1. Apple's FaceID Facial Recognition, including Enrollment, is done entirely on the iPhone. And any Recognition Data on the phone is stored in the Secure Enclave, inaccessible to everyone, including Apple.
How do you know, you've looked at the source code?
why would you need to understand the writing on the bottle? There is a label that says Coca Cola. On the bottle itself, but also on the box and on the vending machine.
with a unique, identifiable and recognizable shape for their phone is an idiot. Just like anybody who needs everyone to know what phone brand they use.
Here's a word that has been appropriated : Liberal.
Liberalism is antithetical to socialism.
I agree, and outside the USA, the proper definition of the term remains. The problem of the USA is that it leans so much to the right of the political spectrum (compared to other western democracies) that a "liberal" is now considered a leftist there.
A democracy is not a republic.
Again, you are wrong. Just look at any dictionary.
And the size of republic means the scope and reach of what the government can do. In other words if a government can do whatever it wants if the majority of the people will it then it is a democracy - not a republic,
Everything is wrong within that statement. What you are talking about is to have strong legal (often constitutional) protection for the minorities. It can be achieved in republican forms or government (usa, germany, france) as well as constitutional monarchies (uk, sweden). All these countries also are democracies. Non-democratic republic such as China are not known to protect rights of minorities. Non-democratic monarchies (Saudia Arabia) are often worse.
Neither the president nor the senators are directly elected by the people.
Which isn't a criterion to be a democracy.
The president is selected by the electoral college. Electors and senators are chosen in whatever manner each state chooses. States choose election today, mostly, but that's not always been so and the US is powerless to control it going forward.
It may seem a subtle distinction, but just because states choose representatives through elections does NOT mean that the US is a democracy,
Yes it does means that, as long as states are democratic themselves.
as it is the choice of the states and they can change it at any time.
Which would require the consent of elected representatives of the people of the states.
The US is a representative republic, the representatives are not (all) guaranteed to be chosen by direct election.
The US is a (flawed) democracy AND a republic. There is no such thing as guaranteed democracy. The people could always vote to switch to a dictatorship. Even if that would be against a constitution, that constitution can be changed to allow the change from a democracy to a dictatorship.
By definition, yes. I would also say that the definition of democracy or republic didn't really change for centuries. The words existed even before English, going back to ancient Greece.
The modern dictionary gives the modern general consensus of what the words mean.
Language is about being understood by others. If you don't like it you are free to stay in your basement and not talk to anyone.
When you hear people bring up the distinction between a Republic and a Democracy it's because we're rejecting the Counter-Enlightenment political theory; we are promoting an ideal of a limited government as opposed to the dictatorship of the democracy (um proletariat).
There are better ways to achieve that. A good start would be to put a suggestion for a better government forward. Republic and democracies have nothing to do with government size, by the way.
Redefining words is not going to get you any closer to your objective.
The representatives serve the people. Senators serve their State (and originally weren't popularly elected). The President serves all States, and is elected by the States.
Who they serve or represent doesn't matter. They are all elected by the people. The president is elected by the people, even though it's indirect because of the electoral college. Therefore it's a democracy.
If the people elect a representatives which elect other representatives which finally elect the politicians, it's still a democracy.
So, no, not a democracy. It's a representative government, to a degree, but it is not, and never was a democracy.
It's what we call a representative democracy. Instead of a direct democracy.
With gerrymandering and lobbying, it's becoming even less of one with time.
Well they claim to be. No democracy is perfect. It's a scale from the utopia to North Korea, with the USA somewhere in the middle, but a little bit closer to North Korea than most other western democracies.
You are misinformed. The USA is both a democracy (or at least claims to be) and a republic.
Any country without a monarch is a republic, by definition.
A political system where the citizens can vote is a democracy. Otherwise it would be a dictatorship.
The USA is a representative democracy and not a direct democracy, like about just any country on earth (even though some have elements of direct democracy such as referendums). But it's still both a democracy and a republic, and there is absolutely nothing mutually exclusive between these two concepts.
It's still much better than if every single vendor did like Apple and developed their own OS. No matter if only 20% of the interface is the same when switching from one Android device to another. As long as it's greater than 0% it's better than Apple.
It would be much worse for the hospital if they used equipment from a single vendor. That vendor could raise prices without any limit because the cost for the hospital to switch out to something else would be too expensive.
The best is to have open standards, and many vendors.
No business should use a single source product/solution when there is an equal alternative with multiple vendors. In that case, if Target even runs into trouble with Samsung, they can easily switch to LG or whatever. It would be even better if they were not dependent on Google for the OS, but having multiple hardware vendors is a good start.
A second monthly cell phone bill. I might as well get a third one so that I can get WiFi in my car, even though my smart phone has hot spot capability.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Apple's FaceID Facial Recognition, including Enrollment, is done entirely on the iPhone. And any Recognition Data on the phone is stored in the Secure Enclave, inaccessible to everyone, including Apple.
How do you know, you've looked at the source code?
bad example since none of these have the alleged distinctive coca cola bottle shape
why would you need to understand the writing on the bottle? There is a label that says Coca Cola. On the bottle itself, but also on the box and on the vending machine.
Except at least on Android you have the option to sell yourself bypassing that 30% cut if you want to.
