Suppose a company can make a self driving car that demonstrably has 50% less accidents than human drivers. (I am not making any claims about existing technology from any particular company, just take this as an axiom that could be true at some point, now or in the future)
I hope we can all agree that it would be a good thing if we can reduce the number of accidents by half, right?
However, if the company is held responsible for each and every one of those remaining accidents, are they going to sell those cars? Probably not. This means we will keep having twice as many accidents as we could have.
The car manufacturer isn't held responsible for (most) accidents, teh owner is if tehy are at fault. What is being proposed here according to TFA, is to transfer responsibility from the owner to the machine. To use your car analogy, it would be the car's fault, not the drivers, for the accident and the car would assume all liability for any claims. So if the car causes a million dollars in damages, you get whatever insurance coverage plus a destroyed car to settle the claim, even if the car is owned by a multi-million dollar corporation.
Of course there must be some kind of incentive to force manufacturers to deliver good products, and aome kind of punishment for those who make crappy products. But sometimes you just have to be able to say "OK, accidents happen, nothing is perfect", If every death results in a multi million dollar claim, innovation stops and we'll be stuck with the current "you can use it but keep your hands on the wheel and be attentive at all times, you are still responsible" situation. Which is ridiculous and untenable in the long term.
Very few claims do, and those generally involve negligence or other willful acts on the part of the company.
We're just talking about insurance here. If AI failures are treated as generic accidents covered by insurance, and the number of accidents decreases, the insurance premiums will decrease as well and it's a win-win for everyone. Better performing AI will have a lower insurance premium and will therefore sell more cars. Also, official statistics will be kept about the safety records of different systems, and that will be a big part of the sales pitch. There's your incentive.
I do not think this is an attempt to improve AI as much as one to remove liability for anything that goes wrong by making the machines separate legal entities. They essentially, as TFA points out, want to confer the same protections on the machines as corporations provide their owners, a limited liability for damages if something goes wrong. It's really no different than a company creating a separate wholly owned subsidiary for say trucking to haul their products so as to shield the overall corporation from a huge damage verdict caused by a truck accident.
There's a reason why most software comes with "no warranty, implied or otherwise, including fitness for any particular purpose". Pretty much all software companies would go bankrupt if they were held responsible for every crash, every data corruption, etcetera. Sometimes you just have to accept "ok, they did their best, mistakes happen, the world is better off with this product than without it".
Companies declaim all sorts of responsibilities and courts get to decide what their real liability is. I agree there needs to be a certain amount of tolerance for errors since making something error free is probably impossible and if you could would be unaffordable; but blanket disclaimers should not shield companies that fail to follow what is considered normal good practices in the industry.
If they feel it violates there content rules that can block it; however, if tehy fail to block some that do so and something bad happens, they have no liability.
I travel every week with two laptops, one from my company and one from my current customer. Then I have my iPad that I use for truly personal things. Is it heavy? You bet, but everything is kept separate that way.
Been there, done that when I had a client issued laptop for security and legal compliance reasons. Now, having finished that gig, my Mac and iPad Pro do the job for me, namely:
gives me a second screen for my Mac that greatly increases productivity
a backup that can run presentations, including using a BT pointer, if the laptop dies while on the road
a way to get email or do work when I don't want to take the laptop with me
a way to run Windows via a VM when I need to be sure files are absolutely alike in the Windows versions of a program
My biggest issue with a separate machine with a machine is at some point you need to transfer data from one to the other, opening up a path to allow access to them via the less secure device. Unless you never allow it to connect to a network or transfer files you are vulnerable, and even if you do taht it still doesn't ensure 100% security.
For one thing, it's in weak countries' interest to have as much strife as much as possible between superpowers (US, Russia, China) as possible. If the big thugs are arguing amongst each other directly, they're less concerned about proxy wars and imperialism in places like Latin America. Keep 'em occupied and worried.
I tend to disagree. Strife between major powers often results in proxy wars simply because teh big powers have too much to lose so they support other countries and let them fight it out. They like the idea of a little power poking the eye of their enemy, it's less risky then an all out confrontation.
Plus, it feels good to punch up as the little guy.
