This article focuses entirely on Sling and Direct TV, neither of which was ever intended to be like Netflix. Those services are both designed to function like a regular cable service, just over the internet instead of a dedicated cable line or satellite dish. Streaming services that aren't trying to be like cable are still nothing like cable.
Clickbait maybe? I don't know. Just a bullshit non-story that shouldn't be on the front page.
Your logic is broken. Apple hasn't implemented this safety feature, therefore it is as much an unknown as any electronic safety measure on firearms. In fact, it's easy to argue it's even MORE of an unknown since we haven't even seen Apple's test version of this, we only know the patent exists. We have certainly seen electronic firearm safeties both patented and tested on actual firearms. Equating it to other electronic lock mechanisms is no different than doing the same for firearms, ex. electronic trigger locks exist therefore they can be implemented effectively on all firearms. Beyond that, the existence of the technology is not an issue here, this is about whether a private company can be held liable for not implementing a safety feature to stop someone from misusing their device in a way that is already not only discouraged but illegal. Your last sentence suggests you have no idea what's going on here, not only is the safety being discussed not the same as a simple lock screen but nobody else actually suggested it doesn't exist. The rest of us are assuming it exists based on patent filings while you suggest something which has not only been patented but tested in various ways (including CES 2016 for an easy example) somehow doesn't exist.
Let's just be straight here. You are arguing that cell phones should have more safety measures than firearms. Just think about that. I'm not even saying we should have these electronic safety measures on firearms, I'm just trying to point out how batshit crazy you are for thinking Apple should somehow be responsible for illegal misuse of their cell phone but people who make tools designed for the sole purpose of killing somehow should not. I think you mistook my arguing in Apple's defense as an argument for gun control, that's not what this is.
Should family members of victims of gun violence also be able to sue firearm manufacturers? We've seen that electronic safety measures exist, so if we can sue Apple for not implementing a safety feature on a cell phone, surely we can sue manufacturers of far more dangerous devices for failing to implement every safety feature they can, right?
OR IS THIS WHOLE THING RIDICULOUS?
On the iPhone, are you not aware that it competes with other smartphones? I'm not sure why you think it won't sell less when the price goes up. There's nothing that people don't have any choice in. Besides that, without trade agreements, what exactly would stop China from making their own iPhones? They could do it just to spite us, and we'd have no recourse.
You'll have to elaborate on that. I don't get it. Why would Peru stop exporting zinc to us because we stopped buying Chinese goods?
You're right, as long as you ignore the rest of that paragraph. I said we'd need to stop imports from all cheap labor countries, because unless we do that Americans will just continue to choose the cheaper imports over the American made goods. This isn't a theory, the whole reason everything is made offshore is that we choose to buy the cheap stuff every day. That means Peru, which exports about $8 billion in goods to the US every year including a lot of high end clothing made by children, would have their economy negatively impacted. They might even enjoy cutting us off, since they have a trade deficit with us and our deficit with China is such a bad thing, right? If that's not enough, you'd be interested to know that China currently supplies the vast majority of rare earth elements, stuff we need for our beloved iPhones. I'm sure we can find other sources, but at the very least we're going to need to raise prices to cover it. And those sources probably won't be other cheap labor countries, since we can't be buying their stuff any more.
It's obvious there's problems with our trading relationships with some folks, China included, the thing people need to realize is that we can't just demand what we want and expect our trade partners to hand it over without getting anything in return.
I am not even sure about that.
Many companies find themselves forced to go to China for manufacturing. The US and Europe simply don't have the production capacity to meet the goals in a timely manner.
Their production capacity is a result of their long-term status as a manufacturing hub. If labor in the US were as cheap as it were in China for the past couple hundred years, all those factories could have been built here instead. To suggest production can't be brought back into the USA is pessimistic nonsense, it can, it's just not cost effective. Do I think it'll be good for business? No, absolutely not. I'm just saying it's possible.
Well, two other options.. raise the prices, or use more automation.
Um, raising the prices is exactly what would increase the cost of living, it's another option it's what I described... And if automation were cheaper than Chinese labor, business would have already gone that route, so again this leads to an increase in the cost of goods which is an increase in the cost of living.
That really depends on how well the locally produced goods continue to compete internationally.
Right, and with the cost to manufacture guaranteed to increase, the retail price will increase as well. There's not a lot of room for radical improvements in most products that can be implemented cheaply to increase the value of locally produced goods alongside the price. They will not be competitive in an international market where folks can continue to get cheaply made items from other countries. Stopping American companies from producing goods as cheaply as possible will not do anything to stop foreign companies from doing so. If there were room for an increase in quality that wouldn't just be matched by foreign companies cheaper, it might be a different story, but even if there were it would mean that while manufacturing costs increase companies also need to increase R&D spending to come up with some new breakthrough that'll give them an edge, all to make buying more expensive products worthwhile.
Now, I'm assuming this would go alongside a total ban on consumer goods imports from all countries, otherwise there would be nothing stopping even Americans from just buying the cheap imports (which is what we've already chosen to do, no reason to stop) from some other country. There won't be a lot of motivation left for anyone to sell us the raw materials we need to make any of our high quality goods and there's only so much you can dig up here... You see where this is going, right? A total shitshow. The US does not exist in a bubble, our economy does not survive without other countries. I don't believe in any sort of world government type of thing, but we'd all do well to realize that the economy is a global thing, we measure statistics by country but no first world country's economy is independent, what's bad for one of us is bad for all of us.
Really, though, even if Trump cuts off China completely, any increase in employment here will be offset by an increased cost of living as we pay for much more expensive labor than we had been. It's probably also worth noting that most economists believe that if China stops buying US bonds it'll lead to a recession. The simple fact is our economies depend on each other, and that's what this threat is about. Trump said "We're gonna screw China!" and China responded with, "Well we're gonna screw you right back!"
I don't know why people didn't see this coming. I suspect a lot of Americans have a rude awakening in store regarding our position in the world.
Honesty is for the most part less profitable than dishonesty. -- Plato