Control Data computers, in the old days, had the boot program entered by switches. These were usually set once and never touched again. A really nasty thing to do was to flip some of the switches and crash the system, and see how long it took the operators to think to look.
In other words, you want government control over private enterprise, and you don't believe in contracts. Either that, or you're just a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer.
You can't buy a bad iPhone. Apple doesn't make them. There's value in getting something you know is good, as opposed to something that might be good.
frankly that's still plenty for most people (32GB)
First, you don't know that. Lots of people deliberately buy phones with more storage. That's money spent that doesn't improve the phone in any other way, and confers no additional status (if you think phones are status symbols). Obviously, they're not satisfied with 32GB, and it isn't plenty for them. There are also people inconvenienced by the storage limit who don't buy the extra storage.
Second, something that's applicable to "most people" isn't applicable to all people. Obviously, a $1K phone isn't appropriate for all people, so the question is whether it can be worth it to some people. Generalizing about "most people" completely misses the point.
You're missing the point entirely. Different people have different wants. Different people find different things easier or more pleasant to use. Different people have different finances.
That $800 difference, spread over two years, is a bit over a dollar a day, and lots of people find it worth their while to spend over two dollars a day to make their days a little nicer. If the $1K phone is a bit nicer than the $200 phone, that's worth it for a lot of people.
And some of us buy iPhones because they do what we want, and do it very nicely. An iPhone isn't a status symbol, if it ever was. It's not a good thing to buy to try to be one-up on people, since the things are generally affordable to people with below average incomes. I've never seen someone showing off a phone as a status symbol, unlike, say, cars.
It's similarly wrong to talk about an item costing $X or Y% per unit; it's more instructive to price it per use. A $1K phone, held for two years, is under a dollar a day, and is used multiple times a day. If you buy something unnecessary for $1, and use it once, you're more of a spendthrift than if you buy the expensive phone.
Why do people pay multiple hundreds of dollars for the latest pairs of sneakers, when a $60 pair of New Balance tennis shoes is most likely every bit as good?
Actually, the $60 New Balance shoes aren't just as good for my feet. I have unusual foot problems, and I spent a long time looking for shoes that I could walk in without pain, and arrived at New Balance SL-2 shoes, which cost closer to $200.
Different people have different needs, something that a lot of people commenting on this article don't seem to realize.
I agree that, functionally speaking, a 400$ smartphone isn't much different than a 1000$ one,
How much experience do you have with $1K smartphones? How do you use your phone: do you do pretty much everything that most people do (say, every activity that 5% of smartphone users do)? If you've never used a $1K and a $400 smartphone for a very large variety of things, you're expressing an opinion without real knowledge. They might do pretty much the same sorts of things, but the more expensive phone might do them better, or be easier to use.
If you have an apartment bigger than a studio (if you live alone), a car that costs over $25K new, get your books at the library, watch only broadcast TV and go to no movies, have no hobbies you spend noticeable amounts of money on, never eat at restaurants, etc., you have some claim to say what you said. If not, you're being hypocritical.
How is your laptop for phone conversations? How well does it fit into one of your pockets? I suspect we're comparing oranges and watermelon here.
If your $200 phone does what you want, great. It doesn't mean it will do what everyone else wants. It doesn't mean everyone will think it does their own individual jobs just as well. It means you're saying you don't want an expensive phone, which is fine, and saying that nobody should buy one, which isn't.
What you're saying is that lots of people are bad at managing money so...so what? What does that have to do with whether a $1K phone is too expensive, or for that matter whether a $7 lunch is too expensive, or whether a $33K car is too expensive?
Sure, a $2400 lens can last a lifetime. How often will you be using it for that lifetime? I tend to keep my iPhones for three years or more, and use them multiple times a day. $1000 over three years is less than a dollar a day, or a dime or less per use. Lots of people will spend over $4K extra for a car they like better than the cheaper one, and keep it for only ten years, and that's more expensive. Lots of people spend more than a dollar a day on coffee, or on lunches when they could bring leftovers from home.
I'm not at all sure that I really want an iPhone X, but if it's something I'd really like I wouldn't let the price stop me.
Being beaten senseless is something you can notice (temporarily, anyway). Are you saying that pirates beat copyright holders senseless? If not, it doesn't answer my question. Insulting me doesn't either.
It looks like you can't answer my question, so here it is again. If I either pirate a movie or don't watch it, what is the difference of the choice that the copyright holder can notice?
In other words, the settlers overthrew the legitimate government of the place they were in, turned it over to the US, and because of that the US and settlers think they own the place.
If a disease is limited to humans, yes, we've demonstrated the ability to inoculate pretty much the entire human race so that smallpox and polio are no more. However, if a disease has the ability to mutate to avoid inoculations (like influenza) or has animal vectors, those techniques won't work.
I suspect that people who are against all GMOs don't know what they're talking about. This is also true about people who are for all GMOs.
Farmers buy GMO seed and plant it. It's been tested, and will produce useful crops. It's always possible that something will go wrong, but that could be handled by destroying the crops in a limited area, without much other harm. Harmful mutations will be limited.
