Slashdot Mirror

They're about signing in and talking to your parents and stuff. Messing with user content is contrary to the stated goal. Of course they do it constantly, but this discussion is about what they say.

Outlook.com works from android phones.

Outlook.com has a $20/year paid tier that used to be called Hotmail Plus. And there are rumors of a forthcoming $48/year paid tier allowing a custom domain, comparable to Google's $60/year Google Apps for Work.

So yes, it is possible for a mail user to be Microsoft's or Google's customer.

Outlook.com has free accounts. The existence of a paid option that less than 1% use doesn't change the fact that your original comment:

I've been locked out of both Microsoft and Google accounts

Are you paying for the service?

Yes. Services that use a Microsoft account are included in the price of a Windows license.

Different AC here. Outlook.com works from android phones.

Go ahead and shift the goal post from "Windows license" to privacy now.

is debunked. So, yeah, I called it. You shifted the goal posts from "you paid for it with a Windows license" all the way down the field to "It is possible that you might have optionally subscribed to a free service to get extra features.".

No shit. You, Mr. tepples, are a nit picking, goal shifting, unable to admit when you are mistaken arse. Duly noted.

Go ahead and make an AC comment now. You'll get the last word which is what you seem to crave.

Outlook.com works from android phones.

Outlook.com has a $20/year paid tier that used to be called Hotmail Plus. And there are rumors of a forthcoming $48/year paid tier allowing a custom domain, comparable to Google's $60/year Google Apps for Work.

So yes, it is possible for a mail user to be Microsoft's or Google's customer.

> I just don't get it.
That's because you don't manage multiple domains. Uploading files is D-O-G slow. I get ~130 Mb/s down, ~12 Mb/s up (bits) which is 16 MB/s down and 1 MB/s up (bytes) and it STILL takes ages to upload anything. Other sites upload wicked fast.

> Yahoo mail is fine
Maybe for you. But it blows for multiple reasons:

0. Ad spamfest
1. For the rest of us searching still sucks compared to Gmail. (Their Javascript rewrite was horrible for months: slow, crappy UI, etc.)
2. Their offline mail archive blows. Where the fuck is the ability to download ALL my mail FOLDERS + contents offline?? This may have changed recently -- I changed checked in years. For years they only offered folders via "mobile only" bullshit.
3. Gmail's UNDO is _awesome_.
4. You've never had to deal with all the spammers trying to hijack your account
5. You've never had to deal with technical support. Good luck even getting in touch with a live human to report an issue.
6. You've never had their mail system fail over without any explanation.

It this poll of 579 people is any indication, Yahoo sucks far more then Gmail or Hotmail.
* https://yahoomailreview.wordpr...

> why do people seem to dislike them so?
In addition to all the stuff mentioned above another reason is because of all the other bloated shit they throw on their "portal" page. I don't want nor need their crap. /Oblg. Yahoo vs Google Homepage
* http://i.imgur.com/kOjcHU5.gif

Back in the day they used to be good for custom domain + web hosting. Today they are overpriced.

Here's another opinion:
* http://techcrunch.com/2014/12/...

Really? [Citation needed]

Here's my citation to the contrary: http://techcrunch.com/2016/01/...

If Apple sold >50% of the smart watches that shifted in 2015, how is Pebble outselling that combined with all the Android Wear 2:1? Are you counting total sales since the absolute first unit left the factory? Even that doesn't pass the sniff test.

Except, wasn't the whole Jennifer Lawrence naked photos scandal all about images leaked out of an iPhone? Wasn't it images on an Apple cloud drive??

And there have been a rash of 'leak' incidents and issues just since the start of this year.

Actually, it turns out that it was not Apple's fault - it was the result of a massive phishing attack.

It wasn't an attack on iCloud security, it was just social engineering, which explains why "the fappening" was limited to only a few accounts.

(that is, you can't install any extensions without Microsoft's blessing) which is what the extinguish part of the plan might end up being.

Google already started doing that for Chrome on Windows 2 years ago.

I'd rather work with humans on the other end of a chat interface like this:
http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/...

I wonder if FB "AI" is going to be like the Netflix "AI" that did the recommendations engine - based on human intelligence.

Here's a good write up: http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/... Here's the actual text: https://www.scribd.com/embeds/...

Actually, this article digs into the problem; partly it's landlords and companies, but local government and NIMBY anti-development citizens are a large part of the problem. They're blocking development (or at least, making it very expensive and slow), which means that it's really hard to make new places to live at anywhere near the rate that people are moving in.

