You're ignoring a little thing called 'the market' that may or may not allow them to rise prices. They can't rise prices if they can't sell enough stuff at those prices.
Markets prevent one company from charging significantly more than its competitors for the same goods. The market generally doesn't prevent prices from going up if costs go up for all competitors, as they do with tax increases. In a competitive market, tax increases will usually get passed on almost fully to consumers.
I'm just telling you how many people use Android and what they find convenient. You can also use face unlock if you like; many modern Android phones have it.
No, the "technology being discussed" was "having a fingerprint sensor without an actual home button". Android solved that problem simply and efficiently by putting the sensor on the back, a solution that Apple could have adopted as well.
The issue isn't the treaty, it's human rights. We aren't supposed to extradite people of their human rights are likely to be violated. That could include the death penalty and extremely long sentences.
Treaties have provisions for dealing with such issues; usually, extradition comes with the provision that the punishment won't be harsher than the punishment in the country of citizenship. So you are speaking from a position of ignorance.
Furthermore, if you don't like the US legal system in principle, don't sign extradition treaties with the US; don't try to get the benefits of such treaties and then reneging on them at will.
Finally, Europe has a lot to lose here, because European companies depend very much on the US legal system for the enforcement of patent rights, copyrights, and cyber security. If the cooperation between US and European legal systems unravels, Europeans have a lot to lose there, because Europeans won't get to dictate what does and doesn't get enforced: those days are long over.
Naomi Colvin, from the human rights group the Courage Foundation, tells the Guardian that "Lauri's case is critically important in determining the reach of America's unusually harsh punitive sanctions for computer crimes."
Answer: look in the extradition treaty.
If you don't like "America's unusually harsh punitive sanctions for computer crimes", get your government to renegotiate the treaty.
The problem with the fingerprint sensors on the iPhone is that it's on the home button, or alternatively, that the home/unlock button is in the front. The location on the back, as on Android phones, may seem less natural but is more convenient. Rather than admit their mistake and simply move the sensor to the back, Apple is pouting.
There's obviously no point in continuing this discussion because you're clearly a human-caused climate change denier
Nothing I said "denies" the link between burning fossil fuels and climate change.
probably Republican
I used to be a Democrat until 2016. I'm an independent now. Come 2018 or 2020, I'm a gay man, a scientist, and an immigrant too. I may well become a Republican, since the Democrats have clearly been taken over by anti-science zealots. You illustrate this well.
therefore anything I say goes in one ear and out the other. Replies will be ignored.
Welcome to the new Democrats and the progressive movement: bigoted, intolerant, unwilling to listen, and anti-science.
Or better yet, just go off yourself and stop dragging down Slashdot's IQ average.
Well, this discussion is quite useful since we have identified one of your problems: you apparently think that a high IQ is a replacement for knowledge, expertise, and insight. It's a common misconception among people with your kind of hubris.
You're not the only one who can throw around insults.
It's not mean if it's true, and I'm afraid in your case, it's true.
I don't see what your problem is. They can predict the gender of the preferred dating partner with surprisingly high accuracy (better than human) based on images alone. That's an interesting result, no matter what the cause. The fact that their images are Caucasian only and that they don't control for other variables doesn't change that.
They then formulate a hypothesis as to the causes of this observation. Proving or disproving that hypothesis requires further experiments. You're welcome to formulate alternative hypotheses. Some of those alternative hypotheses may be less interesting than the hypothesis the authors came up with.
Right now, you're just throwing shit at the paper hoping that something sticks. That makes your criticism "utter garbage", not the paper. I hope you don't work in any scientific discipline.
The bureau is now faced with huge private companies, like Facebook and Twitter, which are ostensibly neutral and have no professional or ethical obligation to vet the material they distribute.
Specifically: Republican lawmakers and perhaps even Christian preachers! (How about Mr. Macho himself, Putin?) I really, really know I'm going to be down-modded for this but please hear me out. Haven't you wondered why those people who are so against homosexuality often turn out to be gay themselves?
Many conservative Christians and Catholics explicitly teach that they don't condemn you for feeling attracted to other men ("being gay"), they consider the act of homosexual intercourse itself sinful ("against homosexuality"). It is neither surprising nor inconsistent for the most ardent opponents of homosexual acts to feel homosexual attractions themselves.
