Were these fully autonomous,
The Uber one wasn't fully autonomous either.
Were these fully autonomous,
The Uber one wasn't fully autonomous either.
PRO hardware needs to come back they killed so much like.
Which would basically end up being a rounding error in Apple's revenues.
The pro machines never sold well. The Mac Pro had laughable sales,a s does the Mac Mini. Apple really kept them along because of the small by very vocal community who can be guaranteed to buy a few thousand units.
And if you say Apple keeps sucking at the specs, well, Apple is limited by what Intel has. The Mac Mini i7 dual core is the only processor using the same socket as the i5 processors and the Mini doesn't sell enough to justify having two different motherboards for it.
Desktops don't sell well, period - Apple started selling more laptops than desktops around 10 years ago, and the PC market has been mirroring the same.
That's a cute speculation.
What I posted, however, is observational data.
Demographics shows that affluent people, on the whole, have fewer children than poor people. Period. Independent of "advanced" societies, or "cultural programming."
your company out of business!
Just for that we're going to try to FINE your company out of business!
Lenovo did this with their X1 Carbon a while back too. What is the obsession with removing functionality? Sure, Mac users probably don't use the Escape key too much, let alone the function keys. However, Esc has always been the equivalent of Cancel on MacOS and Windows dialog boxes, and terminal-based applications still use it.
No, they didn't, actually. The Esc key was still a real key, it was must moved left of the 1, where the tilde/backtick key is. That was moved to some place beside Ctrl I believe. Kinda like how UK layouts have a huge Enter key and mover the pipe/backslash beside the right Ctrl key.
The failure of windows phone had nothing to do with 'developer engagement'. Simply put they were far too late to market to compete with the already established iphone & Android.
A lot of us had PDAs back in the 1990s. A lot of us also had cell phones. It didn't take a genius to figure out that having one device which worked as both a cell phone and PDA would be really nice, if for nothing but to reduce the amount of clanking going on in your pocket. So it was pretty obvious by the mid-1990s that cell phones and PDAs were going to converge. The only question was if PDAs would get phone capability added on, or if cell phones would get PDA (computing) capability added on.
The late 1990s is when this convergence began. Nokia (a phone manufacturer) was first out of the blocks, which cemented their dominance of the early smartphone market. Palm came out with the Kyocera 6035 and Treo in 2001/2002. The smartphone-ish Blackberry didn't show up until 2003.
Microsoft was right in the thick of this. Since 1996, They'd been competing with PalmOS with WinCE (which became Pocket PC which became Windows Mobile which became Windows Phone). They had enough foresight to add software hooks for phone support to Pocket PC 2000, but never put much effort into the hardware side. For some reason they never took this PDA-phone convergence seriously. Apparently they were too busy thinking up with new names for their mobile OS than to work on phone hardware integration. I remember when the Jornada 928 came to market just in time to compete with the Palm Treo in 2002, reviews panned it calling the phone functionality buggy and unreliable. For all the evils of the old Bell Telephone monopoly, one thing they got right was "It Just Works". Your electricity could be out after a storm, but your landline phone would still work. That's what people were used to and expected. An unreliable phone was dead before it even hit the market.
So Microsoft wasn't late to the market. They were right there at the beginning of the smartphone market and had ample opportunity to dominate it. They just blew it. I suspect someone high up in their management chain, maybe even Gates himself, didn't believe this phone-PDA convergence was going to happen.
Some people think it is going to be gradual but there are people who think it could be sudden for a few reasons.
I am reminded of the quote from Ernest Hemingway: "How did we go bankrupt? Two ways. Slowly, and then all of a sudden."
People need to realize that the effects of global warming are at this point unstoppable. No conservation effort and certainly no carbon dioxide removal program could possibly show an effect for decades. At which point the damage will already be done.
You have just written a false dichotomy; dividing "damage" into a binary: either there's damage or there's no damage, with no significance to degree of damage. That's not the real world. There can be more and less effect; less damage or worse damage.
Some effects of global warming are unstoppable.
At which point the damage will already be done.
Some damage will already be done.
Money would be much better spent preparing for sea level rise etc than trying to prevent it.
False dichotomy: you can do both. Or, more particularly, different people and different organizations can do either, or both.
But the real problem here is that this simply isn't news. Even the quotation in the article is from 2015.
And the curve of carbon dioxide has been known for decades-- it is zero surprise.
1. Very few of the emails are DKIM signed. Check for yourself.
2. Even where DKIM is signed, it relies on the following assumtions.
A: The attacker has not compromised the Google private key
B: The attacker has not compromised DKIM or any of the technologies it relies on
C: The attacker had not compromised the sending account at the time of sending.
