I've been with them for the no contract plans for a while. It's basically an agreement that they'll keep the rate fixed for that time, but you have no obligation to stay with them or that plan so you're free to switch plans at any time.
You mean ZERO is the amount of thought you put into it? I can think of reasons easily - they're a small company with a couple machines. Both are on their internal network (like the vast majority of companies) because there are people that need to access both of them from their desk and it's easier this way.
If we start jailing people for incompetence, we're going to need a lot more jails.
While I'd give you top marks from a security standpoint, it's not the 1990's anymore and everything is connected. The technology to secure networks at multiple points is well developed and we shouldn't let the fear of incompetence prevent us from having the benefits of connected systems.
My concerns over GMO has to do with monoculture and unintended consequences of reduced genetic diversity, and eventual loss of rights to plant your own seeds.
Then you should be lobbying for "monoculture", "causes reduced genetic diversity", and "restricted planting of seed" labels. Although common in GM foods, they are not unique to them (and not all GMOs fit under those labels).
You're missing out on the benefits of credit cards though.
Yes, corporations can "spy" on you, but you also can track your own spending habits easily (I'm sure you have a ledger with every transaction, but most people don't). I connect my accounts to Mint which spits out a report showing where my money goes to and how that relates for my budget for the month. All of that happens conveniently and automatically.
Then you have the obvious convenience of not having to get physical cash. I can't remember the last time I went to an ATM - seems like an extra trip and a waste of time.
There are the security benefits. Sure someone could steal your card, but you can just disable it. Good luck disabling your envelope full of cash
There is a trade-off for using cards. You're allowing companies information which they'll use to try to sell you stuff in exchange for the benefits, but for a lot of people the benefits out weigh the costs.
In a pyramid scheme, the ones at the top profit from the ones at the bottom paying up. It's more like a tree structure passing money towards the root.
You're describing more of a Ponzi scheme where the ones in first profit and leave. It's like a queue structure with the money being collected as people leave the queue.
That was kind of sad - all the cool innovative robots just ended up knocked over or pushed into a corner.
One way to fix that would be more complex terrain so it's harder to drive a triangle around and as you say, autonomous bots that have to identify targets themselves.
Do you have any statistics about smart guns failing? I have some stats I pulled out of somewhere that say smart guns are 105% more reliable than normal guns so that's definitely something police would want.
Well there's the problem of police guns getting stolen and police guns being grabbed and used against the officers. Smart guns are a valid solution to that. Cars are much more complex (with extra points of failure), but modern smarter cars are much safer than older non-smart cars, no reason to believe the same wouldn't happen with guns.
If that is the case, then why have the loaded firearm or even a firearm at all?
Good point!
Fire extinguishers are unlikely to ever be used to stop a fire so inspections are unneeded. How many people are likely to ever be in a traffic collision where seat belts or air bags make a difference?
I haven't checked the numbers, but I'm pretty sure injuries from fire extinguishers and air bags are pretty low, and higher when they aren't in use. They also are recalled when they kill people, so if you think that's a good analogy, I guess we better get some recalls going.
Do you have evidence that smart guns are unreliable? What percentage of the time to normal guns fail? What percentage do smart guns fail?
How many times are guns used to kill people by those that aren't owners?
We absolutely should be giving these to law enforcement since police guns do occasionally get stolen and are used in crimes.
Are you arging that there are less than 505 defensive uses of firearms in the US per year that saved a life?
That sounds about right - defensive uses of firearms are pretty uncommon. We'd know more if the NRA didn't block studies like this. Also have to factor in stolen guns used against their owners (or others).
A gun lock would prevent people using a family member's gun for suicide (those numbers are separate from accidents).
If that's the case then it doesn't even matter if the gun works properly!
.
So we have the cases:
Majority of time: Gun not used, safety device prevents accidental shootings
"Vast majority of time gun is needed": Gun used, but presence is all that is needed, safety device irrelevant
Minority of minority of time: Gun fired, safety device must work as intended
Seems like a no brainer since it's only the minority of time the is used, the minority of the cases the gun needs to be fired, and the minority of times the mechanism malfunctions (stats are unknown on this one - could be similar to current cases for all we know).
Gun ownership is also down as a percentage of people that own guns. The reason some stats show gun ownership to be up is they calculate number of guns divided by number of people when many gun owners have multiple weapons.
Well for people like you that use guns only as decorational pieces, there's not so much of a problem. It's the ones that carry loaded guns or use them to shoot people entering in the middle of the night that end up being a family member that have the accidents.
But no one's losing freedoms in this case except the freedom to hurt others. Just like we don't let you have the freedom to drive in the opposing lane of traffic.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been with them for the no contract plans for a while. It's basically an agreement that they'll keep the rate fixed for that time, but you have no obligation to stay with them or that plan so you're free to switch plans at any time.
You mean ZERO is the amount of thought you put into it? I can think of reasons easily - they're a small company with a couple machines. Both are on their internal network (like the vast majority of companies) because there are people that need to access both of them from their desk and it's easier this way.