How fucked are we that we're so afraid of levying any sort of penalty on the company and scaring them away, that emergency services need to field hundreds of preventable calls? Jesus, there has to be a limit at some point.
Anyway, the cost of relocation has got to outweigh the cost to fix the problem, so apply the fine already.
No more than trying to create an adversarial relationship while both sides are trying to fix the problem. As for relocating, Apple could also simply shift the work to some other existing facility; especially if they simply are refurbishing phones for real rather than actually fixing them.
Hell...institute a FINE of even say, $100/$1000 per false alarm after the first 3x bad 911 calls.
Most cities/states I know of, do this for people what alarm systems at their homes that keep sending out false signals or have the people setting them off themselves with wrong codes, etc.
Put a $$ bite on Apple and I"m guessing they'll figure how to curtail this pronto.
or move the facility. I'm sure Elk Grove would just love for Apple and the jobs to go elsewhere.
For/. Users of a certain age who remember payphones will remember this way of making free calls that transmitted information. Need a ride home from the movies? Call home, hang up after two rings. Get dime back from pay phone and ride shows up. An older variant was, IIRC, to send a postcard with postage due since you could read the card and then mark return to sender, who would know you got it. People were hacking messaging long before cell phones.
How many more critical systems have to fall victim to this malware/ransomware bullshit before Windows systems are banned for use in anything critical? Even just the greater likelyhood of that happening to Windows systems should render them unacceptable to use.
In a lot of ways, this complete system shutdown is much worse for everyone than a database being stolen which is the worst case for UNIX backends.
It's not really a system problem, but a people one. No matter what system you put in people will still open emails, despite constant reminders and training not to, and infect systems. If Windows went away magically tomorrow the criminals would just target what took over. It's even better if people think the new OS isn't vulnerable because that means they'll avoid taking precautions.
Well if you're doing it right you just have their My Documents or Documents folder pointed at a file server. But that opens up its own can of worms.
Yup. For example, the first time someone takes their computer home and doesn't log not the network they panic that all their files are gone. The fix: Save everything to the desktop.
Network goes down. Solution: Save everything to the desktop
The solution isn't technical, even though that is the approach often taken. The problem is that users do not understand how backups work, how to access networks remotely, etc.; and organization do not want to spend money to actually train them as well as come up with a backup solution that actually works. Users just want to get work done and don't care where and how stuff is backed up, as long as it doesn't make their life harder when using the computer.
The lack of training goes beyond backups. I've helped friends by showing them how tehy can add page numbers to documents rather than number them one page at a time; showed them how you can merge an Excel file into Word so that it fills out the appropriate sections instead of cutting and pasting one cell at a time, etc. One person didn't even realize they could save document under a different name. Some simple things, others not so simple; but all point to a failure to realize where a problem exists. It's easy to say "they can learn" but the reality is people will find one way to do a task and continue to do it that way even if it is painful.
Sometimes you can see the train wreck coming. I was working with a company that was installing a brand new financial system. When I laid out the training requirements (which were a lot because there would be entirely new screens, process, old ways to fix errors would no longer work, changes in access, etc.) I got "We don't need all of that. It's still a facial system so it should only take a couple of hours to learn. Oh, and by the way, the help desk won't be ready by go live." I ran away as fast as I could. Last I heard they abandoned the project after much time, money and effort and the IT head got canned.
They don't want the overhead of having to support multiple versions of hardware and ending up like the PC market.
They still could EOL older machines, just like car manufactirers do. Parts for some older vehicles are no longer available, although the life cycle is longer for cars than computers. A large third party source of suppliers has arisen around making parts no longer available from manufacturers for vehicle long out of production; especially for cars popular with enthusiasts. Specialized trim pieces seem to buy the hardest to find, which is why I recommend buying a compete set of decals for a vehicle that has a unique set if they plan to keep the car forever; even if they decide to sell it they can either include it and get a few extra bucks or sell it to someone restoring one.
Car manufacturers can’t void your warranty unless you do something that damages the vehicle. I can, or an independent mechanic can, change the oil or replace the brakes without voiding the warranty. Of course, the increasing use of sophisticated diagnostic tools, such as those that require registering a new battery on a BMW, for example, means even what once were simple repairs now require buying a third party diagnostic tool to properly complete a repair.
