Oh boo hoo, so you had it tough growing up. Are you gonna cry about it? or are you gonna try and do something about it? Complaining won't improve your situation, it will only make people resent you.
You think there aren't whites, asians or other ethnicities who've had it hard? There's been plenty of war in europe, serbia a few years ago, ukraine now, eastern europe is fairly impoverished, several countries in the middle east are active warzones right now and countries in asia are or were recently under totalitarian rule. Many people would love to have a stable job where the worst that happens is they get called something.
In the west people have equality of opportunity, and there are many examples of highly successful black people in america and other countries. If you choose not to take advantages of the opportunities available that's entirely your own fault, there are also plenty of extremely poor whites in america who have failed to take advantage of the opportunities available to them - again entirely their own fault.
You have equality of opportunity, but if you want equality of outcome you need to make an effort yourself, you can't expect to have everything handed to you on a plate.
Watching a game is not the primary method by which a game is usually consumed... He is basically advertising the game, not making it available for anyone else to play. He's only making controlled sections of the output of the game available, not the game itself.
A free market is an unattainable dream, just like true communism or true freedom. If people have true freedom then inevitably some will abuse that freedom in order to subjugate others for their own ends.
The purpose of government, and indeed of the GPL is to impose some restrictions in order to ensure a fair system where everyone is guaranteed the same level of freedom. Governments for instance typically don't allow you to go around killing or enslaving people, because in doing so you would be taking away their freedom.
The same is true in a free market, companies would quickly realise that there are greater profits to be had by colluding and merging. You'd end up with one large supplier controlling the entire supply chain and noone else would have the resources to ever compete with them.
All else being equal, a free system would be superior because it wouldn't have the additional overhead of DRM and other such crap. The difference is that there isn't so much investment behind the free options, because companies see more profit to be made by locking their customers in and squeezing them than by offering them a superior product.
One thing to do would be to require phone capacities be advertised based on the space that's actually available for user storage. Ie what's left after the OS and any mandatory crapware has been installed. That would allow users to easily identify that there is a downside to the bundled crapware and hence the reason for the lower price.
Many security cameras require a cloud account for a valid reason... Because of NAT, how else are you going to view your cameras from outside of your home network? The average slashdot reader may be capable of setting up a VPN, but most people aren't, and having cheaply designed devices accessible on internet-routable ips is dangerous too if you dont know what you're doing.
The devices i saw at least made the cloud account optional, you could still access them standalone over a VPN... I've configured such a VPN but also disabled all outbound connectivity from the devices for good measure.
Batteries do reduce in capacity over time, it's an inherent weakness of the current technology which people know and accept. But the fact is tesla sell you the SAME battery, either with or without an artificial restriction imposed on it in software. If indeed the capacity restriction increases the usable life of the battery then those who paid extra to not have this restriction imposed aren't going to be happy with their less reliable (and more expensive) product.
Because several people have dismantled the phones and looked at the internal components. The smaller capacity models contain lower capacity (or in some cases less) flash chips, so apple at least has intentionally manufactured them at a lower capacity using different (cheaper) components to do so.
Except Apple don't charge you extra to disable that function... All ipods and iphones refuse to boot with a low battery. That's a safety/longevity feature. If they charged you extra to circumvent this, then it would be profiteering as it would show they are doing it purely for profit and arent concerned about longevity.
The battery will be a pack of small cells, not a single unit... Even if it's sealed inside a single case, internally it will consist of any number of cells. Producing a pack which contains less cells would provide a lower capacity, while also providing less weight. Or even make the packs modular, so each 60kWh car contains 4x 15kWh battery packs while a 75kWh car contains 5.
Adding more batteries increases the range, but also the weight so you can't keep adding batteries to gain increased range. You'll eventually reach a point where the extra capacity is exceeded by the energy requirement to move the extra weight.
