In other words, this app has been flooded with fake reviews.
I'd suggest that's immature on both android users and iphone users' parts for misrepresenting their experience with the app.
That one may be able to extract an estimate of average maturity of android users compared to that of iphone users based on the fact that their complaints about the app so vastly outnumber the 5-star reviews and cross referencing that imbalance with the ratio of android users to iphone users in general is left as an exercise for the reader.
I mean, if the point of it is to move your content from an android phone to an ios phone, then that would require that you actually *have* an ios phone to move the content to.... and most of the reviews that I saw looked like they were from people that wouldn't touch an iphone with the metaphorical 10 foot pole, so I suspect they didn't actually try the app out, but are simply utilizing the review process to diss Apple.
Not that I'm suggesting that Apple isn't necessarily deserving of dissing, but if that were genuinely the case, then certainly one should be able to do so on legitimate grounds rather than representing oneself as having tried an app that they very obviously would not have ever actually wanted to bother with.
If this basic income is enough to feed, clothe, and house a person, then there will be no incentive for people to take jobs that traditionally pay a lower wage, since basic income will enough to take care of basic needs that 99% of a person's income went towards anyways when they were working such jobs.
If it is not enough to take care of basic needs, then it is really pointless because the people that *could* otherwise have benefited the most from something like this will still not have enough to get by.
The word hasn't been redefined, it means what it always has. As for the allegation that it could be so overbroad as to mean nothing, building something from a kit, building something by following directions made by somebody else, or expressly copying something that somebody else has already made are examples of things that would not qualify as inventions, although they would still qualify as crafts.
Perhaps you were unaware that the word "invention" has a far broader meaning than what you would appear to ascribe to it. If he built it himself, and not from a kit, and he was not simply copying something that somebody else had already done or described to him how to do, then it most certainly does qualify as an invention of his. The fact that he didn't invent what he built in the sense that it might otherwise be worthy of a patent is immaterial.
From the original story, the kid vowed... note, *VOWED*... to never bring another invention to school again.
Admittedly the vow was probably made prematurely, but people who are of the sort to make vows in the first place are not the sort to break them simply because their circumstances might change.
Since most people already generally live their day-to-day lives as if we *are* alone in the universe, in reality, absolutely nothing would change with the discovery that we were actually alone.
What would be far more revolutionary than the discovery we are alone would be whatever technology that we were able to utilize to establish that point, given the vastness of space and the unimaginable amount of resources it would take to establish such a point to even being 50% certain, let alone proved.
I more specifically define malware as software that, without the user desiring it, changes how some other piece of software that was not installed with it functions. Software bugs can cause this to happen.
When the software changes how some other software that is already installed on the computer behaves when the user did not expressly indicate that they desired it, it is malware.
It is insufficient to conclude that the user desires how such software might modify the behavior of other software when it is bundled by default with with yet another piece of software that the user did express intent to want to use . In many ways, such software would resemble a trojan.
Software bugs are not malware, but they can turn the software in which they exist into malware whenever the software does something other than what the user intended.
When I was in university, my second semester first year digital logic class had a pretty fun term project, which was to build a working digital clock only from basic electronic components and ttl ic's (harder than it sounds, actually). The school provided the components, students had to bring their own solderless breadboards.
Because the school had all of the components that anyone would need, everyone would generally work on their projects in the lab. One day, however, I found myself a secluded quiet corner of one of the academic buildings and was working on it there. I specifically was working on the display multiplexer for my clock so that the power draw was such that the leds were more visible, and for testing purposes, was just hooking it up to basic leds instead of 7-segment displays. I doing this for about maybe 15 minutes when suddenly I was approached by campus security, who had evidently been contacted about somebody doing something suspicious in the hallway. Evidently, with the rapid flashing lights that I was working on, somebody had concluded that I may be building a bomb.
Shocked at the notion, I showed my campus ID, and said who I was and what I was working on. I nevertheless had to go to the campus security office, and I was told I could not bring my electronic stuff... since I was a broke student, and that electronic stuff represented about $200 of investment, I wasn't willing to just leave it in the hallway, told them how much it cost me, why I was building it, and I even told them who my prof was. The security guy wasn't actually getting close to me, I think genuinely worried that it might still be a bomb, and standing about 15 feet away radioed security to ask them what he should do... apparently someone else in the office knew the professor and had heard of the course and the project, and told him that it should be okay for me to bring the stuff, but I had to close everything up and I couldn't directly touch it after that. Still, I had to go with him to campus security.
