Are you a lawyer or a pedant? (But I repeat myself.) You can admit things without admitting guilt. The opposite of admit is deny, which they are not doing. There's nothing wrong with the headline.
the company can't afford to alienate professional designers and other business customers. After all, they helped fuel Apple's revival in the late 1990s.
Yes, of course they can. If 10% of your userbase represents 90% of your costs, then it's not only affordable to get rid of them, it's profitable as well. Contrarians will argue that these people are "evangelists," responsible for bringing other people to the platform, but a) there's little evidence that's true, and b) even if it is true, they're doing a terrible job at it, objectively. Apple could definitely shut down the Mac line and go one of two ways:
1) Support OS X installations on commodity hardware (not super difficult). 2) Re-write Xcode for Windows or Linux (or both) to allow continued development for its, ahem, more profitable platform.
"Creative types" are more tied to the tools than the OS for their productivity. Most of the popular content-creation applications are available on Windows already, and have been for years.
Personally, I hope Apple doesn't kill OS X (which is the heart and soul of Macs, not the hardware), but they could easily cede the PC hardware market and be just fine, and maybe even better off. Like Microsoft, they could partner with manufacturers to ensure (or "ensure") compatibility.
Exactly! How the hell do you tease out what part of the profit was derived from the shape of the phone case and the arrangement of icons?!? Especially since the phone may not have sold, or sold as well, without those properties? Samsung's analogy about an 18-wheeler with an infringing cupholder is just absurd -- without A/B testing, there's no way to know whether buyers chose the 18-wheeler based on the cupholder or some other factor. But if the cupholder was the deciding factor (as, in actuality, it often is), then *all* of the profits were derived from that infringement.
Now I think design patents are problematic, especially when things are merely similar rather than indistinguishable, but I agree that this verdict was the worst possible outcome.
Do you know how to hitch a horse to a wagon? And do you think it should be a fundamental requirement of education? Driving proficiency has only been a basic necessity for about a century, and there's no reason it should continue to be important. Removing useless knowledge allows us to focus on more important things.
Of course they don't. If they did, neither of the two major candidates would still be in the race at this point. The only thing they're fighting for is power and ego.
There's no reason a software-controllable button can't also be reliable. It's called a failsafe. Maintain contact for X seconds, and a completely separate circuit takes over and switches off the power. I'm willing to bet that Apple engineers thought of this.
Wouldn't it be subject to the same weaknesses of cryptocurrencies -- namely that an enormous amount of energy has to go into otherwise useless computation, that anyone with sufficient computing power can assert that they have the correct blockchain, and that the blockchain quickly becomes large and unwieldy?
Well, I can't argue against your internal dialog because I don't know you, but for people who truly don't want to work, those people get jobs because they have to, and then work as little as possible. In many cases, they're counterproductive. For people who are simply intimidated by the job-seeking process, not having to worry about failure would probably ease those fears considerably at least, or give them more time to find a job that's a good fit for them. Perhaps there truly are people who are simply intimidated by the application process to a degree that they would never try if they didn't have to. I suspect, with no data to prove it, that this set of people is very small relative to the whole, and that policy decisions should not be made based on corner cases.
That's fine though. Less motivated people are less productive anyway, and we don't lose a lot, collectively, when they remain on the sidelines. They shouldn't be penalized for that though, at least not beyond not being less successful than they could be.
What we're really talking about is the threshold for how low we let people fall, and to me, that threshold should be a place to live, food to eat, and some spending money to contribute to the economy. Assuming most people agree (which is a huge assumption, granted), then it just becomes a question of the most efficient way to provide that. In my view, we currently do that by letting them work at McDonalds or WalMart, with mixed results, but a UBI might be a better way, particularly as low-skill labor becomes less and less necessary.
This taboo against "freeloading," like premarital sex, is mainly a moral judgment, not a practical one. Sure, they were both born of practical objections to the potential (even likely) consequences, but when those consequences can be easily mitigated or avoided, then the objections become less relevant. That's what progress looks like.
Both sides in a conflict have a vested interest in preventing live coverage of their operations, and at least one of those sides usually has control of the local infrastructure, with the other side usually trying to destroy it. Satellite is the only viable option, and even that can be spotty and jammable, and is exceedingly expensive in any event. Sneakernet will always work, but not for live streams.
The statistical significance is more important than the difference, regardless of how that difference is expressed. If the confidence level for the test is +/-0.05%, then the difference is utterly meaningless anyway.
we truly are only in the beginning of the era of machine learning, and currently, there is no upper bound to what it can possibly do.
Of course there is. Machine learning can't change the laws of physics, for example, so we can use that as a starting point, and then use linear regression and K-means clustering to.. oh god damnit.
Ah, the old BattleGames quote. That's up there with "You can't handle honesty!" from "A Few Great Men," and "Present me with an attractive offer!" from "Cuba Macguire."
I'm doing that right now. Tune your old analog TV to any channel with static on it, and use the one-time pad for your language to decipher the message!
While people who adopt are doing the world a service, but that doesn't mean that having children of one's own is doing the world a disservice. If you're going to call anyone selfish and sickening, perhaps the adults who bring children into the world that they can't or won't care for should be first on your list.
It also ignores the fact that people mishear and misunderstand each other. All. The. Time. Those gaps we fill in? Often erroneous. People actually expect more from computers than from other people: nearly perfect listening AND comprehension.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you a lawyer or a pedant? (But I repeat myself.) You can admit things without admitting guilt. The opposite of admit is deny, which they are not doing. There's nothing wrong with the headline.
the company can't afford to alienate professional designers and other business customers. After all, they helped fuel Apple's revival in the late 1990s.
