Re: Movie studio branding
Just because HBO, AMC and Netflix have name recognition doesn't mean that people will watch a new series just because it is on HBO or AMC. They've had plenty of misses over the years.
12862 posts • joined 12 Feb 2011
The only studio I can think of that has the sort of name recognition and a strong enough record that people might see a movie based merely on the name is Pixar.
The next closest is Lucasfilm, but "hits" like Howard the Duck and Tucker drop it below Pixar in success. And, many would argue if you're talking quality rather than box office, all three Star Wars prequels :)
NeXT was cheap. I have no problem with the sort of small acquisitions Apple has been doing for years. I don't want to see them blow $50 billion on a cellular provider or cable company when the odds of it actually being worth that much over the long run are near zero.
Buying a cellular provider would be doubly stupid because they'd become a competitor to all the rest who operated in the same market(s) it did. The competition would probably stop selling iPhones or push Android so much you'd be hard pressed to tell they sold iPhones.
Acquisitions are a capital expenditure, which does not reduce taxes owed. If Cook was talking about repatriation opening up potential acquisitions, he must be talking about something big in the US (since the cash has to be in the US first to buy a US company)
I really really really really really hate the idea of any company making a big acquisition. As an Apple shareholder, that's my biggest fear with that big cash pile. It just sits there and begs fools to "spend it on growth". It should be returned to shareholders via buybacks and dividends, not used to buy some big company. Those big acquisitions are almost always huge failures. Look at Microsoft's history with their many large acquisitions, or Google buying Motorola, or the king of bad acquisitions in tech, Hewlett Packard.
The 'last mile' will be over cellular, but not involve phones or tethering. AT&T is starting to roll out fixed LTE broadband in rural areas, which use frequencies they have licenses for separate from the LTE frequencies phones use. They claim the pricing and caps will be competitive with wired broadband plans from cable and DSL providers.
You'll have an antenna outside your house (or inside if you are close enough to the tower) connecting to a bridge/router inside with ethernet out, just like if you had cable or DSL internet service.
There is an antenna on every pole, the hops are much smaller than a kilometer. I wish they'd publish more detail about exactly what mechanism causes the wires to 'guide' the signal, but I suspect they don't want to for competitive reasons. And quite possibility even EE PhDs might have trouble comprehending it, as they make it sound like it is truly novel.
So you should only use tornado proof technology here in the midwest? Guess what, towers are even more vulnerable to being knocked out by a tornado than a utility pole.
This is intended for rural areas. Places where AT&T still has 2G speeds because they have a couple of T1s to the tower. Running fiber to the tower is expensive, and the cost might not be justified. People who live in these areas have no cable or DSL service, their only internet is satellite or cellular - the former has moderate speeds but terrible latency, the other has moderate latency but terrible speeds. But you think they shouldn't use this technology because they might lose internet when bad weather knocks down poles? I think most would be happy to have good internet 99.99% of the time and deal with a half day's outage once a decade when bad weather knocks down the poles feeding their nearby towers.
Also, I hope you realize these towers that are being fed by T1s have those copper lines on poles at least part of the way, so they already depend on poles for their connectivity.
AT&T hasn't released enough info about this to know whether it will be a problem for HAMs, but I'd guess not. The signal isn't traveling on the wire, so there is nothing to radiate. They're also using millimeter waves (> 30 GHz) in their trials, which I doubt any HAMs care about.
Wrong. This isn't traveling on the power lines at all, it is traveling "alongside" them. They are merely a waveguide - and the only reason they're using power lines for this is because they're the highest wire on the pole. If phone lines were the highest they'd be using those - and it wouldn't interfere with the phone calls or DSL those phone lines were carrying.
The powerline adapters you can buy have as much to do with this technology as dial up modems do with fiber optics.
If you take down the power grid, you will take down the internet as well since cable companies don't use backup batteries at all (cable goes out when power does around here, even if your house is on a generator) and while DSL nodes and cell towers have backup batteries, they won't last forever.
