TheGrumpyBrit

Exactly. The reasoning behind this decision is obvious:

"Hey, look at all these downloads CE is getting. We need to start following up with these users to try and promote Enterprise and other products. Start capturing emails at the point of download."

A job you don't want is better than no job at all.

I'm working on a web portal for free live music events in my city, and recording a gig guide each week for broadcast on a local internet radio station.

A few thousand wouldn't even scratch the surface. You're probably going to want at least another four zero's on the end of that number. Per year.

A notebook on my desk for my working list - what's on today plus any ad-hoc items that come up.

Calendar for tasks tied to a specific date - Outlook for work, Google for home.

Jira for projects.

That was my takeaway from the article. Why on earth are cars being sold which haven't gone through proper safety testing?

I haven't signed up, so I'm going only from what I see on the front page.

This feels more like a single feature of a larger product, than a product in its own right. I already have Facebook for my Facebook content, so putting the same thing on my website isn't really bringing much to the table. It looks like a nice zero-effort way to keep a "news" or "blog" section of a website up to date, but I'm still going to want all the other features of a website to be there.

If it were my product, I'd look at a few approaches to generate revenue:

- Your page puts the £15 a month front and centre, and makes it seem like the "free non-premium domain" is part of that package. There's no mention of a free tier.

- Forget the premium domain tier. Instead, limit your free tier to one post every 24 hours or something like that. Your current model means I can't upgrade without losing all my traffic - any my registrar will redirect my domain to the free tier anyway, so why pay you?

- Have your example sites link to the actual site instead of just popping up in the same page. Let me see and use existing sites so I know what I'm getting.

- Let me have some analytics, either my own Google Analytics ID or some inbuilt functionality. It's one of the things a website offers that Facebook doesn't, so use it.

- Give me a free trial. For something like this, I'd offer 3 months free. Combine that with a marketing campaign to encourage me to promote my new website. By the time I need to start paying, I've already got traffic and possibly stationary printed, so it's easier for me to justify the cost.

This exactly sums up the problem. It's no use being able to recycle everything if doing so requires everybody to sort their waste and take it to different places. Most people won't do that.

If we remove single use bags and cling film (yes, cling film is going to be a tough one), you're no longer reliant on the consumer to responsibly manage their waste.

There's a trade off. You're no longer sorting waste, and you're still generating less waste, but reduced shelf lives mean you now need to shop for fresh produce more often, potentially using more fuel and offsetting any gains. But you're no longer producing waste that takes centuries to decompose.

In Mumbai, it's a high enough priority to justify doing something about it. There may be bigger threats to the marine ecosystem, but this isn't a situation where relative privation is appropriate - this part is fixable, so why not fix it?

The problem with "better waste management" is it requires involvement on an individual level, and individuals can't be trusted to do it. Elimination at source removes the responsibility for the consumer and reduces the requirement for complex waste processing. That's a win for everybody.

But we want the cucumber, and any leftover cucumber will decompose to nothing - it doesn't require any specialised waste processing. The 1kg of CO2 to grow and transport the cucumber is a spent cost, but half a teaspoon of gasoline for every single cucumber is an obscene environmental cost.

The same argument applies to your steak - the environmental cost of the steak is irrelevant, because the steak is the product we want, and again, leftover steak disappears without trace in very short order. The issue is the packaging, which we don't want but hangs around for half a millenia if disposed of irresponsibly.

The goal of this part of the initiative is to deal with that "last mile" problem of irresponsible waste processing, because we can't trust people to dispose of plastics properly. That will inevitably have a knock on effect on the rest of the supply chain, because now companies can't sell products which use single use plastics in that area, so they'll look at alternative ways of packaging their product.

That might result in some products having shorter shelf lives, but those products don't require complex waste management practices - they just move to different levels of the food chain.

The other environmental issues such as the transport cost are an entirely separate concern which aren't impacted by this move at all.

