Wait, do you really think that the same machines are handling google's SSL and google's content? Or amazon's, facebook's or any other massive web properties?
There may be SSL hardware to help the systems, but otherwise the SSL slowdown was always more about latency than CPU.
"During a recession, things suck. During the worst recession since the Great Depression, things suck more than during a regular recession."
Bush raised the deficit and grew government during growth years. Obama lowered spending each year he was in office and shrank government during a recession. I know you won't actually look this stuff up; Fox News discourages independent research. But you should.
This is also why there is all the controversy over voter ID laws. Voters without government ID cards are seen as more likely to vote Democratic, so Democrats are trying to prevent these laws from going into effect while Republicans support them.
Since many (most?) of the people affected by these laws are legal voters, and since there is virtually no in-person voter fraud, I'd think that many of the people trying to prevent these laws are doing so because they are patriots who hate to see laws which subvert the entire basis of democracy on which the US is founded. I cannot think of many cases where preventing legal voters from voting could possibly be considered a righteous thing to do.
Because anyone claiming Apple has now, or has ever possessed, monopoly power in a market is very confused. It is perfectly legal to use one of your products to force people to use another of your products, unless you have monopoly power.
Businesses are getting the government to help them in a dispute with another business. Under what deranged libertarian spirit quest could that possibly be considered socialism? That sounds like a free market, where companies are using whatever tools they can to bash other companies.
For the OP: Microsoft is forced to advertise for a competitor's browser because they were convicted of using their power as a monopoly in one area (OSs) to destroy companies in other areas (in this case, web browsers). This is (in my opinion) the proper role of government: to make corporations compete on the basis of quality and price, and to keep the free market "free".
Verizon still cannot use LTE for voice calls, so it is not ready yet. A Verizon phone requires CDMA, which is not open, so it's not n the Nexus. Not sure about AT&, but their LTE network is small compared to Verizon.
Just about everyone I know uses store loyalty cards, mostly for grocery stores but lately I've seen them for a lot of other stores. My wife has a stack of them in her purse an inch thick. The privacy policies for most of these cards mostly say "we can use this data however we want to and sell it however we want to."
So, given this, are you seriously saying that "people don't want to be tracked"? Really? How do you handle the cognitive dissonance this causes?
Sure, people are inconsistant and often don't think through the consequences of their actions. But are you really, truly saying that people who willingly sign up for loyalty cards care about privacy? Or are you so convinced of your superiority that you want to make the decision for them?
But the spam continues, and so Google finally opted to manually tweak rankings of many vendors, including their own, to put them on the first 10 results consistently.
You were doing so well, until you left facts behind and entered fantasy-land. Google has said that they occasionally mark sites down manually, generally when they're caught misbehaving (for example). But they say that they never raise anyone, and nobody has produced any evidence that they do. Lots of whining, but no evidence.
So the complaints that google puts itself higher in the results seem to be pointless.
Though many of the complaints are about the one-off results at the top and side, like if you search for MSFT you get a stock quote from google finance, or if you search for an address you get a little map from Google maps. Those are hard coded, but they don't appear in the organic results so its pretty clear they are separate results. Are those illegal? I'd hope not, but I'm no lawyer.
You're wrong. Retina just means "high PPI," there's nothing that says "IPS." And given that it's only "Retina" if you hold it a certain distance from your eye, "high PPI" is kind of meaningless too.
Pro tip: when you accuse someone of being wrong, you really look like an ass when it is you who is wrong.
Apple defined the retina display as one where the average person could not distinguish individual pixels when used at a normal distance. Thus, "retina display" compares the resolution of the human eye with the pixels-per-arc of a device when used at some distance. All of these are known numbers, though we can quibble about a normal distance, and the resolution of the eye in dots-per-arc can be defined in a few ways. But all-in-all, it's one of the most definable marketing terms out there.
So no, it does mean something. Just because you iHate doesn't mean that Apple is wrong.
It won't mean much of anything once even the most basic screens exceed the retina display criteria.