So, if you confront someone like that with "our software shows that you are gay", their response isn't going to be "I see the error of my ways and I now approve of gay sex", their response is going to be "now you see what kind of struggle I'm facing daily avoiding the temptation of gay sex, which is why I'm fighting to try to reduce those temptations".
I don't agree with that view, but there is no "gotcha" there.
Anyway, 91% accuracy is complete disaster. While there is a common feeling that 10% of population is gay,
The training and test samples are probably a 1:1 mix.
Simple example is machine which detects some rare disease and is wrong only 1% of the time.
That kind of argument shows that a test is useless for large scale screening, but the test still gives you "meaningful information", otherwise we wouldn't be using HIV tests.
If sexual orientation correlates highly with physical appearance, then I think this conclusively proves that sexual orientation is not a "decision."
Let's try that with some other attribute: "If physical strength correlates highly with physical appearance, then I think this conclusively proves that physical strength is not a "decision."" Nope, sorry, doesn't work.
I also don't see what difference it makes anyway whether sexual orientation is inherited or whether it is a "choice".
Because that's the primary variable AGW activists are trying to control.
We're talking about climate here.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough: humans cannot stabilize the climate. Furthermore, humans cannot stabilize the distribution of arable land, and humans cannot stabilize coastlines, because those are constantly changing even in a stable global climate.
I find no valid reasons not to stop burning fossil fuels as soon as we can manage it. Laziness is not a valid reason, by the way.
Laziness? People have been looking for alternatives to fossil fuels and for reducing the amount of combustion for as long as we have used fossil fuels. Nuclear fission would have been an excellent and cost-effective alternative, but it was killed through politics and regulations. Solar may become cost-competitive within 1-2 decades (this requires cheaper solar cells and better storage technologies); as soon as it does, it will take over. Until it becomes cost-competitive, you can subsidize and legislate as much as you want to, it won't make any difference.
Again: How does it really hurt anyone
Well, how does it hurt you to cut your salary in half? That's what completely eliminating fossil fuels would do to everybody on the planet at this point, in the best case. The massive reductions in poverty and hunger across the globe over the past century have been dependent on massive use of cheap energy.
or not make sense, to PLAY IT SAFE with the ONE PLANET we have to live on?
Burning fossil fuels may or may not be a threat to beach front property in Florida a few centuries from now, but it is not a "threat to the one planet we live on".
The only reason the AGW activists have any backing is because left wing politicians are making their careers out of fear mongering and scientifically and economically illiterate idiots like you eat it up.
Slashdot Mirror
My point is: the front of the phone just isn't a good place for the fingerprint sensor to begin with.
You're dreaming.
Markets prevent one company from charging significantly more than its competitors for the same goods. The market generally doesn't prevent prices from going up if costs go up for all competitors, as they do with tax increases. In a competitive market, tax increases will usually get passed on almost fully to consumers.
I'm just telling you how many people use Android and what they find convenient. You can also use face unlock if you like; many modern Android phones have it.
No, the "technology being discussed" was "having a fingerprint sensor without an actual home button". Android solved that problem simply and efficiently by putting the sensor on the back, a solution that Apple could have adopted as well.
If you think European legal systems are any better at that, you're just displaying more of your trademark ignorance.
Treaties have provisions for dealing with such issues; usually, extradition comes with the provision that the punishment won't be harsher than the punishment in the country of citizenship. So you are speaking from a position of ignorance.
Furthermore, if you don't like the US legal system in principle, don't sign extradition treaties with the US; don't try to get the benefits of such treaties and then reneging on them at will.
Finally, Europe has a lot to lose here, because European companies depend very much on the US legal system for the enforcement of patent rights, copyrights, and cyber security. If the cooperation between US and European legal systems unravels, Europeans have a lot to lose there, because Europeans won't get to dictate what does and doesn't get enforced: those days are long over.
Answer: look in the extradition treaty.
If you don't like "America's unusually harsh punitive sanctions for computer crimes", get your government to renegotiate the treaty.
Android phones tend to be unlocked by proximity in that situation.
They might have a look at the dozens of Android phones that manage to do just that.