If someone releases GMO mosquitoes or bacteria, we're much less sure of what might happen. The mosquitoes or bacteria might mutate in ways they otherwise wouldn't have. There may be harmful environmental consequences, since we're not releasing them into a monoculture of limited size. If everything works as intended, this isn't a problem. If something goes wrong (and many more things can go wrong than with GMO crops) how do we get rid of the mosquitoes or bacteria?
Firewalls should by default assume applications executed by the user are valid since UAC is specifically designed to handle this.
Assuming the application has been compromised, the user will allow execution through UAC (if needed) because the user wants to run the program and thinks it's OK, and then the firewall assumes that, since the user launched a program without knowing it's been compromised, and lets all the packets through.
How many PCs are behind an external firewall? It may be that they should, but every time I've set up a router at home that had firewall capability, that capability was in the "advanced" section, and the average person would never see it.
Thing is, users will predictably do some things. Calling it "user stupidity" is only a way to try to duck the blame. Microsoft makes software that is intended to be run by humans, not any other form of intelligent life. Most of these humans have used Windows, and have acquired habits that tend to work on Windows. So, Microsoft managed to train these humans to ignore warnings somehow, and they're completely blameless?
It isn't the fault of the human race that we're human. It isn't the fault of humanity if a certain UI doesn't work with humans, or tends to form a habit that degrades security. It's the fault of those designing the UI. Similarly, Communism would be an excellent economic system for various forms of intelligent life I can imagine, but we all know how bad it is when applied to humans.
What BLM wants is basically for the existing laws to be enforced. The perception is that a police officer can kill a black person at will and get off without serious punishment. There have been plenty of highly visible examples, although I don't know how the stats actually work out.
This is complicated because the lack of enforcement is within the justice system, for the most part. Grand juries did not indict in some egregious cases. Juries tend to find the police not guilty, no matter what the circumstances. BLM wants this to change.
(This is why I'm not keen on jury nullification. It can really easily turn into a system of oppression for a disfavored group, when crimes against that group go unpunished.)
In this country, a jury trial is necessary to convict someone of a serious crime, and so this is going to be a matter of changing how juries think. BLM therefore needs publicity, preferably not of the violent kind, and the NFL protest is an excellent way to do it from their point of view. They also need to publicize every Tamir Rice or Philandro Castile case, to get people thinking that the outcomes may be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Control Data computers, in the old days, had the boot program entered by switches. These were usually set once and never touched again. A really nasty thing to do was to flip some of the switches and crash the system, and see how long it took the operators to think to look.
In other words, you want government control over private enterprise, and you don't believe in contracts. Either that, or you're just a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer.
You can't buy a bad iPhone. Apple doesn't make them. There's value in getting something you know is good, as opposed to something that might be good.
First, you don't know that. Lots of people deliberately buy phones with more storage. That's money spent that doesn't improve the phone in any other way, and confers no additional status (if you think phones are status symbols). Obviously, they're not satisfied with 32GB, and it isn't plenty for them. There are also people inconvenienced by the storage limit who don't buy the extra storage.
Second, something that's applicable to "most people" isn't applicable to all people. Obviously, a $1K phone isn't appropriate for all people, so the question is whether it can be worth it to some people. Generalizing about "most people" completely misses the point.
You're missing the point entirely. Different people have different wants. Different people find different things easier or more pleasant to use. Different people have different finances.
That $800 difference, spread over two years, is a bit over a dollar a day, and lots of people find it worth their while to spend over two dollars a day to make their days a little nicer. If the $1K phone is a bit nicer than the $200 phone, that's worth it for a lot of people.
And some of us buy iPhones because they do what we want, and do it very nicely. An iPhone isn't a status symbol, if it ever was. It's not a good thing to buy to try to be one-up on people, since the things are generally affordable to people with below average incomes. I've never seen someone showing off a phone as a status symbol, unlike, say, cars.
It's similarly wrong to talk about an item costing $X or Y% per unit; it's more instructive to price it per use. A $1K phone, held for two years, is under a dollar a day, and is used multiple times a day. If you buy something unnecessary for $1, and use it once, you're more of a spendthrift than if you buy the expensive phone.
Actually, the $60 New Balance shoes aren't just as good for my feet. I have unusual foot problems, and I spent a long time looking for shoes that I could walk in without pain, and arrived at New Balance SL-2 shoes, which cost closer to $200.
Different people have different needs, something that a lot of people commenting on this article don't seem to realize.
How much experience do you have with $1K smartphones? How do you use your phone: do you do pretty much everything that most people do (say, every activity that 5% of smartphone users do)? If you've never used a $1K and a $400 smartphone for a very large variety of things, you're expressing an opinion without real knowledge. They might do pretty much the same sorts of things, but the more expensive phone might do them better, or be easier to use.
