And I think Linux the kernel has been ready for at least half that time... With so much being rewritten for the web and for mobile, the time seems ripe. Somebody (hello, Google) just have to push it out of the current catch-22 and say it's the next big thing. Android came pretty much out of nowhere and took the mobile market, I think they could to the same to the desktop market. But they don't believe that, not yet...
Even if they manage to deal with those concerns adequately (and I doubt they will) we're still quite a long ways from having practical autonomous weapons platforms.
Mainly because we got no good way to tell or separate friend from foe, military from civilian, hostages and human shields from fighters and terrorists. But in a real war you nuke Hiroshima killing 20k+ soldiers but 70-146k civilians, one in four to one in eight is good enough. We have a lot of weapons that can act autonomously on a "if it moves, shoot it" basis that we wouldn't use today but would still be a lot more discretionary than nuking a city. I expect the next major war to be full of kill zones, if you are anywhere or go anywhere you're not supposed to there's a missile or turret waiting for you that doesn't ask questions. And if you weren't a combatant, tough luck.
Not any time soon. Maybe someday but that day is a ways off. Right now bombs and missiles have a lot more power to shut down the infrastucture of a country than any hacker.
Yeah. Cyber warfare is about stealing technology, battle plans and being able to disrupt military systems and key infrastructure briefly during critical moments of an invasion. At least as long as there's real people with launch keys between a hacker and nuclear Armageddon.
How can you sue someone for breaking a contract they aren't party too?
Tortious interference, if for example the RIAA/MPAA/BSA falsely claims you're a pirate and the ISP terminates your contract you can sue the accusers for disrupting your business relationship, even though the ISP may have legally terminated the contract according to the terms of service. It does depend on some "wrongdoing" though like in this case misrepresentation, it's not like your ISP can sue other ISPs for giving you a better offer.
Plus, even more importantly the statement "Autonomous Vehicles Won't Give Us Any More Free Time" is patently wrong. Once the roads are filled with autonomous cars, even the miniscule percentage of people whose anxiety doesn't get blunted by the boredom of familiarity will still get more time back in their day as the sheer number of automated cars cause traffic flow to be more efficient. I lived in a place once where it was a 45 minute drive downtown without traffic and 2 hours during rush hour. It would be entirely reasonable to expect that trip to be less than 75 minutes during rush hour once automation takes over so that guy gets a straight 1.5 hours of his day back.
I wouldn't bet on that, a lot of people might prefer two hours watching a movie in their private lounge to one hour on the train/bus/tram etc. increasing congestion. Because the commute is less tedious more people might also move from the city center to the suburbs. It might actually become worse for human drivers because the rest don't care so much if the streets are crammed.
My mom used to be up in arms about the microwave when we first got it, only to be used when absolutely necessary because it was cooking with radiation and radiation was dangerous. Now I'd say 9 out of 10 things are heated in the micro. With even the slightest bit of statistical evidence in its favor it'll be like riding the bus or taking a taxi in no time. Yes, I too got a control thing but if it's already not me driving then I'm not sure I trust people over computers. They fuck up pretty bad too...
I think you start off with a fairy tale definition of government, when you consider that historically and still in many cases today the people weren't involved in the process at all. The government was the ruler's organization whether it was a king or emperor or pharaoh or some other non-elected circle, where any interest they had in keeping the peace or any other public service was auxiliary to taxing their subjects, drafting them for armies or any other task their sovereign wanted them for.
What you're talking about is more the moral justification for a government in a democratic country, that it exists with the "consent of the governed" as Locke put it. Even then it doesn't necessarily exist to serve all the people like with slavery, a democracy is no guarantee against two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Even if they were acting like saints, if for any reason you disagree you can not opt out and quit like you can with almost any other form of organization.
So yeah with religion it's no BS, no soup but that's a choice. With the government there's soup, whether you want to eat it or not. And even if you don't like the taste or didn't want to pay for it or whatever it's obvious that when the government gives away "free" soup most will chow down there running alternatives out of business. And if we could automate the soup kitchen, do you really think it would without competition? Or would the employees make up all kinds of BS excuses that handmade soup is better and that all these people employed in the soup making today are necessary?
