So in other words, long distance truckers only need to worry about losing routes that are fully within the no-snow belt. Oh wait, didn't Florida get snow this year?
So you should be able to own a nuclear weapon or sarin gas as long as you use it legally? Doesn't matter what 'accidents' could happen? Society works precisely because people can't own these things.
No, you said we should ban all things that should be misused and hurt people. But all the things you mentioned have a practical purpose, so while you could ban them you have to consider the downside of not using it for that purpose along with the upside of removing the danger. Obviously it would be awkward for many millions of people if kitchen knives were banned, so we don't ban those. Where is the downside of banning a toy flamethrower? People might have to find something else to do?
This might be a valid point once *anyone* can demonstrate an AI that actually does as well as a human in any circumstance. Otherwise they are all sounding a bit too hasty to use this technology.
Yes and look at all the gains in safety of transportation, water, and food distribution because of it. Criminals really have to work hard to swindle people too.
You sell something as a toy, people will play with it. People play with it, they will get injured. Yes I'm sure there are parties were people play with industrial blow torches but we don't need people candy-coating them in the name of making a buck. No amount of disclaimer can cover the idiocy of putting this in the market in the first place.
Can you imagine UPS requiring people to come to the truck to get their packages because there is no driver.
I'm pretty sure all companies are already salivating at the chance to do this, and I don't think there is any doubt that the main players will head this way. They may lose some business from deliveries that weren't highly profitable in the first place but in theory this could be such a cost saver that they push out the smaller players that *do* deliver by person.
Everything with Apple is a marketing calculation. They probably don't purposefully keep upgrading old devices for this reason, but they probably don't see a downside either. It is relatively cheap to keep an old device upgraded when all you have to worry about is a device in which you controlled every aspect of its design. Certainly not as difficult as what Microsoft does with Windows. So if they can tout a new feature and make it unavailable on an old phone, why not?
Apple is highly marketing-savvy. If they did something a certain way, you can bet it was discussed and every decision calculated for its effect on the consumer. For them to make the oversight to ask the owner before slowing down the device, they may be able to claim ignorance but I don't buy it.
Slashdot Mirror
So no where does it say 'have fun' which is the heart of the matter here.
This is why everything must be regulated.
So in other words, long distance truckers only need to worry about losing routes that are fully within the no-snow belt. Oh wait, didn't Florida get snow this year?
If you think this is because I'm worried about these people then you haven't read correctly.
So you should be able to own a nuclear weapon or sarin gas as long as you use it legally? Doesn't matter what 'accidents' could happen? Society works precisely because people can't own these things.
No, you said we should ban all things that should be misused and hurt people. But all the things you mentioned have a practical purpose, so while you could ban them you have to consider the downside of not using it for that purpose along with the upside of removing the danger. Obviously it would be awkward for many millions of people if kitchen knives were banned, so we don't ban those. Where is the downside of banning a toy flamethrower? People might have to find something else to do?
Another example of a job that just doesn't get enough reward for the effort.
This might be a valid point once *anyone* can demonstrate an AI that actually does as well as a human in any circumstance. Otherwise they are all sounding a bit too hasty to use this technology.
Which of those things are used as a toy only?
Yes and look at all the gains in safety of transportation, water, and food distribution because of it. Criminals really have to work hard to swindle people too.
As I said before, presentation and marketing is what makes this unacceptable.
The human race does not stop evolving because we protect society from dangerous toys.
If that's what you think a free country is, then your country is definitely NOT free.
Try starting a cigarette company in the US today, see how far you get.
People get utility from a car which outweigh the dangers. This is a toy for the sake of being a toy. World of difference.
You sell something as a toy, people will play with it. People play with it, they will get injured. Yes I'm sure there are parties were people play with industrial blow torches but we don't need people candy-coating them in the name of making a buck. No amount of disclaimer can cover the idiocy of putting this in the market in the first place.
This guy obviously feels no responsibility for injuries caused by his products. He would throw a package of razor blades in a suicide ward.
Can you imagine UPS requiring people to come to the truck to get their packages because there is no driver.
I'm pretty sure all companies are already salivating at the chance to do this, and I don't think there is any doubt that the main players will head this way. They may lose some business from deliveries that weren't highly profitable in the first place but in theory this could be such a cost saver that they push out the smaller players that *do* deliver by person.
Isn't the whole file splitting and storing idea a lot like btfs?
Is it a real application, or is it a slimmed down web browser with the sucky HTML version of Skype?
Everything with Apple is a marketing calculation. They probably don't purposefully keep upgrading old devices for this reason, but they probably don't see a downside either. It is relatively cheap to keep an old device upgraded when all you have to worry about is a device in which you controlled every aspect of its design. Certainly not as difficult as what Microsoft does with Windows. So if they can tout a new feature and make it unavailable on an old phone, why not?
Yet look how bad it looked in the public eye. Still don't believe it was an oversight.
Gas isn't a concern because I've never had to plan very hard to find a gas station and I'm only there for 10 minutes.
So they can demonstrate to users that the new features don't work as well on their phone. Seems obvious to me.
Apple is highly marketing-savvy. If they did something a certain way, you can bet it was discussed and every decision calculated for its effect on the consumer. For them to make the oversight to ask the owner before slowing down the device, they may be able to claim ignorance but I don't buy it.