> Actually, smoking leading to lung disease is a religion
Oh bullshit. And there's a small percentage of people who have natural immunity to HIV turning into AIDS but it's not "religion" to suggest the unprotected sex with HIV+ people is almost certainly going to shorten your lifespan.
For the VAST majority of people smoking is an activity that leads to a great increase in the possibility of lung cancer. Period.
3D printed objects aren't the strongest due to the way the layers are laminated together. I imagine the last place you'd want a weak join is on a 150+ foot long blade swishing through the air. Better to make the mold and then form the actual blade in the mold.
Yes, but was the response/tantrum by Steve Jobs an appropriate response to someone letting a bit of info slip in a late night interview? I really don't think so. That's the sort of thing you expect in grade school, not between multinational corporations.
Alsop didn't attack and offend the company, he attacked Musk. Besides, as it's been pointed out, Steve Jobs acted in similar fashion and that sort of personality was what pushed Apple to being the #1 company in the world. This is a lesson for Alsop. Talk shit, get hit (with a cancellation).
Agriculture's workforce has been shrinking continuously since the industrial revolution. Even in the late 1800s, 70-80% of the population was involved in agriculture or food production, now that number is less than 2% for first world nations. Not all crops will benefit from this particular innovation so it will remove some people initially, and then as the puzzle is solved for other crops, more and more people. But it won't be a sudden displacement so a lot of the job losses will be in the form of retirement or switching to other agri jobs on other crops.
*we* are not the market AMD is shooting for. AMD is still a big player in the low end desktop and laptop segment and one way they differentiate themselves from the low end Intel chips is better graphics for the same price. For $300 at Best Buy (yeah I know..) you can get either a laptop with a cheap i3 mobile Intel chip with UMA graphics or a comparable laptop with an AMD A8 and passable Radeon APU. The processors are in the same ballpark on ops with the Intel part taking the win:
but the AMD laptop comes with an extra 2GB of RAM and the budget user will be happier with the APU's experience in daily use unless they *really* need that extra computation oomph for some sort of app like AutoCAD or Photoshop or similar.
> If voters were all given the facts and all agreed to pay the extra expense to disclose only certain people's money then the people as a whole have spoken and I'm good with that.
It took months and 5 million dollars to ask the 2.5 million residents of the regional district of Vancouver a question about paying for transit, how exactly would you envision getting buy in from your voters on a comparatively trivial expense question without invoking a cost far in excess of what the option you're asking about is?
Simply put, what you want is just not feasible or cost effective for a population center that is larger than one that can gather every citizen in the local school's gymnasium comfortably, so even suggesting it is kind of disingenuous.
But in the short to medium term, it's going to cause a lot of problems. In most companies of any size there are wage disparities between people in the same job for a variety of reasons, exacerbated by the simple fact that companies rarely pay you more than they think they can get away with. So when a company institutes transparency like this you will have a lot of people who were reasonably content suddenly very unhappy to discover that some of their teammates who are doing the exact same job are making more than them, perhaps considerably more. This actually happened to me. I was working at a place for years as a sysadmin, doing 10-12 hour days constantly and after quite a while of that management decided (finally!) I needed someone to help with the workload. So they hired another sysadmin and we split the workload, and things were going great. The two of us got along very well and then one day a few months in we were at lunch talking about buying property and in the course of that conversation he mentioned in broad terms his salary. Which was about 1.6x what I was making at the time. Needless to say I was not very happy with that. I had an annual review coming up in a few weeks so I brought it up to my boss then. The boss was very taken aback that I had that information and was actually angry that the new guy had mentioned it. Reasons for it were stated as "well that's what the going rate is and we had to offer that to get candidates". And when I got a raise after that review it was only about 1/3 of the differential, with the stated reason being that the company had a maximum cap on annual increases and "this was already pushing past that as much as we could". So 3 months later I left that company after being there for 7 years, for a job elsewhere that paid the market rate.
Now a problem like the one I mentioned above will probably get taken care of under a transparent company by them deciding to align everyone at a certain position's salary with a few minor adjustments, but that will take time and will be done gradually to not have the payroll shoot up dramatically. While that's being done there will probably be higher than normal turnover as well.