Clever! Since Apple has been selling the high-DPI screens on various devices for several years, and since most other devices still come with much lower DPI (or pixels-per-arc, whatever), you're saying that it will retain meaning for quite a few years.
Hell, Microsoft's new tablet has a much lower resolution than the current iPad.
The obvious solution is just to turn off all personalization and feedback.
Indeed. Much like some people commit fraud on the stock market. The obvious solution is to turn off the stock market. Brilliant!
I'm not sure how google is forcing you to broadcast private stuff; I don't think they're forcing you to comment, are they? If you comment, and you know that the comment will be tagged with your real name, then there is no force, you just make a choice.
What does opting out of a privacy policy mean? "I refuse to be bound by this policy, so there is no policy and you can do whatever you want with my data"? "I refuse to be bound by this one policy, I prefer a different policy on every google service I use"? And do you expect google (or anyone) to maintain code to implement every privacy policy they've ever had? How would that work?
Opting out of a privacy policy means not using the service. Wanting to use the service but refusing the privacy policy is much like wanting to eat at a restaurant but not wanting to pay your bill.
And not a tax on bulbs but a tax on electricity consumption or CO2 emission. But that would also hurt the really big wasters of energy, the big companies with deep pockets. Also, what if someone invents an incandescent bulb with efficiency comparable to fluorescent ones, would that be banned too? This is not regulation, this is planned economy. There are many uses where incandescent is better: if you only use it for short periods of time (in a fridge,garage,basement etc.),.
And in fact the law allows incandescent bulbs which are better than a certain energy efficiency, and allows special purpose ones (like in fridges). The fact that you didn't know this implies that you either didn't bother to listen to any news at all about this (many years old) law, or are following news sources which are lying to you. Think about that, rather than immediately rejecting it with a mindless retort.
I suggest that you stop listening to those news sources which you now know are happy to lie, and exercise your brain by investigating claims yourself. I doubt that this will happen, but imagine how great this country would be if everyone followed fact-checking sites and investigated things on their own instead of being mindless sheep controlled by lying media. A fine dream if an unlikely one.
I know. I mean, I paid $700 to my insurance company over the last year, and I didn't get a single cent of it back! What a rip-off! Other the other hand, my friend did much better. He paid even less than I did, but got back lots when someone crossed the center line and hit him head on! Lucky bastard, even if he's using a wheelchair.
You seem to be confusing "savings accounts" and "insurance policies", which is odd since they're not at all similar.
Not even slightly. Medicare and Social Security are mandated insurance policies. Entirely different beasts.
Plus, I'm confused by your "not the government's money" statement. I paid money to USAA for my car insurance last week; is it not USAA's money? What about the money I paid to Five Guys for a burger last night? I pay money to the government, and in exchange they keep the roads working, the army protecting me, the beef at Five Guys actually containing beef, etc. A pretty good trade, actually; much cheaper than any other advanced country.
I am not totally sure why these handset hacks are always such big news. What are the chances that this can happen to a normal person? One, you would need to have NFC enabled, which people may do, but at least I never do by default. Two, you need physical access to the handset.
I'm guessing it's a bigger deal to those who RTFA and see that this flaw can also be exploited by web and email; they just used NFC because it was novel. But true, it's not a big deal to people who like to complain but hate to be informed.
I'm saddened that so many of these people also choose to vote. Perhaps a little quiz at the polls: "Did Obama say that business owners didn't build their own businesses? Did Romney say that he wants to fire people? Did you ever, for more than 1.3 seconds, have a doubt that Obama was born in the US?" Any "yes" answers means that your vote is ignored for the next 6 years.
Oh, very different. As various gays and abortion doctors in the US could attest (if they we still alive).
Humans hate. Humans like to have an enemy to hate. It wasn't so long ago that lynchings were not uncommon in many parts of the US. It wasn't so long ago that the national guard was deployed to escort children to unsegregated schools. Just in the past few years people have demonstrated against Islamic buildings in the US, and some have suffered arson. We're no better, and pretending we are just makes us ignore our own problems, Religion, skin color, whatever, it's just an excuse to hate.
