Isn't it within a hundred years? Between that and how absurdly thick-skulled the population of the USA is, I think that's a fair timeline. According to the Department of Labor, only 58% of adults in the USA are working, so we're already well over a hundred million not working. I think expecting people to notice before there are a billion unemployed folks in the USA is giving the vast majority of them too much credit. Just keep focusing on nitpicking minor potential errors in strangers' online posts, your replacement is already being tested at McDonalds locations throughout the country.
When robots have taken over the majority of labor and the number of unemployed people in the US rises over a billion, we'll notice. Does anyone else wonder how society will need to adapt to such a problem?
Three cheers for letting cable companies abuse their government-assisted monopolies! At this point, most of us get our internet from the same people who offer on-demand video services on top of regular television for a much higher price than Netflix. Options in most areas are limited to one sometimes two sources for broadband (Sources that also provide TV) or dialup, if you can still find that. Now, they're going to take advantage of their near complete control of the internet to shut out any possible competition to the outdated and undesirable cable TV overpriced bundle business model, full of stuff nobody will watch. If only there were some system of rules that was already in place meant to prevent businesses from leveraging a monopoly in one market to take control of another... If only...
I would be shocked, given that what they're supposedly trying to get is available in the form of said Windows tablets, they are cheap and easy to acquire, but nobody is buying them, which would suggest not many are trying to. Having worked in IT before, I wouldn't be shocked to hear the same people asking for this that had been asking for tablets all along, the same people with no real need to leave their desk with their work. There are a select few who could benefit from it, but most of the benefits are available from stripped down mobile versions of apps. Part of the problem is, for most jobs, if you're trying to do it without a mouse and keyboard, or without sitting down and focusing, you're not working effectively anyway. And for most jobs where you do need something portable, you don't actually need the full capabilities of a PC. That does still leave some desire for it, but to say the Windows tablets will make up 10% of all PC and tablet sales in three years? Not even the most optimistic of Microsoft's employees could believe that at this point.
I believe that PC sales have been declining and will decline and stagnate, that sounds legitimate, but this...
"Even so, these Windows devices are projected to account for 10% of a combined PC & Windows Tablet market by 2016 – making them an important growth segment for the PC ecosystem."
Really makes Mr. Loverde sound like he's being paid to say good things about Windows. Who in their right mind could possibly believe that Microsoft's failure of a project is going to end up accounting for 10% of the market? It's a failure amongst tablets alone. I don't even know if there would be any benefit from him saying this, it just sounds crazy.
On a related note, I currently play Battlefield 4 on a computer I put together for around $400 a year ago, so I can definitely see why the PC market is struggling. But it will never disappear, which is enough for me.
I'm impressed, you've concluded beyond any doubt what experts apparently couldn't put together themselves no matter how much time they were allowed in that very same room. You should call the FBI and let them know they're not needed anymore, we can send you to crime scenes with your uncanny abilities and let you solve murder mysteries.
It seems as though this company is violating Wikimedia's ToS. Doesn't that mean the same law they used against Aaron Schwartz applies to them? Maybe Wikimedia can press charges and have these people who actually have malicious intent and are knowingly breaking the law can serve some jail time. If only there were some system in place that could apply laws evenly to all people...
Based on a survey of 139 people, all bureau chiefs in Washington under a Democrat president. Oh, and the actual survey was performed and published by a reporter for the Chicago Tribune who later wrote a biography of John McCain. I'm sure there was no selection bias involved. As opposed to:
The survey conducted by the Pew Research Center isn't based on a select subset, specifically the 139 people who were comfortable admitting their political affiliation while working in Washington under a Democrat president. Don't get me wrong, the results still show the press leans left, like I said, but it's not some ridiculous nine to one ratio of democrats to republicans in the press, as you seem to think. I'm sure if you try hard enough, you can find a survey of a different hundred people in the press all claiming to be Republicans, or you can make one yourself just go to their national convention and ask everyone wearing a noticeable amount of red. If you look at the numbers and the source, then apply some common sense, it doesn't seem so realistic anymore does it?
There is always obvious bias in the media to anyone who isn't happy about something. It's not surprising, everyone has an opinion, nobody wants to get up and report that they were or are probably wrong, so they lean to their own side. If you recall, under the Bush administration the press was repeatedly telling us it's unpatriotic to not have faith in our president, that he was democratically elected and we need to respect that. It wasn't from everyone, but at the time, it was one of the dominant messages of the time, along with the idea that if you don't support the war you don't support the troops. Now, under Obama, it looks like they're all democrats, largely defending his actions until they just can't figure out how to anymore. It's a more complicated mess, spying on our own people, but I wouldn't say lying to all of us about why we were sending our soldiers to war is any better, in both cases I wish they'd be straight with us.
Yes, the media is biased, everyone is to some extent. Is it really evident in the reporting as much as it appears in these surveys though? I've read numerous articles stating CNN needs to go all the way and become the Fox News for Democrats, that they already show obvious bias and it'd help the party. While it's disturbing to think that CNN is so bad, it suggests they're further left than any other network and still can't keep up with the obvious and undeniable bias of Fox. My advice? Take in as much as you can and try to figure it out for yourself. Pick your battles, there's too much going on to try to follow everything while having to sift through the bullshit, sad but true, most of us don't have the time. Don't get duped by some twisted little survey like this.