To use a car analogy, in the Soviet Union it was like here's your Lada, be happy you have a car. In the US or Europe you can pick a Toyota or Volkswagen or GM or Renault or Ford or Hyundai or Fiat or Honda or Peugeot or Suzuki or any other speciality car. Ideas compete, bad ideas die out and good ideas are carried forward. You might say improving the quality of life for the drivers is a side effect to profit, but it doesn't mean the Lada would be better at it. Where's the drive? Where's the incentive to innovate? You own the market, everybody gets complacent. It's human nature.
One thing to consider: the older you get, the more you're going to want your kids to contact you, and the less they'll need for you. Don't burn those bridges.
At some level of batshit crazy and/or abusive it's not worth it even for family. Most people will stretch further for their flesh and blood than they'd ever do with any friend or even partner, they'd dump a crazy ex but it takes a whole lot more to walk away from family. Those that do often have really good reason, or they're the crazy ones and have really bad reasons. Either way not burning the bridges is not a solution, you also need to find a way to make living with it reasonable.
So if we want all the kids to act nice, we just have to make all the adults act nice. That makes the problem sooooooooooo much simpler. Let's be honest here, being a parent is a license to be a huge hypocrite when it comes to pretty much any behavrioral standard or adult theme. I think most parents would feel their job was a lot harder if the kids had unadultered access to alcohol, smoking, drug and sex habits their parents had. For the most part, people try to raise them better than themselves. Maybe that's the real you, but in that case you're the minority...
It's much more likely the daughter is a hypersensitive, unsympathetic, thoughtless, self-absorbed twit. Disclaimer: I have a teenage daughter.
Even if she were, refusing to remove a picture of a person when that person doesn't want it to be on Facebook is pretty much a lose by default in my book. Even if it's a completely ordinary, legal photo taken during a public event I'd still take it down on request, anything else is a dick move. I suppose if it is necessary to expose that person as a huge liar or hypocrite or you signed a formal model release I might find some exceptions for the lesser evil, but I don't see anything like that apply here.
I think the article is conflating different things, the 120m euro fund is for free WiFi. And they have a goal of 100 Mbps for everyone by 2025, but that's more of a political ambition. Here in Norway I know last year they estimated ~600 million euro to give everyone 10/0.8 Mbps, what 100/100(?) would cost I don't know but many billions but it's an unfunded "goal" of our government too. There's still a lot of steam in the pure commercial + hybrid private/public fiber rollout though, it's really two different things. One is the universal access that we build out for absolutely everyone, the other is that we want to have a modern infrastructure for the economy.
And we, as a society, will have to find a solution for this problem. Intelligence is distributed on a Gauss bell curve.
No, IQ is intelligence distributed on a bell curve. There are as many people from 90 to 100 as there is from 100 to 110, but it doesn't tell you how much smarter a 110 IQ is than a 90 IQ. The lower end is dominated by people with more or less dysfunctional brains, so even a moderate increase in IQ can be a pretty big functional jump.
You don't even need a plane that fast for carrying people when we haven't even attempted to handle the legislation involved with supersonic passenger travel.
Uh, Concorde? From what I understood it's the market that killed it, with modern communication via email and video conferencing the business market became considerably smaller. You of course have the luxury market but they don't necessarily travel between major business hubs very often, they're often going more exotic places. It needs economic solutions to bring the cost down and technological solutions for the sonic boom so it can go over land and not be such a special case, the legislation is the least problem.
There is a problem with your argument: The censorship did not stop at just the image. A public open letter to Facebook about this issue by a freaking prime minister was deleted.
No, it stopped at the image as the public open letter attached the same uncensored image saying Facebook is wrong to censor this photo. Facebook removed that post, she reposted it with a censored image. I have Norwegian sources to back that up if that got lost in translation. It's part of the problem of complaining about Facebook on Facebook, showing what's being removed as a violation of the guidelines is in itself a violation of the guidelines.
I think it's a lot simpler than that they are "censorship loving fuckwits", they're a private company trying to make money. You don't make money if you need an f...ing lawyer to check for rules and exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions and any applicable precedents as to whether or not a particular post is permitted. It used to be as simple as no nudity, not because there's anything wrong with tits and ass but that's not what it's about. Then they started having issues because people posted about breastfeeding and breast cancer and non-sexual reasons (well technically nudity shouldn't be sexual either but that's an even blurrier line) and so they had to start making exceptions.
