I would use the word "proves" cautiously here.
Well to be fair Samsung slows down it's new phones by putting Touchwiz on them from day one.
Very interesting. What else could explain it though? Does apple tend to release me OS updates shortly before new phones?
Perhaps benchmark a bunch of phones over time with and without updates would be good.
If you could prove this, wouldn't it be grounds for a class action lawsuit ?
Corrupt state politicians have been passing laws on behalf of power companies to prevent citizens from using solar technology. We need federal protection, we need: THE SOLAR FREEDOM ACT
Green Technology is the future. We cannot allow power company lobbyists to strip us of our right to use it.
All citizens have the right to own, and operate, all forms of solar power generating technologies.
Power companies must purchase power provided by individuals at a minimum of half the current rate.
No state, or corporation, has the right to deny homeowners access to the utility grid.
Power Systems engineer here, not working for a power company but an Independent System Operator (ISO). There are a myriad of issues with the current state of distributed inverter-based generation, from small scale voltage regulation issues to grid-wide frequency problems, because distribution-level requirements (anti-islanding) are at odds with bulk transmission requirements (voltage control, frequency response). There are legitimate grid control problems that can occur from the inability to monitor and dispatch rooftop PV.All citizens have the right to own, and operate, all forms of solar power generating technologies.
No argument about ownership rights. However, citizens do not have the right to jeopardize the reliability power delivery to other citizens. What is needed is coordination and understanding of the real technical issues at play here. Maintaining a reliable power system has real costs and requires careful coordination. If sharing a portion of those costs and coordination requirements is untenable, there is nothing stopping any solar owners from buying a bunch of batteries and dropping off the grid. But to use the grid as a massive battery and expect a free pass to use that service without consideration for the integrity of the power system is simply naive.Power companies must purchase power provided by individuals at a minimum of half the current rate.
My expertise is in reliability, so I won't comment on market or pricing issues. But I'd be curious as to the basis of this assertion.No state, or corporation, has the right to deny homeowners access to the utility grid.
Like I alluded to in my response to 1, this is simply an absurd statement in isolation as you've left it. Access to the grid is contingent on demonstrating that equipment connecting to the grid will have no adverse impact on the grid. And most importantly, no one should be allowed to put the lives or safety of linemen at risk. This is why anti-islanding protection and prohibiting backfeed in case of a power outage is absolutely critical, even when it sounds cruel like in the aftermath of a hurricane.
I really wish the general public knew how freaking complicated operating the grid is. We can definitely find engineering solutions, but this whole "Omg the corporations are evil" really distracts from the technical challenges of making the bulk grid and distributed generation play nice with each other.
At a fundamental level, with or without the bulk grid, we're going to need serious investment in energy storage, both distributed and grid-scale. Everything is doable, but real money will need to be spent to get from A to B while maintaining the level of reliability that we all take for granted.
Edit: apologies for the several edits. Tough to cover everything in one shot.
OP is a prime example of why things are stalled and won't progress properly to a good solution. You start with a reasonable statement and very quickly descend into fanciful demands based on no solid reasoning or thoughts - because people with even half knowledge will call out the bullshit behind it all.
For #1, you should take a look at things actively causing problems with solar in CA. Should you be allowed to force your neighbors to cut down their trees for your new solar project? Or types of installations that affect the neighbors? There are very real issues there that instantly take even a reasonable statement and show it to be a bit less valid than at first blush.
But in reality, the deeper problem with most solar advocates isn't that you CAN'T buy any solar tech you want, it's that it's not CHEAP. And because it isn't cheap, there isn't a door to door guy trying to sell you it on a half baked lease loan scheme that most solar places do. I experienced that first hand in CO - it was only barely close to reasonable if you got subsidies of over HALF the price! I think that's actually more at the heart of the issue for #1.
