Yeah. Honestly this sounds like one of the worst product launches in recent memory. I have seen no marketing for this device. Additionally I have heard NO talk of this device anywhere but here. I cant think of anyway for launch the phone worse than they have. It is like they are trying to fail.
Do you have a disability that prevents you from noticing tongue-in-cheek terminology? The Russian's were specifically called out at they are one of the few nations capable of doing that sort of sophisticated wet-work .
Equifax needs to face SEVERE punishment for negligence. Their incompetence impacts everything from personal finance, to national security. Just think what those nasty Russian's will do with the knowledge of exactly which pesky counter intelligence officer is having credit issues.
Basic supply and demand dictates this relationship. However, that is not enough to declare higher wages a BAD thing. A balance needs to be made between wages and employment. Factors such as the net impact on social services costs and living conditions need to be taken into consideration.
Long story short both sides over simplify the situation to a horrific extent. Evidence such as the report that indicated ", a $1 increase can cost tens of thousands of jobs nationally." Seems to support the liberal perspective as tens of thousands of jobs is small compared to the millions of hours worked at minimum wage.
Fixed that for ya.
Omg I DONT LIKE SEEING MOVIES IN A MOVIE THEATER SO THIS IS A terrible idea omg THIS MUST BE A CONSPERACY BECAUSE I SEE NO VALUE FOR ME AND AM ENTIERLY UNABLE TO REOCGNIZE THE FACT THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE OTHER INTERESTS. Also I never go to movies or do any social activity because I am way too concerned about my prvicay so I cant ever exit my faraday cage.
The public internet is unsecure by intention and design. Remember the origins of the internet, DARPANET etc? Independent of being literal truth the old story that "The first crime on the internet, was to use the internet for anything other than military reasons." speaks volumes and is grounded in reality.
A main motivator for the U.S. military opening up the internet to outsiders was to spy on them. Given that background there is fundamentally going to be no-way to securely access the internet. Trying to, is like trying to hold back the tide. You will not win.
What you CAN do is temporarily secure small little fiefdoms. This is to me akin to reclaiming land from the sea, yes it can be done by nation-states but individuals are best advised to be aware of the line is and respect it.
By design they do not care about specialty products with highly specific specifications.
That is actually their stated policy
What they are great for is generic items with very similar drop in replacements.
As an example I just bought a bunch of coasters, shampoo, a crockpot and a DVD case. I checked to make sure they had good build quality by the # of 5 star reviews, picked the one that matched my price point and just comparison shopped elsewhere. Turns out Amazon is cheaper.
If you need to figure out what component you want, you are doing it wrong if you are doing your research of Amazon
Amazon would not even tell you to do that
Do your research then price check on amazon, newegg, tiger direct, and wherever else.
If *every* smart gun in a 30m radious can be jammed with a universal $25 device that would be a critical design/technology flaw which makes the tech useless. I,however,see no reason to expect that to match reality and firmly stand by that being on the long tail
I appreciate your analysis and if you are confident in net lives cost number by all mean stick by your position. That is a utilitarian argument. Your numbers however do not match my expectations due several reasons. 1) My trust in the studies indicating that owners "are morel likely to kill a family member than an intruder" thus a high gun failure rate would actualy save lives. I am aware of the standard counter points but even still the arguments presented around those studies are more convincing to me. 2) Your number for failure rate caused lives lost just seems off to me . My guess is you are assuming with 100% certainty that if a gun fails it results in a victims death.
Nope. But it is sometimes fun to use them to emphasize how ludicrous you believe a situation to be.
Fear #1 Someone has a device to block your gun and will use it. Likelihood ~zero: While I do believe they could do precisely that. About 99.999999% of all violent crime is committed by some cracked out street rat who is too stupid and too cracked out to obtain then use the device. That remaining.0000001% is a cartel hit job where you are dead either way.
Fear #2 some highly organized criminal organization will use them to fight the police Likelihood ~zero: No highly organized group ever fights the police here, cartels and high level gangs are not stupid enough because they know even if they take a few police down, the repercussions would still be devastating for their organization. The only groups stupid and organized enough to do that are right wing militias and thankfully we have SWAT and other specially equipped teams to eliminate them when they become a threat.
Long story short. Your fears are well along the long trail of possibilities are you are about 1,000,000 times more likely to die while slipping and falling while taking a shit in the middle of the night.
Here to toss you a bone, I do find the argument that these safety features could accidentally fail a reasonable fear. If those features were mandated with 100% confidence I am sure that there would be at least one time a gun would fail in a needed situation. However, the same can be said and WAS said about the gun safetys already mandated. They however are now generally accepted to be a very reasonable feature.