The problem friend, is that as a whole the people enjoying your version of freedom are already impinging on others' freedom of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In the US there are a staggering number of fatalities and injuries stemming from guns, and good percentage of those wouldn't happen with a smart weapon. How much is a life worth?
I know, you'll say that you're a responsible gun owner and you shouldn't have to endure additional regulation because of others. To frame it as another hot button issue around/. - I've always flown my quadcopter (or drone as many insist on referring to them) in a responsible manner, Why should *I* have to register it with the FAA all of a sudden as a result of other people being irresponsible with theirs?
> How about we spend more time and energy focused on the root problem instead of the one way some people wind up dead?
Because there's a better ROI on the energy being spent on smart weapons? And as another user pointed out, here's an example splashed across the national news today:
"The alleged assailant was armed with a 9mm Glock 17 that was reported stolen from the home of a police officer in 2013."
So do tell me exactly how much effort and how far up the river we would have had to go to stop that from happening vs just making a stolen gun become a useless lump of metal? Because we can do the latter just as easily as we could limit cars from speeding. The problem isn't a technical one, it's a "but muh freedoms!!!!!11!" one.
> In testing, the armatix iP1 failed more like 50% of the time. Would you buy a gun that costs between 3 and 5 times what a dumb handgun costs and fails that often?
Of course not.
> No one is against smart guns
Tell that to the store in Maryland whose employees lives' were threatened and others threatened to filebomb the store for daring to even consider selling smart guns....
Because the fears aren't irrational, and lots of people get shot with guns accidentally or otherwise when they're not in the owner's possession? Stopping those guns from firing would save lives, that's a simple fact.
> He brings with him one of the 300 million other guns currently available in this country.
You're being disingenuous and moving the goalposts. The specific incident concerned her gun being the only one in the room.
> He brings with him one of the 300 million other guns currently available in this country. She may have not been shot with her own weapon at that particular point in time, but if he wanted to kill her he's going to kill her
Or he could have run her over with a car, truck or steamroller. Or dropped a gun safe on her head when she was sleeping, or drowned her in a toilet.
You're right, the problem is too hard to crack so we shouldn't even try. If we can't come up with a perfect solution that will save everyone, then let's not bother trying to save anyone.
> I'd want BOTH my cars to start AND my weapons to fire, EVERY time.
I think we both would, however even with current tech that's not the case. Normal guns jam and misfire especially if not properly maintained and cleaned, and normal cars sometimes fail to start for a variety of reasons as well.
> Smart guns will not prevent your abusive spouse problem.
Can you expand on that? Because in that article I posted, woman buys gun, has concealed carry permit. Spouse gets into confrontation with her, she pulls gun out, abusive spouse takes gun from her grip and shoots her with it. Smart guns would ABSOLUTELY have prevented her from getting shot there. The point of the smart gun is that ones she isn't holding it, it doesn't fire. So explain how the abusive spouse would have put a bullet in her short of taking the magazine out and stuffing it down her throat.
I guess you missed the part where that lady bought a gun to defend herself against her abusive husband who then took it out of her hands in a struggle and shot her with it. Would you care to explain how any of your snark addresses that?
While I haven't researched this specifically, I have been industrially certified to design and install RFID systems. And I am also quite familiar with magnets and electronics. Something you don't seem to have that much knowledge on or you'd know that a magnetic ring isn't going to do anything to your computer or your handheld device. In fact many handheld devices and tablets have cases with strong magnets in them to allow the screen to be turned on or off depending on the proximity of the case cover. I have a Nexus 7 with such a cover sitting right next to me. And how strong do you think the permanent magnets inside your laptop's hard drive are? You'd probably be quite surprised to find out, and those magnets are sitting a few millimeters from the platters all day long.
Computers having problems with magnets was largely a floppy disk and magnetic tape era problem. Though you still had the occasional clod who screwed up their CRT with one. But then again many of those monitors had a degauss button that put out a hell of a magnetic field all on its own - while it was sitting right next to your tower PC....
> Why would the civilian population want these same problems?
