Not every feature needs to be added to a piece of software.
I can see scenarios in which a user checks that box, and regrets it later when the browser opens too many tabs without giving them the option to confirm this. And the corresponding feature that would then need to be implemented (to force the browser to ask the user for confirmation) would have serious discoverability issues.
I imagine most people do not open too many browser tabs simultaneously most of the time, and while the feature might seem genuinely useful, there are some downsides that would force the addition of more code to address, which adds to complexity of the codebase.
However, if you came up with some UI that solved this elegantly, implemented it and submitted a patch, I can imagine them giving the issue serious consideration.
And before you go all nitpicky on me, I have combined all non-renewables (nuclear, coal, gas), in the same way as the original submission combined hydro, solar and wind, all of which have less in common than the non-renewables, which are all thermal power plants, and thus have a lot more in common.
Now that you put it that way, I would add that it makes sense why US police seem to opt for lethal force. When you have a gun, you can be reckless. In the same way that George Zimmerman felt able to stalk a kid who was much bigger than him. He had a gun, so he could take more risks with himself. Except that when cops (or Zimmerman) take risks with themselves, they are also taking risks with the lives of the people they are confronting. And that is the really unacceptable bit.
In the UK (and many other countries), the police do not have guns, therefore they have to take rather more care in dealing with potentially dangerous situations. People dying in police confrontations is incredibly rare in the UK, in part because the police do not believe they are outmatching their targets. Therefore, they will avoid escalating any situation until they know they can absolutely control it.
Whenever a policeman (or woman) resorts to firing his gun, especially against an unarmed person, then they have lost control, and many times, it is their fault that they have lost that control.
So what if there is an investigation. Someone leaked highly sensitive documents. Of course there was going to be an investigation. Doesn't prove that they definitely wanted to extradite him. At worst, Assange is like a spy, and the US generally doesn't go after foreign spies either.
Assange influenced an American man to provide documents, and that is the person the US went after. Of course if Assange steps into the US, he might find himself in a bit of bother, but it is highly doubtful they will go after him.
The US has not made any charges against him, and they have not requested his extradition from any country. It would be silly for Sweden to promise this. If anything, it would only encourage the US to actually test such a promise, even if they had no intention to do so.
Secondly, Sweden is bound by the terms of any treaty it signed with the US. They don't get to cherry pick who they will decide to extradite and who they will not. It is not even a political decision - a court will decide whether to extradite him or not based on the agreed rules/laws on extradition. If Assange was in Sweden, and he met the criteria for extradition, then he would be extradited.
And what exactly is Assange bargaining with here? Usually, a deal to avoid prosecution is made when you have something to bargain with. If Assange wants to bargain, he needs to offer something of value to Sweden. Now if he has some yet-to-be-leaked documents, Sweden might be willing to make a deal.
The man is simply using the extradition as a smokescreen. He is right up there with Polanski in my opinion - a fugitive from justice.
It could be predatory pricing, or dumping, if you sell below marginal cost, i.e. the cost of producing each additional car (or chip). However, even then, it can be tricky, as companies can sell below marginal cost as they expect marginal costs to fall as production is bedded in.
I would add that (1) airports are usually some distance outside any major city and (2) You are usually required to have cleared security about 30 minutes before the flight on domestic flights.
I live in the UK, and even though we do not have "proper" high speed rail, train journey times to London are quite competitive with flying. The quickest train from London to Edinburgh is 4 hours, and I can literally get on the train one minute before it leaves the station. If you wanted to get from central Edinburgh to central London, you usually need at least 3 hours to do so by train. This maglev train would be faster than flying no doubt.
Branding is for people who might not know, so the fact that people who know EITHER or the system would not be confused by it is as irrelevant as is the fact that Usain Bolt won the last two 100m Olympic gold medals.
If you know both projects, then the brand doesn't matter.
And in any case, why don't they try call it BMW or Mercedes Benz while they are at it, and see how far they get. Those companies are in completely different industries right? That wouldn't cause any issues at all right?
Way to miss the point. I was talking about how success is more than just putting the product in the hands of the early adopters.
The iPhone is a success because people use it and love it, they sing its praises and influence others to buy it.