Here is how the life of a new safety feature. 1) Someone suggests it.2) The idea gets statistical support 3) Crazy conservatives scream about some long tail potential issue 4) After a while society as a whole laughs at the conservatives and mandates the idea after realizing that yes there is some minuscule trade off between "freedom" and "not killing 100,000 people a year (think seat-belts) 5) Everyone realizes the counter arguments were insane (think seat-belts) and that the safety feature should have been implemented years ago.
Here to toss you another bone, I wish I could trust conservatives to be good stewards of over zealous safety requirements. I, however, can not. Just like hippies who whine about everything environmental and can not be trusted to highlight true environmental threats, conservatives are a perfect mirror on that with safety features and specifically on gun regulation. Both groups fight for their topic like a holy war to the point that reasonable people view them as psychopaths.
This is not a huge problem. It is fucking trivial as fuck.
Shocker/Not Shocker, hacker with physical access to a device can make a device malfunction.
If an organization or entity is dedicated enough to have identified your particular firearm, built a device to disable your firearm, than actively use the device, guess what? You are dead as fuck and your trivial ass gun, smart or not, will not be able to do you any good
I am rather neutral on gun control laws and see some rather philosophically valid arguments on both sides , however, the average argument put forward by the conservative troll community are completely fucking retarded.
OMG WHAT IF A SUPER SPY HAS A SPECIAL SMART GUN BLOCKING MIND RAY. Well guess what? You are fucked. and were fucked either way.
"So this boils down to an argument of "it's unfair if I can't be deceptive in the US when others can"."
I disagree, that is a great argument. I love the idea of solving problems. However on the rare occasion when we choose to persecute individual entities we give semi-legitimate examples of the government picking "winners and losers" for the conservative hyperbole
"valid & clean chauffeur's license or equivalent in that local area, and no felony convictions." Irony. You claim I was wrong, than share your own experience validating my exact statement.
Ford set the hours at 8 because of extensive experimentation on his workers. He targeted the optimum hours to get the most product out of people. He found that working more hours actually reduced net production. It was not altruism, it was a simple realization that if you give your "machines" proper maintenance they function better. The AC's narrative actually fits better with the reality that Ford was a cold yet smart brutal capitalist.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...
Now this is just conspiracy theory noise. Yes trucking companies will save and make more money due to not having to pay truck drivers. Yes some of those savings will get passed along to retailers and yes they will make more money. Here's the part that you just ignore, yes some of those savings will get passed onto end consumers. Capitalism has its issues, but this is one of the areas that actually functions close to theory.
Beyond that, the majority of the public transportation I take is ummm public.... and owned by the government, who I have exactly 1 share in. Sooo when the government pays less for their drivers, I win.
Are you just being a troll or do you really not see the obvious scenarios where it would be a cost advantage to eliminate a 50k a year cost(driver) by replacing it with an autonomous vehicle? Or are you proposing we just send the buses down a bumper car bowling lane with no driver? My guess is you see some edge cases in a technology which will prevent it from being useful in very specific situations, but are wasting everyone's time by pretending those edge cases block the application of the technology in every situation.
Because the taxi industry currently has high barriers to entry. Autonomous vehicles reduce them. Specifically Taxi drivers have to have rigorous background checks (for good reason), this acts as a huge block. You need to hire someone to drive at undesirable times, another huge block. Thirdly you have to have a vehicle specifically for Taxi driving, another huge block.
Now with an autonomous vehicle and a nice easy app to join.....say....uber.... I can easily start my own taxi business with little to no effort. Say I work a classical 9-5. Maybe I get up a little early and get in to work at 7:45. Send my autonomous car out from 8:00 to 10:30 while doing my day job. I take in a nice $50 + gas and mileage. Now say I want to go out Friday and Saturday night. I can still do that and send my autonomous taxi out while I am out in the bars. If I am lucky maybe my car will pay for my drinks.
The ease of entering the market now with autonomous cars will theoretically push the price of a taxi to the marginal cost
Not entirely true. Without that copyright, Spotify and Pandora would not be paying the music producers/distributors anything. Reasonable balance here is the key.
"Yeah, but if we don't have to depend on that area for anything as important as oil"
We already don't the US imports next to nothing from the middle east. Including Canada and Mexico in the mix the three of us are more than self sufficient for a variety/majority of oil products.
The US would actually benefit substantially from the middle east oil production destruction. The US would be the only industrialized nation with a reliable energy supply. China, India, Japan and the EU would be completely screwed. The US would be just fine.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. Honestly this sounds like one of the worst product launches in recent memory. I have seen no marketing for this device. Additionally I have heard NO talk of this device anywhere but here. I cant think of anyway for launch the phone worse than they have. It is like they are trying to fail.
