My understanding is that they will have their own ad network and vet the ads. The ads are supposed to be unobtrusive but if people think it is to much of a strain on their internet, I suppose they just use something else.
Everything about this is opt in. You have to download a browser and actually use it. If you find problems you can either move on or contact the company and try to get them to improve it.
I think the difference between this and something like adblock and similar is that the site gets to generate some revenue. If they do it right and actually control the ads, you will not see the malicious or obnoxious ads. Perhaps they could even be relevant to the site your visiting too.
This likely isn't about being a big threat to the nation. It is more likely the camel's nose under the tent. They are looking for ways to force remediation efforts onto the U.S. and so far have found resistance and impotence. Now that the federal government is deeply involved in your healthcare, if they can show a strong enough correlation, they can shoehorn the global warming agenda in under the guise of healthcare. This likely can happen without congress acting on it too because of some of the administrative powers of the PPACA or Obamacare.
Sounds about as sound as a billion dollar randomizer to choose right or left. Even U.S. history suggests this as we all now know that gangsters in the 20s and 30s used to hide their Tommy Gun in violin cases.
I don't think that is a difference that is relevant. It is either that they believe in Jesus Christ or they take the atheist views of it being fictional. Either way, the quoted section describes someone in the future doing something that may or may not happen. The Taliban encourages people in the present to do something.
In other words, there is a difference between saying "tom will kill someone next month" and "you should kill someone next month" for whatever reason.
Well, The Taliban already have expert bomb makers and likely an existing distribution system for confirmed members. Doing something like that is most likely just going to get some kid hurt when he gets bored with sticking firecrackers in a frog's butt.
I think a lot of us used to blow things up as a kid. We aren't terrorist or anything. But I can see some bored kids continuing the tradition despite the chance of being labeled a terrorist and misinformation will get them hurt or dead.
I don't think you understand. Whether I like it or not, there is a fundamental difference between mandating security or safety features before it is sold (manufactured to a specification) and forcing something after the fact to suit some need that is specific to a situation not common to all devices. Sure a recall can allow them to repair or replace something but those happen to things discovered later that didn't meet some standards.
As for your feature creep argument. I agree but I also consider it to be a separate situation from Apple meeting regulations verses retrofitting something after the fact upon the orders of government.
I don't have to be ok with anything to notice a difference between a condition to conduct business and a condition after the fact.
I also do not understand why you think that is such a foreign concept. Cars for instance need seat belts. Being software related is meaningless unless you think there is something special about "on a computer ".
The two scenarios are not even comparable. In one the government is saying products of a certain type must meet these conditions to be sold. In the other they are saying since you created and sold something and we want you to, you have to do something you don't want to do. The only thing that might be comparable is the willingness of a company to comply but that is even separated by constitutional prohibitions on the government.
While I do think Apple and the majority of their users are scumbags, I don't find that reasoning within your comment.
Early on in the climate change debacle, I saw an article trying to discredit another article being discredited by the use of the original discredited articles. Years later, it all was wrong and ignored.
Anyone paying attention knows that the entire premise has been politically hijacked from the start in America. It is not like there isn't tainted concepts on all sides.
And it is those intellectual bean counters who decided it was cheaper to employ near slave wage labor in China than a living wage so they shipped your job overseas. It was the same intellectuals who said they could save money on taxes by doing the same. It is the same intellectuals who decided H1B visa holders are more beneficial to employ the native citizens who can go wherever the pay is the best.
It was a different set of intellectuals who allowed the same intellectuals to switch water sources in flint and ignore the poisoned water.
But you would have to be an intellectual to recognize it. Do you think you are an intellectual? Does that make you better than everyone else?
Can I get a court order for you to pick the cotton on my south fields? I might if you broke a law and it was part of the punishment. But outside that it seems preposterous don't it? Even if I can make some convincing argument.
The problem here is that the law allowing the warrant was created two years before the bill of rights was ratified let alone the amendment banning slavery except as a form of punishment. It is likely using it to force labor out of people would be in violation of these amendments. But using the law to take private property for public use could be constitutional if there is just compensation.
In essence the argument for forcing Apple was we satisfied some of the constitutional requirements but ignore the constitutional prohibitions. A lot of people don't see the problem but those same people will cry foul when some other constitutional prohibition is in violation. What Apple did made them look like asses to those people and heroes to others who couldn't financially afford the fight if pushed on them.
Lol.. the lag will not be in the transmission latency it will be in the commands processed. The inputs from the GPS and flight stabilizer will stack right behind the others. It will have the same effect as driving when someone drifts onto a soft shoulder and over corrects to return to the road then shoots further than expected when good traction is reestablished. This often ends up with the vehicle running off the other side of the road if not striking another vehicle or object first.