Amazon surely wants more and better success than simply getting a small number of people to play with the device and then to put it in a drawer. They want people to buy and consume media on it, which is their play after all. If people don't do that, then they won't consider Fire Phone a success. And I don't think they will be considering it a success any time soon.
I see you scenario and I raise you the automated car's response.
Car sees deer lurking by the road side. Car blasts deer off the roadside to ensure it doesn't stray into the road.
Kidding aside, there is no reason a car couldn't do exactly what you would in such a scenario. As long as it can recognize that there is a large animal near the road (which it is likely to realise before you would), it can slow down, change lanes etc. It is also able to react long before you would. For example, upon noticing that there is a potential hazard in the road, it could preemptively move the brake calipers as close as it can to the disc brakes to minimise the time required to engage. You wouldn't normally want this in a human driven car because you have to use the feeling in your feet to regulate the brake force. An automated car doesn't have that problem.
If it couldn't prevent a collision, it can also prep all other safety systems to ensure that the collision causes as little damage to the occupants as possible e.g. gets the airbags ready to go etc.
Finally, once the collision happens, it can continue to steer the car out of trouble, which can be pretty important if there are other cars around. Many times, once a car is hit, humans lose control. The automated systems in a car, assuming you haven't hit a wall, can continue to operate until the car comes to a safe stop.
There are many ways for an automated car to do much better than human in most scenarios, including scenarios where an accident becomes inevitable. A computer can also choose to crash in the best possible way to reduce damage to yourself.
If car manufacturers can show that they autonomous vehicles are on average far safer than the alternative, then I can see courts refusing to awards costs in excess of the costs that would be imposed on human drivers who caused collisions.
In fact, this would be ridiculously easy to legislate for. You can just require that autonomous cars be on average safer than their human driven equivalents before a manufacturer can sell them. At the point you are ten times more likely to be injured in a human driven car than in the autonomous equivalent, the judge can easily refuse to award punitive costs (unless you can prove that the manufacturer ignored an issue that made the vehicle particularly dangerous).
Very little of the technology we have today was developed due to emergency needs.
The only thing that matters is that someone develops the technology, and it is good enough.
However, on the subject of automated cars, the real difficulties is how to introduce them on roads where you still have "manual" drivers around (I don't mean stick here).
Computer driven cars can be totally predictable. Manual cars, less so - people forget to use their signals, people make late lane changes, fall asleep and drift into other lanes etc.
Er, dude. The vast majority of people who buy macs use OS X and not Windows. Yes, there are those who like to have both, and some who will even install Linux, but most people use Mac OS.
Tap to pay is supposed to be for low value transactions. The thinking behind it is that you accept the risk of small losses for the convenience of being able to pay without having to enter you pin each time. Makes things like buying your lunch easier/quicker.
There is supposed to be an absolute limit to the losses you can incur, if any. As far as I am aware, you are not liable for losses if your card is stolen, provided you report it stolen.
If your money is in a bank account, you can use a direct transfer, or maybe even your debit card. You might need to call your bank to verify, or your bank might call you if they think the transaction might be suspicious.
If we can create a colony on Mars, then we we will have the technology to create survival cells on Earth that would withstand asteroid impacts.
To survive on Mars, we don't just need people, we need to take with us animals, plants, insects, bacteria, etc. All of that would be very expensive. However, we could build deep enough "shafts" here on earth and trivially move all plant/animal life that we require to survive, and all without the ridiculous expense of having to try move everything we require a distance of 225m km.
It would be far easier for us to develop a survival cell with the bare minimum of what we require, and then go foraging on an uninhabitable surface for minerals etc on the earth that we already know well, than it is to bet on the availability of everything we would need to depend on on Mars.
They can. But they make tradeoffs because computers are expected to do the same calculations much faster (or were in the past, and now have to keep making the same mistakes for compatibility reasons).
Slashdot Mirror
I'll bite.
Not every feature needs to be added to a piece of software.
I can see scenarios in which a user checks that box, and regrets it later when the browser opens too many tabs without giving them the option to confirm this. And the corresponding feature that would then need to be implemented (to force the browser to ask the user for confirmation) would have serious discoverability issues.
I imagine most people do not open too many browser tabs simultaneously most of the time, and while the feature might seem genuinely useful, there are some downsides that would force the addition of more code to address, which adds to complexity of the codebase.
