Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
I already have a Nexus 5--I'm not looking for a new phone--just want to make my old Photon 4G useful again. Recycle value last I checked was a whopping $17 because of this. It's got 2 1GHz cores and 8GB memory--it's still decent hardware. Shame to be deprecated so early.
I have a Motorola Photon 4G (pre LTE) that was infamously scheduled to receive ICS but then Motorola backpedaled and abandoned it, *right after* the last OTA shipped that locked the bootloader--so essentially it's stuck at gingerbread while fully capable of running kitkat or lollipop (with a much better experience).
It's not activated on my account to make calls anymore, but Sprint's system still sees it.
It's a world phone with both cdma and a sim card for gsm--would be a great travel phone if I could unlock it.
I'm available to help.
The point is that FF 34 didn't depend on this setting while FF 35 *does*--and no warning was issued to explain the sudden loss of functionality.
Discovered that session support is silently disabled in 35 if com.indexedDB.enabled = false.
And no, I did not set that to false myself--don't know what addon did it nor when.
FF provides no logging about the fact either.
I've been updating FF and successfully restoring my previous session for years.
Now sessions don't even work with a brand new, fresh profile.
And it's not 100% possible. There's a non-0% chance that humanity* was created by a "god" external to the universe and the stuff that makes for intelligence can't be replicated with what we have in this universe. I admit that seems a rather large stretch and extremely unlikely, but the majority of humanity seems to believe in God, gods, spirits, and the like, clearly they don't think there is a proven 0% of such things.
* and other living beings if you want.
That is a very good point I hadn't considered. There could be a directional connection from a "higher" order of existence to ours that is responsible for intelligence. In that light, then yes, the odds may in fact be 0. Including this possiblity simply means that we cannot actually calculate a singular odds at all--it's two-fold now: either >0 or 0--a dependent outcome which is really unknowable.
It is not standalone. You're ignoring the referential pronoun object of the sentence, "it", which is contextual and refers directly to the topic at hand: something for which we *do* have active examples, is demonstrated and thus 100% possible.
This rebuttal is flawed. Obviously the odds of success of pursuing something impossible is always 0. You're equating the pursuit of things for which we have no model of possible existence with the pursuit of replicating something for which we have abundant, active examples of it's 100% possibility--over 7 billion intelligent, autonomous physical entities, not even counting other species which qualify.
I agree that there is no logic in attempting to predict a date for when someone will comprehend how to manufacture an entity that exhibits intelligence similar to our own. But there is likewise no logic in declaring we cannot or will not do so within any specific timespan either. However low the odds of success may be, they are still >0. The odds don't even go to 0 if not a single person is pursuing it directly--someone not in pursuit of it may have a realization that leads to it. We have historical examples of discoveries coming at us sideways.
In addition, even if multiple insights are required, that does not reduce the odds of them all occuring within X amount of time to 0 either. The fact that people are actively pursuing it still puts the odds at >0.
Prove it. For all we know, one single insight may be all that stands in the way--just because *you* haven't had it yet doesn't mean multiple are required.
There is no risk of strong AI emerging in the next few decades. Really, there is not.
Sure there is. Just because no one has had the "ah-ha!" moment yet and figured it out doesn't mean we can say no one will in the next X amount of time. It very well could happen today. The mere fact that people are actively pursuing it means the odds are >0.
No one in the mass market will buy this. So many already can hardly handle a one-piece phone/tablet/laptop/computer/device. Women will not buy it simply because it's ugly.
"Oh, but you can upgrade the camera" you say? Anyone that is so much into photography that they need a better camera will buy...... a *real camera*. You know, with interchangeable, actual high-quality, purposeful lenses.
"Oh, but you can just upgrade the screen or processor" you say? Prediction: the upgrade path for any generation chassis will be limited to only one or two steps, then you need a new chassis. Just like with motherboards (because that's what the chassis is).
Now, doing this for laptops... that's the real question--why haven't they done this *yet*. (And no, just because you can aggravatingly, pain-stakingly pry open a laptop to service it and in some cases interchange some parts does not qualify).
This seems like such a step backwards. Are they going to go through the whole 1980/90s plug-and-pray interoperability nightmare again? This is one reason Apple became so dominant--they locked down the hardware, supported a canned set of options, and made their hardware compatibility issues mostly a non-issue. Their stuff *just worked*.
Also, what about the additional avenue of security holes: counterfeit modules, hacked modules, modules swapped out when you're not looking, etc. The android security/permisisons model is already poor at best for the masses.