For #2 - why? Where are you magically coming up with that number and why should anyone magically need to adhere to it? That would dramatically raise prices for everyone else that didn't happen to be upper middle class and be able to afford a house and big solar installation if just a fraction of customers did that. Why? In simple terms, the grid is installed baseline capacity. Just having it run brings most of the costs regardless of power (coal had higher fuel costs but that's mostly disappeared from the calculus). Now not only do you decrease the base of people paying for that power, you're ALSO forcing the power company to pay out large amounts of money for unneeded power (as well as grid improvements to take it). Take a look at the jumping rates of CO and CA - much of the rate jumping comes from an arbitrary policy like that with no understanding.3 sounds good on the face of that, but that's not at all what's happening. Ignore the breathless headlines out of FL that sound related to that, much of it comes from people not choosing the far more expensive solar method that has built in protection when syncing to the power grid. They could have chosen the other tech - but if you choose the wrong one, I don't think they should risk linemen's lives when it comes time to hook back up to the grid (which was exactly the case, you don't want powerlines staying live when there's a tree down on them - and the cheap way to hook the solar to the grid would make power flow backwards from already turned off sections of the grid).
But take that even further - how much expense should the utility take on if you want to be fifty miles from town? You'd be amazed at how much it costs to put up power lines only a mile up a hill - I was amazed when I had family that had pay it. But being the only people in the middle of nowhere costs.
I can certainly get on board with letting people decide how they want to do things and not let powerful company lobbyists dictate terms. But we also can't let people with no understanding of the issue just shout loudly and pretend things will magically work out when they won't bother to understand the issue. That's how you get people like Trump - lots of bravado, solid numbers and plans, and no actual understanding of the underlying issues. Many issues are not immovable walls, but if you don't understand them, you certainly won't fix them!
No state, or corporation, has the right to deny homeowners access to the utility grid.
FYI, all radio transmitters are regulated. They have to pass basic FCC tests/regulations before they can be used. I don't think it would be unreasonable for similar certification to exist for home power generation to protect the grid, and the people who work on the grid.
I agree with you but take issue with your response to #1.
there is nothing stopping any solar owners from buying a bunch of batteries and dropping off the grid.
We are actually legally required to be tied in to the grid. I would love to completely disconnect but they can actually condemn my house for it.
This is interesting. Tarnoff is (IMO) an amazing writer, and he has some serious publishing cred.
On the other hand? Literally everything I have read by him follows the Gladwell model. A couple of facts mixed with lots of anecdotes presented as evidence.
I wish I had "a handle" on this writer.
His points are well-stated. Without research (which I am unwilling to do in the next 14.5 hours), I cannot refute or confirm.
This is how supply and demand works.
More demand than supply, price goes up. More supply than demand, price goes down.
Welcome to economics 101, and why some people hate illegal immigration.
I mean, this happens with most boom jobs right? Hot market is discovered, super lucrative because it's niche. Then more and more people want part of that pie, so their slice gets smaller and smaller.
I think it's a horrible article. I'm willing to hear arguments of salary collusion & H1B1 visa abuse presented with evidence but the narrative he is giving for teaching kids to code is unfounded. I also think it's detrimental because it pushes people to not teach kids how to code.
I understand not everyone will program but for the same reasons we teach English/Math/History/Arts to build a well rounded individual; I believe coding/technology has a place in general education. The world's only going to get more digital and just a basic understanding of computers and concepts behind it can help us combat this incredible incompetence that leads to things like the whole Equifax debacle (not the best example but an appreciation for how much technology can affect us). Even the dumb, simple stuff like turning anything off and back on again, setting good passwords, etc
This is stupid beyond belief. Go look at computers, for example. Most sellers (especially power sellers) use stock photos/generic photos stolen from other auctions and pass them off as pictures of items. Some are decent enough in text to say "Photo is not representative"...most don't. This is stupid beyond belief.
Perhaps this will finally knock eBay down a peg. They, along with PP, have been dreadful companies over the years. This is just another example of stupidity.
I'd be less likely to buy something from a private seller if they use a stock picture.
This is terrible for anyone selling images, paintings, or content they don't want digitally stolen and reproduced.
This is the part where I ask why these unaccountable groups were ever permitted to collect this much info on every person on the continent, and why they are still allowed to exist.
