The cost is not at all why, since with R&D costs it would probably cost way more.
The reason would be is if you could provide equivalent or superior quality of service in your own part, without being at the whims of a chip maker who has proven they are willing to withhold supply... and of course there's the matter of being sure as to what supply could be, rather than being taken out by a sudden shortage.
Not only would Apple be demonstrating real courage in not producing a 5G phone until 2025, I can all but guarantee that once they release a 5G phone in 2025, they will be the first to do so, beating all those 2020 Android phones by at leas -5 years.
That's the slogan used, for those who don't want to have to actually click on the story and supply advertising revenue to a clickbait site.
It's almost like the apple-exclusive fappening never happened... You never really understand the term "Reality Distortion" until you see Apple's marketing literature (which sooner or later get regurgitated by iPhone users).
The Internet is global, and any platform built on it is going to reach millions, if not billions, of people. If we pass laws that require companies to police their users, we will simply lose the platforms.
They are all already policing their platforms for legal but undesirable content. They should simply extend this policy to illegal content, AKA follow takedown requests.
The victim in this case should have issued a DMCA takedown request for his photos on Grindr, because then they have to take it down immediately with no questions asked. Any new account that then gets created with those photos results in Grindr legally on the hook.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility and liability? Why aren't the harassers arrested and charged?
Well, Grindr isn't getting arrested and charged, so I don't know what point you're trying to make.
Why is Grindr the villain in this suit?
(I know there are people here who would love to see the more popular platforms disappear, but that's just petty jealousy and elitism talking.)
Grindr being a villain in this suit does not make the harasser a non-villain. Both of them are villains in this suit but Grindr is advertising sexual services of someone who doesn't want to provide these services. This suit is to make them stop that.
How would you react if someone posted a full-page ad in the newspaper (running for the next 6 months) advertising your photo, name, address, workplace and phonenumber for sexual services, and the paper refused to cancel the ad after you drew attention to it?
But he needs to think beyond his anger for a few minutes.
Mr Herrick is advocating if person A comes into the restaurant he works at, and harasses person B already there eating, that his place of employment is 100% responsible in the liability for not doing anything to prevent the restaurants service being used in that way.
Typically, they are. If they ask the harasser to leave, or call the cops, then they have fulfilled the responsibility. If they simply watch Person B getting harassed then the restaurant is liable.
Given all of the safety improvements in the last 10 years, though, I would only drive such an old car if I were desperate
What safety improvements? My 2005 car has a rigid cage, crumple zones, airbags all round, traction control, ABS, NCAP rating that competes quite well with current cars.
Any safety improvements over and above the cage, crumple zones, airbags all round, traction control and ABS are minimal - probably don't even make much of a difference.
I don't understand what the appeal of watching someone else play a football game. To me, football games have always been about doing something. I might check out a clip from a football game to see what it's like, but it's hard to see myself watching someone play a football game & blather on while they're doing it. Maybe it's a generational thing? I'd sincerely like to hear someone explain to my why this is a thing.
Now do you understand? It's not a generational thing - every previous generation watched others play games. This generation has another game to watch. Nothing has changed.
Switching the words doesn't make your case. In most instances, you're not listening to the football players themselves blather. They don't get extensive individual airtime. Watching someone play a video game seems about as interesting as watching the world's fastest typist type a post on slashdot.
The game is still accompanied by mindless blather - does it matter that it's not a player blathering on? And solo sports players do get extensive individual airtime (tennis is still popular after all).
Listen, I get it - you want your preferred mindless games to be regarded as something special, but to the majority of people (something stupid like one out of every ten individual follows any particular sport) football is as pointless as fortnite. I switch the channel when games comes on, whether it's fortnite or tennis or football.
Most people don't care about watching other people play games. It is not a generational thing at all.
I don't understand what the appeal of watching someone else play a football game. To me, football games have always been about doing something. I might check out a clip from a football game to see what it's like, but it's hard to see myself watching someone play a football game & blather on while they're doing it. Maybe it's a generational thing? I'd sincerely like to hear someone explain to my why this is a thing.
