Demand alone doesn't mean things are great for Tesla, though I'm certainly not claiming there is an issue. If there's huge demand now for something that can't viably be provided at the expected price point in an acceptable time period that's an issue regardless of immediate cash flow issues. I really want Tesla to succeed and it's great that a lot of other people clearly do as well, but that alone doesn't make it a certainty.
I don't see the value of local newspapers if they can't be bothered cover this.
You may well be putting the cart before the horse. Perhaps the reason why you don't have effective local journalism is that what's left of it has been minimised and cost cut to the point where they can't effectively hold local government to account because people weren't willing to pay for that level of local journalism.
That's a ridiculous strawman rather than a fair summary of the position of people who believe the FBI had an ulterior motive; which rather undermines itself.
If you're the FBI and you can see an approaching issue where you won't be able to get into communication devices due to the security measures that manufacturers are putting in place, then it is entirely rational to want to establish a precedent where you can compel the firms to assist you in defeating that security in future. This isn't some crazy multi-step conspiracy theory, the benefit of doing this is clear and direct.
Even if it was a more convoluted plot you only have to look at some of the batshit crazy things things government agencies have done, and have gotten away with, to see just how weak your claim that this isn't credible because the US government doesn't do X-files" type stuff: The CIA did run brothels and inject people with LSD in San Francisco against their will for example.
The most likely method for defeating the security on the 5c revolves around removing the software restriction on how quickly you can enter unlock codes; this weakness has already been removed from newer Apple devices.
Although I'm happy for someone to self-identify however they like, and I would happily stop identifying someone based on a label if they asked or I thought it offended them, I don't think that is entirely fair sentiment. Jew has traditionally, and still does for many people, mean someone descended from ancient Hebrews; in that way it differs from religion in that it isn't a label of your religious convictions. Obviously someone who doesn't self-identify as a Jew can make that personal choice, but I don't think that makes someone else who defines them as a Jew wrong. You can call your standard style house "a space station" but I'm still going to call it a house when talking to other people (even if I am happy to humour your preference in person) because I also get to define what I think words do or don't mean and your definition doesn't overrule that.
Being on social media has got to be better than no human contact, but actual human contact would be better.
Based on what evidence? If anything, what this article suggests is that people who are on social media could be worse off because of it. If social media means people are more likely to cope with a lack of satisfaction in their life by passively viewing social media profiles and less likely to make changes to deal with the underlying issue then there is no reason to believe that social media is better than nothing.
If you're going to claim that we could never fly safely then I'd love to see your evidence. As far as I can tell flying has been by some margin the safest form of long distance transport for decades. If flying counts as unsafe to you then driving would seem insane to you.
They have security on the way into Ataturk airport in Turkey as well. I can appreciate why they feel the need, but frankly I'm just surprised there aren't body scanners at just about every public venue by now. How the fuck did we become so chicken shit in the west that we through out so much of what made our society great because of a few fanatics.
This is my biggest problem with self driving cars at the moment.
There's been an argument that more automation in driving has made drivers more careless and distracted. There may be some truth to it but thus far the safety figures are still trending down so it's not a massive concern to me. Clearly there's a risk that we enter a dangerous period where cars are almost good enough to drive themselves but still get into dangerous positions they can't get out of safely on a regular basis but I don't think this is inevitable. Most self-drive functionality so far is based on someone driving and the car intervening where necessary, auto-braking if you're about to hit something for example. A likely extension of this is that there will be cars on the road in the next couple of years that could drive autonomously safely but which are limited to stepping in where there is a clear safety issue the driver isn't responding to.
It's all about balancing risk and benefit. If drivers only have to take control once every couple of hours and then being able to use the couple of hours better likely outweighs the small delay in those circumstances; from a safety perspective it is unrealistic to expect someone to be poised ready to act for hours straight while the car drives itself so the drivers ability to react to sudden dangers the car can't handle is very low anyway.
From a crash safety perspective if travelling in a self-driving car in 10 years time was say 90% less likely to result in an accident that could cause injury then you'd likely still be vastly safer travelling in a less safe position then than you are travelling in a safer position now. I'm not sure where the cut off is but given that our time is limited at some point you have to put a value on how you spend that time.
