Or better still, put laser beams on their heads.
Or better still, put laser beams on their heads.
Didn't they own Motorola and have complete control? Then got rid of that because it made all of the other phone makers feel bad?
What makes a Nexus phone different from an iphone? Neither has an SD card or replaceable battery, yet the Nexus always seems to be about half the price.
I've never had to replace a battery in a phone before it was old and slow and not what I wanted anymore.
I'm rarely out of wifi range AND need direct and immediate access to tons of data, nor have I ever filled up a 32GB phone with what I want to take with me.
Eh, you're only safe until the value of the data they're holding is greater than what they're being paid. Or until a government insists on having access.
Good luck proving they're the source of the leak and suing them when the company is gone, there's no money and the people involved are sitting on an island somewhere.
The third choice is not doing anything wrong, not caring who is folding, spindling and mutilating the tidbits of your life and not worrying about it. Because they probably already know almost everything about you.
About 18 years ago, well before our current models of internet, social media and data collection were even born I had an interesting experience.
I applied for a high end insurance package with a lot of umbrella/liability protection that came at a very low cost. The cost was low because as my insurance agent put it "They're going to crawl up your with a microscope the size of a small country". Since I've held top secret and nuclear q clearances, this didn't really bother me.
About 3 weeks later I get a call from an investigator asking what my association was with an ex-girlfriend's ex-husband. I'd actually never met him and only dated her for a few months and there was very little paperwork of any form where we'd be 'linkable'. As in she may have filled out some forms with my address/phone as an alternative contact on her health insurance or at Blockbuster. And yet here I was answering questions about how well I knew her ex. As it turns out, back in the 80's he'd been implicated in some insurance fraud.
All without access to any of my internet doings, because it barely existed at the time.
Right now I know everything I buy at a store with a loyalty program, everything I buy from credit cards or on an online retailer is fully sorted and collated and probably sold many times. My picture is taken dozens of times a day when I'm not aware of it, with many of those photos linked to usage of a payment method or some other means of identifying me and the picture.
I guess the long and short of it is that someone somewhere knows a hell of a lot more than you think they do, even if you shop with cash and a mask.
These days I'm more interested in simplicity and convenience. I use a chrome box and a chrome book with 1tb of Drive storage. Its unlikely that something can persistently get into either product without physical access. I'd suspect that google has far better protections for my data than I could ever provide even if I were an expert in every aspect of security and maintenance. I'd imagine that they follow far more rules about who and what can look at my data than the local supermarket does.
I also imagine that if I used some super secure hardware with a super secure open sourced everything, a VPN and encrypted everything I might be safer. From what is a different question. I'd also imagine that I'd land on some watch list and would be okay with that because I'd imagine that a lot of people who would stray so far to secure their privacy are doing it because they're routinely committing crimes or planning to do so.
Why don't we just cut out the middlemen and teach eagles how to fly around with cameras and little missiles?
The study measured intelligence as an active factor, via testing. How well would a high 16 year old with a 160 IQ do on an intelligence test vs a non stoned 110 IQ kid?
While IQ is a measure of some areas of potential ability, as you note the issues of opportunity and effort are required along with the ability inherent. At least two of those have to be solid. In my experiences the effort gets a lot smaller when you regularly use THC. Opportunities for a regular pot user might also decline. So whether it damages or reduces the ability might almost be irrelevant.
I grew up poor in a group foster home and got very little in the way of education. What I did do was work hard for peanuts until I learned enough skills and made a reputation for myself. I ended up retiring at 40.
So the advice that "You're poor, give up and smoke pot" might not be the best one.
I think the big problem here is reliance on any test intended to show off levels of intelligence. Many of the cheaper, simpler to administer tests vary wildly in both consistency and accuracy.
Most US schools rely on a specific test to determine gifted/intelligence level. Its cheap and easy to do and doesn't take long. Its primary problem is that in the case of very gifted kids, the test results reverse themselves and may even indicate that a very introverted, very intelligent kid is well below average in intelligence. Then you give the same kid that same test a month later when they're focused and interested in the test and you get a completely different result.
So if you want to show in a study that average scores are lower, use the cheap test. If you want to show higher average scores, use the expensive long tests that capture all of the kids with IQ's over 125 instead of showing them at 80-90.
As far as the original story, I was a regular 'user' in my 20's and dabbled with it infrequently for 30 years. I don't think it reduced my intelligence but it sure does cut into motivation and aggression. One interesting metric I've seen was getting my social security statement a few years ago which showed my annual income since I was a teen. It goes up smoothly and sharply until about the time I started smoking pot. Then it flies level for about five years until I gave it up at which point the income numbers resume the same sharp upward line.
