They already made smartphones which couldn't make phone calls
I'm not sure what this is referring to. The iPod touch? If so, that's not really a fair criticism. It's not meant to be a smartphone.
He's probably referring to the "You're holding it wrong" issue that resulted in Apple shipping cases to iPhone 4 owners to mitigate an antenna problem.
There seems to be a discrepancy between the title of the story, and the summary... The title says Google addressed, and the summary says Google plans to release. To me it sounds like they haven't addressed anything yet. Shouldn't we wait to see if their software "fix" fixes anything before claiming they've addressed the issue...
"Addressed" means "spoke about". As opposed to, "released fix for", which is what you seem to be looking for.
The charge would be unauthorized release of classified info. So who authorizes it? A judge? Nope. As the Secretary of State she had ultimate authority of classification of anything originating from her office, which was the entire state department. From a legal standpoint, if the Secretary of State emails their staff classified information originating from the State Department, they are de-facto declassifying it. That is why the whole investigation is bizarre and why no charges were brought. You can debate whether this is good judgement or not, but the idea of anything happening legally is absurd.
That isn't the way declassification works. Try educating yourself rather than repeating the misinformation you heard from some random source.
This whole thing sucks for people who haven't been cleared (Because it's not possible unless you're hired for a job where the government actually requires it) and reeks of favoritism for past governmental employees.
I'd like to see federal legislation passed that either prohibits employment/job discrimination based on the possession at the time of hiring of a government security clearance, OR security clearances are automatically revoked or cancelled when leaving or changing employers and have to be re-verified to be re-instated after hiring to a new job, OR a law prohibiting an individual holding clearances from causing any of the clearances they already hold to be disclosed to a recruiter or prospective employer, other than ability to get a clearance or already having a clearance will have to be verified after a hiring decision.
While you're at it, why not wish for a law prohibiting discrimination based on the prospective employee's skill set? The current system reeks of favoritism for people who know how to do things.
Here's my personal experience, having held a secret clearance for 35 out of the last 40 years while working for defense contractors. Security clearances are de-activated when a cleared employee changes employers. If the new employer requests re-activation within a short period of time, there is some paperwork and minimal vetting to go through. If the request is not made within a short period of time, the employee goes through a re-verification process that requires a re-submission of all the very detailed personal information that was submitted the first time, and waits a long time (currently about a year) to be cleared. Then periodically (every 10 years or so), the employee goes through the whole thing again. If the cleared employee shifts from a position requiring a clearance to one not requiring a clearance, the clearance is suspended. If the employee returns to a position requiring clearance within six months, the clearance can be unsuspended quickly; if not, it's de-activated. If not re-activated within a fairly short period of time (6 months, I believe), it's cancelled.
I shouldn't have to say this, but not everyone can get a clearance. Do you have a non US person that's a close relative? Recent bankruptcy? Other financial problems? Ever been arrested for anything? Ever been charged with a crime? Ever had a restraining order issued against you? Less than honorable military discharge? Used any illelgal/controlled drugs or substances in the last 7 years? Court-ordered psychiatric treatment? Ever held a non-US passport? Ever been officially reprimanded for workplace misconduct? Ever been fired from a job for cause? Failed to pay Federal, state, or other taxes? Ever used a credit counseling service? Been delinquent on any Federal debt (hint: Federally guaranteed school loans)? Ever defaulted on a loan? Ever had anything repossessed? Been evicted for non-payment of rent? Ever been sued? Ever sued anyone? Ever been a member of an organization that advocates or practices acts of violence to discourage others from exercising their Constitutional rights (hello, antifa)? Any of these can disqualify an individual, and some of them are immediate disqualifiers.
Why do you have to pay insurance for their self driving? If Tesla trusted its self driving feature, it would indemnify the owners in the event of an accident. The fact you have to buy coverage hits on the fact it is an alpha release of âoeself driving.â
I guess you're talking about the liability portion of an auto insurance policy, which is what is required by law. If you finance your car purchase, the finance company will require you to also carry comprehensive and collision coverage. Liability insurance won't pay to fix your car if a tree falls on it while it's parked in your driveway, or if someone slams into it in a parking lot, or if a truck kicks up a rock that cracks your windshield.
