" Surprisingly, despite overtaking Apple in global sales, none of Huawei's phones appear on the Top 10 list."
I was thinking this is what positions Huawei for even further growth. I mean, to be #2 in the market and have none of your products in the the top 10 means there is a big target for the company to rally around. That kind of goal-setting tends to spark innovation in a firm. Huawei's built rock-solid products for a while, so it's pretty exciting to see what the coming years will bring them. Of course, that all hinges on whether they pursue the goal of top 10 products...they could just as well keep doing what they're doing and enjoy their extant success.
Clearly, you're a troll and I shouldn't feed you, but you seem to have a difficulty n the appropriate direction of your anger.
If I come to your home and start spouting something you don't like, you're fully entitled to kick me off your property. I would never deny your right to do that, nor would I ever consider decrying you for doing so. Yet that's exactly what you're doing with your post: Google has ZERO obligation to give people a platform for things that violates Google's corporate policies/identity, much like you have no obligation to provide a platform for me to preach things you don't like to hear.
There's a market solution to this, and as such the right should be *eager* to embark on it:
Create your own platform and the infrastructure it runs on. Those who support your positions will adopt it. Those that don't, won't. Then you'll have all the power to kick off those who have a differing opinion, the same right Google, and their competitors, have.
So, most customers don't *need* blazing fast speeds...The thing is, people *want* it, and in a capitalist society, you service the market. The problem is, the big ISPs have lobbied to crush any competition, meaning the market that desires blazing fast speed can't get it. They can't even *set it up* to offer it to others. THAT is the problem people have with the big ISPs.
Any idea if a magnetic fluid in an axle could be used to brake? Apply a magnetic field, fluid "solidifies", slowing the vehicle. Remove the magnetic field, the fluid returns to its prior form, and you can drive again...
There are already open-access publishing companies out there. I would hope when they mean "creating a new journal" they mean they're going to develop their journal alongside one of these open-access scientific publishers (such as MDPI).
"I left my professional camera at home and took these shots at dinner with my iPhone 7 using computational photography (portrait mode as Apple calls it). Hard not to call these results (in a restaurant, taken on a mobile phone with no flash) stunning. Great job Apple."
Pack it up, guys, this argument's over. All it took was one photographer's shitty anecdote about their own work. With a such a rock-solid foundation and irrefutable premises, we can finally put this whole issue to rest.
The supposed "loophole" in the Outer Space Treaty isn't a loophole.
Article VI states: "States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty."
In effect, while a private company can own a spacecraft, it's the state that's responsible for it so, no, Asteroid Mining PLC won't have legal standing to claim their mined goods.
Cook taking credit for 2 million developers just shows you a) how easy it is to manipulate Trump, and b) well...see a).
If I develop an iPhone app, some worthless game I sell for a pittance, I'm technically part of that "2 million developers" group. How many of those people are earning a wage comparable to industry standard? How many of those are hobbyists and dabblers? If Cook's going to make a claim of creating 2 million jobs, then let's look at the wages/salaries of those jobs.
So Cook's slated $1 billion to promote manufacturing jobs in the US...Foxconn spent $2.6 billion building *a single factory* to support its work for Apple. To suggest Cook's going to whip out the checkbook to build three factories *just* to provide Americans with jobs is a slap in the face to the shareholders who demand an uptick in the share price and low wages in China to push up profits and dividends.
The drone/wire cutter aspect isn't the staggering part...How the hell did he build a convincing papier-maché doll of himself to fool the guards is what I'm curious about.
Never underestimate the resourcefulness of a man whose liberty has been denied...
I'd be interested to know how much anticipation of Ryzen's release accounted for lower AMD numbers last year. Knowing a new chip was imminent, most builders would likely hold off on constructing new systems until the new chip came out and reviews/benchmarks were available (who wants to build a system *just before* a new "bigger and better" CPU comes out?). If you were running older AMD hardware, holding off for Ryzen, odds are benchmarks were run when they were built, so there'd be no need to run benchmarks on "old" AMD systems. Intel's stronger market share would suggest Intel-based systems will be regularly upgraded/built, despite new offerings from AMD (just based on the sheer number of systems out there).