This article is two years old, but goes into a good amount of detail on housing and rent in SF. A lot of the problem is due to people in various neighborhoods preventing, delaying, and increasing the cost of construction of new buildings.

Do we have to have this argument every year? The reason SF is expensive has very little to do with recent trends in the tech industry -- they're just a current, visible scapegoat. There's a good, thorough overview here: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/...

I was born in SF in the 70s and stayed in the area until after college. It has ALWAYS been expensive. It's a great place and I'd move back in a second if I could afford to, but I can't, so I don't. Yeah, it sucks that police, firefighters, and teachers can't often afford to live nearby, but it's been that way for DECADES.

http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/...

It's easy to fall into hoping that that the fascist buffoon Trump doesn't win the candidacy. But then when you get reminded of the policies of the rest of them, you realise there is no good alternative there.

The only real hope is that the Democrats win the presidency again.

Let's recall the summer of 2008, when Obama flip-flopped on telecom immunity, got more campaign contributions from the telecoms, was able to spend more on campaigning, and was able to win the presidency.

If the leader of your party can be that blatant, why should *anyone* vote for them?

You are falling into the false dilemma of R versus D. The real dilemma is "us" versus "them", or "people" versus the "elites".

The people are on one end of a long spectrum of political issues, and both the Republicans and Democrats are on the other. Arguing that D is better than R is pointless, neither represents the interests of the people.

Extreme rhetoric, which is what you're using (viz: fascist buffoon), is only relevant to that distant end of the spectrum. The elites make more or less contributions, depending on how much extreme rhetoric gets aimed at any candidate.

It's a game that only mainstream politicians play.

Both Donald and Bernie have populist views, their political positions would benefit the people.

Bernie is a mainstream politician, and is somewhat dependent on contributions from the elites. If he can overcome that burden and win the nomination, then he'd be one candidate to back.

Donald needs *no* contributions from the elites, so he's free to promise benefits to the people.

Right now Donald is our best hope for getting government on our side. He's not the only hope, Bernie is still in the game, but there's no hope in any of the other choices.

Or, to quote Charles Koch: "You’d Think We Could Have More Influence’ on 2016 Race".

It's worth noting that Apple was the longest hold out from PRISM and joined them only after Jobs passed away.

the Error 53 thing has been disabled, and now, as long as you have an electronic copy of someone's fingerprint, you can pretty much unlock their device.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but:

If Touch ID on your device didn't work before you saw error 53, the feature still won't work after you update or restore your device. Contact Apple Support to ask about service options for Touch ID.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205628

Also see virtually every other site that reported the error 53 fix.

TL:DNR: Disabling Touch ID when an unauthorised repair is made was intentional and hasn't changed. Bricking the entire phone so you couldn't even unlock it with your passcode was a bug, which is what has been fixed.

Not quite ass-hole.

"It has not unlocked these iPhones — it has extracted data that was accessible while they were still locked. " http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/...

Do some research before looking like an ass-hole.

Most people will use the 4 digit pin function. Where you really need at least a 8 digit pin. I've been told that the latest version of ios allows for a 10 digit pin. As long as you still have to do the tries on the device 8 is sufficent.

I've been told repeatedly that it is secure even with only a 4 digit pin but I just have a hard time beliving that having just 1 extra digit than a luggage lock makes it secure.

History generally agrees with me. http://techcrunch.com/2015/03/... even as recently as ios 8 just 4.5 days to try all 4 digit pins 44 seconds a try.

If rate limiters didn't often turn out to be more theatrics than security I wouldn't feel that way.

So, whose GIFs can you share? Surely sharing on Twitter to share a GIF doesn't give Twitter and the rest of the world the right to use it?

Presumably this is why Giphy got a $55M Series C yesterday.

I'm assuming the FBI could build one of these.

The TechCrunch article referenced has a related article link to Where The Free Software Movement Went Wrong, which has the following nugget from a writer discussing the difference between Free Software and Open Source Software:

Morozov writes that the difference between the two is that free software emphasizes users and that open source emphasizes developers. But I would submit that free software is also primarily interested in developers as well, in that the freedoms it emphasizes are ones that matter to developers, but very little to the rest of us. That’s where the movement went wrong.

and then goes on to say

try telling graphic designers that they should use GIMP instead of Photoshop because they can study the code, modify it and release their own version. Or try telling a data analyst why they should use Libre Office instead of Excel, or a musician why they should use Ardour instead of Logic. See how far you get.