Now do you understand? It's not a generational thing - every previous generation watched others play games. This generation has another game to watch. Nothing has changed.
spending four years memorizing Maxwell's Equations to get an EE degree so I can fight for crumbs against a billion Chinese and a billion Indians sure seems like a good idea!
You think the chinese and indian universities don't teach those things you learned?
The ones who do it professionally use computers to check their work.
This comes as news to the multitude of doctors and lawyers, judges, etc.
Even retarded humans who can't be taught to tie their shoelaces outperform computers at general reasoning tasks. Sure, you can train a network to pattern match street signs, but you'd need a new one to pattern match winning chess combinations, and a new one to produce poetry. As far as I am aware, no one has yet managed to retrain a network in such a manner that it pattern-match new things while still pattern-matching everything else it was ever trained on.
Sophisticated pattern-matching is not intelligence. If it were then regular expressions would have also been called AI.
And, as far as pattern matching goes, humans and animals still outperform the computer in every area except raw speed and capacity. While a human only needs a few (two to three) examples of a pattern (like a cat), the network still needs a few million cats to pattern-match on images of cats.
The state of AI hasn't changed in decades, only the computers have gotten faster and more powerful.
Why are you so scared of a God you think doesn't exist?
God may not exist, but the people who want to meddle in my affairs on his behalf do exist. Just because I want people to keep their religion out of my home does not that their god exists.
I dunno, it's a fine distinction to me: pedophilia is an action, sexual orientation is not, therefore pedophilia is a choice that a person can decline while sexual orientation is not.
If someone's sexual orientation is "children" they can't help that, while someone who fiddles with children can choose not to.
(NOTE: I don't offer any opinion on whether sexual orientation can be changed or not - I don't care - but the popular thinking is that it cannot be changed.).
"When society realizes that there is an unmet need for a particular set of skills, people rush/train to meet the need."
Not really. There has been a shortage of doctors for decades and it isn't likely to get better. Not everyone is going to rush and train to become a doctor.
The supply of doctors is artificially limited. The intellect needed to become a doctor is lower than to become a scientist, and yet we have many more scientists than doctors.
Try to see it more practically. Such people are here. Once we decide you can't kill them, they are here to stay and the others will provide for them in basically one of three ways:
-giving them some way of social support/welfare
-putting them in prison for most of their lives
-having stuff that they can steal.
The first option is the cheapest in terms of overall cost to the economy, the last is by far the most expensive and also the most unpleasant.
It's also possible that SJW have managed to introduce their poison, by suggesting that a world where we are nice to each other
If they wanted to suggest that, the various CoC efforts wouldn't argue against egalitarianism. The fact that egalitarians don't want anything to do with feminists and feminists don't want to be egalitarians tells you everything you need to know.
People want child porn and the cure is to stop that desire. Pedophilia is a sexual preference.
No, it is the result of a sexual orientation. Problem is, society already agreed over the past few decades that sexual orientation is something that someone is born with and cannot be changed.
If it is possible to change someone's sexual orientation I'm pretty certain we would have done so by now.
Slashdot Mirror
The cost is not at all why, since with R&D costs it would probably cost way more.
The reason would be is if you could provide equivalent or superior quality of service in your own part, without being at the whims of a chip maker who has proven they are willing to withhold supply... and of course there's the matter of being sure as to what supply could be, rather than being taken out by a sudden shortage.
Not only would Apple be demonstrating real courage in not producing a 5G phone until 2025, I can all but guarantee that once they release a 5G phone in 2025, they will be the first to do so, beating all those 2020 Android phones by at leas -5 years.
By 2050 2 of the 3 most crowded countries will speak chinese ?
You think Kenya is crowded? It's less densely populated than Austria, Switzerland and Italy.
That's the slogan used, for those who don't want to have to actually click on the story and supply advertising revenue to a clickbait site.
