Back in the 70s there used to be a UK porn magazine called "FLICK. It was called that because if you pick the font and kerning right, that L and I begin to look like a U.
Except you don't answer the questions, so I'm forced to figure out the answer from your evasive responses.
Don't bother to reply to this, as you'll only feel you have to make excuses for yourself. But that's simply not true. There were no unanswered questions at the point at which you started saying I have opinions that don't have. My disengagement from the discussion only happened afterwards. Because you killed it with this dishonest and boorish approach.
You have a law in London that says "Taxi drivers must take responsibility for the old and disabled. Everybody else, just ignore them?" I think your law is terrible and the time of blindly following stupid laws is long past.... The questions are simple, not childlike
You ask a question, then assume an answer of your own, and argue it as if that's what you have been told. That's childlike. And it makes for an uninteresting exchange.
I'm afraid your post consists of a lot of statements about what I believe or would or have done, none of which is true. You don't know me, and therefore your post is worthless.
Your claims on me being a hypocrite are irrational and stupid. You can't invent what my opinion is, invest your own reasons for why I should think a different thing, then call me a hypocrite because your two imaginary positions are different.
I enjoy a good discussion. But wild flinging of straw men doesn't make for one.
America went in to stop some serious badness happening, and spent over 10 years there trying to fix things up.
No. They went over to ensure continued production of oil to which they would have access. In the process they made the country far worse for it's population than it had previously been.
Hopefully the US won't go back in. They've done enough damage already.
The big difference being that you can't stop yourself from aging, you can stop yourself from becoming obese.
Actually many people can't. There's still plenty of active research being done into obesity, but one thing is pretty clear from what is known. It's not a matter of "basic self control". The appetite is a function of a very deep and primitive part of the brain and body chemistry, it's not a matter of rational thought.
People who are thin are not generally so because they are exhibiting superior will-power. It's generally not any effort at all. They are just that way. Heck in my twenties, I desperately tried to gain weight as I felt too thin, and found it impossible the do so.
Those who do manage to conquer their appetite for a period to lose weight almost always return back to their previous weight within months to a couple of years.
If you are thin, count your blessings that your body works that way. You are not special. You are not morally superior, nor have stronger willpower than your overweight coworker. And unless it's a physical job, you're no more likely to be better at the job than him/her.
One more thing. Given the attitudes in your post, most employers wouldn't want to hire you, unless you kept them very hidden.
No. Just as with GPS, the GPS system consists of the Satellites, and the radio receivers, and drivers that end up with a location. A common application is sat-nav systems. The part with the map, and the routing is the sat-nav, it's not GPS.
Similarly iBeacon consists of the transmitters, and the driver through to the developer API. (On iOS the proximity API In Core Location.) An app that uses this service is an app that uses the service, it's not iBeacon.
Again, iBeacon has no way to track you. You can't redefine what iBeacon is to change that fact.
Why is the duty of a paid driver to care for the old, disabled or children? Their responsibility is simply to transport an individual safely from point A to point B.
The bleakness of your world view is depressing. Why? It's the law. And it's the law because it's a good thing. It's also a moral duty.
Why do you think it's okay for incompetent drivers to fill the streets of London as long as they don't do it with a willing passenger?
Indeed. And where we are talking about outside, all of that could be done with GPS. But no one claims that GPS tracks you. It doesn't, and neither does iBeacon.
iBeacon is a device to enable better location services whilst indoors. That's it. It doesn't track you.
If you have chosen to run a stores app, that can track you, whether by GPS, Wifi AP or iBeacon. That's the app tracking you.
But of those 3 radio technologies, only WiFi can be used to track you.
TL;DR: Apps can track you. Wifi can track you. GPS can't track you. iBeacon can't track you.
His philosophy is not only impractical, but hypocritical as almost everyone who espouses such a view takes part in some activity that is not for his own long term best interest or that of society.
That's not quite full thought through and so you've been unfair. It's certainly not hypocritical if I am happy to accept the same ban (or tax or whatever) on the activity, the same as everyone else.
