If we are in a simulation, then who said that the factors are random? They might appear random to us, but for all we know, that is also an intended aspect of the simulation, assuming that we are in one.
... then assuming they are not wrong about evidence of app store review manipulation, it must be possible for independant parties to create such an appearance, and a less than ethical person could potentially use such measures to sabotage the apps of his competitors, since Apple's decision is final, and there is no appeal process.
With the simulation concept, at best you could claim we are indirectly the product of ID.
Only if you presume that we are the equivalent of an unintended side effect of the simulation, and not simply an intended product of its design. We would be, in effect, the result of a software bug.
This may very well be entirely true, but we have no basis to assume as much.
The principle of intelligent design is the notion that we are intelligently designed. Period. Nothing more, and nothing less. Whether that intelligence was a civilization that predated us in this universe, an omnipotent god, or some other kind of entity that we have not even imagined yet is immaterial. I won't pretend that ID is not often used by religious people to try and crowbar their beliefs into science, but ID, at its core, is simply the premise that we were intelligently designed. Its biggest failing is that it fails to account for the origin of the designer, but then that is not what it was ever intended to do anyways. My point is that if it is somehow probable that the universe is a simulation, then it can be no less probable that we are the product of intelligent design... and if we refuse to acknowledge intelligent design as likely on the basis that we can find no evidence for it, we must similarly reject the notion that the universe is just a simulation, and accept the reality of what we appear to experience, since those experiences are what leaves science to conclude that we are not the product of intelligent design in the first place.
where do you get the idea that he's wearing a costume or suit? It could easily just be dark clothing. Looks to me like a person wearing a black hoodie, which would obscure much of his face unless he were to look in the direction of the camera, above.
Sure, but that just pushes the problem back one level, which is the same argument that people had against the fundamental premises of intelligent design in the first place. (the arguments against how it was being used to covertly try and insert religion into science were also entirely valid, but that was an objection to ID's proposed integration into science classes rather than a flaw with its fundamental premises).
.... we are not a simulation and somehow still be considered unlikely that we are intelligently designed when the so-called simulation that we are likely to be in would have obviously had to have been designed by an intelligent entity?
All they had allegedly "conspired" to do was simply to have the same effective date past which they would no longer support the older method... a method that they had assessed to be less secure, and there is no sane reason that they should ever be obligated to continue to support the older system after they have given plenty of advance warning of the change, both to consumers and vendors, even if they *did* secretly agree upon an effective date of implementation (although how you call something that they publicly announced years ago a secret is beyond me). There is no way that this could reasonably be considered illegal or unfair because the newer system is considered less likely to have fraudulent transactions in the first place.
Even if they *had* collaborated (or "conspired", as you say) on the idea, why should they be forced to continue to take a financial hit on a system that they don't even want to continue to support in the first place? Are you suggesting that they conspired to take financial losses with the other method? I hope you realize how ridiculous that sounds.
Let's say I'm a CC company, and I notice that I'm taking a substantial hit on my profits because of fraudulent transactions traceable to not securing transactions in a certain way, If I decide that I'm going to try and secure my transactions that way to avoid the loss, while still being willing to take hits for fraudulent transactions that occur with the new method, why should I continue to take the financial hit for companies that don't want to use the newer system?
Work is most precisely defined as energy used when force is applied to an object with mass that moves. Since trackers don't appear to get their typically above average mass wearers to move, they don't work.
Statistically, it is more likely that recordings made by a police officer would vindicate him in the event of a wrongful accusation than an independent recording would condemn him for a deserved one.
There are bad cops, I know that... but the majority are just doing their job. I know about a dozen cops personally, all of whom are fine individuals, and have met probably about a hundred or so, and could probably count on one hand the number of assholes among them.
Police that shut down their own recording would have nothing to gain by doing so... since any they would have no verifiable defense even if they were falsely accused of doing something wrong.
USB is a non-proprietary and ubiquitous standard... usb headphones are not that expensive and are readily available, requiring no licensing fees to a third party to utilize. The only expense comes with supporting the standard in the first place... but objections to it are fundamentally not significantly different than the early objections to using usb instead of rs232.
Here's a notion to ponder: the headphone jack doesn't know how old its design is. Neither do the headphones. Why does the age of the original tech matter when there is absolutely nothing wrong with it?