I dunno about you but I'd gladly take the tradeoff of a gun that fires 99.999% of the time when I want it to if it also fires 0% of the time if someone wrestles it out of my grasp or some less responsible member of the household somehow manages to get a hold of it and starts messing around with it.
> Special ring? So much for swimming, showering, or any other activity you don't want to expose electronic to.
I know, it's horrible that 70% of the Earth's surface is a zone where electronics can't be used at all. Those poor bastards sailing the seas with their handheld sextants, mapping out courses with a compass and paper. If only there was some way to seal electronics in some sort of waterproof enclosure that was still permeable to radio waves. Maybe even have those same electronics energized by the device in question, like some sort of Radio Frequency IDentification tag that has no internal power source.
100% prefer websites over apps because the last bloody thing I need is 200+ apps on my phone or tablet - particularly when many of these apps are poorly written and want access to my photos or location information simply because the app maker was too lazy to exclude those requirements. And I am sure as hell not installing an app to access a site that I might visit once a week or less.
That's making a lot of assumptions. I can easily find monitors worth dropping $1000+ on that don't have fruit on them. I'm going to make an assumption of my own and guess your lovely 27" Dells are only 1080p if you got them for $500 each a few years back. My next monitor that I plan to drop several hundred dollars on will have at least 2560x1440 res if not 4K and will be 32" or more in size.
> NO, actually it has not... GM died, went through bankruptcy and came back as a:"new" company.
Which was largely an accounting trick to shed creditor debt and force terms. 99% of the same upper management came through to the "new" company. Saying it's not the same company is like saying the USAF has nothing to do with the USAAF. While technically true on paper, the reality is something else.
Slashdot Mirror
> Actually, smoking leading to lung disease is a religion
Oh bullshit. And there's a small percentage of people who have natural immunity to HIV turning into AIDS but it's not "religion" to suggest the unprotected sex with HIV+ people is almost certainly going to shorten your lifespan.
For the VAST majority of people smoking is an activity that leads to a great increase in the possibility of lung cancer. Period.
3D printed objects aren't the strongest due to the way the layers are laminated together. I imagine the last place you'd want a weak join is on a 150+ foot long blade swishing through the air. Better to make the mold and then form the actual blade in the mold.
What? That happens all the time. Happening *consistently* on the other hand....
Yes, but was the response/tantrum by Steve Jobs an appropriate response to someone letting a bit of info slip in a late night interview? I really don't think so. That's the sort of thing you expect in grade school, not between multinational corporations.
> Steve Jobs acted in a similar fashion?
http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/story.php?ArticleID=370
Read that and tell me SteveO was the reasonable one there.
Alsop didn't attack and offend the company, he attacked Musk. Besides, as it's been pointed out, Steve Jobs acted in similar fashion and that sort of personality was what pushed Apple to being the #1 company in the world. This is a lesson for Alsop. Talk shit, get hit (with a cancellation).
Agriculture's workforce has been shrinking continuously since the industrial revolution. Even in the late 1800s, 70-80% of the population was involved in agriculture or food production, now that number is less than 2% for first world nations. Not all crops will benefit from this particular innovation so it will remove some people initially, and then as the puzzle is solved for other crops, more and more people. But it won't be a sudden displacement so a lot of the job losses will be in the form of retirement or switching to other agri jobs on other crops.
*we* are not the market AMD is shooting for. AMD is still a big player in the low end desktop and laptop segment and one way they differentiate themselves from the low end Intel chips is better graphics for the same price. For $300 at Best Buy (yeah I know..) you can get either a laptop with a cheap i3 mobile Intel chip with UMA graphics or a comparable laptop with an AMD A8 and passable Radeon APU. The processors are in the same ballpark on ops with the Intel part taking the win:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2597&cmp[]=2537
but the AMD laptop comes with an extra 2GB of RAM and the budget user will be happier with the APU's experience in daily use unless they *really* need that extra computation oomph for some sort of app like AutoCAD or Photoshop or similar.
> If voters were all given the facts and all agreed to pay the extra expense to disclose only certain people's money then the people as a whole have spoken and I'm good with that.
