... if it wasn't for the fact that the iPhone 5s contains a fingerprint sensor. Who is to say other phones don't? What is to prevent anyone from collecting our fingerprints and matching them to webcam photos? If you want to get very paranoid, putting this kind of technology into a single device doesn't radiate "harmless".
No rights are unlimited. You are free to say what you want, but there are (and should be) consequences for inciting violence against an identifiable group of people.
There is a difference between legitimate criticism (which is the original driver of Freedom of Speech) and inciting hate/violence against a group of people. I know this rubs some people the wrong way, but if you were on the other end of the minority stick you'd feel the same way.
Freedom of speech should be absolute when it comes to voicing political opinions. Otherwise, you don't have a true democracy, since opponents may not be able to argue their point.
Freedom of speech, as a political right, does protect you from consequences from the state. Of course it does not apply to other private entities, as those don't have any political power over you.
I would support that. But that means that groups such as Neo Nazis would not have the right to spread hate against racial groups, because racial groups do not represent "the state" you speak of.
1. Freedom of Speech is not absolute, nor should it be. Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater 2. Freedom of Speech does not protect you from the consequences. If you openly slander your boss, he is free to fire you from the job.
All this to say: No rights are absolute, nor are they free of consequences.
Really? Last I checked, this is a legal contract between the end-user and the phone manufacturer, not Google. Further, do all phone manufacturers void warranty on reflashing?
The danger isn't in what insurance companies will do to drag racers. The danger is in who gets to define what constitutes reckless driving, especially if "reckless" is due to the kind of car you have access to due to your financial situation or your demographic background or even your health.
The only real value of insurance is the "group" part of it. Otherwise it's nothing more than forced savings, which makes it kind of useless.
Maybe the reason my driving habits are bad are due to the crappy car I drive (the only one I can afford) or anger management issues or health-related disabilities?
The difference is that high-risk driving is a choice that one can make each day. On the other hand, most high-risk health conditions are not something that someone can fix instantly by changing their behavior. Now, there are indeed some high-risk health conditions that are a result of choice, such as smoking or unhealthy eating habits...but even with those, one can stop smoking, but there's a significant amount of damage that's already done that makes that person be a higher risk. If there's a way to adjust one's insurance premium based on the high-risk choices they make, it becomes more fair for everyone and helps to discourage high-risk choices.
So, you're essentially saying we should punish fat people for being fat and bad drivers for being bad.
Sure it works in theory, but again it's a very slippery slope.
If you really want people to pay based on their individual performance, why do we need insurance at all? Let people pay out of pocket when they get into an accident. Without "group coverage" insurance is nothing more than forced savings.
Without analytics, low-risk 18 year olds pay a lot of money to cover high-risk 18 year olds. With analytics, low-risk 18 year olds pay less (though not nearly as low as they should be paying) and high-risk 18 year olds are uninsurable. Why? Because you're going to have to substantially raise the price on those high-risk 18 year olds now that low-risk ones aren't covering the bill.
Now extend this logic to health care. Why is it okay to preach universal health-care and group insurance where low-risk cover the bill for high-risk, but the same isn't true for auto insurance? It's a slippery slope!
The fact that Gavin King (of Hibernate fame) is heading up the project is terrible news. The guy has a horrible track record of disparaging users for report bugs. Definitely not professional, and a sure way to burn a community.
I know everyone loves to hate the TSA, but take a look at what Israel does. There are two reasons these kinds of events never happen in their airports:
1. Security lines are never long, by design, because a long line puts passengers at this kind of risk. 2. Passengers are checked by armed guards before even entering the airport. They rule out the possibility of car bombs and armed individuals before they even set foot inside.
Slashdot Mirror
Tech bubble anyone?
He should definitely be compensated.
... if it wasn't for the fact that the iPhone 5s contains a fingerprint sensor. Who is to say other phones don't? What is to prevent anyone from collecting our fingerprints and matching them to webcam photos? If you want to get very paranoid, putting this kind of technology into a single device doesn't radiate "harmless".
There is no way for them (or anyone else) to say with any certainty that a backdoor does not exist for this or any other product out there.
The most Apple can do is say that they're not aware of a backdoor, but I doubt this will satisfy anyone with a tinfoil hat.
No rights are unlimited. You are free to say what you want, but there are (and should be) consequences for inciting violence against an identifiable group of people.