The problem with the fingerprint sensors on the iPhone is that it's on the home button, or alternatively, that the home/unlock button is in the front. The location on the back, as on Android phones, may seem less natural but is more convenient. Rather than admit their mistake and simply move the sensor to the back, Apple is pouting.
Nothing I said "denies" the link between burning fossil fuels and climate change.
I used to be a Democrat until 2016. I'm an independent now. Come 2018 or 2020, I'm a gay man, a scientist, and an immigrant too. I may well become a Republican, since the Democrats have clearly been taken over by anti-science zealots. You illustrate this well.
Welcome to the new Democrats and the progressive movement: bigoted, intolerant, unwilling to listen, and anti-science.
I'm sorry you still don't understand: IQ is as relevant to discussions of climate change as is dick size or shoe size.
Good! The fewer dishonest left wing propagandists we have on Slashdot, the better.
Well, this discussion is quite useful since we have identified one of your problems: you apparently think that a high IQ is a replacement for knowledge, expertise, and insight. It's a common misconception among people with your kind of hubris.
It's not mean if it's true, and I'm afraid in your case, it's true.
I don't see what your problem is. They can predict the gender of the preferred dating partner with surprisingly high accuracy (better than human) based on images alone. That's an interesting result, no matter what the cause. The fact that their images are Caucasian only and that they don't control for other variables doesn't change that.
They then formulate a hypothesis as to the causes of this observation. Proving or disproving that hypothesis requires further experiments. You're welcome to formulate alternative hypotheses. Some of those alternative hypotheses may be less interesting than the hypothesis the authors came up with.
Right now, you're just throwing shit at the paper hoping that something sticks. That makes your criticism "utter garbage", not the paper. I hope you don't work in any scientific discipline.
I hope the web design isn't a preview for their user interface, because it is terrible.
Just a reminder:
That isn't qualified by saying "except for foreign political views the US government doesn't approve of".
The First Amendment is as much a guarantee to be able to receive information freely as it is to speak freely.
So... just like all our other media then?
Many conservative Christians and Catholics explicitly teach that they don't condemn you for feeling attracted to other men ("being gay"), they consider the act of homosexual intercourse itself sinful ("against homosexuality"). It is neither surprising nor inconsistent for the most ardent opponents of homosexual acts to feel homosexual attractions themselves.
So, if you confront someone like that with "our software shows that you are gay", their response isn't going to be "I see the error of my ways and I now approve of gay sex", their response is going to be "now you see what kind of struggle I'm facing daily avoiding the temptation of gay sex, which is why I'm fighting to try to reduce those temptations".
I don't agree with that view, but there is no "gotcha" there.
The training and test samples are probably a 1:1 mix.
That kind of argument shows that a test is useless for large scale screening, but the test still gives you "meaningful information", otherwise we wouldn't be using HIV tests.
Let's try that with some other attribute: "If physical strength correlates highly with physical appearance, then I think this conclusively proves that physical strength is not a "decision."" Nope, sorry, doesn't work.
I also don't see what difference it makes anyway whether sexual orientation is inherited or whether it is a "choice".
Because that's the primary variable AGW activists are trying to control.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough: humans cannot stabilize the climate. Furthermore, humans cannot stabilize the distribution of arable land, and humans cannot stabilize coastlines, because those are constantly changing even in a stable global climate.
The hypothesis has already been tested multiple times by regular volcanoes: even slight decreases in temperature are very costly.
Laziness? People have been looking for alternatives to fossil fuels and for reducing the amount of combustion for as long as we have used fossil fuels. Nuclear fission would have been an excellent and cost-effective alternative, but it was killed through politics and regulations. Solar may become cost-competitive within 1-2 decades (this requires cheaper solar cells and better storage technologies); as soon as it does, it will take over. Until it becomes cost-competitive, you can subsidize and legislate as much as you want to, it won't make any difference.
Well, how does it hurt you to cut your salary in half? That's what completely eliminating fossil fuels would do to everybody on the planet at this point, in the best case. The massive reductions in poverty and hunger across the globe over the past century have been dependent on massive use of cheap energy.
Burning fossil fuels may or may not be a threat to beach front property in Florida a few centuries from now, but it is not a "threat to the one planet we live on".
The only reason the AGW activists have any backing is because left wing politicians are making their careers out of fear mongering and scientifically and economically illiterate idiots like you eat it up.