It's my understanding--and I may be wrong here--but my phone is not broadcasting where it is. It is communicating with various cell towers. The company that owns those towers is using various techniques to figure out where I am.
Put space exploration into private hands, which will find a profitable way to do it, and space exploration will, to coin a phrase, take off.
What if there is no profitable way to do it?
Don't get me wrong--I love what SpaceX is doing and I believe it will save the US Taxpayer and businesses money sending items and people into orbit. But exploration is expensive and you may not find what you're looking for--a bad Return On Investment.
I'm reminded of the old saw about the California gold rush: the only people who made money were the people who mined the miners.
I mean, who's SpaceX's biggest customer? The US Government.
Most users don't consider the security side, which means they're probably quite happy with KitKat and see no reason to upgrade--or they'll upgrade when they get a new phone which they can try before they buy.
While I agree that OEM supported upgrades for older phones are spotty at best, who would you have do it instead?
Hell, they had copies of the people in the "pattern buffer." Just beam them back to the Enterprise and stick them back there. This way you don't lose the experience by making a new one each time.
If I'm in a crowded theater and I yell "Fire!" and everybody laughs and keeps watching the show, there's no problem.
If I yell "Fire!" and everybody gets up and leaves in an orderly fashion and no one is injured but the show is interrupted, I might get sued by the theater owner who had to refund tickets to all those people or schedule a new show for them.
If I yell "Fire!" and everybody panics and runs out of theater, trampling anybody who gets in their way, I can be arrested for various crimes because of my actions.
"Free speech" does not relieve you of the consequences.
The Apollo manned missions returned 2200 moon rocks, soil, and core samples weighing 382 kilograms. Soviet lunar probes returned 2 samples of soil weighing 0.362 kilograms. The Apollo program cost $20 billion. The Luna program's estimated cost was $4.5 billion.
So we spent 4.5x the money and got 1000x the samples. Whether the "science" was better because of this is debatable, but at least by one measure, your theory doesn't necessarily pan out.
To me, the advantage of probes is that, individually, they are easier, cheaper and quicker than a manned mission. If I were a middle-aged scientist wishing to confirm a theory about Mars, I'd rather have a probe that would arrive in 8 years than I waiting another 30 years and, assuming I was physically able to make the trip, be able to test out my theory on the surface of the planet.
Well, if it walks like a taxicab and talks like a taxicab, how is it not a taxicab? Because you signal it with a hep and cool app instead of making a phone call?
Actually, that's one change I'd like to see--there has to be more than one licensed driver in the vehicle in order to use the carpool lane. You're not really removing a car from the road if the people you're transporting can't drive.
We — the readers and viewers — know (sort of). The policeman doing the illegal deed in fiction knows just as much as the real cops in TFA knew.
It's that "sort of" that makes the difference, however.
Again, movies tend to make it simple. Take something like torture in "24." We're generally forgiving because, hey, we know the bad thing is going to happen. We know that whoever Jack Bauer is torturing is the right person because for the last 3 episodes we saw him scheming with the other bad guys. And, finally, we want to get on with the story and to do that, our hero needs to know this stuff (that we, the audience, already know). Since it's fiction--and we know it's fiction--we know that nobody is really getting hurt so it's no big deal.
Again, real life tends to be more complicated. Yes, the Cops knew that this guy was a drug dealer, but was he really? Depends on how much you trust the police.
Don't get me wrong--there are idiots out there who can't really separate fact from fiction or imagine a real-world scenario based on the movies. I remember when the US Government was talking about torture and a scenario that sounded right out of 24 with the old, "Wouldn't torture be okay then?"
proving most of the society as [...] tools of the manipulators [...]
Well, movies are supposed to manipulate your emotions. That's why they have soundtracks and the like. Fiction does that.
One part of Google's patent that wasn't discussed during the announcement was micro-auctions, in which users pay for network usage by the sip. Google's patent describes a mobile device that submits a proposal for competitive bids by network operators each time the network is used. An app in need of a network connection would send a request for a bid to nearby networks and would accept the lowest bid with the matching network service level.
Micro-auctions would provide consumers the best user experience because they would always connect to the fastest network available. Large mobile carriers would resist this change because they would forego subscriber contract revenues earned independently of network quality for revenues earned by bidding the lowest price to deliver the fastest network performance.
My only question would be how would you verify that the provider is returning a realistic answer? Remember AT&T's "Faux G"?
That said, I gotta admit that this is a neat idea, especially with the idea of network service levels. For example, I can get by with 2G service for a message to Google/Apple asking, "Is my software up-to-date?" But I'll want that 100Mbps LTE goodness when watching a high-def movie. I might be fine with something in between for casual web-surfing.
First, the plaintiff was contacted by a Google recruiter, so at least somebody believed that he was a good candidate. His phone interview went poorly--he was contacted by a person who had limited english skills, used a speakerphone with a poor connection (or maybe it was Google Voice) and refused to switch to the handset. He asked him to read code to him over the phone rather than using Google Docs.
I'm not sure it was discrimination, but I'd argue that the interviewer was a total jerk who had no interest in this person whatsoever. Whether that was due to age or some other reason (perhaps he had a buddy who needed a job) is unknown.
Slashdot Mirror
It's my understanding--and I may be wrong here--but my phone is not broadcasting where it is. It is communicating with various cell towers. The company that owns those towers is using various techniques to figure out where I am.
What was the official soft drink of Challenger? Ocean Spray.
They tried, but they couldn't get 7-Up.
Put space exploration into private hands, which will find a profitable way to do it, and space exploration will, to coin a phrase, take off.
What if there is no profitable way to do it?
Don't get me wrong--I love what SpaceX is doing and I believe it will save the US Taxpayer and businesses money sending items and people into orbit. But exploration is expensive and you may not find what you're looking for--a bad Return On Investment.
