuengling Jr., who is 73 and the fifth-generation owner of the nation's oldest beer company, gave him a tour.
"Our guys are behind your father," Yuengling said, the Reading Eagle reported. "We need him in there."
Eric Trump promised a Trump presidency would help businesses like Yuengling, a $550 million company with breweries in Pottsville and East Norwegian Township in Pennsylvania and Tampa, Florida.
"Maybe your dad will build a hotel in Pottsville, or serve Yuengling in his hotels," Yuengling said, jokingly, according to the Eagle.
Following the visit, there were calls on Twitter for a consumer boycott of the beermaker.
Kenneth Langone, one of the co-founders of Home Depot, has been publicly supporting Trump since May.
After supporting GOP presidential candidates New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and then Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Langone settled on Trump.
"And you want to know something?" Langone said on CNBC's "Closing Bell" in May. "I think he'll do a hell of a good job. At least I'm hoping."
Langone even doubled down after Trump bragged about sexual assault in the bus video leaked in October.
When asked for comment about the Langone's support, Stephen Holmes, the director of corporate communications for Home Depot said: "The Home Depot nor our CEO endorse Presidential candidates. Ken is a co-founder, and was once on our board of directors, but he retired from the board several years ago and is not speaking on behalf of the company."
Deactivating your Facebook account might be really hard â" scientific research suggests the social media site really is addictive.
But in a big way, Facebook played a role in this presidential election.
One way is the unchecked proliferation of shared fake news stories on the site that were partly responsible for Trump's rise.
Another? One of the company's board members and also one of the co-founders of PayPal, Peter Thiel, spoke in support of Trump at the Republican Convention in July.
Thiel began publicly supporting Trump in May â" and pledged more than $1 million to Trump's campaign in October.
When he spoke at the National Press Club in October, Thiel said what Trump represents "isn't crazy and it's not going away."
Thiel said he doesn't love everything about Trump does support Trump's plan to reduce waste in government, which he says is throwing away trillions of dollars of taxpayer money.
In a post-election interview with the New York Times, Thiel said he is currently in Trump's inner circle as an informal tech adviser.
Despite his conservative background, Hobby Lobby CEO David Green did not endorse Trump in the primaries.
As you may recall, in 2014 the Supreme Court ruled that companies with religious owners â" like Green â" can't be compelled to pay for insurance coverage for women's contraception.
It's been called the "Hobby Lobby decision," because his was the company that brought it.
Green even talked down Trump during the primaries, telling Politico that Trump "scares me to death."
He added he would like the president to be someone "my kids, my grandkids and my great-grandkids can emulate."
Then, in October, Green apparently changed his mind. He threw his support behind Trump because of a hope for conservative judges on the Supreme Court, he wrote in opinion piece for USA Today.
"Fortunately, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby in 2014, but it's frightening to think that we â" and all Americans â" were just one judge away from losing our religious freedom," he wrote.
Requests for comment sent to New Balance, Yuengling and Facebook were not returned by press time. Hobby Lobby declined to comment.
Subway just shot itself in the foot here. This is a Barbara Streisand move that will only further expose Subway as a bad company with bad faith practices. Their sales will totally tank because of this and I would be surprised if they haven't already been hit really hard by their own stupidity. No empathy from me. They should have owned up to it and issued an apology and discontinued this bad product.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) today strengthened its commitment to net neutrality by declaring that Internet service providers should treat data traffic equally to foster consumer choice, innovation and the free exchange of ideas. As such, the CRTC today is publishing a new framework regarding differential pricing practices.
The CBC basically got it wrong by generalizing the word services when in fact the government is talking about data types (data stream, web, email, voip...etc).
The government is basically saying they will not allow ISPs to throttle data types that are considered to be bandwidth consuming. The broad strokes here are that Netflix won't be going at a snail's pace and your gaming bandwidth won't dry up in Canada or the ISP will face regulatory charges and also be required to compensate users for breaking the law.
tl;dr: this is a set of "non-interference" regulations that bind ISPs from screwing over their customers.
Economists can certainly disappoint you. One said that the economy would turn up by the last quarter. Well, I'm down to mine and it hasn't. -- Robert Orben