Even something as simple as installing a Bluetooth module on a BMW requires reprogramming the vehicle order to recognize it, even if the car was prewired for the installation, which means either getting a bootleg version of BMW’s software and fiquring out how to code the car without messing up the electronics, so you still must go to a dealer and either pay them or hope they fo it for free as part of other work. Apple code do something similar; i.e. you can fix it yourself but need to buy our (expensive) software to make the fix work.
I did buy a tool to fix my cars, but will probably buy a vintage car next so I can still fix it myself. Then again, my dad was a mechanic so I learned how to fix them and have most of the commmon tools I need to do that; and judging by my anecdotal experience most of my neighbors won’t even open the hood. I’ve fixed minor problems for them that would have cost them a hundred bucks just to have a dealer run a diagnostic before they actually repaired what was wrong.
My doxies would no doubt love drone package drop offs. I have no doubt they would quickly learn to associate the drone’s sound as a prelude to dropping off yet another toy to tear apart; as well as another opportunity to attack and destroy the interloper on their turf. They probably would quickly team with my shepherd mis in a “You use your height to grab it and through it to the ground, we’ll take over from there...”
If they would just cull the " Ask your Doctor if $stupidly_expensive_drug is right for you " ads, it would cut the total ad times by at least HALF.
No one wants to see that sh*t. I personally make it a point to refuse any medication that constantly begs me to use it.
You can thank the government for that. I had a friend in pharmaceutical sales who was once called in by his boss about his expense account. Seems there was a problem with the numbers; he wasn't spending enough on entertaining doctors. As long as it was legal he could spend money on keeping doctors happy as an entertainment expense. Drs liked cigars? Best cigar bar in town and the drinks and cigars were on him. Medical convention and his MD's wanted to go to a strip club? Lap dances and drinks on him. When the government ended dri\ug companies ability to freely market that way, the drug companies switched from getting doctors to write script to trying to get patients to ask for specific drugs.
I mean, it seems rather obvious that the Android percentage would be higher, but it does not mean a higher "loyalty", but exactly the opposite.
Specifically, from what I can find, about 86% of phones sold are Android - apart from lower priced devices, there is also a huge selection, compared to the iOS devices being just 3 models, so it would make sense that more Android devices would be sold even if iOS was a better OS overall (it is in many ways, it is not in several others).
So, they say that there is a 91% chance for an android user to stick with Android - so a bit higher than the overall Android market share which is expected from a user who has a bias towards the device they are used to.
However, even though iOS devices have just a 13% market share, an iOS owner has a rather staggering 86% chance of buying another iOS device. That sure is some serious brand loyalty and it is what we've come to expect from Apple users.
TFA says something similar at the end:
All that being said, the rate of switching is different from the total number of people switching, the firm also pointed out. And looking at the numbers from that perspective changes things.
“We know Android has a larger base of users than iOS, and because of that larger base, the
absolute number of users that switch to iOS from Android is as large or larger than the
absolute number of users that switch to Android from iOS,” said Levin.”Looking at absolute number of users in this way tends to support claims that iOS gains more former Android users,
than Android does former iOS users.”
The larger number of Android users means that even though the retention percentage is higher, the iPhone users who switched are replace by Android users switching to iPhones. As a result, Apple sees no let loss of users, or even a slight gain, from the switching behavior; and Android has such a larger user base that the number of switchers has a much smaller impact on the overall retention numbers. It would be interesting to see the numbers in a like for like comparison, at least in terms of percentage retention. We know the number of switchers is roughly equal, all we need is the number of users of equivalent phones.
This is one of those studies where both sids can declare victory:
Android: We have higher loyalty!
Apple: More Android users switch to the iPhone than vice versa...
So if I use an old cellphone for the app, using wifi to connect, they'll decide I am a very sedentary person who only goes to the movies, turns the phone off to not disturb others, and then turns it on at home and stays there until the next movie. Unless they require a device with active an active plan here's a good use fo tehat old cell phone rotting in a drawer.
