Manitoba isn't very well covered, that is true... but Alberta sure as hell is, with reliable LTE service going as far north as Athabasca. BC also has pretty good coverage on its major highways extending into the interior and to its northern major cities.
If you're going to make 150km be the standard for "close" (I would have considered it to be anything closer than 100km, as the crow fliies, personally... since things like terrain or great lakes that might force roads to not simply be straight has no bearing on the distance that a wireless signal necessarily has to travel), that still leaves about 12 or 13% of Canadians that don't live that close... and of those, about 85% of them live in just one of two Albertan cities, both of which are among Canada's ten most populous: Calgary and Edmonton. The former city has about 1.3 million people and is 250km from the border and the latter has a population of about 950,000, and is 550km. Neither of them are just dudes living in a shack out in the boondocks somewhere.
A majority, yes... not everyone, however. There are roughly 3 million that do not. Three out of the ten largest cities in Canada are not very near the Canada-US border, in fact: Winnipeg, with a population of about 3/4 million is 110 km from the border, Calgary, with about 1.3 million people is about 250km from the border, and Edmonton, with about 950,000 people is about 550km from the border.
... is when enough people decide that they don't want to pay that much for it, and are willing to live without the service unless or until things change.
After all, it's not ridiculous for a company to charge as much as people are willing to pay for a product or service, even if they pay it only because it is preferable to them than the inconvenience of not having it.
Of course... what I would object to, however, is that one should get to expunge all records that it happened just because others may judge them harshly for it. Newspapers and the like are obligated to print retractions, of course... but trying to remove all evidence that it ever happened in the first place just because some people may not pay attention to such retractions smacks of revisionist history, and the concept is nothing less than wholly repugnant to me. It forces people to not judge a book by its cover by not giving them the opportunity to, and raises a society that does not really think for themselves, and is less skeptical of the media and the government, because they have had less of a reason to ever doubt the veracity of whatever information they are given.
It's unfortunate that some people will be treated unfairly because of past mistakes, even if those mistakes were not theirs... but as I said, real life is really not supposed to have a reset button. Whatever hand you may be dealt, each of us bears the responsibility of only doing whatever best we can with the circumstances that we have.
You don't need a perfect memory of how someone may have wronged you in the past to hold a grudge against them, so no... humans having an imperfect memory compared to a computer's perfect recollection has nothing to do with anything.
I think that whole "right to be forgotten" shit is an idiotic concept as well. Nobody has any intrinsic right to be forgiven for something that happened in the past, or deserves to have any record of a mistake expunged... we only have to appeal to our fellow man's better nature and ask that they overlook past flaws. Ideally, they will, but you can't legislate that we can't form opinions about other people based on arbitrary information, regardless of its source.
And on top of it all, how are we expected to actually learn from past mistakes if we don't have to actually live with the consequences of them, even if these mistakes are not necessarily our own, or the consequences necessarily justly deserved?
It's called real life for a reason, you know... it's not supposed to come with a reset button.
It may have escaped your attention that the above poster was talking about Apple computers in the first place, since he explicitly mentioned how it affects Mac users.
News flash - life isn't fair. Does Jane Doe seriously think she's the only one in the world with problems that she might not reasonably deserve to have to live with?
There's this feature on a lot of drones sold today called "return to home". They automatically activate when going out of range or if the battery starts to get low. Of course, there are probably people who go flying their drones outside in weather that is too violent for the drone to be safely navigated. I am not one of them.
You may need to register, or you could gamble on getting safely out of the country before they find out whose drone just crashed into an apartment building.
That's not terribly likely in my case... my drone has a range of only about 100 meters or so. Because of this proximity, it's both unlikely I'd crash it into someone else's property, as well as unlikely I'd be able to get away without being caught even if it did, because I'm so close that it will probably be pretty obvious who was controlling it.
...intelligence that happens to be artificial, as opposed to natural. While this is more or less a tautology, I don't see any compelling reason that the definition needs to be any more complex than this.
Just as certainly as there are varying levels of natural intelligence, there can be varying levels of artificial intelligence.
Now if you want me to define "intelligence".... well, there's a trickier one. Is little Billy intelligent because he learned how to to multiply, or was that just the result of memorization? Is Alphazero intelligent because it learned how to play its games very well, or is it merely the result of following heuristic algorithms that coincidentally create the sufficiently persistent illusion of being a superior games player, while in fact possessing absolutely no real skill?
