I can only remember hiding apps that I didn't want. I really don't care enough to find an iPhone to figure it out. Quick list would be things like iBooks, stocks, podcasts, safari.
It almost sounds like you're saying the problem doesn't exist on WM or iOS. I can tell you that iOS comes with multiple apps I don't care about. I don't know enough about WM to make that claim. However, I do know that different people want different things. It wouldn't shock me if some people don't like all the stock apps for WM.
It's 2016 not 1916, there are consumer safety laws now, you can't get away with "it's your own damned fault, you were doing it wrong" anymore.
See, that's the problem with people. We honestly need to expect a certain level of competency from people. There is something to be said for safety features, but you need to set an expectation on the user as well. You cannot expect the company to cover for every possible idiot.
I love Chrome, but agree completely. It's, unfortunately, just the way it's designed. My Windows usage of Chrome is almost exclusively not on battery, but my phone and tablet suffer greatly under any remotely prolonged usage.
The point of my statement was that the driver is supposed to be able to respond in emergency situations and not rely upon the autopilot. I didn't say there couldn't be a problem with the autopilot, just that the onus is on the driver.
If the accident was preventable, the driver should of prevented it. They should be paying attention to the road and be in a position to respond. If it wasn't preventable by the driver, then the system is working at least as well as the driver in that situation. Either way, the system isn't responsible.
And for what it's worth, that doesn't mean the system couldn't/shouldn't be improved. It just means they didn't die because of the system.
That statement doesn't say anything at all, implied or otherwise, about being able to drive without hands on the wheel. The fact that they say to drive with your hands on the wheel is rather explicit.
If a company wrote code to just up and kill the user, sure.. you might have a case. If the company wrote code to save the most number of lives in an accident, they shouldn't be liable. The morally correct option is tough to get past people. Passing a law is tough.
You're conflating the OS and the computer. You're free to do whatever you want with most computers. You can upgrade and downgrade as you see fit. The OS, on the other hand, you're stuck following the rules or going out of your way to break them.
They're more security theater than security. It only protects against the incidental. My bigger gripe is I cannot use fingerprint security for any apps, unless I use it to lock my phone.
Yes, because multiple phones from multiple manufacturers all suck. It's a usability issue. I have to find the sweet spot for it to turn off the display. If I move the phone up or down a bit, it's likely to get enough light to activate.They cannot accommodate everyone all the time. And for what it's worth.. Nexus 6, Nexus 6p, HTC M8 for sure. I also had a Note 2, and an LG Optimus G Pro. I can't vouch for those, as it's been a few years.
You act like the technology is flawless. It isn't. For me, It's unreliable enough that I have to be careful when using it. But that all comes down to different factors. Like against my cheek, placement of the phone often doesn't block enough light to consistently disable the display. The even more annoying one for me is that the light sensor will often prevent me from turning the screen on to check messages. My hand isn't directly on the light sensor, but blocks enough to prevent me turning it on.
One would hope the person making the margarita isn't also the nuclear technician. But then, I guess it would be excuse as to why the drink didn't turn out.
While I am not privy to the specifics, the summary does say the women were forced into it to pay off debts to crime bosses.
The information, as presented, indicates they were forced into prostitution against there will.
So, if the information is correct.. the women were victims.
If accurate, the women were forced into prostitution against their will. As such, they are victims.
If they were prostitutes by choice, that is a different story.
If they chose to be prostitutes, they're not victims.
Voluntarily putting themselves into debt isn't the same as voluntarily opting to whore themselves out.
Taking on debt, in of itself, is not voluntary acceptance of the method of repayment forced upon you after the fact. In this case, prostitution.
Volunteering to whore themselves out to cover debts or gain passage is fundamentally different from being forced into it after the debt/passage.
Taking on debt, knowing that prostitution would be included in the repayment process, is not the same as being forced into prostitution after the fact.
All of that was readily apparent from what I originally said. I have now expended more effort explaining simple statements than should of been necessary. Any further and you're either unwilling or unable to grasp simple logic. Either way, it's not worth any further effort. If you still cannot figure things out, you're on your own.
Look, I'm sorry you can't understand basic concepts. I really am. But, that doesn't make it my fault. Grow up and stop blaming other for your own shortcomings.
It wasn't the real Wolf3D. It was originally an expansion to Wolf3D that iD decided to cancel. I don't expect you to care about facts, but someone else might.
Did I every state, or even imply, anything to that effect? No. I very specifically said I wasn't privy to specifics and that it's only if the information is correct. So, kindly learn to take the time to comprehend what you read instead of making up your own viewpoint for my words.
Voluntarily putting themselves into debt isn't the same as voluntarily opting to whore themselves out. Volunteering to whore themselves out to cover debts or gain passage is fundamentally different from being forced into it after the debt/passage.
As for your second point, I feel legalized prostitution is all well and good... as long as it's properly regulated.
Slashdot Mirror
I saw that as well. I'm glad they're at least taking steps to improve on that front.
I can only remember hiding apps that I didn't want. I really don't care enough to find an iPhone to figure it out. Quick list would be things like iBooks, stocks, podcasts, safari.
