There are always things that distract parents from family time. Work, TV, sports, bar-hopping, whatever. We simply insisted that our boys not use devices at meals or other family times, and we led by example. Parents who are committed to raising good families are still quite able to do so today.
The 3 reports (now 5) are of the replacement Galaxy Note 7's. So let's use your numbers, totaling 81 fires. By contrast, there have been millions of car fires, but you don't see people on TV telling you not to drive cars because the products are so dangerous! (See other thread on this topic for more details on that, including sources.)
You pretty forcefully made my point. There are literally millions of cars with fire troubles. No one gets on TV and tells us to stop using cars. No one thinks that a car fire is the most important risk of using a car, nor should they. Yet when Samsung "hides" the fact that three of their devices caught fire, we rain fire and brimstone on them.
The entire point was that the risk may have been a bit overblown. Yes, of course, for the unlucky three people, the impact can be terrible, even catastrophic. But like it or not, life has risks. When you walk outside, you risk your life. When you walk inside, you risk your life. If one of those remote risks became reality for you, ending your life, that would be terrible for you, but that risk should not keep us all from going outside, or inside.
Batteries inherently carry a risk of fire. All batteries have this risk. We live with it, because the benefit outweighs the risk. Is Samsung's risk higher or lower than the risk of a standard AA battery catching fire? Is it higher than any other cell phone model? I don't think we know that yet. If Samsung has created an unsafe product, they should address it. But let's not get ahead of ourselves, the replacement devices haven't yet been proven to be any riskier than any other cell phone.
Samsung has sold millions of these things. Three of them have caught fire. That makes the odds of a device catching fire less than 1 in 1,000,000. Business Insider says that 17 cars catch fire every hour. Where are the cries for recalling cars?
Perhaps you haven't read the history of the Internet. Generally, you "own" the things that you create. It's pretty clear that the US created the foundations of the Internet, and therefore "owned" it.
I don't know how I feel about ICANN taking over, but it's probably inevitable at this point anyway.
It's not just the language, or the tools, it's the sheer complexity of what we try to do with software.
You can make a solid steel box that's pretty secure. But when you want to build an entire airport, with lots of moving parts and the need for lots of people to legitimately go through it, security becomes almost impossible.
Software is no different. The more complex the system, the less it can be effectively secured.
Perhaps you didn't realize that.NET has itself become a FOSS project, as has Visual Studio. And wow, support until 2021 for a product that never went anywhere. That's pretty solid commitment!
I've written software for Mac, Linux, Unix, and Windows, and other platforms you've probably never heard of. I've written for Borland OWL, MFC, ATL,.ASP (old and new), MVC, jQuery, Bootstrap, and Angular. I've seen it all, and nobody creates developer tools and platforms like Microsoft. I guess you could say I'm a fanboy, but that loyalty was earned, and I'd move on if that trust was broken. So far, Microsoft has done a great job of keeping its developers happy.
So Google broke Angular 1.x. It's open source. So how is that working out for Angular 1.x developers?
Developers have been WAY too eager to jump onto the latest development fad. Google has been well-known for creating products and dropping them. Why should they behave differently when it comes to open source projects?
Microsoft may have its own issues, but at least they stay committed to preserving (most) legacy code. You can still run a lot of c. 1985 software on today's Windows machines! As a.NET developer, I'm pretty sure my source code is still going to work when Version 5 comes out.
In Houston, I get about 70 broadcast channels (of which I watch about 3). With Netflix and Amazon, and Sling TV for ESPN during football season, I have no need for cable.
I'd like to see your sources. You seem to have a prejudiced view against religion. Yes, people have done many terrible things in the name of religion, but the faithful of any religion will tell you that these people were imposters, just as certain hoodlums recently gave the Black Lives Matter movement a bad name by shooting people at a previously peaceful rally.
I suppose you feel that the hands of governments are clean over those millennia.
The fact is that people do terrible things, sometimes in the name of religion, sometimes in the name of government. That does not make religion or government bad things.
You must live in an amazing place, where there are no electric bills! I certainly have to pay for my electricity!
Yes, some "non-profits" are dubious. This is true. Many non-religious non-profits are equally dubious, such as the Donald J. Trump Foundation. But there are many who truly serve. St. Jude's Children's Hospital, for example, charges no fees to any of their patients. Ditto Mercy Ships. I'd argue that many government programs are equally dubious. You are essentially building a straw man which is not representative of religious charities as a whole.
