Then there is something wrong in the market. Cable companies should not be willing to accept and pass on the kind of cost increases you describe. They really shouldn't be in that position at all. What are the content companies charging cable companies for anyway? They make money off advertising or subscriptions, so the more homes their content goes to the more valuable their ad time. By all rights, they should be paying cable companies to bring their ads to our homes, not the other way around. Having your content run on cable TV means you don't need a nationwide network of broadcast towers to sell adds that run in all our homes, yet somehow their savings get passed on to us as increased cost? That's not right.
I'm going to pick nits and say that Dish isn't a cable company and doesn't rent out cable boxes so they don't count. Comcast is the only cable company I know of to change the system in any substantial way. I had Comcast service when they introduced X1, and what it replaced used that same antiquated UI as all the other STB's.
My thinking is that Dish kept changing things up because unlike cable companies, they were in competition. Competition with, well, cable companies. Given the advantages of being hardwired, chiefly signal reliability and bidirectionality (thus broadband), Dish had to differentiate themselves and offer something cable doesn't. If cable companies competed with each other, the STB's would all be inline with X1 or Dish's, prices lower, and I'd probably still get TV through mine.
The standard cable box UI hasn't changed since the 1990's, despite occasional changes to the hardware. The hardware is of course woefully outdated as well, effectively unchanged since the advent of HDTV and DVRs.
The only other hardware I can think of that stayed at the same price point for so long without any value-adding hardware or software changes are TI graphing calculators.
China sucks at Communism now. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Communism is pretty bad on its own, so being bad at it doesn't suck like being bad at processing lactose does.
If raising the minimum wage appears to reduce employment if you cut out McDonald's (easy example), but increase it if you include McDonald's, then doesn't that mean increasing minimum wages is good for large corporations and bad for small businesses?
In other words, if you support increasing the minimum wage but don't support large corporations like McDonald's, you face a dilemma.
I'm not talking about the core concept behind organic produce. What I'm saying is that when I look at cilantro, and the organic bunch is fresh and bright green, and the non-organic is wilted and bruised, spending a few extra cents for the higher-quality bunch is rational given the low opportunity cost I bear.
My point is not that organic farming is inherently better, but that in order to successfully keep organic produce on the market the quality of what sits on the shelf must be higher than what's next to it. Which I suspect is the reason for the results of this recent study, conveniently posted today - https://science.slashdot.org/s...
Yes, but typically they have more stringent quality controls to justify the added cost. I spend a whole extra $.20 to get organic cilantro because it usually looks fresher and better than the alternative. I agree with you about the core concept, but one of the side effects is that what's available on the shelf is often better.
I don't know about that. If the extra cost isn't a barrier for you, buying organic produce is a rational cost/quality calculation. So, it's really the last two suggestions that are rational.
label on it and move on. Like we do for anything else that pregnant women and children shouldn't be exposed to - cigarettes, Propecia, etc.
Besides, it's not like these are only bad for kids or pregnancy. If I'm not mistaken, the bulk of organophosphate pesticides are just as effective as killing humans as they are insects. Hence the practice of being careful when using them.
I'm sorry, what "dystopian implications"? Is there something wrong with being recognized?
And if there is, so what? Keeping the government in line is what the Constitution is for. That's the foundation of our entire Republic - keeping the government in check.
First off, there is no inherent violation of anyone's rights in being identifiable or identified. That claim is just plain silly. Nor is demanding your employer not sell facial recognition tech to the government a sensible or effective course of action. The government will just get it from someone else. If you're worried about how the government would use facial recognition, there is only one route for dealing with it - the Law. Advocate for legislation to restrict how the government can use it, and take the government to court if you think it's violating one of the only two amendments facial recognition could be used to violate, the 4th and 5th. Not the first, in no way can facial recognition violate the first.
When it comes to the DoD forcing them to choose, I fear that Google has already made its choice. At the same time, you're probably right that China would just steal everything, so the DoD could just play a little dirty and call Google "defence critical infrastructure".
Wow, that's so wildly inaccurate that I'm amazed you managed to learn the words without picking up any facts. I don't know where to start refuting your claims, but they're so absurd and I just woke up so I'm not going to waste my time.
I had a lot of fun the time I killed TLS 1.0 in my AD, only to discover that doing so broke network authentication. So, instead of just disabling it in IE and Edge, how about patching everything so SChannel doesn't need a ton of registry changes to use TLS 1.2?
How is it Google's "values" don't matter for crap when it comes to making money in China, but prevent it from helping the US military? Did nobody tell them that they're an American company? Why are they so eager to do business with a dictatorship that openly seeks to crush the US, while refusing to do business with the Department of Defense?
China is an oppressive dictatorship that uses censorship to control its people. America is a democracy that values free and open information. Google values free and open information. Who is that Google wants to help and who is it that Google refuses to help?
Why should I assume he doesn't care about his job? Is there some reasonable basis for it, like a reputation for missing meetings and not showing up at the office? Or is the basis just your personal dislike of the man?
Think about it - what do police body cameras record? What's in front of the cop, if the camera is fixed to the chest, or what the cop is looking at, if it's attached to glasses. So this scary "giant panopticon-like surveillance system" still requires the physical presence of a police officer looking at whatever is being surveilled.
In other words, NO CHANGE.
It's not like the cameras are going to catch you doing something naughty while you don't think anyone is looking. There will be a cop standing there facing you.
Slashdot Mirror
Then there is something wrong in the market. Cable companies should not be willing to accept and pass on the kind of cost increases you describe. They really shouldn't be in that position at all. What are the content companies charging cable companies for anyway? They make money off advertising or subscriptions, so the more homes their content goes to the more valuable their ad time. By all rights, they should be paying cable companies to bring their ads to our homes, not the other way around. Having your content run on cable TV means you don't need a nationwide network of broadcast towers to sell adds that run in all our homes, yet somehow their savings get passed on to us as increased cost? That's not right.
If we start removing appendices, there won't be any place in the medical books to list the connection to Parkinson's!
My thinking is that Dish kept changing things up because unlike cable companies, they were in competition. Competition with, well, cable companies. Given the advantages of being hardwired, chiefly signal reliability and bidirectionality (thus broadband), Dish had to differentiate themselves and offer something cable doesn't. If cable companies competed with each other, the STB's would all be inline with X1 or Dish's, prices lower, and I'd probably still get TV through mine.
Cable companies have heard of Moore's Law. They gave it the finger and laughed all the way to the bank.
The only other hardware I can think of that stayed at the same price point for so long without any value-adding hardware or software changes are TI graphing calculators.
That's what monopoly power does to a market.
Now that is how you disarm your opponent!
China sucks at Communism now. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Communism is pretty bad on its own, so being bad at it doesn't suck like being bad at processing lactose does.
Quaid activated The Machine!
In other words, if you support increasing the minimum wage but don't support large corporations like McDonald's, you face a dilemma.
My point is not that organic farming is inherently better, but that in order to successfully keep organic produce on the market the quality of what sits on the shelf must be higher than what's next to it. Which I suspect is the reason for the results of this recent study, conveniently posted today - https://science.slashdot.org/s...
Yes, but typically they have more stringent quality controls to justify the added cost. I spend a whole extra $.20 to get organic cilantro because it usually looks fresher and better than the alternative. I agree with you about the core concept, but one of the side effects is that what's available on the shelf is often better.
I don't know about that. If the extra cost isn't a barrier for you, buying organic produce is a rational cost/quality calculation. So, it's really the last two suggestions that are rational.
Besides, it's not like these are only bad for kids or pregnancy. If I'm not mistaken, the bulk of organophosphate pesticides are just as effective as killing humans as they are insects. Hence the practice of being careful when using them.
And if there is, so what? Keeping the government in line is what the Constitution is for. That's the foundation of our entire Republic - keeping the government in check.
First off, there is no inherent violation of anyone's rights in being identifiable or identified. That claim is just plain silly. Nor is demanding your employer not sell facial recognition tech to the government a sensible or effective course of action. The government will just get it from someone else. If you're worried about how the government would use facial recognition, there is only one route for dealing with it - the Law. Advocate for legislation to restrict how the government can use it, and take the government to court if you think it's violating one of the only two amendments facial recognition could be used to violate, the 4th and 5th. Not the first, in no way can facial recognition violate the first.
When it comes to the DoD forcing them to choose, I fear that Google has already made its choice. At the same time, you're probably right that China would just steal everything, so the DoD could just play a little dirty and call Google "defence critical infrastructure".
Wow, that's so wildly inaccurate that I'm amazed you managed to learn the words without picking up any facts. I don't know where to start refuting your claims, but they're so absurd and I just woke up so I'm not going to waste my time.
I had a lot of fun the time I killed TLS 1.0 in my AD, only to discover that doing so broke network authentication. So, instead of just disabling it in IE and Edge, how about patching everything so SChannel doesn't need a ton of registry changes to use TLS 1.2?
In which the government tracks the psychological states of the people, and blows them up for being too unhealthy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
China is an oppressive dictatorship that uses censorship to control its people. America is a democracy that values free and open information. Google values free and open information. Who is that Google wants to help and who is it that Google refuses to help?
This is f'd up.
Isn't that called a job?
Wouldn't that defeat the entire concept behind wikipedia?
What a lousy acronym.
Why should I assume he doesn't care about his job? Is there some reasonable basis for it, like a reputation for missing meetings and not showing up at the office? Or is the basis just your personal dislike of the man?
100% agreement, same boat.
In other words, NO CHANGE.
It's not like the cameras are going to catch you doing something naughty while you don't think anyone is looking. There will be a cop standing there facing you.