That's cute, but lies. I don't know how you found the Yahoo answers page, maybe you searched for "Why are all journalists democrats" like the clearly biased person you are, but anyone who's taken a basic course on statistics knows what they're used to do. Not to mention, according to The American Journalist, the numbers have never been near what you claim. The win still goes to the democrats, more journalists side with them out of everyone who claims to be a journalist, not that we should take that to represent how things are reported. Add to that the fact that a little more Googling, as you're so fond of doing, shows Fox News reporters claiming to be independent... More lies from the right! It might also be worth considering that from the perspective of any outsider, our left-wing radicals are further right than most other countries can stomach. Evidence: Look at who Obama just put into office. Get past fighting with everyone over parties, and particularly lying through your teeth and belittling everyone, if you think either party isn't screwing you as hard as they can you're a fool. Although with a response like, "because it's so idiotic to argue against the point I made," after being called out on citing a yahoo answer that looks like it was written by a Bush PR agent, you've aptly demonstrated you are more than foolish enough to buy the BS.
I'm not sure if I misunderstood you then or now, but if you understand the article is about something entirely different than the feature you describe then I'm not sure why you bothered to mention it, as it has nothing to do with the article. I'm not shocked you weren't able to reproduce the issue on your iPad, as it seems to be a problem specifically with the iPhone 5S, as described in the article, and there are reports around the web of being unable to reproduce it on other devices.
Also, it's amusing that you mention my ad hominem as unnecessary, when it was in response to your own, and you responded to it with another. Maybe you should run your own blog with comments disabled if you want to be able to post your opinion on the internet and have nobody respond to it. If you find a tame comment like that offensive, public forums are no the place for you.
Couple quick things. Firstly, that feature was already there, odds are you had disabled it before and that setting was reset with the update. Also, you can't access any existing photos from there, it'll only let you browse the photos you've taken since opening the camera, and resets each time you lock the screen again. There are similar features on other phones, it's handy and not by itself a security risk. As for not imagining anyone wanting to have the device open for the camera when it's locked, I think you lack imagination, and possibly even basic sense. I take advantage of it most frequently when I'm traveling and wish to quickly snap a photo without having to type in my password, it often makes the difference between a photo of an animal grazing and one of their behind as they run into the woods.
It's worth noting that this feature doesn't seem related in the least to the security flaw discussed here, as the camera is meant to be quickly accessible in this way. This means the suggestion of turning off control panel access won't fix the security flaw, if that's what you had in mind.
Giving aid to the enemy would be considered treason, and what she says at the end of the article is "if you don't comply it's treason." If the target of the inquiry is considered an enemy, as they may in a terrorist investigation, it seems to me not handing over the requested information could be seen as treason. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this was spelled out in the court case she's referring to. There's really nothing outrageous about the headline, the real problem is the ease with which agencies can force a company to hand over the information. Personally, I don't take issue with them considering it treason if they're requesting information on a dangerous enemy, I just think it's bull that they can use this on just about anyone with no real oversight, in a manner thought unconstitutional by the court in charge of it.
Check out who was fooled by this article, maybe use Google to dig up a few more...
http://www.designntrend.com/articles/7363/20130826/report-2-500-google-robo-taxi-driverless-cars-will-take.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2402047/Would-hail-cab-driven-ROBOT-Rumours-Googles-self-driving-cars-day-form-robo-taxi-service.html
http://www.efinancehub.com/uber-has-decided-to-invest-up-to-375-million-for-google-inc-nasdaqgoogs-gx3200-sedans/122229.html
I'm seeing a problem with internet news...
http://www.designntrend.com/articles/7363/20130826/report-2-500-google-robo-taxi-driverless-cars-will-take.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2402047/Would-hail-cab-driven-ROBOT-Rumours-Googles-self-driving-cars-day-form-robo-taxi-service.html
http://www.efinancehub.com/uber-has-decided-to-invest-up-to-375-million-for-google-inc-nasdaqgoogs-gx3200-sedans/122229.html
There's more, too. How scarey is it that this is being reported as news elsewhere based on an article from TechCrunch that opens with a date ten years in the future in bold letters? They didn't just not investigate, they didn't read the article they then based their own articles on. At this point, I'd be surprised if it wasn't on Fox tonight.
How can I talk my country's leaders into negotiating such an agreement? Does anyone know who I can send a letter to? I live in the United States of America, sure such a bastion of freedom wouldn't allow spying on its citizens...
I'm missing some huge aspect of the case that I can't seem to find anywhere. There's a few big questions on my mind.
1. Why is everyone so upset that evidence about Martin's background that Zimmerman couldn't have known was kept out of court? It seems like since he couldn't have known, it didn't affect the situation at hand and therefore shouldn't be considered. But I might be missing something about why the victim's background is relevant in any case where the murder isn't premeditated.
2. At what point does getting out of your car and pursuing somebody become an aggressive act? We know for a fact that he followed Martin, there can be no doubt given where he was parked and where the body was, yet this is still considered self defense? I'd appreciate some help with that.
3. The stand your ground law was mentioned several times throughout this case, although it doesn't seem to have directly caused the not guilty verdict. What I'm wondering is why that law didn't give Martin the right to stand his ground when Zimmerman pursued him?
And a smaller question, relating to the attitude of the above poster. Unbiased reporting is gone, and has been for a while, but this didn't seem that over the top to me. I'll admit, I've only read a few dozen articles, but I'd appreciate if you explained this sentiment to me. Not that you're obligated to, responding at all is nothing more than a favor to me and anyone else who is confused about the same things.