Intuitively, to me at least, it's no suprise fewer AMD benchmarks were run, which may skew the numbers (assuming the numbers are even useful in the first place (who's using these numbers to craft their corporate IT policy, or purchasing plans, or whatever?).
This sounds like just another way to shoehorn kids into some "socially acceptable" stream of behaviour.
It's already *grossly* inappropriate to demand that 17/18 year olds choose an academic/career path that will shape the next decades of their lives. It denies them the very important maturing process of figuring that kind of thing out. How many people on this site, alone, changed majors in college? Dropped out to do something "fun"? Backpacked through Europe or Asia or South America or Africa trying to "find themselves"? How many work in fields unrelated to their education?
Want a better plan to promote direction in youth? Do an economic assessment of your state, determine the jobs that will be needed 5 years down the road, and give preferential financial aid to those streams. Invest in the future, don't punish it.
"Rabois cited icons like Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Belichick as proof that dogged dedication (usually measured by long hours) was the only way to reach the top of your field."
Handful of cherry-picked examples proves gross over-generalization...
Interesting premise...
Having an opinion is not the same as having an *educated* opinion. The damage that uneducated opinions will have to this process is likely to be significant.
If, at the time you register for service, say at an AT&T shop, they'll give you a contract to sign. Take the time to read it over. Scratch out paragraphs you don't like. Write in your own clauses. Then sign it. If the employee then accepts it and activates your service, then whatever clauses you've changed are legally binding. That contract you sign is a *negotiation* and if they accept it without reading it over, much like they expect of their clients, they're on the hook for it.
While the article specifically suggests video games, I'd suggest it's a broader dimension of work-life balance. I think there's been a culture shift that killing yourself for your job isn't worth it, particularly when employers are showing less and less loyalty to their employees than in previous generations. Couple that with the idea that people just can't get ahead, be it because of debt from education, etc, and who's going to bust their hump like Grandpa did for 30 years? When the option to work less, enjoy more leisure time, and defer the costs of living to your credit cards is so appealing, is it any wonder that a trend of working less is emerging? Video games just happen to be the entertainment channel of choice.
A spokesman for the Solar Energy Industries Association argues that the study is incorrect, and that in fact solar panels are "mainly made up of easy-to-recycle materials that can be successfully recovered and reused at the end of their useful life."
Just because the materials *can* be successfully recovered and reused doesn't mean those materials *are* being successfully recovered and reused.
While there's certainly valid criticism to be leveled at Facebook's censorship policies, can we all take a moment to realize that the slides from the supposed Facebook training slides published by ProPublica offer precisely zero evidence as originating from Facebook?
The article offers no evidence to suggest what appears to be one-sided protection is actually a systemic policy within the organization. While this could very well be the case, cherrypicking examples of Facebook's censorship isn't necessarily evidence of the claim. In fact, the ProPublica article claims a "trove of internal documents sheds light on the algorithms that Facebook’s censors use to differentiate between hate speech and legitimate political expression" but doesn't offer a single one of those documents up for public consumption.
ProPublica prides itself on investigative journalism. This article is not that. I expect better.
"The justices said the ban can apply for now only to people who don't have a "credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.""
So, pretty much, border guards can reject anyone who doesn't have a legitimate reason to cross the border...just like they always could...
Did a quick scan of the attached user manual and from the table of contents, alone, I'm skeptical of its authenticity...
If the (U) and (S) of items in the table of contents refer to (Unclassified) or (Secret) classifications, then the author of the document should have their security clearance revoked.
Whenever a document contains multiple classifications, the document as a whole is classified at the strictest level; for example, if you have a document that is comprised of all Unclassified material except for one sentence that is classified Secret, the entire document is classified Secret. Looking at the table of contents, this is violated heavily. If the individual components are referred to by their security clearance, the overarching chapters are often misclassified. Any chapter containing a subelement that is (S)ecret means the chapter, as a whole should be (S)ecret, but this isn't followed (particularly for chapters 11-13).
There are serious technological and social problems that come with this.