The requirement of assumption C is applicable regardless of who the attacker is. Assumptions A and B fail when considering a highly motivated state actor. It should go without saying that everyone here knows that major powers actively work on things like A & B, and C is their bread and butter.
Do I think that a power like, say, Russia, has compromised DKIM itself, or any of the technologies it relies on? Probably not, but I certainly wouldn't put it past them. Do I think that said entity has compromised the Google private key? Probably not, but again, I certainly wouldn't put it past them. I absolutely would not put C past them - but it depends on the importance attached to the topic at hand.
To reiterate: the majority of the leak will be real. But there is an active, demonstrable history this cycle, of the attackers salting the leaks with fakes, using the real content to try to legitimize the fakes, so try not to be naive about all this.
Right. Keep denying our reality.
Right. So let's take a look at how this "excerpt the gotcha" plays into that.
Slashdot writes about Zuckerberg:
a later exchange between Sandberg and Podesta showed that Mark Zuckerberg was looking to get in on the action a bit, and perhaps curry favor with Podesta and the Clinton camp in shaping public policy.
Except that the email from Shelly about Zuckerberg very clearly begins:
Mark is meeting with people to learn more about next steps for his philanthropy and social action and it’s hard to imagine someone better placed or more experienced than you to help him. He’s begun to think about whether/how he might want to shape advocacy efforts to support his philanthropic priorities and is particularly interested in meeting people who could help him understand how to move the needle on the specific public policy issues he cares most about
Likewise on the other email from Cheryl. They mention the "She came over and was magical with my kids" re. Clinton. They don't bother mentioning the reason for Hillary's visit, which can be seen in what she's replying to:
To: Sheryl Sandberg
Subject: At a loss for words
Can't imagine your pain, but know that you are surrounded by people who love you. Mary and I are praying for you, the kids and, in our Catholic way also for Dave.
Thank you – means a lot to me that you reached out.
And I like that you are praying for Dave. I have to believe in heaven now.
This wasn't some buddy-buddy campaign visit, this was a "person I know's husband just died" visit. Likewise, the implication that they're supposed to give here is that they know her because of Facebook. No bothering to mention that the reason that they actually know her is because she was Larry Summers' Chief of Staff during the Clinton administration.
Almost anything can be made to look sinister when you take it completely out of context. Which is the whole purpose of these emails.
Furthermore, do you honestly think you couldn't do the exact same thing by picking through the Trump campaign's internal messaging? Do you have any clue how many people of note a major campaign interacts with, how many people work for them, etc? We know given Trumps record on server security that hacking him would have been a breeze, but miraculously nobody bothered. Why do you think that is?
Lastly: take everything you read with a grain of salt. I know everyone's reaction to statements that emails could have been altered (and scattered amongst real ones) is going to be "You just don't want to discuss them!" No, the reason you should take things with a grain of salt is that the other anti-Clinton hacks this year have done exactly that. Leaks posted by the hackers in different places involved cases where they had involved changing the same file to say different things (such as a donation list where they added a donation from Soros to a Russian democracy activist, but had different values for the donation in different versions of their release), cases where files were dated to after the hack occurred, and cases where file metadata showed the changes they'd been making. Salting real data with fake is something that they've been doing this year, so it'd be naive to think that they're just going to stop doing it now. Come on, even the most die-hard Clinton hater is going to be hard pressed to actually believe that the Clinton Foundation has a directory sitting around literally called "Pay for Play".
Yes, the majority will be real. But don't be naive when viewing them and assume that you can just take everything at face value.
Because we hate Wall Street, let's instead put a billionaire real estate scammer whose entire adult life has been spent trying to kiss up to investors and banks to get loans for his businesses, and who refuses to reveal what banks he's in debt to in power.
Because we oppose the Libyan conflict, let's put in power someone who wants to bomb the children of terrorists, insists that waterboarding isn't harsh enough, wants more nations to have nuclear weapons, wants to build a new generation of nuclear weapons, and spent his first security briefing repeatedly asking why we're bothering to have nuclear weapons if we're not going to use them.
Because we oppose free trade, let's put in power someone who spent his entire career - up until he decided to rebrand himself as a populist for this election - championing free trade, built his empire on dumped steel and undocumented workers, and - until it was shut down as a scam - championed the benefits of outsourcing on his Trump University page.
I'm not even sure where you're getting that Clinton has been big "drill baby drill" champion, but Trump has literally called for "drill baby drill" in speeches, including lifting all federal restrictions on offshore drilling and elimination of the EPA.
So if you want to cut off your nose to spite your face, go right ahead, but please understand why many people will not be joining at you.
And if your argument is "I'm not supporting either of them" - if you don't vote for one, you're supporting the other. Not to the degree of voting directly for the other, but you're still supporting them. Because that's the way the US electoral system works.