Re: Oooops, dropped
Auto-answered intercom calls makes a pretty hostile working environment -- even if you know that it has been enabled.
262 posts • joined 14 Jun 2009
The border for space is 100 km.
While the US originally defined space as 50 miles up, no one seriously regards that as the boundary any longer. The US astronauts who went up under the original definition are grandfathered into the "astronaut" space, because anything else would be unkind.
You're pretty sadly behind on what SpaceX is achieving with its booster reuse. The boosters aren't coming back badly damaged (barring crashes) -- they're coming back clean enough that the old design would be accumulating on the shelf if there weren't mission where throwing away the booster makes sense.
> What CentOS does to this day is not a free version of RHEL. It's something
> different. It may be free for individual developers, but for the likes of
> Google or Amazon it is definitely not free.
Please point to the the portions of the CentOS website that support this statement, because you're not describing a situation I recognize.
They would have been marketing to Japanese corporates in need of computing in other regions. If the project had been Japanese led that might have worked, but if the projects were initiated outside Japan then you have to have mindshare where they were started. People choose what they've heard of, and heard of being used successfully.
I hadn't heard of it either...
Some years ago I had to figure out if the two and a half years of accruals I had towards the five year minimum required for entitlement to the IBM DB pension was worth anything. I decided it wasn't, and made job choices accordingly.
The world would be a more just place if the court had proven me wrong.
So what word do you use to describe this situation?
"I broke your experience of _____, you have no choice in the matter, and I profit".
Because that is exactly how I see the situation. You may disagree, feeling that the experience is not broken, but failing to give a general and easily accessed opt-opt is not right.
Having consulted a thesaurus "coercion" may be more appropriate, but extortion isn't far off.
Originally posted at https://plus.google.com/+AlanPeery/posts/7E8cRhfx587, I hit on some different aspects of why AMP is a technology that should die.
Speeding up the Web, what could be wrong with that?
Google has implemented something called AMP into the Google+ Android app, and on a post there I ended up writing a substantial critique of AMP.
AMP is a new Google technology I'm not fond of, because
1) It's breaking my reading and bookmarking workflow and
2) It centralizes more power with google and
3) It might hurt the originating website's viability and
4) For the same original URL, users in Google+ (and probably soon Gmail) get different URLs depending on what device they read on and
5) There's no easy way for me to opt out that I have found
In very quick summary, an "Accelerated Mobile Page" link points back to cached content is substituted for the direct link to a website if that website opts in. The page loads faster, but the link points back to Google rather than the original site (leading to complaint #1 as I can no longer track by site, etc), and Google knows I have followed it (#2) and the website doesn't get the traffic (complaint #3) though there may be a reporting mechanism I am not familiar with and they do have to opt in.
I'm only getting a grip with how AMP shows up now, and it changes depending on where you're reading content. When I first read the original post I was using my mobile phone, and the URL shown in the Google+ post was an AMP style URL -- so I edited the URL by hand into a normal URL by hand as I thought the original poster had posted an AMP URL. Looking at the original post in the a PC web browser I saw the normal URL. We suddenly have two URLs instead of one which makes confusion possible (#4).
The final bit is that I haven't been able to find a way to disable the AMP mechanism from affecting me personally, as Google+ doesn't make this an option(#5). This means my workflow is broken, as the URLs I add to Pocket for offline reading when I am using my phone don't reference the real website.
The original URL, with some editing so you can see the URL fully:
http:// www.smh.com.au /world/us-election/trumps-tech-adviser-peter-thiel-backs-utopian-technology-less-sure-democracy-20161116-gsqrnu.html
The AMP'd URL that I see when using my Android phone:
https:// www.google.com /amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/world/us-election/trumps-tech-adviser-peter-thiel-backs-utopian-technology-less-sure-democracy-20161116-gsqrnu.html
For most people, yes. But for the frugal or the very income-limited, there is a huge role for over the air reception. Hopefully with a PVR, as the benefits of time-shifting and advert avoidance are huge.
>my entire setup - with all those boxes and necessary cabling - doesn't come to
>half what that guy paid for his TV. Probably not even a quarter. And I've
> had the same setup for nearly 10 years now,
Did you add the cost of your network into the above computation?
You just assumed the household has a regular occupancy pattern. That's not true for all households, and those with irregular patterns do have a use for "warm up the house, I've arrived back from the sales trip" functionality.
The scope of this topic could be described as list of websites -> list of libraries -> library -> list of vulnerable versions -> list of vulnerabilities in each version -> technical details of each vulnerability. The paper only looks at the first four components. If you're looking the details in components 5 & 6, start with the list from component 4 and consult each release note and CVE.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019