Absolutely nothing. I wasn't suggesting that the tech is bad because it is old... only pointing out that it's considerably older than just 40 years, and that contary to the above poster's apparent opinion, the tech did *NOT* start with Sony's Walkman... Heck, it wasn't even the walkman that first made the 3.5 mm jack popular (although I think that it *was* still Sony's transistor radios).
digital headphones do not sound better and have all kinds of problems like taking up the port you use for charging and also of course requiring a stupid dongle to work with anything else
USB-C headphones today could easily match the fidelity of even the finest 3.5mm jack headphones, and are possibly even capable of even better quality sound, at least on paper. Whether that actually comes to pass remains to be seen. While replacing old tech for replacement's sake isn't necessarily a good thing, replacing old tech with something that can do it one better, even if only in theory, is not... because traditionally that theory can, and eventually does become practice. It wasn't that long that computers gave up the centronics parallel port, even though it was being replaced with a port that was fundamentally serial in design: usb... a tech that at the time was only 1.5Mb/s for reliable communication compared to the parallel port's already extremely reliable 2.5 Mb/s. USB did also support a high speed mode of 12Mb/s, but initially most manufactures did not use that speed because of reliability concerns.
If they eliminated the ability to charge and listen with headphones at the same time, however... I'm totally on the same page as you on that matter. Clearly, they need to have the charging and data port separate from the headphone port so that you *CAN* listen to it while charging the device. There are accessibility concerns in this regard that Apple has completely ignored, and other manufacturers need to call them out on that instead of simply mimicking what they have done.
And USB-C is itself a standard and ubiquitous form factor, so there are no proprietary licensing fees associated with using it. USB headphones are inexpensive and readily available (and are likely to become increasingly so as manufacturers migrate to using that form factor), so the core difficulties that come with using Lightning do not apply.
In the interim, you can use a dongle to connect standard 3.5mm headphones to your computer.... but that's not fundamentally any different than using a dongle to connect a ps/2 mouse to a usb -only latop computer.
Not really... you can get usb headphones easily... this is nowhere near as bad as Apple's switch to lightning because the form-factor is standard and ubiquitous instead of proprietary.
40 years? Even if you were talking only about the 3.5mm jack specifically, try over 60. It was commonly used to connect an earpiece to transistor radios since the early 1950's, and the 1/4" phono jack, the same one that is still in use today, predated that by an additional 70 or 80 years, so you're talking about a tech that is well over a century old here.
Did it mention anywhere that they were just removing the audio jack and not replacing it with anything, or are they adding an additional usb-c port that you can plug usb-c headphones into? While I'm not a fan of change for its own sake, at least the latter option doesn't carry all of the same accessibility concerns as the inability to use headphones while charging might.
Considering the average daily residential electricity consumption in the USA is somewhere around 30 kilowatt hours, they'd need almost a thousand of them to generate enough power for just a single residential household.
That's somewhere around the the average household power usage for a single residential utility customer amortized over about the space of several weeks. Note... *AVERAGE*. There are many times throughout the course of even a single day that the demand would exceed that by a no small margin, and without the storage technology to supplement it, it would not meet the needs of most residential households, let alone a location that is for public usage.
Therefore, it will be harder for the little guy to get representation in court.
Yes, but this is certainly no worse off than if he had gotten a lawyer and still lost the case anyways. Presumably a lawyer will be able to predict if you had a good chance of winning or not, and if he won't represent you if he doesn't think you can win, then at least you're not out the money that you would have spent on the lawyer in the first place where you'd only ending up probably losing the case. Remember, the point of loser-pays is to discourage frivolous lawsuits, and if you don't objectively have a good chance of winning based solely on the merits of your position, then by very defnition, that is a frivolous case.
Now if you had, say, an 80% chance of winning, as you say, then the loan that your lawyer takes out on his own insurance is a risk, but it's only a 20% risk, so he factors that into whether he wants to take the case in the first place. If the lawyer loses despite believing he would win, his insurance rates go up... so he's got incentive to not take cases that he doesn't think he can win, but he doesn't get paid dick all if he decides he's going to refuse absolutely any case that's not a slam dunk just because he's risk averse.
In a universal loser-pays situation, a lawyer will simply not take a case unless they are pretty darn confident they can win it. If the lawyer *is* confident that he can win, then he takes out a loan against his insurance, and pays the victor's legal fees himself if he should lose. The loser is out nothing more than the fees he might have otherwise owed his own lawyer.
Even at its worst, it is no worse for the little guy than where he might try and sue and lose anyways. The only bad part is that he may not find anyone willing to represent him in court, but even that definitely leaves him no worse off than if he had paid his own way and lost.
