Comment Crazy (Score 1) 90
A snapdragon 7 based phone should be like $400. Paying $650 for one doesn't make any sense unless you're constantly breaking small components.
A snapdragon 7 based phone should be like $400. Paying $650 for one doesn't make any sense unless you're constantly breaking small components.
Instead of rare books, let us rare video games or computers. Let's say someone bought a rare version of a Ninentendo system (an early edition) and said, "You know what, I'm going to see what happens if I apply a larger and larger force to it. Let's see how long it stays intact."
Mind you, they did a 3-D scan of the system so you can digitally see it, but the physical copy no longer exists.
How many of you would raise a stink at destroying it?
If not Nintendo, pick something you like and go back to its earlier days where something is rare and someone wants to destroy it, just because.
One of the things people complain about the digital age is loss of information. Sure, these books "exist" in a digital form today, but what about in 50 years?
This is why physical books are still superior to digital. We can still read books/scrolls/clay tablets from centuries ago. It is doubtful the same will be said for digital books.
What is the article suggesting - books are sacrosanct, and must never be destroyed or thrown away? Millions are being published every year, millions have to be recycled, who cares.
I know, distrust the system, but the truth is our 98% disc free reality already has made games cheaper. Browse https://www.xbox.com/en-US/gam...">the XBox Store and there's always going to be AAA games from three years ago for under $10, or indie titles for $6.99, or shit like that. You'd never see deals like that back in the day when games were all on disks, even before accounting for inflation. Much cheaper than used disks from Gamestop, even.
Thanks for the advice on raising children, old guy with no kids.
Yes, while the article doesn't say I'll guess it's more like a lax, trivial hack. Like somebody breaking into your house when you forgot to lock the door.
But it's still something that AI shouldn't be doing in the first place, especially when it's just done incidentally, and suggests that this nascent technology is capable of worse.
The whole debate it kind of dead. You buy a Mac if you can afford it, they're the best. You get a PC if it's for work and the system administration sets that up for your organization, or because you're a gamer and want to use a $1500 computer to play games on like it's an XBox. Linux desktops are for old, contrarian nerds.
What an absurd question. Most of the prompt was about students, so I'll tell you how much time it costs: about three seconds for the students to see where on the boot up screen the web browser is. Then they click on the web browser, and that's it. From there it's all the same and they just go to google classroom or whatever. I speak empirically. I taught at a school that went from Windows to Chromebooks, and the students barely even noticed the transition.
Long time Slashdot reader theodp is remembering his own childhood where maybe people had to actively learn to use DOS, and then the Mac GUI was kind of a strange transition, and etc. Times have changed, grandpa!
Why would I even want to go in a T-Mobile store? Maybe before iPhones were a thing I would want to browse the phones that were there. Now you just get the newest iPhone or Samsung and you're good.
Like, is it expected I go there to pay my bills? Is this something people do?
Is insider trading one of those preclusive constitutional authorities the Supreme Court was talking about? Or will this fall under an unofficial act?
It's hard to tell since the Supreme Court has said a president is immune from nearly every crime even though the Founding Fathers said the opposite.
"I have five dollars for each of you." -- Bernhard Goetz