I can't imagine why the NRA would do this. The NRA has a very specific purpose. Well actually there are two NRA groups, each with a specific purpose. One does gun-related safety training and such, the other defends the second amendment in the political arena. Neither has any business taking a stand on any particular regulations related to things around principles of network neutrality. It's not what they were created and funded to do.
You forgot the third purpose: Keep creating mass hysteria amongst its members the government is going to take their guns "real soon now" so that manufactures keep making sales and money continues to flow into the NRA coffers form manufacturers. Gun manufacturers have a market where they key demographic isn't buying as much so they have to keep finding ways to get them to buy.
that I honestly laughed at this. It came across so powerfully as a funny parody, and I found myself laughing both before and after I realized that they're actually fucking serious. There are no words. Stick a fork in the ass of American social discourse and turn it over, because it is well and truly done.
Yup. It will get real interesting if Amazon, DirectTV et.al. decide to drop NRATV. I realize that really isn't what the net neutrality debate is all about; although some services that carry it such as DirectTV are ISPs so there is some connection. I wonder how the NRA will feel about net neutrality then? My guess is long polemics about liberal gun hating, gun grabbing types who hate freedom are censoring them; without appreciating the irony in their honoring the "man who saved the internet."
IANAL, but i would seem some of the threats border on using threats of a lawsuit to silence critics. Unfortunately, it takes money to defend yourself so it may be less painful simply to shut up.
I wonder if the threat of discovery and fighting to keep it public would stop some lawsuits as it would force companies to reveal potentially damaging information. You want to sue? I'll prove what I said is materially correct by demanding your code, internal memos, etc. related to bugs. I guess we'd need a high powered lawyer who is interested in security to decide to do one pro-bono.
The other option is to anonymously release bug data as soon as they are discovered to screw over companies that threaten lawsuits. If they don't want to play nice it's time to stand up to them in other ways.
The cameras are ubiquitous, and everyone is taking pictures. Is clicking a button a creative process?
Yes. The creativity comes in the framing, composition, lighting, deciding what to take, etc. Most pictures are garbage but that doesn't mean there wasn't a creative process involved.
With so much of anti shake tech, dynamic range tech, image processing enhancement, done by software behind the scenes, how much of artistic work is involved in these clicks?
While those help improve the technical aspects thy don't replace the yet of a great photographer. All the tech in the world won't help you duplicate the majesty of Adam's Moon Over Half Dome
May be only the photographs registered by paying a fee would be protected by copyright. All other photos are public domain by default.
It sort of works that way as you are only able to sue for damages if you register but copyright occurs as soon as you take the picture.
May be only the photographs registered by paying a fee would be protected by copyright. All other photos are public domain by default.
It sort of works that way as you are only able to sue for damages if you register but copyright occurs as soon as you take the picture.
If anyone violated the copyright I would think it was the person who originally tweeted the picture since they distributed a copyrighted image. I understand the argument the judge appears to make that if they display a copyrighted image without permission they are guilty of copyright infringement regardless of who actually hosts the image, I can see why the photographer went after them since they have the money, and would have done much more infringement due to the widespread views, to pay out if they ultimately lose, vs. some random Twitter user.
This is yet another example of how copyright laws need to be updated and clarified for the digital age. In print it was a lot harder to get and use an image and who published it was clear; now you can scope images off the web easily and once someone takes an image it is still available even if the original is no longer available. Another issue is 99.99% of the stuff tweeted or otherwise distributed by users is worthless garbage; so how do you balance protection for artists and keeping the garbage flowing freely?
So honestly, if you read After testing our algorithm thoroughly over half a year with great profits continuously every month and didn't fall over laughing at the obvious Ponzi nature of the scheme, you kind of deserved what happened to you.
More to the point, if you have a system to guarantee profits you shut up and make money and don’t let anyone in. It’s like people who advertise a surefire way to make money in the stockmarket, the way to do that is to sell suckers your “system” and pocket their money.
The best team is composed of people who,when taken in total, have all the requisite specialized knowledge and insight to analyze a problem and develop an optimal solution. It is hard to determine in advance who those people are.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to point out a flaw in this logic.