Makes sense to me. Now tell us how you feel about drug tests for recipients of public assistance.
I'm against both. Now tell us how you feel about bread lines.
I'm against both as well, and it has nothing to do with whether denial of services is an effective incentive to curb what the government decrees as self-destructive behavior. Today they may be imposing standards you like. Tomorrow, maybe not so much. Sorry if my sarcasm rattled your cage.
Now, as regards bread lines: I'm guessing they would be difficult to snort, and might lead to sinus infections.
Unless you have socialized medicine, then it is. At the same time, if "society" is footing the bill for your medical care, you shouldn't be surprised when "society" puts constraints on your behaviors.
Makes sense to me. Now tell us how you feel about drug tests for recipients of public assistance.
How often do you go to a bank, compared to before the Internet? The last time I went I needed to go because I opened an account and it was required they knew I was alive and present in person. At another bank I do everything online.
Most of the things that might need a human interaction can be done over the phone. The people on the phone can do more people AND are cheaper, even if their wage would be the same as a person that you visit.
And many of the things that need to be done over the phone can be automated. There are now still people who do not have a PC or do not know how to use one. They are latterly dying out. From guestimated experience it is people who are born before around 1955. Yes, there are many exceptions on both sides of that date.
There are several banks in Europe that are only online. No brick and mortar. I even have an account in a different country. (No, I am not rich enough to dodge taxes).
I don't think a person's use or non-use of brick and mortar bank services has much to do with their computer comfort level. I usually go the bank once a week, to withdraw cash from the drive-through ATM; it takes about a minute because I do it on my way to work in the morning. Two or three times a year I actually go into the bank, to exchange coins for currency; sometimes this can take as long as 15 minutes. These minor inconveniences are the by-products of preferring not to live an entirely cashless life, and only take about 1-1/2 hours per year of my time. My wife, on the other hand, does almost all of her banking on line. I'm pretty sure she spends a lot more than 1-1/2 hours per year just swearing at her computer.
Only half the population can have an IQ under 100. It's the average.
And what's the average (as in mean) of the following set of numbers: [108, 100, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99]? And what proportion of them are below 100?
Would you like to reconsider your statement?
sabbede was talking about IQ scores, not a small set of numbers selected to prove a point. Do you know how IQ scores actually work?
Applying the label Fascist to a group you don't like, then using violence and suppression of ideas and speech to fight the agenda of that group doesn't make you anti-fascist; it makes you a violent suppressor of ideas and speech. It boils down to embracing the moral framework of your enemy in the name of fighting them; aka, the end justifies the means. People who view Antifa in a negative light aren't generally fans of Fascist principles, they just have problems with the behavior they observe.
Oh look - another person who thinks that if a right isn't enumerated in the Constitution, it doesn't exist. Read some history. The Federalist Papers would be a good place to start.
snowflake.
Antifa means AntiFascist, if you are against it, you are pro-fascism, which is about right if you are dRumpft supporter. Enjoying your big orange baby and his tantrums?
Being a member of Antifa and calling yourself anti-fascist, is like being a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and calling yourself a socialist.
What's going to stop Autonomous Car Owner A from charging a bit less than Autonomous Car Owner B, in order to get more customers? And what's then going to stop A from reducing his prices a bit below B again, in order to get customers back? And why won't this cycle continue until the prices paid by customers are only slightly higher than the costs incurred by the car owners?
In other words, why do you think there will be no price-competition in The Sucky Future?
Factors similar to those resulting in not much price competition between cable providers in the Sucky Present. Can you cite a reason why autonomous car fleet services won't be regulated the way the cable providers are?
"Imagine a self-driving car doing exactly the speed limit in the passing lane as it inches by a self-driving transport truck doing five kph under the speed limit."
Imagine a human driven car doing exactly the speed limit in the passing lane as it inches by a human driven truck doing five kph under the speed limit.
What you describe is no different to right now.
Of course it's different. Personal data from 50 years of driving says if you're behind a slow driver in the passing lane, flashing your headlights will get him to speed up or change lanes about 25% of the time.
