Mayer wasn't a raider CEO and she didn't try to pump up short term valuation. Quite the opposite, she tried to find some way to build real value in what was clearly a moribund company. I'm not saying she did a good job -- it's entirely possible that a good CEO could have found a way to preserve and grow Yahoo.
I think Mayer got distracted being a member of the SI valley glitterati and doing appearances on women's talk shows.
That said the real problem was GREED. The way to 'save' yahoo was probable to accept that there was no direct path back to the glory days. The had some good performant properties like flickr and tumblr. Things like maps and mail could still probably make enough page views to justify the operation. They should have dumped/sold off the rest and been a smaller company with a strong brand and little dry powder in the bank to ready to buy a startup property that made some sense when the saw it. Investors would never all that though. They'd demand any capital raised from sales be returned as dividends and would sell their shares at the mention of even a short term organic growth strategy. So in a real sense Mayer's hands were tied, but hubris probably would have driven her to try and play miracle worker anyway; hence Alibaba
Isn't that what people were trying to avoid using Yahoo mail?
The only real way to deal with it if you care that much about it is to own a domain. You don't necessarily have to host your own mail provided you have the capability and will to backup the mailboxes you care about if you have to move providers. There are plenty of people like Google or Microsoft who will host your mail. As long as you control the domain though you retain the capability to take your business elsewhere.
Otherwise you are tied to mail provider and your going to take the ride thru their M&As and bone headed UI experiments, or other misbehavior.
"gender nonconformity" is a little girl who like to play with toy firetrucks, or a teenage boy who wants to be on the cheer squad, or college women that want to play football. There nothing wrong with any of those things.
There is something wrong when it moves from "i like doing things more typically associated with the other gender" to "I think I really am a..." and there is no present chromosomal abnormality. What could be more distressing than thinking you are in the wrong body, and being willing to take all sorts of hormones and other treatments that have down right nasty side effects is solid proof of that distress nobody would do that unless they thought they *needed* it. Given the need is imagined in all but the most unusual cases yes they have a disorder, even by DSM language.
DSM by the way seems to subject to a lot of political pressure and moods of the day. DSM4 had very different language on gay and transgender issues and there has been little in the way of advances in physical science on the issue since that was published.
You claim of bigotry might have wide support but where is your scientific evidence. Its been almost 30 years now since the human genome project, not gay gene. It could be environmental or developmental. When U Oregon was having some success 'curing' 'gay rams' LGBT activists jumped all over the research fearing what that could mean for people.
This is not at all like race where you are born with certain physical characteristics that result from your genetic makeup. Right now there is actually very little evidence to suggest that homosexuality isn't a choice or isn't simply a chemical or hormonal issue that could be altered with medication. Actually the only evidence I am aware of is that 'conversion therapy' does not seem to work. Considering all the 'conversion therapy' has been mostly based on unscientific ideas, carried out by poorly qualified practitioners that is not really surprising. I would not expect those groups to have a high degree of success treating any other mental illness either.
That is because it impacts the material value or use of the asset. If for example you take a later walkthru after making an offer and go, you know I did not realize that wallpaper upstairs was blue, It looked green in the afternoon light the other day. You would find yourself threatened with breach of contract.
I am incline to argue in the case of yahoo here that security isn't important! Really how many users are going to leave Y-mail because of the breaches? How many are going to stop using yahoo.com as their homepage? Probably some number damn near zero. Yahoo has not been interesting in more than decade. The people who are still there are either fiercely loyal, profoundly ignorant, or literally incapable of going anywhere else for some reason. In short his user base is the kind that gives markets wet dreams! Yahoo isn't worth any less than it was before the breaches. Don't get me wrong I wish it were not true but the reality is that is the state of things with a the band of users they attract.
China has chosen a system where they have total central control over the population, media and economy.
Whoa choose? You mean a gang of violent oppressors kicked out a lawful elected government by the people the ROC, don't you? China chose the PRC in the same way you might choose to hand your wallet to someone pointing a gun at your head!
I would like to understand from Tim Cook why he feels privacy rights need to protected even in the case of terror investigation (I agree they do) but access to information and a free and independent press does not require protection?
Is he simply a legalist, we have laws like the 4th amendment here in the US that protect privacy, but China has no laws preventing the government from acting as a censor so it is fine? There are valid philosophical cases to be made on those lines but I did not hear that rhetoric from him around the time of San Bernardino.
