That's an admirable goal... but being as thin as a credit card means that it is equally likely to get broken. If your credit card cracks they will send you a replacement for free if you ask for one. Will Apple do likewise?
Being thinner just means it that generally speaking, it will break easier. At least with a credit card you can get the company to send you a replacement if your card get damaged (at no charge, in my experience). I doubt Apple will do likewise.
Waterproof is good, certainly, but there are too many other negatives on the device to offset that one advantage.
His statement, I think, is still true. Unless one is an extremely overgenerous parent that has money to burn.
In terms of allowance, I think the most any of my kids ever earned iover the course of a year was maybe a few hundred bucks. Over 5 years that wouldn't come anywhere close to 5k.
Unless you don't live in a residence that requires you to do any housework (because presumably, it is already getting done by someone else), the only reasons I can imagine that you would be unable to use (ie, "can't use", as you put it) this tech is if you either actually sincerely enjoy housework, or else are someone who otherwise does not do their own housework at least somewhat begrudgingly.
Both of these reasons would put you in the "very atypical" category.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Only if you presume that a teleporter reconstructs you out of subatomic material available at the destination. If instead, the your quantum wave function were to be directly manipulated so that the probability of the collection of particles that represents you is reduced at one location while being increased at another location (subject only to uncertainty principles that are unavoidable at quantum levels), then you are not killed at your old location at all, as the probability of you being at the original location drops to zero (while the probability of you being somewhere else is 1 minus that probability), you would quite literally cease to be there in any way, and would simultaneously materialize at your destination. The "you" at the destination is not a copy of you, any more than a particle that has experienced quantum tunnelling is a copy of what it was before it tunnelled. Of course, the practical limitation on distance that this is liable to ever be achieved over is small enough that it would probably always be more efficient to simply walk.
The radio station reserves any tickets they are intending to give away, and then registers each under the name of its winner. The actual ticket shows both the name of radio station that purchased the ticket as well as the authorized recipient.
I would assume that at a concert, nobody will be able to hear a phone anyways. Concert noise levels at events like this probably push a hundred db or more, while a cell phone ringtone is probably only about 60 to 70 db.
If you have to shout to a person who is right beside you for them to hear what you are saying, what makes you think you'd hear a cell phone ring?
Why would a person get kicked out of the concert if they didn't happen to try and use their phone during the concert? Presumably, if something urgent enough came up that they needed to use their phone, they probably wouldn't have cared if they got kicked out.
However, it is human nature to resent being locked up or having one's freedom taken away, even if a person doesn't have anywhere else to be at the time, and I think that the objection to putting people's cell phones in bags to keep them from using them is similarly driven.
Speaking for myself, I'm more pissed off by the hacker's attitude of "I'm doing people a favor" than anything else... like he (or she) is somehow ethically justified to make decisions about what other people are supposed to be doing with their time instead of playing a video game.
Perhaps it isn't the most productive way to spend one's time, but the decision to play or not should be theirs... not someone else's.
.... from just continuing to use it while paying the penalties for using an unlicensed version of their software? I mean for at least the interim, until they can get an upgrade firmly in place?
4. The cost and timeline of an upgrade now (they should seriously consider it regardless) would cripple their health infrastructure. We're talking 3-5 years minimum of conversion time
Which suggests that the government should have been actually planning for this at least three to five years ago. While I think it's assinine for a company to sue for using unlicensed software when they won't sell a license in the first place, I think that the government is in the wrong here.
For all practical purposes, however, any penalties owed for using the unlicensed software can be viewed as the costs of "renewing" the license until they *can* get an upgrade implemented. They better get on that pretty quickly, however... since said "renewal" is going to get pretty darn expensive really fast, and dragging their heels on it will only make things worse.
Review their processes more thoroughly sure... have more have more accountability for their actions, certainly... but get rid of them? I don't want to imagine the can of worms that would open.
Does it matter how willing you are to pay for or participate in collective action when there are enough people who aren't that such collective action doesn't eve happen?
So, if I were to use a rifle emoji on/., you'd feel threatened? Really?
I didn't say I would be... but I am not incapable of seeing that someone who already has issues with firearms might be, I can't see how anyone would find an image of a slice of cake in a text message to them to be personally threatening, however... even if they are diabetic.
True... but shootings kill more people than force feeding another person does.
So food emoji's can't really be perceived of as threats... at least not generally speaking, but a rifle pic could easily be seen as one, depending on the context.
Of course, because insulting someone and comparing their argument to an easily defeated one that they never even tried to make are two of the best ways to disprove someone's argument.
think the fundamental bankruptcy of your beliefs is that you can't show that your so-called "give a damn" is better than doing absolutely nothing
That is kind of my point... that the people that do care about trying to mitigate global warming damages won't make a spot of difference. Their caring *is* no better than doing absolutely nothing, while at least the latter has merit in that you don't end up worrying about something you have absolutely no ability to control or change.
I'm not saying you should... I'm just saying it doesn't matter what you personally do. Nothing you or I can do or ever even hope to do is going to change what is going to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
At least a CC company will mail you a replacement card if yours gets damaged.