So a few minutes later, there I am, sitting in the campus security office, trying again to desperately explain my situation and a computer science professor who knows me happens to walk by, sees me through the window, and pokes in his head to ask what is going on. After a quick synopsis of what has happened, he laughs at the situation and vouches for me... he confirms that I am indeed enrolled in that class, and he says that there isn't any problem. I am let go.
Later that afternoon, I had a lecture in that class and the prof opens up by relating with an amused expression to the entire class that he got a call from campus security earlier that morning about one of his students (he looked *right* at me... he was told who it was) building a bomb in the hallways. He said that he appreciated people being eager to work on their project, but said that in the future, people should confine their work on it either to the lab or off campus, so that he doesn't end up getting another call at home about something like this.
Embarrassed as anything, I emphatically said I was sorry and that it wouldn't happen again, and everybody, including the professor, laughed at the situation.
though you could take them to court over that if it appears unjustified
One wouldn't have to.... just file a complaint straight to the government and let them fight it for you. You'd probably get fired, of course... but you'd still eventually get all of the money that they owed you (within 4 to 6 weeks on the outside, if you are unlucky). Also, the employer would face a fine.
Employers are are *NOT* legally allowed to be docking employee pay for reasons that the employee has not specifically agreed to in advance, and in writing (eg, purchasing company stocks or bonds or the like).
I know that Walmart has some pretty shady practices in regards to how they treat some of their employees, so it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they are actually doing this, but if there is any proof at all of the allegation, then they could get into a whole lot of trouble.
Demotion is one thing, one that relegates an employee to being on a different pay scale. Docking pay is another matter entirely, and isn't generally legal unless the employee has agreed, in writing, to have their pay docked, for the specific reason the employer is docking it.
Sure... except that they won't be, because the people that will typically get these takedown notices are unlikely to have the resources to pursue costly litigation in the first place.
So they ruled that rights holders are supposed to consider fair use before making takedown requests....
There are numerous problems with this notion.
First, there is no particular benefit to the rights holders to do so, nor did I note any penalty for a rights holder that does not. They say that right holders "should" do something, but so what?
Secondly, there's every chance that larger rights holders will still be able to strong arm the average person with bogus claims because the latter aren't as likely to have the money to even try and fight them anyways, so how much consideration fair use was given before making the takedown request will never even be analyzed.
Third, they can say they "considered it" and then progress forward anyways. There is no mechanisms to ensure that the rights holder gives the matter any genuine and sincere consideration before invoking litigation, particularly if they think they will win simply because they have more money to throw at the case, as I mentioned above. The notion that they may expose themselves to liability is probably not going to worry them if the smaller fish is unlikely to have the resources to actively pursue such litigation anyways.
It's a neat idea.... but without teeth, it's worthless.
Despite the fact that computers can now beat even the best human players at chess, I've always been of the opinion that beating a human at chess was not really a solved problem, because where chess programs do so by exhaustively examining millions of board combinations to make even a single move, a grand master chess player will generally contemplate but the tiniest fraction of that amount.... and they can still play chess pretty damn well. If a computer only considered as many board combinations as a grandmaster did, but still otherwise using the same chess playing algorithms as what are typically used today, even a rank amateur chess player could probably beat it.
To me, the problem of making an a chess playing algorithm that can beat a human being should really be figuring out exactly what it is that the best chess-playing humans do when they play that enables them to play as well as they do *WITHOUT* the ability to consider every combination.
Personally, I'm betting cracking that nut is more than halfway to achieving general AI.
It is a legitimate use of the word "detect" to say you have detected something when what you have really detected is a sufficient amount of evidence to support the conclusion that something is present, despite possibly never detecting that thing directly.
And..there are PLENTY of other jobs out there that don't have UBER in the name of the employer. Work somewhere else maybe?
Jobs might exist.... that doesn't mean that you'll get hired for any of them, because there are always more applicants than there are jobs. A good many people, not all of whom are necessarily unskilled, have to take whatever they can get or risk missing out on having something as basic as a place to live... or eating.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, this app has been flooded with fake reviews.
I'd suggest that's immature on both android users and iphone users' parts for misrepresenting their experience with the app.