Maybe he is a racist or a nationalist an Chinese people are simply less deserving of basic rights in his opinion?
Maybe his only real guiding principle is money and he simply says and does whatever the situation demands in order to make more of it?
Really though I don't want to dump on Tim Cook and Apple, I could ask the same questions and more of just about every company, and individual that does business in main land China. I think as Americans we need to be asking ourselves some hard questions about why we have been willing to prop up and do business with a nasty, oppressive, lawless, violent communist regime for the past 60+ years?
I think we need to ask not why we have a one China policy but why that one China is not the one with its capital in Taipei! As a citizen of the US I am damn tired about hearing about how great our role in the world is why we sit by and not only tolerate but enable the very worst actors! You can't claim to support freedom and human rights while shoveling money into the coffers of Communists and Islamists.
Exactly, just because you are doing science does mean you abandon common sense. Most would call me a climate skeptic, but even I will admit there has been a warming trend over the period we have been taking actual measurements. Its not credible to assume a massive conspiracy exists to distort measurements. When the was suggestion of such it was investigated and debunked.
I also know based on other day to day encounters with the observable universe that at least on the atomic/chemical scale I occupy thermodynamics is a reality. Finally I know trends are well trends, they continue unless there is a reason for them them to not continue. So when someone argues there as a been a pause in the warming trend the correct response is actually skepticism. A pause would be caused by something, so there are two possibilities we don't know the cause of the pause or the measurements are not correct. Since the measurement methodology was changed that should be the FIRST place we look. Here the interesting thing isn't the absolute values but the deltas. Allowing for some noise in the older measurements we see similar deltas in the data gather in the new measurements, the correct conclusion is the older absolute values are off but the deltas are probably still accurate.
Think of this way, you have two thermometers in a room, one reads 68F the other 70F you turn the heat on and observe the readings again 30min later. The first now reads 70F the second now reads 72F. You can be pretty certain the room is 2F warmer than before, you might guess the actual temperature is 71F but your confidence in that should be low.
There is a reasonable debate to be had about: 1) Are human activities the primary driver of climate change or are other factors playing a more significant role 2) Are these changes really outside the normal range our planet and ecosystem have experienced in the past 2a) if no, is the rate of change outside the normal range 3) Is this a good or bad thing, in terms of our own best interest? 3a) how do you define 'our'
Those are the real questions where climate change is concerned, not that it has changed since the start of the industrial era or that it is changing.
Right an what is more likely? A sensor on a mostly passive buoy reads cold or sensor on a ship with people, heaters, engines, and everything else near by reads hot?
Well Apple has been on brink of oblivion before and come back. However this time there visionary founder won't be returning to help them, should that situation arise.
The thing is it won't happen though. Apple isn't RIM. Like M$ they have so much cash they don't actually need to make anything. Apple could decide to stop selling computers, software, phones, and tablets and simply reinvent it self as a hedge fund and continue forever.
Actually that might be the smartest move. You stand to benefit from a lot more diversity in the market place than by making any group of products yourself. Once you amass the kind of reserves Apples got its probably less risky to simply declare yourself the winner and exit stage left.
The not so subtle suggestion you think a large portion of your patrons are no good criminals or ignorant boobs that need to be lectured at over and over again does not make them want to cooperate or cause them to embrace your way of thinking?
Wow I am totally shocked! Maybe if they were a little less in your face about it, did not threaten you jail they'd get more buy in. That and they need to stop pushing the obviously false equivalence with physical theft. Only the most radical intellectual property proponents consider that remotely equivalent. They'd find a lot more allies among the general public if they stopped clutching the pearls quite so hard. Many people myself included agree we need some copyright and intellectual property protections. Where we don't and won't agree is that it has to be FOREVER or that we need armed FBI shock troops kicking in doors and shooting peoples dogs because they copied a DVD once. Which I realize does not happen in minor cases like that but you'd sure imagine that it does after watching some of those piracy warnings and propaganda shorts they put in front of movies now.
I don't know about others but the response those things engender in me is, "These guys are nasty bullies, I don't like bullies so I don't care what happens to them, best of luck to pirates." Which is a simplistic, non intellectual response that when I sit down and think about the issues careful I realize isn't really right, but they are making an emotional appeal and so they trigger an emotional reaction; just not the one they want.
kaby Lake desktop is effectively Sandy Bridge polished to within an inch of its life, a once-groundbreaking CPU architecture hacked, and tweaked, and mangled into ever smaller manufacturing processes and power envelopes.