It almost sounds like you're saying the problem doesn't exist on WM or iOS. I can tell you that iOS comes with multiple apps I don't care about. I don't know enough about WM to make that claim. However, I do know that different people want different things. It wouldn't shock me if some people don't like all the stock apps for WM.
Based on atmospheric density at even the lowest point of LEO, no they cannot.
The computer is totally yours. The OS isn't. It is a fine distinction, but important.
It's 2016 not 1916, there are consumer safety laws now, you can't get away with "it's your own damned fault, you were doing it wrong" anymore.
See, that's the problem with people. We honestly need to expect a certain level of competency from people. There is something to be said for safety features, but you need to set an expectation on the user as well. You cannot expect the company to cover for every possible idiot.
I love Chrome, but agree completely. It's, unfortunately, just the way it's designed. My Windows usage of Chrome is almost exclusively not on battery, but my phone and tablet suffer greatly under any remotely prolonged usage.
The point of my statement was that the driver is supposed to be able to respond in emergency situations and not rely upon the autopilot. I didn't say there couldn't be a problem with the autopilot, just that the onus is on the driver.
If the accident was preventable, the driver should of prevented it. They should be paying attention to the road and be in a position to respond. If it wasn't preventable by the driver, then the system is working at least as well as the driver in that situation. Either way, the system isn't responsible.
And for what it's worth, that doesn't mean the system couldn't/shouldn't be improved. It just means they didn't die because of the system.
That statement doesn't say anything at all, implied or otherwise, about being able to drive without hands on the wheel. The fact that they say to drive with your hands on the wheel is rather explicit.
Or, better yet, hold people responsible for their own actions..
but that does not change the fact that they released a fundamentally flawed and extremely dangerous product.
At this stage, that is your opinion and not a fact. Don't purport it as such.
If a company wrote code to just up and kill the user, sure.. you might have a case. If the company wrote code to save the most number of lives in an accident, they shouldn't be liable. The morally correct option is tough to get past people. Passing a law is tough.
You assume there isn't... The only way to be sure is to completely avoid society.
Grain of salt on that, especially when you take unions into account. I'm not implying anything in this case, but careful with the blanket statements.
You're conflating the OS and the computer. You're free to do whatever you want with most computers. You can upgrade and downgrade as you see fit. The OS, on the other hand, you're stuck following the rules or going out of your way to break them.
They're more security theater than security. It only protects against the incidental. My bigger gripe is I cannot use fingerprint security for any apps, unless I use it to lock my phone.
Yes, because multiple phones from multiple manufacturers all suck. It's a usability issue. I have to find the sweet spot for it to turn off the display. If I move the phone up or down a bit, it's likely to get enough light to activate.They cannot accommodate everyone all the time. And for what it's worth.. Nexus 6, Nexus 6p, HTC M8 for sure. I also had a Note 2, and an LG Optimus G Pro. I can't vouch for those, as it's been a few years.
You act like the technology is flawless. It isn't. For me, It's unreliable enough that I have to be careful when using it. But that all comes down to different factors. Like against my cheek, placement of the phone often doesn't block enough light to consistently disable the display. The even more annoying one for me is that the light sensor will often prevent me from turning the screen on to check messages. My hand isn't directly on the light sensor, but blocks enough to prevent me turning it on.
One would hope the person making the margarita isn't also the nuclear technician. But then, I guess it would be excuse as to why the drink didn't turn out.
While I am not privy to the specifics, the summary does say the women were forced into it to pay off debts to crime bosses.
The information, as presented, indicates they were forced into prostitution against there will.
So, if the information is correct.. the women were victims.
If accurate, the women were forced into prostitution against their will. As such, they are victims.
If they were prostitutes by choice, that is a different story.
If they chose to be prostitutes, they're not victims.
Voluntarily putting themselves into debt isn't the same as voluntarily opting to whore themselves out.
Taking on debt, in of itself, is not voluntary acceptance of the method of repayment forced upon you after the fact. In this case, prostitution.
Volunteering to whore themselves out to cover debts or gain passage is fundamentally different from being forced into it after the debt/passage.
Taking on debt, knowing that prostitution would be included in the repayment process, is not the same as being forced into prostitution after the fact.
All of that was readily apparent from what I originally said. I have now expended more effort explaining simple statements than should of been necessary. Any further and you're either unwilling or unable to grasp simple logic. Either way, it's not worth any further effort. If you still cannot figure things out, you're on your own.
Look, I'm sorry you can't understand basic concepts. I really am. But, that doesn't make it my fault. Grow up and stop blaming other for your own shortcomings.
It wasn't the real Wolf3D. It was originally an expansion to Wolf3D that iD decided to cancel. I don't expect you to care about facts, but someone else might.
Did I every state, or even imply, anything to that effect? No. I very specifically said I wasn't privy to specifics and that it's only if the information is correct. So, kindly learn to take the time to comprehend what you read instead of making up your own viewpoint for my words.
Voluntarily putting themselves into debt isn't the same as voluntarily opting to whore themselves out. Volunteering to whore themselves out to cover debts or gain passage is fundamentally different from being forced into it after the debt/passage.
As for your second point, I feel legalized prostitution is all well and good... as long as it's properly regulated.