However, if you came up with some UI that solved this elegantly, implemented it and submitted a patch, I can imagine them giving the issue serious consideration.
The math is clear
7.8 + 5.6 + 1.4 is greater than 10.8.
And before you go all nitpicky on me, I have combined all non-renewables (nuclear, coal, gas), in the same way as the original submission combined hydro, solar and wind, all of which have less in common than the non-renewables, which are all thermal power plants, and thus have a lot more in common.
Now that you put it that way, I would add that it makes sense why US police seem to opt for lethal force. When you have a gun, you can be reckless. In the same way that George Zimmerman felt able to stalk a kid who was much bigger than him. He had a gun, so he could take more risks with himself. Except that when cops (or Zimmerman) take risks with themselves, they are also taking risks with the lives of the people they are confronting. And that is the really unacceptable bit.
In the UK (and many other countries), the police do not have guns, therefore they have to take rather more care in dealing with potentially dangerous situations. People dying in police confrontations is incredibly rare in the UK, in part because the police do not believe they are outmatching their targets. Therefore, they will avoid escalating any situation until they know they can absolutely control it.
Whenever a policeman (or woman) resorts to firing his gun, especially against an unarmed person, then they have lost control, and many times, it is their fault that they have lost that control.
So what if there is an investigation. Someone leaked highly sensitive documents. Of course there was going to be an investigation. Doesn't prove that they definitely wanted to extradite him. At worst, Assange is like a spy, and the US generally doesn't go after foreign spies either.
Assange influenced an American man to provide documents, and that is the person the US went after. Of course if Assange steps into the US, he might find himself in a bit of bother, but it is highly doubtful they will go after him.
The US has not made any charges against him, and they have not requested his extradition from any country. It would be silly for Sweden to promise this. If anything, it would only encourage the US to actually test such a promise, even if they had no intention to do so.
Secondly, Sweden is bound by the terms of any treaty it signed with the US. They don't get to cherry pick who they will decide to extradite and who they will not. It is not even a political decision - a court will decide whether to extradite him or not based on the agreed rules/laws on extradition. If Assange was in Sweden, and he met the criteria for extradition, then he would be extradited.
And what exactly is Assange bargaining with here? Usually, a deal to avoid prosecution is made when you have something to bargain with. If Assange wants to bargain, he needs to offer something of value to Sweden. Now if he has some yet-to-be-leaked documents, Sweden might be willing to make a deal.
The man is simply using the extradition as a smokescreen. He is right up there with Polanski in my opinion - a fugitive from justice.
It is fraud if you create a web page purely to deceive Walmart into giving you a discount on a product you had no intention of selling for the price.
It is deeply dishonest, and there is no other excuse for that behaviour.
It could be predatory pricing, or dumping, if you sell below marginal cost, i.e. the cost of producing each additional car (or chip). However, even then, it can be tricky, as companies can sell below marginal cost as they expect marginal costs to fall as production is bedded in.
Then you should demand a refund from Google!
Debian have many good sides. It also suffers from fractions...
It could be worse. They could be irrational.
I would add that (1) airports are usually some distance outside any major city and (2) You are usually required to have cleared security about 30 minutes before the flight on domestic flights.
I live in the UK, and even though we do not have "proper" high speed rail, train journey times to London are quite competitive with flying. The quickest train from London to Edinburgh is 4 hours, and I can literally get on the train one minute before it leaves the station. If you wanted to get from central Edinburgh to central London, you usually need at least 3 hours to do so by train. This maglev train would be faster than flying no doubt.
Branding is for people who might not know, so the fact that people who know EITHER or the system would not be confused by it is as irrelevant as is the fact that Usain Bolt won the last two 100m Olympic gold medals.
If you know both projects, then the brand doesn't matter.
And in any case, why don't they try call it BMW or Mercedes Benz while they are at it, and see how far they get. Those companies are in completely different industries right? That wouldn't cause any issues at all right?
Way to miss the point. I was talking about how success is more than just putting the product in the hands of the early adopters.
The iPhone is a success because people use it and love it, they sing its praises and influence others to buy it.
Amazon surely wants more and better success than simply getting a small number of people to play with the device and then to put it in a drawer. They want people to buy and consume media on it, which is their play after all. If people don't do that, then they won't consider Fire Phone a success. And I don't think they will be considering it a success any time soon.