Indeed. And Apple does it less than almost anyone else. Before the iPhone, phone firmware updates were as rare as hen's teeth. I had a Treo 700p for many years and only got one OS update; none of my other cell phones ever had an update. On desktops, Apple supported the power PC chip for many years after they stopped selling it.
How often does an Android device (other than a Nexus) get an update? Hell, ignore updates, how many brand new Android devices come with an OS less than a year old?
There are many reasons to diss Apple. Not supporting older devices is not one if them.
How can people get excited by this stuff? The original iPhone was amazing, but surely these 20% thinner/faster/smaller/wider/etc. incremental changes should not be causing the tech world to collectively cream in their pants.
As far as I can tell, the most excited people are the usual group loudly and continuously proclaiming to all who will listen (and many who would rather not) that they are not excited at all, and explaining in great detail why nobody else should be either.
Nobody goes on an on about Apple as much as an iHater!
I think the problem is caused by the parent's poor choice, but the consequences would be borne by the children (not getting helped because insurance would not cover it) and by other kids.
I vote that insurance cover it, but the parent's insurance rates go up, plus they are subject to willful endangerment lawsuits if a disease vectors through their little preciouses to someone else.
They couldn't agree that the sky is blue on a clear sunny day. If you're parsing that sentence and trying to figure out why you disagree with it, consider yourself at least somewhat mental.
Or at least somewhat color-blind.
But I completely agree with you. I'm not thrilled with some of the loopholes in the pro-NN legislation, but painting it as "pro-regulation" or "pro-government-takeover" is both exceedingly common and blatantly wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, do you really think that the same machines are handling google's SSL and google's content? Or amazon's, facebook's or any other massive web properties?
There may be SSL hardware to help the systems, but otherwise the SSL slowdown was always more about latency than CPU.
Let me translate that for you:
"During a recession, things suck. During the worst recession since the Great Depression, things suck more than during a regular recession."
Bush raised the deficit and grew government during growth years. Obama lowered spending each year he was in office and shrank government during a recession. I know you won't actually look this stuff up; Fox News discourages independent research. But you should.
This is also why there is all the controversy over voter ID laws. Voters without government ID cards are seen as more likely to vote Democratic, so Democrats are trying to prevent these laws from going into effect while Republicans support them.
Since many (most?) of the people affected by these laws are legal voters, and since there is virtually no in-person voter fraud, I'd think that many of the people trying to prevent these laws are doing so because they are patriots who hate to see laws which subvert the entire basis of democracy on which the US is founded. I cannot think of many cases where preventing legal voters from voting could possibly be considered a righteous thing to do.
Because anyone claiming Apple has now, or has ever possessed, monopoly power in a market is very confused. It is perfectly legal to use one of your products to force people to use another of your products, unless you have monopoly power.
Businesses are getting the government to help them in a dispute with another business. Under what deranged libertarian spirit quest could that possibly be considered socialism? That sounds like a free market, where companies are using whatever tools they can to bash other companies.
For the OP: Microsoft is forced to advertise for a competitor's browser because they were convicted of using their power as a monopoly in one area (OSs) to destroy companies in other areas (in this case, web browsers). This is (in my opinion) the proper role of government: to make corporations compete on the basis of quality and price, and to keep the free market "free".
Verizon still cannot use LTE for voice calls, so it is not ready yet. A Verizon phone requires CDMA, which is not open, so it's not n the Nexus. Not sure about AT&, but their LTE network is small compared to Verizon.
Just about everyone I know uses store loyalty cards, mostly for grocery stores but lately I've seen them for a lot of other stores. My wife has a stack of them in her purse an inch thick. The privacy policies for most of these cards mostly say "we can use this data however we want to and sell it however we want to."
So, given this, are you seriously saying that "people don't want to be tracked"? Really? How do you handle the cognitive dissonance this causes?
