What it should do is progressively slow down to zero. And then prohibit reengaging of the feature for a period of time. Which is what the next iteration is going to do.
You don't design it not to fail in two years. When you make a special version designed for two-year finance contracts, you design in a way that maximizes your profit while providing a two year warranty.
In my other post, I generally agreed with you. Remember, though, that Apple makes a *special* ATT version for these contracts. If this was a standard unlocked iPhone, I think you would be spot on. But if you are going to make a version designed for two-year financing, then it seems reasonable to warrant it for two years!
And if Apple didn't have direct relationships with the carriers, I would tend to agree with you. Those who seem to have a different opinion are getting modded down. And the summary was flamebait (too bad we can't moderate articles or editors).
It doesn't make sense to have a finance contract longer than the expected life of an item. You would laugh at the idea of a 30 year fixed *auto loan* We are, however, seeing similarly ridiculous things in automobiles. 60 month loan with a 36 month warranty? That's definitely nonsense. Even seeing 72 month auto loans out there. In the case of automobiles, the dealer has a relationship with both the *bank* *and* the *manufacturer* so they are in a unique position to see that this is nonsense. In this case, it seems reasonable to hold the dealers accountable. You sold it with a 72 month finance contract, manufacturer warrants for 36 months, so the dealer has to cover the gap. The manufacturer has no visibility to the financing, so it's unfair to expect them to change warranty policies.
This would also be reasonable with phones. But there is a slight difference. Apple makes *special* versions of the phone for the *express* purpose of these types of finance arrangements. You will see a huge price difference in carrier-locked vs. unlocked phones. So in this case the manufacturer is complicit and I see nothing wrong with also holding them accountable.
If you want to compare this to murder, it's more like, should we let somebody get a bruise on their toe if it stops two murders. And we seem to have already resolved that issue. If a police officer is on their way to a parking complaint and there is a call for a home invasion, they will divert from the improperly parked vehicle and respond to the violent crime. We have plenty of documented evidence that our social safety nets have kept many people out of poverty at a very modest cost. They exist all around the developed world.
A used iPhone3 costs $38.99 on Amazon. If there is an app that can help and EBT recipient be more efficient with their money, it would probably pay for itself in the first month. The mods seem to have gone crazy today. Instead of making welfare (a pretty miserable existence) even worse, why not make working better?
Every system has people who game it. The problem arises when your fury at the few gamers is so great that you are willing to cause drastic harm to those who are honestly in need in order to avoid it.
Most EBT recipients probably also receive some cash assistance. So it seems reasonable to make EBT and non-EBT purchases simultaneously. I don't really see the outrage at all about somebody spending $20 on a case of beer. It's nutritious and delicious. (Well, unless it's Busch light but that's a separate problem.)
There is a lot of vitriol modded-up in this thread but the one productive suggestion is to get rid of welfare-cliffs. The *best* way to do this would be UBI but there are more bureaucracy-intensive ways if they are preferred.
The parent mentioned "off-grid" which means you have your own huge battery pack and don't connect to anything. Right now that is somewhat nonsense as they are expensive and an environmental catastrophe. We really don't need batteries for the night. That's why God invented combined-cycle gas turbines. We don't need to shift to 100% renewables to avoid making the planet inhospitable. Short-term, we're going to see more smart grid with more attach surface.
"Big countries with extensive migration histories like the Philippines and Mexico have the same cap – about 26,000 visas a year – as countries like Andora or Lesotho with small populations and little history of migration to the United States."
http://www.scholarsstrategynet...
There are many worse problems than population growth. Like famine or a plague. Now I'm not saying that we need to keep growing the population of the planet until we induce a catastrophe. But if you want a steady or declining population, you want a *very slow* decline. You don't want a crash. The only way to handle a population decline is with a lot of automation but if that happens rapidly you will have seniors starving to death as we won't be able to find retirement benefits with current work. Now maybe we shouldn't be funding retirement benefits that way. There are plenty of fair arguments for other mechanisms. But to have a declining population without the prerequisite preparation would be pretty irresponsible.
These are *children* who were brought here at ages where they didn't have the ability to understand a concept like immigration law. Maybe the parents committed a crime, but it's pretty hard to say that the children did.
Well the problem is that US immigration laws have been dripping in racism for so long that there's really no opportunity for people of certain national origin to come here. Imagine in Jim Crow days if we had said "I don't think that the majority of folks in the US, nor the majority of Trump supporters have a problem with Black people as long as they sit in the front of the bus LEGALLY." Well if you made it legal for black people to sit in the front of the bus, they would do that. Find one non-racist immigration bill and you could win some people over with that argument. The motivation of our immigration LAWS is racism so saying you favor LEGAL immigration right now is saying you favor RACIALLY-BIASED immigration. That's why the position is indefensible. We don't change the law because many people seem to like the law and that's why the original sin of this country is racism.