Anyway, even if something was traveling on the power lines here (which it is NOT) then how are hackers going to get at it? You think that putting "internet" on one small section of power lines means that the SCADA controls at the substations can magically access it? Maybe you need to think a little harder about such a ridiculous suggestion.
is that the signal is NOT traveling on the power lines themselves. AT&T is using some novel technology they developed (and aren't very specific about) to have the signal travel "alongside" the power lines, using them as a form of waveguide. Thus it only works for above ground power lines, but since it isn't traveling in the conductors themselves it is completely different from any "internet over power lines" proposal you've heard about before.
The article does correctly note that this will be used for backhaul only, no one is going to get internet from AT&T delivered over their power lines. It will be delivered wirelessly, mostly by LTE/5G but they could use other technologies like directional wifi to individual customers in certain areas.
It really isn't THAT hard to use two factor authentication and encryption for email. Regardless of who hacked the DNC email server or their motives, it is clear it was damaging to a campaign that lost by pretty thin margins in three states that would have swung the election the other way with a fraction of a percentage point change in vote totals. Surely the DNC and RNC will want to avoid the potential for that happening, right?
Or will technologically clueless oldsters who use private email servers or carry insecure personal Android phones everywhere they go as POTUS keep doing what they want, rendering any such improvements in the DNC and RNC moot?
The whole thing makes no sense. Obviously it should be in billions, not millions, since $31.6 million is nothing, and 31.6 million chips would allow them less than one chip per phone and none for TVs etc.
I guess it is the number of chips in what Gartner tracks, so Samsung sold 31.6 billion chips in all the phones, TVs and PCs they sold while Apple sold 29.8 billion chips in all the phones and PCs they sold. But could Apple really sell enough chips in PCs to make up for all the extra low end phones Samsung sells plus their TVs?
The stat looks to be pretty meaningless, it sounds like it is essentially ranking smartphone sales, but TVs and PCs are thrown in for no apparent reason. Why not cars, set top boxes and tablets? Gartner wouldn't put together this report if no one paid for it, so the question is: Who is stupid enough to pay for this report?
Copper's minimum bend radius guideline is about two things. One, attenuation, because RF doesn't like making turns, but attenuation only matters for longish runs. If you have a 15 meter run instead of 100 meters, you can survive a lot more attenuation so it will work fine even if you've made several loops around your finger. Two, mechanical stress, i.e. solid copper conductors will break if bent and re-bent too often. That's not a problem the first time you bend them, but if you do it often, especially in the same place, the conductor will eventually break. That's why you use stranded copper for patch cables, since they are more likely to be moved around a bunch.
You can cheat the bend radius to a FAR greater extent in copper than you can with fibre.
I was thinking about bumping too, but if the software controlled mirror can respond quickly enough (which shouldn't be that hard since it is so tiny) then it won't interrupt the network. At worst there might be a couple millisecond hiccup. If your applications can't tolerate that, then maybe you need to stick with wires.
It will be harder for them to play anti net neutrality games when they have competition, which wireless providers like AT&T and Verizon will provide by 2020 or so.
The problem cable providers face is that they have become so hated that people will jump at a chance to dump them. Of course AT&T and Verizon aren't exactly loved, but I think Comcast and TWC are hated even more than cellular carriers.
Rolling out DOCSIS 3.1 will be great for people wanting to get streaming packages like Sling TV or Directv Now. The only thing that will stop them will be too-small caps, but it will be difficult to justify a 200 GB cap when you are selling people a gigabit a second that could run through the entire cap in a half hour.
One of the big reasons why those streaming packages saves money is, surprise surprise, not having to rent boxes but instead using those you own. I suspect cable will eventually be forced to go along with that, though they'll probably try to replace that revenue via "per TV" type fees at first.
Big cable is going to be squeezed on the other side by cellular providers who will use LTE-A and 5G to offer fixed wireless internet at a gigabit and undercut cable since they won't have to deal with franchise agreements or running wires to everyone's home. Plus AT&T has AirGig, which looks like very interesting technology for making it far cheaper to backhaul multi-gigabit connections to rural towers in remote locations.
So like $250K in SF and NYC, and say $120K even in cheaper places. The idea of H1B is to bring in highly qualified people you can't find in the US. Not "just another coder" which is what it is now. Force them to only bring in the most highly educated, and the US will benefit. Allow them to bring in someone who can do the work of a fresh college graduate for less than he'll take, and all it does is take jobs away from Americans.