Yes, of course they can. If 10% of your userbase represents 90% of your costs, then it's not only affordable to get rid of them, it's profitable as well. Contrarians will argue that these people are "evangelists," responsible for bringing other people to the platform, but a) there's little evidence that's true, and b) even if it is true, they're doing a terrible job at it, objectively. Apple could definitely shut down the Mac line and go one of two ways:
1) Support OS X installations on commodity hardware (not super difficult).
2) Re-write Xcode for Windows or Linux (or both) to allow continued development for its, ahem, more profitable platform.
"Creative types" are more tied to the tools than the OS for their productivity. Most of the popular content-creation applications are available on Windows already, and have been for years.
Personally, I hope Apple doesn't kill OS X (which is the heart and soul of Macs, not the hardware), but they could easily cede the PC hardware market and be just fine, and maybe even better off. Like Microsoft, they could partner with manufacturers to ensure (or "ensure") compatibility.
Exactly! How the hell do you tease out what part of the profit was derived from the shape of the phone case and the arrangement of icons?!? Especially since the phone may not have sold, or sold as well, without those properties? Samsung's analogy about an 18-wheeler with an infringing cupholder is just absurd -- without A/B testing, there's no way to know whether buyers chose the 18-wheeler based on the cupholder or some other factor. But if the cupholder was the deciding factor (as, in actuality, it often is), then *all* of the profits were derived from that infringement.
Now I think design patents are problematic, especially when things are merely similar rather than indistinguishable, but I agree that this verdict was the worst possible outcome.
He sounds like a fungi.
Words matter. I could write my own explanation, but here's a pro-Trump editorial about why: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundi...
Do you know how to hitch a horse to a wagon? And do you think it should be a fundamental requirement of education? Driving proficiency has only been a basic necessity for about a century, and there's no reason it should continue to be important. Removing useless knowledge allows us to focus on more important things.
Of course they don't. If they did, neither of the two major candidates would still be in the race at this point. The only thing they're fighting for is power and ego.
It absolutely is. It's just not sent on open networks.
There's no reason a software-controllable button can't also be reliable. It's called a failsafe. Maintain contact for X seconds, and a completely separate circuit takes over and switches off the power. I'm willing to bet that Apple engineers thought of this.
https://www.google.com/search?...
Wouldn't it be subject to the same weaknesses of cryptocurrencies -- namely that an enormous amount of energy has to go into otherwise useless computation, that anyone with sufficient computing power can assert that they have the correct blockchain, and that the blockchain quickly becomes large and unwieldy?
Well, I can't argue against your internal dialog because I don't know you, but for people who truly don't want to work, those people get jobs because they have to, and then work as little as possible. In many cases, they're counterproductive. For people who are simply intimidated by the job-seeking process, not having to worry about failure would probably ease those fears considerably at least, or give them more time to find a job that's a good fit for them. Perhaps there truly are people who are simply intimidated by the application process to a degree that they would never try if they didn't have to. I suspect, with no data to prove it, that this set of people is very small relative to the whole, and that policy decisions should not be made based on corner cases.
I've heard that hard work pays off in the long run, but laziness pays off now.
That's fine though. Less motivated people are less productive anyway, and we don't lose a lot, collectively, when they remain on the sidelines. They shouldn't be penalized for that though, at least not beyond not being less successful than they could be.
What we're really talking about is the threshold for how low we let people fall, and to me, that threshold should be a place to live, food to eat, and some spending money to contribute to the economy. Assuming most people agree (which is a huge assumption, granted), then it just becomes a question of the most efficient way to provide that. In my view, we currently do that by letting them work at McDonalds or WalMart, with mixed results, but a UBI might be a better way, particularly as low-skill labor becomes less and less necessary.
This taboo against "freeloading," like premarital sex, is mainly a moral judgment, not a practical one. Sure, they were both born of practical objections to the potential (even likely) consequences, but when those consequences can be easily mitigated or avoided, then the objections become less relevant. That's what progress looks like.
Both sides in a conflict have a vested interest in preventing live coverage of their operations, and at least one of those sides usually has control of the local infrastructure, with the other side usually trying to destroy it. Satellite is the only viable option, and even that can be spotty and jammable, and is exceedingly expensive in any event. Sneakernet will always work, but not for live streams.
The statistical significance is more important than the difference, regardless of how that difference is expressed. If the confidence level for the test is +/-0.05%, then the difference is utterly meaningless anyway.
Of course there is. Machine learning can't change the laws of physics, for example, so we can use that as a starting point, and then use linear regression and K-means clustering to.. oh god damnit.
Um...
Probably negotiated by a union. One of the few things they're useful for, although you may well have paid more than that in dues over the years.
Ah, the old BattleGames quote. That's up there with "You can't handle honesty!" from "A Few Great Men," and "Present me with an attractive offer!" from "Cuba Macguire."
Not to be a spelling nazi, but it's spelled sluts, with a U. Penises should be isolated from internet facing sluts.
Holy WTOP radio ad, Batman!
I'm doing that right now. Tune your old analog TV to any channel with static on it, and use the one-time pad for your language to decipher the message!
While people who adopt are doing the world a service, but that doesn't mean that having children of one's own is doing the world a disservice. If you're going to call anyone selfish and sickening, perhaps the adults who bring children into the world that they can't or won't care for should be first on your list.
It also ignores the fact that people mishear and misunderstand each other. All. The. Time. Those gaps we fill in? Often erroneous. People actually expect more from computers than from other people: nearly perfect listening AND comprehension.