If you have an apartment bigger than a studio (if you live alone), a car that costs over $25K new, get your books at the library, watch only broadcast TV and go to no movies, have no hobbies you spend noticeable amounts of money on, never eat at restaurants, etc., you have some claim to say what you said. If not, you're being hypocritical.
I find them harder to fit in my shirt pocket, to be honest, which means I'm very often at one place and my laptop and desktop at another place.
Strange...nobody's made fun of my 5S.
How is your laptop for phone conversations? How well does it fit into one of your pockets? I suspect we're comparing oranges and watermelon here.
If your $200 phone does what you want, great. It doesn't mean it will do what everyone else wants. It doesn't mean everyone will think it does their own individual jobs just as well. It means you're saying you don't want an expensive phone, which is fine, and saying that nobody should buy one, which isn't.
Are we talking about the iPhone in general, or the iPhone X? You can get an 8 or 8-plus for a lot under $1K.
What you're saying is that lots of people are bad at managing money so...so what? What does that have to do with whether a $1K phone is too expensive, or for that matter whether a $7 lunch is too expensive, or whether a $33K car is too expensive?
Sure, a $2400 lens can last a lifetime. How often will you be using it for that lifetime? I tend to keep my iPhones for three years or more, and use them multiple times a day. $1000 over three years is less than a dollar a day, or a dime or less per use. Lots of people will spend over $4K extra for a car they like better than the cheaper one, and keep it for only ten years, and that's more expensive. Lots of people spend more than a dollar a day on coffee, or on lunches when they could bring leftovers from home.
I'm not at all sure that I really want an iPhone X, but if it's something I'd really like I wouldn't let the price stop me.
Being beaten senseless is something you can notice (temporarily, anyway). Are you saying that pirates beat copyright holders senseless? If not, it doesn't answer my question. Insulting me doesn't either.
It looks like you can't answer my question, so here it is again. If I either pirate a movie or don't watch it, what is the difference of the choice that the copyright holder can notice?
In other words, the settlers overthrew the legitimate government of the place they were in, turned it over to the US, and because of that the US and settlers think they own the place.
If a disease is limited to humans, yes, we've demonstrated the ability to inoculate pretty much the entire human race so that smallpox and polio are no more. However, if a disease has the ability to mutate to avoid inoculations (like influenza) or has animal vectors, those techniques won't work.
I suspect that people who are against all GMOs don't know what they're talking about. This is also true about people who are for all GMOs.
Farmers buy GMO seed and plant it. It's been tested, and will produce useful crops. It's always possible that something will go wrong, but that could be handled by destroying the crops in a limited area, without much other harm. Harmful mutations will be limited.
If someone releases GMO mosquitoes or bacteria, we're much less sure of what might happen. The mosquitoes or bacteria might mutate in ways they otherwise wouldn't have. There may be harmful environmental consequences, since we're not releasing them into a monoculture of limited size. If everything works as intended, this isn't a problem. If something goes wrong (and many more things can go wrong than with GMO crops) how do we get rid of the mosquitoes or bacteria?
Assuming the application has been compromised, the user will allow execution through UAC (if needed) because the user wants to run the program and thinks it's OK, and then the firewall assumes that, since the user launched a program without knowing it's been compromised, and lets all the packets through.
How many PCs are behind an external firewall? It may be that they should, but every time I've set up a router at home that had firewall capability, that capability was in the "advanced" section, and the average person would never see it.
Thing is, users will predictably do some things. Calling it "user stupidity" is only a way to try to duck the blame. Microsoft makes software that is intended to be run by humans, not any other form of intelligent life. Most of these humans have used Windows, and have acquired habits that tend to work on Windows. So, Microsoft managed to train these humans to ignore warnings somehow, and they're completely blameless?
It isn't the fault of the human race that we're human. It isn't the fault of humanity if a certain UI doesn't work with humans, or tends to form a habit that degrades security. It's the fault of those designing the UI. Similarly, Communism would be an excellent economic system for various forms of intelligent life I can imagine, but we all know how bad it is when applied to humans.
Indo-European is a language family, which Egyptian of whatever period doesn't belong to. How do you label DNA as Indo-European?
"Slavery" doesn't have a single meaning. Some systems weren't all that harsh, some were horrifying.
They even get free bullets, courtesy of the local police departments.
What BLM wants is basically for the existing laws to be enforced. The perception is that a police officer can kill a black person at will and get off without serious punishment. There have been plenty of highly visible examples, although I don't know how the stats actually work out.
This is complicated because the lack of enforcement is within the justice system, for the most part. Grand juries did not indict in some egregious cases. Juries tend to find the police not guilty, no matter what the circumstances. BLM wants this to change.
(This is why I'm not keen on jury nullification. It can really easily turn into a system of oppression for a disfavored group, when crimes against that group go unpunished.)
In this country, a jury trial is necessary to convict someone of a serious crime, and so this is going to be a matter of changing how juries think. BLM therefore needs publicity, preferably not of the violent kind, and the NFL protest is an excellent way to do it from their point of view. They also need to publicize every Tamir Rice or Philandro Castile case, to get people thinking that the outcomes may be wrong.