Do you have a disability that prevents you from noticing tongue-in-cheek terminology? The Russian's were specifically called out at they are one of the few nations capable of doing that sort of sophisticated wet-work .
Equifax needs to face SEVERE punishment for negligence. Their incompetence impacts everything from personal finance, to national security. Just think what those nasty Russian's will do with the knowledge of exactly which pesky counter intelligence officer is having credit issues.
Basic supply and demand dictates this relationship. However, that is not enough to declare higher wages a BAD thing. A balance needs to be made between wages and employment. Factors such as the net impact on social services costs and living conditions need to be taken into consideration.
Long story short both sides over simplify the situation to a horrific extent. Evidence such as the report that indicated ", a $1 increase can cost tens of thousands of jobs nationally." Seems to support the liberal perspective as tens of thousands of jobs is small compared to the millions of hours worked at minimum wage.
Fixed that for ya. Omg I DONT LIKE SEEING MOVIES IN A MOVIE THEATER SO THIS IS A terrible idea omg THIS MUST BE A CONSPERACY BECAUSE I SEE NO VALUE FOR ME AND AM ENTIERLY UNABLE TO REOCGNIZE THE FACT THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE OTHER INTERESTS. Also I never go to movies or do any social activity because I am way too concerned about my prvicay so I cant ever exit my faraday cage.
The public internet is unsecure by intention and design. Remember the origins of the internet, DARPANET etc? Independent of being literal truth the old story that "The first crime on the internet, was to use the internet for anything other than military reasons." speaks volumes and is grounded in reality.
A main motivator for the U.S. military opening up the internet to outsiders was to spy on them. Given that background there is fundamentally going to be no-way to securely access the internet. Trying to, is like trying to hold back the tide. You will not win.
What you CAN do is temporarily secure small little fiefdoms. This is to me akin to reclaiming land from the sea, yes it can be done by nation-states but individuals are best advised to be aware of the line is and respect it.
Because the company is run by fucking cunts.
Amazon has its uses.
By design they do not care about specialty products with highly specific specifications.
That is actually their stated policy
What they are great for is generic items with very similar drop in replacements.
As an example I just bought a bunch of coasters, shampoo, a crockpot and a DVD case. I checked to make sure they had good build quality by the # of 5 star reviews, picked the one that matched my price point and just comparison shopped elsewhere. Turns out Amazon is cheaper.
If you need to figure out what component you want, you are doing it wrong if you are doing your research of Amazon
Amazon would not even tell you to do that
Do your research then price check on amazon, newegg, tiger direct, and wherever else.
You can be a monopoly within a geographic location. This is a well documented concept.
They do that already.
There are stories of ships floating off the east coast filled with cheap programmers working in international waters.
Their pitch was basically "We are not complete and utter shit like Infosys or Wipro." Which provided a startling level of value to customers.
If *every* smart gun in a 30m radious can be jammed with a universal $25 device that would be a critical design/technology flaw which makes the tech useless. I ,however,see no reason to expect that to match reality and firmly stand by that being on the long tail
I appreciate your analysis and if you are confident in net lives cost number by all mean stick by your position. That is a utilitarian argument. Your numbers however do not match my expectations due several reasons. 1) My trust in the studies indicating that owners "are morel likely to kill a family member than an intruder" thus a high gun failure rate would actualy save lives. I am aware of the standard counter points but even still the arguments presented around those studies are more convincing to me. 2) Your number for failure rate caused lives lost just seems off to me . My guess is you are assuming with 100% certainty that if a gun fails it results in a victims death.
Nope. But it is sometimes fun to use them to emphasize how ludicrous you believe a situation to be.
Fear #1 Someone has a device to block your gun and will use it. Likelihood ~zero: While I do believe they could do precisely that. About 99.999999% of all violent crime is committed by some cracked out street rat who is too stupid and too cracked out to obtain then use the device. That remaining .0000001% is a cartel hit job where you are dead either way.
Fear #2 some highly organized criminal organization will use them to fight the police Likelihood ~zero: No highly organized group ever fights the police here, cartels and high level gangs are not stupid enough because they know even if they take a few police down, the repercussions would still be devastating for their organization. The only groups stupid and organized enough to do that are right wing militias and thankfully we have SWAT and other specially equipped teams to eliminate them when they become a threat.
Long story short. Your fears are well along the long trail of possibilities are you are about 1,000,000 times more likely to die while slipping and falling while taking a shit in the middle of the night.
