An infant mortality rate far above other first world nations isn't a health care problem?
We're talking about kids too young to be be gunned down, so they're not part of America's remarkable teen-gun-death statistics.
They're predominantly kids from poor families, who don't live healthy lifestyles or have good health insurance. If the family doesn't have access to good healthcare, the kid's chances of survival are lessened.
Maybe Russia could improve its placement on the list if they ignored the health care issues caused by alcoholism.
And then America could improve its position by declaring obesity, and the health problems that come with it, a lifestyle issue instead of a health issue.
"To help identify and prevent fraud, information about how you use your device, including the approximate number of phone calls or emails you send and receive, will be used to compute a device trust score when you attempt a purchase," the page reads.
See the "information about how you use your device, including the approximate number of phone calls or emails you send and receive".
So the score calculation for that device includes the approximate number of phone calls or emails you send and receive on it.
You could interpret that as "the more personal activity you have on a device, the less trusted it should be", but that makes no sense. The more you use a device, the more likely it is to actually be your device.
It makes sense to place less trust in devices that you rarely use.
The quote from Apple is that they're computing trust scores for your devices for when you attempt a purchase. It sounds like the more you use the device, the more trusted it is. That brand new device that you've never used before shouldn't be trusted.
What I don't understand is how you can reasonably stretch that out to giving people trust scores.
>It is sad though, that young people appear to be less computer literate in terms of creating content (as an overall percentage of previous generations).
Previous generations? How many generations back do you imagine widespread computer use to go?
Jerry Pournelle was considered cutting edge for using a word processor to write as early as 1977. Adobe Illustrator is from 1987 and Photoshop is from 1990.
There haven't been a whole lot of generations in the 41 years since the Apple II was released (about 2 generations, given 20 years per generation).
I can tell you that kids from my generation (baby boomers) had almost no computer literacy. Most of us never even touched a computer until adulthood (if then).
Typing a word into Google gives you a sense of accomplishment? Wow.
When I was a kid (and by that I mean all the way into university), we had to go to the library (an actual physical place that wasn't our home), look in the card catalogue (an actual physical box of drawers with actual physical cards in them), then find the shelves with actual physical books on them. Then we had to look at the index in the book. Or just read it.
That took time and perseverance. There was no instant gratification. It took hours or days.
Are you advocating a return to that past and that much perseverance?
Typing a word into Google and clicking search is nothing. Trying to make it sound like it's so much better for character building is ridiculous.
In the real world, that's called "negotiation".