Sure, people are inconsistant and often don't think through the consequences of their actions. But are you really, truly saying that people who willingly sign up for loyalty cards care about privacy? Or are you so convinced of your superiority that you want to make the decision for them?
But the spam continues, and so Google finally opted to manually tweak rankings of many vendors, including their own, to put them on the first 10 results consistently.
You were doing so well, until you left facts behind and entered fantasy-land. Google has said that they occasionally mark sites down manually, generally when they're caught misbehaving (for example). But they say that they never raise anyone, and nobody has produced any evidence that they do. Lots of whining, but no evidence.
So the complaints that google puts itself higher in the results seem to be pointless.
Though many of the complaints are about the one-off results at the top and side, like if you search for MSFT you get a stock quote from google finance, or if you search for an address you get a little map from Google maps. Those are hard coded, but they don't appear in the organic results so its pretty clear they are separate results. Are those illegal? I'd hope not, but I'm no lawyer.
Wow, and I thought Apple users were the maniacally loyal ones.
+1 Funny. On both counts.
You're wrong. Retina just means "high PPI," there's nothing that says "IPS." And given that it's only "Retina" if you hold it a certain distance from your eye, "high PPI" is kind of meaningless too.
Pro tip: when you accuse someone of being wrong, you really look like an ass when it is you who is wrong.
Apple defined the retina display as one where the average person could not distinguish individual pixels when used at a normal distance. Thus, "retina display" compares the resolution of the human eye with the pixels-per-arc of a device when used at some distance. All of these are known numbers, though we can quibble about a normal distance, and the resolution of the eye in dots-per-arc can be defined in a few ways. But all-in-all, it's one of the most definable marketing terms out there.
So no, it does mean something. Just because you iHate doesn't mean that Apple is wrong.
It won't mean much of anything once even the most basic screens exceed the retina display criteria.
Clever! Since Apple has been selling the high-DPI screens on various devices for several years, and since most other devices still come with much lower DPI (or pixels-per-arc, whatever), you're saying that it will retain meaning for quite a few years.
Hell, Microsoft's new tablet has a much lower resolution than the current iPad.
The obvious solution is just to turn off all personalization and feedback.
Indeed. Much like some people commit fraud on the stock market. The obvious solution is to turn off the stock market. Brilliant!
I'm not sure how google is forcing you to broadcast private stuff; I don't think they're forcing you to comment, are they? If you comment, and you know that the comment will be tagged with your real name, then there is no force, you just make a choice.
What does opting out of a privacy policy mean? "I refuse to be bound by this policy, so there is no policy and you can do whatever you want with my data"? "I refuse to be bound by this one policy, I prefer a different policy on every google service I use"? And do you expect google (or anyone) to maintain code to implement every privacy policy they've ever had? How would that work?
Opting out of a privacy policy means not using the service. Wanting to use the service but refusing the privacy policy is much like wanting to eat at a restaurant but not wanting to pay your bill.
Ad hominem is belittling the message by belittling the messenger. But pointing out the hipocracy of the messenger is not ad hominem.
Calling someone you disagree with "gay" is ad hominem (and offensive) unless they are talking about gay rights, in which case it may be on topic.
And not a tax on bulbs but a tax on electricity consumption or CO2 emission. But that would also hurt the really big wasters of energy, the big companies with deep pockets. Also, what if someone invents an incandescent bulb with efficiency comparable to fluorescent ones, would that be banned too? This is not regulation, this is planned economy.
There are many uses where incandescent is better: if you only use it for short periods of time (in a fridge,garage,basement etc.),.
And in fact the law allows incandescent bulbs which are better than a certain energy efficiency, and allows special purpose ones (like in fridges). The fact that you didn't know this implies that you either didn't bother to listen to any news at all about this (many years old) law, or are following news sources which are lying to you. Think about that, rather than immediately rejecting it with a mindless retort.
I suggest that you stop listening to those news sources which you now know are happy to lie, and exercise your brain by investigating claims yourself. I doubt that this will happen, but imagine how great this country would be if everyone followed fact-checking sites and investigated things on their own instead of being mindless sheep controlled by lying media. A fine dream if an unlikely one.