And now for the record, you can find a naked 9yo on Facebook. What are now the conditions for how "iconic" a photo you must take before another exception will be made? Does it have to become iconic outside of Facebook even though in your opinion it is equally newsworthy? And it's not just their moderators who has to understand the complexity, you also want the users to understand the rules too and then they'd better be simple. Every time you bend the rules you're making it more and more complicated. It's how the real world is, but Facebook doesn't want to deal with every unique set of circumstances.
It's like the US constitution, you start with "freedom of speech" but then it turns out threats, slander, libel, fraud, perjury, shouting fire in a crowded theater or just playing music loudly at 3AM in the morning actually has to curb the edges with exceptions. And then you end up with a ton of legalese and not a one-page flyer with your bill of rights. It's really as simple as that Facebook doesn't need a rule that says no child nudity except if it's an iconic war photo of a naked girl running from a napalm attack. Because this is going to be one of a thousand exceptions at least some will argue they should do.
I wouldn't think so, most people want battery life of a day or so. You won't get that with x86.
People have tried quite hard to decompile performance difference into compiler, ISA and hardware differences and most seem to agree the ISA is by far the least significant difference. In fact, at least VIA has been experiementing with a hybrid x86-ARM processor translating both to common micro-ops. As I understood it, it's more that Intel has struggled putting together the whole package for a SoC not so much the general purpose CPU. With power so limited having dedicated hardware to do specific things becomes much more important.
If this is for the kids it's already a fail, Microsoft will never be cool and obviously you won't have all the apps. Android got the bargain bin market cornered and the hardware alone won't be special enough to sell anything. If they want to get anywhere it needs to hit the business world hard. Hopefully the "Win RT" phones are history and the Surface Phone is an x86 computer in your pocket.
It's easy enough if is an improvement across the board like our new vaccine is more effective with no new side effects. Statistically though, often your new way will end up killing different people which makes it hard to swallow at an individual level. For example, say you have an injury with 5% chance of dying without surgery but you're in a dirty field hospital with a 2% chance that infections and there's very little correlation between one and the other. Are your relatives going to happy that you got a three percent better chance or are they going to blame the hospital for killing you? I think the latter. I'm not sure if Tesla does better or worse than humans overall, but I'm pretty sure it will kill different people and by that I include idiots who over-rely on the Autopilot. The real fireworks won't begin until an innocent bystander is killed though.
Would someone please shoot all the UI designers who think they have the one answer to rule them all. How hard is it to abstract away the task bar/start menu/system tray/hot corners/file dialog and create a configurable system that'll look like Gnome or KDE or Windows or Mac or any combination you want? Haven't we more or less numbered all the variations now and can just stuff it in a config file, instead of reinventing the wheel over and over?
By the time we've mastered interstellar travel I expect we got synthetic biology solved so all we need are the chemicals to construct humans on site and how to build a sustainable colony from Mars. The microbes would start a terraforming process, meanwhile the outpost can start with a small greenhouse that slowly processes part of the native atmosphere then grow into larger and larger domes building up an earth-like habitat. In time we could expose the toughest plants to growing outside or in semi-shielded environments. It'll take a while but we could turn other planets into new earths, isn't that the master plan?
Extreme high speed cameras can usually only operate for brief periods due to buffers and heat and regular CCTV is probably too slow to get useful data. If it was shot by a bullet the act of penetrating the tank probably produces enough sparks to cause an instant explosion.
You should read the other reply I wrote to AC. Yes, estimates are that blacks murderers are 5-8 times more common than white murderers (depending on which stats you look at). Is that important to note? Perhaps. Though you may want to also look at other demographic correlates first -- murder correlates with poverty level, for example.
If you took my post to mean that there was any causal link between skin color and murder, that was unintended. I really doubt genetics plays any significant role compared to culture and the circumstances of your upbringing and your peers. The question is if it has predictive value, if being black makes you more likely to be poor and thus more likely to be a murderer than the rest, absent any information on all the hidden risk factors I know nothing about.