Suppose a company can make a self driving car that demonstrably has 50% less accidents than human drivers. (I am not making any claims about existing technology from any particular company, just take this as an axiom that could be true at some point, now or in the future)
I hope we can all agree that it would be a good thing if we can reduce the number of accidents by half, right?
However, if the company is held responsible for each and every one of those remaining accidents, are they going to sell those cars? Probably not. This means we will keep having twice as many accidents as we could have.
The car manufacturer isn't held responsible for (most) accidents, teh owner is if tehy are at fault. What is being proposed here according to TFA, is to transfer responsibility from the owner to the machine. To use your car analogy, it would be the car's fault, not the drivers, for the accident and the car would assume all liability for any claims. So if the car causes a million dollars in damages, you get whatever insurance coverage plus a destroyed car to settle the claim, even if the car is owned by a multi-million dollar corporation.
Of course there must be some kind of incentive to force manufacturers to deliver good products, and aome kind of punishment for those who make crappy products. But sometimes you just have to be able to say "OK, accidents happen, nothing is perfect", If every death results in a multi million dollar claim, innovation stops and we'll be stuck with the current "you can use it but keep your hands on the wheel and be attentive at all times, you are still responsible" situation. Which is ridiculous and untenable in the long term.
Very few claims do, and those generally involve negligence or other willful acts on the part of the company.
We're just talking about insurance here. If AI failures are treated as generic accidents covered by insurance, and the number of accidents decreases, the insurance premiums will decrease as well and it's a win-win for everyone. Better performing AI will have a lower insurance premium and will therefore sell more cars. Also, official statistics will be kept about the safety records of different systems, and that will be a big part of the sales pitch. There's your incentive.
I do not think this is an attempt to improve AI as much as one to remove liability for anything that goes wrong by making the machines separate legal entities. They essentially, as TFA points out, want to confer the same protections on the machines as corporations provide their owners, a limited liability for damages if something goes wrong. It's really no different than a company creating a separate wholly owned subsidiary for say trucking to haul their products so as to shield the overall corporation from a huge damage verdict caused by a truck accident.
There's a reason why most software comes with "no warranty, implied or otherwise, including fitness for any particular purpose". Pretty much all software companies would go bankrupt if they were held responsible for every crash, every data corruption, etcetera. Sometimes you just have to accept "ok, they did their best, mistakes happen, the world is better off with this product than without it".
Companies declaim all sorts of responsibilities and courts get to decide what their real liability is. I agree there needs to be a certain amount of tolerance for errors since making something error free is probably impossible and if you could would be unaffordable; but blanket disclaimers should not shield companies that fail to follow what is considered normal good practices in the industry.
I here what your saying.
Their Yugo.
If they feel it violates there content rules that can block it; however, if tehy fail to block some that do so and something bad happens, they have no liability.
I travel every week with two laptops, one from my company and one from my current customer. Then I have my iPad that I use for truly personal things. Is it heavy? You bet, but everything is kept separate that way.
Been there, done that when I had a client issued laptop for security and legal compliance reasons. Now, having finished that gig, my Mac and iPad Pro do the job for me, namely:
My biggest issue with a separate machine with a machine is at some point you need to transfer data from one to the other, opening up a path to allow access to them via the less secure device. Unless you never allow it to connect to a network or transfer files you are vulnerable, and even if you do taht it still doesn't ensure 100% security.
For one thing, it's in weak countries' interest to have as much strife as much as possible between superpowers (US, Russia, China) as possible. If the big thugs are arguing amongst each other directly, they're less concerned about proxy wars and imperialism in places like Latin America. Keep 'em occupied and worried.
I tend to disagree. Strife between major powers often results in proxy wars simply because teh big powers have too much to lose so they support other countries and let them fight it out. They like the idea of a little power poking the eye of their enemy, it's less risky then an all out confrontation.
Plus, it feels good to punch up as the little guy.
Until, of course, the big guy punches back.
How fucked are we that we're so afraid of levying any sort of penalty on the company and scaring them away, that emergency services need to field hundreds of preventable calls? Jesus, there has to be a limit at some point.