If you receive an upgrade then you (the consumer) benefit from the upgrade and generally won't complain about it (or perhaps you would with a rental car because an upgraded car might consume more fuel). You're not asked to take the upgrade but not make use of any of the upgraded features.
If a CPU failed QA to run at higher speeds but is fully functional at lower speeds or with less cores then it's an inferior, lower quality product and deserves to be sold at a lower price point. If you choose to unlock it, you run the risk that it won't work at all, or won't work reliably. Your unlocked product is still going to be inferior to the higher priced option. If you paid extra for a higher performing CPU then you get a superior product, it may have started out the same but the manufacturing process is not perfect and you're paying to get the top percentage. It's the same with most things, you pay extra for prime meat, extra for the best vegetables etc.
With Tesla you either pay less and carry around dead weight, or pay extra and have higher range but lower reliability and longevity. If they wanted to include some extra buffer in their batteries to improve service life that's fine, but then the higher capacity version should also include this buffer too.
They should have included a smaller battery for users buying the cheaper model... Or they could even make the battery modular (which it probably is internally) then you could just not fix all the cells and leave some of the slots empty.
You're getting extra unnecessary weight to carry around, which will reduce your battery life. Those who paid extra for the higher capacity are getting a less reliable product with an inferior lifespan.
If they wanted to offer an over specced but artificially limited battery in order to improve reliability then those paying extra for higher capacity should receive similar levels of reliability.
The more expensive model has to be sold at an even higher cost to subsidise the cheaper model... If they weren't doing this, then the expensive model could be cheaper. You'd end up with just a single model that sits between the price points of the current models.
This could be true if the product was offered as-is, however they are also trying to sell you the extra 10%. SSD manufacturers don't offer to sell you an extra 10% capacity for extra cost, foregoing the reliability benefits of the spare 10%. If they sell you a larger version at a higher cost is *still* has its own 10% margin.
And people will tune and further mod their cars to get better performance out of them, often exceeding the highest spec version offered by the manufacturer. In most cases i've seen however, not all components were equal - you might have the same base engine, but the higher spec version comes with forced induction equipment for instance. Plus other components of the vehicle might be upgraded to handle the greater power, eg drivetrain or brakes etc. I know with my car the lower model lacks not only the supercharger, but also the upgraded brakes and wider wheels so i felt i at least got something for the extra cost.
Tesla chose to sell them at that cost, noone forced them to. They could have made cheaper, smaller (and therefore lighter) batteries available instead. Why should customers be forced to have an artificially crippled product, dragging around extra dead weight of artificially disabled battery cells?
Well clearly the AV isn't going to contain a whitelist of known government backdoors... AV works on a blacklist approach of known malware, the government tools simply wouldn't be included in the blacklist, which is also far more deniable.
And yes while they do track nation state actors, they are tracking foreign ones, not their own governments.
Well not just antivirus vendors, but pretty much all vendors are in bed with their respective governments...
Of course by shining the light on kaspersky, the us government is shooting themselves in the foot very badly. The us exports far more tech products than the russians do, so by pointing out that russian vendors are in bed with the government they are shining the light on the fact that us based vendors will also be in bed with the government. And of course it's not the russian government that's suffered serious leaks recently demonstrating their spying and offensive hacking operations. Assuming the russians are doing the same thing, they are clearly better at hiding it at least.
Cities today are more densely populated, and the population is no longer prepared for being bombed (people no longer have bomb shelters in their back yards for example)... Plus the authorities today are being more cautious than truly necessary, whereas during a time of war they would have had other priorities.
If they had a way to detect explosives from the air, they would be flying planes looking for active terrorist cells rather than unexploded WW2 bombs... They also wouldn't publicise the fact they had such technology, as it would cause those active terrorist cells to devise new ways to hide their explosives.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh boo hoo, so you had it tough growing up.
Are you gonna cry about it? or are you gonna try and do something about it? Complaining won't improve your situation, it will only make people resent you.