Firstly, security on one's brainwaves is critical. While current technology allows pretty coarse-grained analysis of brainwaves, that will change. When it does, those coarse-grained waveforms will be reanalyzed to delve deeper.
Secondly, what protections exist for biometric data? In a world where the state is trying to *reduce* encryption, protection of biometric information (ESPECIALLY brainwaves) is critical. It doesn't get much more intimate than that.
Thirdly, the social dimensions that come with such security is significant. As Europe pushes for the right to be forgotten, why can I not push for the "right to remember", even if that means recording everything I experience digitally? Technologically, we're chimps with calculators...We can barely handle the tech we have, but Musk wants to boldly push ever forward...I support him, but such a move has to be done carefully and deliberately.
No one's claiming the robot is responsible for her death; they're claiming the manufacturers are responsible for her death, due to the robot's malfunction. The hyperbolic choice of language, I feel, purposefully crafts an idea in the audience's mind that's actually rather detrimental to the design and construction of robots that *can* analyze context and make autonomous decisions.
The commodification of science has crippled science, in my opinion. Scientists are forced to publish for a number of reasons; their publications are the basis for subscription services to various journal services, it helps establish their reputation in their corner of academia and contributes to padding their CV, etc. However, it's a horrificially broken idea.
We should be promoting *robust* science, not just *prolific* authorship.
I deal with peer review every day in my job, and it's not what people think it is. It's little more than a third party looking over a manuscript deciding that it looks sufficient to publish (i..e., no *glaring* errors that stand out). There's no fact-checking of equations, methodologies, etc. If any methodology geets through this phase without being confirmed, it's going to make it to publication and exacerbate the problem.
However, this does open a market for robust academic experimentation, but at a certain financial and temporal cost: establish a journal where studies submitted *have* been replicated. Take peer review up a notch to *peer replication*.
Slashdot Mirror
" Surprisingly, despite overtaking Apple in global sales, none of Huawei's phones appear on the Top 10 list." I was thinking this is what positions Huawei for even further growth. I mean, to be #2 in the market and have none of your products in the the top 10 means there is a big target for the company to rally around. That kind of goal-setting tends to spark innovation in a firm. Huawei's built rock-solid products for a while, so it's pretty exciting to see what the coming years will bring them. Of course, that all hinges on whether they pursue the goal of top 10 products...they could just as well keep doing what they're doing and enjoy their extant success.
Clearly, you're a troll and I shouldn't feed you, but you seem to have a difficulty n the appropriate direction of your anger.
If I come to your home and start spouting something you don't like, you're fully entitled to kick me off your property. I would never deny your right to do that, nor would I ever consider decrying you for doing so. Yet that's exactly what you're doing with your post: Google has ZERO obligation to give people a platform for things that violates Google's corporate policies/identity, much like you have no obligation to provide a platform for me to preach things you don't like to hear.
There's a market solution to this, and as such the right should be *eager* to embark on it:
Create your own platform and the infrastructure it runs on. Those who support your positions will adopt it. Those that don't, won't. Then you'll have all the power to kick off those who have a differing opinion, the same right Google, and their competitors, have.
So, most customers don't *need* blazing fast speeds...The thing is, people *want* it, and in a capitalist society, you service the market. The problem is, the big ISPs have lobbied to crush any competition, meaning the market that desires blazing fast speed can't get it. They can't even *set it up* to offer it to others. THAT is the problem people have with the big ISPs.
Any idea if a magnetic fluid in an axle could be used to brake? Apply a magnetic field, fluid "solidifies", slowing the vehicle. Remove the magnetic field, the fluid returns to its prior form, and you can drive again...
There are already open-access publishing companies out there. I would hope when they mean "creating a new journal" they mean they're going to develop their journal alongside one of these open-access scientific publishers (such as MDPI).
"I left my professional camera at home and took these shots at dinner with my iPhone 7 using computational photography (portrait mode as Apple calls it). Hard not to call these results (in a restaurant, taken on a mobile phone with no flash) stunning. Great job Apple."
Pack it up, guys, this argument's over. All it took was one photographer's shitty anecdote about their own work. With a such a rock-solid foundation and irrefutable premises, we can finally put this whole issue to rest.