Anyway, the cost of relocation has got to outweigh the cost to fix the problem, so apply the fine already.
No more than trying to create an adversarial relationship while both sides are trying to fix the problem. As for relocating, Apple could also simply shift the work to some other existing facility; especially if they simply are refurbishing phones for real rather than actually fixing them.
Hell...institute a FINE of even say, $100/$1000 per false alarm after the first 3x bad 911 calls.
Most cities/states I know of, do this for people what alarm systems at their homes that keep sending out false signals or have the people setting them off themselves with wrong codes, etc.
Put a $$ bite on Apple and I"m guessing they'll figure how to curtail this pronto.
or move the facility. I'm sure Elk Grove would just love for Apple and the jobs to go elsewhere.
DeForest Kelly’s death was a meme in some Usenet groups pre-WWW.
For /. Users of a certain age who remember payphones will remember this way of making free calls that transmitted information. Need a ride home from the movies? Call home, hang up after two rings. Get dime back from pay phone and ride shows up. An older variant was, IIRC, to send a postcard with postage due since you could read the card and then mark return to sender, who would know you got it. People were hacking messaging long before cell phones.
We all know this means they are running Windows.
How many more critical systems have to fall victim to this malware/ransomware bullshit before Windows systems are banned for use in anything critical? Even just the greater likelyhood of that happening to Windows systems should render them unacceptable to use.
In a lot of ways, this complete system shutdown is much worse for everyone than a database being stolen which is the worst case for UNIX backends.
It's not really a system problem, but a people one. No matter what system you put in people will still open emails, despite constant reminders and training not to, and infect systems. If Windows went away magically tomorrow the criminals would just target what took over. It's even better if people think the new OS isn't vulnerable because that means they'll avoid taking precautions.
Well if you're doing it right you just have their My Documents or Documents folder pointed at a file server. But that opens up its own can of worms.
Yup. For example, the first time someone takes their computer home and doesn't log not the network they panic that all their files are gone. The fix: Save everything to the desktop.
Network goes down. Solution: Save everything to the desktop
The solution isn't technical, even though that is the approach often taken. The problem is that users do not understand how backups work, how to access networks remotely, etc.; and organization do not want to spend money to actually train them as well as come up with a backup solution that actually works. Users just want to get work done and don't care where and how stuff is backed up, as long as it doesn't make their life harder when using the computer.
The lack of training goes beyond backups. I've helped friends by showing them how tehy can add page numbers to documents rather than number them one page at a time; showed them how you can merge an Excel file into Word so that it fills out the appropriate sections instead of cutting and pasting one cell at a time, etc. One person didn't even realize they could save document under a different name. Some simple things, others not so simple; but all point to a failure to realize where a problem exists. It's easy to say "they can learn" but the reality is people will find one way to do a task and continue to do it that way even if it is painful.
Sometimes you can see the train wreck coming. I was working with a company that was installing a brand new financial system. When I laid out the training requirements (which were a lot because there would be entirely new screens, process, old ways to fix errors would no longer work, changes in access, etc.) I got "We don't need all of that. It's still a facial system so it should only take a couple of hours to learn. Oh, and by the way, the help desk won't be ready by go live." I ran away as fast as I could. Last I heard they abandoned the project after much time, money and effort and the IT head got canned.
They don't want the overhead of having to support multiple versions of hardware and ending up like the PC market.
They still could EOL older machines, just like car manufactirers do. Parts for some older vehicles are no longer available, although the life cycle is longer for cars than computers. A large third party source of suppliers has arisen around making parts no longer available from manufacturers for vehicle long out of production; especially for cars popular with enthusiasts. Specialized trim pieces seem to buy the hardest to find, which is why I recommend buying a compete set of decals for a vehicle that has a unique set if they plan to keep the car forever; even if they decide to sell it they can either include it and get a few extra bucks or sell it to someone restoring one.
Car manufacturers can’t void your warranty unless you do something that damages the vehicle. I can, or an independent mechanic can, change the oil or replace the brakes without voiding the warranty. Of course, the increasing use of sophisticated diagnostic tools, such as those that require registering a new battery on a BMW, for example, means even what once were simple repairs now require buying a third party diagnostic tool to properly complete a repair.