Here to toss you a bone, I do find the argument that these safety features could accidentally fail a reasonable fear. If those features were mandated with 100% confidence I am sure that there would be at least one time a gun would fail in a needed situation. However, the same can be said and WAS said about the gun safetys already mandated. They however are now generally accepted to be a very reasonable feature.
Here is how the life of a new safety feature. 1) Someone suggests it.2) The idea gets statistical support 3) Crazy conservatives scream about some long tail potential issue 4) After a while society as a whole laughs at the conservatives and mandates the idea after realizing that yes there is some minuscule trade off between "freedom" and "not killing 100,000 people a year (think seat-belts) 5) Everyone realizes the counter arguments were insane (think seat-belts) and that the safety feature should have been implemented years ago.
Here to toss you another bone, I wish I could trust conservatives to be good stewards of over zealous safety requirements. I, however, can not. Just like hippies who whine about everything environmental and can not be trusted to highlight true environmental threats, conservatives are a perfect mirror on that with safety features and specifically on gun regulation. Both groups fight for their topic like a holy war to the point that reasonable people view them as psychopaths.
Shocker/Not Shocker, hacker with physical access to a device can make a device malfunction.
If an organization or entity is dedicated enough to have identified your particular firearm, built a device to disable your firearm, than actively use the device, guess what? You are dead as fuck and your trivial ass gun, smart or not, will not be able to do you any good
I am rather neutral on gun control laws and see some rather philosophically valid arguments on both sides , however, the average argument put forward by the conservative troll community are completely fucking retarded.
OMG WHAT IF A SUPER SPY HAS A SPECIAL SMART GUN BLOCKING MIND RAY. Well guess what? You are fucked. and were fucked either way.
"So this boils down to an argument of "it's unfair if I can't be deceptive in the US when others can"."
I disagree, that is a great argument. I love the idea of solving problems. However on the rare occasion when we choose to persecute individual entities we give semi-legitimate examples of the government picking "winners and losers" for the conservative hyperbole
Even with the best intentions.
"valid & clean chauffeur's license or equivalent in that local area, and no felony convictions." Irony. You claim I was wrong, than share your own experience validating my exact statement.
Ford set the hours at 8 because of extensive experimentation on his workers. He targeted the optimum hours to get the most product out of people. He found that working more hours actually reduced net production. It was not altruism, it was a simple realization that if you give your "machines" proper maintenance they function better. The AC's narrative actually fits better with the reality that Ford was a cold yet smart brutal capitalist. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...
We also have them in Boston :( The locals call them part of the "T" or the subway...... The locals don't actually know what functioning subway is.
Beyond that, the majority of the public transportation I take is ummm public.... and owned by the government, who I have exactly 1 share in. Sooo when the government pays less for their drivers, I win.
Are you just being a troll or do you really not see the obvious scenarios where it would be a cost advantage to eliminate a 50k a year cost(driver) by replacing it with an autonomous vehicle? Or are you proposing we just send the buses down a bumper car bowling lane with no driver? My guess is you see some edge cases in a technology which will prevent it from being useful in very specific situations, but are wasting everyone's time by pretending those edge cases block the application of the technology in every situation.
Because the taxi industry currently has high barriers to entry. Autonomous vehicles reduce them. Specifically Taxi drivers have to have rigorous background checks (for good reason), this acts as a huge block. You need to hire someone to drive at undesirable times, another huge block. Thirdly you have to have a vehicle specifically for Taxi driving, another huge block.
Now with an autonomous vehicle and a nice easy app to join.....say....uber.... I can easily start my own taxi business with little to no effort. Say I work a classical 9-5. Maybe I get up a little early and get in to work at 7:45. Send my autonomous car out from 8:00 to 10:30 while doing my day job. I take in a nice $50 + gas and mileage. Now say I want to go out Friday and Saturday night. I can still do that and send my autonomous taxi out while I am out in the bars. If I am lucky maybe my car will pay for my drinks.
The ease of entering the market now with autonomous cars will theoretically push the price of a taxi to the marginal cost
Not entirely true. Without that copyright, Spotify and Pandora would not be paying the music producers/distributors anything. Reasonable balance here is the key.
"Yeah, but if we don't have to depend on that area for anything as important as oil"
We already don't the US imports next to nothing from the middle east. Including Canada and Mexico in the mix the three of us are more than self sufficient for a variety/majority of oil products.
The US would actually benefit substantially from the middle east oil production destruction. The US would be the only industrialized nation with a reliable energy supply. China, India, Japan and the EU would be completely screwed. The US would be just fine.
To be fair, that is rather awesome. Ecologically and economically devastating, but awesome none the less.