The supposed "loophole" in the Outer Space Treaty isn't a loophole.
Article VI states: "States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty."
In effect, while a private company can own a spacecraft, it's the state that's responsible for it so, no, Asteroid Mining PLC won't have legal standing to claim their mined goods.
Cook taking credit for 2 million developers just shows you a) how easy it is to manipulate Trump, and b) well...see a).
If I develop an iPhone app, some worthless game I sell for a pittance, I'm technically part of that "2 million developers" group. How many of those people are earning a wage comparable to industry standard? How many of those are hobbyists and dabblers? If Cook's going to make a claim of creating 2 million jobs, then let's look at the wages/salaries of those jobs.
So Cook's slated $1 billion to promote manufacturing jobs in the US...Foxconn spent $2.6 billion building *a single factory* to support its work for Apple. To suggest Cook's going to whip out the checkbook to build three factories *just* to provide Americans with jobs is a slap in the face to the shareholders who demand an uptick in the share price and low wages in China to push up profits and dividends.
The drone/wire cutter aspect isn't the staggering part...How the hell did he build a convincing papier-maché doll of himself to fool the guards is what I'm curious about. Never underestimate the resourcefulness of a man whose liberty has been denied...
I'd be interested to know how much anticipation of Ryzen's release accounted for lower AMD numbers last year. Knowing a new chip was imminent, most builders would likely hold off on constructing new systems until the new chip came out and reviews/benchmarks were available (who wants to build a system *just before* a new "bigger and better" CPU comes out?). If you were running older AMD hardware, holding off for Ryzen, odds are benchmarks were run when they were built, so there'd be no need to run benchmarks on "old" AMD systems. Intel's stronger market share would suggest Intel-based systems will be regularly upgraded/built, despite new offerings from AMD (just based on the sheer number of systems out there).
Intuitively, to me at least, it's no suprise fewer AMD benchmarks were run, which may skew the numbers (assuming the numbers are even useful in the first place (who's using these numbers to craft their corporate IT policy, or purchasing plans, or whatever?).
Good thing I've never seen anyone below the legal age to buy cigarettes smoking one!
...wait a minute...
This sounds like just another way to shoehorn kids into some "socially acceptable" stream of behaviour.
It's already *grossly* inappropriate to demand that 17/18 year olds choose an academic/career path that will shape the next decades of their lives. It denies them the very important maturing process of figuring that kind of thing out. How many people on this site, alone, changed majors in college? Dropped out to do something "fun"? Backpacked through Europe or Asia or South America or Africa trying to "find themselves"? How many work in fields unrelated to their education?
Want a better plan to promote direction in youth? Do an economic assessment of your state, determine the jobs that will be needed 5 years down the road, and give preferential financial aid to those streams. Invest in the future, don't punish it.
"Rabois cited icons like Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Belichick as proof that dogged dedication (usually measured by long hours) was the only way to reach the top of your field." Handful of cherry-picked examples proves gross over-generalization... Interesting premise...
Having an opinion is not the same as having an *educated* opinion. The damage that uneducated opinions will have to this process is likely to be significant.
If, at the time you register for service, say at an AT&T shop, they'll give you a contract to sign. Take the time to read it over. Scratch out paragraphs you don't like. Write in your own clauses. Then sign it. If the employee then accepts it and activates your service, then whatever clauses you've changed are legally binding. That contract you sign is a *negotiation* and if they accept it without reading it over, much like they expect of their clients, they're on the hook for it.
While the article specifically suggests video games, I'd suggest it's a broader dimension of work-life balance. I think there's been a culture shift that killing yourself for your job isn't worth it, particularly when employers are showing less and less loyalty to their employees than in previous generations. Couple that with the idea that people just can't get ahead, be it because of debt from education, etc, and who's going to bust their hump like Grandpa did for 30 years? When the option to work less, enjoy more leisure time, and defer the costs of living to your credit cards is so appealing, is it any wonder that a trend of working less is emerging? Video games just happen to be the entertainment channel of choice.