Even something as simple as installing a Bluetooth module on a BMW requires reprogramming the vehicle order to recognize it, even if the car was prewired for the installation, which means either getting a bootleg version of BMW’s software and fiquring out how to code the car without messing up the electronics, so you still must go to a dealer and either pay them or hope they fo it for free as part of other work. Apple code do something similar; i.e. you can fix it yourself but need to buy our (expensive) software to make the fix work.
I did buy a tool to fix my cars, but will probably buy a vintage car next so I can still fix it myself. Then again, my dad was a mechanic so I learned how to fix them and have most of the commmon tools I need to do that; and judging by my anecdotal experience most of my neighbors won’t even open the hood. I’ve fixed minor problems for them that would have cost them a hundred bucks just to have a dealer run a diagnostic before they actually repaired what was wrong.
My doxies would no doubt love drone package drop offs. I have no doubt they would quickly learn to associate the drone’s sound as a prelude to dropping off yet another toy to tear apart; as well as another opportunity to attack and destroy the interloper on their turf. They probably would quickly team with my shepherd mis in a “You use your height to grab it and through it to the ground, we’ll take over from there...”
If they would just cull the " Ask your Doctor if $stupidly_expensive_drug is right for you " ads, it would cut the total ad times by at least HALF.
No one wants to see that sh*t. I personally make it a point to refuse any medication that constantly begs me to use it.
You can thank the government for that. I had a friend in pharmaceutical sales who was once called in by his boss about his expense account. Seems there was a problem with the numbers; he wasn't spending enough on entertaining doctors. As long as it was legal he could spend money on keeping doctors happy as an entertainment expense. Drs liked cigars? Best cigar bar in town and the drinks and cigars were on him. Medical convention and his MD's wanted to go to a strip club? Lap dances and drinks on him. When the government ended dri\ug companies ability to freely market that way, the drug companies switched from getting doctors to write script to trying to get patients to ask for specific drugs.
I mean, it seems rather obvious that the Android percentage would be higher, but it does not mean a higher "loyalty", but exactly the opposite. Specifically, from what I can find, about 86% of phones sold are Android - apart from lower priced devices, there is also a huge selection, compared to the iOS devices being just 3 models, so it would make sense that more Android devices would be sold even if iOS was a better OS overall (it is in many ways, it is not in several others). So, they say that there is a 91% chance for an android user to stick with Android - so a bit higher than the overall Android market share which is expected from a user who has a bias towards the device they are used to. However, even though iOS devices have just a 13% market share, an iOS owner has a rather staggering 86% chance of buying another iOS device. That sure is some serious brand loyalty and it is what we've come to expect from Apple users.
TFA says something similar at the end:
All that being said, the rate of switching is different from the total number of people switching, the firm also pointed out. And looking at the numbers from that perspective changes things.
“We know Android has a larger base of users than iOS, and because of that larger base, the absolute number of users that switch to iOS from Android is as large or larger than the absolute number of users that switch to Android from iOS,” said Levin.”Looking at absolute number of users in this way tends to support claims that iOS gains more former Android users, than Android does former iOS users.”
The larger number of Android users means that even though the retention percentage is higher, the iPhone users who switched are replace by Android users switching to iPhones. As a result, Apple sees no let loss of users, or even a slight gain, from the switching behavior; and Android has such a larger user base that the number of switchers has a much smaller impact on the overall retention numbers. It would be interesting to see the numbers in a like for like comparison, at least in terms of percentage retention. We know the number of switchers is roughly equal, all we need is the number of users of equivalent phones.
This is one of those studies where both sids can declare victory:
Android: We have higher loyalty!
Apple: More Android users switch to the iPhone than vice versa...
According to the Representative, Second Amendment good, First bad...
So if I use an old cellphone for the app, using wifi to connect, they'll decide I am a very sedentary person who only goes to the movies, turns the phone off to not disturb others, and then turns it on at home and stays there until the next movie. Unless they require a device with active an active plan here's a good use fo tehat old cell phone rotting in a drawer.