Once again, note the CONTEXT. Someone's been out "partying" (does that mean drinking too? perhaps less able to think clearly or flee coherently? looking more like a target), and it's "late at night" (darkness is inherently more fearful, and criminals like darkness because of the cover it provides).
Well I was trying to conjure up a situation where the risk would seem plausible, but that was not the point. The point was that the risk is notably different depending on the sexes involved. You can't take it out of the equation and say any two people who run into each other drunk in a dark alley run an equal risk of being raped. You're obviously less likely to get raped on a busy sidewalk in broad daylight, but that applies under any circumstances.
What if I straight up TELL the border control agent - "This thumbdrive is dangerous and will kill his computer, do not attempt to view the contents?" This is a real honest question. No snark.
Realistically? The moment they hear the word "dangerous" and "kill" it and you will be considered a threat and you'll probably find yourself on the ground in handcuffs real quick. If you're lucky your USB stick will not be destroyed by a bomb disposal robot. After hours of interrogation by the TSA, DHS, FBI and other TLAs you'll find yourself in a holding cell while they make up some hilarious charges of threats, terrorism and whatnot. If you got a good lawyer meaning one you can afford, not one appointed to you maybe after lots of legal wrangling the charges will be dropped. By then you'll probably be fired from any job you had. out $10k+ in lawyer's fees and they'll still be patting themselves on the back for a job well done. And if you counter-sue to recover damages expect every possible legal delay and appeal to make sure by the time you get your settlement you've been dead broke for years. They can afford it, ordinary people can't.
Dissemination of information based upon the feelings and opinions of the users to decide what is and is not 'news' is NEVER uncensored communication. It cannot ever BE MADE to be uncensored. It is filtered. If you're basing what you view as 'free communication' off of what is 'trending' that's a problem, and a HUGE one. The fact that people think this is a good thing is (in only my opinion of course) a travesty.
Voting as metadata saying you approve or disapprove of a post is an expression of free speech, even if you don't seem to like it. Actual filtering of negatively rated posts to the point where you can't read them anymore is censorship. People post a lot of drivel, there is no right that I should spend equal time on an insightful and informative +5 comment and a -1 GNAA troll, particularly if one side is just trying to flood the discussion with copy-pasta, crazy rants, meaningless drivel or blatant propaganda. If you don't do it by votes you do it by other forms of popularity like how many bother to read your blog or follow you on Twitter, just because you think your thoughts are so important the world needs to know the world doesn't have to agree. Journalists also do their selection and write from their perspective and bias and editors choose what's the top story, the true neutral and objective news source doesn't exist.
Idea have to fight for survival, if you send me a link I might bother to read it or I might not - depending on what you usually send. I might share it further - or not - depending on what I think of it. And if you keep sending crap, I might block you completely. And I got the right to enlist the help of others in deciding whether or not you're worth listening to, it's not censorship to ask other people's opinion of you. I have the right to not listen to them and make up my own opinion, but you don't have the right to demand that I do. Anything else would lead to absurd results, not least of which that there are 7-8 billion opinions in the world. This is mine, you don't have to listen to it and even if it got voted to -1 it's still just an unpopular opinion, not a censored one. Not that the moderation system is really supposed to be a popularity contest anyway.
Not going to happen. What will happen is that the third party will be more aligned with one of the two major parties - okay, see one as the lesser evil at least - and it'll get 46% of the vote, the third party 5%, the other party 49% and because most elections are winner-takes-all the 49% wins. And they'll realize hey we're 51% combined, fuck this was stupid lets go back to voting for the big party. Next election it'll be 50% big party, 1% third party because some never quit and 49% for the other party proving third party voting doesn't work. The only way it works out well is if you convince all the voters to jump at once and then you still have a two party system. The system does not allow for proportional representation.
Much as I dislike Mark Zuckerberg, the real problem is not him, nor Facebook, but the users who have made Facebook the " lynchpin of the distribution of news and information around the world..."
Actually in this case it's pretty much a "you make your bed and now you got to lie in it" because the mainstream media in Norway has been either shutting down their comments section and forums or "outsourced" them to Facebook because of operating costs. A private, commercial company run by the cheapest labor Facebook can find - at least the image censors - and that's what you get. It's funny how they still think they're the newspaper and Facebook the printing press, but they're not.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, right! Now going on decade #3!