Crew cost isn't the only factor, but commercial pilots make a lot more money than flight attendants even though they aren't as highly paid as they used to be. average commercial pilot salary is about $129K, with a range usually between $112K-$146K. Average flight attendant salary is about $72K, with a range usually between $58K-$89K. As the AC pointed out in his reply, the cost and added weight of a cockpit in a remotely-piloted aircraft is a much larger factor.
I haven't seen any good information on why drone technology can't simply be scaled up in size to carry passengers. Seems like we already have the technology to solve traffic and other problems. We just need to supersize it.
Copter style flight requires much more energy than winged flight.
Which is why all of the long-range, long-endurance unmanned aircraft look like traditional winged aircraft rather than helicopters or quads. "Drone" does not mean "copter style".
For whom? I've been a full-time employee for nearly five decades, and it's always been 8-5. Except for when it's been 7-4, that is. 9-5 is eight hours; I've never known anyone who worked at a place that pays for employees' lunch hour.
However, nonresident non-US nationals not living in the US don't need to follow US laws.
No kidding. Companies in the US DO have to follow US laws, and US companies that accept money to run political ads from from non-US nationals not living in the US are in violation.
Foreign ad, pay a person at the locale of choice to place the ads for you, no skill, no, ability, just a citizen who is absolutely legally contracting out labour.
"Absolutely legally"? No. "Participating in a conspiracy to violate Federal law"? Yes.
Slashdot Mirror
credit cards and drivers licenses come to mind :)
Both of these expire and get replaced periodically. And if a credit card is misplaced, the replacement has a new number.
They already made smartphones which couldn't make phone calls
I'm not sure what this is referring to. The iPod touch? If so, that's not really a fair criticism. It's not meant to be a smartphone.
He's probably referring to the "You're holding it wrong" issue that resulted in Apple shipping cases to iPhone 4 owners to mitigate an antenna problem.
There seems to be a discrepancy between the title of the story, and the summary... The title says Google addressed, and the summary says Google plans to release. To me it sounds like they haven't addressed anything yet. Shouldn't we wait to see if their software "fix" fixes anything before claiming they've addressed the issue...
"Addressed" means "spoke about". As opposed to, "released fix for", which is what you seem to be looking for.
The charge would be unauthorized release of classified info. So who authorizes it? A judge? Nope. As the Secretary of State she had ultimate authority of classification of anything originating from her office, which was the entire state department. From a legal standpoint, if the Secretary of State emails their staff classified information originating from the State Department, they are de-facto declassifying it. That is why the whole investigation is bizarre and why no charges were brought. You can debate whether this is good judgement or not, but the idea of anything happening legally is absurd.
That isn't the way declassification works. Try educating yourself rather than repeating the misinformation you heard from some random source.
This whole thing sucks for people who haven't been cleared (Because it's not possible unless you're hired for a job where the government actually requires it) and reeks of favoritism for past governmental employees.
I'd like to see federal legislation passed that either prohibits employment/job discrimination based on the possession at the time of hiring of a government security clearance, OR security clearances are automatically revoked or cancelled when leaving or changing employers and have to be re-verified to be re-instated after hiring to a new job, OR a law prohibiting an individual holding clearances from causing any of the clearances they already hold to be disclosed to a recruiter or prospective employer, other than ability to get a clearance or already having a clearance will have to be verified after a hiring decision.
While you're at it, why not wish for a law prohibiting discrimination based on the prospective employee's skill set? The current system reeks of favoritism for people who know how to do things.
Here's my personal experience, having held a secret clearance for 35 out of the last 40 years while working for defense contractors. Security clearances are de-activated when a cleared employee changes employers. If the new employer requests re-activation within a short period of time, there is some paperwork and minimal vetting to go through. If the request is not made within a short period of time, the employee goes through a re-verification process that requires a re-submission of all the very detailed personal information that was submitted the first time, and waits a long time (currently about a year) to be cleared. Then periodically (every 10 years or so), the employee goes through the whole thing again. If the cleared employee shifts from a position requiring a clearance to one not requiring a clearance, the clearance is suspended. If the employee returns to a position requiring clearance within six months, the clearance can be unsuspended quickly; if not, it's de-activated. If not re-activated within a fairly short period of time (6 months, I believe), it's cancelled.