Disasters like Netburst aside, is this not the usual pattern.
1) Invest millions in designing a new architecture. Incorporating everything learned about CPU design in the past, try and open as big advantage over your nearest competitors as possible. 2) profit. 3) Make minor revisions to protect your advantage and create an excuse for the high performance market where your biggest margins are to buy new parts 4) profit some more, and with greater margin 5)... repeat as long as competition / existing design allows. *a) start work on something new leak vapor specs etc to slow adoptions of anyone elses parts *b) release next big thing *c) return to 1)
According to FB's own rules that photo probably should be censored.
Unless you subscribe to the SCOTUS "you know it when you see it standard" its pretty explicit.
I am torn over this issue. As a conservative, I do think the prevalence of pornography and the accessibility of these images is harmful to society on the whole. The image in question is certainly an example of something that makes a profound and worth while statement, which I am not sure it could be made as effectively without the explicit content.
I think we need a better way to classify what is porn, but I also think we need to protect freedom of expression in terms of art and speech. I don't know what the answer is, I just keep looking for something better than current status quo.
. China actually has decent environmental protections but the problem is that they are not enforced
protections that are not enforced are NOT PROTECTIONS. They are laws designed to make people the government does not like, for example someone running a competitor to a state owned business subject to enforcement while the state run operation is not. Its about picking winners and losers and more generally cronyism, not environmentalism.
Poorly/Selectively/Arbitrarily enforced laws are the worst kinds of laws. They are among the greatest threats to liberty, democracy, and fairness, granted that isn't much concern in China. It is a concern that you point at these efforts as laudable when they are not. It gives an impression we should look to China for how to do things when we should be looking at it as an example of how NOT to do things.
WRONG - It takes a supply and demand to make a market. China's willingness to supply cheap labor and low cost manufacturing by dispensing with many pollution controls we would require here in the US, is as much what causes China to produce so much pollution as our demand for products.
The Chinese, at least the illegitimate PRC (the ROC is the legitimate government of China IMHO) isn't stupid. They know exactly what they are doing and the consequences of their actions.
The general public needs to learn that downloading stuff from unverified 3rd party sources is going to get you infected sooner or later.
Why because situations like a TV where proper sandboxing should basically be a trivial to do isn't. Sure there will be sandbox escapes and such due to bugs in the VM but that should be THE ONLY way on a smart TV. There is no good reasons 'apps' should be allowed to run unmanned code, and there is not reason they need to share data with any other apps on a TV. Its not like my phone where I need to be able to copy a number from an e-mail to my address book app. The unsafe data inputs vector should be almost non-existent. If things like buffer overflows are happening that is just as silly as it should all be running on Androids VM.
this is why Apple's walled garden with locked-down devices may be better for your typical user
No its not better for the user. Its better for the large manufacturers and software shops. Its about the most anti freedom thing you could possibly do. Here we are in 2016 where the opportunity for anyone to learn program (books were expensive and knowledgeable mentors were hard to come by) etc is a reality, and the tools are available (buying a decent compiler used to cost both your arms and a leg, now great ones are free), except were are taking away the ability to execute a program once you write it, unless you pay the right people their tribute money. It might be easier for the user, but it isn't better.
most people certainly can't handle the responsibility of keeping a modern PC clean, and it appears they can't even keep a smart TV malware free. Remember the saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"? Well, time and time again we see that users seem to have just enough knowledge to thoroughly screw themselves and their devices.
Than maybe those people should not have a computer and should stick with a regular TV with channel up and down buttons + a volume knob. Seriously if you can't or won't be bothered to maintain a computer than don't use one or use someone else s, that or pay someone to maintain it for you. Go to the library and use a computer there. Its like a car either you are willing to learn to drive and do something about getting the oil changed from time to time, or walk.
Insider trading is about using information others don't have equal access too. Any of us had the very same opportunity to hack these law firms and steal information on their clients.
Yes I am being sarcastic but only half so, on some level charging them with insider trading does seem a bit like piling on, we ought to be get them for any number of computer crimes and put them away for that.
What people don't realize is even the legitimate players are really part of a shell game. I was listing to a radio interview with a local company around here and he was explaining all these municipalities and business like to say x% of our waste goes to a recycler, the problem is that they are increasingly sending contaminated waste to hit those numbers. We have to sort out that stuff and send it back to the very same landfill it would have otherwise gone to.