And I think Linux the kernel has been ready for at least half that time... With so much being rewritten for the web and for mobile, the time seems ripe. Somebody (hello, Google) just have to push it out of the current catch-22 and say it's the next big thing. Android came pretty much out of nowhere and took the mobile market, I think they could to the same to the desktop market. But they don't believe that, not yet...
Even if they manage to deal with those concerns adequately (and I doubt they will) we're still quite a long ways from having practical autonomous weapons platforms.
Mainly because we got no good way to tell or separate friend from foe, military from civilian, hostages and human shields from fighters and terrorists. But in a real war you nuke Hiroshima killing 20k+ soldiers but 70-146k civilians, one in four to one in eight is good enough. We have a lot of weapons that can act autonomously on a "if it moves, shoot it" basis that we wouldn't use today but would still be a lot more discretionary than nuking a city. I expect the next major war to be full of kill zones, if you are anywhere or go anywhere you're not supposed to there's a missile or turret waiting for you that doesn't ask questions. And if you weren't a combatant, tough luck.
Not any time soon. Maybe someday but that day is a ways off. Right now bombs and missiles have a lot more power to shut down the infrastucture of a country than any hacker.
Yeah. Cyber warfare is about stealing technology, battle plans and being able to disrupt military systems and key infrastructure briefly during critical moments of an invasion. At least as long as there's real people with launch keys between a hacker and nuclear Armageddon.
How can you sue someone for breaking a contract they aren't party too?
Tortious interference, if for example the RIAA/MPAA/BSA falsely claims you're a pirate and the ISP terminates your contract you can sue the accusers for disrupting your business relationship, even though the ISP may have legally terminated the contract according to the terms of service. It does depend on some "wrongdoing" though like in this case misrepresentation, it's not like your ISP can sue other ISPs for giving you a better offer.
Plus, even more importantly the statement "Autonomous Vehicles Won't Give Us Any More Free Time" is patently wrong. Once the roads are filled with autonomous cars, even the miniscule percentage of people whose anxiety doesn't get blunted by the boredom of familiarity will still get more time back in their day as the sheer number of automated cars cause traffic flow to be more efficient. I lived in a place once where it was a 45 minute drive downtown without traffic and 2 hours during rush hour. It would be entirely reasonable to expect that trip to be less than 75 minutes during rush hour once automation takes over so that guy gets a straight 1.5 hours of his day back.
I wouldn't bet on that, a lot of people might prefer two hours watching a movie in their private lounge to one hour on the train/bus/tram etc. increasing congestion. Because the commute is less tedious more people might also move from the city center to the suburbs. It might actually become worse for human drivers because the rest don't care so much if the streets are crammed.
My mom used to be up in arms about the microwave when we first got it, only to be used when absolutely necessary because it was cooking with radiation and radiation was dangerous. Now I'd say 9 out of 10 things are heated in the micro. With even the slightest bit of statistical evidence in its favor it'll be like riding the bus or taking a taxi in no time. Yes, I too got a control thing but if it's already not me driving then I'm not sure I trust people over computers. They fuck up pretty bad too...
I think you start off with a fairy tale definition of government, when you consider that historically and still in many cases today the people weren't involved in the process at all. The government was the ruler's organization whether it was a king or emperor or pharaoh or some other non-elected circle, where any interest they had in keeping the peace or any other public service was auxiliary to taxing their subjects, drafting them for armies or any other task their sovereign wanted them for.
What you're talking about is more the moral justification for a government in a democratic country, that it exists with the "consent of the governed" as Locke put it. Even then it doesn't necessarily exist to serve all the people like with slavery, a democracy is no guarantee against two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Even if they were acting like saints, if for any reason you disagree you can not opt out and quit like you can with almost any other form of organization.
So yeah with religion it's no BS, no soup but that's a choice. With the government there's soup, whether you want to eat it or not. And even if you don't like the taste or didn't want to pay for it or whatever it's obvious that when the government gives away "free" soup most will chow down there running alternatives out of business. And if we could automate the soup kitchen, do you really think it would without competition? Or would the employees make up all kinds of BS excuses that handmade soup is better and that all these people employed in the soup making today are necessary?