It's not so much that there is anything "special" about it, as much as there is that there are things about it that only the manufacturer will know, because a product manufacturer doesn't necessarily disclose enough information about their product for independent parties to be able to repair or even diagnose issue that might arise with the device. Product manufactures do this a lot, often to discourage people from using independent repair services if something goes wrong, and I'd be honestly surprised if the Note was not similarly incomprehensible to third parties that might try to analyze it
Slashdot Mirror
If we are in a simulation, then who said that the factors are random? They might appear random to us, but for all we know, that is also an intended aspect of the simulation, assuming that we are in one.
... then assuming they are not wrong about evidence of app store review manipulation, it must be possible for independant parties to create such an appearance, and a less than ethical person could potentially use such measures to sabotage the apps of his competitors, since Apple's decision is final, and there is no appeal process.
Only if you presume that we are the equivalent of an unintended side effect of the simulation, and not simply an intended product of its design. We would be, in effect, the result of a software bug.
This may very well be entirely true, but we have no basis to assume as much.
The principle of intelligent design is the notion that we are intelligently designed. Period. Nothing more, and nothing less. Whether that intelligence was a civilization that predated us in this universe, an omnipotent god, or some other kind of entity that we have not even imagined yet is immaterial. I won't pretend that ID is not often used by religious people to try and crowbar their beliefs into science, but ID, at its core, is simply the premise that we were intelligently designed. Its biggest failing is that it fails to account for the origin of the designer, but then that is not what it was ever intended to do anyways. My point is that if it is somehow probable that the universe is a simulation, then it can be no less probable that we are the product of intelligent design... and if we refuse to acknowledge intelligent design as likely on the basis that we can find no evidence for it, we must similarly reject the notion that the universe is just a simulation, and accept the reality of what we appear to experience, since those experiences are what leaves science to conclude that we are not the product of intelligent design in the first place.
where do you get the idea that he's wearing a costume or suit? It could easily just be dark clothing. Looks to me like a person wearing a black hoodie, which would obscure much of his face unless he were to look in the direction of the camera, above.
Sure, but that just pushes the problem back one level, which is the same argument that people had against the fundamental premises of intelligent design in the first place. (the arguments against how it was being used to covertly try and insert religion into science were also entirely valid, but that was an objection to ID's proposed integration into science classes rather than a flaw with its fundamental premises).
.... we are not a simulation and somehow still be considered unlikely that we are intelligently designed when the so-called simulation that we are likely to be in would have obviously had to have been designed by an intelligent entity?
All they had allegedly "conspired" to do was simply to have the same effective date past which they would no longer support the older method... a method that they had assessed to be less secure, and there is no sane reason that they should ever be obligated to continue to support the older system after they have given plenty of advance warning of the change, both to consumers and vendors, even if they *did* secretly agree upon an effective date of implementation (although how you call something that they publicly announced years ago a secret is beyond me). There is no way that this could reasonably be considered illegal or unfair because the newer system is considered less likely to have fraudulent transactions in the first place.
Even if they *had* collaborated (or "conspired", as you say) on the idea, why should they be forced to continue to take a financial hit on a system that they don't even want to continue to support in the first place? Are you suggesting that they conspired to take financial losses with the other method? I hope you realize how ridiculous that sounds.
Let's say I'm a CC company, and I notice that I'm taking a substantial hit on my profits because of fraudulent transactions traceable to not securing transactions in a certain way, If I decide that I'm going to try and secure my transactions that way to avoid the loss, while still being willing to take hits for fraudulent transactions that occur with the new method, why should I continue to take the financial hit for companies that don't want to use the newer system?
... to accept the business of a company that doesn't want to do things the way the CC company requires?
Work is most precisely defined as energy used when force is applied to an object with mass that moves. Since trackers don't appear to get their typically above average mass wearers to move, they don't work.
Statistically, it is more likely that recordings made by a police officer would vindicate him in the event of a wrongful accusation than an independent recording would condemn him for a deserved one.
There are bad cops, I know that... but the majority are just doing their job. I know about a dozen cops personally, all of whom are fine individuals, and have met probably about a hundred or so, and could probably count on one hand the number of assholes among them.
Police that shut down their own recording would have nothing to gain by doing so... since any they would have no verifiable defense even if they were falsely accused of doing something wrong.
USB is a non-proprietary and ubiquitous standard... usb headphones are not that expensive and are readily available, requiring no licensing fees to a third party to utilize. The only expense comes with supporting the standard in the first place... but objections to it are fundamentally not significantly different than the early objections to using usb instead of rs232.
Absolutely nothing. I wasn't suggesting that the tech is bad because it is old... only pointing out that it's considerably older than just 40 years, and that contary to the above poster's apparent opinion, the tech did *NOT* start with Sony's Walkman... Heck, it wasn't even the walkman that first made the 3.5 mm jack popular (although I think that it *was* still Sony's transistor radios).