I shouldn't have to say this, but not everyone can get a clearance. Do you have a non US person that's a close relative? Recent bankruptcy? Other financial problems? Ever been arrested for anything? Ever been charged with a crime? Ever had a restraining order issued against you? Less than honorable military discharge? Used any illelgal/controlled drugs or substances in the last 7 years? Court-ordered psychiatric treatment? Ever held a non-US passport? Ever been officially reprimanded for workplace misconduct? Ever been fired from a job for cause? Failed to pay Federal, state, or other taxes? Ever used a credit counseling service? Been delinquent on any Federal debt (hint: Federally guaranteed school loans)? Ever defaulted on a loan? Ever had anything repossessed? Been evicted for non-payment of rent? Ever been sued? Ever sued anyone? Ever been a member of an organization that advocates or practices acts of violence to discourage others from exercising their Constitutional rights (hello, antifa)? Any of these can disqualify an individual, and some of them are immediate disqualifiers.
Why do you have to pay insurance for their self driving? If Tesla trusted its self driving feature, it would indemnify the owners in the event of an accident. The fact you have to buy coverage hits on the fact it is an alpha release of âoeself driving.â
I guess you're talking about the liability portion of an auto insurance policy, which is what is required by law. If you finance your car purchase, the finance company will require you to also carry comprehensive and collision coverage. Liability insurance won't pay to fix your car if a tree falls on it while it's parked in your driveway, or if someone slams into it in a parking lot, or if a truck kicks up a rock that cracks your windshield.
Makes sense to me. Now tell us how you feel about drug tests for recipients of public assistance.
I'm against both. Now tell us how you feel about bread lines.
I'm against both as well, and it has nothing to do with whether denial of services is an effective incentive to curb what the government decrees as self-destructive behavior. Today they may be imposing standards you like. Tomorrow, maybe not so much. Sorry if my sarcasm rattled your cage.
Now, as regards bread lines: I'm guessing they would be difficult to snort, and might lead to sinus infections.
It's not society's job to do it for you
Unless you have socialized medicine, then it is. At the same time, if "society" is footing the bill for your medical care, you shouldn't be surprised when "society" puts constraints on your behaviors.
Makes sense to me. Now tell us how you feel about drug tests for recipients of public assistance.
But, how would they find out? No employer is going to tell how much they paid any employees, as that opens them up to lawsuits.
You're not very imaginative. They find out by requiring you to provide a copy of a recent paycheck stub as a condition for employment.
How often do you go to a bank, compared to before the Internet? The last time I went I needed to go because I opened an account and it was required they knew I was alive and present in person. At another bank I do everything online.
Most of the things that might need a human interaction can be done over the phone. The people on the phone can do more people AND are cheaper, even if their wage would be the same as a person that you visit.
And many of the things that need to be done over the phone can be automated. There are now still people who do not have a PC or do not know how to use one. They are latterly dying out. From guestimated experience it is people who are born before around 1955. Yes, there are many exceptions on both sides of that date.
There are several banks in Europe that are only online. No brick and mortar. I even have an account in a different country. (No, I am not rich enough to dodge taxes).
I don't think a person's use or non-use of brick and mortar bank services has much to do with their computer comfort level. I usually go the bank once a week, to withdraw cash from the drive-through ATM; it takes about a minute because I do it on my way to work in the morning. Two or three times a year I actually go into the bank, to exchange coins for currency; sometimes this can take as long as 15 minutes. These minor inconveniences are the by-products of preferring not to live an entirely cashless life, and only take about 1-1/2 hours per year of my time. My wife, on the other hand, does almost all of her banking on line. I'm pretty sure she spends a lot more than 1-1/2 hours per year just swearing at her computer.
As anybody knows who isn't so stupid they'd drown from looking up if they went out in the rain, climate and weather are not the same thing.