To use a car analogy, in the Soviet Union it was like here's your Lada, be happy you have a car. In the US or Europe you can pick a Toyota or Volkswagen or GM or Renault or Ford or Hyundai or Fiat or Honda or Peugeot or Suzuki or any other speciality car. Ideas compete, bad ideas die out and good ideas are carried forward. You might say improving the quality of life for the drivers is a side effect to profit, but it doesn't mean the Lada would be better at it. Where's the drive? Where's the incentive to innovate? You own the market, everybody gets complacent. It's human nature.
One thing to consider: the older you get, the more you're going to want your kids to contact you, and the less they'll need for you. Don't burn those bridges.
At some level of batshit crazy and/or abusive it's not worth it even for family. Most people will stretch further for their flesh and blood than they'd ever do with any friend or even partner, they'd dump a crazy ex but it takes a whole lot more to walk away from family. Those that do often have really good reason, or they're the crazy ones and have really bad reasons. Either way not burning the bridges is not a solution, you also need to find a way to make living with it reasonable.
So if we want all the kids to act nice, we just have to make all the adults act nice. That makes the problem sooooooooooo much simpler. Let's be honest here, being a parent is a license to be a huge hypocrite when it comes to pretty much any behavrioral standard or adult theme. I think most parents would feel their job was a lot harder if the kids had unadultered access to alcohol, smoking, drug and sex habits their parents had. For the most part, people try to raise them better than themselves. Maybe that's the real you, but in that case you're the minority...
It's much more likely the daughter is a hypersensitive, unsympathetic, thoughtless, self-absorbed twit. Disclaimer: I have a teenage daughter.
Even if she were, refusing to remove a picture of a person when that person doesn't want it to be on Facebook is pretty much a lose by default in my book. Even if it's a completely ordinary, legal photo taken during a public event I'd still take it down on request, anything else is a dick move. I suppose if it is necessary to expose that person as a huge liar or hypocrite or you signed a formal model release I might find some exceptions for the lesser evil, but I don't see anything like that apply here.
I think the article is conflating different things, the 120m euro fund is for free WiFi. And they have a goal of 100 Mbps for everyone by 2025, but that's more of a political ambition. Here in Norway I know last year they estimated ~600 million euro to give everyone 10/0.8 Mbps, what 100/100(?) would cost I don't know but many billions but it's an unfunded "goal" of our government too. There's still a lot of steam in the pure commercial + hybrid private/public fiber rollout though, it's really two different things. One is the universal access that we build out for absolutely everyone, the other is that we want to have a modern infrastructure for the economy.
And we, as a society, will have to find a solution for this problem. Intelligence is distributed on a Gauss bell curve.
No, IQ is intelligence distributed on a bell curve. There are as many people from 90 to 100 as there is from 100 to 110, but it doesn't tell you how much smarter a 110 IQ is than a 90 IQ. The lower end is dominated by people with more or less dysfunctional brains, so even a moderate increase in IQ can be a pretty big functional jump.
You don't even need a plane that fast for carrying people when we haven't even attempted to handle the legislation involved with supersonic passenger travel.
Uh, Concorde? From what I understood it's the market that killed it, with modern communication via email and video conferencing the business market became considerably smaller. You of course have the luxury market but they don't necessarily travel between major business hubs very often, they're often going more exotic places. It needs economic solutions to bring the cost down and technological solutions for the sonic boom so it can go over land and not be such a special case, the legislation is the least problem.
There is a problem with your argument: The censorship did not stop at just the image. A public open letter to Facebook about this issue by a freaking prime minister was deleted.
No, it stopped at the image as the public open letter attached the same uncensored image saying Facebook is wrong to censor this photo. Facebook removed that post, she reposted it with a censored image. I have Norwegian sources to back that up if that got lost in translation. It's part of the problem of complaining about Facebook on Facebook, showing what's being removed as a violation of the guidelines is in itself a violation of the guidelines.
I think it's a lot simpler than that they are "censorship loving fuckwits", they're a private company trying to make money. You don't make money if you need an f...ing lawyer to check for rules and exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions and any applicable precedents as to whether or not a particular post is permitted. It used to be as simple as no nudity, not because there's anything wrong with tits and ass but that's not what it's about. Then they started having issues because people posted about breastfeeding and breast cancer and non-sexual reasons (well technically nudity shouldn't be sexual either but that's an even blurrier line) and so they had to start making exceptions.