My point is that some people are proud to be affected by it.
well then, anybody who buys a Coca Cola because (or partly because) of the distinctive shape of their bottle is an idiot.
their cans or bottles aren't the same shape as Pepsi?
with a unique, identifiable and recognizable shape for their phone is an idiot. Just like anybody who needs everyone to know what phone brand they use.
Here's a word that has been appropriated : Liberal.
Liberalism is antithetical to socialism.
I agree, and outside the USA, the proper definition of the term remains.
The problem of the USA is that it leans so much to the right of the political spectrum (compared to other western democracies) that a "liberal" is now considered a leftist there.
A democracy is not a republic.
Again, you are wrong. Just look at any dictionary.
And the size of republic means the scope and reach of what the government can do. In other words if a government can do whatever it wants if the majority of the people will it then it is a democracy - not a republic,
Everything is wrong within that statement.
What you are talking about is to have strong legal (often constitutional) protection for the minorities. It can be achieved in republican forms or government (usa, germany, france) as well as constitutional monarchies (uk, sweden). All these countries also are democracies.
Non-democratic republic such as China are not known to protect rights of minorities. Non-democratic monarchies (Saudia Arabia) are often worse.
Neither the president nor the senators are directly elected by the people.
Which isn't a criterion to be a democracy.
The president is selected by the electoral college. Electors and senators are chosen in whatever manner each state chooses. States choose election today, mostly, but that's not always been so and the US is powerless to control it going forward.
It may seem a subtle distinction, but just because states choose representatives through elections does NOT mean that the US is a democracy,
Yes it does means that, as long as states are democratic themselves.
as it is the choice of the states and they can change it at any time.
Which would require the consent of elected representatives of the people of the states.
The US is a representative republic, the representatives are not (all) guaranteed to be chosen by direct election.
The US is a (flawed) democracy AND a republic.
There is no such thing as guaranteed democracy. The people could always vote to switch to a dictatorship. Even if that would be against a constitution, that constitution can be changed to allow the change from a democracy to a dictatorship.
The modern dictionary is correct?
By definition, yes.
I would also say that the definition of democracy or republic didn't really change for centuries. The words existed even before English, going back to ancient Greece.
The modern dictionary gives the modern general consensus of what the words mean.
Language is about being understood by others. If you don't like it you are free to stay in your basement and not talk to anyone.
When you hear people bring up the distinction between a Republic and a Democracy it's because we're rejecting the Counter-Enlightenment political theory; we are promoting an ideal of a limited government as opposed to the dictatorship of the democracy (um proletariat).
There are better ways to achieve that. A good start would be to put a suggestion for a better government forward. Republic and democracies have nothing to do with government size, by the way.
Redefining words is not going to get you any closer to your objective.
The representatives serve the people. Senators serve their State (and originally weren't popularly elected). The President serves all States, and is elected by the States.
Who they serve or represent doesn't matter. They are all elected by the people. The president is elected by the people, even though it's indirect because of the electoral college. Therefore it's a democracy.
If the people elect a representatives which elect other representatives which finally elect the politicians, it's still a democracy.
So, no, not a democracy. It's a representative government, to a degree, but it is not, and never was a democracy.
It's what we call a representative democracy. Instead of a direct democracy.
With gerrymandering and lobbying, it's becoming even less of one with time.
That I agree.
They had very narrow definitions of the terms. Just look at any modern dictionary, and you will understand that you are (and they were) wrong.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...
Well they claim to be.
No democracy is perfect. It's a scale from the utopia to North Korea, with the USA somewhere in the middle, but a little bit closer to North Korea than most other western democracies.
Are you that ignorant that you're unaware of the distinction between a Democracy and a Republic?
Are you that ignorant that you're unaware that a democracy and a republic are not mutually exclusive concepts?
You are misinformed.
The USA is both a democracy (or at least claims to be) and a republic.
Any country without a monarch is a republic, by definition.
A political system where the citizens can vote is a democracy. Otherwise it would be a dictatorship.
The USA is a representative democracy and not a direct democracy, like about just any country on earth (even though some have elements of direct democracy such as referendums). But it's still both a democracy and a republic, and there is absolutely nothing mutually exclusive between these two concepts.
It's still much better than if every single vendor did like Apple and developed their own OS.
No matter if only 20% of the interface is the same when switching from one Android device to another. As long as it's greater than 0% it's better than Apple.
It would be much worse for the hospital if they used equipment from a single vendor. That vendor could raise prices without any limit because the cost for the hospital to switch out to something else would be too expensive.
The best is to have open standards, and many vendors.
You confuse single source and vertical integration. They are not the same.
No business should use a single source product/solution when there is an equal alternative with multiple vendors.
In that case, if Target even runs into trouble with Samsung, they can easily switch to LG or whatever. It would be even better if they were not dependent on Google for the OS, but having multiple hardware vendors is a good start.
A second monthly cell phone bill. I might as well get a third one so that I can get WiFi in my car, even though my smart phone has hot spot capability.
Try getting your news from outside the USA then. The USA has a huge conservative bias.
from what I understand JP Morgan / Visa issue the card. Paypal just puts its name on it.
A corporation obeys laws. The way it should be.
It may help them, but at a cost. In the end they pay more for the same stuff than we do. Which doesn't help their case.