Where I think that goes wrong is one of educating the users, specifically that even if they can't code themselves, Free Software helps them by preventing lock-in. As an example, a friend has a bunch of stuff she worked on years ago, in Appleworks format. While there are still a few programs that can read that format (including Pages), they don't implement everything, fonts are different, pagination is different, etc. If Appleworks had been Free, and the fonts Free, it's much more likely that there would be programs and fonts that could perfectly reproduce what she originally had, and she wouldn't be relying on continuing support from any one source. Alternatively, if MacOS and the Mac ROM had been Free, she'd be able to LEGALLY fire up an emulator to run the original version of Appleworks. Even if she herself hadn't stashed away source code, it's almost certain that someone would have, and what she had wouldn't be locked away behind proprietary walls.

It's bad enough we have hardware obsolescence, we shouldn't have unnecessary software obsolescence when it's so easy to prevent (the entire source code to the Mac ROM and OS and all the development tools would be a tiny blip on any current storage device, I can transfer the entire hard drive of my first computer (Lisa, 10MB) in a couple seconds to almost anywhere in the world; the cache files for this page are probably larger than a MacPlus ROM image plus an early Mac boot diskette).

The Amazon App Store is only available on Amazon-branded devices.

From TechCrunch: "Google doesn’t allow competing app stores in the Play Store"

http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/...

http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/...

> cozy with YouTube and are using whatever influence they have there to issue DMCA

Any takedowns would either be under the DMCA process OR Youtube could choose what they host. The DMCA process leaves no room for Youtube to make a judgement; they just follow the process, they aren't the judge and jury. Once they receive a DMCA notice, they have to do the temporary takedown*. Here's the process mandated by DMCA:
Complainant notifies hoster (Youtube), providing specific information.
Hoster notifies publisher (person who posted the video).
Hoster temporarily takes down the material.
Publisher may counter-notify hoster.
On receipt on counter-notice, hoster puts the material back online.
Complainant may sue in federal court.
Upon initiating federal proceeding, complainant notifies hoster.
Hoster takes it back down if a federal suit is in process.

The counter-notice step isn't as well known as it could be. It means that if anyone files a DMCA notice against something you posted, you can simply reply saying "no, it's not infringing" and the material goes right back up.

* If Youtube chooses -not- to follow the DMCA process, THEY become liable to whichever side wins. They sometimes do that in clear cases of fair use, if the person posting the video waives their right to sue Youtube for helping them. Here's an article about that:
http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/...

** Wondering how someone who posted a video could sue Youtube for helping them? Imagine you post something which actually DOES infringe the copyright of some popular movie. The movie studio immediately notifies Youtube, so under DMCA Youtube should take it down immediately. Suppose they don't. It stays up for a year. Then the movie studio sues you for infringement, and wins a judgement against you for $2,000 per day. Youtube's "help" just cost you $720,000.

Apple could pull the rug out from under Google anytime by making any other search engine the iOS default.

It has been leaked that Google pays $1bn for the privilege. What hasn't been quite liked is whether that was total up to some date, or per year, or whatever.

Overhyped leak - we already knew in 2013 it's per year: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/...

"Because of Currency Exchange rates around the world we lost $5 billion. WAHHHHHHH!" - Tim Cook.

"Yeah, the world's exchange rates are different. You made a total record profit of $18.4 billion dollars. That's still pretty good, be happy with it." - The World.

Companies need to remember that they are NOT entitled to profits. They must EARN them. When they do, they must also remember that possible numbers are not REAL numbers. Just because in a perfect world, you might have made $5 Billion more dollars, does not mean you will get it in reality. It also does not mean that money was in any way promised to you. It was a mere possibility not a guaranteed thing. You should not be basing your companies performance on fictional numbers. Nor should you be whining about not receiving every last cent of a fictional profit amount. Be happy with what you made.

Here's the letter that was sent.

A different FA has some comments and/or speculation on how some ISPs are (ab)using customer info.

The only 'news' is that Slashdot has ostensibly been 'for sale' since July of last year and still hasn't had an official announcement of a sale.

The cynic in me looks at the stagnation of the site's content (the same half-dozen or so submitters get their stories posted every day) and the indolence of the editors (they don't edit, they don't participate in the community, they may not even be at Slashdot any more for all we know, their accounts might be empty shells run by a Dice intern, for example), and concludes that Slashdot died back in 2012 and we're just riding its momentum to the impact crater.