And now for the record, you can find a naked 9yo on Facebook. What are now the conditions for how "iconic" a photo you must take before another exception will be made? Does it have to become iconic outside of Facebook even though in your opinion it is equally newsworthy? And it's not just their moderators who has to understand the complexity, you also want the users to understand the rules too and then they'd better be simple. Every time you bend the rules you're making it more and more complicated. It's how the real world is, but Facebook doesn't want to deal with every unique set of circumstances.
It's like the US constitution, you start with "freedom of speech" but then it turns out threats, slander, libel, fraud, perjury, shouting fire in a crowded theater or just playing music loudly at 3AM in the morning actually has to curb the edges with exceptions. And then you end up with a ton of legalese and not a one-page flyer with your bill of rights. It's really as simple as that Facebook doesn't need a rule that says no child nudity except if it's an iconic war photo of a naked girl running from a napalm attack. Because this is going to be one of a thousand exceptions at least some will argue they should do.
I wouldn't think so, most people want battery life of a day or so. You won't get that with x86.
People have tried quite hard to decompile performance difference into compiler, ISA and hardware differences and most seem to agree the ISA is by far the least significant difference. In fact, at least VIA has been experiementing with a hybrid x86-ARM processor translating both to common micro-ops. As I understood it, it's more that Intel has struggled putting together the whole package for a SoC not so much the general purpose CPU. With power so limited having dedicated hardware to do specific things becomes much more important.
If you want your kids to hate you
If this is for the kids it's already a fail, Microsoft will never be cool and obviously you won't have all the apps. Android got the bargain bin market cornered and the hardware alone won't be special enough to sell anything. If they want to get anywhere it needs to hit the business world hard. Hopefully the "Win RT" phones are history and the Surface Phone is an x86 computer in your pocket.
It's easy enough if is an improvement across the board like our new vaccine is more effective with no new side effects. Statistically though, often your new way will end up killing different people which makes it hard to swallow at an individual level. For example, say you have an injury with 5% chance of dying without surgery but you're in a dirty field hospital with a 2% chance that infections and there's very little correlation between one and the other. Are your relatives going to happy that you got a three percent better chance or are they going to blame the hospital for killing you? I think the latter. I'm not sure if Tesla does better or worse than humans overall, but I'm pretty sure it will kill different people and by that I include idiots who over-rely on the Autopilot. The real fireworks won't begin until an innocent bystander is killed though.
Would someone please shoot all the UI designers who think they have the one answer to rule them all. How hard is it to abstract away the task bar/start menu/system tray/hot corners/file dialog and create a configurable system that'll look like Gnome or KDE or Windows or Mac or any combination you want? Haven't we more or less numbered all the variations now and can just stuff it in a config file, instead of reinventing the wheel over and over?
By the time we've mastered interstellar travel I expect we got synthetic biology solved so all we need are the chemicals to construct humans on site and how to build a sustainable colony from Mars. The microbes would start a terraforming process, meanwhile the outpost can start with a small greenhouse that slowly processes part of the native atmosphere then grow into larger and larger domes building up an earth-like habitat. In time we could expose the toughest plants to growing outside or in semi-shielded environments. It'll take a while but we could turn other planets into new earths, isn't that the master plan?
Extreme high speed cameras can usually only operate for brief periods due to buffers and heat and regular CCTV is probably too slow to get useful data. If it was shot by a bullet the act of penetrating the tank probably produces enough sparks to cause an instant explosion.
You should read the other reply I wrote to AC. Yes, estimates are that blacks murderers are 5-8 times more common than white murderers (depending on which stats you look at). Is that important to note? Perhaps. Though you may want to also look at other demographic correlates first -- murder correlates with poverty level, for example.
If you took my post to mean that there was any causal link between skin color and murder, that was unintended. I really doubt genetics plays any significant role compared to culture and the circumstances of your upbringing and your peers. The question is if it has predictive value, if being black makes you more likely to be poor and thus more likely to be a murderer than the rest, absent any information on all the hidden risk factors I know nothing about.