That's an admirable goal... but being as thin as a credit card means that it is equally likely to get broken. If your credit card cracks they will send you a replacement for free if you ask for one. Will Apple do likewise?
Being thinner just means it that generally speaking, it will break easier. At least with a credit card you can get the company to send you a replacement if your card get damaged (at no charge, in my experience). I doubt Apple will do likewise.
Waterproof is good, certainly, but there are too many other negatives on the device to offset that one advantage.
His statement, I think, is still true. Unless one is an extremely overgenerous parent that has money to burn.
In terms of allowance, I think the most any of my kids ever earned iover the course of a year was maybe a few hundred bucks. Over 5 years that wouldn't come anywhere close to 5k.
Unless you don't live in a residence that requires you to do any housework (because presumably, it is already getting done by someone else), the only reasons I can imagine that you would be unable to use (ie, "can't use", as you put it) this tech is if you either actually sincerely enjoy housework, or else are someone who otherwise does not do their own housework at least somewhat begrudgingly.
Both of these reasons would put you in the "very atypical" category.
I was channeling a little more sci fi author than quantum physicist, to be perfectly honest.... I was talking about teleporters here, after all.
Only if you presume that a teleporter reconstructs you out of subatomic material available at the destination. If instead, the your quantum wave function were to be directly manipulated so that the probability of the collection of particles that represents you is reduced at one location while being increased at another location (subject only to uncertainty principles that are unavoidable at quantum levels), then you are not killed at your old location at all, as the probability of you being at the original location drops to zero (while the probability of you being somewhere else is 1 minus that probability), you would quite literally cease to be there in any way, and would simultaneously materialize at your destination. The "you" at the destination is not a copy of you, any more than a particle that has experienced quantum tunnelling is a copy of what it was before it tunnelled. Of course, the practical limitation on distance that this is liable to ever be achieved over is small enough that it would probably always be more efficient to simply walk.
I believe the point was to verify that the actual *purchase* was being made by a human, not simply that a human had logged in.
The radio station reserves any tickets they are intending to give away, and then registers each under the name of its winner. The actual ticket shows both the name of radio station that purchased the ticket as well as the authorized recipient.
I would assume that at a concert, nobody will be able to hear a phone anyways. Concert noise levels at events like this probably push a hundred db or more, while a cell phone ringtone is probably only about 60 to 70 db.
If you have to shout to a person who is right beside you for them to hear what you are saying, what makes you think you'd hear a cell phone ring?
Why would a person get kicked out of the concert if they didn't happen to try and use their phone during the concert? Presumably, if something urgent enough came up that they needed to use their phone, they probably wouldn't have cared if they got kicked out.
However, it is human nature to resent being locked up or having one's freedom taken away, even if a person doesn't have anywhere else to be at the time, and I think that the objection to putting people's cell phones in bags to keep them from using them is similarly driven.
Or are we talking about airport-like security scans where thye xray your belongings and make you pass through a metal detector?
Speaking for myself, I'm more pissed off by the hacker's attitude of "I'm doing people a favor" than anything else... like he (or she) is somehow ethically justified to make decisions about what other people are supposed to be doing with their time instead of playing a video game.
Perhaps it isn't the most productive way to spend one's time, but the decision to play or not should be theirs... not someone else's.
... of doing something like this in JavaScript if it isn't even going to be cross platform?
.... from just continuing to use it while paying the penalties for using an unlicensed version of their software? I mean for at least the interim, until they can get an upgrade firmly in place?
Which suggests that the government should have been actually planning for this at least three to five years ago. While I think it's assinine for a company to sue for using unlicensed software when they won't sell a license in the first place, I think that the government is in the wrong here.
For all practical purposes, however, any penalties owed for using the unlicensed software can be viewed as the costs of "renewing" the license until they *can* get an upgrade implemented. They better get on that pretty quickly, however... since said "renewal" is going to get pretty darn expensive really fast, and dragging their heels on it will only make things worse.
[nt]
See a pattern here?
This strikes me as a Very Bad Idea
Review their processes more thoroughly sure... have more have more accountability for their actions, certainly... but get rid of them? I don't want to imagine the can of worms that would open.
Does it matter how willing you are to pay for or participate in collective action when there are enough people who aren't that such collective action doesn't eve happen?
I didn't say I would be... but I am not incapable of seeing that someone who already has issues with firearms might be, I can't see how anyone would find an image of a slice of cake in a text message to them to be personally threatening, however... even if they are diabetic.
So food emoji's can't really be perceived of as threats... at least not generally speaking, but a rifle pic could easily be seen as one, depending on the context.
Of course, because insulting someone and comparing their argument to an easily defeated one that they never even tried to make are two of the best ways to disprove someone's argument.
That is kind of my point... that the people that do care about trying to mitigate global warming damages won't make a spot of difference. Their caring *is* no better than doing absolutely nothing, while at least the latter has merit in that you don't end up worrying about something you have absolutely no ability to control or change.
I'm not saying you should... I'm just saying it doesn't matter what you personally do. Nothing you or I can do or ever even hope to do is going to change what is going to happen.