This is the cruel tactic known as "self-deportation." But you don't have to take away DACA or anything else to get people to leave. Net migration from Mexico (until recently the largest source of undocumented immigrants) is negative. The problem is, of course, that our domestic birth rate is so low that we risk an economic implosion if we don't court more immigrants. So this is bad policy from a moral and economic standpoint, but the fact is that we don't need to encourage people to leave this country. They're already doing it.
Probably a video of your kid. Fortunately now you can indicate that you think you're in the "fair use" realm and they will then strip the audio out for you and post the video!
Well lets say I post a video showing somebody doing a quintuple jump ice skating. That would probably get a lot of hits. Now lets say some some pop track just happened to be playing in the background? How much should the "owners" of the music get? Just about nothing! That's the use case.
As a more realistic example, I've had Facebook quash videos of my child because there is some obnoxious background music.
If you want to listen to music without paying for it and neither radio nor the myriad of free streaming services work for you, are you really going to turn to watching Facebook videos of toddlers that happen to incidentally include a poor recording of a not very good song?
These are *videos* where the *video* content is important and the music is incidental.
I travel multiple times a week and, yes, I carry a second, personal laptop. There was a time when we were a smaller company and had more liberal policies. But even if I found myself in that situation again, I don't think I'd go back to carrying just one laptop. They just aren't that heavy and it's well worth it not to mix work and personal stuff. Or for short trips, just use your phone. There's really no reason to have work and personal stuff even on the same machine.
Lots of smart people are overweight and don't exercise enough. It doesn't mean that the decision is correct in terms of a factual analysis. Humans are emotional beings. In the USA, this is especially true with cars. Since pure ICEs are pretty much dead (not even going to be legal for sale in much of the world), I imagine what we will start to see is BEVs with 200 mile ranges with optional range extenders that nobody needs but car salesman will be able to sell at incredibly high margins.
Slashdot Mirror
How does this work in stop and go traffic? Does it actually speed up and slow down and stop based on what happens in front of you?
It also allows you to shift your position in the seat a bit more and be comfortable while driving.
What it should do is progressively slow down to zero. And then prohibit reengaging of the feature for a period of time. Which is what the next iteration is going to do.
You don't design it not to fail in two years. When you make a special version designed for two-year finance contracts, you design in a way that maximizes your profit while providing a two year warranty.
Oh and how does a BMW "beat" a Toyota going fro one stop sign to the next at 25mph?
What one thing can iPhone do better than a mid-range Android device?
In my other post, I generally agreed with you. Remember, though, that Apple makes a *special* ATT version for these contracts. If this was a standard unlocked iPhone, I think you would be spot on. But if you are going to make a version designed for two-year financing, then it seems reasonable to warrant it for two years!
And if Apple didn't have direct relationships with the carriers, I would tend to agree with you. Those who seem to have a different opinion are getting modded down. And the summary was flamebait (too bad we can't moderate articles or editors). It doesn't make sense to have a finance contract longer than the expected life of an item. You would laugh at the idea of a 30 year fixed *auto loan* We are, however, seeing similarly ridiculous things in automobiles. 60 month loan with a 36 month warranty? That's definitely nonsense. Even seeing 72 month auto loans out there. In the case of automobiles, the dealer has a relationship with both the *bank* *and* the *manufacturer* so they are in a unique position to see that this is nonsense. In this case, it seems reasonable to hold the dealers accountable. You sold it with a 72 month finance contract, manufacturer warrants for 36 months, so the dealer has to cover the gap. The manufacturer has no visibility to the financing, so it's unfair to expect them to change warranty policies. This would also be reasonable with phones. But there is a slight difference. Apple makes *special* versions of the phone for the *express* purpose of these types of finance arrangements. You will see a huge price difference in carrier-locked vs. unlocked phones. So in this case the manufacturer is complicit and I see nothing wrong with also holding them accountable.
You could just unlock it with a PIN
You can remove the Symantec root CA now if you prefer.
If you want to compare this to murder, it's more like, should we let somebody get a bruise on their toe if it stops two murders. And we seem to have already resolved that issue. If a police officer is on their way to a parking complaint and there is a call for a home invasion, they will divert from the improperly parked vehicle and respond to the violent crime. We have plenty of documented evidence that our social safety nets have kept many people out of poverty at a very modest cost. They exist all around the developed world.