If we start jailing people for incompetence, we're going to need a lot more jails.
While I'd give you top marks from a security standpoint, it's not the 1990's anymore and everything is connected. The technology to secure networks at multiple points is well developed and we shouldn't let the fear of incompetence prevent us from having the benefits of connected systems.
My concerns over GMO has to do with monoculture and unintended consequences of reduced genetic diversity, and eventual loss of rights to plant your own seeds.
Then you should be lobbying for "monoculture", "causes reduced genetic diversity", and "restricted planting of seed" labels. Although common in GM foods, they are not unique to them (and not all GMOs fit under those labels).
That's probably because you are a heterosexual man.
That's why I always run telnet over an SSH tunnel!
It'd have to be a 15 bit system or there'd be 65,535 workers affected.
You're missing out on the benefits of credit cards though.
Yes, corporations can "spy" on you, but you also can track your own spending habits easily (I'm sure you have a ledger with every transaction, but most people don't). I connect my accounts to Mint which spits out a report showing where my money goes to and how that relates for my budget for the month. All of that happens conveniently and automatically.
Then you have the obvious convenience of not having to get physical cash. I can't remember the last time I went to an ATM - seems like an extra trip and a waste of time.
There are the security benefits. Sure someone could steal your card, but you can just disable it. Good luck disabling your envelope full of cash
There is a trade-off for using cards. You're allowing companies information which they'll use to try to sell you stuff in exchange for the benefits, but for a lot of people the benefits out weigh the costs.
How about closing Gitmo? How did that work out?
Otherwise, to the casual observer it would appear that "because Obama" is a perfectly valid reason to oppose something.
But Gitmo is still open because Republicans opposed it, and it was literally the first thing he did as president.
You'd never want to remove the middle lines on traffic going the same direction, just roads with one lane in each direction
In a pyramid scheme, the ones at the top profit from the ones at the bottom paying up. It's more like a tree structure passing money towards the root.
You're describing more of a Ponzi scheme where the ones in first profit and leave. It's like a queue structure with the money being collected as people leave the queue.
That was kind of sad - all the cool innovative robots just ended up knocked over or pushed into a corner.
One way to fix that would be more complex terrain so it's harder to drive a triangle around and as you say, autonomous bots that have to identify targets themselves.
ABS and traction control makes them safer too.
Looks like the biggest complaint was it's not a well made gun - nothing about reliability.
Do you have any statistics about smart guns failing? I have some stats I pulled out of somewhere that say smart guns are 105% more reliable than normal guns so that's definitely something police would want.
Well there's the problem of police guns getting stolen and police guns being grabbed and used against the officers. Smart guns are a valid solution to that. Cars are much more complex (with extra points of failure), but modern smarter cars are much safer than older non-smart cars, no reason to believe the same wouldn't happen with guns.
If that is the case, then why have the loaded firearm or even a firearm at all?
Good point!
Fire extinguishers are unlikely to ever be used to stop a fire so inspections are unneeded. How many people are likely to ever be in a traffic collision where seat belts or air bags make a difference?
I haven't checked the numbers, but I'm pretty sure injuries from fire extinguishers and air bags are pretty low, and higher when they aren't in use. They also are recalled when they kill people, so if you think that's a good analogy, I guess we better get some recalls going.
Do you have evidence that smart guns are unreliable? What percentage of the time to normal guns fail? What percentage do smart guns fail?
How many times are guns used to kill people by those that aren't owners?
We absolutely should be giving these to law enforcement since police guns do occasionally get stolen and are used in crimes.
Are you arging that there are less than 505 defensive uses of firearms in the US per year that saved a life?
That sounds about right - defensive uses of firearms are pretty uncommon. We'd know more if the NRA didn't block studies like this. Also have to factor in stolen guns used against their owners (or others).
A gun lock would prevent people using a family member's gun for suicide (those numbers are separate from accidents).
Evidently it's not good enough since we have the highest murder rate from guns of all advanced countries.
. So we have the cases:
Seems like a no brainer since it's only the minority of time the is used, the minority of the cases the gun needs to be fired, and the minority of times the mechanism malfunctions (stats are unknown on this one - could be similar to current cases for all we know).
Gun ownership is up, gun crime is down
Gun ownership is also down as a percentage of people that own guns. The reason some stats show gun ownership to be up is they calculate number of guns divided by number of people when many gun owners have multiple weapons.
Statistically, you're safer if your gun doesn't work.
Guns aren't digital content though and this technology doesn't affect your rights with the gun. DRM isn't applicable in this situation.
Well for people like you that use guns only as decorational pieces, there's not so much of a problem. It's the ones that carry loaded guns or use them to shoot people entering in the middle of the night that end up being a family member that have the accidents.
But no one's losing freedoms in this case except the freedom to hurt others. Just like we don't let you have the freedom to drive in the opposing lane of traffic.