Instead of guessing that 18 sounds about right, maybe we could use a little science instead?
I started at 14, as you could legally learn to drive then, and apply for a full license on your 15th birthday. Times have changed, we now know the human brain doesn't fully develop until the early to mid 20's, so it can be argued your brain is better equipped to handle the responsibility better the older you are.
It'd more accurate say no religion is about peace, they're mostly all about ignorance.
Islam is only tolerated because we tolerate other religions too. Get rid of the Christians and the Jews, and it makes it a whole lot easier problem to solve.
The Koran backs much of what they do. Islam never had a reformation like Christianity and Judaism.
To be fair, Islam is a whole lot younger than the others so maybe their puberty is just kicking in now. In 300 years they'll look back and laugh about suicide bombings, just as we do now with witch trials and inquisitions.
Actually I'll qualify that racism comment. It isn't racist, it's culture-ist. People in the most developed countries have similar values which seem to be more advanced (ie equal rights , freedom of expression) than less developed countries. Race has nothing to do with since any human raised in a developed country will have similar views (most of the time). We in the developed world need to ensure those less developed are brought up to our standards. Sometimes that can be achieved with carrots, sometimes with sticks.
The power vacuum only exist because we're too soft to occupy. The vacuum occurs only if you leave.
As you say it was stable under the Ottoman empire, because they took over and kept it, America needs to do the same thing. The US, Canada, Australia, NZ were all British colonies, but the difference is the white people never left, so they remain beacons of progress. Hate to sound all racist here, but there is a strong correlation between those and African, Middle Eastern states that were given back.
It does if you have a big enough gun. Do you think America would still be standing if ISIS had ICBMs?
A few nukes and an occupation could end this all quite quickly if we had the stomach to do it properly.
It might sound cruel, but one possible solution is to Nuke the lot of them. Yeah yeah I know it sounds bad, but on one hand we are in for decades of this murder, rape and torture, and a huge drain on resources and moral, on the other we could just kill everyone and start fresh tomorrow. Both options are bad, but which is less bad?
At least the Nuke option sends also serves as a warning to all future threats that we still posses the power, and will use it if required.
Depends on whose plan it is. If it's coming from Langley, designed to lure the loonies out of hiding towards easily defendable targets, then it may be a little more cunning than you think. It's only 100 names, is it too much of a stretch to suppose these could be members of a special unit on a special mission?
And then I'm forced to conclude they're really both crazy and delusional, and view their own cause as somehow being different.
One big differentiator that you seemed to have overlooked is that under the American system you are allowed to say what you said. You also get to live a life of relative peace and prosperity unlike many other in human civilisation. So yeah America is far from perfect, but comparing it to ISIS is a little bit of a stretch.
Swatters have been known to intentionally act irrational/hysterical, and put time pressure on the police. They could talk about how they're going to kill someone in the next hour, and perhaps talk about how they'll kill any police that they see as well. They may tell the police that if anyone tries to call them back or contacts them in any way, they'll kill a hostage.
This leaves the police in a quandary.
This is not a quandary, this a big red flag that it is a hoax. Real offender don't behave this way, I've never heard of any case where an armed offender has said such things. Don't call me back, and don't call my mother either, and count to 100 before you hang up this call, and when you come for me I want you to honk your horn 4 times or I'll kill a hostage. You really think that's how things work?
Police aren't that stupid, and anonymous tip never carries as much weight as a verified tip for just this reason.
I don't know what drinking, smoking, or having tattoos has to do with anything.
Not sure about the drinking, but there is a strong correlation between smoking, tattoos and stupidity. If you've ever been in prison you'll noticed nearly every person in there has a tattoo. Whether you like it or not there is an association between the two.
Mod you up. We read a lot about all pervasive surveillance yet cops still can't solve simple crimes. From this fact alone we can gather that the technology is nowhere near as good as claimed.
I know back in the day tattoos were saved for arms, back, chest etc, where you could cover them up if required. But this latest generation has a new kind of idiot. Having worked in the "youth fashion" segment recently, the more exposed the tattoo the cooler you are. These days it's neck, front back and behind the ear, hands and fingers and yes even on the face.