I'm reminded of the old saw about the California gold rush: the only people who made money were the people who mined the miners.
I mean, who's SpaceX's biggest customer? The US Government.
Most users don't consider the security side, which means they're probably quite happy with KitKat and see no reason to upgrade--or they'll upgrade when they get a new phone which they can try before they buy.
While I agree that OEM supported upgrades for older phones are spotty at best, who would you have do it instead?
Hell, they had copies of the people in the "pattern buffer." Just beam them back to the Enterprise and stick them back there. This way you don't lose the experience by making a new one each time.
As I understand it...
"Free speech" does not relieve you of the consequences.
Yeah, but it's pretty messy. I mean, have you ever shoveled coal? I wouldn't want that in my house.
They've had a link to pre-owned roadsters for awhile. Of course, it's rare to actually find one, dammit...
Well, it could launch a hypersonic drone to deliver your Q-Tips and AAA batteries when you're visiting Suriname.
If you want a tattoo on your wrist, either put it on the wrist where you wouldn't wear a watch [...]
But I don't need a watch! I've got a phone!
Agreed. Now-a-days, they're the choice of old people.
Apple's saying that BLOOD ONLY REFLECTS RED is bullshit.
Agreed, but I think you're being pedantic. Blood reflects mostly red and I assume that is how they use it.
Perhaps those robots were less advanced than Amazon's robots
But were they pink?
Yes. Yes we were.
Robot probes are far better science for the buck
The Apollo manned missions returned 2200 moon rocks, soil, and core samples weighing 382 kilograms. Soviet lunar probes returned 2 samples of soil weighing 0.362 kilograms. The Apollo program cost $20 billion. The Luna program's estimated cost was $4.5 billion.
So we spent 4.5x the money and got 1000x the samples. Whether the "science" was better because of this is debatable, but at least by one measure, your theory doesn't necessarily pan out.
To me, the advantage of probes is that, individually, they are easier, cheaper and quicker than a manned mission. If I were a middle-aged scientist wishing to confirm a theory about Mars, I'd rather have a probe that would arrive in 8 years than I waiting another 30 years and, assuming I was physically able to make the trip, be able to test out my theory on the surface of the planet.
Yes, you take a performance hit when you emulate but if your computer is speedy you don't notice.
On the other hand, if your "computer" (i.e., cell-phone, tablet) is not speedy, you will. And if your computer uses batteries, you will also notice.
And Cargo spacecraft are not--unless you count the Shuttle, which is no longer flying.
Well, if it walks like a taxicab and talks like a taxicab, how is it not a taxicab? Because you signal it with a hep and cool app instead of making a phone call?
Actually, that's one change I'd like to see--there has to be more than one licensed driver in the vehicle in order to use the carpool lane. You're not really removing a car from the road if the people you're transporting can't drive.
FTFS:
He also was involved in Google Street View Everest [...]
So it was work-related.
We — the readers and viewers — know (sort of). The policeman doing the illegal deed in fiction knows just as much as the real cops in TFA knew.
It's that "sort of" that makes the difference, however.
Again, movies tend to make it simple. Take something like torture in "24." We're generally forgiving because, hey, we know the bad thing is going to happen. We know that whoever Jack Bauer is torturing is the right person because for the last 3 episodes we saw him scheming with the other bad guys. And, finally, we want to get on with the story and to do that, our hero needs to know this stuff (that we, the audience, already know). Since it's fiction--and we know it's fiction--we know that nobody is really getting hurt so it's no big deal.
Again, real life tends to be more complicated. Yes, the Cops knew that this guy was a drug dealer, but was he really? Depends on how much you trust the police.
Don't get me wrong--there are idiots out there who can't really separate fact from fiction or imagine a real-world scenario based on the movies. I remember when the US Government was talking about torture and a scenario that sounded right out of 24 with the old, "Wouldn't torture be okay then?"
proving most of the society as [...] tools of the manipulators [...]
Well, movies are supposed to manipulate your emotions. That's why they have soundtracks and the like. Fiction does that.
Well, we're more accepting of it in fiction mostly because we know who the bad guys are. We know who they are because we've seen them do bad things.
In the real world, it isn't so clear cut.
I thought this was interesting. FTFA:
One part of Google's patent that wasn't discussed during the announcement was micro-auctions, in which users pay for network usage by the sip. Google's patent describes a mobile device that submits a proposal for competitive bids by network operators each time the network is used. An app in need of a network connection would send a request for a bid to nearby networks and would accept the lowest bid with the matching network service level.
Micro-auctions would provide consumers the best user experience because they would always connect to the fastest network available. Large mobile carriers would resist this change because they would forego subscriber contract revenues earned independently of network quality for revenues earned by bidding the lowest price to deliver the fastest network performance.
My only question would be how would you verify that the provider is returning a realistic answer? Remember AT&T's "Faux G"?
That said, I gotta admit that this is a neat idea, especially with the idea of network service levels. For example, I can get by with 2G service for a message to Google/Apple asking, "Is my software up-to-date?" But I'll want that 100Mbps LTE goodness when watching a high-def movie. I might be fine with something in between for casual web-surfing.
No worse than "Semper Fi."
I hate to suggest RTFA, but...
First, the plaintiff was contacted by a Google recruiter, so at least somebody believed that he was a good candidate. His phone interview went poorly--he was contacted by a person who had limited english skills, used a speakerphone with a poor connection (or maybe it was Google Voice) and refused to switch to the handset. He asked him to read code to him over the phone rather than using Google Docs.
I'm not sure it was discrimination, but I'd argue that the interviewer was a total jerk who had no interest in this person whatsoever. Whether that was due to age or some other reason (perhaps he had a buddy who needed a job) is unknown.