But you're right, defying Clinton is like defying the mob. Ask this guy who just happened to "crush his own throat" right before testifying.
Except that none of that is true. His trial wasn't starting in 5 days and he wasn't scheduled to testify against Clinton at all.
I walked my brother through replacing the screen in his Nexus 5 over hangouts. The new screen cost him $29 and it came with the tools he needed.
I have repaired countless laptops. Many of the parts in these things are the same, even across manufacturers. I replaced a bad screen in an Asus laptop with a screen from a 2 year old dead Alienware. Same model screen in both. The only difference was that the ribbon cable on the display panel was about 2 inches longer on the Alienware screen. I'm not an electrician, just a guy who doesn't like to be screwed over by corporations. This stuff is not nearly as difficult to repair as manufacturers would have us believe.
I don't believe for one second that Apple's hardware is so much more advanced than anyone else's that they simply cannot be repaired. Replacing a screen is replacing a screen. They have 1 or 2 easily identifiable cables and adhesive to attach them to the device.
The only reason Apple has to do this kind of shit is anti-consumer greed. They are in a mindset where they believe and act as though they still own the device after someone purchases it, and that they have the right to brick a phone if the owner decides to get it repaired somewhere else or repair it themselves. Just because something is marked Unservicable doesn't always mean it is. Sometimes, it's just a greedy company trying to convince you that you can't fix it yourself.
Minecraft did acquire Mojang almost two years ago...
I think what you mean is
Microsoft did acquire Mojang almost two years ago...
What's in it for him to speak about this at all? He may be the former CEO, but I'll bet he still owns stock.
Part of the reason that minimum wage was introduced in the first place is that employers were not paying employees a living wage. The same thing is happening again.
A few people in this thread seem to think that not raising the minimum wage is somehow going to magically prevent companies like McDonalds from replacing staff with robots, but that isn't going to happen. Corporations exist to make money. Reducing costs is part of that. They WILL move to robots sooner or later. Saying we shouldn't raise the minimum wage, in an effort to stave off this threat is really just doing a disservice to those who currently have those jobs.
You can't know how much these robots will save a store over 6 months, because all he said about them was the price. Hard to determine what a robot is capable of based on price alone. Also not included is total cost of ownership or how a breakdown will affect the restaurant. (If an employee is out sick, you call in a replacement. but what do you do if one of your robots is broke?)
It's also not as simple as replacing 1 employee with 1 robot because robots are specialized while humans are generalized. What I mean is that a fast food joint can run with 4 people. You don't really need a dedicated fry person since most of that job is just waiting for them to cook. Have one of the expediters watch the fries and drop more as needed. To run that same restaurant with robots, you would need a robot for each station (Presuming the robots are stationary). Fries, shakes, sandwich maker, breakfast etc. Then there's keeping things stocked. Gotta make sure you have enough buns, patties etc loaded in the robots. Are you going to have another robot to reload stock for the other robots? Who's going to clean the dining room? The bathrooms? Is a robot going to recognize and remove fecal wall graffiti, or is it just going to clean the toilet like it was programmed to do? To flat out state that replacing employees with robots will save the company money is pure speculation.
What this guy said was purely reactionary, and there's a lot more to going full robotic than just "replacing employees with $35k robots", and seeing how McDonalds doesn't actually own 81% of it's stores, I seriously doubt this is anything other than fear mongering: "Oh shit, if they raise the minimum wage, I'm out of a job! Better tell my congressman I'm happy with $7.25 an hour!"
Sure, McDonalds might be able to afford purchasing the robots, but currently, 81% of their stores are franchised, not owned by McDonalds. I seriously doubt all of those stores can afford to purchase a $35k robot to replace every employee.
This is pure FUD. Just a corporate shill trying to scare people away from raising the minimum wage.
So why is this an issue if you can just slap a EULA on the battery's shrinkwrap and be completely immune from a lawsuit?
Because it won't prevent relatives of injured/killed parties from filing a suit.
I have been curious about SDR (Software Defined Radio) for a few weeks now, but haven't had time to really look into it. Would this rule have any impact on SDR?
I USED to consider myself an MMO gamer. Played UO for almost 6 years. Then moved to EQ. I thought, wow, this isn't nearly as feature-filled as UO, but hey, 3D GRAPHICS! Played that for 4 years. Then I started playing DAOC, and a whole host of others, including WoW and even some more recent ones like LOTRO and SWTOR. Each successive game I played lost my interest more quickly than the last. I tried to play ArcheAge and I lasted a whole week before I gave up on it.
Most MMO's have turned into nothing but F2P grind-fests. They are time and money sinks. Either waste a whole crapload of time grinding a quest for a shiny bauble, or, OR... you could purchase the bobble on our store. Not with game money silly, with real money!
I'm still convinced that UO is the most feature-complete MMO created to date, and aside from it's antiquated graphics and interface (Which they may have updated since then) nothing since then has come close.
Now, I play games other than MMO's, but I wouldn't consider myself a fan of any particular genre or style. I do despise most of the mobile F2P games. I don't view them as games at all, they're formulaic, addictive and only designed to get you to spend small amounts of cash frequently so you don't realize that over the last 3 months, you've dumped more into this "free" app than you spend on WoW over the course of a year. Scams are what I consider them.
Sorry if this sounds like a "Back in MY day" rant, but I am getting a bit long in the tooth.
Cookies aren't even required anymore for tracking. Data can be stored in local storage, global storage, indexed DB, even in your web history and as RGB color values in Canvas-generated PNG images. Google "Evercookie" to see examples.
Unless you have a huge library of flash videos and just need time to convert them, there are virtually no valid reasons to continue using flash, not even nefarious reasons like persistent tracking.
When Google caves to government pressure to remove something from search results, that's effectively government censorship. Yes, there are other search engines, but very few use them. When Facebook caves to government pressure to remove something, that's effectively government censorship. Yes, there are other social sites, but very few use them.
Reddit isn't caving to government pressure. They've basically decided that discussions about certain topics are of little value to the operation of THEIR website. They are allowed to do that since they own the website. Is it censorship? You betcha. Is it a violation of your First Amendment rights? not in the least.
You have the right to say what you want, they have the right to kick you off their property for speaking about things they don't like. If you don't like it, go to a public venue, or create your own website to do it. Just because you perceive this as a restriction of your freedom of speech doesn't mean it is. Just because you have a first amendment right to freedom of speech doesn't mean that any private entity has to facilitate it, or allow you to use their resources to exercise it.
Semantics. Clearly, I was referring to the First Amendment protection from government censorship, not freedom of speech in general.
Another point that I want to make: A website telling you that you cannot speak about certain things is not in ANY way curtailing or abridging your right to free speech. They are not telling you that you cannot talk about a subject, just that you cannot talk about a subject HERE. That is an important distinction. Yes, you have the freedom to speak about whatever you like, whenever you like and wherever you like, however, If it's on my property, I have the right to make you leave if I don't like it and guess what? I haven't violated any of your rights.
And lets be honest, if you are talking about a "touchy" subject on private property, and the owner of the property doesn't like it, who is really being the asshole? Your rights don't trump the owner's rights, and that's the part most people don't get.
"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein