Why are you calling the changes malware? They serve the useful purpose of preventing the phone from crashing with too much power draw. The fact that they have some negative aspects doesn't make them malware. Consider Meltdown: Intel got maximum performance, but included a major security flaw, which is roughly the reverse.
The battery that isn't easy to replace allows a larger battery inside the case. My iPhone 5S is about 7mm thick, and if a millimeter had to be lost for an easily replaceable battery that would either have reduced battery life significantly or thickened the phone significantly. People seem to buy slimmer phones, so making it thicker wasn't attractive.
Seriously, if your battery is going to need to be changed every three years or so, how easy does it have to be?
This is a trend I have noticed for the last 10 years: Americans have become so ridiculously afraid of literally everything.
The trend dates back at least to September 11, 2001, after which a large number of Americans became afraid of anything that might be terrorism or something like that, to the point of asking that civil rights be suspended to guard against a very unlikely threat.
I don't see how you'd do that. There's a very large number of highly unlikely events that would kill you. If you've got backups, it would be harder, but something could go wrong in the backup process (have you tested restoration?) at the same time cosmic rays affected the control systems of the self-driving vehicle next to you and the ambulance had a mechanical breakdown taking you to the emergency room.
If you make an exact duplicate of me, and then kill the original, I have unbroken memories and other consequences of the past, so for all practical purposes the duplicate is now me. I can prove my identity in any way you like, whether by dental records, fingerprints, or just knowing things. If it isn't an exact duplicate, or you don't kill the original, things get more complicated.
Isaac Asimov wrote that in one of his Fantasy & Science Fiction columns. He wrote a lot of speculative stuff, some that turned out not to be true. In this case, he figured that most mammals are good for about a million heartbeats, but humans can reach four million.
One immediate problem was that he took the maximum typical lifespan for most mammals, but the longest known human life for humans. I don't remember details, but he listed cats as something like 20 years lifespan, and the Guiness world record was about 35 years, and that undoubtedly wasn't based on as large a sample size as the 114-year lifespan he used for humans.
I'm not sure what else is wrong with it. Humans definitely are outliers in lifespan, as well as a few other endurance-related things, but it's not nearly a factor of four.
Speaking as a human, we've cut down the left side of the bathtub for our mortality by a lot. It's still there, but not nearly as pronounced. The right side of the curve is still there. A lot of change in expected lifespan depends on infant mortality.
We know some history. The world has been a lot worse than it is now. Therefore, at least some new generations have been improvements on their predecessors.
Every post you make further proves that you have a very fixed idea of reality, and insist on it. You have not shown that time-bounded reality is worthless.
Assume you're immortal, and let's make the planet immortal also, to simplify things. You would do things you like. You'd become sick of them. You'd do things you don't like, just for variety. You'd monitor art, and it would become mostly the same after a few million years. Eventually, there would be nothing new. I don't want to live that way.
How this works with immortality as described by various religions is left as an exercise to the theologians.
The ability to go into a black hole and move to a previous point on your worldline is, I suspect, not proven. It may be predicted by some current theory, but it's way extrapolating. Parallel Universes are not proven.
Proven math proves nothing in the real world. Mathematics is something we apply to the real world, in ways that have been insanely successful, not part of the real world. If you understand the physics even slightly wrongly, the predictions you make through math will be off to some extent.
Question: have you raised children? Many, perhaps most, parents would sacrifice their lives to save their children. It's probably an evolutionary thing.
Also, time doesn't heal all emotional wounds. Some just last, and people have to live with them.
Thing is, if they find a way for multibillionaires to live to be 200 in reasonably good health, that will eventually trickle down and become less expensive. We'll find cheaper ways to do it, and eventually everybody will have access (one way or another; preferably not armed rebellion).
In the meantime, they'll have to solve quite a few existing problems. If the technology exists for extended lifespans, it exists to cure several things that are wrong with me but not safely fixable with current medicine.
Nope. It may be that nothing we do has any lasting influence on the Universe, but I live in the Universe and I tell you that I make changes to it all the time, just not big changes (like twiddling with fundamental constants).
I don't always want homeopathic treatments, but when I do I buy a jug of distilled water at the grocery store. It's chemically identical to most homeopathic cures.