The logical flaw with tattoos is that they are a fashion item, and hence has to change from year to year to maintain relevance. But a tattoo is permanent, so the only way to change is to get more of them, in newer places that others don't have them. The end result is what we have now, highly visible markers that expose your limited strategic thinking capacity. You can get away with this if you're 20, not so much if you're 40. The flaw comes from the fact that a lot of those 20 year olds will actually be 40 one day, and probably without a decent career.
1) When people are arrested, their friends, family, and neighbors routinely say "I can't believe he did that. He seemed like such a nice guy."
I've noticed this a lot, and so told my parents that if I'm ever arrested and the media come asking you've got to say "yeah he was a real dick, I'm glad he got busted". It'd be worth it just for the reaction.
I'm also a parent and have a list of stupid quotes ready just in case my kids get caught doing something stupid (we all do stupid things, but only some of us get caught). The media are fuckwits, they don't deserve to be taken seriously.
And let's face it, the Apple watch is a copy of existing Samsung/LG/Pebble device (even if Apple thought it up first)
Ok, that's a ridiculous statement.
1. How can something (the Apple watch) be a "copy" of something if they thought-it-up first?
Because they only though of the concept, not the implementation. If every man and his dog release a product before you then you are still derivative.
2. Each of the Smartwatches you mentioned has enough "uniqueness" to not be considered a simple "copy" of the other(s). That's like saying that all mechanical watches that have a "Calendar" function (complication?) are somehow "Copies" of whoever put the first "date" function on a watch.
Maybe in your world, but in mine smart watches just like PC's in the 90's. No amount of fancy case work changes the fact that it's just a computer that will be outdated in a couple of years like the rest. Unlike a PC however there is not the same market or demand for a smart watch, the whole idea is just a gimmick.
The differentiators for real watches is that people don't buy them for the technology. It's an apples and oranges comparison.
Google does indeed possess some fine talent, but there are some things that no amount of skill will solve (within a reasonable time frame). Time machines, invisibility, flying cars, and maybe self-driving cars. I'm well aware of the Google situation, however still can't see how it could work in this world.
Take away the technological challenges, even if they produced something the equivalent of a human today, would it be politically feasible? What would the costs be (vehicle, infrastructure, administrative/enforcement)?
It's also worth noting that for all Google's talent, they have a long list of shit products to show for it. It says something when your best product was your first product, and 15 years later, other than a couple of clever acquisitions, most of everything else has been rubbish.
Any of us could be next, part of the game is to be aware of any threats and adapt accordingly. Those that do continue, those that don't exit early. Welcome to life.
But we're drifting off the topic here. My point was that laptops have been just fine for many years at doing the kinds of work people used to need a desktop for. Even entry-level laptops today are absolute beasts in performance and storage compared to what the high-end machines had a few years ago, and somehow people still managed to type a document in Word using them. You don't need some magical new class of hybrid device to get work done.
You don't need anything. But given the choice, in the business market, which Microsoft are targeting, a Hybrid solves more problems.
Don't be silly. Just looking at the physical dimensions, the Surface Pro 3 is two inches longer, over an inch wider, about 50% deeper and about twice as heavy compared to the iPad Air 2. It needs to be to accommodate the keyboard and a screen large enough for laptop-style uses, and you see similar distinctions between most convertible/hybrid devices and most large tablets. And there are plenty of tablets that are a bit smaller for added convenience, such as the iPad Mini, Galaxy Tab 7", etc.
If you're carrying your gear around in a laptop case anyway, those differences might not matter. However, for ladies who prefer to carry something in their handbag, they make a huge difference, and for gents, the smaller tablets will even fit in a coat or suit jacket pocket.
It's also common for people to hold a tablet in one hand just like, say, an e-reader. It's hard to imagine many people doing that with these larger, convertible devices.
You don't have to imagine it, I see it everyday.
And you have demonstrated the exact problem perfectly here. Above you mentioned why laptops do the job, now your saying why tablets do. So what do you choose, one or the other, or both? With a hybrid that problem is solved.
Seriously?
Yes seriously because you're into your this response but still avoiding this crucial point.
A business needs more than just a standard of performance, it needs all the other fluffy bits too. Just because you don't understand this doesn't make it wrong.