I'm not trying to step on anyone's feelings here, but honestly the verdict doesn't make any sense to me so I'm looking for some help. I'd appreciate it if there isn't any racism (if the explanation includes justifying things by saying he's a young black male in a neighborhood full of young black males, it's probably racist) or truth manipulation (like saying it must have been self defense because at the time Martin was shot he was on top). This isn't a court of law and I don't expect answers that sound like they're coming from a lawyer from one side or the other, I'm looking for honest, unbiased answers to help me understand this verdict. Everything I've been able to find suggests that Zimmerman was in the wrong and murdered Martin, and I haven't heard any reasonable explanation from people who have felt it should go the other way, everything seems to open with Zimmerman being justified following him because he was a young black male.
TLDR? Explain why this verdict isn't just racist without coming off as racist yourself.
If I'm understanding correctly, what he means is that while he should be able to seek asylum anywhere they'll have him, he can't currently travel anywhere to seek asylum. While this might not technically make him stateless, I think it'd be even less accurate to suggest that the ability to turn himself in means he isn't stateless. His government want to arrest him, almost certain to jail him indefinitely possibly even sentence him to death, and the closest thing to support he has from any other government is them simply allowing him to exist. He's about as stateless as he can get without renouncing his own citizenship, and he couldn't even do that if he wanted to as you need to sign an oath in front of a US diplomat, where he would be arrested. Saying he isn't is really just splitting hairs, a lot like denying that the NSA is collecting data from corporations because they're actually getting it from the FBI while the FBI gets it from corporations.
And isn't this information contradictory to what Rep. Nadler just said, which was that they're actually eavesdropping on domestic phone calls without court orders? That's a bit more than the metadata being stuck in a lockbox. The biggest thing I've taken from this fiasco is that we really can't trust anything our government tells us anymore about these things. I don't think it's that every individual is deliberately lying to us, but it's at the very least apparent that they can't agree on what the truth is. On top of that, I don't think the government and most of the American people really agree on what kind of liberties they can take collecting personal information from people. Personally, I don't understand why they're collecting everyone's metadata for their own database as step one in this process, since they could just have the phone companies check the suspicious number against their own database and give that to the NSA. And that's just my problem with what Rogers agrees is happening, if what Nadler said is true, that means they think it's legal to listen to our phone calls any time and read all of our text messages and online communications, all without a court order. I'm with you on them telling us what they're doing, all the way, but I'll go ahead and say I don't think we'll accept it.
You've set up your criteria to turn this into an extremely biased discussion. Simply by stating the benefit can't be equal for both innocent and guilty parties rules out every single right we have in any scenario possible, as we all benefit equally from them. They're rights, they're meant to be equally beneficial. Convictions aren't supposed to be easy, that's why the burden is on the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. You've stated that torture can't be cited as a reason why this right should exist, but you leave out the fact that we do have legal means to extract information that many would consider torture if ever put in those positions themselves. You are clearly determined to have a one-sided discussion and you've decided that anyone who doesn't meet a long list of absurd criteria is wrong, revealing your own self-righteous attitude. You've given extremely narrow requirements to any argument against you, and gone in the opposite direction with very non-specific ways to "fail" or, "superfail." Simply telling people to label things as "Fail#" or "Superfail" illustrates better than anything that you're not looking for a reasonable discussion, you're trying to bring others down to boost your own ego. I fully expect you to try and argue that posts like this are exactly why you set your criteria. But that's a lie, you and I both know your criteria were set to ensure the debate is rigged in your favor. Your post doesn't belong on Slashdot, it's nothing more than an attempt to troll people who you know don't agree with you by setting impossible to meet criteria for a debate you're running yourself to ensure you can win it yourself. You are a troll, a troll who managed to get some front-page Slashdot space, but a troll none the less.
Funny story, this is completely wrong. I've seen everyone saying that's how it works in comments, but if you actually look into what they're being accused of, this isn't it. You could still set your own prices to whatever you like, but after doing so Apple will lower their prices. The thing that apparently makes this non-competitive is that Apple still gets their 30% instead of taking the cut that you would have to in order to sell the book for less. From all of the actual facts I've been able to find, other retailers could still actually set whatever price they wanted. Of course, you could only find this out by actually reading whole articles, which apparently nobody does because at the end of articles explaining this, readers still claim it's what you describe. It's kind of scarey how many people think they fully understand the case but have no idea what an MFN clause actually is or how Apple included it in their contract. Most people even assume a MFN clause is illegal, which isn't true unless it violates other laws, same as any other clause of a contract. Apple just took it from the usual wholesale system and applied it to the agency system they wanted to use, and this supposedly makes it illegal. Mind you, the most important piece of evidence in the case I've been able to find is a quote from Jobs' biography that doesn't admit to any wrongdoing or collusion at all, it only shows how they felt about Amazon's price model and what they wanted to do themselves.
People said the same thing about Wal-Mart, except somehow Target spanks their a** every quarter.
The biggest difference here being that Amazon has already knocked out much of their competition, it was quick and brutal. I said that already, but you chose to ignore it because you're suffering from tunnel vision, too. Oh and wait, Walmart did the same thing to many businesses already, and saying Target spanks their ass every quarter when Target's net income is 1/5th of Walmart's is not just hyperbole it is an outright lie. For investors, Target might be great because there are far fewer shares and therefore a greater increase in value for them despite the company making less, but that doesn't translate in any way shape or form to Target spanking their ass every quarter. In fact, their growth per share is extremely close, too, suggesting Walmart's dominance is going nowhere.
Either way, your supposition has a few problems, notably Amazon, unlike Apple, still sells the physical copies of the books, as well as the e-books. Said physical copies are NOT covered by the Apple agreement and Amazon is free to price them as it wishes.
I don't understand what you're getting at with this, it doesn't have any relevance beyond showing that Amazon's price gouging occurred on physical books as well, which is largely why physical book stores couldn't survive, EBooks alone wouldn't have done the damage so quickly.