They charge more or in some cases pay less for recyclable materials where a greater part of the haul will be contaminated. Think cardboard == recyclable, pizza box will grease and cheese on it != recyclable. Obviously it would be possible to remove the contaminates recycle the box, but in practice its not economically possible to do so and from an environmental impact perspective it might not make sense either, given the increased energy requirements of the process and chemistry that might be required.
The short version is a huge part of the recycling industry is really about 'feel good environmentalism' where certain groups of people are essentially paying to have the real consequences of their life style hidden from them and or to receive some kind of absolution from their secular gods.
I'll be way less annoyed at having to wait for you to get moving than I will at slamming my breaks to avoid t-boning you at what is for me a green light. I have been in that exact situation many times.
"Hey, pedestrians and bikes are almost the same mass, almost the same size, and much closer in speed, maybe they should share infrastructure instead."
Tell that to a pedestrian that gets hit by a cyclist doing in excess of 20mph!
Unintended collision of bikes and pedestrians are much much less likely to result in death than of bikes and cars (and trucks).
Citation please!
I am actually curious, because I think its a bit more complex than a simple situation of F=MA assuming perfectly spherical uniformly elastic bikes, cars, and bodies. I know lots of people that have walked away from 20mph hits by autos, and several who were injured very badly being hit by someone on a bike. Anecdotally, there is appears to be a tendency to roll mostly harmlessly up onto the hood of the car, vs absorbing much of the impact when being hit by a bike.
------ The real problem though is at least in the states a large number of cyclists don't follow the rules. They lane split, they pass temporarily stopped or traffic on the shoulder and than merge back in from the right when the shoulder ends, the run lights, the run stop signs, etc. Finally the vehicle characteristics are radically different consider how long the stopping distance is for bicycle at 22mph vs a typical car probably 30feet longer or more! They are very unpredictable compared with other motorists and that makes them a hazard. They most definitely need their own space or should not be allowed.
Slashdot Mirror
Mayer wasn't a raider CEO and she didn't try to pump up short term valuation. Quite the opposite, she tried to find some way to build real value in what was clearly a moribund company. I'm not saying she did a good job -- it's entirely possible that a good CEO could have found a way to preserve and grow Yahoo.
I think Mayer got distracted being a member of the SI valley glitterati and doing appearances on women's talk shows.
That said the real problem was GREED. The way to 'save' yahoo was probable to accept that there was no direct path back to the glory days. The had some good performant properties like flickr and tumblr. Things like maps and mail could still probably make enough page views to justify the operation. They should have dumped/sold off the rest and been a smaller company with a strong brand and little dry powder in the bank to ready to buy a startup property that made some sense when the saw it. Investors would never all that though. They'd demand any capital raised from sales be returned as dividends and would sell their shares at the mention of even a short term organic growth strategy. So in a real sense Mayer's hands were tied, but hubris probably would have driven her to try and play miracle worker anyway; hence Alibaba
I miss /topics
Isn't that what people were trying to avoid using Yahoo mail?
The only real way to deal with it if you care that much about it is to own a domain. You don't necessarily have to host your own mail provided you have the capability and will to backup the mailboxes you care about if you have to move providers. There are plenty of people like Google or Microsoft who will host your mail. As long as you control the domain though you retain the capability to take your business elsewhere.
Otherwise you are tied to mail provider and your going to take the ride thru their M&As and bone headed UI experiments, or other misbehavior.
"gender nonconformity" is a little girl who like to play with toy firetrucks, or a teenage boy who wants to be on the cheer squad, or college women that want to play football. There nothing wrong with any of those things.
There is something wrong when it moves from "i like doing things more typically associated with the other gender" to "I think I really am a..." and there is no present chromosomal abnormality. What could be more distressing than thinking you are in the wrong body, and being willing to take all sorts of hormones and other treatments that have down right nasty side effects is solid proof of that distress nobody would do that unless they thought they *needed* it. Given the need is imagined in all but the most unusual cases yes they have a disorder, even by DSM language.
DSM by the way seems to subject to a lot of political pressure and moods of the day. DSM4 had very different language on gay and transgender issues and there has been little in the way of advances in physical science on the issue since that was published.
You claim of bigotry might have wide support but where is your scientific evidence. Its been almost 30 years now since the human genome project, not gay gene. It could be environmental or developmental. When U Oregon was having some success 'curing' 'gay rams' LGBT activists jumped all over the research fearing what that could mean for people.
This is not at all like race where you are born with certain physical characteristics that result from your genetic makeup. Right now there is actually very little evidence to suggest that homosexuality isn't a choice or isn't simply a chemical or hormonal issue that could be altered with medication. Actually the only evidence I am aware of is that 'conversion therapy' does not seem to work. Considering all the 'conversion therapy' has been mostly based on unscientific ideas, carried out by poorly qualified practitioners that is not really surprising. I would not expect those groups to have a high degree of success treating any other mental illness either.
Verizon: Will Marissa provide "lattes" to our current board of directors?
That is because it impacts the material value or use of the asset. If for example you take a later walkthru after making an offer and go, you know I did not realize that wallpaper upstairs was blue, It looked green in the afternoon light the other day. You would find yourself threatened with breach of contract.
I am incline to argue in the case of yahoo here that security isn't important! Really how many users are going to leave Y-mail because of the breaches? How many are going to stop using yahoo.com as their homepage? Probably some number damn near zero. Yahoo has not been interesting in more than decade. The people who are still there are either fiercely loyal, profoundly ignorant, or literally incapable of going anywhere else for some reason. In short his user base is the kind that gives markets wet dreams! Yahoo isn't worth any less than it was before the breaches. Don't get me wrong I wish it were not true but the reality is that is the state of things with a the band of users they attract.
China has chosen a system where they have total central control over the population, media and economy.
Whoa choose? You mean a gang of violent oppressors kicked out a lawful elected government by the people the ROC, don't you? China chose the PRC in the same way you might choose to hand your wallet to someone pointing a gun at your head!
I would like to understand from Tim Cook why he feels privacy rights need to protected even in the case of terror investigation (I agree they do) but access to information and a free and independent press does not require protection?
Is he simply a legalist, we have laws like the 4th amendment here in the US that protect privacy, but China has no laws preventing the government from acting as a censor so it is fine? There are valid philosophical cases to be made on those lines but I did not hear that rhetoric from him around the time of San Bernardino.
Maybe he is a racist or a nationalist an Chinese people are simply less deserving of basic rights in his opinion?
Maybe his only real guiding principle is money and he simply says and does whatever the situation demands in order to make more of it?
Really though I don't want to dump on Tim Cook and Apple, I could ask the same questions and more of just about every company, and individual that does business in main land China. I think as Americans we need to be asking ourselves some hard questions about why we have been willing to prop up and do business with a nasty, oppressive, lawless, violent communist regime for the past 60+ years?
I think we need to ask not why we have a one China policy but why that one China is not the one with its capital in Taipei! As a citizen of the US I am damn tired about hearing about how great our role in the world is why we sit by and not only tolerate but enable the very worst actors! You can't claim to support freedom and human rights while shoveling money into the coffers of Communists and Islamists.
Exactly, just because you are doing science does mean you abandon common sense. Most would call me a climate skeptic, but even I will admit there has been a warming trend over the period we have been taking actual measurements. Its not credible to assume a massive conspiracy exists to distort measurements. When the was suggestion of such it was investigated and debunked.
I also know based on other day to day encounters with the observable universe that at least on the atomic/chemical scale I occupy thermodynamics is a reality. Finally I know trends are well trends, they continue unless there is a reason for them them to not continue. So when someone argues there as a been a pause in the warming trend the correct response is actually skepticism. A pause would be caused by something, so there are two possibilities we don't know the cause of the pause or the measurements are not correct. Since the measurement methodology was changed that should be the FIRST place we look. Here the interesting thing isn't the absolute values but the deltas. Allowing for some noise in the older measurements we see similar deltas in the data gather in the new measurements, the correct conclusion is the older absolute values are off but the deltas are probably still accurate.
Think of this way, you have two thermometers in a room, one reads 68F the other 70F you turn the heat on and observe the readings again 30min later. The first now reads 70F the second now reads 72F. You can be pretty certain the room is 2F warmer than before, you might guess the actual temperature is 71F but your confidence in that should be low.
There is a reasonable debate to be had about:
1) Are human activities the primary driver of climate change or are other factors playing a more significant role
2) Are these changes really outside the normal range our planet and ecosystem have experienced in the past
2a) if no, is the rate of change outside the normal range
3) Is this a good or bad thing, in terms of our own best interest?
3a) how do you define 'our'
Those are the real questions where climate change is concerned, not that it has changed since the start of the industrial era or that it is changing.