For example I'm not a smoker now, but I was for many years, and tried many times to give up. I accepted the escalating punitive tax (in the UK) as a good incentive to cut down or give up. Likewise even whilst a smoker I was happy that smoking was banned in all indoor public places.
It's a fact that smoking's not good for anyone. It's an addiction that people almost universally get into when they are young and impressionable. And so society helping to discourage it is good for everyone.
The other poster mentions cannabis, and that's a more difficult one, as informed scientific opinion is that it's less harmful than other accepted mild drugs such as caffeine and alcohol, non-addictive and never fatal. Government bans seem based on historical prejudice rather than rationality. I obviously don't back regulation where the regulation is anti-science.
Your point about eternal costs is a good one, and also covers regulation on the environment. Those costs are not only monetary ones.
But they are not. Brad with chalk in and pizzas with rat droppings in are not good for anyone. Your underlying assumption that if people buy them then they are best for them isn't true.
For example, I have no compassion or pity for people who keep buying cigarettes with "SMOKING KILLS" written in huge lettering on them, and then complain that they didn't know that it would have a negative effect on their health once they do get cancer.
Even better. You can't argue that smoking is good for anyone. Regardless of if they choose to smoke.
You are raising individual's choice to the one true value. As if people's choice wasn't largely dictated by externals such as advertising or availability, and subconscious animal urges.
I'm glad you have dealt with the poverty issue. But until your wish for that to be eradicated has been fulfilled, your desire for no regulation is a retrograde step.
(It's a retrograde step even if there is no poverty. But we're certainly not going to get to agreement on that.)
That's precisely why I'm not suggesting that. Let the government investigate the safety of that product, and give you a report condensed down to "it's good" or "it's not" - and require the service provider to prominently state the group to which it belongs. For most people, that's good enough. For a few, they might want to go and look up the definition of "good". Some of that later group might decide that they don't like that standard, and apply their own. But what I object to is the notion that I am forced to use only something that's branded "good" by someone else.
So when bread is padded out with chalk, and pizzas are being served with rat droppings, they are lacking the seal of approval, but still sell to the poor or uninformed, who is being served by that? In what way have you made the world a better place?
You haven't. You've gone back about a century and a half. You've regressed to a less civilised time.
I didn't make any such blanket assertion. I pointed out that Swift in particular doesn't have the brain dead design defects of C, from which Objective-C also suffers. It's a language specifically crafted to do what Objective-C did previously without all the C crap. Crap that causes many or most bugs in C language programs.
That does nothing to say that BASIC is better or worse than any other language.
And bounds checking and preventing stray pointers is certainly not "safety features de jour". No more than keeping rats and cockroaches out of restaurants is "health standards de jour".
I kind of also expect that Tesla has something new, so these patents aren't all that important to protect their business, as their new thing will probably blow the doors off of the current stuff.
It rather reads as a new policy with regard to all patents, existing and future. So your expectation doesn't seem likely.
In London Taxi/Private hire driver licenses include an enhanced criminal records check, higher standards on the vehicle than private vehicles, a check that the taximeter has not been tampered with (so they can't overcharge), commercial rather than private insurance, etc.
A pizza boy doesn't have a duty of care to old or disabled people or children. They generally buzz around on scooters, and have a high accident rate. Not something anyone wants for public transport.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple is still the most valuable brand in the world. Beats doesn't even make an appearance.
http://www.forbes.com/powerful...
There are no such forced updates.
Steve Jobs was not creative. At all. Name one thing he ever invented.
Name me one thing you ever invented.
More Unixy? LINIX is closer to UNIX than LINUX.
Back in the 70s there used to be a UK porn magazine called "FLICK. It was called that because if you pick the font and kerning right, that L and I begin to look like a U.
I suggest you look at the thread and stop being a cunt.
Except you don't answer the questions, so I'm forced to figure out the answer from your evasive responses.