You think there aren't whites, asians or other ethnicities who've had it hard? There's been plenty of war in europe, serbia a few years ago, ukraine now, eastern europe is fairly impoverished, several countries in the middle east are active warzones right now and countries in asia are or were recently under totalitarian rule. Many people would love to have a stable job where the worst that happens is they get called something.
In the west people have equality of opportunity, and there are many examples of highly successful black people in america and other countries. If you choose not to take advantages of the opportunities available that's entirely your own fault, there are also plenty of extremely poor whites in america who have failed to take advantage of the opportunities available to them - again entirely their own fault.
You have equality of opportunity, but if you want equality of outcome you need to make an effort yourself, you can't expect to have everything handed to you on a plate.
Watching a game is not the primary method by which a game is usually consumed... He is basically advertising the game, not making it available for anyone else to play.
He's only making controlled sections of the output of the game available, not the game itself.
No mouse means any serious amount of typing is going to be awful.
You type using a mouse? I'd rather have a keyboard, and iOS supports bluetooth keyboards just fine.
A free market is an unattainable dream, just like true communism or true freedom.
If people have true freedom then inevitably some will abuse that freedom in order to subjugate others for their own ends.
The purpose of government, and indeed of the GPL is to impose some restrictions in order to ensure a fair system where everyone is guaranteed the same level of freedom. Governments for instance typically don't allow you to go around killing or enslaving people, because in doing so you would be taking away their freedom.
The same is true in a free market, companies would quickly realise that there are greater profits to be had by colluding and merging. You'd end up with one large supplier controlling the entire supply chain and noone else would have the resources to ever compete with them.
All else being equal, a free system would be superior because it wouldn't have the additional overhead of DRM and other such crap.
The difference is that there isn't so much investment behind the free options, because companies see more profit to be made by locking their customers in and squeezing them than by offering them a superior product.
One thing to do would be to require phone capacities be advertised based on the space that's actually available for user storage. Ie what's left after the OS and any mandatory crapware has been installed. That would allow users to easily identify that there is a downside to the bundled crapware and hence the reason for the lower price.
Many security cameras require a cloud account for a valid reason... Because of NAT, how else are you going to view your cameras from outside of your home network?
The average slashdot reader may be capable of setting up a VPN, but most people aren't, and having cheaply designed devices accessible on internet-routable ips is dangerous too if you dont know what you're doing.
The devices i saw at least made the cloud account optional, you could still access them standalone over a VPN... I've configured such a VPN but also disabled all outbound connectivity from the devices for good measure.
Batteries do reduce in capacity over time, it's an inherent weakness of the current technology which people know and accept.
But the fact is tesla sell you the SAME battery, either with or without an artificial restriction imposed on it in software. If indeed the capacity restriction increases the usable life of the battery then those who paid extra to not have this restriction imposed aren't going to be happy with their less reliable (and more expensive) product.
Because several people have dismantled the phones and looked at the internal components. The smaller capacity models contain lower capacity (or in some cases less) flash chips, so apple at least has intentionally manufactured them at a lower capacity using different (cheaper) components to do so.
Except Apple don't charge you extra to disable that function...
All ipods and iphones refuse to boot with a low battery. That's a safety/longevity feature.
If they charged you extra to circumvent this, then it would be profiteering as it would show they are doing it purely for profit and arent concerned about longevity.
The battery will be a pack of small cells, not a single unit... Even if it's sealed inside a single case, internally it will consist of any number of cells.
Producing a pack which contains less cells would provide a lower capacity, while also providing less weight. Or even make the packs modular, so each 60kWh car contains 4x 15kWh battery packs while a 75kWh car contains 5.
Adding more batteries increases the range, but also the weight so you can't keep adding batteries to gain increased range. You'll eventually reach a point where the extra capacity is exceeded by the energy requirement to move the extra weight.
If you receive an upgrade then you (the consumer) benefit from the upgrade and generally won't complain about it (or perhaps you would with a rental car because an upgraded car might consume more fuel).