The link appeared to be making a distinction between chaos theory and something called complex systems, which were unpredictable because they had emergent behavior. Was there something fundamentally more to that, or am I summarizing it more or less correctly? I am saying that emergent behavior can be predicted, in principle, just like chaotic behavior can be. This is not a misunderstanding.
The point of the Florida night-club shooter is that he was known to authorities as a potentially armed and murderous nutcase. Law enforcement couldn't do better than try to keep an eye on him until he broke the law, which he did in a big way, and without law enforcement there to stop him. There are too many possible bad guys for law enforcement to keep tabs on all the time, and that's true no matter how far you scale things up. If someone is a known extreme threat, they'll get more surveillance, but normally not 24/7.
Bookstores and newsstands don't collect information on their customers. If someone working at one of those remembers a face, there's a good chance they won't remember what the customer bought exactly. Libraries destroy all information that concerns borrowers as soon as they can, and they don't keep tabs on who comes in and uses books without checking them out. (Librarians can be surprisingly hard-core.) This means that, to keep track of the books and magazines a suspect has available. they pretty much need to be tailed whenever out. Otherwise, there's a very large number of possibilities, most of which are not likely cataloged electronically.
There's also more traditional means of breaking book ciphers, which I'm not up on.
I think you have it wrong. There are differences between the Ds and the Rs. Both listen better to the big donors than to constituents, in general, but they are different in many ways. Under Bush and Obama, the FCC required NN. That was an awful long time for a rogue committee to operate. Trump shows up and the FCC goes full hostile. The Democrats are identifying themselves with NN, and will stick with it for some time to come.
Assault is a threat of imminent violence. You can't actually do that over computer communications.
Statements like "I'm gonna kill ____" are reasonably common and are not normally considered threats. To be a threat, it has to be some reason to take it seriously. If "I'm going to kill you" is followed by address, workplace, approximate daily schedule, etc., the emoticon isn't going to matter.
Slashdot Mirror
The ACA was a real mess, but there was an attempt to involve Republicans in the process.
Why are you calling the changes malware? They serve the useful purpose of preventing the phone from crashing with too much power draw. The fact that they have some negative aspects doesn't make them malware. Consider Meltdown: Intel got maximum performance, but included a major security flaw, which is roughly the reverse.
The battery that isn't easy to replace allows a larger battery inside the case. My iPhone 5S is about 7mm thick, and if a millimeter had to be lost for an easily replaceable battery that would either have reduced battery life significantly or thickened the phone significantly. People seem to buy slimmer phones, so making it thicker wasn't attractive.
Seriously, if your battery is going to need to be changed every three years or so, how easy does it have to be?
The trend dates back at least to September 11, 2001, after which a large number of Americans became afraid of anything that might be terrorism or something like that, to the point of asking that civil rights be suspended to guard against a very unlikely threat.
The French were handling it (it had been their colony) until Dien Bien Phu, which was well into the Eisenhower administration.
I don't see how you'd do that. There's a very large number of highly unlikely events that would kill you. If you've got backups, it would be harder, but something could go wrong in the backup process (have you tested restoration?) at the same time cosmic rays affected the control systems of the self-driving vehicle next to you and the ambulance had a mechanical breakdown taking you to the emergency room.
If you make an exact duplicate of me, and then kill the original, I have unbroken memories and other consequences of the past, so for all practical purposes the duplicate is now me. I can prove my identity in any way you like, whether by dental records, fingerprints, or just knowing things. If it isn't an exact duplicate, or you don't kill the original, things get more complicated.
Isaac Asimov wrote that in one of his Fantasy & Science Fiction columns. He wrote a lot of speculative stuff, some that turned out not to be true. In this case, he figured that most mammals are good for about a million heartbeats, but humans can reach four million.
One immediate problem was that he took the maximum typical lifespan for most mammals, but the longest known human life for humans. I don't remember details, but he listed cats as something like 20 years lifespan, and the Guiness world record was about 35 years, and that undoubtedly wasn't based on as large a sample size as the 114-year lifespan he used for humans.
I'm not sure what else is wrong with it. Humans definitely are outliers in lifespan, as well as a few other endurance-related things, but it's not nearly a factor of four.