Don't bother to reply to this, as you'll only feel you have to make excuses for yourself. But that's simply not true. There were no unanswered questions at the point at which you started saying I have opinions that don't have. My disengagement from the discussion only happened afterwards. Because you killed it with this dishonest and boorish approach.
You do know that Linux stands for "Linux Is Not UniX, don't you?
I'm afraid you weren't nearly pedantic enough.
No I didn't.
The peak of $1107.92 on 30 Nov 2013 only lasted one day. That's cherry-picking your data.
When pointing out the decline after a bubble, it's usual to "cherry pick" the peak of the bubble.
If you're still investing in this, you're a fool.
You have a law in London that says "Taxi drivers must take responsibility for the old and disabled. Everybody else, just ignore them?" I think your law is terrible and the time of blindly following stupid laws is long past. ...
The questions are simple, not childlike
You ask a question, then assume an answer of your own, and argue it as if that's what you have been told. That's childlike. And it makes for an uninteresting exchange.
I'm afraid your post consists of a lot of statements about what I believe or would or have done, none of which is true. You don't know me, and therefore your post is worthless.
Your claims on me being a hypocrite are irrational and stupid. You can't invent what my opinion is, invest your own reasons for why I should think a different thing, then call me a hypocrite because your two imaginary positions are different.
I enjoy a good discussion. But wild flinging of straw men doesn't make for one.
America went in to stop some serious badness happening, and spent over 10 years there trying to fix things up.
No. They went over to ensure continued production of oil to which they would have access. In the process they made the country far worse for it's population than it had previously been.
Hopefully the US won't go back in. They've done enough damage already.
The big difference being that you can't stop yourself from aging, you can stop yourself from becoming obese.
Actually many people can't. There's still plenty of active research being done into obesity, but one thing is pretty clear from what is known. It's not a matter of "basic self control". The appetite is a function of a very deep and primitive part of the brain and body chemistry, it's not a matter of rational thought.
People who are thin are not generally so because they are exhibiting superior will-power. It's generally not any effort at all. They are just that way. Heck in my twenties, I desperately tried to gain weight as I felt too thin, and found it impossible the do so.
Those who do manage to conquer their appetite for a period to lose weight almost always return back to their previous weight within months to a couple of years.
If you are thin, count your blessings that your body works that way. You are not special. You are not morally superior, nor have stronger willpower than your overweight coworker. And unless it's a physical job, you're no more likely to be better at the job than him/her.
One more thing. Given the attitudes in your post, most employers wouldn't want to hire you, unless you kept them very hidden.
No. Just as with GPS, the GPS system consists of the Satellites, and the radio receivers, and drivers that end up with a location. A common application is sat-nav systems. The part with the map, and the routing is the sat-nav, it's not GPS.
Similarly iBeacon consists of the transmitters, and the driver through to the developer API. (On iOS the proximity API In Core Location.) An app that uses this service is an app that uses the service, it's not iBeacon.
Again, iBeacon has no way to track you. You can't redefine what iBeacon is to change that fact.
I've kept up with them. They were work more than $1100 six months ago. Now about $580. The bubble burst.
"who is being served by that?"
Those who are willing to buy them.
I couldn't disagree more.
As for the "poor" line, the proper response to that is that the society should act to solve poverty in general.
Yes it should. But that still doesn't mean that people are well served by harmful goods and services. Even if they buy them.
Why is the duty of a paid driver to care for the old, disabled or children? Their responsibility is simply to transport an individual safely from point A to point B.
The bleakness of your world view is depressing. Why? It's the law. And it's the law because it's a good thing. It's also a moral duty.
Why do you think it's okay for incompetent drivers to fill the streets of London as long as they don't do it with a willing passenger?
I don't. Your questions are becoming child like.
Indeed. And where we are talking about outside, all of that could be done with GPS. But no one claims that GPS tracks you. It doesn't, and neither does iBeacon.
iBeacon is a device to enable better location services whilst indoors. That's it. It doesn't track you.