The only qualitative difference I can see with the Dell is that you get that next-business-day on-site support. But for a more than 100% mark-up and given that the dominant cost of hardware failures is usually the immediate downtime and then the recovery time, that seems like the kind of deal only a Corporate CIO who went to school with a Dell VP could think was a good investment. I've worked at big companies that used Dell as a supplier and talked with the IT guys who had to actually use those support contracts, and not one of them thought it was actually worth it.
That's why those guys are still working in the helpdesk and not managing departments.
I already explained the difference in my last post, but I'll try again since you are struggling with it.
When you manage a fleet of hundreds or thousands of machines, you want them all to be as similar as possible. You want them the same so that your support people only have to learn as few systems as possible, so your support costs are lower, and that any issues are as minimal as possible. In business, downtime costs money, so spending a little extra to minimise this is cost effective. Buying one off machines because the sticker price is cheaper is a false economy. The few dollars you save end up costing you thousands to manage and support.
In any case, again we're drifting off the topic. The original point was to do a like-for-like comparison, so we're just looking at the cost overhead of moving from laptop to hybrid. Obviously the hybrid-style devices I was looking at from the same stores for price comparison purposes were coming with a similar level of warranty terms and customer support, and they were still about 2x as expensive for like-for-like specs.
Because you're comparing apples with oranges as I've explai
Traffic would probably flow considerably better in a city full of self driving cars. A lot of the chaos of city driving is because of human error and human reaction delays.
What happens when the software has an error? I mean you're assuming that the software will never ever have a problem here right?
You know the easiest way to prove something is verified, is to provide a link to it. I've had dozens of responses just like yours yet no-one has done this yet. Why do you think this is? I'm well aware of Google's research, and it's limitations. There is a reason why this isn't available in stores right now.
Did you even read your own link? Nvivdia is selling a chip. That is so far from a "solution" that it's laughable.
And as for drones, it the carrying the human and satisfying the safety requirements that is the expensive part. I feel like I'm explaining this to a child...
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of guessing that 18 sounds about right, maybe we could use a little science instead?
I started at 14, as you could legally learn to drive then, and apply for a full license on your 15th birthday. Times have changed, we now know the human brain doesn't fully develop until the early to mid 20's, so it can be argued your brain is better equipped to handle the responsibility better the older you are.
It'd more accurate say no religion is about peace, they're mostly all about ignorance.
Islam is only tolerated because we tolerate other religions too. Get rid of the Christians and the Jews, and it makes it a whole lot easier problem to solve.
The Koran backs much of what they do. Islam never had a reformation like Christianity and Judaism.
To be fair, Islam is a whole lot younger than the others so maybe their puberty is just kicking in now. In 300 years they'll look back and laugh about suicide bombings, just as we do now with witch trials and inquisitions.
Actually I'll qualify that racism comment. It isn't racist, it's culture-ist. People in the most developed countries have similar values which seem to be more advanced (ie equal rights , freedom of expression) than less developed countries. Race has nothing to do with since any human raised in a developed country will have similar views (most of the time). We in the developed world need to ensure those less developed are brought up to our standards. Sometimes that can be achieved with carrots, sometimes with sticks.
The power vacuum only exist because we're too soft to occupy. The vacuum occurs only if you leave.
As you say it was stable under the Ottoman empire, because they took over and kept it, America needs to do the same thing. The US, Canada, Australia, NZ were all British colonies, but the difference is the white people never left, so they remain beacons of progress. Hate to sound all racist here, but there is a strong correlation between those and African, Middle Eastern states that were given back.
The good thing about a death cult, is once they're all dead, it's really hard to recruit new members
It does if you have a big enough gun. Do you think America would still be standing if ISIS had ICBMs? A few nukes and an occupation could end this all quite quickly if we had the stomach to do it properly.
It might sound cruel, but one possible solution is to Nuke the lot of them. Yeah yeah I know it sounds bad, but on one hand we are in for decades of this murder, rape and torture, and a huge drain on resources and moral, on the other we could just kill everyone and start fresh tomorrow. Both options are bad, but which is less bad? At least the Nuke option sends also serves as a warning to all future threats that we still posses the power, and will use it if required.