USB-C headphones today could easily match the fidelity of even the finest 3.5mm jack headphones, and are possibly even capable of even better quality sound, at least on paper. Whether that actually comes to pass remains to be seen. While replacing old tech for replacement's sake isn't necessarily a good thing, replacing old tech with something that can do it one better, even if only in theory, is not... because traditionally that theory can, and eventually does become practice. It wasn't that long that computers gave up the centronics parallel port, even though it was being replaced with a port that was fundamentally serial in design: usb... a tech that at the time was only 1.5Mb/s for reliable communication compared to the parallel port's already extremely reliable 2.5 Mb/s. USB did also support a high speed mode of 12Mb/s, but initially most manufactures did not use that speed because of reliability concerns.
If they eliminated the ability to charge and listen with headphones at the same time, however... I'm totally on the same page as you on that matter. Clearly, they need to have the charging and data port separate from the headphone port so that you *CAN* listen to it while charging the device. There are accessibility concerns in this regard that Apple has completely ignored, and other manufacturers need to call them out on that instead of simply mimicking what they have done.
And USB-C is itself a standard and ubiquitous form factor, so there are no proprietary licensing fees associated with using it. USB headphones are inexpensive and readily available (and are likely to become increasingly so as manufacturers migrate to using that form factor), so the core difficulties that come with using Lightning do not apply.
In the interim, you can use a dongle to connect standard 3.5mm headphones to your computer.... but that's not fundamentally any different than using a dongle to connect a ps/2 mouse to a usb -only latop computer.
Not really... you can get usb headphones easily... this is nowhere near as bad as Apple's switch to lightning because the form-factor is standard and ubiquitous instead of proprietary.
40 years? Even if you were talking only about the 3.5mm jack specifically, try over 60. It was commonly used to connect an earpiece to transistor radios since the early 1950's, and the 1/4" phono jack, the same one that is still in use today, predated that by an additional 70 or 80 years, so you're talking about a tech that is well over a century old here.
Did it mention anywhere that they were just removing the audio jack and not replacing it with anything, or are they adding an additional usb-c port that you can plug usb-c headphones into? While I'm not a fan of change for its own sake, at least the latter option doesn't carry all of the same accessibility concerns as the inability to use headphones while charging might.
Considering the average daily residential electricity consumption in the USA is somewhere around 30 kilowatt hours, they'd need almost a thousand of them to generate enough power for just a single residential household.
That's somewhere around the the average household power usage for a single residential utility customer amortized over about the space of several weeks. Note... *AVERAGE*. There are many times throughout the course of even a single day that the demand would exceed that by a no small margin, and without the storage technology to supplement it, it would not meet the needs of most residential households, let alone a location that is for public usage.
Finishing last would mean that it lasted the longest, wouldn't it?
Yes, but this is certainly no worse off than if he had gotten a lawyer and still lost the case anyways. Presumably a lawyer will be able to predict if you had a good chance of winning or not, and if he won't represent you if he doesn't think you can win, then at least you're not out the money that you would have spent on the lawyer in the first place where you'd only ending up probably losing the case. Remember, the point of loser-pays is to discourage frivolous lawsuits, and if you don't objectively have a good chance of winning based solely on the merits of your position, then by very defnition, that is a frivolous case.
Now if you had, say, an 80% chance of winning, as you say, then the loan that your lawyer takes out on his own insurance is a risk, but it's only a 20% risk, so he factors that into whether he wants to take the case in the first place. If the lawyer loses despite believing he would win, his insurance rates go up... so he's got incentive to not take cases that he doesn't think he can win, but he doesn't get paid dick all if he decides he's going to refuse absolutely any case that's not a slam dunk just because he's risk averse.
In a universal loser-pays situation, a lawyer will simply not take a case unless they are pretty darn confident they can win it. If the lawyer *is* confident that he can win, then he takes out a loan against his insurance, and pays the victor's legal fees himself if he should lose. The loser is out nothing more than the fees he might have otherwise owed his own lawyer.
Even at its worst, it is no worse for the little guy than where he might try and sue and lose anyways. The only bad part is that he may not find anyone willing to represent him in court, but even that definitely leaves him no worse off than if he had paid his own way and lost.
It's not so much that there is anything "special" about it, as much as there is that there are things about it that only the manufacturer will know, because a product manufacturer doesn't necessarily disclose enough information about their product for independent parties to be able to repair or even diagnose issue that might arise with the device. Product manufactures do this a lot, often to discourage people from using independent repair services if something goes wrong, and I'd be honestly surprised if the Note was not similarly incomprehensible to third parties that might try to analyze it