That one may be able to extract an estimate of average maturity of android users compared to that of iphone users based on the fact that their complaints about the app so vastly outnumber the 5-star reviews and cross referencing that imbalance with the ratio of android users to iphone users in general is left as an exercise for the reader.
I mean, if the point of it is to move your content from an android phone to an ios phone, then that would require that you actually *have* an ios phone to move the content to.... and most of the reviews that I saw looked like they were from people that wouldn't touch an iphone with the metaphorical 10 foot pole, so I suspect they didn't actually try the app out, but are simply utilizing the review process to diss Apple.
Not that I'm suggesting that Apple isn't necessarily deserving of dissing, but if that were genuinely the case, then certainly one should be able to do so on legitimate grounds rather than representing oneself as having tried an app that they very obviously would not have ever actually wanted to bother with.
If this basic income is enough to feed, clothe, and house a person, then there will be no incentive for people to take jobs that traditionally pay a lower wage, since basic income will enough to take care of basic needs that 99% of a person's income went towards anyways when they were working such jobs.
If it is not enough to take care of basic needs, then it is really pointless because the people that *could* otherwise have benefited the most from something like this will still not have enough to get by.
I don't know how many times I tried to click on it before I finally realized that it was just some text surrounded by otherwise empty tags
In no particular order, the grand challenges are:
Some of these may be rooted in human nature, so getting rid of them will not happen unless or until we evolve past that hurdle.
The word hasn't been redefined, it means what it always has. As for the allegation that it could be so overbroad as to mean nothing, building something from a kit, building something by following directions made by somebody else, or expressly copying something that somebody else has already made are examples of things that would not qualify as inventions, although they would still qualify as crafts.
True.... but much of the fun that comes from doing that sort of thing comes from also being able to show your peers what you built.
Perhaps you were unaware that the word "invention" has a far broader meaning than what you would appear to ascribe to it. If he built it himself, and not from a kit, and he was not simply copying something that somebody else had already done or described to him how to do, then it most certainly does qualify as an invention of his. The fact that he didn't invent what he built in the sense that it might otherwise be worthy of a patent is immaterial.
From the original story, the kid vowed... note, *VOWED*... to never bring another invention to school again.
Admittedly the vow was probably made prematurely, but people who are of the sort to make vows in the first place are not the sort to break them simply because their circumstances might change.
Since most people already generally live their day-to-day lives as if we *are* alone in the universe, in reality, absolutely nothing would change with the discovery that we were actually alone.
What would be far more revolutionary than the discovery we are alone would be whatever technology that we were able to utilize to establish that point, given the vastness of space and the unimaginable amount of resources it would take to establish such a point to even being 50% certain, let alone proved.
I said it *CAN*.... not that it *DOES*.
I more specifically define malware as software that, without the user desiring it, changes how some other piece of software that was not installed with it functions. Software bugs can cause this to happen.
When the software changes how some other software that is already installed on the computer behaves when the user did not expressly indicate that they desired it, it is malware.
It is insufficient to conclude that the user desires how such software might modify the behavior of other software when it is bundled by default with with yet another piece of software that the user did express intent to want to use . In many ways, such software would resemble a trojan.
Software bugs are not malware, but they can turn the software in which they exist into malware whenever the software does something other than what the user intended.
Although my story has a funnier ending.
When I was in university, my second semester first year digital logic class had a pretty fun term project, which was to build a working digital clock only from basic electronic components and ttl ic's (harder than it sounds, actually). The school provided the components, students had to bring their own solderless breadboards.
Because the school had all of the components that anyone would need, everyone would generally work on their projects in the lab. One day, however, I found myself a secluded quiet corner of one of the academic buildings and was working on it there. I specifically was working on the display multiplexer for my clock so that the power draw was such that the leds were more visible, and for testing purposes, was just hooking it up to basic leds instead of 7-segment displays. I doing this for about maybe 15 minutes when suddenly I was approached by campus security, who had evidently been contacted about somebody doing something suspicious in the hallway. Evidently, with the rapid flashing lights that I was working on, somebody had concluded that I may be building a bomb.