The answer is subjective... its going to depend on who you ask. Personally, I think that both are examples of intelligence, and more generally, any sufficiently persistent illusion of the existence of a thing, by virtue of being indistinguishable from that thing, should be considered completely equivalent to that thing, or else whatever we happen to call that thing doesn't really mean anything in the first place.
"At risk of hunger" would suggest only that these people are living in poverty... that while not necessarily severely undernourished, they do not make enough each month to make ends meet, and that means they are not eating well.
Living in a cheaper neighborhood could save them a lot of money each month, but then they could easily end up paying more than whatever they save on the increased commute requirements that they create for themselves by doing so.
If the app needs to spoof a browser to function, then why don't they just open up the video in a browser window in the first place? Seems like a whole lot less work, to say the least.
... a competitor's web browser when there's no technical reason to do so (that is, it works fine in every other equally capable browser), then that's a serious problem. If they are just not offering any support for its use on another platform, or just not allowing competitors apps on their platform, that's another matter entirely, and I see no problem with that.
Now near as I figure, Amazon did the latter... and Google responded by doing the former.
This kind of arms race is just going to fragment the 'net, and the consumers like you and me are going to the losers.
I was reading "everyone who automates" to be more general than literally referring to each specific person that automates a task directly has to hire more people as a result, and suggesting that generally speaking, for every person that anyone hires, they end up either directly or indirectly creating more job opportunities for people outside of the field they are directly automating. Trying to catch up simply by automating faster is like trying to lift something you are standing on top of.
Eminent domain didn't apply to SCO's case. It would here. Under certain kinds of circumstances, the government quite literally has the authority to appropriate whatever private property they want that is inside of its borders, compensating former owners only whatever value is deemed appropriate by the court, regardless of whatever value the owners might want. This is quite honestly open-and-shut here. The owners will likely be offered an initial sum by the government, and if the owners don't accept it, they could easily wind up getting far less if the court assesses the value at a lower rate.
Look up eminent domain in the USA with a search engine.... you'll see what I mean.
Slashdot Mirror
Manitoba isn't very well covered, that is true... but Alberta sure as hell is, with reliable LTE service going as far north as Athabasca. BC also has pretty good coverage on its major highways extending into the interior and to its northern major cities.
True... but there are somewhat long highways connecting them.
The above post only suggested that cellular service would only be needed along the Transcanada highway.
If you're going to make 150km be the standard for "close" (I would have considered it to be anything closer than 100km, as the crow fliies, personally... since things like terrain or great lakes that might force roads to not simply be straight has no bearing on the distance that a wireless signal necessarily has to travel), that still leaves about 12 or 13% of Canadians that don't live that close... and of those, about 85% of them live in just one of two Albertan cities, both of which are among Canada's ten most populous: Calgary and Edmonton. The former city has about 1.3 million people and is 250km from the border and the latter has a population of about 950,000, and is 550km. Neither of them are just dudes living in a shack out in the boondocks somewhere.
A majority, yes... not everyone, however. There are roughly 3 million that do not. Three out of the ten largest cities in Canada are not very near the Canada-US border, in fact: Winnipeg, with a population of about 3/4 million is 110 km from the border, Calgary, with about 1.3 million people is about 250km from the border, and Edmonton, with about 950,000 people is about 550km from the border.
After all, it's not ridiculous for a company to charge as much as people are willing to pay for a product or service, even if they pay it only because it is preferable to them than the inconvenience of not having it.
It's unfortunate that some people will be treated unfairly because of past mistakes, even if those mistakes were not theirs... but as I said, real life is really not supposed to have a reset button. Whatever hand you may be dealt, each of us bears the responsibility of only doing whatever best we can with the circumstances that we have.
You don't need a perfect memory of how someone may have wronged you in the past to hold a grudge against them, so no... humans having an imperfect memory compared to a computer's perfect recollection has nothing to do with anything.
They are... even without the government trying to fix other people's mistakes.
I'm reminded of an expression: "First world problems".
Half of the people in the world have it worse than you or I are ever liable to know, no matter how unfair things might get.
Yes, but as I said above, life isn't fair... we don't get to press a reset button on it just because we got dealt an unfair hand.