Well, that''s a relief. I was concerned that with the climate changing, weather patterns might not stay the same from year to year.
Only half the population can have an IQ under 100. It's the average.
And what's the average (as in mean) of the following set of numbers: [108, 100, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99]? And what proportion of them are below 100?
Would you like to reconsider your statement?
sabbede was talking about IQ scores, not a small set of numbers selected to prove a point. Do you know how IQ scores actually work?
This is how I figure:
Applying the label Fascist to a group you don't like, then using violence and suppression of ideas and speech to fight the agenda of that group doesn't make you anti-fascist; it makes you a violent suppressor of ideas and speech. It boils down to embracing the moral framework of your enemy in the name of fighting them; aka, the end justifies the means. People who view Antifa in a negative light aren't generally fans of Fascist principles, they just have problems with the behavior they observe.
Which Constitutional Amendment guarantees that?
Oh look - another person who thinks that if a right isn't enumerated in the Constitution, it doesn't exist. Read some history. The Federalist Papers would be a good place to start.
snowflake. Antifa means AntiFascist, if you are against it, you are pro-fascism, which is about right if you are dRumpft supporter. Enjoying your big orange baby and his tantrums?
Being a member of Antifa and calling yourself anti-fascist, is like being a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and calling yourself a socialist.
What's going to stop Autonomous Car Owner A from charging a bit less than Autonomous Car Owner B, in order to get more customers? And what's then going to stop A from reducing his prices a bit below B again, in order to get customers back? And why won't this cycle continue until the prices paid by customers are only slightly higher than the costs incurred by the car owners?
In other words, why do you think there will be no price-competition in The Sucky Future?
Factors similar to those resulting in not much price competition between cable providers in the Sucky Present. Can you cite a reason why autonomous car fleet services won't be regulated the way the cable providers are?
"Imagine a self-driving car doing exactly the speed limit in the passing lane as it inches by a self-driving transport truck doing five kph under the speed limit."
Imagine a human driven car doing exactly the speed limit in the passing lane as it inches by a human driven truck doing five kph under the speed limit.
What you describe is no different to right now.
Of course it's different. Personal data from 50 years of driving says if you're behind a slow driver in the passing lane, flashing your headlights will get him to speed up or change lanes about 25% of the time.
And peace wasn't laid out in his will. It was added later.
Bzzt, wrong answer. "On 27 November 1895, Alfred Nobel signed his last will and testament, giving the largest share of his fortune to a series of prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and Peace - the Nobel Prizes."
Better still, Technology is just applied physics.
Oops. You've triggered the obligatory xkcd.
Crew cost isn't the only factor, but commercial pilots make a lot more money than flight attendants even though they aren't as highly paid as they used to be. average commercial pilot salary is about $129K, with a range usually between $112K-$146K. Average flight attendant salary is about $72K, with a range usually between $58K-$89K. As the AC pointed out in his reply, the cost and added weight of a cockpit in a remotely-piloted aircraft is a much larger factor.
no one on board to prevent passenger problems?
The article said "remotely piloted", not "no flight attendant".
I haven't seen any good information on why drone technology can't simply be scaled up in size to carry passengers. Seems like we already have the technology to solve traffic and other problems. We just need to supersize it.
Copter style flight requires much more energy than winged flight.
Which is why all of the long-range, long-endurance unmanned aircraft look like traditional winged aircraft rather than helicopters or quads. "Drone" does not mean "copter style".
A few decades ago it really was 9-5.
For whom? I've been a full-time employee for nearly five decades, and it's always been 8-5. Except for when it's been 7-4, that is. 9-5 is eight hours; I've never known anyone who worked at a place that pays for employees' lunch hour.
However, nonresident non-US nationals not living in the US don't need to follow US laws.
No kidding. Companies in the US DO have to follow US laws, and US companies that accept money to run political ads from from non-US nationals not living in the US are in violation.
Foreign ad, pay a person at the locale of choice to place the ads for you, no skill, no, ability, just a citizen who is absolutely legally contracting out labour.
"Absolutely legally"? No. "Participating in a conspiracy to violate Federal law"? Yes.