I think you will find that banks have real liability when they fail to protect customer data. At least here in Europe they would.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
The long game is that they are not going to bet their whole existence on their being able to keep ahead of the performance curve.
They will be testing the Atoms and if the Atoms happen to produce a better power and performance package, you can bet that they will flip over to Intel.
One of the advantages they have is that they already differentiate the binaries by device, so it's not a stretch for them to recompile all submitted code right away and have it working on an x86 iPhone if they need it to. Seamlessly too as far as customers are concerned.
Um, no, unless that "kid" uses said sandwich to rob some people who actually believe the sandwich pointed at them is an actual gun! It's quite obvious from the context that we are talking about someone using something that a reasonable person would have no reason to believe wasn't a gun when it was pointed at them.
Maybe there is space in the political spectrum for a political party that:
- Doesn't accept large donations from individuals in return for an inordinate influence (i.e. one greater than their vote share)
- Doesn't accept corporate donations (large or small)
- Has strict limits on the amount of contributions from non-corporates (small enough as to not effectively buy influence in the party)
- Does not endorse or approve or affiliate with any superPACs.
- Does not allow candidates to fund their own campaigns
Such a party would be funded by its members, and each member would have the right to vote for their candidate in closed primaries (you vote if you are a paid up member to reduce gaming by opponents).
The party would also sign a contract with all representatives that allowed their recall in the event that they decided to not abide by party constitution, although such recall would be subject to an appropriately high threshold - e.g. 80% of eligible primary voters demanding a recall (a high enough bar to prevent frivolous recalls).
You are over-thinking it here.
Threatening someone with a gun-shaped object should carry the same sentence regardless of whether it turned out to be a real gun or not.
Actually shooting someone with a gun should carry an even higher penalty. If you use a fake gun, you obviously don't get to shoot anyone with it, so you will naturally not be charged for shooting anyone, but you don't get to benefit from the fact that you misled your victims as to the ultimate level of violence you were able to commit.
The judge should have kept him in prison for contempt of court.
If you will not respect the laws of the land, then you should be locked up. Anything else is a recipe for lawlessness.
Seeing as carrier groups obviously aren't designed to be covert, if I were designing the protection systems around the carrier group, I would literally bathe the surrounding ocean with sonar and every technology I can think of to ensure that nothing approaches without my knowing it. So I might have subs underneath to detect other subs, and they don't have to be silent. In fact, from a Sonar perspective, I would make them as "loud" as I can to make it clear that you cannot approach without giving away your position.
I suspect a carrier group generally represents the greatest concentration of ammunition and firepower on the face of the planet, which is why it is very difficult to attack it nowadays.
The really really bad idea is designing a system in which a human being who is not really involved in what is going on is asked, at a moment's notice, to take over. If the computer diagnoses a problem big enough, it should stop the car safely and let people out. That's all. No need to ask a person what to do. No need to continue. Computers do what people tell them to do. They don't make completely autonomous decisions.
There is actually a conflict between making the car better at resolving failure, and requiring a human to take over in corner cases. The better the car is at resolving failure, the less likely humans will be required to take over, and the less likely they will know what to do anyway.
There is always follow-me printing, which, at my workplace, uses an access card to allow you to print the documents. I am sure it won't stop a very determined intruder, but it certainly should reduce mishaps like someone forgetting to collect their printouts.
It wouldn't make sense for Sony to have a non-Peter Parker Spiderman in there, and I can also imagine that they will have demanded that they be allowed to cast their own Spiderman.
I am also sure they would have conditions about Spiderman's involvement in the film to make it worthwhile for them.
If not, it would be quite a strange arrangement for Sony.
From what I understand, its never, as long as Sony keeps producing the movies, Marvel doesn't get the rights back.
I can only imagine that Sony will have demanded some additional concessions on the rights they own, e.g. to allow them to take longer between films, in exchange for allowing Marvel to bring Spiderman to the MCU. if I were Sony, I would have asked for that.
As far as I understand, no money changes hands over this deal.
It also happened with Hillary Clinton - remember her being in Bosnia under sniper fire?
No, I am not agreeing. I am saying that there is no such thing as intrinsic value (from an economics perspective), so any argument that software is special in not having intrinsic value is meaningless.
Software has no intrinsic value. The value is derived from what the software can do for me.
And one could argue that money has no intrinsic value. The value is derived from what money can do for me.
Of course it's true, but completely missed the point. In fact, you can say that about anything that has value to anyone.
A really good example is oil. If combustion engines had not been invented, and other uses of oil had not been developed, then oil would be nigh on worthless. so oil doesn't have any intrinsic value either. And neither does just about anything really.
However, some form of DOS is still useful today as part of an embedded real-time control system. But is everyone going to buy it? Not by a long shot. Is Microsoft making any money selling MS-DOS today? I seriously doubt it.
Value is linked to usefulness. DOS would have been useful to some computer use 30 years ago but no today, because it won't let the average computer user do what they would really most like to do, which is surf the internet, update Facebook and check emails. So yes, most users wouldn't find DOS valuable today, but that would have been different 30 years ago.
No, this is not the value of the software. This reflects only the market pricing mechanism. A consumer would find the next lowest priced software. It might be yet another free alternative, or it could be non-free but bundled with a paid operating system. If the next lowest priced alternative turns out to be unaffordable, I might choose not to buy it.
You are just describing the opportunity cost, which is a different beast. The opportunity cost just tells you how much more utility you get out of buying one rather than the other. And that is entirely consistent with my post. For example, if there are two pieces of software which have almost the same functionality, I might value them differently. Maybe I value software X at $250 and software Y at $200. Let's assume both are priced at $100. I would obviously buy X, because it is worth more to me. If the price of Y was dropped to $90, I would still buy X, because my gain from buying X for $100 is more (at $150) than the gain I would get from buying Y (now $110). (This is incidentally why dropping prices doesn't always work.) If however, the price of software Y were dropped to $40, then I would gain $160 from buying it compared to $150 from buying X. So I would then buy Y instead. This is simplistic, but that is what economics is about.
This is also why people will still buy Microsoft Office rather than download OpenOffice.org. The additional value they get from MS Office is still greater than the value of OpenOffice.org (which is entirely free). This isn't to say that they are valuing either MS Office or OpenOffice.org correctly, just that this is how value and price interacts.
The value of anything to anyone absolutely is the amount you would pay for it, and that is not equal to the market price.
The market price is just the point at which the supplier and the market meet in the middle, which isn't necessarily equal to the value everyone who ends up buying the software values it at. In economics terms, the whole demand curve (or line) tells you how much different people value a good. If I think the value of a copy of Windows is $30, and Microsoft will only sell it for $100, then I will not buy it. If I believe it is worth $500, and Microsoft is willing to sell it to me for $100, then I would buy it. I would still buy it if it cost $200, or $300 or $400 or $500, but not at $600. That is basic economics.
Read up on the consumer surplus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... to understand the difference between the price that people buy a product at, and the value they get from it.
Incidentally, this is why the paradox of the value of water and diamonds isn't really a paradox at all. of course water is more valuable, but it is also more abundant and supplied at a lower price (or free even). However, its price is not equal to its value.