Yes, let the fraudulent votes stand. I don't know how many are doing it now, but if the government announced a process for checking for duplicate voting I expect the number of such duplicate votes would be tiny. The vote count errors from stuff like scanning problems or human error like displaced ballots would be quite a bit higher than from double voting.
Trying to achieve an EXACT count is a laudable goal, but it is only a goal. Certainly you can't create the possibility of linking votes to individuals just to solve a problem that would add 0.00001% error to the count in a state like Florida.
If someone wants to pay for extra votes by going to prison for a couple years, be my guest :)
Woah there! Can you think what a corrupt state with a reactionary leader would do with a list of who voted where and for whom?
Whoa there yourself, I didn't say the database would keep a copy of who you voted for, only that you voted! How else can you verify that someone who is registered in two states didn't vote twice if you don't have a way to correlate this information between states?
Anyway, who you voted for isn't saved anywhere, since there is nothing linking you to your ballot. But when I vote in person, the nice little old lady puts a checkmark by my name so I don't come back later to vote again. So that information already exists somewhere, though probably only in those books and not in an electronic form.
Another alternative would be to simply make it illegal to be registered in two places - compare the registration DBs and whichever registration is 'later' causes the earlier one to be canceled. Of course the problem is, if someone got your personal information they could register under your name in another state and leave you unable to vote on election day, so that's not really a good solution either. There would have to be some sort of databases at a federal level to straighten all this out, otherwise all voter IDs do is inconvenience poor people while leaving rich people who can afford multiple homes the potential for multiple votes in multiple states.
Where did I say anything about it being "proven" that voter ID laws are intended to or do suppress the minority vote? I only said sufficient protections are required to insure it doesn't. i.e. if a voter ID law doesn't provide a way for a registered voter who doesn't have an acceptable because he doesn't have a license or passport, he should be able to get a free picture ID.
If he has to pay for it, then it is basically a return of the 'poll tax'.
I make that assumption based on the fact there is ZERO evidence to back up such a claim, and it is up to those making such a claim to prove it, not for me to prove the claims are false.
Find a single state election supervisor in either a red or a blue state who suggests such widespread fraud is taking place in their state. It is fine to put forth "what ifs" but outrageous claims require proof. Already Trump's claim that "all" the voter fraud was against him is proven false: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/10/28/voter-fraud-suspect-arrested-des-moines/92892042/
I welcome Trump's investigation. While I think it is a waste of money, it will make him look stupid when he can't prove his claims and he'll be forced to admit he lost the popular vote. I just hope it is thorough and covers actual PROVEN fraud, and doesn't devolve into some bullshit about "look at how many dead people are registered to vote in California" or "see there's a guy with the name Jose Perez registered to vote in Los Angeles and here's an illegal alien named Jose Perez who lives in Los Angeles, proof that they are allowing illegals to vote". I'll bet that's what it actually contains in the end when true fraud becomes very difficult to find. So he'll have to hype it by obfuscating facts and conflating "poorly maintained registration rolls" with assumptions that all the people who don't belong on the rolls voted, without showing that they actually did. And his clueless supporters will eat it up and be posting all sorts of crap on Facebook about how Trump "proved he really won the popular vote" by linking to lies at Breibart.
I think the reason some congressional republicans are reluctant to support such an investigation is that it will hurt republican efforts at the state level to require voter ID. If the US government does a wide ranging investigation of voter fraud and finds almost no actual fraud, then the main argument for requiring voter ID becomes problematic. And by the way, I'm not against requiring ID to vote either, but only if sufficient protections are in place to insure it isn't just a way of suppressing the minority vote which is the true goal of most voter ID efforts.
The idea that there were 3-5 million illegal votes cast, or even half a million, is beyond ridiculous. But now I hear talk that the investigation is going to look at "dead people who are registered", "people who are registered in more than one state" (which both Ivanka Trump and Steve Bannon were, apparently) and other such errors. That will give Trump a little room to claim "I was right" without actually proving his claim at all. It should look for actual votes cast, not registration problems, but I'm not sure if the federal government can even legally demand states provide them a list of who voted.
Obviously there will be many many such registration problems found, because most/all states probably lack a good process for stuff like that. If I move to Florida, I don't send a note to my local auditor, or the secretary of state, letting them know I've moved so please cancel my registration in this state. Nor should I be expected to. So how will they know? I guess if I don't vote here for 10 years maybe they will take me off the roll, I don't know. Likewise, if I die, do they have a process to remove me from the roll? Maybe if I die around here, but I wouldn't count on it. If I move to Florida and die there, almost certainly not.