You're not asked to take the upgrade but not make use of any of the upgraded features.
If a CPU failed QA to run at higher speeds but is fully functional at lower speeds or with less cores then it's an inferior, lower quality product and deserves to be sold at a lower price point.
If you choose to unlock it, you run the risk that it won't work at all, or won't work reliably. Your unlocked product is still going to be inferior to the higher priced option.
If you paid extra for a higher performing CPU then you get a superior product, it may have started out the same but the manufacturing process is not perfect and you're paying to get the top percentage. It's the same with most things, you pay extra for prime meat, extra for the best vegetables etc.
With Tesla you either pay less and carry around dead weight, or pay extra and have higher range but lower reliability and longevity. If they wanted to include some extra buffer in their batteries to improve service life that's fine, but then the higher capacity version should also include this buffer too.
They should have included a smaller battery for users buying the cheaper model... Or they could even make the battery modular (which it probably is internally) then you could just not fix all the cells and leave some of the slots empty.
You're getting extra unnecessary weight to carry around, which will reduce your battery life.
Those who paid extra for the higher capacity are getting a less reliable product with an inferior lifespan.
If they wanted to offer an over specced but artificially limited battery in order to improve reliability then those paying extra for higher capacity should receive similar levels of reliability.
So if you paid extra for the higher capacity battery version, you would be getting screwed with a less reliable product instead?
The more expensive model has to be sold at an even higher cost to subsidise the cheaper model...
If they weren't doing this, then the expensive model could be cheaper. You'd end up with just a single model that sits between the price points of the current models.
This could be true if the product was offered as-is, however they are also trying to sell you the extra 10%.
SSD manufacturers don't offer to sell you an extra 10% capacity for extra cost, foregoing the reliability benefits of the spare 10%. If they sell you a larger version at a higher cost is *still* has its own 10% margin.
And people will tune and further mod their cars to get better performance out of them, often exceeding the highest spec version offered by the manufacturer.
In most cases i've seen however, not all components were equal - you might have the same base engine, but the higher spec version comes with forced induction equipment for instance. Plus other components of the vehicle might be upgraded to handle the greater power, eg drivetrain or brakes etc. I know with my car the lower model lacks not only the supercharger, but also the upgraded brakes and wider wheels so i felt i at least got something for the extra cost.
Tesla chose to sell them at that cost, noone forced them to.
They could have made cheaper, smaller (and therefore lighter) batteries available instead.
Why should customers be forced to have an artificially crippled product, dragging around extra dead weight of artificially disabled battery cells?
You keep it in your pocket at all times, which is why a 20 day battery life is useful as people will forget to charge it.
The images came from a dating site, it's highly unlikely that someone who is straight would sign up for gay dating...
Well clearly the AV isn't going to contain a whitelist of known government backdoors...
AV works on a blacklist approach of known malware, the government tools simply wouldn't be included in the blacklist, which is also far more deniable.
And yes while they do track nation state actors, they are tracking foreign ones, not their own governments.
Well not just antivirus vendors, but pretty much all vendors are in bed with their respective governments...
Of course by shining the light on kaspersky, the us government is shooting themselves in the foot very badly. The us exports far more tech products than the russians do, so by pointing out that russian vendors are in bed with the government they are shining the light on the fact that us based vendors will also be in bed with the government.
And of course it's not the russian government that's suffered serious leaks recently demonstrating their spying and offensive hacking operations. Assuming the russians are doing the same thing, they are clearly better at hiding it at least.
Cities today are more densely populated, and the population is no longer prepared for being bombed (people no longer have bomb shelters in their back yards for example)... Plus the authorities today are being more cautious than truly necessary, whereas during a time of war they would have had other priorities.
If they had a way to detect explosives from the air, they would be flying planes looking for active terrorist cells rather than unexploded WW2 bombs...
They also wouldn't publicise the fact they had such technology, as it would cause those active terrorist cells to devise new ways to hide their explosives.