Shocked at the notion, I showed my campus ID, and said who I was and what I was working on. I nevertheless had to go to the campus security office, and I was told I could not bring my electronic stuff... since I was a broke student, and that electronic stuff represented about $200 of investment, I wasn't willing to just leave it in the hallway, told them how much it cost me, why I was building it, and I even told them who my prof was. The security guy wasn't actually getting close to me, I think genuinely worried that it might still be a bomb, and standing about 15 feet away radioed security to ask them what he should do... apparently someone else in the office knew the professor and had heard of the course and the project, and told him that it should be okay for me to bring the stuff, but I had to close everything up and I couldn't directly touch it after that. Still, I had to go with him to campus security.
So a few minutes later, there I am, sitting in the campus security office, trying again to desperately explain my situation and a computer science professor who knows me happens to walk by, sees me through the window, and pokes in his head to ask what is going on. After a quick synopsis of what has happened, he laughs at the situation and vouches for me... he confirms that I am indeed enrolled in that class, and he says that there isn't any problem. I am let go.
Later that afternoon, I had a lecture in that class and the prof opens up by relating with an amused expression to the entire class that he got a call from campus security earlier that morning about one of his students (he looked *right* at me... he was told who it was) building a bomb in the hallways. He said that he appreciated people being eager to work on their project, but said that in the future, people should confine their work on it either to the lab or off campus, so that he doesn't end up getting another call at home about something like this.
Embarrassed as anything, I emphatically said I was sorry and that it wouldn't happen again, and everybody, including the professor, laughed at the situation.
No, they cannot. Not legally, anyways.
One wouldn't have to.... just file a complaint straight to the government and let them fight it for you. You'd probably get fired, of course... but you'd still eventually get all of the money that they owed you (within 4 to 6 weeks on the outside, if you are unlucky). Also, the employer would face a fine.
Employers are are *NOT* legally allowed to be docking employee pay for reasons that the employee has not specifically agreed to in advance, and in writing (eg, purchasing company stocks or bonds or the like).
I know that Walmart has some pretty shady practices in regards to how they treat some of their employees, so it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they are actually doing this, but if there is any proof at all of the allegation, then they could get into a whole lot of trouble.
Demotion is one thing, one that relegates an employee to being on a different pay scale. Docking pay is another matter entirely, and isn't generally legal unless the employee has agreed, in writing, to have their pay docked, for the specific reason the employer is docking it.
Not to be confused with when people can make code just by thinking.
Do you have a reference for that?
Sure... except that they won't be, because the people that will typically get these takedown notices are unlikely to have the resources to pursue costly litigation in the first place.
There are numerous problems with this notion.
First, there is no particular benefit to the rights holders to do so, nor did I note any penalty for a rights holder that does not. They say that right holders "should" do something, but so what?
Secondly, there's every chance that larger rights holders will still be able to strong arm the average person with bogus claims because the latter aren't as likely to have the money to even try and fight them anyways, so how much consideration fair use was given before making the takedown request will never even be analyzed.
Third, they can say they "considered it" and then progress forward anyways. There is no mechanisms to ensure that the rights holder gives the matter any genuine and sincere consideration before invoking litigation, particularly if they think they will win simply because they have more money to throw at the case, as I mentioned above. The notion that they may expose themselves to liability is probably not going to worry them if the smaller fish is unlikely to have the resources to actively pursue such litigation anyways.
It's a neat idea.... but without teeth, it's worthless.
Despite the fact that computers can now beat even the best human players at chess, I've always been of the opinion that beating a human at chess was not really a solved problem, because where chess programs do so by exhaustively examining millions of board combinations to make even a single move, a grand master chess player will generally contemplate but the tiniest fraction of that amount.... and they can still play chess pretty damn well. If a computer only considered as many board combinations as a grandmaster did, but still otherwise using the same chess playing algorithms as what are typically used today, even a rank amateur chess player could probably beat it.
To me, the problem of making an a chess playing algorithm that can beat a human being should really be figuring out exactly what it is that the best chess-playing humans do when they play that enables them to play as well as they do *WITHOUT* the ability to consider every combination.
Personally, I'm betting cracking that nut is more than halfway to achieving general AI.
It is a legitimate use of the word "detect" to say you have detected something when what you have really detected is a sufficient amount of evidence to support the conclusion that something is present, despite possibly never detecting that thing directly.
I have no words.
.... and still have a job to come back to later when they decide the pay *IS* high enough?
Jobs might exist.... that doesn't mean that you'll get hired for any of them, because there are always more applicants than there are jobs. A good many people, not all of whom are necessarily unskilled, have to take whatever they can get or risk missing out on having something as basic as a place to live... or eating.