I'm sure there are millions of dead people, and millions of people who live in another state now, and millions who have moved and are registered in the wrong precinct, simply because this is all managed at a local level and they don't worry about this stuff. Should they? I don't think it matters, so long as no one tries to vote in my name after I've died, and I don't try to vote both here and in Florida after I've moved.
The Daley machine used to bring out the vote of the 'dead' back in the day. I don't know if that still happens, but it is irrelevant to the election since Illinois is a democrat state regardless. People who have a second home illegally voting in Florida is very relevant - the best outcome would be some national database that tracks where you vote so you can't vote in two different places. Somehow I doubt Trump's investigation will focus on that because it is sure to ensnare some republicans and he's already on record as say that every single one of the fraudulent votes was for Hillary, with zero going for him.
I wonder if the idiots who hated France for not supporting the Iraq War and for a brief time tried changing "french fries" to "freedom fries" on menus in the US would want to change "english muffin" to "freedom muffin" in the (rather unlikely, I'm sure) event that Parliament goes along with this petition and disinvites Trump?
Of course they're harvesting your data. You have to find a service that you pay for first and foremost, anyone thinking a free VPN service is a good option deserves what they get.
Why does Google even allow apps that want to grub around in your SMS messages (for example) when they have no reason to? They ought to categorize apps, and apps in the "VPN" category should be limited in what permissions they ask for. No reason they should access SMS, phone, pictures, etc. for instance. Obviously they aren't able to police things very well now based on these study results.
You can buy the 'official' Apple ones for $9 at Target, down to $0.99 plus free shipping for ordering obviously unofficial ones from China (complete with Engrish specs on the page!) but they should work fine since Apple doesn't really care about counterfeit Lightning chips when charging isn't involved. I'm sure there is a middle ground of non-Apple but MFi certified ones as well.
Surely $4.95 to buy five isn't too awful.
And exactly what sort of innovation is anyone else doing in phones? There have basically been incremental upgrades from everyone the last few years. Now rumor has it that the iPhone 8 (and the Galaxy S8) will have more screen area for the same phone size by removing some bezel and putting the fingerprint sensor under glass. While more screen area is nice, that's not exactly earth shattering.
Please tell me what sort of innovation you are thinking Apple should be doing, or are expecting from anyone else.
Relations between the US and Russia were getting a little worse, but they were nowhere near "early 60s" bad. Not even late 80s post-Glasnost bad. Helping stop ISIS doesn't prevent WW III either, because they simply aren't capable of fighting on that level.
Only four countries are truly capable of starting WW III: the US, Russia, China, and maybe Israel. If Trump makes relations with Russia better relations with China worse, and emboldens Israel to do whatever the hell they want without worrying about US backlash, I think it makes us more likely to get into WW III. But I don't think "more likely" means "very likely at all".
US and Chinese relations might suffer and go downhill, maybe with a few potshots over those stupid "islands" in the South China Sea they want to claim. Israel might start a regional war, which unfortunately will draw US troops into something that we should let Israel fight by themselves (on the logic that if you start a fight, you should finish it yourself, not expect your big brother to come over and clock the guy you sucker punched) Defend Israel if they are attacked without provocation, sure, but not if they start it.
But the chance of an all out WW III nuclear war? Very very small, even with a thin skinned snowflake in chief who can't keep his mouth shut. I firmly believe that if he ordered a nuclear strike that made no sense and/or was a huge escalation over the way a battle was currently being fought, the generals and sub captains who carry out the orders would refuse to do so.
There isn't any way to protect against these types of insider threats, except for 'two in a box' style admin practices, which are obviously a lot more costly.
As for the OPM hack, it sounds like it was a typical case of "using a product full of holes, like they all are, and not keeping up to date on patches, which few do". No matter who Trump put in charge of 'cyber security' these things will keep happening, because businesses everywhere are getting hacked and it isn't as if the government has some special sauce to prevent such hacks. If such a thing existed, Apple, Google, Microsoft et al would already be using it. Given the US government is an attractive target, it has to defend more attempted hacks than most as well.