Amazon, as a part of their business, allows other retailers to compete with them ON THE SAME PAGE. You can see other prices for both new and used books, right there next to Amazon's price.
Yes, part of Amazon's business model is to allow other retailers to list their items on Amazon's page, and Amazon gets a cut of the sale. So while this does make it easier for users to find a better price as opposed to typing a product description into Google, it also gives Amazon a cut of the profits whenever someone does beat their price. It's fair, but the way you put it makes it seem as if Amazon did it because they were being nice, when they actually did it because it's better for their business. If you didn't figure it out already, when you're willing to take a loss selling products just to make sure you sell them instead of someone else, it actually makes life easier to have your competitors report all of their prices to you, even if the tradeoff is you show customers what it costs elsewhere. It's a game Amazon plays and usually wins, it's a rare thing that I see something sold by Amazon being sold cheaper by someone else through their site, and as I said before I actually like and use the Amazon store.
Regardless of the price Amazon chooses to sell their physical books for, THE PUBLISHER WAS PAID! They got their money, upfront. Amazon could give paperbacks away for free and put a dollar in your pocket for taking it and it would not effect the publishers at all.
Again, I'm wondering why this is relevant. The publishers always get paid. Except in the case of used books, but that's not what we're discussing. I never said they weren't paying publishers, I said publishers weren't happy with Amazon's pricing scheme, which has been made clear since these accusations began. If any of this was about making publishers happy, nobody would question Apple since it's clear the publishers wanted to go that route. As for not effecting the publishers at all, maybe knocking out the distribution methods they've used for years had an effect. I haven't looked at their numbers, but is it really crazy to think that maybe they'd have made more money if book stores were still around, too?
Lastly, it is not illegal to have a monopoly, but it IS illegal to abuse it. If some fabled day came in the future where Amazon used their control of the market to force publishers to charge less, then they are free to take them to court over it or seek a government investigation.
I keep reading comments from people claiming it was a clause in the contract, but I haven't seen any such thing in actual news articles. I admit, I haven't read them all, but that's the type of thing I'd expect to see in every article about it given the general anti-apple tone I normally see. Instead, I keep seeing them quoting Steve Jobs' biography as evidence. A book published by the industry that supposedly engaged in this collusion written at the request of and about the founder of the company they colluded with is some of their strongest evidence. What the hell? From what I've seen for actual facts, it looks like Apple definitely encouraged publishers to increase prices. It also looks like publishers were already quite displeased with Amazon's practice, and that's what Apple was primarily looking to stop. I don't see any evidence that Apple went beyond encouraging publishers to do something immoral.
I'm not saying this is alright, it sounds like it's pretty shady to me. Even if Apple didn't technically break any laws, they engaged in unethical activities to boost their own profits and hurt consumers in the process.
That said, I question the ethics of Amazon's own pricing plan if it caused such a problem for publishers, and I find it hard to believe that something like that wouldn't have damaged consumers as much if not more in the long term. Here's my reasoning: Amazon, as we all know, was willing to sell titles at a loss to maintain their low prices. This sounds great for consumers, because we save money right away. But over time, the businesses that can't afford to sell titles at a loss go under. Amazon no longer needs that super-low price to be the lowest price around because their price is the only price, now they can finally sell it for a profit without fear of consumers just walking to a book store or clicking over to the next site. Book prices go back up, competition is gone with little hope of return, and Amazon stands over the corpses of Borders and B&N triumphantly.
It sounds crazy and unreasonable, until you realize we were halfway there before Apple even got into the ebook market. I know the internet spells the end for many brick-and-mortar establishments, no getting around that. What I'm trying to illustrate is that both Apple and Amazon engaged in immoral activities to create an unfair advantage for themselves. I'm actually all for punishing Apple for what they've done, as long as they did technically break the law, but people looking at them as the big kid on the playground bullying poor little Amazon have some serious tunnel vision. Amazon was the bully just a few years ago, and now Amazon and Apple are competitors. There have been plenty of times when Apple is obviously the bad guy, the same can be said for most successful businesses, I just don't think this is as cut-and-dry as people make it out to be.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not an expert. I like Apple products, but I prefer the Amazon store for anything other than music. I know I can come off as a fanboy, but that's probably because every other post that's been modded up has already found Apple guilty.
These guys are going to have a suit production ready by 2016?
Nope. FTA:
Testing the suit at altitude should begin around July of 2016 with 1.25 mile-high (2 km) parachute jumps from a helium balloon and tethered tower. No firm dates have been set for suborbital and orbital testing
So they're hoping to be able to test it in a few years at a lower altitude than either their goal or the Red Bull jump. And they're planning to use a robot for it, too. So they don't even have a date when they expect to have a human jump in this suit, let alone a goal of being ready for production by 2016. How did you even get modded up? And as insightful? RTFA people.
Terminal velocity for something person-shaped is about 120mph.
FTA:
In real life we have Felix Baumgartner, an Austrian skydiver, daredevil and BASE jumper who set a world record for skydiving an estimated 24.24 miles (39 km), reaching a speed of 843.6 mph (1,357.64 km/h), or Mach 1.25, on October 14, 2012.
So no. Actually the figure you mention, if I recall correctly, is based on reports from skydivers while spread out to catch wind and minimize speed. I'm not an expert, but it seems to me calculating the terminal velocity of a person depends on too many variables to be very accurate. If one wore an outfit meant to maximize speed for skydiving, not unlike what they use in skiing, I'd imagine you could reach even higher speeds.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't it within a hundred years? Between that and how absurdly thick-skulled the population of the USA is, I think that's a fair timeline. According to the Department of Labor, only 58% of adults in the USA are working, so we're already well over a hundred million not working. I think expecting people to notice before there are a billion unemployed folks in the USA is giving the vast majority of them too much credit. Just keep focusing on nitpicking minor potential errors in strangers' online posts, your replacement is already being tested at McDonalds locations throughout the country.