Would somebody please take the fucking keys from our drunken 'credit bureau' overlords? JFC already.
Idiots. They should release all the bad news at the same time. The PR effect of blow after blow after blow is devastating.
These guys really need to get their shit together.
Can you still turn it off in the menu?
Steve turned down conventional medicine in favor of New Age crap treatments of herbs, etc. Who knows what he would have done as time went on.
... Saying the phone will use your mobile data instead is a pointless misdirection.
If i have my wifi off, it's because i don't want it connecting to random networks, or broadcasting while i am not at home.
Yes. You have to go into settings Made me hate the beta
Congress is holding hearings today on SESTA, a bill that poses a major threat to sites like reddit that host user-generated content
TLDR; Congress is moving quickly toward a vote on a bill that would enable Internet censorship and fundamentally change sites like reddit with user-generated content. Contact your lawmakers here.
Most folks here probably remember SOPA / PIPA. The bill’s sponsors said it was about stopping online piracy, but everyone knew it was really about censorship.
Now, Congress is at it again. They’re holding a hearing today, and rushing toward a vote on a bill called SESTA, the absurdly named “Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act,” but once again, this bill has nothing to do with stopping sex trafficking. Instead it would decimate online communities like Wikipedia and Reddit, and enable widespread Internet censorship.
SESTA would weaken CDA Section 230, which is one of the basic free speech protections that has allowed the Internet to grow into what it is today.
Section 230 is what makes it possible for web services to allow user-generated content. It protects them from massive liability by ensuring that online services can’t be sued out of existence because someone uses their platform improperly.
Now, I know what you’re thinking. Why should we care whether Internet companies are protected from liability? Here’s why: without this basic rule, social media as we know it would not exist, and neither would online video sharing communities, discussion forums, or even the comments sections on news sites.
Under the current law, websites like these can allow users like us to engage in free expression because they are not liable for the things we post, as long as they comply with the law and take down abusive or illegal content when it’s flagged.
But if SESTA passes, that freedom ends. Startups and small businesses who don’t have money for lawyers and endless legal fees would likely be forced to shut down completely, and big web companies like Facebook and Twitter would likely automatically censor anything they’re even slightly worried might get them sued: whether it’s a politically charged comment, a provocative video, or meme that they deem to be “risky.”
The worst part of all this? SESTA could actually make sex trafficking easier, not harder, and put sex workers in more danger.
By gutting the “Good Samaritan” provision within Section 230, it would actually discourage web companies from having good moderation and community guidelines, by exposing them to massive criminal liability if they make a mistake or miss a post that should have been taken down.
*SESTA is a very real threat to the future of free expression on the Internet, and it’s moving fast. The bill has bipartisan support and has already picked up two dozen sponsors. Many members of Congress will jump at the chance to attach their names to a bill that they think is about ending sex trafficking. If the Internet doesn’t speak out now and make sure lawmakers and the public understand what this bill would really do, it will almost certainly pass. *
We've defeated dangerous Internet legislation like this before. Please educate yourself about what this bill really does, spread the word, and make sure you contact your lawmakers.
I wish we could pass a law that prevented them from trying to sneak shit like this through, under the radar and under the guise of "think of the children!". AbsolutelyDisgusting.png
What really infuriates me the most about this is that it seems that NOBODY in congress actually understands the basics of email transport or how web servers work - there is NO WAY they will understand the nuances of what they are being coerced into by the lobbyists.
Fuck fucking fuck. I'm so tired of this garbage. These dumb fucks don't understand what they are or will be voting on and as always lobbying dollars persuade them.
Edit: sometimes this crap really works me up. Apologies for language
So, like, what special interests are behind this? Is it just really poorly written, or is it a sneaky way for someone to make lots of money?
So Equifax knew of a data breach back in March, significant enough to bring in a 3rd party security firm to investigate... and NEVER informed consumers that their most sensitive personal could be compromised?
Fuck. These. Guys.
The assets of every executive and boardmember should be seized immediately.
