Probably because the new outlook can only access microsoft servers, so they synchronise icloud to outlook server-side and you only access outlook client-side.
Most likely, but that isn't an excuse and it an incredibly stupid way to build an email client.
MAYBE give the option if for some reason I want to do it. But for it to be the default is a stupid idea. You cannot convince me there is a valid reason for this to be a thing.
It's like that because mobile clients need cooperation from the server to have push notifications, and you can't have IMAP servers cooperate in that regard :-) so the outlook servers fetch the mail for you and then send you the notifications.
I wouldn't have microsoft read my email either, of course. Thankfully in windows you have dozens of clients to choose from.
You can't realiably poll from a mobile phone. Your app may not be allowed to execute any code, let alone make a network request for hours, or maybe forever.
They didn't really leave Mozilla, they formed MZLA Technologies Corporations which is a subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation. Nonetheless, I agree that things have been drastically improving since the change.
You buy IPTV stream passwords (or whatever is used to log in) from some guy and once he knows your card details he can use them for anything else, yes. That's how it works.
Not really. Most places use crypto now and those that still also accept cash use PayPal or Kofi – they’re not getting card details. That’s how it works
Title is false. He was selected for additional screening and he doesn't have any proof that it was because of his name. Also he wasn't stopped from boarding the flight, he was just screened more exhaustively than others.
I was expecting better from the BBC... oh wait I wasn't.
+1, Iryo and Ouigo are recent and they are losing money. Renfe has always been tremendously expensive - more expensive than a car or plane.
These train travel success stories are anti-personal transportation propaganda. They want to push you to using trains and then they will raise the prices - they want you not travelling anywhere if you are poor.
This is also my concern, that it does not look realistic and hence my initiative to start commenting in the topic. What is the reality and intention of only privately held companies with such small fares?
What i've heard is that, before, Renfe had a monopoly and since these new players came into picture, the prices have dropped dramatically in Renfe ticket fares. So definitely is good to see the benefits, but is it now also Renfe losing money and would the quality decrease? This would be a bad scenario for everyone then.
I know nothing about airplanes, but surely it would be a multi-step process involving override modes, power-down phases, klaxons, red blinking lights, warning messages, physically separate switches, and so forth?
On the 175, pulling the handle cuts fuel, hydraulics, and bleed air. Turning the fire handle discharges a bottle. Turning it the other way discharges the other bottle. It has been reported that in the Sim turning the handle back re-establishes fuel, hydraulics and bleed air, and engine restart is theoretically possible, however it's never really been done in the air before. I don't think it's documented anywhere what really can occur - since once you've established that the engine is on fire you aren't in any scenario going to try to bring it back online afterwards.
Do it for both engines. Yikes. That's a lot of workload.
I would hope that the button would not be responsive if the plane is literally midflight, or have some failsafes to prevent exactly this kind of situation.
Obviously I'm not a pilot but I can't imagine many scenarios where a commercial flight would want to actively shutdown the engines with just a simple command while midair. But I'm willing to be corrected if thats not the case.
> I can't imagine many scenarios where a commercial flight would want to actively shutdown the engines with just a simple command while midair.
The scenario has already been mentioned elsewhere in this thread: an engine fire. If the engine is actually on fire, you want the flight crew to shut it down as quickly as possible, because the plane could be seconds away from a jet fuel explosion.
No. There are two fire handles in the overhead panel, one for each engine (and a similar one for the APU on some types). You pull it, that immediately shuts off fuel, hydraulics, generators etc on that engine. Twist it to discharge the fire extinguishers on that engine. No override, no extra steps.
In case of an engine fire the procedure is to put a hand on the handle, the other pilot checks and confirms, and then you pull it.
Which of course is why the country that did leave the EU has passed anti-E2EE legislation already while the attempt to do so in the EU is apparently floundering
The proposal comes from the Commission but it has to be voted for by the Member States in the European Parliament. They can (and will) demand changes to the text.
I've seen this process up close (for a Member State) and it is reliably slow with a reliable amount of ping-pong and battles between the various parties..
This is Chat Control 2.0, the first bill did not make it through so now they come back with this new iteration. If this one doesn't pass , they'll come back with Chat control 3.0 and so on by next year or the one after.