When robots have taken over the majority of labor and the number of unemployed people in the US rises over a billion, we'll notice. Does anyone else wonder how society will need to adapt to such a problem?
Three cheers for letting cable companies abuse their government-assisted monopolies! At this point, most of us get our internet from the same people who offer on-demand video services on top of regular television for a much higher price than Netflix. Options in most areas are limited to one sometimes two sources for broadband (Sources that also provide TV) or dialup, if you can still find that. Now, they're going to take advantage of their near complete control of the internet to shut out any possible competition to the outdated and undesirable cable TV overpriced bundle business model, full of stuff nobody will watch. If only there were some system of rules that was already in place meant to prevent businesses from leveraging a monopoly in one market to take control of another... If only...
I would be shocked, given that what they're supposedly trying to get is available in the form of said Windows tablets, they are cheap and easy to acquire, but nobody is buying them, which would suggest not many are trying to. Having worked in IT before, I wouldn't be shocked to hear the same people asking for this that had been asking for tablets all along, the same people with no real need to leave their desk with their work. There are a select few who could benefit from it, but most of the benefits are available from stripped down mobile versions of apps. Part of the problem is, for most jobs, if you're trying to do it without a mouse and keyboard, or without sitting down and focusing, you're not working effectively anyway. And for most jobs where you do need something portable, you don't actually need the full capabilities of a PC. That does still leave some desire for it, but to say the Windows tablets will make up 10% of all PC and tablet sales in three years? Not even the most optimistic of Microsoft's employees could believe that at this point.
"Even so, these Windows devices are projected to account for 10% of a combined PC & Windows Tablet market by 2016 – making them an important growth segment for the PC ecosystem."
Really makes Mr. Loverde sound like he's being paid to say good things about Windows. Who in their right mind could possibly believe that Microsoft's failure of a project is going to end up accounting for 10% of the market? It's a failure amongst tablets alone. I don't even know if there would be any benefit from him saying this, it just sounds crazy.
On a related note, I currently play Battlefield 4 on a computer I put together for around $400 a year ago, so I can definitely see why the PC market is struggling. But it will never disappear, which is enough for me.
I'm impressed, you've concluded beyond any doubt what experts apparently couldn't put together themselves no matter how much time they were allowed in that very same room. You should call the FBI and let them know they're not needed anymore, we can send you to crime scenes with your uncanny abilities and let you solve murder mysteries.
Is this guy serious?
It seems as though this company is violating Wikimedia's ToS. Doesn't that mean the same law they used against Aaron Schwartz applies to them? Maybe Wikimedia can press charges and have these people who actually have malicious intent and are knowingly breaking the law can serve some jail time. If only there were some system in place that could apply laws evenly to all people...
Based on a survey of 139 people, all bureau chiefs in Washington under a Democrat president. Oh, and the actual survey was performed and published by a reporter for the Chicago Tribune who later wrote a biography of John McCain. I'm sure there was no selection bias involved. As opposed to:
http://www.journalism.org/2006/10/06/the-american-journalist/
The survey conducted by the Pew Research Center isn't based on a select subset, specifically the 139 people who were comfortable admitting their political affiliation while working in Washington under a Democrat president. Don't get me wrong, the results still show the press leans left, like I said, but it's not some ridiculous nine to one ratio of democrats to republicans in the press, as you seem to think. I'm sure if you try hard enough, you can find a survey of a different hundred people in the press all claiming to be Republicans, or you can make one yourself just go to their national convention and ask everyone wearing a noticeable amount of red. If you look at the numbers and the source, then apply some common sense, it doesn't seem so realistic anymore does it?
There is always obvious bias in the media to anyone who isn't happy about something. It's not surprising, everyone has an opinion, nobody wants to get up and report that they were or are probably wrong, so they lean to their own side. If you recall, under the Bush administration the press was repeatedly telling us it's unpatriotic to not have faith in our president, that he was democratically elected and we need to respect that. It wasn't from everyone, but at the time, it was one of the dominant messages of the time, along with the idea that if you don't support the war you don't support the troops. Now, under Obama, it looks like they're all democrats, largely defending his actions until they just can't figure out how to anymore. It's a more complicated mess, spying on our own people, but I wouldn't say lying to all of us about why we were sending our soldiers to war is any better, in both cases I wish they'd be straight with us.
Yes, the media is biased, everyone is to some extent. Is it really evident in the reporting as much as it appears in these surveys though? I've read numerous articles stating CNN needs to go all the way and become the Fox News for Democrats, that they already show obvious bias and it'd help the party. While it's disturbing to think that CNN is so bad, it suggests they're further left than any other network and still can't keep up with the obvious and undeniable bias of Fox. My advice? Take in as much as you can and try to figure it out for yourself. Pick your battles, there's too much going on to try to follow everything while having to sift through the bullshit, sad but true, most of us don't have the time. Don't get duped by some twisted little survey like this.
By put into office, I mean who he appointed as chairmen of the FCC. It's late, time to sleep.