"I just don't understand the younger generation on trying to get their 15 minutes of fame."
Probably because the previous generation's crafted a media system that promotes people to seek their 15 minutes of fame?
A spokesman for the Solar Energy Industries Association argues that the study is incorrect, and that in fact solar panels are "mainly made up of easy-to-recycle materials that can be successfully recovered and reused at the end of their useful life."
Just because the materials *can* be successfully recovered and reused doesn't mean those materials *are* being successfully recovered and reused.
Sounds like a very specifically-worded statement.
While there's certainly valid criticism to be leveled at Facebook's censorship policies, can we all take a moment to realize that the slides from the supposed Facebook training slides published by ProPublica offer precisely zero evidence as originating from Facebook?
The article offers no evidence to suggest what appears to be one-sided protection is actually a systemic policy within the organization. While this could very well be the case, cherrypicking examples of Facebook's censorship isn't necessarily evidence of the claim. In fact, the ProPublica article claims a "trove of internal documents sheds light on the algorithms that Facebook’s censors use to differentiate between hate speech and legitimate political expression" but doesn't offer a single one of those documents up for public consumption.
ProPublica prides itself on investigative journalism. This article is not that. I expect better.
"The justices said the ban can apply for now only to people who don't have a "credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.""
So, pretty much, border guards can reject anyone who doesn't have a legitimate reason to cross the border...just like they always could...
Did a quick scan of the attached user manual and from the table of contents, alone, I'm skeptical of its authenticity...
If the (U) and (S) of items in the table of contents refer to (Unclassified) or (Secret) classifications, then the author of the document should have their security clearance revoked.
Whenever a document contains multiple classifications, the document as a whole is classified at the strictest level; for example, if you have a document that is comprised of all Unclassified material except for one sentence that is classified Secret, the entire document is classified Secret. Looking at the table of contents, this is violated heavily. If the individual components are referred to by their security clearance, the overarching chapters are often misclassified. Any chapter containing a subelement that is (S)ecret means the chapter, as a whole should be (S)ecret, but this isn't followed (particularly for chapters 11-13).
There are serious technological and social problems that come with this.
Firstly, security on one's brainwaves is critical. While current technology allows pretty coarse-grained analysis of brainwaves, that will change. When it does, those coarse-grained waveforms will be reanalyzed to delve deeper.
Secondly, what protections exist for biometric data? In a world where the state is trying to *reduce* encryption, protection of biometric information (ESPECIALLY brainwaves) is critical. It doesn't get much more intimate than that.
Thirdly, the social dimensions that come with such security is significant. As Europe pushes for the right to be forgotten, why can I not push for the "right to remember", even if that means recording everything I experience digitally? Technologically, we're chimps with calculators...We can barely handle the tech we have, but Musk wants to boldly push ever forward...I support him, but such a move has to be done carefully and deliberately.
No one's claiming the robot is responsible for her death; they're claiming the manufacturers are responsible for her death, due to the robot's malfunction. The hyperbolic choice of language, I feel, purposefully crafts an idea in the audience's mind that's actually rather detrimental to the design and construction of robots that *can* analyze context and make autonomous decisions.
The commodification of science has crippled science, in my opinion. Scientists are forced to publish for a number of reasons; their publications are the basis for subscription services to various journal services, it helps establish their reputation in their corner of academia and contributes to padding their CV, etc. However, it's a horrificially broken idea.
We should be promoting *robust* science, not just *prolific* authorship.
I deal with peer review every day in my job, and it's not what people think it is. It's little more than a third party looking over a manuscript deciding that it looks sufficient to publish (i..e., no *glaring* errors that stand out). There's no fact-checking of equations, methodologies, etc. If any methodology geets through this phase without being confirmed, it's going to make it to publication and exacerbate the problem.
However, this does open a market for robust academic experimentation, but at a certain financial and temporal cost: establish a journal where studies submitted *have* been replicated. Take peer review up a notch to *peer replication*.
Looks like they missed the chance to call it the "Apple Orchard".
You'd think a company so focused on marketing could come up with something snappier than "Apple Park".
Hell, even "The Apple Core" would've been better...