Once again, note the CONTEXT. Someone's been out "partying" (does that mean drinking too? perhaps less able to think clearly or flee coherently? looking more like a target), and it's "late at night" (darkness is inherently more fearful, and criminals like darkness because of the cover it provides).
Well I was trying to conjure up a situation where the risk would seem plausible, but that was not the point. The point was that the risk is notably different depending on the sexes involved. You can't take it out of the equation and say any two people who run into each other drunk in a dark alley run an equal risk of being raped. You're obviously less likely to get raped on a busy sidewalk in broad daylight, but that applies under any circumstances.
What if I straight up TELL the border control agent - "This thumbdrive is dangerous and will kill his computer, do not attempt to view the contents?" This is a real honest question. No snark.
Realistically? The moment they hear the word "dangerous" and "kill" it and you will be considered a threat and you'll probably find yourself on the ground in handcuffs real quick. If you're lucky your USB stick will not be destroyed by a bomb disposal robot. After hours of interrogation by the TSA, DHS, FBI and other TLAs you'll find yourself in a holding cell while they make up some hilarious charges of threats, terrorism and whatnot. If you got a good lawyer meaning one you can afford, not one appointed to you maybe after lots of legal wrangling the charges will be dropped. By then you'll probably be fired from any job you had. out $10k+ in lawyer's fees and they'll still be patting themselves on the back for a job well done. And if you counter-sue to recover damages expect every possible legal delay and appeal to make sure by the time you get your settlement you've been dead broke for years. They can afford it, ordinary people can't.
Dissemination of information based upon the feelings and opinions of the users to decide what is and is not 'news' is NEVER uncensored communication. It cannot ever BE MADE to be uncensored. It is filtered. If you're basing what you view as 'free communication' off of what is 'trending' that's a problem, and a HUGE one. The fact that people think this is a good thing is (in only my opinion of course) a travesty.
Voting as metadata saying you approve or disapprove of a post is an expression of free speech, even if you don't seem to like it. Actual filtering of negatively rated posts to the point where you can't read them anymore is censorship. People post a lot of drivel, there is no right that I should spend equal time on an insightful and informative +5 comment and a -1 GNAA troll, particularly if one side is just trying to flood the discussion with copy-pasta, crazy rants, meaningless drivel or blatant propaganda. If you don't do it by votes you do it by other forms of popularity like how many bother to read your blog or follow you on Twitter, just because you think your thoughts are so important the world needs to know the world doesn't have to agree. Journalists also do their selection and write from their perspective and bias and editors choose what's the top story, the true neutral and objective news source doesn't exist.
Idea have to fight for survival, if you send me a link I might bother to read it or I might not - depending on what you usually send. I might share it further - or not - depending on what I think of it. And if you keep sending crap, I might block you completely. And I got the right to enlist the help of others in deciding whether or not you're worth listening to, it's not censorship to ask other people's opinion of you. I have the right to not listen to them and make up my own opinion, but you don't have the right to demand that I do. Anything else would lead to absurd results, not least of which that there are 7-8 billion opinions in the world. This is mine, you don't have to listen to it and even if it got voted to -1 it's still just an unpopular opinion, not a censored one. Not that the moderation system is really supposed to be a popularity contest anyway.
Not going to happen. What will happen is that the third party will be more aligned with one of the two major parties - okay, see one as the lesser evil at least - and it'll get 46% of the vote, the third party 5%, the other party 49% and because most elections are winner-takes-all the 49% wins. And they'll realize hey we're 51% combined, fuck this was stupid lets go back to voting for the big party. Next election it'll be 50% big party, 1% third party because some never quit and 49% for the other party proving third party voting doesn't work. The only way it works out well is if you convince all the voters to jump at once and then you still have a two party system. The system does not allow for proportional representation.
Much as I dislike Mark Zuckerberg, the real problem is not him, nor Facebook, but the users who have made Facebook the " lynchpin of the distribution of news and information around the world..."
Actually in this case it's pretty much a "you make your bed and now you got to lie in it" because the mainstream media in Norway has been either shutting down their comments section and forums or "outsourced" them to Facebook because of operating costs. A private, commercial company run by the cheapest labor Facebook can find - at least the image censors - and that's what you get. It's funny how they still think they're the newspaper and Facebook the printing press, but they're not.