That's cute, but lies. I don't know how you found the Yahoo answers page, maybe you searched for "Why are all journalists democrats" like the clearly biased person you are, but anyone who's taken a basic course on statistics knows what they're used to do. Not to mention, according to The American Journalist, the numbers have never been near what you claim. The win still goes to the democrats, more journalists side with them out of everyone who claims to be a journalist, not that we should take that to represent how things are reported. Add to that the fact that a little more Googling, as you're so fond of doing, shows Fox News reporters claiming to be independent... More lies from the right! It might also be worth considering that from the perspective of any outsider, our left-wing radicals are further right than most other countries can stomach. Evidence: Look at who Obama just put into office. Get past fighting with everyone over parties, and particularly lying through your teeth and belittling everyone, if you think either party isn't screwing you as hard as they can you're a fool. Although with a response like, "because it's so idiotic to argue against the point I made," after being called out on citing a yahoo answer that looks like it was written by a Bush PR agent, you've aptly demonstrated you are more than foolish enough to buy the BS.
I'm not sure if I misunderstood you then or now, but if you understand the article is about something entirely different than the feature you describe then I'm not sure why you bothered to mention it, as it has nothing to do with the article. I'm not shocked you weren't able to reproduce the issue on your iPad, as it seems to be a problem specifically with the iPhone 5S, as described in the article, and there are reports around the web of being unable to reproduce it on other devices.
Also, it's amusing that you mention my ad hominem as unnecessary, when it was in response to your own, and you responded to it with another. Maybe you should run your own blog with comments disabled if you want to be able to post your opinion on the internet and have nobody respond to it. If you find a tame comment like that offensive, public forums are no the place for you.
Couple quick things. Firstly, that feature was already there, odds are you had disabled it before and that setting was reset with the update. Also, you can't access any existing photos from there, it'll only let you browse the photos you've taken since opening the camera, and resets each time you lock the screen again. There are similar features on other phones, it's handy and not by itself a security risk. As for not imagining anyone wanting to have the device open for the camera when it's locked, I think you lack imagination, and possibly even basic sense. I take advantage of it most frequently when I'm traveling and wish to quickly snap a photo without having to type in my password, it often makes the difference between a photo of an animal grazing and one of their behind as they run into the woods.
It's worth noting that this feature doesn't seem related in the least to the security flaw discussed here, as the camera is meant to be quickly accessible in this way. This means the suggestion of turning off control panel access won't fix the security flaw, if that's what you had in mind.
Giving aid to the enemy would be considered treason, and what she says at the end of the article is "if you don't comply it's treason." If the target of the inquiry is considered an enemy, as they may in a terrorist investigation, it seems to me not handing over the requested information could be seen as treason. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this was spelled out in the court case she's referring to. There's really nothing outrageous about the headline, the real problem is the ease with which agencies can force a company to hand over the information. Personally, I don't take issue with them considering it treason if they're requesting information on a dangerous enemy, I just think it's bull that they can use this on just about anyone with no real oversight, in a manner thought unconstitutional by the court in charge of it.
Check out who was fooled by this article, maybe use Google to dig up a few more...
http://www.designntrend.com/articles/7363/20130826/report-2-500-google-robo-taxi-driverless-cars-will-take.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2402047/Would-hail-cab-driven-ROBOT-Rumours-Googles-self-driving-cars-day-form-robo-taxi-service.html
http://www.efinancehub.com/uber-has-decided-to-invest-up-to-375-million-for-google-inc-nasdaqgoogs-gx3200-sedans/122229.html
I know, scarey right?
I'm seeing a problem with internet news...
http://www.designntrend.com/articles/7363/20130826/report-2-500-google-robo-taxi-driverless-cars-will-take.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2402047/Would-hail-cab-driven-ROBOT-Rumours-Googles-self-driving-cars-day-form-robo-taxi-service.html
http://www.efinancehub.com/uber-has-decided-to-invest-up-to-375-million-for-google-inc-nasdaqgoogs-gx3200-sedans/122229.html
There's more, too. How scarey is it that this is being reported as news elsewhere based on an article from TechCrunch that opens with a date ten years in the future in bold letters? They didn't just not investigate, they didn't read the article they then based their own articles on. At this point, I'd be surprised if it wasn't on Fox tonight.
How can I talk my country's leaders into negotiating such an agreement? Does anyone know who I can send a letter to? I live in the United States of America, sure such a bastion of freedom wouldn't allow spying on its citizens...
I'm missing some huge aspect of the case that I can't seem to find anywhere. There's a few big questions on my mind.
1. Why is everyone so upset that evidence about Martin's background that Zimmerman couldn't have known was kept out of court? It seems like since he couldn't have known, it didn't affect the situation at hand and therefore shouldn't be considered. But I might be missing something about why the victim's background is relevant in any case where the murder isn't premeditated.
2. At what point does getting out of your car and pursuing somebody become an aggressive act? We know for a fact that he followed Martin, there can be no doubt given where he was parked and where the body was, yet this is still considered self defense? I'd appreciate some help with that.
3. The stand your ground law was mentioned several times throughout this case, although it doesn't seem to have directly caused the not guilty verdict. What I'm wondering is why that law didn't give Martin the right to stand his ground when Zimmerman pursued him?
And a smaller question, relating to the attitude of the above poster. Unbiased reporting is gone, and has been for a while, but this didn't seem that over the top to me. I'll admit, I've only read a few dozen articles, but I'd appreciate if you explained this sentiment to me. Not that you're obligated to, responding at all is nothing more than a favor to me and anyone else who is confused about the same things.