It's almost like the apple-exclusive fappening never happened... You never really understand the term "Reality Distortion" until you see Apple's marketing literature (which sooner or later get regurgitated by iPhone users).
The Internet is global, and any platform built on it is going to reach millions, if not billions, of people. If we pass laws that require companies to police their users, we will simply lose the platforms.
They are all already policing their platforms for legal but undesirable content. They should simply extend this policy to illegal content, AKA follow takedown requests.
The victim in this case should have issued a DMCA takedown request for his photos on Grindr, because then they have to take it down immediately with no questions asked. Any new account that then gets created with those photos results in Grindr legally on the hook.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility and liability? Why aren't the harassers arrested and charged?
Well, Grindr isn't getting arrested and charged, so I don't know what point you're trying to make.
Why is Grindr the villain in this suit?
(I know there are people here who would love to see the more popular platforms disappear, but that's just petty jealousy and elitism talking.)
Grindr being a villain in this suit does not make the harasser a non-villain. Both of them are villains in this suit but Grindr is advertising sexual services of someone who doesn't want to provide these services. This suit is to make them stop that.
How would you react if someone posted a full-page ad in the newspaper (running for the next 6 months) advertising your photo, name, address, workplace and phonenumber for sexual services, and the paper refused to cancel the ad after you drew attention to it?
But he needs to think beyond his anger for a few minutes.
Mr Herrick is advocating if person A comes into the restaurant he works at, and harasses person B already there eating, that his place of employment is 100% responsible in the liability for not doing anything to prevent the restaurants service being used in that way.
Typically, they are. If they ask the harasser to leave, or call the cops, then they have fulfilled the responsibility. If they simply watch Person B getting harassed then the restaurant is liable.
Automatic braking?
You consider using a car without automatic braking to be a desperate act?
Given all of the safety improvements in the last 10 years, though, I would only drive such an old car if I were desperate
What safety improvements? My 2005 car has a rigid cage, crumple zones, airbags all round, traction control, ABS, NCAP rating that competes quite well with current cars.
Any safety improvements over and above the cage, crumple zones, airbags all round, traction control and ABS are minimal - probably don't even make much of a difference.
I don't understand what the appeal of watching someone else play a football game. To me, football games have always been about doing something. I might check out a clip from a football game to see what it's like, but it's hard to see myself watching someone play a football game & blather on while they're doing it. Maybe it's a generational thing? I'd sincerely like to hear someone explain to my why this is a thing.
Now do you understand? It's not a generational thing - every previous generation watched others play games. This generation has another game to watch. Nothing has changed.
Switching the words doesn't make your case. In most instances, you're not listening to the football players themselves blather. They don't get extensive individual airtime. Watching someone play a video game seems about as interesting as watching the world's fastest typist type a post on slashdot.
The game is still accompanied by mindless blather - does it matter that it's not a player blathering on? And solo sports players do get extensive individual airtime (tennis is still popular after all).
Listen, I get it - you want your preferred mindless games to be regarded as something special, but to the majority of people (something stupid like one out of every ten individual follows any particular sport) football is as pointless as fortnite. I switch the channel when games comes on, whether it's fortnite or tennis or football.
Most people don't care about watching other people play games. It is not a generational thing at all.
I don't understand what the appeal of watching someone else play a football game. To me, football games have always been about doing something. I might check out a clip from a football game to see what it's like, but it's hard to see myself watching someone play a football game & blather on while they're doing it. Maybe it's a generational thing? I'd sincerely like to hear someone explain to my why this is a thing.
Now do you understand? It's not a generational thing - every previous generation watched others play games. This generation has another game to watch. Nothing has changed.
Do the wall warts powering smart spy-speakers even put out enough power to set anything on fire?
500mA is more than enough to start a fire with small enough resistance and some flammable material.
But let's give them credit- they were among the first with [...] strange cut-out areas on the display.
They weren't the first with that.
spending four years memorizing Maxwell's Equations to get an EE degree so I can fight for crumbs against a billion Chinese and a billion Indians sure seems like a good idea!