Right an what is more likely? A sensor on a mostly passive buoy reads cold or sensor on a ship with people, heaters, engines, and everything else near by reads hot?
Well Apple has been on brink of oblivion before and come back. However this time there visionary founder won't be returning to help them, should that situation arise.
The thing is it won't happen though. Apple isn't RIM. Like M$ they have so much cash they don't actually need to make anything. Apple could decide to stop selling computers, software, phones, and tablets and simply reinvent it self as a hedge fund and continue forever.
Actually that might be the smartest move. You stand to benefit from a lot more diversity in the market place than by making any group of products yourself. Once you amass the kind of reserves Apples got its probably less risky to simply declare yourself the winner and exit stage left.
The not so subtle suggestion you think a large portion of your patrons are no good criminals or ignorant boobs that need to be lectured at over and over again does not make them want to cooperate or cause them to embrace your way of thinking?
Wow I am totally shocked! Maybe if they were a little less in your face about it, did not threaten you jail they'd get more buy in. That and they need to stop pushing the obviously false equivalence with physical theft. Only the most radical intellectual property proponents consider that remotely equivalent. They'd find a lot more allies among the general public if they stopped clutching the pearls quite so hard. Many people myself included agree we need some copyright and intellectual property protections. Where we don't and won't agree is that it has to be FOREVER or that we need armed FBI shock troops kicking in doors and shooting peoples dogs because they copied a DVD once. Which I realize does not happen in minor cases like that but you'd sure imagine that it does after watching some of those piracy warnings and propaganda shorts they put in front of movies now.
I don't know about others but the response those things engender in me is, "These guys are nasty bullies, I don't like bullies so I don't care what happens to them, best of luck to pirates." Which is a simplistic, non intellectual response that when I sit down and think about the issues careful I realize isn't really right, but they are making an emotional appeal and so they trigger an emotional reaction; just not the one they want.
Physics reduces to Math
Bullshit. I have never heard anyone but you say that. If anything math describes physics.
kaby Lake desktop is effectively Sandy Bridge polished to within an inch of its life, a once-groundbreaking CPU architecture hacked, and tweaked, and mangled into ever smaller manufacturing processes and power envelopes.
Disasters like Netburst aside, is this not the usual pattern.
1) Invest millions in designing a new architecture. Incorporating everything learned about CPU design in the past, try and open as big advantage over your nearest competitors as possible.
2) profit.
3) Make minor revisions to protect your advantage and create an excuse for the high performance market where your biggest margins are to buy new parts
4) profit some more, and with greater margin
5)... repeat as long as competition / existing design allows.
*a) start work on something new leak vapor specs etc to slow adoptions of anyone elses parts
*b) release next big thing
*c) return to 1)
According to FB's own rules that photo probably should be censored.
Unless you subscribe to the SCOTUS "you know it when you see it standard" its pretty explicit.
I am torn over this issue. As a conservative, I do think the prevalence of pornography and the accessibility of these images is harmful to society on the whole. The image in question is certainly an example of something that makes a profound and worth while statement, which I am not sure it could be made as effectively without the explicit content.
I think we need a better way to classify what is porn, but I also think we need to protect freedom of expression in terms of art and speech. I don't know what the answer is, I just keep looking for something better than current status quo.
. China actually has decent environmental protections but the problem is that they are not enforced
protections that are not enforced are NOT PROTECTIONS. They are laws designed to make people the government does not like, for example someone running a competitor to a state owned business subject to enforcement while the state run operation is not. Its about picking winners and losers and more generally cronyism, not environmentalism.
Poorly/Selectively/Arbitrarily enforced laws are the worst kinds of laws. They are among the greatest threats to liberty, democracy, and fairness, granted that isn't much concern in China. It is a concern that you point at these efforts as laudable when they are not. It gives an impression we should look to China for how to do things when we should be looking at it as an example of how NOT to do things.
What causes China to produce so much pollution?
Answer: The U.S. desire for cheap labor.
WRONG - It takes a supply and demand to make a market. China's willingness to supply cheap labor and low cost manufacturing by dispensing with many pollution controls we would require here in the US, is as much what causes China to produce so much pollution as our demand for products.
The Chinese, at least the illegitimate PRC (the ROC is the legitimate government of China IMHO) isn't stupid. They know exactly what they are doing and the consequences of their actions.
Yes with this tablet you don't get sent to the labor^H^H^H^H^H re-education camp!