Speaking as a human, we've cut down the left side of the bathtub for our mortality by a lot. It's still there, but not nearly as pronounced. The right side of the curve is still there. A lot of change in expected lifespan depends on infant mortality.
The cloud is highly unlikely to survive the heat death of the Universe. Presto! Death!
We know some history. The world has been a lot worse than it is now. Therefore, at least some new generations have been improvements on their predecessors.
Every post you make further proves that you have a very fixed idea of reality, and insist on it. You have not shown that time-bounded reality is worthless.
Assume you're immortal, and let's make the planet immortal also, to simplify things. You would do things you like. You'd become sick of them. You'd do things you don't like, just for variety. You'd monitor art, and it would become mostly the same after a few million years. Eventually, there would be nothing new. I don't want to live that way.
How this works with immortality as described by various religions is left as an exercise to the theologians.
The ability to go into a black hole and move to a previous point on your worldline is, I suspect, not proven. It may be predicted by some current theory, but it's way extrapolating. Parallel Universes are not proven.
Proven math proves nothing in the real world. Mathematics is something we apply to the real world, in ways that have been insanely successful, not part of the real world. If you understand the physics even slightly wrongly, the predictions you make through math will be off to some extent.
I have a good deal of respect for millennials as a generation, so just as well.
Question: have you raised children? Many, perhaps most, parents would sacrifice their lives to save their children. It's probably an evolutionary thing.
Also, time doesn't heal all emotional wounds. Some just last, and people have to live with them.
Thing is, if they find a way for multibillionaires to live to be 200 in reasonably good health, that will eventually trickle down and become less expensive. We'll find cheaper ways to do it, and eventually everybody will have access (one way or another; preferably not armed rebellion).
In the meantime, they'll have to solve quite a few existing problems. If the technology exists for extended lifespans, it exists to cure several things that are wrong with me but not safely fixable with current medicine.
Nope. It may be that nothing we do has any lasting influence on the Universe, but I live in the Universe and I tell you that I make changes to it all the time, just not big changes (like twiddling with fundamental constants).
This often changes when you form your own family. In particular, many parents will protect their children's lives instead of their own.
I don't always want homeopathic treatments, but when I do I buy a jug of distilled water at the grocery store. It's chemically identical to most homeopathic cures.
The link appeared to be making a distinction between chaos theory and something called complex systems, which were unpredictable because they had emergent behavior. Was there something fundamentally more to that, or am I summarizing it more or less correctly? I am saying that emergent behavior can be predicted, in principle, just like chaotic behavior can be. This is not a misunderstanding.
The point of the Florida night-club shooter is that he was known to authorities as a potentially armed and murderous nutcase. Law enforcement couldn't do better than try to keep an eye on him until he broke the law, which he did in a big way, and without law enforcement there to stop him. There are too many possible bad guys for law enforcement to keep tabs on all the time, and that's true no matter how far you scale things up. If someone is a known extreme threat, they'll get more surveillance, but normally not 24/7.
Bookstores and newsstands don't collect information on their customers. If someone working at one of those remembers a face, there's a good chance they won't remember what the customer bought exactly. Libraries destroy all information that concerns borrowers as soon as they can, and they don't keep tabs on who comes in and uses books without checking them out. (Librarians can be surprisingly hard-core.) This means that, to keep track of the books and magazines a suspect has available. they pretty much need to be tailed whenever out. Otherwise, there's a very large number of possibilities, most of which are not likely cataloged electronically.
There's also more traditional means of breaking book ciphers, which I'm not up on.
I think you have it wrong. There are differences between the Ds and the Rs. Both listen better to the big donors than to constituents, in general, but they are different in many ways. Under Bush and Obama, the FCC required NN. That was an awful long time for a rogue committee to operate. Trump shows up and the FCC goes full hostile. The Democrats are identifying themselves with NN, and will stick with it for some time to come.
Assault is a threat of imminent violence. You can't actually do that over computer communications.
Statements like "I'm gonna kill ____" are reasonably common and are not normally considered threats. To be a threat, it has to be some reason to take it seriously. If "I'm going to kill you" is followed by address, workplace, approximate daily schedule, etc., the emoticon isn't going to matter.
I wanted Obama to come out fully in support of breathing.