I think that whole "right to be forgotten" shit is an idiotic concept as well. Nobody has any intrinsic right to be forgiven for something that happened in the past, or deserves to have any record of a mistake expunged... we only have to appeal to our fellow man's better nature and ask that they overlook past flaws. Ideally, they will, but you can't legislate that we can't form opinions about other people based on arbitrary information, regardless of its source.
And on top of it all, how are we expected to actually learn from past mistakes if we don't have to actually live with the consequences of them, even if these mistakes are not necessarily our own, or the consequences necessarily justly deserved?
It's called real life for a reason, you know... it's not supposed to come with a reset button.
It may have escaped your attention that the above poster was talking about Apple computers in the first place, since he explicitly mentioned how it affects Mac users.
So she has explaining to do.
News flash - life isn't fair. Does Jane Doe seriously think she's the only one in the world with problems that she might not reasonably deserve to have to live with?
If you wanna get *really* serious about drinking wine, try this.
There's this feature on a lot of drones sold today called "return to home". They automatically activate when going out of range or if the battery starts to get low. Of course, there are probably people who go flying their drones outside in weather that is too violent for the drone to be safely navigated. I am not one of them.
That's not terribly likely in my case... my drone has a range of only about 100 meters or so. Because of this proximity, it's both unlikely I'd crash it into someone else's property, as well as unlikely I'd be able to get away without being caught even if it did, because I'm so close that it will probably be pretty obvious who was controlling it.
Just as certainly as there are varying levels of natural intelligence, there can be varying levels of artificial intelligence.
Now if you want me to define "intelligence".... well, there's a trickier one. Is little Billy intelligent because he learned how to to multiply, or was that just the result of memorization? Is Alphazero intelligent because it learned how to play its games very well, or is it merely the result of following heuristic algorithms that coincidentally create the sufficiently persistent illusion of being a superior games player, while in fact possessing absolutely no real skill?
The answer is subjective... its going to depend on who you ask. Personally, I think that both are examples of intelligence, and more generally, any sufficiently persistent illusion of the existence of a thing, by virtue of being indistinguishable from that thing, should be considered completely equivalent to that thing, or else whatever we happen to call that thing doesn't really mean anything in the first place.
"At risk of hunger" would suggest only that these people are living in poverty... that while not necessarily severely undernourished, they do not make enough each month to make ends meet, and that means they are not eating well.
Living in a cheaper neighborhood could save them a lot of money each month, but then they could easily end up paying more than whatever they save on the increased commute requirements that they create for themselves by doing so.
Serious question... I don't live in the USA, am I now prohibited from bringing my recreational drone over the border?
If the app needs to spoof a browser to function, then why don't they just open up the video in a browser window in the first place? Seems like a whole lot less work, to say the least.
I was referring to consumers of internet service in general, not the consumers of products that might be pushed upon them.
Of course, if you are suggesting that you are intending to go without using the internet at all, then, well.... to each their own, I suppose.
Now near as I figure, Amazon did the latter... and Google responded by doing the former.
This kind of arms race is just going to fragment the 'net, and the consumers like you and me are going to the losers.
Once it gets identified, it's no longer a UFO... even if it actually *were* an alien spaceship.
Yes, these two statements are tautologies, but that is about the limits of my brain power I am willing to put into it.
And for the record, I saw a UFO once... when I was 15. I still don't know exactly what it was. I've long since accepted that I never will.
I was reading "everyone who automates" to be more general than literally referring to each specific person that automates a task directly has to hire more people as a result, and suggesting that generally speaking, for every person that anyone hires, they end up either directly or indirectly creating more job opportunities for people outside of the field they are directly automating. Trying to catch up simply by automating faster is like trying to lift something you are standing on top of.
Eminent domain didn't apply to SCO's case. It would here. Under certain kinds of circumstances, the government quite literally has the authority to appropriate whatever private property they want that is inside of its borders, compensating former owners only whatever value is deemed appropriate by the court, regardless of whatever value the owners might want. This is quite honestly open-and-shut here. The owners will likely be offered an initial sum by the government, and if the owners don't accept it, they could easily wind up getting far less if the court assesses the value at a lower rate.
Look up eminent domain in the USA with a search engine.... you'll see what I mean.