Does your definition of "liberty" include forcing privately-owned and operated Web sites to carry and publish material that the proprietors may fundamentally disagree with?
Only if they want legal protection from uploaded copywritten material as a safe harbor. Or if they get large enough (e.g. Facebook) that they're a monopoly
Most autopilots are pretty basic, they can track a course, hold altitude, maybe handle a constant rate or constant speed climb, but not much else.
In fairness, that's all I think flying is (outside of taking off/reaching altitude/taking off). I don't expect the autopilot to avoid a mountain, but I also expect it to be easy to plot a course that avoids it.
It's not a severe case a of NIH. It's a severe case of GPL. This is just so they can move all the Android devices to Fuchsia (under permissive licenses), and then slam the door shut by requiring things for new Fuchsia devices once the whole ecosystem has moved over. It's an evolution of what they started to do with GApps.
Not one Trump voter in the country is now thinking to themselves "wow, Facebook tricked me into voting for Trump!".
"Not one" is a really high bar. And, based on polling data, we know a lot of Trump supporters feel disappointed in his presidency. That some would blame "being tricked" over "being wrong" is just human nature. Whether they specify that it was Facebook that tricked them... I'm not sure.
I didn't realize that the only input to a yacht was manual labor! It's not like it takes expensive materials, involves payments for IP, uses automated machinery (ala capital) or anything else. Boat creation is not a heavy job creator.
Maybe the grandparent expects the "rich" should literally toss bundles of cash at random.
I don't expect the rich to voluntarily do that, no. Whether it makes sense to force them to is a different question.
If the "rich" simply stash cash offshore and never buy anything with it, that simply increases the buying power of the cash in the hands of the "not rich"
Why do you think the cash is buried outside the US in a way that keeps it from circulating. "In a bank account in Panama" is, in reality "in a set of US stocks/bonds owned by an anonymous Panamanian company for tax reasons"
If the "rich" buy luxury goods... that drives wages by increasing demand for "not rich" to build all those expensive extra items.
That's only true if there are a few boat builders who are able to earn those wages and the rich people compete to rise those wages. Since that's not the case (among the individual workers), there's no wage pressure. Besides, it's saying that some resources go to luxury goods. Which means those resources aren't going to, I dunno, feeding poor people.
This will likely censor smaller entities with politically unpopular views...
...Which is exactly what they want. Mission accomplished.
Facebook just wants to go back to 6 months ago when it was just the place 2 billion people spent most of their lives looking at ads. They don't want to censor shit, because unpopular views are good clickbait. But they will to avoid being hit by the government. And the politicians don't want to censor unpopular views because they can point at the "other" as a reason to vote for them
The only views worth censoring are popular views that threaten the censors.
The article has a professor talking about the potential military applications for communications. The thing is, subvocal microphones (attached right above the larynx) and bone conduction microphones already solve that problem with the military. And it also solves the problems that they are trying to solve of "secret communications with my device." Also, it looks significantly less stupid.
Why do you think the Telegram people are able to defy Putin and stay alive in Russia? Cause the FSB already has the keys. This is an advertisement for Telegram by the Russian government. The only question is: is the ad to encourage people to move to Telegram, or to convince the people with Telegram accounts they cannot crack them so they let out more sensitive data?
I'm fine with a 1" thick phone. Or laptop. I don't get the fetish with thinness. 1" is probably the maximum to slip in my pocket, but for me thickness is just a boolean "fits in my pocket" check.
I thought a projector would be fun, but I'm not buying the moto z. My guess is that the modules will not be well supported in a year if you want to keep the OS up to date.
They presumably only use the new chips for a few days, draining as much cash as they can. Therefore once they collect enough chips to intercept cards for those few days, they're fine. Because then they have five day old chips they already used to send out.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be comfortable with having that level of wealth too. My question wasn't "who would want that," but "why would we let someone do that."
Is there any reason to allow anyone to accumulate that much wealth?
Nope. But I'm going to hope the government keeps me from getting fucked over by Uber, which is the only job I can get.