Depends on whose plan it is. If it's coming from Langley, designed to lure the loonies out of hiding towards easily defendable targets, then it may be a little more cunning than you think. It's only 100 names, is it too much of a stretch to suppose these could be members of a special unit on a special mission?
You might have heard of an event commonly known as 9-11. If that didn't finish it, nothing will
And then I'm forced to conclude they're really both crazy and delusional, and view their own cause as somehow being different.
One big differentiator that you seemed to have overlooked is that under the American system you are allowed to say what you said. You also get to live a life of relative peace and prosperity unlike many other in human civilisation. So yeah America is far from perfect, but comparing it to ISIS is a little bit of a stretch.
Swatters have been known to intentionally act irrational/hysterical, and put time pressure on the police. They could talk about how they're going to kill someone in the next hour, and perhaps talk about how they'll kill any police that they see as well. They may tell the police that if anyone tries to call them back or contacts them in any way, they'll kill a hostage.
This leaves the police in a quandary.
This is not a quandary, this a big red flag that it is a hoax. Real offender don't behave this way, I've never heard of any case where an armed offender has said such things. Don't call me back, and don't call my mother either, and count to 100 before you hang up this call, and when you come for me I want you to honk your horn 4 times or I'll kill a hostage. You really think that's how things work?
Police aren't that stupid, and anonymous tip never carries as much weight as a verified tip for just this reason.
I don't know what drinking, smoking, or having tattoos has to do with anything.
Not sure about the drinking, but there is a strong correlation between smoking, tattoos and stupidity. If you've ever been in prison you'll noticed nearly every person in there has a tattoo. Whether you like it or not there is an association between the two.
Mod you up. We read a lot about all pervasive surveillance yet cops still can't solve simple crimes. From this fact alone we can gather that the technology is nowhere near as good as claimed.
What if it's the cops that kill the teller?
I know back in the day tattoos were saved for arms, back, chest etc, where you could cover them up if required. But this latest generation has a new kind of idiot. Having worked in the "youth fashion" segment recently, the more exposed the tattoo the cooler you are. These days it's neck, front back and behind the ear, hands and fingers and yes even on the face.
The logical flaw with tattoos is that they are a fashion item, and hence has to change from year to year to maintain relevance. But a tattoo is permanent, so the only way to change is to get more of them, in newer places that others don't have them. The end result is what we have now, highly visible markers that expose your limited strategic thinking capacity. You can get away with this if you're 20, not so much if you're 40. The flaw comes from the fact that a lot of those 20 year olds will actually be 40 one day, and probably without a decent career.
In defense of the mother:
1) When people are arrested, their friends, family, and neighbors routinely say "I can't believe he did that. He seemed like such a nice guy."
I've noticed this a lot, and so told my parents that if I'm ever arrested and the media come asking you've got to say "yeah he was a real dick, I'm glad he got busted". It'd be worth it just for the reaction. I'm also a parent and have a list of stupid quotes ready just in case my kids get caught doing something stupid (we all do stupid things, but only some of us get caught). The media are fuckwits, they don't deserve to be taken seriously.
And let's face it, the Apple watch is a copy of existing Samsung/LG/Pebble device (even if Apple thought it up first)
Ok, that's a ridiculous statement. 1. How can something (the Apple watch) be a "copy" of something if they thought-it-up first? Because they only though of the concept, not the implementation. If every man and his dog release a product before you then you are still derivative. 2. Each of the Smartwatches you mentioned has enough "uniqueness" to not be considered a simple "copy" of the other(s). That's like saying that all mechanical watches that have a "Calendar" function (complication?) are somehow "Copies" of whoever put the first "date" function on a watch.
Maybe in your world, but in mine smart watches just like PC's in the 90's. No amount of fancy case work changes the fact that it's just a computer that will be outdated in a couple of years like the rest. Unlike a PC however there is not the same market or demand for a smart watch, the whole idea is just a gimmick.
The differentiators for real watches is that people don't buy them for the technology. It's an apples and oranges comparison.
Google does indeed possess some fine talent, but there are some things that no amount of skill will solve (within a reasonable time frame). Time machines, invisibility, flying cars, and maybe self-driving cars. I'm well aware of the Google situation, however still can't see how it could work in this world.