If you have a server then it's up to you to secure it. Your failure; then arrest yourself. Otherwise don't connect the server to the outside world.
This is fucking idiotic logic. I suppose if you have a wallet and get mugged you should be prosecuted for not securing it. Got tail ended by a drunk driver, your prosecuted for causing an accident by not getting out of the way.
I'm pretty sure this may be like the machines you get at Airports where you put in real money and it eventually credits your bitcoin account. Given the delay on locking in a bitcoin transaction no one is going to provide something for bitcoin by vending machine because it would be too easy to take the item and rescind the payment.
Perhaps if it can always be manipulated, it is worthless. If you a bitcoin that is worthless you still have a bitcoin. It doesn't have a *value* less than zero, like some other investments might have, so rather than being "worthless" it's "worth nothing" for some period of time until someone says it is "worth something".
Currency was spent to provide that electricity to create (mine) a bitcoin, which also had value assigned to it.
There's a couple of big issues with this post. Firstly there isn't an investment I am aware of that can have a negative value (shorting stocks, borrowing to buy assets etc are equivalent to betting on bitcoin performance not bitcoin itself). Secondly, the expenditure of effort or value on something doesn't mean the thing has value. I could work to earn some money, spend some more money buying gasoline, and then burn the money and the ashes would not inherit the value of either the components or my effort. Bitcoin doesn't have a value due to the effort expended mining it, it has value largely because of speculation and facilitation of dubious transactions; obviously the ability to spend it on legit things is a part of the value but I'm very dubious that is a a major influence on its value.
Resisting the urge to shrug and just cynically say, "allahu akbar". One has to consider the ethnic differences that this might be a major genocide play i.e. shiite ISIS flushes shia territory or even nonconforming shiites.
Not so much cynical as ignorant, given that Isis isn't Shiite. If you're going to suggest what people should consider it would help if you gave the impression you had considered it at least a little yourself first.
I'm not sure how much the company's ownership by a foreign or domestic firm makes, or that it should make much difference. We typically expect companies to follow the laws of the countries they operate in; a British firm operating in the US is expected to follow product quality regulations, employee rights regulations etc for example.
I have no intention of defending the arrest (though it might theoretically be justifiable) but if you take the view it would be fine for the US to demand this information for an American user I see no compelling argument that makes it unacceptable for Brazil to do so for a Brazilian user.
I see now, the google car was brake checking a 20,000+ lb vehicle by drifting into its path.
Keeping with/. tradition and jumping to entirely unsubstantiated hyperbole I see. You don't see shit, you've imagined up a scenario based on very little information that could be anything from accurate to completely different from reality.
Even if what you've been telling people at dinner parties was true, which is isn't, there are still private universities in Europe. If you could afford a degree in the US then you could afford a degree under the systems of every European country I can think of pretty much regardless of what grades you've received.
There's a dirty little secret regarding the European 'free college' program - only qualified, prepared students get to attend college - it is a meritocracy, not a guaranteed entitlement.
The fact you only just found it out doesn't mean it's a secret or somehow dirty. What you'd also be aware of if you dug a little deeper is that it is common for European countries to encourage, or even require, universities to consider applicants potential and not just grades. Thus someone who had a poor quality state education who got grades only slightly lower than someone who received a far higher quality private education may be selected on that basis.
European nations aren't, contrary to some American's uninformed preconceptions, entirely naive about these things.
Delusional you say? That figure has been plummeting from ~90% since HRC fans started quoting bookie odds.
Yes I do say; and you're nicely making my point. Bookies understand momentum (a damn sight better than you do apparently). When they set odds they look at trends, like the incredible run Bernie's been having, and their predictions of those trends continuing. Just because your knees go wobbly at the thought of Bernie doesn't mean the world will magically conform to what you want to happen. Your inability to consider the possibility that someone could think Bernie is unlikely without being a HRC/Republican supporter just underlines that you see everything through your own biased world view.
If you really believe everything you said, go put $1,000 on Sanders for President and get ready to enjoy your $14,000 payout (his odds have actually gotten longer since my previous post) and telling me that you told me so; personally I'm confident that he's 14/1 for a reason, even if I personal like him and his politics.
