Could be... perhaps I am thinking of something else. Anyways, given the Canadian government's stance in the past on such matters, it is unlikely that Blackberry would have won.
Many sellers bill unused products as "new", simply because calling them "used" is not reflective of the fact that in such cases, it actually hasn't ever really been used. If a third category of "unused" existed, this problem might go away.
Unless they are clumsy, like me. A typical drop for me of something I am holding usually includes a tumble down a flight or two of stairs, sometimes even going off the side of the stairs onto a lower flight, causing falls of distances that are sometimes over 10 feet. Onto tile. Or concrete. Fortunately, I have a very hearty case that has protected my phone well. I had an Otter case for my old phone for many years, and decided to upgrade earlier this year because my provider offered me a good deal for a new phone that I would not have been able to take advantage of much later. I have a UAG case for my newer phone which has protected it equally well.
I doubt Gorilla Glass would make even a drop of difference.
Determinism does imply predictability, but it does not necessarily imply the knowability of enough information to make that prediction... only that the information exists.
I believe it was a provincial supreme court that demanded that Blackberry cooperate with the RCMP. While they could have theoretically challenged that and taken it to the SCC, given Canada's overall political climate and typical government stance on such matters, it is very unlikely that a higher court would have reversed that decision. All that would have happened is that Blackberry would have had to spend more money defending themselves and delayed the outcome by perhaps a few months to a year or so.
And if the USSC had ordered Apple to cooperate with the FBI, do you really think they would have refused?
If the universe is deterministic, it is predictable. That the usefulness of this predictability may be nil because the information cannot be communicated to the present, either at all, or simply in time to still qualify as a prediction from that reference point is immaterial.
pulling service out of your own home country from which you are primarily based can often be infeasible unless you have enough international physical presence, and no strong dependence on any foreign head office, to easily relocate
Sure... and that's compatible with one of my conclusions: "... or else it must simply be impossible to incorporate any information about a future state into the present state".
My point being that assuming the universe is actually deterministic accomplishes nothing at best, and is wrong at worst.
If hard determinism were true for all of the cosmos, then it is must be at least theoretically possible to infallibly predict a future state from a current state. If, however, knowledge of any alleged future state is ever used as factors in how to manipulate the current state, then the so-called foreknowledge of the future state is actually meaningless. For example, one can trivially create a hard-deterministic mechanism that responds as output with the opposite of its input (an inverter logic gate, for instance). If the input to the mechanism can somehow be made to be whatever the current state of being suggests the final output of the machine will be via hard-determinism, we can see that either the assumption about hard determinism being real must be false (because if it were not, the future state would be possible to determine from the current state, and so provide that information as input to the device), or else it must simply be impossible to incorporate any information about a future state into the present state. So either hard determinism doesn't actually exist, or else it is completely inconsequential (and may as well as not be assumed to not exist). At the very least, no benefit can ever be gained by assuming that hard determinism is true at a universal level.
One implication of this is that even if we did not actually have what we think free will is, we would not ever have the ability to know it, and so the apparent illusion of free will that we seem to have have is indistinguishable from anything we might want to otherwise call genuine free will. If they are indistinguishable, we might as well call the illusion of free will to simply be "free will", or else the expression of real free will is meaningless, since we cannot otherwise even know what that concept entails.
I'm not so sure about that... The feds probably wouldn't tell you anything even if you hadn't been tapped, so not telling you that you havent been wiretapped wouldn't mean anything you could (probably saying something like if they had, they couldn't tell you anyways), and so you probably can't make a reasonable inference from it as you might think.
It's not the 1990s, Slashdot; fix your unicode support. It's ridiculous that I can't type a thorn here.
While I personally agree with this, since there are apparently many that do not, I believe that the best compromise would be for slashdot to process text through a unicode filter when a user clicks the submit button, and if any non-ascii is detected, then it should go to a warning screen and require resubmission to accept it, similar to what happens if you happen to have a short response and click 'submit' too quickly after clicking 'reply'. At least it would give people who may have copy-pasted some web text from somewhere else that doesn't have a bias against using utf-8 a second chance to adjust their post before making the submission final.
If you are only using the tractor on their own property, how would the company ever know that you were doing your own repairs in the first place?
