Why can't we have both?
I feel there's nothing wrong with preparing 5G and roll out 4G everywhere.
3465 posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
I have to say I find the reaction rather weird. That flag has been honoured in part of the US for a century, and suddenly it's so hot that everybody's falling upon themselves to stop selling it. I understand that for a lot of people in the South, it stood for freedom and the Dukes of Hazzard, and now suddenly they have to throw it away or hide it in shame. A bit as if Germany had gone from 1939 to 1945 in a couple of days.
Actually, quantum computers are not known to be able to solve NP-Complete problems (e.g travelling salesman) in polynomial time. There is a small number of problems for which the only known polynomial-time algorithms are for quantum computers; but these problems are not NP-Complete.
Since the beginning of May, he said, the Number One contributor to the open source Docker code base has been Microsoft.
From another article today:
As a leading contributor to both the Docker and Kubernetes open source projects, Red Hat is not just adopting these technologies but actively building them upstream in the community
Ok. Who's LYING?
I can agree that relational databases are cool, and that they can do a lot of great stuff. But I'm frankly embarrassed that SQL is still the standard way to communicate with these databases. When you think of it, it's a language looking most like Cobol, with a rather peculiar syntax which bears no relationship to the logic of operations executed, and which we use by concatenating strings in far more advanced systems.
Nice that children will be protected from downloading smut stories. After the government managed to ensure they wouldn't be able find porn from the web, that was the last threat to their young and impressionable minds.
I mean, it's obvious that porn web sites are not letting anybody download porn until after 10, right?
Dad (Myron Powell) is not going to be too happy when he sees what we had to do tonight, but you can replace windows and doors; you can’t replace people
Amen. That's a lot better than the policemen who were called because a man was suicidal, went in with assault rifles, and upon finding him with a knife in his hands, took the perfectly logical step of gunning him down:
The funny thing is that Google complained in the first place that Hood's subpoena was an overly broad fishing expedition. This looks like they want payback.
I'm reminded of the apparently standard tactics by US Attorneys to pile on heavy charges against defendants in the hope of getting a plea bargain; the kind of tactics which led to the suicide of Aaron Swartz. Maybe it's just going to be the American way of law to make outrageous statements and demands to get the other party to back down?
Oh, and now I'm thinking of the cops who grab your money by claiming it's for buying drugs, and you have to prove it's not if you want to get it back.
And that brings me to the hospitals who charge uninsured people $10'000 for trivial procedures, on the idea that it's better to ask for an arm and a leg, even if you only get the leg in the end.
My apologies to the US citizens present on this forum, but I'm glad to have left the country.
I understand Google has constantly been fighting the operators on various subjects, from having a messaging app that makes SMS redundant, to including NFC payment not tied to the operator chip.
Operators probably consider that withholding updates is a good way to force users to buy new phone and tie themselves in long term contracts. It's going to be a long, hard slog to get over that.
Indeed, the fact that Apple managed to wrestle full control of the phones from the operators is a testament to the negotiation skills of Steve Jobs. And also, how revolutionary the iPhone was when it got out.
On the other hand, the FoundEm presentation admits clearly that it chooses the incumbents that showed a dip in traffic, and dismisses those that do not as statistical anomalies. I guess they're honest about it at least.
I note also that FoundEm did not include their own numbers anywhere on the graph. I suppose that's because the "much-lauded price comparison site" was never successful enough to register at all…
Once again, I note that the FBI/CIA/NSA has not demanded mandatory, regular brain scans in order to read our every thought, and check we have no terrorist intent.
And I ask, is the reason they haven't done so that they do not think they should have such an access to our thoughts, or is it merely that the technology does not exist – yet?
Under the terms leaked so far, transnational corporations would have the right to sue governments for loss of earnings if they pass laws that hurt their profits
I really cannot comprehend how anybody claiming to work for a government can have thought this was a good idea.
"Oh hey, you've discovered that our new drug was causing cancer, so now you're trying to ban it; but that would make us lose money, so you'll just have to reimburse us then."
So how do they use my WiFi passwords for ads?
Unless I missed an episode, Google knows nothing about your WiFi passwords. You might be confusing with the StreetView WiFi slurp, which consisted in Google recording transmissions from unprotected WiFi (i.e. without password).
I don't think that protects you much. Unless you reject all cookies from Google, and possibly unless you use some kind of anonymising service to change your IP, Google will still have a profile on you.
The only difference is that instead of being about user email@example.com, it will be about "the user with ID cookie 12345", or possibly about "the user from IP address 123.456.789"
Isn't there a simple (for the users) way to ensure that no app would have undesirable side effects?
It's more tricky than it looks. Say, any game involving other players, like Clash of Clans, will ask to address your address book and access the internet. That can already cause a lot of mischief.
In the end, it really depends more on whether you trust the maker of the app, than what the app demands.
On a larger scale it's been repeatedly established in recent surveys that most people don't agree with the idea that climate change is mainly caused by human activities.
Because a population-wide survey is the proper way to know whether something is correct, as opposed to doing a scientific study, right? …Right?
I mean, I also harbour doubts on the question, but that's because I doubt the quality of scientific studies done so far, not because the majority of the population thinks this way or the other.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019