Not all all. Apple can make firmware so that it only works on this particular phone
But why should the government be able to force them to them to do work for them if they don't want to? Given the short, clichéd and shallow comments you've peppered this thread with I'm inclined to think you're trolling rather than making a serious case for giving the government this kind of power.
Slashdot Mirror
Demand alone doesn't mean things are great for Tesla, though I'm certainly not claiming there is an issue. If there's huge demand now for something that can't viably be provided at the expected price point in an acceptable time period that's an issue regardless of immediate cash flow issues. I really want Tesla to succeed and it's great that a lot of other people clearly do as well, but that alone doesn't make it a certainty.
You may well be putting the cart before the horse. Perhaps the reason why you don't have effective local journalism is that what's left of it has been minimised and cost cut to the point where they can't effectively hold local government to account because people weren't willing to pay for that level of local journalism.
That's a ridiculous strawman rather than a fair summary of the position of people who believe the FBI had an ulterior motive; which rather undermines itself.
If you're the FBI and you can see an approaching issue where you won't be able to get into communication devices due to the security measures that manufacturers are putting in place, then it is entirely rational to want to establish a precedent where you can compel the firms to assist you in defeating that security in future. This isn't some crazy multi-step conspiracy theory, the benefit of doing this is clear and direct.
Even if it was a more convoluted plot you only have to look at some of the batshit crazy things things government agencies have done, and have gotten away with, to see just how weak your claim that this isn't credible because the US government doesn't do X-files" type stuff: The CIA did run brothels and inject people with LSD in San Francisco against their will for example.
Better than you with Uncle Sam's cock rammed down your throat.
The most likely method for defeating the security on the 5c revolves around removing the software restriction on how quickly you can enter unlock codes; this weakness has already been removed from newer Apple devices.
Although I'm happy for someone to self-identify however they like, and I would happily stop identifying someone based on a label if they asked or I thought it offended them, I don't think that is entirely fair sentiment. Jew has traditionally, and still does for many people, mean someone descended from ancient Hebrews; in that way it differs from religion in that it isn't a label of your religious convictions. Obviously someone who doesn't self-identify as a Jew can make that personal choice, but I don't think that makes someone else who defines them as a Jew wrong. You can call your standard style house "a space station" but I'm still going to call it a house when talking to other people (even if I am happy to humour your preference in person) because I also get to define what I think words do or don't mean and your definition doesn't overrule that.
Based on what evidence? If anything, what this article suggests is that people who are on social media could be worse off because of it. If social media means people are more likely to cope with a lack of satisfaction in their life by passively viewing social media profiles and less likely to make changes to deal with the underlying issue then there is no reason to believe that social media is better than nothing.
Then you're an ignorant fool who doesn't appreciate how uninformed they are. The IRA, ETA (Basque Nationalists), The Munich Olympics...
If you're going to claim that we could never fly safely then I'd love to see your evidence. As far as I can tell flying has been by some margin the safest form of long distance transport for decades. If flying counts as unsafe to you then driving would seem insane to you.
They have security on the way into Ataturk airport in Turkey as well. I can appreciate why they feel the need, but frankly I'm just surprised there aren't body scanners at just about every public venue by now. How the fuck did we become so chicken shit in the west that we through out so much of what made our society great because of a few fanatics.
Can we send the catholic terrorists who have been killing Europeans for decades over there as well, or do you only have a problem with terrorism if the perpetrator is someone who looks different from you.
Don't worry you'll be hearing him going on about how it vindicates his attacks on Muslims, how America needs to kick them all out etc soon enough.
There's been an argument that more automation in driving has made drivers more careless and distracted. There may be some truth to it but thus far the safety figures are still trending down so it's not a massive concern to me. Clearly there's a risk that we enter a dangerous period where cars are almost good enough to drive themselves but still get into dangerous positions they can't get out of safely on a regular basis but I don't think this is inevitable. Most self-drive functionality so far is based on someone driving and the car intervening where necessary, auto-braking if you're about to hit something for example. A likely extension of this is that there will be cars on the road in the next couple of years that could drive autonomously safely but which are limited to stepping in where there is a clear safety issue the driver isn't responding to.