Start getting lag when the weather isn't perfect and you will start losing the drones due to not being able to control their flight or even the ability of the drone to stabilize it's own flight.
They have processors with realtime encryption support capable of avoiding these issues. Your suggested reason was likely the justification to use a less capable processor to save money. I think the decision was probably made before the police had any say in the matter.
Neither analogy works. In this case, someone is poking random people in a crowd with a sharp knife and someone starts shooting at them. Actually that doesn't work either because the two scenarios are completely different and the analogies are trying to conflate misinterpretations.
And i see you are adding as much intelligent input to the conversation as always.
Tell me something. Why is it that when your arguments fall apart under the slightest cursory examination that you turn to attempted insulting? Do you actually think you are winning the argument or something?
Nah. A living wage is subjective anyways. You who live by yourself need a different amount than my wife and I who both work and need a different amount than my brother who has 3 roommates and splits costs.
Minimum wage was never supposed to be a career wage. The only reason they can get by with paying it is because unemployment is so high and the economy is shot. Because of that, people are trying to make careers out of being a whopper flopper and whatever other shit jobs they can find to get by.
That would essentially make them their agents. I don't mean it like an actual FBI agent but someone representing their interest which technically makes them the same.
How exactly does canonical make money from installs?
I'm betting it has more to do with unix services of some sort in which enterprise software can run natively on a Windows desktop without porting it. Perhaps tied into cloud offerings and such. From what I can tell, that seems like their revenue model anyways.
At one time printers were extremely expensive. These most likely still are and are not the brother desktop variety but more like the document center types. Anyways because of the expense the printers were shared between departments usually on different subnets which would require routable addresses for the printers.
Good thing you said "act". What he did is hardly hacking unless we want to claim getting things to do what they were design to do hacking just because the owners had no clue they set it up to do it.
Seriously. . Port scanning and sending a file is called a hack now?
Slashdot Mirror
That's not important silly. Making a stand for political reasons so politicians reward them with policy decisions is what matters.
My understanding is that they will have their own ad network and vet the ads. The ads are supposed to be unobtrusive but if people think it is to much of a strain on their internet, I suppose they just use something else.
Everything about this is opt in. You have to download a browser and actually use it. If you find problems you can either move on or contact the company and try to get them to improve it.
I think the difference between this and something like adblock and similar is that the site gets to generate some revenue. If they do it right and actually control the ads, you will not see the malicious or obnoxious ads. Perhaps they could even be relevant to the site your visiting too.
This likely isn't about being a big threat to the nation. It is more likely the camel's nose under the tent. They are looking for ways to force remediation efforts onto the U.S. and so far have found resistance and impotence. Now that the federal government is deeply involved in your healthcare, if they can show a strong enough correlation, they can shoehorn the global warming agenda in under the guise of healthcare. This likely can happen without congress acting on it too because of some of the administrative powers of the PPACA or Obamacare.
Sounds about as sound as a billion dollar randomizer to choose right or left. Even U.S. history suggests this as we all now know that gangsters in the 20s and 30s used to hide their Tommy Gun in violin cases.
I don't think that is a difference that is relevant. It is either that they believe in Jesus Christ or they take the atheist views of it being fictional. Either way, the quoted section describes someone in the future doing something that may or may not happen. The Taliban encourages people in the present to do something.
In other words, there is a difference between saying "tom will kill someone next month" and "you should kill someone next month" for whatever reason.
Well, The Taliban already have expert bomb makers and likely an existing distribution system for confirmed members. Doing something like that is most likely just going to get some kid hurt when he gets bored with sticking firecrackers in a frog's butt.
I think a lot of us used to blow things up as a kid. We aren't terrorist or anything. But I can see some bored kids continuing the tradition despite the chance of being labeled a terrorist and misinformation will get them hurt or dead.
I don't think you understand. Whether I like it or not, there is a fundamental difference between mandating security or safety features before it is sold (manufactured to a specification) and forcing something after the fact to suit some need that is specific to a situation not common to all devices. Sure a recall can allow them to repair or replace something but those happen to things discovered later that didn't meet some standards.
As for your feature creep argument. I agree but I also consider it to be a separate situation from Apple meeting regulations verses retrofitting something after the fact upon the orders of government.
I don't have to be ok with anything to notice a difference between a condition to conduct business and a condition after the fact.
I also do not understand why you think that is such a foreign concept. Cars for instance need seat belts. Being software related is meaningless unless you think there is something special about "on a computer ".