Send or receive a known kiddie porn image through GMail and they will tip the authorities. That hash check can be used for anything the government wants to find people in possession of, just hand them a hash and a NSL.

I'm wondering what the "Facebook" form of [...] the pizza place down the street to order some dinner

Probably something like Domino's Tweetzza.

Instant messaging services where starting to go this way a decade ago with Jabber, then Facebook and Google decided all of a sudden that this was somehow a BAD idea?

Because spam. WhatsApp, for example, is built on the same protocol as Jabber but has deliberate incompatibilities to discourage spammers.

"The United States Government Will Likely Be the ONLY Customer For Smart Guns" Absolutely no one with any experience using guns will willingly buy one. For a comprehensive, 3,000 word essay check the article by Jon Stokes here: http://techcrunch.com/2016/01/...

What's Clarity Ray?

Honestly, I have no idea why people accept sites should by default be allowed to run scripts, or the 15 sites they cross link to should run scripts just because you loaded the page.

And, FYI, I've seen an increasing number of sites which render their content with javscript, and you only see a blank page without it. Of course, if you know how to view the page source and don't much care about the formatting the text is usually right there.

Me, I'd just as soon punch the average web site administrator in the nose as assume I have any reason to allow them to run scripts. My default position on scripts is "piss off", and I'll enable them if I think I care or trust you. But your third parties? They can always piss off.

ClarityRay is an Israeli "ad security" company, acquired by Yahoo last year - ClarityRay Battles Ad Blockers With $500K In Funding. Fun quote from TFA - “We believe ad-blocking today is a lot like how pirate MP3s were before iTunes: they point to a valid consumer need, but do so in an unsustainable manner business wise,” says co-founder and CEO Ido Yablonka. Though if you are also running NoScript it's hard to see how they can do anything meaningful.

And you are spot on about the whole transitive trust aspect. Just because I may trust "site x" that doesn't mean that I trust the dozen other sites "site x" have partnered with who are trying to send me ads and scripts.

I wonder, is their retreat due to a genuine disinterest by the populations of those countries or simply by anti-competitive practices by those countries "established interests"/governments? It almost sounds like at least in UberPops case that the general public was happy to use the service but the taxi companies/drivers "dissatisfaction" resulted in blocking traffic, government lobbying, destroying Uber cars and attacking their drivers. No doubt that Uber is a company that is more than anything interested in profits, but why people are ascribing different motivations to various established taxi companies across the globe is beyond me. Let them all provide their service and allow the public to decide which deserves to survive.

http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/...

Shame on you for thinking of ways to abuse the system! Next thing you know somebody will start making kits to build drones that can deliver contraband in spite of defensive measures. They'll use stealth (looks like a bird) and materials resistant to radar. Of course they'll also use a repeater that actually sends the control commands on varying pre-programmed and unusual frequencies and relay through wifi so that the operator can drop a drone off in one place (like a local McDonalds) and then control it from a thousand miles away (like the parking lot of a Starbucks in a different state.) The repeater will include a small incendiary device that triggers if it doesn't receive the pre-programmed encrypted keep-alive packets so that even if someone can pinpoint the control device, they won't be able to recover it or discover the operator. The successful contraband delivery operator will just land the drone on a building roof nearby and pay a local stooge to pick it up for them if the police are smart enough to stake out the drone rather than taking it.

When somebody does this stuff, they'll make a ton of money selling the products to "hobbyists" through the dark web. It'll cost a couple hundred dollars to make and sell for a couple thousand and it'll be all your fault for thinking of it.

What a warped mind you must have to put that idea for a highly lucrative criminal endeavor into the public discussion. To be fair though, it's partly Airbus' fault for creating the market.

I have a Ford F-150 with Microsoft software in it and it really sucks. In fact, Ford motor company ditched Microsoft in favour if QNX in 2014.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Oddly enough, I have this link in my bookmarks:
http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/...

You might wish to spend a few minutes reading that article about how the world has butchered Ben's quote on liberty vs. security.

It's just a generic form-letter email that would have been sent to an auto-generated list of any number of systems integrators and anyone else that might possibly respond. That's how the bloatware that gets included in Windows PCs ends up on there, it could be describing SymantecNortonLenovoToshibaHuluNetflixCyberlinkDellSkype7ZipAccuweatherRealTek SuperEssentialClickOnMe.