It took months and 5 million dollars to ask the 2.5 million residents of the regional district of Vancouver a question about paying for transit, how exactly would you envision getting buy in from your voters on a comparatively trivial expense question without invoking a cost far in excess of what the option you're asking about is?
Simply put, what you want is just not feasible or cost effective for a population center that is larger than one that can gather every citizen in the local school's gymnasium comfortably, so even suggesting it is kind of disingenuous.
But in the short to medium term, it's going to cause a lot of problems. In most companies of any size there are wage disparities between people in the same job for a variety of reasons, exacerbated by the simple fact that companies rarely pay you more than they think they can get away with. So when a company institutes transparency like this you will have a lot of people who were reasonably content suddenly very unhappy to discover that some of their teammates who are doing the exact same job are making more than them, perhaps considerably more. This actually happened to me. I was working at a place for years as a sysadmin, doing 10-12 hour days constantly and after quite a while of that management decided (finally!) I needed someone to help with the workload. So they hired another sysadmin and we split the workload, and things were going great. The two of us got along very well and then one day a few months in we were at lunch talking about buying property and in the course of that conversation he mentioned in broad terms his salary. Which was about 1.6x what I was making at the time. Needless to say I was not very happy with that. I had an annual review coming up in a few weeks so I brought it up to my boss then. The boss was very taken aback that I had that information and was actually angry that the new guy had mentioned it. Reasons for it were stated as "well that's what the going rate is and we had to offer that to get candidates". And when I got a raise after that review it was only about 1/3 of the differential, with the stated reason being that the company had a maximum cap on annual increases and "this was already pushing past that as much as we could". So 3 months later I left that company after being there for 7 years, for a job elsewhere that paid the market rate.
Now a problem like the one I mentioned above will probably get taken care of under a transparent company by them deciding to align everyone at a certain position's salary with a few minor adjustments, but that will take time and will be done gradually to not have the payroll shoot up dramatically. While that's being done there will probably be higher than normal turnover as well.
The problem friend, is that as a whole the people enjoying your version of freedom are already impinging on others' freedom of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In the US there are a staggering number of fatalities and injuries stemming from guns, and good percentage of those wouldn't happen with a smart weapon. How much is a life worth?
I know, you'll say that you're a responsible gun owner and you shouldn't have to endure additional regulation because of others. To frame it as another hot button issue around /. - I've always flown my quadcopter (or drone as many insist on referring to them) in a responsible manner, Why should *I* have to register it with the FAA all of a sudden as a result of other people being irresponsible with theirs?
> How about we spend more time and energy focused on the root problem instead of the one way some people wind up dead?
Because there's a better ROI on the energy being spent on smart weapons? And as another user pointed out, here's an example splashed across the national news today:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/us/philadelphia-police-officer-shot/index.html
"The alleged assailant was armed with a 9mm Glock 17 that was reported stolen from the home of a police officer in 2013."
So do tell me exactly how much effort and how far up the river we would have had to go to stop that from happening vs just making a stolen gun become a useless lump of metal? Because we can do the latter just as easily as we could limit cars from speeding. The problem isn't a technical one, it's a "but muh freedoms!!!!!11!" one.
> In testing, the armatix iP1 failed more like 50% of the time. Would you buy a gun that costs between 3 and 5 times what a dumb handgun costs and fails that often?
Of course not.
> No one is against smart guns
Tell that to the store in Maryland whose employees lives' were threatened and others threatened to filebomb the store for daring to even consider selling smart guns....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/maryland-dealer-will-defy-gun-rights-advocates-by-selling-nations-first-smart-gun/2014/05/01/564efa48-d14d-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html
Because the fears aren't irrational, and lots of people get shot with guns accidentally or otherwise when they're not in the owner's possession? Stopping those guns from firing would save lives, that's a simple fact.
> He brings with him one of the 300 million other guns currently available in this country.
You're being disingenuous and moving the goalposts. The specific incident concerned her gun being the only one in the room.