It's all about balancing risk and benefit. If drivers only have to take control once every couple of hours and then being able to use the couple of hours better likely outweighs the small delay in those circumstances; from a safety perspective it is unrealistic to expect someone to be poised ready to act for hours straight while the car drives itself so the drivers ability to react to sudden dangers the car can't handle is very low anyway.
From a crash safety perspective if travelling in a self-driving car in 10 years time was say 90% less likely to result in an accident that could cause injury then you'd likely still be vastly safer travelling in a less safe position then than you are travelling in a safer position now. I'm not sure where the cut off is but given that our time is limited at some point you have to put a value on how you spend that time.
This is fucking idiotic logic. I suppose if you have a wallet and get mugged you should be prosecuted for not securing it. Got tail ended by a drunk driver, your prosecuted for causing an accident by not getting out of the way.
If you haven't been able to work out the difference between "illegal" and "illegal with a powerful enough government/agency backing you up" by now...
I'm pretty sure this may be like the machines you get at Airports where you put in real money and it eventually credits your bitcoin account. Given the delay on locking in a bitcoin transaction no one is going to provide something for bitcoin by vending machine because it would be too easy to take the item and rescind the payment.
There's a couple of big issues with this post. Firstly there isn't an investment I am aware of that can have a negative value (shorting stocks, borrowing to buy assets etc are equivalent to betting on bitcoin performance not bitcoin itself). Secondly, the expenditure of effort or value on something doesn't mean the thing has value. I could work to earn some money, spend some more money buying gasoline, and then burn the money and the ashes would not inherit the value of either the components or my effort. Bitcoin doesn't have a value due to the effort expended mining it, it has value largely because of speculation and facilitation of dubious transactions; obviously the ability to spend it on legit things is a part of the value but I'm very dubious that is a a major influence on its value.
Not so much cynical as ignorant, given that Isis isn't Shiite. If you're going to suggest what people should consider it would help if you gave the impression you had considered it at least a little yourself first.
I'm not sure how much the company's ownership by a foreign or domestic firm makes, or that it should make much difference. We typically expect companies to follow the laws of the countries they operate in; a British firm operating in the US is expected to follow product quality regulations, employee rights regulations etc for example.
I have no intention of defending the arrest (though it might theoretically be justifiable) but if you take the view it would be fine for the US to demand this information for an American user I see no compelling argument that makes it unacceptable for Brazil to do so for a Brazilian user.
Keeping with /. tradition and jumping to entirely unsubstantiated hyperbole I see. You don't see shit, you've imagined up a scenario based on very little information that could be anything from accurate to completely different from reality.
Even if what you've been telling people at dinner parties was true, which is isn't, there are still private universities in Europe. If you could afford a degree in the US then you could afford a degree under the systems of every European country I can think of pretty much regardless of what grades you've received.
The fact you only just found it out doesn't mean it's a secret or somehow dirty. What you'd also be aware of if you dug a little deeper is that it is common for European countries to encourage, or even require, universities to consider applicants potential and not just grades. Thus someone who had a poor quality state education who got grades only slightly lower than someone who received a far higher quality private education may be selected on that basis.
European nations aren't, contrary to some American's uninformed preconceptions, entirely naive about these things.
Yes I do say; and you're nicely making my point. Bookies understand momentum (a damn sight better than you do apparently). When they set odds they look at trends, like the incredible run Bernie's been having, and their predictions of those trends continuing. Just because your knees go wobbly at the thought of Bernie doesn't mean the world will magically conform to what you want to happen. Your inability to consider the possibility that someone could think Bernie is unlikely without being a HRC/Republican supporter just underlines that you see everything through your own biased world view.
If you really believe everything you said, go put $1,000 on Sanders for President and get ready to enjoy your $14,000 payout (his odds have actually gotten longer since my previous post) and telling me that you told me so; personally I'm confident that he's 14/1 for a reason, even if I personal like him and his politics.
But why should the government be able to force them to them to do work for them if they don't want to? Given the short, clichéd and shallow comments you've peppered this thread with I'm inclined to think you're trolling rather than making a serious case for giving the government this kind of power.