Only if they want legal protection from uploaded copywritten material as a safe harbor. Or if they get large enough (e.g. Facebook) that they're a monopoly
Yeah, or just under 7 minutes (call it a full 7 with checksums) to filtrate your 4096-bit private key. Who needs a $5 wrench?
Except that it's (currently) Android-only software that arrived on a S7
In fairness, that's all I think flying is (outside of taking off/reaching altitude/taking off). I don't expect the autopilot to avoid a mountain, but I also expect it to be easy to plot a course that avoids it.
Alternatively, they could just not be familiar with Android. Maybe they use a flip phone? A laptop is enough portable computing for a lot of people.
I can sit quietly. But, again, why? How does it help? Who does it help?
Why would someone think an "autopilot", a word already used to describe a device that makes a plane self-flying, would be self-driving?
I think Tesla should change the name until they are willing to stand behind it as self-driving..
If you call it autopilot, it should be an autopilot. If it's a warning system, call it something else. Words mean things.
If I'm on a bus or a train, is wasting time on a phone somehow worse than staring into space?
It's not a severe case a of NIH. It's a severe case of GPL. This is just so they can move all the Android devices to Fuchsia (under permissive licenses), and then slam the door shut by requiring things for new Fuchsia devices once the whole ecosystem has moved over. It's an evolution of what they started to do with GApps.
Yes, certainly some would. They have said so in public: in polls, response to interviews, and even "confessional" style op-eds.
"Not one" is a really high bar. And, based on polling data, we know a lot of Trump supporters feel disappointed in his presidency. That some would blame "being tricked" over "being wrong" is just human nature. Whether they specify that it was Facebook that tricked them... I'm not sure.
I didn't realize that the only input to a yacht was manual labor! It's not like it takes expensive materials, involves payments for IP, uses automated machinery (ala capital) or anything else. Boat creation is not a heavy job creator.
I don't expect the rich to voluntarily do that, no. Whether it makes sense to force them to is a different question.
Why do you think the cash is buried outside the US in a way that keeps it from circulating. "In a bank account in Panama" is, in reality "in a set of US stocks/bonds owned by an anonymous Panamanian company for tax reasons"
That's only true if there are a few boat builders who are able to earn those wages and the rich people compete to rise those wages. Since that's not the case (among the individual workers), there's no wage pressure. Besides, it's saying that some resources go to luxury goods. Which means those resources aren't going to, I dunno, feeding poor people.
Facebook just wants to go back to 6 months ago when it was just the place 2 billion people spent most of their lives looking at ads. They don't want to censor shit, because unpopular views are good clickbait. But they will to avoid being hit by the government. And the politicians don't want to censor unpopular views because they can point at the "other" as a reason to vote for them
The only views worth censoring are popular views that threaten the censors.
The article has a professor talking about the potential military applications for communications. The thing is, subvocal microphones (attached right above the larynx) and bone conduction microphones already solve that problem with the military. And it also solves the problems that they are trying to solve of "secret communications with my device." Also, it looks significantly less stupid.
Given that it reads neuromuscular signals, I'm not sure it would actually have helped Stephen Hawking. But maybe it could have.
Caymens, Switzerland, Panama, [offshore destination of choice]. Oh, and for some of them it's a down payment on a bigger yacht.
Why do you think the Telegram people are able to defy Putin and stay alive in Russia? Cause the FSB already has the keys. This is an advertisement for Telegram by the Russian government. The only question is: is the ad to encourage people to move to Telegram, or to convince the people with Telegram accounts they cannot crack them so they let out more sensitive data?
I'm fine with a 1" thick phone. Or laptop. I don't get the fetish with thinness. 1" is probably the maximum to slip in my pocket, but for me thickness is just a boolean "fits in my pocket" check.
I thought a projector would be fun, but I'm not buying the moto z. My guess is that the modules will not be well supported in a year if you want to keep the OS up to date.
And a photo, password, signature, are all inadequate because?
The penalties for stealing mail from a mailbox and opening it are very severe as well.
They presumably only use the new chips for a few days, draining as much cash as they can. Therefore once they collect enough chips to intercept cards for those few days, they're fine. Because then they have five day old chips they already used to send out.