"* Unlimited number of lincences"

Also, your privacy policy makes no mention of what data is included with validation requests, and what you do with that information. GDPR is still very fresh, and if my app is passing every URL data to a third party, that sounds like it could be a problem.

That doesn't seem to help anything. Wouldn't this be better:

> Personal data held by a hospital about their patients may not be used for any non-medical purpose, and may not be shared with any third parties unless directly necessary for a medical purpose.

He's going to find himself in for a shock. The platform he chooses to store data on is irrelevant, if he's processing that data then GDPR applies.

This is true. But you can do that at 40 too. At 20, you've got a lot more time to get back on your feet.

In one sense, the fact that you can "keep fucking up and partying" is exactly what makes it the perfect time to be a startup founder. To paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy, you can lose everything you own and you're only out $15.

I'm 38 and I'm just now trying to get my own business off the ground, for an idea I had back in 2003. I registered the domain and ran it as a side gig, but there wasn't a viable business back then. Now SaaS and cloud services are more mainstream, there's a lot more potential to develop the idea. The only downside being that now I have to balance a family life and a career path along with it.

I could be wrong, but I believe part of the reason for having a human behind the wheel is that it allows the testing to take place under existing driving laws. At some point prior to an unmanned vehicle being allowed on the road, lawmakers need to have some kind of framework in place to deal with any incidents that arise. With a human behind the wheel, a fully autonomous car is legally no different to cruise control - it's just a driver assist, and the human behind the wheel is still ultimately responsible for whatever the vehicle does.

In that context, the landscape changes significantly - instead of a self driving car that mowed down a pedestrian, we have a driver who was too busy looking at her phone to pay attention to what her vehicle was doing. From the various articles, it seems that she's not an engineer, and is there in effectively the same capacity as any other Uber driver. If that's the case, she's putting far too much trust into an experimental system. I agree that Uber could do more in the way of technological means to ensure the driver is paying attention, but at some point, an adult with a job needs to be responsible for doing that job.

If a thermal camera can't detect a person on the road, then a thermal camera is the wrong camera to use. The exact technology isn't important - the important thing is, the vehicle failed to detect a human being crossing in front of it.

I think accident investigators could certainly take some tips from them when it comes to autonomous vehicles. They need to understand exactly what data is collected by these vehicles, and how they can use that data as part of their investigation. There should also be a full root cause investigation into every single accident involving an autonomous vehicle. These protocols really need to be in place now, with training and funding of accident investigators written in as part of the operating license for each city, because if we wait a decade, we'll get a lot more resistance from the operators.

Suicidal people wouldn't typically try to take their bicycle and their shopping with them. But honestly, the reason she was there isn't really important. The reason the Uber couldn't avoid her is a far more important question in terms of where we go from here. It should have detected her as a potential hazard. It should have been prepared to stop. It shouldn't have been exceeding the speed limit.

A good driver will look back at what they did after an accident to see if they could have done anything to prevent it, even if they weren't at fault. Uber need to do exactly the same thing. Fortunately, unlike a human driver, they have significantly more data than an adrenaline-fuelled mind and some grainy dashcam footage to work with.

While I agree with your inference that autonomous vehicles are still safer than human drivers, this incident throws doubt on a lot of my previous assumptions.

A human driver, in the scenario as reported, can be expected to take a certain amount of time to react to an unexpected event, such as a pedestrian walking out in front of it. An autonomous driver, IMO, doesn't have that luxury. That vehicle should be aware of every other object it's sharing a length of road with (sidewalks and medians included). It should be tracking every other object at all times, anticipating a change of course. It should know the proximity of other vehicles, and be able to calculate whether it has space to swerve if necessary, and whether the following vehicle has enough stopping distance in an emergency. It should know EXACTLY what it will do in response to any of the potential hazards it can detect. It should absolutely not be exceeding the speed limit under any circumstances.