I'm not trying to step on anyone's feelings here, but honestly the verdict doesn't make any sense to me so I'm looking for some help. I'd appreciate it if there isn't any racism (if the explanation includes justifying things by saying he's a young black male in a neighborhood full of young black males, it's probably racist) or truth manipulation (like saying it must have been self defense because at the time Martin was shot he was on top). This isn't a court of law and I don't expect answers that sound like they're coming from a lawyer from one side or the other, I'm looking for honest, unbiased answers to help me understand this verdict. Everything I've been able to find suggests that Zimmerman was in the wrong and murdered Martin, and I haven't heard any reasonable explanation from people who have felt it should go the other way, everything seems to open with Zimmerman being justified following him because he was a young black male.
TLDR? Explain why this verdict isn't just racist without coming off as racist yourself.
If I'm understanding correctly, what he means is that while he should be able to seek asylum anywhere they'll have him, he can't currently travel anywhere to seek asylum. While this might not technically make him stateless, I think it'd be even less accurate to suggest that the ability to turn himself in means he isn't stateless. His government want to arrest him, almost certain to jail him indefinitely possibly even sentence him to death, and the closest thing to support he has from any other government is them simply allowing him to exist. He's about as stateless as he can get without renouncing his own citizenship, and he couldn't even do that if he wanted to as you need to sign an oath in front of a US diplomat, where he would be arrested. Saying he isn't is really just splitting hairs, a lot like denying that the NSA is collecting data from corporations because they're actually getting it from the FBI while the FBI gets it from corporations.
And isn't this information contradictory to what Rep. Nadler just said, which was that they're actually eavesdropping on domestic phone calls without court orders? That's a bit more than the metadata being stuck in a lockbox. The biggest thing I've taken from this fiasco is that we really can't trust anything our government tells us anymore about these things. I don't think it's that every individual is deliberately lying to us, but it's at the very least apparent that they can't agree on what the truth is. On top of that, I don't think the government and most of the American people really agree on what kind of liberties they can take collecting personal information from people. Personally, I don't understand why they're collecting everyone's metadata for their own database as step one in this process, since they could just have the phone companies check the suspicious number against their own database and give that to the NSA. And that's just my problem with what Rogers agrees is happening, if what Nadler said is true, that means they think it's legal to listen to our phone calls any time and read all of our text messages and online communications, all without a court order. I'm with you on them telling us what they're doing, all the way, but I'll go ahead and say I don't think we'll accept it.
You've set up your criteria to turn this into an extremely biased discussion. Simply by stating the benefit can't be equal for both innocent and guilty parties rules out every single right we have in any scenario possible, as we all benefit equally from them. They're rights, they're meant to be equally beneficial. Convictions aren't supposed to be easy, that's why the burden is on the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. You've stated that torture can't be cited as a reason why this right should exist, but you leave out the fact that we do have legal means to extract information that many would consider torture if ever put in those positions themselves. You are clearly determined to have a one-sided discussion and you've decided that anyone who doesn't meet a long list of absurd criteria is wrong, revealing your own self-righteous attitude. You've given extremely narrow requirements to any argument against you, and gone in the opposite direction with very non-specific ways to "fail" or, "superfail." Simply telling people to label things as "Fail#" or "Superfail" illustrates better than anything that you're not looking for a reasonable discussion, you're trying to bring others down to boost your own ego. I fully expect you to try and argue that posts like this are exactly why you set your criteria. But that's a lie, you and I both know your criteria were set to ensure the debate is rigged in your favor. Your post doesn't belong on Slashdot, it's nothing more than an attempt to troll people who you know don't agree with you by setting impossible to meet criteria for a debate you're running yourself to ensure you can win it yourself. You are a troll, a troll who managed to get some front-page Slashdot space, but a troll none the less.
Funny story, this is completely wrong. I've seen everyone saying that's how it works in comments, but if you actually look into what they're being accused of, this isn't it. You could still set your own prices to whatever you like, but after doing so Apple will lower their prices. The thing that apparently makes this non-competitive is that Apple still gets their 30% instead of taking the cut that you would have to in order to sell the book for less. From all of the actual facts I've been able to find, other retailers could still actually set whatever price they wanted. Of course, you could only find this out by actually reading whole articles, which apparently nobody does because at the end of articles explaining this, readers still claim it's what you describe. It's kind of scarey how many people think they fully understand the case but have no idea what an MFN clause actually is or how Apple included it in their contract. Most people even assume a MFN clause is illegal, which isn't true unless it violates other laws, same as any other clause of a contract. Apple just took it from the usual wholesale system and applied it to the agency system they wanted to use, and this supposedly makes it illegal. Mind you, the most important piece of evidence in the case I've been able to find is a quote from Jobs' biography that doesn't admit to any wrongdoing or collusion at all, it only shows how they felt about Amazon's price model and what they wanted to do themselves.
People said the same thing about Wal-Mart, except somehow Target spanks their a** every quarter.
The biggest difference here being that Amazon has already knocked out much of their competition, it was quick and brutal. I said that already, but you chose to ignore it because you're suffering from tunnel vision, too. Oh and wait, Walmart did the same thing to many businesses already, and saying Target spanks their ass every quarter when Target's net income is 1/5th of Walmart's is not just hyperbole it is an outright lie. For investors, Target might be great because there are far fewer shares and therefore a greater increase in value for them despite the company making less, but that doesn't translate in any way shape or form to Target spanking their ass every quarter. In fact, their growth per share is extremely close, too, suggesting Walmart's dominance is going nowhere.
Either way, your supposition has a few problems, notably Amazon, unlike Apple, still sells the physical copies of the books, as well as the e-books. Said physical copies are NOT covered by the Apple agreement and Amazon is free to price them as it wishes.
I don't understand what you're getting at with this, it doesn't have any relevance beyond showing that Amazon's price gouging occurred on physical books as well, which is largely why physical book stores couldn't survive, EBooks alone wouldn't have done the damage so quickly.