Edit: Further wtf's...
If the two hacks are unrelated it could be that different hacking teams had different goals. One clue has emerged that suggests one goal of the attackers was to use Equifax as a way into the computers of major banks, according to a fourth person familiar with the matter.
This person said a large Canadian bank has determined that hackers claiming to sell celebrity profiles from Equifax on the dark web -- information that appears to be fraudulent, or recycled from other breaches -- did in fact steal the username and password for an application programming interface, or API, linking the bank’s back-end servers to Equifax.
Are you... are you saying all the trades made by them after discovering this are illegal (in my opinion**)?
Say it isn't so!
Think of the children! Think of the orphans! Think of poor granny!
** need the disclaimer since I cannot pay lawyers like they can...
They needed some time to sell their shares before the hack came out! Reason for waiting... Clever tarts! Joke aside, they really should be held responsible for the data leak and fraudulent trades.
You put 143 million people in danger of identity theft and all you can think of is making money by selling the shares before the news comes out. No morals. No fucks given. Possible jail time?
My card number was just used 1000 miles away from where I am. I wonder if coincidence.....
Because to steam you are the customer. To Equifax you are the product.
The problem is that the entire system is broken. Why is my steam account more secure than my credit history or identity?
Hi, I'm really trying to hijack top comments for visibility here. Lifelock is the company who's old CEO tried to market security protections by revealing his social security number in his ads which lead to, you guessed it, his identity being stolen about 13 times.
I get it. "But Deon this happened in 2010, tech changes fast"
In 2010, the FTC alleged that LifeLock made deceptive claims when promoting its identity theft protection services. LifeLock paid a $12 million settlement that prohibited it from making misleading claims and required it to better protect its customer's personal information. But in July 2015 the FTC claimed the company was in violation of that settlement by continuing to make false claims about its services.
2 years ago they were accused of diddlin' around again. They disagreed; planned to meet the FTC & 30+ state attorneys in court. And instead they settled to payout $100 million without admitting wrongdoing.
Symantec may have put them in a new direction these past 2 years. Or at least purchased the company on the cheap to inherit sweet customer data for their rainy day opportunistic ad-aggressive fraud alert service which plays a tune to people affected by this blunder. So maybe they're alright, who knows?
All I know is that you really wanna push scrutiny over the company that offers "protection" these days.
Unlimited credit reports, constant credit monitoring, and credit freezing should be offered to everyone at no charge.
Plus all the fines and legal backlash justifiably coming to Equifax....
Researchers noted that the malware only ran on 32-bit systems.
There's a plus.
On September 13, Piriform released CCleaner 5.34 and CCleaner Cloud version 1.07.3191 that do not contain the malicious code.
the threat has now been resolved in the sense that the rogue server is down, other potential servers are out of the control of the attacker, and we’re moving all existing CCleaner v5.33.6162 users to the latest version. Users of CCleaner Cloud version 1.07.3191 have received an automatic update. In other words, to the best of our knowledge, we were able to disarm the threat before it was able to do any harm.
Use Windows defender.
Microsoft is in a unique position where they ha e the same incentives as you, to protect your machine.
All 3rd party AV programs are at odds with the user. The more they "catch", the more likely you are to sign up, so false positives, notifications, warnings, scary screens, and more are all a common tactic. The more overzealous and intense they are, the better it works to sell their pro products. Often they cause more vulnerabilities than they fix.
Ms is going to do their best to stay out of your way, secure your system, and won't every try to sell you a product or have their AV program sold to some other company
Version 5.33 of the CCleaner app offered for download between August 15 and September 12 was modified to include the Floxif malware, according to a report published by Cisco Talos a few minutes ago.
Avast bought Piriform — CCleaner's original developer — in July this year, a month before CCleaner 5.33 was released.
Is the fact that CCleaner was compromised a month after being bought over a coincidence? This won't be the first time shady things happened to previously reliable products under a new management.
I'd also like to know this, since it's only a matter of time before avast turns CCleaner into a notification/popup nightmare.