Take away the technological challenges, even if they produced something the equivalent of a human today, would it be politically feasible? What would the costs be (vehicle, infrastructure, administrative/enforcement)?
It's also worth noting that for all Google's talent, they have a long list of shit products to show for it. It says something when your best product was your first product, and 15 years later, other than a couple of clever acquisitions, most of everything else has been rubbish.
Any of us could be next, part of the game is to be aware of any threats and adapt accordingly. Those that do continue, those that don't exit early. Welcome to life.
But we're drifting off the topic here. My point was that laptops have been just fine for many years at doing the kinds of work people used to need a desktop for. Even entry-level laptops today are absolute beasts in performance and storage compared to what the high-end machines had a few years ago, and somehow people still managed to type a document in Word using them. You don't need some magical new class of hybrid device to get work done.
You don't need anything. But given the choice, in the business market, which Microsoft are targeting, a Hybrid solves more problems.
Don't be silly. Just looking at the physical dimensions, the Surface Pro 3 is two inches longer, over an inch wider, about 50% deeper and about twice as heavy compared to the iPad Air 2. It needs to be to accommodate the keyboard and a screen large enough for laptop-style uses, and you see similar distinctions between most convertible/hybrid devices and most large tablets. And there are plenty of tablets that are a bit smaller for added convenience, such as the iPad Mini, Galaxy Tab 7", etc.
If you're carrying your gear around in a laptop case anyway, those differences might not matter. However, for ladies who prefer to carry something in their handbag, they make a huge difference, and for gents, the smaller tablets will even fit in a coat or suit jacket pocket.
It's also common for people to hold a tablet in one hand just like, say, an e-reader. It's hard to imagine many people doing that with these larger, convertible devices.
You don't have to imagine it, I see it everyday.
And you have demonstrated the exact problem perfectly here. Above you mentioned why laptops do the job, now your saying why tablets do. So what do you choose, one or the other, or both? With a hybrid that problem is solved.
Seriously?
Yes seriously because you're into your this response but still avoiding this crucial point. A business needs more than just a standard of performance, it needs all the other fluffy bits too. Just because you don't understand this doesn't make it wrong.
The only qualitative difference I can see with the Dell is that you get that next-business-day on-site support. But for a more than 100% mark-up and given that the dominant cost of hardware failures is usually the immediate downtime and then the recovery time, that seems like the kind of deal only a Corporate CIO who went to school with a Dell VP could think was a good investment. I've worked at big companies that used Dell as a supplier and talked with the IT guys who had to actually use those support contracts, and not one of them thought it was actually worth it.
That's why those guys are still working in the helpdesk and not managing departments.
I already explained the difference in my last post, but I'll try again since you are struggling with it.
When you manage a fleet of hundreds or thousands of machines, you want them all to be as similar as possible. You want them the same so that your support people only have to learn as few systems as possible, so your support costs are lower, and that any issues are as minimal as possible. In business, downtime costs money, so spending a little extra to minimise this is cost effective. Buying one off machines because the sticker price is cheaper is a false economy. The few dollars you save end up costing you thousands to manage and support.
In any case, again we're drifting off the topic. The original point was to do a like-for-like comparison, so we're just looking at the cost overhead of moving from laptop to hybrid. Obviously the hybrid-style devices I was looking at from the same stores for price comparison purposes were coming with a similar level of warranty terms and customer support, and they were still about 2x as expensive for like-for-like specs.
Because you're comparing apples with oranges as I've explai
Traffic would probably flow considerably better in a city full of self driving cars. A lot of the chaos of city driving is because of human error and human reaction delays.
What happens when the software has an error? I mean you're assuming that the software will never ever have a problem here right?
You know the easiest way to prove something is verified, is to provide a link to it. I've had dozens of responses just like yours yet no-one has done this yet. Why do you think this is? I'm well aware of Google's research, and it's limitations. There is a reason why this isn't available in stores right now.
Did you even read your own link? Nvivdia is selling a chip. That is so far from a "solution" that it's laughable. And as for drones, it the carrying the human and satisfying the safety requirements that is the expensive part. I feel like I'm explaining this to a child...
The problem hasn't been solved because I can't buy one and use it today. Marketing hype and vapourware, is different from a solution.