I can't imagine why the NRA would do this. The NRA has a very specific purpose. Well actually there are two NRA groups, each with a specific purpose. One does gun-related safety training and such, the other defends the second amendment in the political arena. Neither has any business taking a stand on any particular regulations related to things around principles of network neutrality. It's not what they were created and funded to do.
You forgot the third purpose: Keep creating mass hysteria amongst its members the government is going to take their guns "real soon now" so that manufactures keep making sales and money continues to flow into the NRA coffers form manufacturers. Gun manufacturers have a market where they key demographic isn't buying as much so they have to keep finding ways to get them to buy.
that I honestly laughed at this. It came across so powerfully as a funny parody, and I found myself laughing both before and after I realized that they're actually fucking serious. There are no words. Stick a fork in the ass of American social discourse and turn it over, because it is well and truly done.
Yup. It will get real interesting if Amazon, DirectTV et.al. decide to drop NRATV. I realize that really isn't what the net neutrality debate is all about; although some services that carry it such as DirectTV are ISPs so there is some connection. I wonder how the NRA will feel about net neutrality then? My guess is long polemics about liberal gun hating, gun grabbing types who hate freedom are censoring them; without appreciating the irony in their honoring the "man who saved the internet."
IANAL, but i would seem some of the threats border on using threats of a lawsuit to silence critics. Unfortunately, it takes money to defend yourself so it may be less painful simply to shut up.
I wonder if the threat of discovery and fighting to keep it public would stop some lawsuits as it would force companies to reveal potentially damaging information. You want to sue? I'll prove what I said is materially correct by demanding your code, internal memos, etc. related to bugs. I guess we'd need a high powered lawyer who is interested in security to decide to do one pro-bono.
The other option is to anonymously release bug data as soon as they are discovered to screw over companies that threaten lawsuits. If they don't want to play nice it's time to stand up to them in other ways.
The cameras are ubiquitous, and everyone is taking pictures. Is clicking a button a creative process?
Yes. The creativity comes in the framing, composition, lighting, deciding what to take, etc. Most pictures are garbage but that doesn't mean there wasn't a creative process involved.
With so much of anti shake tech, dynamic range tech, image processing enhancement, done by software behind the scenes, how much of artistic work is involved in these clicks?
While those help improve the technical aspects thy don't replace the yet of a great photographer. All the tech in the world won't help you duplicate the majesty of Adam's Moon Over Half Dome
May be only the photographs registered by paying a fee would be protected by copyright. All other photos are public domain by default.
It sort of works that way as you are only able to sue for damages if you register but copyright occurs as soon as you take the picture. May be only the photographs registered by paying a fee would be protected by copyright. All other photos are public domain by default. It sort of works that way as you are only able to sue for damages if you register but copyright occurs as soon as you take the picture.
If anyone violated the copyright I would think it was the person who originally tweeted the picture since they distributed a copyrighted image. I understand the argument the judge appears to make that if they display a copyrighted image without permission they are guilty of copyright infringement regardless of who actually hosts the image, I can see why the photographer went after them since they have the money, and would have done much more infringement due to the widespread views, to pay out if they ultimately lose, vs. some random Twitter user.
This is yet another example of how copyright laws need to be updated and clarified for the digital age. In print it was a lot harder to get and use an image and who published it was clear; now you can scope images off the web easily and once someone takes an image it is still available even if the original is no longer available. Another issue is 99.99% of the stuff tweeted or otherwise distributed by users is worthless garbage; so how do you balance protection for artists and keeping the garbage flowing freely?
This is from Bing's cached page of their website.
So honestly, if you read After testing our algorithm thoroughly over half a year with great profits continuously every month and didn't fall over laughing at the obvious Ponzi nature of the scheme, you kind of deserved what happened to you.
More to the point, if you have a system to guarantee profits you shut up and make money and don’t let anyone in. It’s like people who advertise a surefire way to make money in the stockmarket, the way to do that is to sell suckers your “system” and pocket their money.
The best team is composed of people who,when taken in total, have all the requisite specialized knowledge and insight to analyze a problem and develop an optimal solution. It is hard to determine in advance who those people are.