I can see which camp you enter from. Here is a hint - you are the only one saying "exact" same.
Maybe my problem was writing that so any moron could understand it. Perhaps I should have catered it to specific morons?
The two scenarios are not even comparable. In one the government is saying products of a certain type must meet these conditions to be sold. In the other they are saying since you created and sold something and we want you to, you have to do something you don't want to do. The only thing that might be comparable is the willingness of a company to comply but that is even separated by constitutional prohibitions on the government.
While I do think Apple and the majority of their users are scumbags, I don't find that reasoning within your comment.
Early on in the climate change debacle, I saw an article trying to discredit another article being discredited by the use of the original discredited articles. Years later, it all was wrong and ignored.
Anyone paying attention knows that the entire premise has been politically hijacked from the start in America. It is not like there isn't tainted concepts on all sides.
And it is those intellectual bean counters who decided it was cheaper to employ near slave wage labor in China than a living wage so they shipped your job overseas. It was the same intellectuals who said they could save money on taxes by doing the same. It is the same intellectuals who decided H1B visa holders are more beneficial to employ the native citizens who can go wherever the pay is the best.
It was a different set of intellectuals who allowed the same intellectuals to switch water sources in flint and ignore the poisoned water.
But you would have to be an intellectual to recognize it. Do you think you are an intellectual? Does that make you better than everyone else?
Can I get a court order for you to pick the cotton on my south fields? I might if you broke a law and it was part of the punishment. But outside that it seems preposterous don't it? Even if I can make some convincing argument.
The problem here is that the law allowing the warrant was created two years before the bill of rights was ratified let alone the amendment banning slavery except as a form of punishment. It is likely using it to force labor out of people would be in violation of these amendments. But using the law to take private property for public use could be constitutional if there is just compensation.
In essence the argument for forcing Apple was we satisfied some of the constitutional requirements but ignore the constitutional prohibitions. A lot of people don't see the problem but those same people will cry foul when some other constitutional prohibition is in violation. What Apple did made them look like asses to those people and heroes to others who couldn't financially afford the fight if pushed on them.
Lol.. the lag will not be in the transmission latency it will be in the commands processed. The inputs from the GPS and flight stabilizer will stack right behind the others. It will have the same effect as driving when someone drifts onto a soft shoulder and over corrects to return to the road then shoots further than expected when good traction is reestablished. This often ends up with the vehicle running off the other side of the road if not striking another vehicle or object first.
Isn't that part of the point? They vet the ads and serve the safe and unobtrusive ones? Outside of taking liability, its there.
Start getting lag when the weather isn't perfect and you will start losing the drones due to not being able to control their flight or even the ability of the drone to stabilize it's own flight.
They have processors with realtime encryption support capable of avoiding these issues. Your suggested reason was likely the justification to use a less capable processor to save money. I think the decision was probably made before the police had any say in the matter.
Neither analogy works. In this case, someone is poking random people in a crowd with a sharp knife and someone starts shooting at them. Actually that doesn't work either because the two scenarios are completely different and the analogies are trying to conflate misinterpretations.
It could be worse. Remember O.M.G Ponies?
And i see you are adding as much intelligent input to the conversation as always.
Tell me something. Why is it that when your arguments fall apart under the slightest cursory examination that you turn to attempted insulting? Do you actually think you are winning the argument or something?
Nah. A living wage is subjective anyways. You who live by yourself need a different amount than my wife and I who both work and need a different amount than my brother who has 3 roommates and splits costs.
Minimum wage was never supposed to be a career wage. The only reason they can get by with paying it is because unemployment is so high and the economy is shot. Because of that, people are trying to make careers out of being a whopper flopper and whatever other shit jobs they can find to get by.
That would essentially make them their agents. I don't mean it like an actual FBI agent but someone representing their interest which technically makes them the same.
http://legal-dictionary.thefre...
Or Apple used a proxy to comply without betraying it's fan base.
How exactly does canonical make money from installs?
I'm betting it has more to do with unix services of some sort in which enterprise software can run natively on a Windows desktop without porting it. Perhaps tied into cloud offerings and such. From what I can tell, that seems like their revenue model anyways.
At one time printers were extremely expensive. These most likely still are and are not the brother desktop variety but more like the document center types. Anyways because of the expense the printers were shared between departments usually on different subnets which would require routable addresses for the printers.
Good thing you said "act". What he did is hardly hacking unless we want to claim getting things to do what they were design to do hacking just because the owners had no clue they set it up to do it.
Seriously. . Port scanning and sending a file is called a hack now?