There is a difference between legitimate criticism (which is the original driver of Freedom of Speech) and inciting hate/violence against a group of people. I know this rubs some people the wrong way, but if you were on the other end of the minority stick you'd feel the same way.
All of Firefox's plugins have security problems. Requiring click-to-play only for Java while ignoring all other plugins comes off as biased.
Freedom of speech should be absolute when it comes to voicing political opinions. Otherwise, you don't have a true democracy, since opponents may not be able to argue their point.
Freedom of speech, as a political right, does protect you from consequences from the state. Of course it does not apply to other private entities, as those don't have any political power over you.
I would support that. But that means that groups such as Neo Nazis would not have the right to spread hate against racial groups, because racial groups do not represent "the state" you speak of.
Your argument makes more sense than those of others. So yes, it's possible.
Guilty until proven innocent?
Unlikely. There is no evidence that the cop saw the defendant before entering his car and preparing the paperwork to fine/arrest him.
1. Freedom of Speech is not absolute, nor should it be. Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
2. Freedom of Speech does not protect you from the consequences. If you openly slander your boss, he is free to fire you from the job.
All this to say: No rights are absolute, nor are they free of consequences.
Really? Last I checked, this is a legal contract between the end-user and the phone manufacturer, not Google. Further, do all phone manufacturers void warranty on reflashing?
Is there an Indigogo campaign?
Even if they did: how would they track billing? I assume they don't plan to give out electricity for free?
Agreed on "Only 345 million?"
They seem to be worth *a lot* more.
The existing system already does that. They already pay more than the average.
The danger isn't in what insurance companies will do to drag racers. The danger is in who gets to define what constitutes reckless driving, especially if "reckless" is due to the kind of car you have access to due to your financial situation or your demographic background or even your health.
The only real value of insurance is the "group" part of it. Otherwise it's nothing more than forced savings, which makes it kind of useless.
Maybe the reason my driving habits are bad are due to the crappy car I drive (the only one I can afford) or anger management issues or health-related disabilities?
The difference is that high-risk driving is a choice that one can make each day. On the other hand, most high-risk health conditions are not something that someone can fix instantly by changing their behavior. Now, there are indeed some high-risk health conditions that are a result of choice, such as smoking or unhealthy eating habits...but even with those, one can stop smoking, but there's a significant amount of damage that's already done that makes that person be a higher risk. If there's a way to adjust one's insurance premium based on the high-risk choices they make, it becomes more fair for everyone and helps to discourage high-risk choices.
So, you're essentially saying we should punish fat people for being fat and bad drivers for being bad.
Sure it works in theory, but again it's a very slippery slope.
If you really want people to pay based on their individual performance, why do we need insurance at all? Let people pay out of pocket when they get into an accident. Without "group coverage" insurance is nothing more than forced savings.
Not true. Your driving skill is guaranteed to get worse as your health deteriorates.
Similarly, kids eat like crap, get healthy in their mid-years, then develop a host of complications in old age.
The two (health and driving) are actually quite similar (though I will admit, it is a lot easier to improve your driving skills than your health).
Without analytics, low-risk 18 year olds pay a lot of money to cover high-risk 18 year olds. With analytics, low-risk 18 year olds pay less (though not nearly as low as they should be paying) and high-risk 18 year olds are uninsurable. Why? Because you're going to have to substantially raise the price on those high-risk 18 year olds now that low-risk ones aren't covering the bill.
Now extend this logic to health care. Why is it okay to preach universal health-care and group insurance where low-risk cover the bill for high-risk, but the same isn't true for auto insurance? It's a slippery slope!
Will the hysteria never end?
This "story" is a non-story. Just baseless mud slinging.
The fact that Gavin King (of Hibernate fame) is heading up the project is terrible news. The guy has a horrible track record of disparaging users for report bugs. Definitely not professional, and a sure way to burn a community.
I know everyone loves to hate the TSA, but take a look at what Israel does. There are two reasons these kinds of events never happen in their airports:
1. Security lines are never long, by design, because a long line puts passengers at this kind of risk.
2. Passengers are checked by armed guards before even entering the airport. They rule out the possibility of car bombs and armed individuals before they even set foot inside.
So, double standard is OK because, according to you, Iran admits to enriching uranium and Israel lies about it. Yea, that makes sense.
Says you. Last time I checked, personal opinion does not count as a verifiable fact.