> He brings with him one of the 300 million other guns currently available in this country. She may have not been shot with her own weapon at that particular point in time, but if he wanted to kill her he's going to kill her
Or he could have run her over with a car, truck or steamroller. Or dropped a gun safe on her head when she was sleeping, or drowned her in a toilet.
You're right, the problem is too hard to crack so we shouldn't even try. If we can't come up with a perfect solution that will save everyone, then let's not bother trying to save anyone.
Nope, but every single car with a Start button - which is becoming more and more the standard - needs an RFID fob around to start.
> I'd want BOTH my cars to start AND my weapons to fire, EVERY time.
I think we both would, however even with current tech that's not the case. Normal guns jam and misfire especially if not properly maintained and cleaned, and normal cars sometimes fail to start for a variety of reasons as well.
I should clarify. You stated:
> Smart guns will not prevent your abusive spouse problem.
Can you expand on that? Because in that article I posted, woman buys gun, has concealed carry permit. Spouse gets into confrontation with her, she pulls gun out, abusive spouse takes gun from her grip and shoots her with it. Smart guns would ABSOLUTELY have prevented her from getting shot there. The point of the smart gun is that ones she isn't holding it, it doesn't fire. So explain how the abusive spouse would have put a bullet in her short of taking the magazine out and stuffing it down her throat.
I guess you missed the part where that lady bought a gun to defend herself against her abusive husband who then took it out of her hands in a struggle and shot her with it. Would you care to explain how any of your snark addresses that?
While I haven't researched this specifically, I have been industrially certified to design and install RFID systems. And I am also quite familiar with magnets and electronics. Something you don't seem to have that much knowledge on or you'd know that a magnetic ring isn't going to do anything to your computer or your handheld device. In fact many handheld devices and tablets have cases with strong magnets in them to allow the screen to be turned on or off depending on the proximity of the case cover. I have a Nexus 7 with such a cover sitting right next to me. And how strong do you think the permanent magnets inside your laptop's hard drive are? You'd probably be quite surprised to find out, and those magnets are sitting a few millimeters from the platters all day long.
Computers having problems with magnets was largely a floppy disk and magnetic tape era problem. Though you still had the occasional clod who screwed up their CRT with one. But then again many of those monitors had a degauss button that put out a hell of a magnetic field all on its own - while it was sitting right next to your tower PC....
> Why would the civilian population want these same problems?
I dunno about you but I'd gladly take the tradeoff of a gun that fires 99.999% of the time when I want it to if it also fires 0% of the time if someone wrestles it out of my grasp or some less responsible member of the household somehow manages to get a hold of it and starts messing around with it.
Or the abusive spouse problem:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/having-a-gun-in-the-house-doesnt-make-a-woman-safer/284022/
Smart guns would prevent that.
> Special ring? So much for swimming, showering, or any other activity you don't want to expose electronic to.
I know, it's horrible that 70% of the Earth's surface is a zone where electronics can't be used at all. Those poor bastards sailing the seas with their handheld sextants, mapping out courses with a compass and paper. If only there was some way to seal electronics in some sort of waterproof enclosure that was still permeable to radio waves. Maybe even have those same electronics energized by the device in question, like some sort of Radio Frequency IDentification tag that has no internal power source.
Naaah. That's crazy talk.
100% prefer websites over apps because the last bloody thing I need is 200+ apps on my phone or tablet - particularly when many of these apps are poorly written and want access to my photos or location information simply because the app maker was too lazy to exclude those requirements. And I am sure as hell not installing an app to access a site that I might visit once a week or less.
That's making a lot of assumptions. I can easily find monitors worth dropping $1000+ on that don't have fruit on them. I'm going to make an assumption of my own and guess your lovely 27" Dells are only 1080p if you got them for $500 each a few years back. My next monitor that I plan to drop several hundred dollars on will have at least 2560x1440 res if not 4K and will be 32" or more in size.
> NO, actually it has not... GM died, went through bankruptcy and came back as a :"new" company.
Which was largely an accounting trick to shed creditor debt and force terms. 99% of the same upper management came through to the "new" company. Saying it's not the same company is like saying the USAF has nothing to do with the USAAF. While technically true on paper, the reality is something else.