You think the chinese and indian universities don't teach those things you learned?
A/C wasn't common until the 50s/60s, so people probably drank more water to cool off.
Woosh :-)
The ones who do it professionally use computers to check their work.
This comes as news to the multitude of doctors and lawyers, judges, etc.
Even retarded humans who can't be taught to tie their shoelaces outperform computers at general reasoning tasks. Sure, you can train a network to pattern match street signs, but you'd need a new one to pattern match winning chess combinations, and a new one to produce poetry. As far as I am aware, no one has yet managed to retrain a network in such a manner that it pattern-match new things while still pattern-matching everything else it was ever trained on.
Sophisticated pattern-matching is not intelligence. If it were then regular expressions would have also been called AI.
And, as far as pattern matching goes, humans and animals still outperform the computer in every area except raw speed and capacity. While a human only needs a few (two to three) examples of a pattern (like a cat), the network still needs a few million cats to pattern-match on images of cats.
The state of AI hasn't changed in decades, only the computers have gotten faster and more powerful.
Is only about 35 cents so it wasn't so bad.
You're off by about three orders of magnitude (measured since the last time Zim had a currency).
Put simply - most of the "Artificial Intelligence" you hear about in the news is really fancy pattern matching.
Put simply - most of the "Human Intelligence" you see is really fancy pattern matching as well.
No, it isn't. Reasoning isn't remotely like pattern-matching.
Why are you so scared of a God you think doesn't exist?
God may not exist, but the people who want to meddle in my affairs on his behalf do exist. Just because I want people to keep their religion out of my home does not that their god exists.
No, they would not. The USSR was not a free-trade area. But your attempt at cheap, dishonest propaganda is noted.
USSR was theoretically[1] free-trade within the entirety of the USSR.
[1] They claimed it was, I wasn't living there at the time but for all anyone can tell, it was indeed free-trade.
In other words: What I said.
I dunno, it's a fine distinction to me: pedophilia is an action, sexual orientation is not, therefore pedophilia is a choice that a person can decline while sexual orientation is not.
If someone's sexual orientation is "children" they can't help that, while someone who fiddles with children can choose not to.
(NOTE: I don't offer any opinion on whether sexual orientation can be changed or not - I don't care - but the popular thinking is that it cannot be changed.).
I didn't offer a plan for the first goddam half.
Apologies. I was apparently not reading very carefully.
"When society realizes that there is an unmet need for a particular set of skills, people rush/train to meet the need." Not really. There has been a shortage of doctors for decades and it isn't likely to get better. Not everyone is going to rush and train to become a doctor.
The supply of doctors is artificially limited. The intellect needed to become a doctor is lower than to become a scientist, and yet we have many more scientists than doctors.
Try to see it more practically. Such people are here. Once we decide you can't kill them, they are here to stay and the others will provide for them in basically one of three ways: -giving them some way of social support/welfare -putting them in prison for most of their lives -having stuff that they can steal. The first option is the cheapest in terms of overall cost to the economy, the last is by far the most expensive and also the most unpleasant.
Seems to me you are arguing against UBI.
It's also possible that SJW have managed to introduce their poison, by suggesting that a world where we are nice to each other
If they wanted to suggest that, the various CoC efforts wouldn't argue against egalitarianism. The fact that egalitarians don't want anything to do with feminists and feminists don't want to be egalitarians tells you everything you need to know.
Your histrionics don't work well as a persuasive tactic.
Your lack of research is showing, as well.
Okay, so that get's about half of them (the male offenders). What's your plan to deal with the other half (female offenders)?
... and the only real cure is unattainable.
People want child porn and the cure is to stop that desire. Pedophilia is a sexual preference.
No, it is the result of a sexual orientation. Problem is, society already agreed over the past few decades that sexual orientation is something that someone is born with and cannot be changed.
If it is possible to change someone's sexual orientation I'm pretty certain we would have done so by now.