That is pretty powerful sales argument indeed.
Why, he is the customer, they should help. A better question is why isn't there a straightforward easy as child's play way to factor reset the device?
The general public needs to learn that downloading stuff from unverified 3rd party sources is going to get you infected sooner or later.
Why because situations like a TV where proper sandboxing should basically be a trivial to do isn't. Sure there will be sandbox escapes and such due to bugs in the VM but that should be THE ONLY way on a smart TV. There is no good reasons 'apps' should be allowed to run unmanned code, and there is not reason they need to share data with any other apps on a TV. Its not like my phone where I need to be able to copy a number from an e-mail to my address book app. The unsafe data inputs vector should be almost non-existent. If things like buffer overflows are happening that is just as silly as it should all be running on Androids VM.
this is why Apple's walled garden with locked-down devices may be better for your typical user
No its not better for the user. Its better for the large manufacturers and software shops. Its about the most anti freedom thing you could possibly do. Here we are in 2016 where the opportunity for anyone to learn program (books were expensive and knowledgeable mentors were hard to come by) etc is a reality, and the tools are available (buying a decent compiler used to cost both your arms and a leg, now great ones are free), except were are taking away the ability to execute a program once you write it, unless you pay the right people their tribute money. It might be easier for the user, but it isn't better.
most people certainly can't handle the responsibility of keeping a modern PC clean, and it appears they can't even keep a smart TV malware free. Remember the saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"? Well, time and time again we see that users seem to have just enough knowledge to thoroughly screw themselves and their devices.
Than maybe those people should not have a computer and should stick with a regular TV with channel up and down buttons + a volume knob. Seriously if you can't or won't be bothered to maintain a computer than don't use one or use someone else s, that or pay someone to maintain it for you. Go to the library and use a computer there. Its like a car either you are willing to learn to drive and do something about getting the oil changed from time to time, or walk.
Insider trading is about using information others don't have equal access too. Any of us had the very same opportunity to hack these law firms and steal information on their clients.
Yes I am being sarcastic but only half so, on some level charging them with insider trading does seem a bit like piling on, we ought to be get them for any number of computer crimes and put them away for that.
What people don't realize is even the legitimate players are really part of a shell game. I was listing to a radio interview with a local company around here and he was explaining all these municipalities and business like to say x% of our waste goes to a recycler, the problem is that they are increasingly sending contaminated waste to hit those numbers. We have to sort out that stuff and send it back to the very same landfill it would have otherwise gone to.
They charge more or in some cases pay less for recyclable materials where a greater part of the haul will be contaminated. Think cardboard == recyclable, pizza box will grease and cheese on it != recyclable. Obviously it would be possible to remove the contaminates recycle the box, but in practice its not economically possible to do so and from an environmental impact perspective it might not make sense either, given the increased energy requirements of the process and chemistry that might be required.
The short version is a huge part of the recycling industry is really about 'feel good environmentalism' where certain groups of people are essentially paying to have the real consequences of their life style hidden from them and or to receive some kind of absolution from their secular gods.
I'll be way less annoyed at having to wait for you to get moving than I will at slamming my breaks to avoid t-boning you at what is for me a green light. I have been in that exact situation many times.
"Hey, pedestrians and bikes are almost the same mass, almost the same size, and much closer in speed, maybe they should share infrastructure instead."
Tell that to a pedestrian that gets hit by a cyclist doing in excess of 20mph!
Unintended collision of bikes and pedestrians are much much less likely to result in death than of bikes and cars (and trucks).
Citation please!
I am actually curious, because I think its a bit more complex than a simple situation of F=MA assuming perfectly spherical uniformly elastic bikes, cars, and bodies. I know lots of people that have walked away from 20mph hits by autos, and several who were injured very badly being hit by someone on a bike. Anecdotally, there is appears to be a tendency to roll mostly harmlessly up onto the hood of the car, vs absorbing much of the impact when being hit by a bike.
------
The real problem though is at least in the states a large number of cyclists don't follow the rules. They lane split, they pass temporarily stopped or traffic on the shoulder and than merge back in from the right when the shoulder ends, the run lights, the run stop signs, etc. Finally the vehicle characteristics are radically different consider how long the stopping distance is for bicycle at 22mph vs a typical car probably 30feet longer or more! They are very unpredictable compared with other motorists and that makes them a hazard. They most definitely need their own space or should not be allowed.