A used iPhone3 costs $38.99 on Amazon. If there is an app that can help and EBT recipient be more efficient with their money, it would probably pay for itself in the first month. The mods seem to have gone crazy today. Instead of making welfare (a pretty miserable existence) even worse, why not make working better?
Every system has people who game it. The problem arises when your fury at the few gamers is so great that you are willing to cause drastic harm to those who are honestly in need in order to avoid it. Most EBT recipients probably also receive some cash assistance. So it seems reasonable to make EBT and non-EBT purchases simultaneously. I don't really see the outrage at all about somebody spending $20 on a case of beer. It's nutritious and delicious. (Well, unless it's Busch light but that's a separate problem.) There is a lot of vitriol modded-up in this thread but the one productive suggestion is to get rid of welfare-cliffs. The *best* way to do this would be UBI but there are more bureaucracy-intensive ways if they are preferred.
The parent mentioned "off-grid" which means you have your own huge battery pack and don't connect to anything. Right now that is somewhat nonsense as they are expensive and an environmental catastrophe. We really don't need batteries for the night. That's why God invented combined-cycle gas turbines. We don't need to shift to 100% renewables to avoid making the planet inhospitable. Short-term, we're going to see more smart grid with more attach surface.
"Big countries with extensive migration histories like the Philippines and Mexico have the same cap – about 26,000 visas a year – as countries like Andora or Lesotho with small populations and little history of migration to the United States." http://www.scholarsstrategynet...
There are many worse problems than population growth. Like famine or a plague. Now I'm not saying that we need to keep growing the population of the planet until we induce a catastrophe. But if you want a steady or declining population, you want a *very slow* decline. You don't want a crash. The only way to handle a population decline is with a lot of automation but if that happens rapidly you will have seniors starving to death as we won't be able to find retirement benefits with current work. Now maybe we shouldn't be funding retirement benefits that way. There are plenty of fair arguments for other mechanisms. But to have a declining population without the prerequisite preparation would be pretty irresponsible.
We don't pass amnesty bills. We don't even talk about amnesty bills.
These are *children* who were brought here at ages where they didn't have the ability to understand a concept like immigration law. Maybe the parents committed a crime, but it's pretty hard to say that the children did.
It must have been an accident!
Well the problem is that US immigration laws have been dripping in racism for so long that there's really no opportunity for people of certain national origin to come here. Imagine in Jim Crow days if we had said "I don't think that the majority of folks in the US, nor the majority of Trump supporters have a problem with Black people as long as they sit in the front of the bus LEGALLY." Well if you made it legal for black people to sit in the front of the bus, they would do that. Find one non-racist immigration bill and you could win some people over with that argument. The motivation of our immigration LAWS is racism so saying you favor LEGAL immigration right now is saying you favor RACIALLY-BIASED immigration. That's why the position is indefensible. We don't change the law because many people seem to like the law and that's why the original sin of this country is racism.
This is the cruel tactic known as "self-deportation." But you don't have to take away DACA or anything else to get people to leave. Net migration from Mexico (until recently the largest source of undocumented immigrants) is negative. The problem is, of course, that our domestic birth rate is so low that we risk an economic implosion if we don't court more immigrants. So this is bad policy from a moral and economic standpoint, but the fact is that we don't need to encourage people to leave this country. They're already doing it.
Probably a video of your kid. Fortunately now you can indicate that you think you're in the "fair use" realm and they will then strip the audio out for you and post the video!
Well lets say I post a video showing somebody doing a quintuple jump ice skating. That would probably get a lot of hits. Now lets say some some pop track just happened to be playing in the background? How much should the "owners" of the music get? Just about nothing! That's the use case. As a more realistic example, I've had Facebook quash videos of my child because there is some obnoxious background music. If you want to listen to music without paying for it and neither radio nor the myriad of free streaming services work for you, are you really going to turn to watching Facebook videos of toddlers that happen to incidentally include a poor recording of a not very good song? These are *videos* where the *video* content is important and the music is incidental.
I travel multiple times a week and, yes, I carry a second, personal laptop. There was a time when we were a smaller company and had more liberal policies. But even if I found myself in that situation again, I don't think I'd go back to carrying just one laptop. They just aren't that heavy and it's well worth it not to mix work and personal stuff. Or for short trips, just use your phone. There's really no reason to have work and personal stuff even on the same machine.
Lots of smart people are overweight and don't exercise enough. It doesn't mean that the decision is correct in terms of a factual analysis. Humans are emotional beings. In the USA, this is especially true with cars. Since pure ICEs are pretty much dead (not even going to be legal for sale in much of the world), I imagine what we will start to see is BEVs with 200 mile ranges with optional range extenders that nobody needs but car salesman will be able to sell at incredibly high margins.