Just know that you won't get any help from the manufacturer, it will totally void any warranties you might have otherwise had, and the manufacturer will probably make things difficult for you, so your expertise level might have to be somewhat higher than what would be required to repair a vehicle made, say, in the 1970's.
I might see the figure as being appropriate for a yearly subscription, to be honest.. but I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would pay $10 every month for it unless they somehow actually like being separated from their money for some reason.
Presumably, as another comment has noted, if one were trying to disguise their drone as a bird so that it would not be recognized as a drone, one wouldn't employ flight maneuvers that were obviously impossible for the bird it is disguised as in the first place.
One could employ a gentle circling pattern to achieve a hover-like effect, just as some birds actually might do in nature.
How do you tell if something that appears to be a bird is really a bird or a drone disguised as one? If you feel that doesn't matter, what if it is disguised as a bird that is illegal to shoot at, and the excuse that "you thought it was a drone" wouldn't matter one iota if it turned out to be a real bird?
... communication that the government doesn't understand.
This would include speaking in a language that doesn't happen to be known to anyone in the government, which if the language is obscure enough is entirely possible.
Oh, and they would also need to outlaw the creation of fictional languages that are not released to public domain, since such languages could be used by criminals to covertly communicate and evade law enforcement where they could otherwise be detected.
Because truthfully, that us what they are proposing. The banning of any mathematics where the formulas involved are both unknown and cannot trivially be reverse engineered.
Why do you assume that you would matter enough to anyone for them to want to track you or follow you around in the first place? What about wetware, were absolutely everything that somebody else *sees* could potentially be uploaded to a server somewhere... and not necessarily even at the time that they saw it.
I may got modded to the depths of hell for speaking my mind on this, but privacy is only an idyllic fantasy that we might like to obtain, and we ultimately only have as much privacy as we have the lawful means to prevent those who might otherwise intrude upon it from doing so. We may at best respect another persons privacy under the expectation that they would reciprocate, but such an agreement is an informal and unspoken arrangement, and quite far removed from anything resembling an inalienable right. That one may happen to dislike having their privacy intruded upon should not offer them any assurance that the privacy they might otherwise enjoy is not actually ephemeral
Slashdot Mirror
What's wrong with being on the phone while using the toilet, exactly?
Could be... perhaps I am thinking of something else. Anyways, given the Canadian government's stance in the past on such matters, it is unlikely that Blackberry would have won.
If it is unused, a seller will typically list the item as "new".
Many sellers bill unused products as "new", simply because calling them "used" is not reflective of the fact that in such cases, it actually hasn't ever really been used. If a third category of "unused" existed, this problem might go away.
Unless they are clumsy, like me. A typical drop for me of something I am holding usually includes a tumble down a flight or two of stairs, sometimes even going off the side of the stairs onto a lower flight, causing falls of distances that are sometimes over 10 feet. Onto tile. Or concrete. Fortunately, I have a very hearty case that has protected my phone well. I had an Otter case for my old phone for many years, and decided to upgrade earlier this year because my provider offered me a good deal for a new phone that I would not have been able to take advantage of much later. I have a UAG case for my newer phone which has protected it equally well.
I doubt Gorilla Glass would make even a drop of difference.
(see what I did there?)
Determinism does imply predictability, but it does not necessarily imply the knowability of enough information to make that prediction... only that the information exists.
I believe it was a provincial supreme court that demanded that Blackberry cooperate with the RCMP. While they could have theoretically challenged that and taken it to the SCC, given Canada's overall political climate and typical government stance on such matters, it is very unlikely that a higher court would have reversed that decision. All that would have happened is that Blackberry would have had to spend more money defending themselves and delayed the outcome by perhaps a few months to a year or so.
And if the USSC had ordered Apple to cooperate with the FBI, do you really think they would have refused?
If the universe is deterministic, it is predictable. That the usefulness of this predictability may be nil because the information cannot be communicated to the present, either at all, or simply in time to still qualify as a prediction from that reference point is immaterial.
pulling service out of your own home country from which you are primarily based can often be infeasible unless you have enough international physical presence, and no strong dependence on any foreign head office, to easily relocate
Sure... and that's compatible with one of my conclusions: " ... or else it must simply be impossible to incorporate any information about a future state into the present state".
My point being that assuming the universe is actually deterministic accomplishes nothing at best, and is wrong at worst.