If you have chosen to run a stores app, that can track you, whether by GPS, Wifi AP or iBeacon. That's the app tracking you.
But of those 3 radio technologies, only WiFi can be used to track you.
TL;DR: Apps can track you. Wifi can track you. GPS can't track you. iBeacon can't track you.
His philosophy is not only impractical, but hypocritical as almost everyone who espouses such a view takes part in some activity that is not for his own long term best interest or that of society.
That's not quite full thought through and so you've been unfair. It's certainly not hypocritical if I am happy to accept the same ban (or tax or whatever) on the activity, the same as everyone else.
For example I'm not a smoker now, but I was for many years, and tried many times to give up. I accepted the escalating punitive tax (in the UK) as a good incentive to cut down or give up. Likewise even whilst a smoker I was happy that smoking was banned in all indoor public places.
It's a fact that smoking's not good for anyone. It's an addiction that people almost universally get into when they are young and impressionable. And so society helping to discourage it is good for everyone.
The other poster mentions cannabis, and that's a more difficult one, as informed scientific opinion is that it's less harmful than other accepted mild drugs such as caffeine and alcohol, non-addictive and never fatal. Government bans seem based on historical prejudice rather than rationality. I obviously don't back regulation where the regulation is anti-science.
Your point about eternal costs is a good one, and also covers regulation on the environment. Those costs are not only monetary ones.
Those who are willing to buy them.
But they are not. Brad with chalk in and pizzas with rat droppings in are not good for anyone. Your underlying assumption that if people buy them then they are best for them isn't true.
For example, I have no compassion or pity for people who keep buying cigarettes with "SMOKING KILLS" written in huge lettering on them, and then complain that they didn't know that it would have a negative effect on their health once they do get cancer.
Even better. You can't argue that smoking is good for anyone. Regardless of if they choose to smoke.
You are raising individual's choice to the one true value. As if people's choice wasn't largely dictated by externals such as advertising or availability, and subconscious animal urges.
I'm glad you have dealt with the poverty issue. But until your wish for that to be eradicated has been fulfilled, your desire for no regulation is a retrograde step.
(It's a retrograde step even if there is no poverty. But we're certainly not going to get to agreement on that.)
Sure. But that doesn't put Tesla in an worse a position, given that GM don't have any charging infrastructure for Tesla drivers to use now.
That's precisely why I'm not suggesting that. Let the government investigate the safety of that product, and give you a report condensed down to "it's good" or "it's not" - and require the service provider to prominently state the group to which it belongs. For most people, that's good enough. For a few, they might want to go and look up the definition of "good". Some of that later group might decide that they don't like that standard, and apply their own. But what I object to is the notion that I am forced to use only something that's branded "good" by someone else.
So when bread is padded out with chalk, and pizzas are being served with rat droppings, they are lacking the seal of approval, but still sell to the poor or uninformed, who is being served by that? In what way have you made the world a better place?
You haven't. You've gone back about a century and a half. You've regressed to a less civilised time.
I didn't make any such blanket assertion. I pointed out that Swift in particular doesn't have the brain dead design defects of C, from which Objective-C also suffers. It's a language specifically crafted to do what Objective-C did previously without all the C crap. Crap that causes many or most bugs in C language programs.
That does nothing to say that BASIC is better or worse than any other language.
And bounds checking and preventing stray pointers is certainly not "safety features de jour". No more than keeping rats and cockroaches out of restaurants is "health standards de jour".
I kind of also expect that Tesla has something new, so these patents aren't all that important to protect their business, as their new thing will probably blow the doors off of the current stuff.
It rather reads as a new policy with regard to all patents, existing and future. So your expectation doesn't seem likely.
In London Taxi/Private hire driver licenses include an enhanced criminal records check, higher standards on the vehicle than private vehicles, a check that the taximeter has not been tampered with (so they can't overcharge), commercial rather than private insurance, etc.
A pizza boy doesn't have a duty of care to old or disabled people or children. They generally buzz around on scooters, and have a high accident rate. Not something anyone wants for public transport.