ELBLOGDEFORMACION

Evolución de la impresión en inyección de tinta #infografia #infographic

Hola:

Una infografía sobre la Evolución de la impresión en inyección de tinta.

Un saludo

Evolución de la impresión en inyección de tinta

Archivado en: Infografía, Sociedad de la información Tagged: Infografía, informática

from TICs y Formación http://ift.tt/1whtqqt

via Alfredo Vela Posteado por www.bscformacion.com

Man Maced By Woman In Movie Theater After He Asks Her To Turn Phone Off

(Scoboco)

So you’re at the movies and the person in front of you has her phone on and is tapping away merrily. It’s the previews, so who really cares? And now the movie has just started, still annoying, but okay. Five minutes in, however, is kind of pushing it. That’s when witnesses at an American Film Institute screening of Mr. Turner say one man in the audience politely asked a woman to put her phone away. She allegedly responded by spraying Mace in his face.

The whole thing went down at the TCL Chinese Theatre in Hollywood on Monday night, eyewitnesses say, including one person who related the night’s events to Mashable.

According to that source and others who spoke to local media like ABC 7 News, the movie had just started when a man near the back asked a woman in front of him to turn off her phone, as the screen was glowing visibly.

“He was saying ‘Excuse me sir, could you please turn off your screen'” repeatedly, the eyewitness told Mashable, as he’d apparently thought the woman was a man at first. After getting no response the first few times, he tapped her on the shoulder.

She reportedly “flipped out” on him, the witness said, standing up and cursing at him, saying he hit her and she was going to call the police. She then turned her phone’s flashlight app on and shone it directly into his face, the eyewitness said.

After almost a minute, while her fellow moviegoers begged her to turn the phone off and sit, the man remained calm. Then she allegedly told him she had mace, and rummaged around in her bag until she found it.

“You hit me and I’m going to Mace you now,'” another eyewitness speaking to ABC 7 recalled her saying.

She then reportedly then took the cap off, pointed the bottle at his face and sprayed him.

He and the woman he was sitting next to and apparently with sat there for a moment while the alleged attacker sat down. The twosome left, and the woman sat for about 20 minutes watching the movie (which never stopped running), until volunteers and security escorted the woman out.

ABC 7 says an AFI spokeswoman confirmed that a woman was escorted from the theater for pepper-spraying a man in the face, and that she was told the victim is “fine.”

It’s unclear if any charges have been pressed, though the LAPD told ABC 7 it hadn’t received any calls from the theater.

Man maced at movie theater for asking woman to turn off her phone [Mashable]

WOMAN SPRAYS MACE IN MAN’S FACE AT CHINESE THEATRE SCREENING [ABC 7 News]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Comcast: We Agree With President On Net Neutrality, Except We Don’t

(Knight725)

Comcast, like someone on house arrest who can’t stop talking about how much he loves just staying at home, can’t shut up about its alleged “support” of net neutrality — a support that was forced upon it as a condition of its 2010 acquisition of NBC. Now the nation’s largest Internet service provider is publicly stating that it “agrees” with President Obama’s feelings on neutrality, just not the ones that actually matter.

In yet another blog post, Comcast’s Executive Spin Doctor David Cohen writes that it’s “remarkable” when you compare the President’s stance on net neutrality with the things that Comcast has claimed to support… because it is legally obliged to support them.

Cohen lists the following as facets of the President’s neutrality stance that Comcast agrees with and which it practices — Free and open Internet; No blocking; No throttling; Increased transparency; No paid prioritization.

These are all conditions of the 2010 Open Internet rule, which was gutted by a federal court earlier this year. These were also all conditions that — before that rule was even put into place — Comcast agreed to with the FCC in order to push through the acquisition of NBC (a deal that landed one FCC Commissioner a high-paying job as a Comcast lobbyist only a few months later).

Additionally, these are conditions to which Comcast will no longer be beholden after 2018 when that agreement expires.

But even if Comcast truly believes in these things, why then does it still have a problem with the President’s suggestion — and that of countless consumer advocates — that the FCC reclassify broadband as a necessary piece of telecommunications infrastructure?

The first part of Cohen’s explanation is the already debunked claim that it would “harm future innovation and investment in broadband.”

But then he wades into murkier waters, saying that Title II reclassification is “not necessary to put in place strong and enforceable Open Internet protections” and that “Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act provides more than ample authority to impose those rules, as the DC Circuit made clear.”

Hold on a second while I try to wrap my head around this nonsense.

It was under Section 706 that the FCC tried to establish the “no blocking” and “no paid prioritization” rules — the very rules that the DC Circuit gutted… in the very ruling PDF] that Cohen links to in his post.

What the court said in that ruling was that Section 706 grants the FCC “affirmative authority to enact measures encouraging the deployment of broadband infrastructure” and “empower[s] it to promulgate rules governing broadband providers’ treatment of Internet traffic.”

But the court specifically said that Section 706 may not be used to “impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates,” and since the FCC had previously chosen to classify broadband as something other than a Title II service, “the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such.”

And, added the court for good measure, “Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order.”

So in fact, the court specifically blocks the FCC from using Section 706 to prevent rules against prioritization and blocking.

But Cohen claims this isn’t “game playing or sophistry” on Comcast’s part. He should probably look up what both of those terms mean, because that’s exactly what it looks like when you tell people that the law gives them the authority that a federal appeals court explicitly says it does not.

“Being for net neutrality and against Title II is completely consistent,” writes Cohen. “People can be for net neutrality and against Title II – that simply represents agreement on the why, but not the how.”

But the “how” is the most important thing. If cable companies and other ISPs had no intention to block content or charge for priority access, they wouldn’t be spending millions to put up this anti-neutrality fight.

Rather, folks like Cohen would rather you believe that an industry — the lowest rated of all consumer-facing industries, according to the American Customer Satisfaction Index — known for monopolistic business practices would best be left to monitor itself. Because without reclassification to Title II, there is no other way to require ISPs to remain neutral.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist