Who gives a rip what his position is? Even if he says encryption is good, back doors are bad, we will have no idea if that is the same direction being given to the NSA behind closed doors.
A sensible start would be, all guns locked away in gun clubs and in homes, jail time for carrying one outside the home or gun club.
How in the world is that going to make the slightest bit of a difference? Assume that these people obey all the laws on the books, and never carry a gun outside the home, so they never get in trouble. Then, when they want to commit mass murder, the law prohibiting them from taking the gun out of the home is going to stop them and make them think "well, I was going to shoot a bunch of people but it would be against the law to take the guns our of the house, so I'm stuck."
Making a tablet with a user serviceable battery requires features that would increase the size and weight of the device as well as disrupt the clean lines. Sure, not by very much, but that is not Apple's thing. They build hardware that has a clean design and is thin and light at the cost of cost, both up front and in servicing. In any case, not many others make tablets that have user serviceable batteries either. Some are easier for mechanically inclined people, but not really designed for Joe Blow to replace his own battery.
Lol. Tech sector unemployment is STILL UNDER 5%. There are plenty of jobs out there, apparently just not jobs you are qualified for or willing to do for the pay.
My wife created a consulting company (woman owned small business, yea!) and hired herself. Lots of advantages, max the employer side of the 401K, pay a reasonable but small salary and take the rest in profit; it still goes against income, but you don't pay payroll tax on it. Work from wherever you want most of the time, tax free mileage reimbursement when you do have to go in. Buy computers and office equipment/furniture with pre-tax dollars. I have a good job so she doesn't have to buy health insurance. And the list goes on.
LOL. You are asking him to disprove something for which nobody here has given any evidence except something from the organization that is literally the most biased in the world on this subject. I'm not disputing the original claim, I don't really have a dog in this fight, but your statement is silly.
The penalty for having a digital file that can be used in conjunction with a 3D printer to create a gun, or the penalty for not turning over your encryption keys?
I have had similar experience, though I live about 6 miles away. I've had drivers try to refuse only to be told by the guy on the curb doing the assignments that if he refused he would have to go to the back of the queue anyway. The driver said that he had been waiting three hours and that he'd be losing money. Too bad. I have never, ever seen that airport not have a huge line of cabs waiting to pick people up. Maybe they just have too many. I saw a driver refuse to give a ride to a family with a service dog, back of the queue with him for another three hours. Frankly this seems like a terrible job.
Maybe I don't understand the issue. If you refuse to see a doctor that won't prescribe an inappropriate medication, and you jump around because of that, why is that anyone's problem but your own? If I'm a doctor I'm still not going to prescribe it. Or are you suggesting we restrict information from everyone because some people are too dumb to know advertising for what it is? If these people are so affected by advertising that they would be willing to ingest a drug based only on a commercial then they have bigger problems. Maybe we should restrict all advertising because we can't let people get themselves into financial trouble.
It sounds like it could work, but it also sounds like it would be easy to mitigate. I can't imagine it would have been published if it was truly a game changer. See frequency agile RADAR : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I think he is referring to the legal requirement to tell the government everything they want to know. But maybe not. I don't really know what's on the Canadian long form. If it is like the US it is mostly bunch of stuff the government already has access to (like income), but are too lazy to go get, and a bunch of stupid stuff like how many bathrooms are in your house.
It is just that Apple doesn't have the tools in place to do it, and in fact may not know how to do it, and Apple is likely not pursuing the capability to do it. The court cannot compel Apple to do something that they do not know how to do.
You (and almost everyone here) miss the point. If you have a budget for a new TV, and find one that meets your requirements at a store for MSRP, but also find out they have it down the street for 20% off, would you still pay full price because that's "fair?" The company isn't going to pay you any more than they have to. If they can hire three cheap employees who each do 80% the work of two highly paid employees for the same total cost, they will. It doesn't matter how much value they bring to the company unless it drops below their cost threshold. (yeah yeah, take into account replacement costs, quality of work, public relations, etc...)
By the way, nothing in the article, as critical of the F-35 as it is, says that the Harrier is superior. It may say that about other jets, but not the Harrier.
I hope you don't get all your info from hit pieces written by folks whose primary agenda is to drive clicks. Go talk to some Marines. They don't like the Harrier, it's slow, it's vulnerable, it has no legs, can't carry any kind of reasonable payload, and has a terrible safety record. Actually ask a Marine pilot, especially one who has flown both, which they would take into battle today given a choice. I bet you would get a similar answer to the one I got which was "F-35 any day of the week." You managed to pick the one airplane being replace by F-35 which is indisputably worse. Even without stealth and sensors the F-35 is vastly superior to the Harrier. You add stealth and sensors into the mix and the Harrier looks like the relic from the 1960s that it is. You want to have an actual debate on the merits? Talk about the F-18 C/D that is being used by the Marines. I'm not saying the F-18 wins, but I'm saying at least there would be a debate.
Don't know about the A-29 specifically, but it would be a completely different purpose than an F-35. The A-29 is more like a cheap A-10, without the big gun.
I, for one, would love to prevent desperation, crime, and abuse by paying losers to sit at home playing xbox and smoking weed staying out of my way and off of the streets..
Fantastic! Please start sending me money and I will gladly stop working and stay out of everyone's way.
Slashdot Mirror
Who gives a rip what his position is? Even if he says encryption is good, back doors are bad, we will have no idea if that is the same direction being given to the NSA behind closed doors.
A sensible start would be, all guns locked away in gun clubs and in homes, jail time for carrying one outside the home or gun club.
How in the world is that going to make the slightest bit of a difference? Assume that these people obey all the laws on the books, and never carry a gun outside the home, so they never get in trouble. Then, when they want to commit mass murder, the law prohibiting them from taking the gun out of the home is going to stop them and make them think "well, I was going to shoot a bunch of people but it would be against the law to take the guns our of the house, so I'm stuck."
It is longer, wider, and heavier than a Ticonderoga class guided missile cruiser. It isn't a light anything.
Note that while you can't opt out of a specific incident, you can opt out of the service entirely.
Making a tablet with a user serviceable battery requires features that would increase the size and weight of the device as well as disrupt the clean lines. Sure, not by very much, but that is not Apple's thing. They build hardware that has a clean design and is thin and light at the cost of cost, both up front and in servicing. In any case, not many others make tablets that have user serviceable batteries either. Some are easier for mechanically inclined people, but not really designed for Joe Blow to replace his own battery.
Lol. Tech sector unemployment is STILL UNDER 5%. There are plenty of jobs out there, apparently just not jobs you are qualified for or willing to do for the pay.
My wife created a consulting company (woman owned small business, yea!) and hired herself. Lots of advantages, max the employer side of the 401K, pay a reasonable but small salary and take the rest in profit; it still goes against income, but you don't pay payroll tax on it. Work from wherever you want most of the time, tax free mileage reimbursement when you do have to go in. Buy computers and office equipment/furniture with pre-tax dollars. I have a good job so she doesn't have to buy health insurance. And the list goes on.
LOL. You are asking him to disprove something for which nobody here has given any evidence except something from the organization that is literally the most biased in the world on this subject. I'm not disputing the original claim, I don't really have a dog in this fight, but your statement is silly.
The penalty for having a digital file that can be used in conjunction with a 3D printer to create a gun, or the penalty for not turning over your encryption keys?
I have had similar experience, though I live about 6 miles away. I've had drivers try to refuse only to be told by the guy on the curb doing the assignments that if he refused he would have to go to the back of the queue anyway. The driver said that he had been waiting three hours and that he'd be losing money. Too bad. I have never, ever seen that airport not have a huge line of cabs waiting to pick people up. Maybe they just have too many. I saw a driver refuse to give a ride to a family with a service dog, back of the queue with him for another three hours. Frankly this seems like a terrible job.
Maybe I don't understand the issue. If you refuse to see a doctor that won't prescribe an inappropriate medication, and you jump around because of that, why is that anyone's problem but your own? If I'm a doctor I'm still not going to prescribe it. Or are you suggesting we restrict information from everyone because some people are too dumb to know advertising for what it is? If these people are so affected by advertising that they would be willing to ingest a drug based only on a commercial then they have bigger problems. Maybe we should restrict all advertising because we can't let people get themselves into financial trouble.
Well, if you are shopping around because a doctor won't prescribe a medication you saw on TV, then you have made your own bed.
just tell their patients "no." If the patient decides to try to shop around for a different doctor, let them.
It sounds like it could work, but it also sounds like it would be easy to mitigate. I can't imagine it would have been published if it was truly a game changer. See frequency agile RADAR : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I think he is referring to the legal requirement to tell the government everything they want to know. But maybe not. I don't really know what's on the Canadian long form. If it is like the US it is mostly bunch of stuff the government already has access to (like income), but are too lazy to go get, and a bunch of stupid stuff like how many bathrooms are in your house.
It is just that Apple doesn't have the tools in place to do it, and in fact may not know how to do it, and Apple is likely not pursuing the capability to do it. The court cannot compel Apple to do something that they do not know how to do.
That will be the end of humanity
Now apply that logic to Kim Davis and see how people react
You (and almost everyone here) miss the point. If you have a budget for a new TV, and find one that meets your requirements at a store for MSRP, but also find out they have it down the street for 20% off, would you still pay full price because that's "fair?" The company isn't going to pay you any more than they have to. If they can hire three cheap employees who each do 80% the work of two highly paid employees for the same total cost, they will. It doesn't matter how much value they bring to the company unless it drops below their cost threshold. (yeah yeah, take into account replacement costs, quality of work, public relations, etc...)
Oblig: I'm going to go code myself a new minivan
By the way, nothing in the article, as critical of the F-35 as it is, says that the Harrier is superior. It may say that about other jets, but not the Harrier.
I hope you don't get all your info from hit pieces written by folks whose primary agenda is to drive clicks. Go talk to some Marines. They don't like the Harrier, it's slow, it's vulnerable, it has no legs, can't carry any kind of reasonable payload, and has a terrible safety record. Actually ask a Marine pilot, especially one who has flown both, which they would take into battle today given a choice. I bet you would get a similar answer to the one I got which was "F-35 any day of the week." You managed to pick the one airplane being replace by F-35 which is indisputably worse. Even without stealth and sensors the F-35 is vastly superior to the Harrier. You add stealth and sensors into the mix and the Harrier looks like the relic from the 1960s that it is. You want to have an actual debate on the merits? Talk about the F-18 C/D that is being used by the Marines. I'm not saying the F-18 wins, but I'm saying at least there would be a debate.
Don't know about the A-29 specifically, but it would be a completely different purpose than an F-35. The A-29 is more like a cheap A-10, without the big gun.
You know how I know you have no idea what you're talking about?
Salaries are too high so they need to increase competition for available jobs to drive the price down.
I, for one, would love to prevent desperation, crime, and abuse by paying losers to sit at home playing xbox and smoking weed staying out of my way and off of the streets..
Fantastic! Please start sending me money and I will gladly stop working and stay out of everyone's way.