In any case, these charities are generally not subsidized. The truth is that the government recognizes the need for charitable organizations, and chooses not to burden their work with further taxation. (They do still have to pay employment taxes.) And there is no religious test for a non-profit. Any organization, religious or not, can organize as a non-profit and avoid paying taxes.
If you're getting your ideas about religion from TV preachers, then I don't blame you for feeling the way you do. But TV preachers aren't actually religious, they are just using religion to make money. They are no different from politicians who claim to care about you, in order to get elected.
Religious institutions, such as the Salvation Army and religious hospitals and shelters, fill many gaps that the government would otherwise have to fund. Religious institutions, as a rule, do so much more efficiently than the government. I believe that if you removed religious charities from the picture, the government would experience a significant net loss trying to deal with the most needy of our citizens. Religion may be tax exempt, but they more than pay their debt to society.
Are there some frauds in religion? Of course! But there is far more good than bad going on. And let's not kid ourselves, the government has its fair share of frauds as well.
You could turn it around and ask, Whose dollars do more for society? When you start adding up the efforts of the Salvation Army, homeless shelters, assistance for the poor, religious hospitals, and other charities, it's fair to say that religion more than pays its debt to society.
Automation is still hard, even for something as "simple" as an automated hamburger joint. You can easily enough automate specific tasks, such as filling drinks or cooking burgers. But automating EVERYTHING, from cleaning to repairs, is a lot harder. And then automating the manufacture of all of the machines needed to manufacture hamburgers, is another order of magnitude more difficult and complex. It's not at all surprising to me that we haven't done this yet.
Here on earth, it's so important to preserve our natural environment because we're causing damage to our ecosystem that, if not checked, will become irreversible and deadly. If you were the ONLY human being in the Amazon rain forest, it wouldn't be an environmental problem for you to clear-cut an acre of land to grow some crops. But when you're one of millions who are doing the same thing, you are now causing serious damage to the planet.
In our universe, there are so, so many potentially inhabitable planets. There is room to experiment, even if it turns out badly on some of the planets, it's OK, there are so many more. We're still the lone farmer in the Amazon rain forest.
Slashdot Mirror
There are always things that distract parents from family time. Work, TV, sports, bar-hopping, whatever. We simply insisted that our boys not use devices at meals or other family times, and we led by example. Parents who are committed to raising good families are still quite able to do so today.
...at least for now.
Not to mention Nexus 7 tablets, which also won't get the upgrade.
The 3 reports (now 5) are of the replacement Galaxy Note 7's. So let's use your numbers, totaling 81 fires. By contrast, there have been millions of car fires, but you don't see people on TV telling you not to drive cars because the products are so dangerous! (See other thread on this topic for more details on that, including sources.)
You pretty forcefully made my point. There are literally millions of cars with fire troubles. No one gets on TV and tells us to stop using cars. No one thinks that a car fire is the most important risk of using a car, nor should they. Yet when Samsung "hides" the fact that three of their devices caught fire, we rain fire and brimstone on them.
The entire point was that the risk may have been a bit overblown. Yes, of course, for the unlucky three people, the impact can be terrible, even catastrophic. But like it or not, life has risks. When you walk outside, you risk your life. When you walk inside, you risk your life. If one of those remote risks became reality for you, ending your life, that would be terrible for you, but that risk should not keep us all from going outside, or inside.
Batteries inherently carry a risk of fire. All batteries have this risk. We live with it, because the benefit outweighs the risk. Is Samsung's risk higher or lower than the risk of a standard AA battery catching fire? Is it higher than any other cell phone model? I don't think we know that yet. If Samsung has created an unsafe product, they should address it. But let's not get ahead of ourselves, the replacement devices haven't yet been proven to be any riskier than any other cell phone.
Samsung has sold millions of these things. Three of them have caught fire. That makes the odds of a device catching fire less than 1 in 1,000,000. Business Insider says that 17 cars catch fire every hour. Where are the cries for recalling cars?
I completely agree!
https://www.bankofamerica.com/...
Perhaps you haven't read the history of the Internet. Generally, you "own" the things that you create. It's pretty clear that the US created the foundations of the Internet, and therefore "owned" it.
I don't know how I feel about ICANN taking over, but it's probably inevitable at this point anyway.
Everybody's going to love it, believe me, believe me!
It's not just the language, or the tools, it's the sheer complexity of what we try to do with software.
You can make a solid steel box that's pretty secure. But when you want to build an entire airport, with lots of moving parts and the need for lots of people to legitimately go through it, security becomes almost impossible.
Software is no different. The more complex the system, the less it can be effectively secured.
I don't know about F1, but you can now stream ESPN 1, 2, and 3 on Sling TV for $20 per month.