I'm afraid that your proposition is too extreme. I believe in the European project, and this position seems like we're trying to kill a fly with a bazooka.
I am sorry but why do you believe in the European project? Also what is the European project?
The EU was a good idea at the start. A bunch of countries wanting to preserve peace and increase trade? Sure sign me up.
That's what it was at the start.
But now, with the open borders between countries, laws that supersedes state laws, talks about having an army and a desire to turn European countries into the United States of Europe, what is the advantage here?
You could have pacts and treaties to foster cooperation and trade. You could share intelligence and help each other out just like any other country in the world does it currently without something like the EU to manage it all.
I think it's very easy to take the benefits of the EU and our resulting prosperity for granted. We need to actually have some power in the US-EU relationship, and the only way is to combine further.
I don't know what that will look like, but I'd like Europe to be able to chart its own course. We know what happens to nations that are at the mercy of countries more powerful.
> I think it's very easy to take the benefits of the EU and our resulting prosperity for granted. We need to actually have some power in the US-EU relationship, and the only way is to combine further.
You opinion is that the EU is good because the EU is good. You want the United states of Europe. I don't.
France, Germany, the Northern European countries were wealthy before the EU became the EU as we know it today.
> I don't know what that will look like, but I'd like Europe to be able to chart its own course. We know what happens to nations that are at the mercy of countries more powerful.
Yes, Europe, not the EU. That's my point. You can have Europe without the EU. You can have cooperation, trade, security without an overarching apparatus like the EU.
> France, Germany, the Northern European countries were wealthy before the EU became the EU as we know it today.
When China was still suffering through the effects of Mao, when India was still a British colony, when Brazil was still under the influence of Portugal, sure.
So sure, Europe could have coasted on the spoils of the colonial era a bit longer, but if Europe wants a table in the 21st century with the US and the rise of India and China, then Europe needs to be a unified bloc out of pure demographic reality.
As a recent example, in a world without the EU, would the countries that are in the EU have been able to stand up to Russia last year in the gas supply? I certainly think Germany at least would have blinked.
Funny thing - I live in Europe, but I am not European. I think the EU is such a net positive for everyone involved that I am dumbfounded whenever I hear some European person speak against it.
The main problems I see on the EU is that it is not integrated enough. There's a lot of bureaucracy that could be optimized if some things were more centralized (e.g.: labor laws, defense spending, etc).
If we are to tax people because they benefit from public services, then poor people should be taxed more than rich people since they benefit from those services more.
No rich people benefit more. They rely on the rule of law in a nation state to protect their assets and provide a supply of goods and services. And they don't pay much for it (in percentage terms definitely).
Rich people can hire private security. Poor people can't. In terms of raw numbers, law enforcement's job is to protect poor people from other poor people.
> They rely on the rule of law in a nation state to protect their assets and provide a supply of goods and services.
Which as a result let their companies prosper and that benefits the employees.
> And they don't pay much for it
Not true
> (in percentage terms definitely).
Why would it matter?
"Why would it matter?". There are many historical and current day examples of the problems in societies with very high wealth inequality.
I don't want to live in a dystopia with _untouchable_ hyper wealth individuals so I believe that governments should make it very hard to stay a billionaire and virtually impossible for people to inherit that level of generational wealth from their family.
I am very keen for levels of taxation (and the closing of all the loopholes) that would force billionaires to liquidate significant percentages of their assets to pay taxes as I think it will encourage them to work a bit harder. After all if they managed to become a billionaire once they must be very clever, right?
> I am very keen for levels of taxation (and the closing of all the loopholes) that would force billionaires to liquidate significant percentages of their assets to pay taxes as I think it will encourage them to work a bit harder. After all if they managed to become a billionaire once they must be very clever, right?
Even almost all their "assets" are stocks in the companies they created? Would the idea be that the founders of these companies should lose control over them?
They would only lose control if they were incompetent and it was just luck that put them in control in the first place.
The suggested wealth tax is 2%. I have no concerns that a billionaire capable of creating a multi billion dollar business would have any issues raising $20 million per year to sort out their tax bill.
Are there any billionaires you're worried about in particular?
No, governments are not piggy banks, you don't get out what you put in. People pay taxes for the general betterment of the country and everyone benefits from a stable country with a healthy population, which are things you can't really place a monetary value on.