If the people who bought iPhones put them in a drawer, then Apple wouldn't be the insanely profitable company it is right now.
If people don't use their Fire Phones, then other people don't discover them and don't buy them.
Phew. That's OK then!
And the autopilotmobile is probably recording everything and reporting you to the relevant authorities.
And then you get banned from driving.
I see you scenario and I raise you the automated car's response.
Car sees deer lurking by the road side. Car blasts deer off the roadside to ensure it doesn't stray into the road.
Kidding aside, there is no reason a car couldn't do exactly what you would in such a scenario. As long as it can recognize that there is a large animal near the road (which it is likely to realise before you would), it can slow down, change lanes etc. It is also able to react long before you would. For example, upon noticing that there is a potential hazard in the road, it could preemptively move the brake calipers as close as it can to the disc brakes to minimise the time required to engage. You wouldn't normally want this in a human driven car because you have to use the feeling in your feet to regulate the brake force. An automated car doesn't have that problem.
If it couldn't prevent a collision, it can also prep all other safety systems to ensure that the collision causes as little damage to the occupants as possible e.g. gets the airbags ready to go etc.
Finally, once the collision happens, it can continue to steer the car out of trouble, which can be pretty important if there are other cars around. Many times, once a car is hit, humans lose control. The automated systems in a car, assuming you haven't hit a wall, can continue to operate until the car comes to a safe stop.
There are many ways for an automated car to do much better than human in most scenarios, including scenarios where an accident becomes inevitable. A computer can also choose to crash in the best possible way to reduce damage to yourself.
If car manufacturers can show that they autonomous vehicles are on average far safer than the alternative, then I can see courts refusing to awards costs in excess of the costs that would be imposed on human drivers who caused collisions.
In fact, this would be ridiculously easy to legislate for. You can just require that autonomous cars be on average safer than their human driven equivalents before a manufacturer can sell them. At the point you are ten times more likely to be injured in a human driven car than in the autonomous equivalent, the judge can easily refuse to award punitive costs (unless you can prove that the manufacturer ignored an issue that made the vehicle particularly dangerous).
Very little of the technology we have today was developed due to emergency needs.
The only thing that matters is that someone develops the technology, and it is good enough.
However, on the subject of automated cars, the real difficulties is how to introduce them on roads where you still have "manual" drivers around (I don't mean stick here).
Computer driven cars can be totally predictable. Manual cars, less so - people forget to use their signals, people make late lane changes, fall asleep and drift into other lanes etc.
Most of your ideas are unworkable. Who would decide what the price of the copyrighted item should be? The government?
I agree that copyright lasts too long now. I think 30 years should be enough. Certainly not lifetime + 70 years.
For software especially, 70 years is basically a period over which the copyrighted material will be useless.
Er, dude. The vast majority of people who buy macs use OS X and not Windows. Yes, there are those who like to have both, and some who will even install Linux, but most people use Mac OS.
And this is the reason they are openly broadcasting the Hong Kong demonstrations in China. Oh wait, no they are not!
Tap to pay is supposed to be for low value transactions. The thinking behind it is that you accept the risk of small losses for the convenience of being able to pay without having to enter you pin each time. Makes things like buying your lunch easier/quicker.
There is supposed to be an absolute limit to the losses you can incur, if any. As far as I am aware, you are not liable for losses if your card is stolen, provided you report it stolen.
If your money is in a bank account, you can use a direct transfer, or maybe even your debit card. You might need to call your bank to verify, or your bank might call you if they think the transaction might be suspicious.
If we can create a colony on Mars, then we we will have the technology to create survival cells on Earth that would withstand asteroid impacts.
To survive on Mars, we don't just need people, we need to take with us animals, plants, insects, bacteria, etc. All of that would be very expensive. However, we could build deep enough "shafts" here on earth and trivially move all plant/animal life that we require to survive, and all without the ridiculous expense of having to try move everything we require a distance of 225m km.
It would be far easier for us to develop a survival cell with the bare minimum of what we require, and then go foraging on an uninhabitable surface for minerals etc on the earth that we already know well, than it is to bet on the availability of everything we would need to depend on on Mars.
They can. But they make tradeoffs because computers are expected to do the same calculations much faster (or were in the past, and now have to keep making the same mistakes for compatibility reasons).