Perhaps you didn't realize that .NET has itself become a FOSS project, as has Visual Studio. And wow, support until 2021 for a product that never went anywhere. That's pretty solid commitment!
I've written software for Mac, Linux, Unix, and Windows, and other platforms you've probably never heard of. I've written for Borland OWL, MFC, ATL, .ASP (old and new), MVC, jQuery, Bootstrap, and Angular. I've seen it all, and nobody creates developer tools and platforms like Microsoft. I guess you could say I'm a fanboy, but that loyalty was earned, and I'd move on if that trust was broken. So far, Microsoft has done a great job of keeping its developers happy.
So Google broke Angular 1.x. It's open source. So how is that working out for Angular 1.x developers?
Developers have been WAY too eager to jump onto the latest development fad. Google has been well-known for creating products and dropping them. Why should they behave differently when it comes to open source projects?
Microsoft may have its own issues, but at least they stay committed to preserving (most) legacy code. You can still run a lot of c. 1985 software on today's Windows machines! As a .NET developer, I'm pretty sure my source code is still going to work when Version 5 comes out.
Never had it, never wanted it.
In Houston, I get about 70 broadcast channels (of which I watch about 3). With Netflix and Amazon, and Sling TV for ESPN during football season, I have no need for cable.
Yes.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Busin...
http://charity.lovetoknow.com/...
http://www.give.org/charity-re...
http://www.csmonitor.com/Busin...
http://www.give.org/charity-re...
http://charity.lovetoknow.com/...
I'd like to see your sources. You seem to have a prejudiced view against religion. Yes, people have done many terrible things in the name of religion, but the faithful of any religion will tell you that these people were imposters, just as certain hoodlums recently gave the Black Lives Matter movement a bad name by shooting people at a previously peaceful rally.
I suppose you feel that the hands of governments are clean over those millennia.
The fact is that people do terrible things, sometimes in the name of religion, sometimes in the name of government. That does not make religion or government bad things.
You must live in an amazing place, where there are no electric bills! I certainly have to pay for my electricity!
Yes, some "non-profits" are dubious. This is true. Many non-religious non-profits are equally dubious, such as the Donald J. Trump Foundation. But there are many who truly serve. St. Jude's Children's Hospital, for example, charges no fees to any of their patients. Ditto Mercy Ships. I'd argue that many government programs are equally dubious. You are essentially building a straw man which is not representative of religious charities as a whole.
In any case, these charities are generally not subsidized. The truth is that the government recognizes the need for charitable organizations, and chooses not to burden their work with further taxation. (They do still have to pay employment taxes.) And there is no religious test for a non-profit. Any organization, religious or not, can organize as a non-profit and avoid paying taxes.
If you're getting your ideas about religion from TV preachers, then I don't blame you for feeling the way you do. But TV preachers aren't actually religious, they are just using religion to make money. They are no different from politicians who claim to care about you, in order to get elected.
Religious institutions, such as the Salvation Army and religious hospitals and shelters, fill many gaps that the government would otherwise have to fund. Religious institutions, as a rule, do so much more efficiently than the government. I believe that if you removed religious charities from the picture, the government would experience a significant net loss trying to deal with the most needy of our citizens. Religion may be tax exempt, but they more than pay their debt to society.
Are there some frauds in religion? Of course! But there is far more good than bad going on. And let's not kid ourselves, the government has its fair share of frauds as well.
You could turn it around and ask, Whose dollars do more for society? When you start adding up the efforts of the Salvation Army, homeless shelters, assistance for the poor, religious hospitals, and other charities, it's fair to say that religion more than pays its debt to society.
That's what they do on all the crime scene investigation shows!
Automation is still hard, even for something as "simple" as an automated hamburger joint. You can easily enough automate specific tasks, such as filling drinks or cooking burgers. But automating EVERYTHING, from cleaning to repairs, is a lot harder. And then automating the manufacture of all of the machines needed to manufacture hamburgers, is another order of magnitude more difficult and complex. It's not at all surprising to me that we haven't done this yet.
Here on earth, it's so important to preserve our natural environment because we're causing damage to our ecosystem that, if not checked, will become irreversible and deadly. If you were the ONLY human being in the Amazon rain forest, it wouldn't be an environmental problem for you to clear-cut an acre of land to grow some crops. But when you're one of millions who are doing the same thing, you are now causing serious damage to the planet.
In our universe, there are so, so many potentially inhabitable planets. There is room to experiment, even if it turns out badly on some of the planets, it's OK, there are so many more. We're still the lone farmer in the Amazon rain forest.