In any case there's already a malware-installer "EXE file that installs a desktop shortcut, that when clicked redirects users to a specific website" for the Raspberry Pi.

http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/...

Know how you knew Windows phone was going to fail? The banner that called it "Windows Phone 7 OS Platform"

"What kinda phone is that?"

"Windows Phone 7 OS Platform"

"What?"

Not really sure where you got $200B in cash.

5 Seconds on google would have answered your question. The only place you really need to look is their financial statements. Yes they really have that much. Much of it is parked overseas or in various investments.

For the record, Apple has more cash on hand than Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Facebook COMBINED.

Haven't heard about that one, but I have head a few.

Really? You haven't been paying much attention...

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) after the San Bernadino shootings -- "Sensible gun laws work! We've proven it in California." link She is apparently unaware of what state San Bernadino is in.

Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) with the debt spiraling upwards at close to $1.25T per year and insurance premiums are jumping as much as 50% per year - "ObamaCare is lowering costs and the deficit." link

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) -- “Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package 500 million Americans lose their jobs.” – in a nation with 307 million people.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) -- “We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds, and yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.". Apparently, she doesn't know that it's illegal to hunt humans with any number of rounds.

She (Feinstein) also believes that allowing people to make calls from an airplane will result in uncontrollable brawling amongst the passengers. link

Or, her (Feinstein's) fine opinion of our Veterans: "All vets are mentally ill in some way and government should prevent them from owning firearms." link

Not to mention Feinstein's flip-flopping on this very issue [encryption]. In October, she said, "Millions of personal records and hundreds of billions of dollars fall victim to cyber-attacks every year, and we’ve done little to stem the tide." In other words, calling for enhanced cyber-security, yet only a month ago, "I can say this. [FBI] Director [James Comey] and, I think John Brennan, would agree, that the Achilles Heel in the internet is encryption. Because there are now... it's a black web! And there's no way of piercing it. And this is even in commercial products!"link

“Those who survived the San Francisco earthquake said, ‘Thank God, I’m still alive.’ But, of course, those who died, their lives will never be the same again.” – Sen. Barbara Boxer

“It [marijuana] will still be legal under federal law.” Senator Dianne Feinstein claiming that marijuana is legal

And. of course, the all-time grandaddy of a Nancy Pelosi quote, "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

That was from less than 2 minutes of searching. You should really pay more attention.

An all electric 4 door luxury sedan that seats 5 is equaling your turbo. Porche 2017 911 Turbo S: 2.8 seconds. Tesla’s Model S P85D: 2.8 seconds. http://www.digitaltrends.com/c... http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/...

You keep posting this; are you unaware that taking a car round a track involves more than just raw torque? That some of the joy of driving includes navigation of twisty bends of roads. There's a reason many of the most popular car races involve bends.

Are you unaware of the fact that suspension, steering, etc are independent of the drive train? If an all electric five seater luxury sedan happens to beat a 911 Turbo S image what a car designed to be an all electric sports car can do.

An all electric 4 door luxury sedan that seats 5 is equaling your turbo. Porche 2017 911 Turbo S: 2.8 seconds. Tesla’s Model S P85D: 2.8 seconds. http://www.digitaltrends.com/c... http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/...

You keep posting this; are you unaware that taking a car round a track involves more than just raw torque? That some of the joy of driving includes navigation of twisty bends of roads. There's a reason many of the most popular car races involve bends.

Why are so many trying to compete with a company that is barely profitable, especially since oil has dropped?

Because a Tesla all electric 4 door luxury sedan that seats 5 is equaling a Porche 2 seater sports car with 580 horsepower at zero to 60mph.

Porche 2017 911 Turbo S: 2.8 seconds.
Tesla’s Model S P85D: 2.8 seconds.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/c...
http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/...

An all electric 4 door luxury sedan that seats 5 is equaling your turbo.

Porche 2017 911 Turbo S: 2.8 seconds.
Tesla’s Model S P85D: 2.8 seconds.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/c...
http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/...

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

Because it's third party, you know they can't put any special back doors allowing their company access to your equiptment.

http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/...

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

Hardware is hard. Really really hard.

The list goes on, and on.

Even hardware projects with experienced teams can fail. If you see a hardware crowdfunding project, be fully willing to accept that your 'investment' (which is what it really is) is more likely to disappear than result in a finished product.

As tablets are filling that need for more and more of the average consumer, PC sales are dying.

Maybe for the rest of the industry; but not for Apple.