No TVs sold in the US are configured like yours. They support ATSC (our DVB-T2) and clear QAM. No PCMCIA or other slot to support cable card or other encryption cards. No DVB-S/DVB-S2 since the two satellite providers in the US both use an encrypted signal with proprietary smart cards to decode it.
A few TVs here are doing away with the tuners entirely since so few people plug their TV directly into a cable/antenna connection anymore. Basically they are turning into smart monitors.
Satellites are actually pretty cheap. I saw calculations that it costs Directv well under a dollar per month per customer to maintain and replace their satellite fleet as it ages. A buck a month times the 22 million subscribers or whatever it is equals over $250M a year, which means they could replace a satellite every other year which is far more often than reality requires.
The problem with "filling the sky with satellites" is that geosynchronous slots in prime locations are already pretty much spoken for.
Surely the city, county and state have something to say about someone wanting to tunnel underneath publicly and privately owned land? Or is he going to stay solely within land he or his companies own? Even then I'd imagine there are regulations.
At least LA isn't like older cities west of the Mississippi that have layers and layers of underground infrastructure, making planning any sort of tunneling take years to get all the required permits and easements. But I'd be shocked if it was so easy as his "boring company" tweet last spring to starting next month if that tunnel is going to go more than a few hundred feet on his own property.
He doesn't need to use it for government calls and business. It is problematic if he uses it only for tweets if it is compromised and turned into a listening device. That may be above the garden variety hacker level, but such hacks are well known to be possible by nation states. You know, countries like Russia and China who would obviously benefit greatly from having a bug that Trump carries around with him wherever he goes.
He doesn't even need to visit a dodgy web site or install an app. The phone's baseband can be hacked silently via exploits that spy agencies claim exist in nation state toolsets but aren't publicly known, all they need is to know the phone number. Pretty sure that Russia and China already have the phone number of his Android.
It isn't like crops have to be harvested an exact number of days after being planted. Having a couple weeks between first and last plantings is pretty common in wet years where the farmer might have two weeks of wet weather after he plants the first half and before he finishes planting the second half.
Crops don't mature at the same rates in different areas in the same field, either, depending on if they are in low spots or high spots, flat spots or sidehill spots. In that respect if you had the yield and maturity data you could selectively plant the slowest maturing places first, and the fastest maturing places last. Of course since you'll never do an aerial drone harvest, having everything mature at the same time doesn't mean it won't take two weeks to harvest if you have a wet fall...
Look at the prices for the camera components like lenses etc. and tell me if you think ANYONE is willing to pay prices even remotely like that for cell phone modules? Sure, a top quality zoom lens is never going to be cheap, but a lot of it is because of low manufacturing volumes. You can keep a camera for 10-20 years, how long you gonna keep your cell phone 'back' for?
There would never be a "vibrant market" for stuff like this because it is always going to be a niche market. Anything people REALLY want in a phone in large enough numbers will be built in to some Android phone somewhere. But even that has proven to not have volumes capable of sustaining them, like the ones that had projectors built in or with a properly sized camera on them. Even people's favorite whipping horse, big batteries, have pretty much disappeared from the market. Why build a phone that comes with a giant battery when you can buy a battery case and use it with any phone that it fits?
There's also a chicken and egg problem. Who wants to invest in this ridiculous concept when it might be abandoned at any minute when it isn't profitable? I doubt LG feels bad about stranding the few thousand customers who bought modules for the G5.
What's YOUR definition of fascism? I certainly can't find one that doesn't include nationalism and militarism.
If I was going to write my own definition, I'd do like this:
It would appear almost half of them weren't overlooking his record - the ones who voted for Sanders in the primaries because he spoke out against those things, while Hillary supported them.
Just like the republicans who tried to form an "anyone but Trump" movement, but a bit too late when Cruz was the only possible option (who many republicans find even more distasteful)
The problem with politics as practiced here in the US is that almost all these people, in both parties, roll over and throw their full support behind the flawed leader they did not support in the primary because "he's better than the other guy". There wasn't nearly enough criticism of Obama from democrats during his term, and already it looks like a similar level of apology will be coming from the right over Trump's many flaws.
This kind of shit is how we end up with elections between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the worst possible alternatives on both sides.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019