I suspect this incident will highlight one of the areas where investigators are not currently up to speed with technology. You can't look at an incident like this as if it was a human driver using multiple dashcams, because "It was dark and she came from nowhere" doesn't cut it. For an autonomous vehicle accident, the video isn't enough - investigators need to see and understand all the sensor readings taken by the vehicle in the lead up to the accident. Did the car detect the pedestrian? If not, why not? Why didn't it notice the change of course? How long before impact did it identify that a collision was imminent? Why didn't it brake?

Unlike a human driver, there's no human factor to consider. Every decision that vehicle made was based on rules. So "The Uber was not at fault" isn't enough - every day, thousands of people are involved in accidents where they're not at fault. That doesn't mean they couldn't have avoided it, and part of being a good driver is allowing for other people doing dumb things. The investigation needs to highlight exactly what decisions that vehicle made which resulted in this tragedy, and what can be changed to make sure it isn't repeated.

I don't buy the "jumping in front of the car" part. Pedestrians pushing bicycles laden with bags are not known for being especially nimble. Crossing without looking, sure, but assuming the pedestrian was crossing the road, she'd be standing about where the bicycle seat is. That gives half a bike's worth of space before she's actually in front of the car - let's say a quarter of a second if she's going particularly quickly.

I'll forgive a human driver for not noticing a pedestrian and reacting in a quarter of a second. But all the marketing videos have trained us to hold an autonomous car to a higher standard. Certainly a lack of lighting isn't an excuse. The car should have known she was there, identified her as a potential hazard, and been prepared to take appropriate action should her course change. Speeding, along with the fact that the car made no attempt to stop before the collision, is a "back to the drawing board" level of failure.

As far as I can tell, it's exactly the same as the password + one time code approach to 2FA...except without the password. Effectively the same as using Google Authenticator alone instead of in combination with a password.

If you feel that somebody "fucked up" a product, don't use that product. It's really that simple, and it can be applied to every aspect of your life, not just games.

Surely if 99/100 calls were fake, that should reinforce the idea that a fake call is a possibility, and ensure that police are less likely to react with deadly force unless a threat is proven.

rclone supports encrypted Google Drive folders.

The simple solution is to have some simple software that processes a blockchain in some low priority way in order to easily bring you back into a licensed state.

They could potentially claim damages for the difference in price between the GeForce and the equivalent Tesla, using the argument that using the GeForce in a DC has cost them that amount in lost revenue.

Of course, a counterclaim for existing owners would be that the product they purchased was licensed for DC usage at time the contract was entered into, and so the original rights cannot be unilaterally revoked without consent.

Given that a cow basically serves as a way to convert salad into steak, it's pretty obvious that meat is less efficient. But it's also more delicious, which is why we eat so much of it. Life is about more than simple proteins.

It's very much still a vehicle, but there's a statutory defence to Drunk in Charge if you can demonstrate that there was no likelihood of driving while you were over the limit. Having a bed in the back and being parked in a suitable place to spend the night should be more than enough to demonstrate that unless you're seen to be climbing into the drivers seat.

In the UK, this may be your own private domicile, but you can still be harrassed.

The legislation: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/5

While you can reasonably be deemed "in charge" of your camper van, if you're seen climbing into the living area with the clear intention of bedding down for the night, or are knocked awake by the police and then breathalysed, you would have a very good argument that there was no likelihood of your driving the vehicle, and therefore you would have a defence against the charge.

If, on the other hand, you climbed into the drivers seat and started the engine so you could turn on the heaters and put the radio on for a bit while you had your evening cocoa, you'd have a rather more difficult hill to climb.

If you make a habit of sleeping somewhere other than a recognised camp site, it would probably be worth your while keeping a couple of those £2 disposable breathalysers from Halfords in the glove box. Not only will it prevent you from accidentally driving while still over the limit the next day, but if you are challenged by the police while you're still drunk, it allows you to demonstrate that you have the means on hand to ensure that you won't be driving before you're fit to do so.