I know. I mean, I paid $700 to my insurance company over the last year, and I didn't get a single cent of it back! What a rip-off! Other the other hand, my friend did much better. He paid even less than I did, but got back lots when someone crossed the center line and hit him head on! Lucky bastard, even if he's using a wheelchair.
You seem to be confusing "savings accounts" and "insurance policies", which is odd since they're not at all similar.
Not even slightly. Medicare and Social Security are mandated insurance policies. Entirely different beasts.
Plus, I'm confused by your "not the government's money" statement. I paid money to USAA for my car insurance last week; is it not USAA's money? What about the money I paid to Five Guys for a burger last night? I pay money to the government, and in exchange they keep the roads working, the army protecting me, the beef at Five Guys actually containing beef, etc. A pretty good trade, actually; much cheaper than any other advanced country.
I am not totally sure why these handset hacks are always such big news. What are the chances that this can happen to a normal person? One, you would need to have NFC enabled, which people may do, but at least I never do by default. Two, you need physical access to the handset.
I'm guessing it's a bigger deal to those who RTFA and see that this flaw can also be exploited by web and email; they just used NFC because it was novel. But true, it's not a big deal to people who like to complain but hate to be informed.
I'm saddened that so many of these people also choose to vote. Perhaps a little quiz at the polls: "Did Obama say that business owners didn't build their own businesses? Did Romney say that he wants to fire people? Did you ever, for more than 1.3 seconds, have a doubt that Obama was born in the US?" Any "yes" answers means that your vote is ignored for the next 6 years.
Oh, very different. As various gays and abortion doctors in the US could attest (if they we still alive).
Humans hate. Humans like to have an enemy to hate. It wasn't so long ago that lynchings were not uncommon in many parts of the US. It wasn't so long ago that the national guard was deployed to escort children to unsegregated schools. Just in the past few years people have demonstrated against Islamic buildings in the US, and some have suffered arson. We're no better, and pretending we are just makes us ignore our own problems, Religion, skin color, whatever, it's just an excuse to hate.
"fragmentation" is when you have to tell SOME of your users "you can't do that thing that others are doing"
"fragmentation" is DIVIDING THE USERS INTO GROUPS
First, find the knob marked "volume" and turn it down.
Then, find the one marked "brightness" and turn it up. I doubt if it will help, but we can all hope.
Indeed. And Apple does it less than almost anyone else. Before the iPhone, phone firmware updates were as rare as hen's teeth. I had a Treo 700p for many years and only got one OS update; none of my other cell phones ever had an update. On desktops, Apple supported the power PC chip for many years after they stopped selling it.
How often does an Android device (other than a Nexus) get an update? Hell, ignore updates, how many brand new Android devices come with an OS less than a year old?
There are many reasons to diss Apple. Not supporting older devices is not one if them.
How can people get excited by this stuff? The original iPhone was amazing, but surely these 20% thinner/faster/smaller/wider/etc. incremental changes should not be causing the tech world to collectively cream in their pants.
As far as I can tell, the most excited people are the usual group loudly and continuously proclaiming to all who will listen (and many who would rather not) that they are not excited at all, and explaining in great detail why nobody else should be either.
Nobody goes on an on about Apple as much as an iHater!
I think the problem is caused by the parent's poor choice, but the consequences would be borne by the children (not getting helped because insurance would not cover it) and by other kids.
I vote that insurance cover it, but the parent's insurance rates go up, plus they are subject to willful endangerment lawsuits if a disease vectors through their little preciouses to someone else.
They couldn't agree that the sky is blue on a clear sunny day. If you're parsing that sentence and trying to figure out why you disagree with it, consider yourself at least somewhat mental.
Or at least somewhat color-blind.
But I completely agree with you. I'm not thrilled with some of the loopholes in the pro-NN legislation, but painting it as "pro-regulation" or "pro-government-takeover" is both exceedingly common and blatantly wrong.