Samsung's project has nothing to do with health-related applications
What we really need is contact lenses or glasses that actively focus with the eye to restore range of focus for older people. Range of focus is an accurate indicator of how old you are, i.e., old people might be able to see up close or see the distance, but they can't do both. Glasses that could detect how the eye is focussing (probably with infra-red sensors) and then adapt to help would be a major advance.
Samsung say "10nm-class denotes a process technology node somewhere between 10 and 19 nanometers, while 20nm-class means a process technology node somewhere between 20 and 29 nanometers." They are carefully not saying exactly what scale technology is actually being used for this product and it could easily be 14nm or more.
So you're complaining that the colour saturation is too great? Really? This is a major feature of AMOLED displays. You should be able to turn the saturation down in software. If you're looking at TVs in a retailer, of course the saturation, contrast and brightness will all be set off the charts so the sets stand out from the competition. Almost always they have a much more natural picture mode you can choose via the setup menu to see realistic results.
It just says it's for "kids" with no definition about appropriate age ranges or its censorship standards that I could find. Depending on how you define "kids," some of them could easily be sexually aware. If they only intend it for use by the very young then removing all references to sexuality would seem uncontroversial but it would be better for Kiddle to give clearer guidelines about this.
Not this shit again. I pay taxes on top of taxes. License fees, registration fees, gas tax, sales tax, income tax, excise tax, etc etc etc.
One thing these taxes pay for are the roads I use to get to work, and the parking I use to do my shopping. If I neither earn nor spend money then maybe we're in your idea of nirvana, but not mine.
The issue is, are the taxes fair. If the roads are paid for out of income tax then people who take the train to work are being ripped off. Alternatively, if fuel taxes, registration and licence fess and parking and traffic fines are paying for schools and hospitals then motorist are being ripped off. How this works varies widely around the world.
You might think that they were different markets, but in 2013, they stated that the SpaceShipTwo was capable of launching 100 satellites daily.
LauncherOne is what's doing the launching of satellites. It's an expedible two-stage launcher carried by SpaceShipTwo. At best, consider SpaceShipTwo its first stage but, unlike conventional first stages, it contributes only a very small percentage of the energy required to reach orbit.
The Concorde flew at supersonic speeds because it was more efficient for it to do so, but modern aircraft don't because advances in the old designs caused them to become more efficient.
No, Concorde flew very fast because it wanted to get passengers to their destination twice as fast as other airliners. Modern aircraft don't because, it turns out, not enough people are willing to pay the extra cost to travel supersonically, especially since sonic booms mean you're only allowed to do so over water.
Almost all practical applications of going into space require reaching LEO (low earth orbit). This requires forty (40) times more energy than reaching 100km altitude.
I think you're correct. Mostly, Netflix doesn't geoblock by credit card address because they don't really want to win this battle. Also, having made this decision long ago, it's hard to change policy now without seriously annoying a high percentage of customers. While it is possible for people for obtain credit cards in other countries to work around such a block it's substantially harder than just buying a VPN service. The first sign that content providers are winning will be when selected new content is restricted by credit card address.
If you mean criminal law, probably not, actually.
In Australia there seems to be no legal problem, to judge by
Film studios and TV companies should not use legislation that allows them to get piracy sites blocked in Australia to "inappropriately threaten" to block access to geoblocked services, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) chairman Rod Sims has said.
The ACCC is an official government body but they appear to be firmly on the side of the consumer even when you feel the government isn't comfortable with their stance. For example, the ACCC seems to positively encourage consumer grey-marketing of books and DVDs/BDs (i.e., buying them from places like Amazon) as well as the use of VPNs to fight both the old and the new forms of geoblocking.
Encrypting that same real key with a second passphrase (retained by carrier or OS provider) would be trivial
Except that those second passphrases would all be stored in some central database which would be a very juicy target for hackers, including NSA-like agencies world-wide. Also, this is explicitly not secure against Apple or the US government and that's going to be a legitimate deal breaker for a large number of non-criminal customers both in the US and elsewhere.
The big issue with the law is that it seems to be banning end-to-end encryption. Right now, when the FBI comes to Apple and says "give us this person's iMessages in clear text" Apple can just respond "we made it so that we have no way to comply". Apple likes it that way, mostly because customers hate being spied on so it's a selling point. The UK is ramping up to say "make it so you can comply in future or else big fines and gaol". And it's going to be hard for Apple to do this just for the UK. You can bet the UK is going to be of the view that they need to be able to see the comms of foreign citizens on UK soil, and of UK citizens overseas. It's just like how California car emission laws have consequences for the whole of the US. In this case a UK law could outlaw strong encryption for ordinary consumers in the whole developed world.
if that monopoly were serving The People, Uber would not even exist for lack of interest.
How ironic your point is given that the story title is "Uber In Retreat Across Europe". The taxi industry, which is not a state-sponsored monopoly in many places, would seem to be serving the people. Just because the government requires taxi drivers to be licensed doesn't make it a monopoly any more that ordinary drivers' licences make cars a government monopoly.
However ironic you may think my point is, the danger is real that Uber will achieve widespread dominance and then be in a position to abuse their position. Unlike governments you won't be able to vote them out.
The future looks like multiple part-time jobs and low pay to me
No, the future is driverless cars and no jobs or pay for cab or Uber drivers. Uber only needs their contractors for a few more years until the technology is ready, then drivers will be free to retrain for better jobs in another industry.
Once Uber has driven its competition out of business, anyone will be able to offer a service like Uber.
No, because this type of service is a natural monopoly, especially when operated by a large multi-national. Nobody wants to use a different app for every city. It would be just like trying to compete against eBay in the online auction market.
A continuing flow of paper is sufficient to continue the flow of paper. -- Dyer