Do people really expect security on their hotel locks? Do most places even have metal door frames? We all know regular locks can be picked with some skill. Why are we surprised that digital locks can be "picked" with some skill. Besides, for a intelligent criminal, it is probably fairly easier to steal a master key. They can then leave the key in the hallway so the maid simply thinks they dropped it. Also, what is to say the maid is even trustworthy. There are so many factors that can come in to play that one should assume that they door lock is insecure and then decide what is an acceptable risk. Your room isn't a vault after all.
NetFlix is pricing at a price that consumers like. Google/Amazon is pricing at a price that publishers like. If publishers refuse to sell licenses to Netflix, Google and Amazon win. I think publishers need to realize that their content is not nearly as valuable as it used to be.
NetFlix should consider multiple pricing points. First off they need a nearly complete collection of movies and TV shows. After that, they could have multiple plans based on how recent a movies/TV shows come out. For example, $15 a month will get you access to all movies/TV episodes that are 3 years or older; $30 will get you everything 2 years and older; $50 will get you everything 1 year and older; and $100 dollars will get you everything from the day of release. If you want access to a movie/TV episode that is newer than your tier allows, you can either upgrade tiers or pay per view. NetFlix should guarantee at least two simultaneous streams.
Even then, acceptable risk has changed. We should just replace them (and build more) with the most recent generation of reactors. The new generation of reactors have been shown to be a lot more fault-tolerant and therefore a lot safer.
We really need to cap total amount a politician is allowed to receive/spend on a campaign. Campaigning should be a level playing field so that the issues can debated rather than political contributions deciding.the laws.
To be a classic Libertarian you need only support the Bill of Rights, and by extension a woman's right to choose.
If by "right to choose" you mean right to abort a child, I do not agree. If you give parents the right to abort a child, you are giving them the right to murder another human being. Libertarianism says that people should be able to make to make their own choices given they do not infringe on others rights. Abortion infringes on the child's right to live.
First off, it is unnecessary. There has to be some sort of standardization on cars sizes but there does not need to be for device chargers ports. Yes, it is convenient but not necessary. Second off, when you involve the government, things tend to slow down considerably. What happens when a new and better standard comes out? It would probably take huge chunks of money and considerable time to get the government to agree to the new standard. It also gives special privileges to a single company rather than letting the best standard win in the market. Also, what you mentioned is more of a fine than a tax. Besides, as markets mature compatibility is usually in the best interests of companies. Yes, it means a customer can more easily move to another company's products but no one wants to be the only company not compatible with everyone else. Consumers tend to like compatibility. Apple has been able to hold out longer because of the fanboyism that they have fostered.
No no no! Do not create a government entity to regulate power adapters. If business want to get together and create a standard, fine. The government should not be involved.
For one, if your friends phone is almost dead, you are likely to have a compatible charger you can let them borrow while they are at your house. Also, it allows more devices to be made they are universally compatible rather than compatible with a single device. Besides, why not sell the chargers separate and give the savings back to the consumer. You could buy a couple of chargers and use them to charge all your devices. When you got a new device, you wouldn't need a new charger. In the end, it is more convenient to the consumer and saves on waste.
True. More likely through is that manufacturing would become so cheap that it would be cheaper to melt down the broken robot and replace it with a new one.
Except during the transition period, there will be a lot of competition. Competition tends to lower the price of goods. Also, just like software lowered the bar of entry of music creation/publishing, robotics would lower the bar of entry for manufacturing. Heck, eventually, people will probably print a nice chunk of their possessions at home.
Why is there a need for safety regulations if everything is done by robots? As far as moving manufacturing back to the US, the closer a product is to its final destination, the less shipping costs there are. Automated manufacturing enables companies to avoid shipping products overseas.
At first, there will be hardship. Eventually, no one will be doing the jobs that robots can easily do. Unless we find more stuff to do, eventually, the work weeks will shorten while the standard of living will either remain the same or get higher. Of course, 1984 could just happen where all the excess goes into perpetual war rather than the economy.
Maybe one day, with advanced knowledge of energy and matter, etc., we can invent a device that you can grow or shrink on demand to fit a particular need.
I actually like the bigger phones. I currently have a Droid Charge and one of the reasons I bought a case for it is because I thought it was felt too small. Next time I buy a phone, I am going to look for a bigger one.
I would venture a guess that if you took guns away, most, if not all, of those people would probably still be killed. Humans can be very inventive killers.
Slashdot Mirror
$50 is way too expensive. You can get a DVD box set for cheaper than that.
Do people really expect security on their hotel locks? Do most places even have metal door frames? We all know regular locks can be picked with some skill. Why are we surprised that digital locks can be "picked" with some skill. Besides, for a intelligent criminal, it is probably fairly easier to steal a master key. They can then leave the key in the hallway so the maid simply thinks they dropped it. Also, what is to say the maid is even trustworthy. There are so many factors that can come in to play that one should assume that they door lock is insecure and then decide what is an acceptable risk. Your room isn't a vault after all.
NetFlix is pricing at a price that consumers like. Google/Amazon is pricing at a price that publishers like. If publishers refuse to sell licenses to Netflix, Google and Amazon win. I think publishers need to realize that their content is not nearly as valuable as it used to be.
NetFlix should consider multiple pricing points. First off they need a nearly complete collection of movies and TV shows. After that, they could have multiple plans based on how recent a movies/TV shows come out. For example, $15 a month will get you access to all movies/TV episodes that are 3 years or older; $30 will get you everything 2 years and older; $50 will get you everything 1 year and older; and $100 dollars will get you everything from the day of release. If you want access to a movie/TV episode that is newer than your tier allows, you can either upgrade tiers or pay per view. NetFlix should guarantee at least two simultaneous streams.
Even then, acceptable risk has changed. We should just replace them (and build more) with the most recent generation of reactors. The new generation of reactors have been shown to be a lot more fault-tolerant and therefore a lot safer.
We really need to cap total amount a politician is allowed to receive/spend on a campaign. Campaigning should be a level playing field so that the issues can debated rather than political contributions deciding.the laws.
To be a classic Libertarian you need only support the Bill of Rights, and by extension a woman's right to choose.
If by "right to choose" you mean right to abort a child, I do not agree. If you give parents the right to abort a child, you are giving them the right to murder another human being. Libertarianism says that people should be able to make to make their own choices given they do not infringe on others rights. Abortion infringes on the child's right to live.
First off, it is unnecessary. There has to be some sort of standardization on cars sizes but there does not need to be for device chargers ports. Yes, it is convenient but not necessary. Second off, when you involve the government, things tend to slow down considerably. What happens when a new and better standard comes out? It would probably take huge chunks of money and considerable time to get the government to agree to the new standard. It also gives special privileges to a single company rather than letting the best standard win in the market. Also, what you mentioned is more of a fine than a tax. Besides, as markets mature compatibility is usually in the best interests of companies. Yes, it means a customer can more easily move to another company's products but no one wants to be the only company not compatible with everyone else. Consumers tend to like compatibility. Apple has been able to hold out longer because of the fanboyism that they have fostered.
Don't be so sure. There is currently a lot of competition in the mobile devices market.
No no no! Do not create a government entity to regulate power adapters. If business want to get together and create a standard, fine. The government should not be involved.
For one, if your friends phone is almost dead, you are likely to have a compatible charger you can let them borrow while they are at your house. Also, it allows more devices to be made they are universally compatible rather than compatible with a single device. Besides, why not sell the chargers separate and give the savings back to the consumer. You could buy a couple of chargers and use them to charge all your devices. When you got a new device, you wouldn't need a new charger. In the end, it is more convenient to the consumer and saves on waste.
With throw away phones getting internet, your identity could fairly easily be masked. Of course, they would still have you location.
True. More likely through is that manufacturing would become so cheap that it would be cheaper to melt down the broken robot and replace it with a new one.
s/BUILDING/DESIGNING/g Robots would probably be used to build robots. Humans would design the robots.
Except during the transition period, there will be a lot of competition. Competition tends to lower the price of goods. Also, just like software lowered the bar of entry of music creation/publishing, robotics would lower the bar of entry for manufacturing. Heck, eventually, people will probably print a nice chunk of their possessions at home.
As robots becomes more advanced, all the jobs you mentioned could be done by robots.
Why is there a need for safety regulations if everything is done by robots? As far as moving manufacturing back to the US, the closer a product is to its final destination, the less shipping costs there are. Automated manufacturing enables companies to avoid shipping products overseas.
At first, there will be hardship. Eventually, no one will be doing the jobs that robots can easily do. Unless we find more stuff to do, eventually, the work weeks will shorten while the standard of living will either remain the same or get higher. Of course, 1984 could just happen where all the excess goes into perpetual war rather than the economy.
I thought the Ministries were named the opposite of what they do.
How do you propose going about modifying trillions of cells manually?
I would only go for that if the screen was seamless.
That is what I was thinking.
Maybe one day, with advanced knowledge of energy and matter, etc., we can invent a device that you can grow or shrink on demand to fit a particular need.
I would be like the penis of smartphones!
Oops. It would be like the penis of smartphones!
I actually like the bigger phones. I currently have a Droid Charge and one of the reasons I bought a case for it is because I thought it was felt too small. Next time I buy a phone, I am going to look for a bigger one.
I would venture a guess that if you took guns away, most, if not all, of those people would probably still be killed. Humans can be very inventive killers.