It'd seem to me that the last thing a teenager needs is less motivation and less interest in doing things.
No, the problem is that women don't negotiate. I hired hundreds of people in my professional career. Not one woman ever negotiated the salary, every single man did. I always thought that was odd. Usually it was just "How about a little more on the salary?". We often ended up beefing up the offer by 5-10%. After working at dozens of companies from small startups to megacorps, I never saw anything in the salary offer matrix that involved whether we were offering to a man or a woman. On both coasts. I didn't have anyone turn down a job either. I've often thought of this as the primary reason behind women making less than men, rather any organized intention to pay less. We always factored in experience, education, what the new job entailed vs their former job, prior salary and what we were paying people who already worked for us in similar jobs. Not sex or age or anything else like that.
The problem here as I see it is that people perform dozens of negotiations every day in a professional environment. Everything from meeting times to who gets to run a project. If you won't even try to ask for a little more money when its your payment for your primary livelihood and you need someone to take salary negotiations out of the job prospecting business, I don't think good things come about as a result.
I suspect that reddit is going to get a steady stream of wimpy people afraid of negotiating, both men and women. Unintended consequences...
You can go back a little further. We used to call this 'mainframes and terminals'. There's a reason why we got away from it. Lots of them in fact.
If I recall correctly, the same amount of space a television channel uses is around 10-12Mb/s of continuous data. Current modems can bond 12+ channels. The more that people stream instead of requiring live tv, the more channels can be allocated to internet. Each modem can be configured to use different channels. While there is one piece of wire from the street to your house, there are many piece of coax AND backup unused cable throughout your neighborhood. Each neighborhood has a junction with bazoodles of cable to it and probably fiber.
So the short answer is they can allocate gigabits of data streams in your neighborhood, and with numerous backbone options from there to the main office they have all the bandwidth they need for the foreseeable future. And it doesn't 'run out', it just gets slower at the shared wire level for the user. Which is why netflix looks like crap at 7PM every night.
Cable tv is a leaking ship and losing subscribers by the day. In a few years most content will be streamed. If you are losing money on the television end of the business, you have to make it up on the streaming end. Satellite is the same except they don't have the kind of internet end that comcast has. This is why Dish is doing the 'over the top' offering later this year. They're going to offer 'basic cable' as a streaming, non satellite option. This is why comcast is buying time warner. They'll basically own the pipe and will jack up the price to offset declining tv revenues and the more you 'watch', the more you'll pay.
We don't have the 300M cap here yet, but we will and comcast is the only high speed provider anywhere in my county. They also charge more here than they do where uverse/verizon/dsl is available.
I had considered cutting the cord this year and going with a big antenna I have in my attic (83 channels), netflix/hulu/amazon and some specific channel streaming (TNT, Disney) to save some $$$. But then I saw what comcast was doing with the caps and extra charges in other areas and realized I'd just be paying $120+ for internet instead of $60 for internet and $60 for tv.
Since the head of the FCC is the former head of the cable lobby and the head of the cable lobby is the former head of comcast, it looks like the political revolving door will assure that this will come to fruition.
Google will never run fiber to anywhere near a majority of homes. The phone company doesn't even offer DSL in that broad a manner.
Awww...does that make you grumpy?
As usual, statistics lie. In dual degree marriages with engineering degrees there is a lot of money involved so one or both eats a lot of shit so they can live in the nice house, drive the nice cars and enjoy their earnings.
In poor marriages, there isn't enough money to make it worthwhile.
Its also interesting to note that second marriage divorce rates are higher than first, and third marriages are even worse. So they don't learn from their mistakes and failures beget higher failures. Once you're done with your first one, everyone you date will already have been married and divorced at least once. The ones that make it into their 40's without ever marrying are a real treat, because there's a reason.
And if you think that problem solving and rational thinking happens in a marriage...wow, have you got some surprises coming to you.
Kids don't have to cost very much. Billions of them are raised around the world for next to nothing. Living below your means and having a good retirement account is a very good idea.
But yeah, marriage is a piss poor idea. You have no idea what you're going to get. My ex wife held her breath for 5.5 years of dating and everything was wonderful. Which ended within days of the ring going on her finger.
The old saying is true: marriages fail because men think that everything will stay the same and women think everything will be different.
I survived financially because most of my assets were earned before we married and weren't community property. There's a reason they call it financial death.
When in doubt, mumble; when in trouble, delegate; when in charge, ponder. -- James H. Boren