Amazon, as a part of their business, allows other retailers to compete with them ON THE SAME PAGE. You can see other prices for both new and used books, right there next to Amazon's price.
Yes, part of Amazon's business model is to allow other retailers to list their items on Amazon's page, and Amazon gets a cut of the sale. So while this does make it easier for users to find a better price as opposed to typing a product description into Google, it also gives Amazon a cut of the profits whenever someone does beat their price. It's fair, but the way you put it makes it seem as if Amazon did it because they were being nice, when they actually did it because it's better for their business. If you didn't figure it out already, when you're willing to take a loss selling products just to make sure you sell them instead of someone else, it actually makes life easier to have your competitors report all of their prices to you, even if the tradeoff is you show customers what it costs elsewhere. It's a game Amazon plays and usually wins, it's a rare thing that I see something sold by Amazon being sold cheaper by someone else through their site, and as I said before I actually like and use the Amazon store.
Regardless of the price Amazon chooses to sell their physical books for, THE PUBLISHER WAS PAID! They got their money, upfront. Amazon could give paperbacks away for free and put a dollar in your pocket for taking it and it would not effect the publishers at all.
Again, I'm wondering why this is relevant. The publishers always get paid. Except in the case of used books, but that's not what we're discussing. I never said they weren't paying publishers, I said publishers weren't happy with Amazon's pricing scheme, which has been made clear since these accusations began. If any of this was about making publishers happy, nobody would question Apple since it's clear the publishers wanted to go that route. As for not effecting the publishers at all, maybe knocking out the distribution methods they've used for years had an effect. I haven't looked at their numbers, but is it really crazy to think that maybe they'd have made more money if book stores were still around, too?
Lastly, it is not illegal to have a monopoly, but it IS illegal to abuse it. If some fabled day came in the future where Amazon used their control of the market to force publishers to charge less, then they are free to take them to court over it or seek a government investigation.
Th
I keep reading comments from people claiming it was a clause in the contract, but I haven't seen any such thing in actual news articles. I admit, I haven't read them all, but that's the type of thing I'd expect to see in every article about it given the general anti-apple tone I normally see. Instead, I keep seeing them quoting Steve Jobs' biography as evidence. A book published by the industry that supposedly engaged in this collusion written at the request of and about the founder of the company they colluded with is some of their strongest evidence. What the hell? From what I've seen for actual facts, it looks like Apple definitely encouraged publishers to increase prices. It also looks like publishers were already quite displeased with Amazon's practice, and that's what Apple was primarily looking to stop. I don't see any evidence that Apple went beyond encouraging publishers to do something immoral.
I'm not saying this is alright, it sounds like it's pretty shady to me. Even if Apple didn't technically break any laws, they engaged in unethical activities to boost their own profits and hurt consumers in the process.
That said, I question the ethics of Amazon's own pricing plan if it caused such a problem for publishers, and I find it hard to believe that something like that wouldn't have damaged consumers as much if not more in the long term. Here's my reasoning: Amazon, as we all know, was willing to sell titles at a loss to maintain their low prices. This sounds great for consumers, because we save money right away. But over time, the businesses that can't afford to sell titles at a loss go under. Amazon no longer needs that super-low price to be the lowest price around because their price is the only price, now they can finally sell it for a profit without fear of consumers just walking to a book store or clicking over to the next site. Book prices go back up, competition is gone with little hope of return, and Amazon stands over the corpses of Borders and B&N triumphantly.
It sounds crazy and unreasonable, until you realize we were halfway there before Apple even got into the ebook market. I know the internet spells the end for many brick-and-mortar establishments, no getting around that. What I'm trying to illustrate is that both Apple and Amazon engaged in immoral activities to create an unfair advantage for themselves. I'm actually all for punishing Apple for what they've done, as long as they did technically break the law, but people looking at them as the big kid on the playground bullying poor little Amazon have some serious tunnel vision. Amazon was the bully just a few years ago, and now Amazon and Apple are competitors. There have been plenty of times when Apple is obviously the bad guy, the same can be said for most successful businesses, I just don't think this is as cut-and-dry as people make it out to be.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not an expert. I like Apple products, but I prefer the Amazon store for anything other than music. I know I can come off as a fanboy, but that's probably because every other post that's been modded up has already found Apple guilty.
These guys are going to have a suit production ready by 2016?
Nope. FTA:
Testing the suit at altitude should begin around July of 2016 with 1.25 mile-high (2 km) parachute jumps from a helium balloon and tethered tower. No firm dates have been set for suborbital and orbital testing
So they're hoping to be able to test it in a few years at a lower altitude than either their goal or the Red Bull jump. And they're planning to use a robot for it, too. So they don't even have a date when they expect to have a human jump in this suit, let alone a goal of being ready for production by 2016. How did you even get modded up? And as insightful? RTFA people.
Terminal velocity for something person-shaped is about 120mph.
FTA:
In real life we have Felix Baumgartner, an Austrian skydiver, daredevil and BASE jumper who set a world record for skydiving an estimated 24.24 miles (39 km), reaching a speed of 843.6 mph (1,357.64 km/h), or Mach 1.25, on October 14, 2012.
So no. Actually the figure you mention, if I recall correctly, is based on reports from skydivers while spread out to catch wind and minimize speed. I'm not an expert, but it seems to me calculating the terminal velocity of a person depends on too many variables to be very accurate. If one wore an outfit meant to maximize speed for skydiving, not unlike what they use in skiing, I'd imagine you could reach even higher speeds.