If hard determinism were true for all of the cosmos, then it is must be at least theoretically possible to infallibly predict a future state from a current state. If, however, knowledge of any alleged future state is ever used as factors in how to manipulate the current state, then the so-called foreknowledge of the future state is actually meaningless. For example, one can trivially create a hard-deterministic mechanism that responds as output with the opposite of its input (an inverter logic gate, for instance). If the input to the mechanism can somehow be made to be whatever the current state of being suggests the final output of the machine will be via hard-determinism, we can see that either the assumption about hard determinism being real must be false (because if it were not, the future state would be possible to determine from the current state, and so provide that information as input to the device), or else it must simply be impossible to incorporate any information about a future state into the present state. So either hard determinism doesn't actually exist, or else it is completely inconsequential (and may as well as not be assumed to not exist). At the very least, no benefit can ever be gained by assuming that hard determinism is true at a universal level.
One implication of this is that even if we did not actually have what we think free will is, we would not ever have the ability to know it, and so the apparent illusion of free will that we seem to have have is indistinguishable from anything we might want to otherwise call genuine free will. If they are indistinguishable, we might as well call the illusion of free will to simply be "free will", or else the expression of real free will is meaningless, since we cannot otherwise even know what that concept entails.
I'm not so sure about that... The feds probably wouldn't tell you anything even if you hadn't been tapped, so not telling you that you havent been wiretapped wouldn't mean anything you could (probably saying something like if they had, they couldn't tell you anyways), and so you probably can't make a reasonable inference from it as you might think.
While I personally agree with this, since there are apparently many that do not, I believe that the best compromise would be for slashdot to process text through a unicode filter when a user clicks the submit button, and if any non-ascii is detected, then it should go to a warning screen and require resubmission to accept it, similar to what happens if you happen to have a short response and click 'submit' too quickly after clicking 'reply'. At least it would give people who may have copy-pasted some web text from somewhere else that doesn't have a bias against using utf-8 a second chance to adjust their post before making the submission final.
Google glass was a bust... Hololens, maybe?
[nt]
If you are only using the tractor on their own property, how would the company ever know that you were doing your own repairs in the first place?
Just know that you won't get any help from the manufacturer, it will totally void any warranties you might have otherwise had, and the manufacturer will probably make things difficult for you, so your expertise level might have to be somewhat higher than what would be required to repair a vehicle made, say, in the 1970's.
I might see the figure as being appropriate for a yearly subscription, to be honest.. but I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would pay $10 every month for it unless they somehow actually like being separated from their money for some reason.
Presumably, as another comment has noted, if one were trying to disguise their drone as a bird so that it would not be recognized as a drone, one wouldn't employ flight maneuvers that were obviously impossible for the bird it is disguised as in the first place.
One could employ a gentle circling pattern to achieve a hover-like effect, just as some birds actually might do in nature.
How do you tell if something that appears to be a bird is really a bird or a drone disguised as one? If you feel that doesn't matter, what if it is disguised as a bird that is illegal to shoot at, and the excuse that "you thought it was a drone" wouldn't matter one iota if it turned out to be a real bird?
It's not impossible to enforce, but impossible for me to describe how without being accused of invoking Godwin
This would include speaking in a language that doesn't happen to be known to anyone in the government, which if the language is obscure enough is entirely possible.
Oh, and they would also need to outlaw the creation of fictional languages that are not released to public domain, since such languages could be used by criminals to covertly communicate and evade law enforcement where they could otherwise be detected.
Because truthfully, that us what they are proposing. The banning of any mathematics where the formulas involved are both unknown and cannot trivially be reverse engineered.
Pretty amazing what a fella can do with only 4 years to do it in.
Why do you assume that you would matter enough to anyone for them to want to track you or follow you around in the first place? What about wetware, were absolutely everything that somebody else *sees* could potentially be uploaded to a server somewhere... and not necessarily even at the time that they saw it.
I may got modded to the depths of hell for speaking my mind on this, but privacy is only an idyllic fantasy that we might like to obtain, and we ultimately only have as much privacy as we have the lawful means to prevent those who might otherwise intrude upon it from doing so. We may at best respect another persons privacy under the expectation that they would reciprocate, but such an agreement is an informal and unspoken arrangement, and quite far removed from anything resembling an inalienable right. That one may happen to dislike having their privacy intruded upon should not offer them any assurance that the privacy they might otherwise enjoy is not actually ephemeral