Except the bragging factor, latest versions of Android don't cause any real effect on 99% of mobile phone users' phone using lives. If users were happy with their phone with the version of Android it had, why does the release of a new Android version by Google suddenly make them unhappy?
Application security fixes come through Play Store, 10 months ago I got Maps update on Gingerbread. So this cannot be the excuse. OS security issues are rare.
Actually it was about general monopoly abuse, not about a specific anti-trust case. YOU brought in the idea of restricting the discussion to only a particular anti-trust case against Microsoft.
Farmville forced people to bother their "friends" to tend to their farms - people watered each others' farms if I remember correctly. This revealed to Facebook a lot of networks of "friends". My facebook account was created when I was bullied into virtual agriculture.
Google+ is doing more sneaky things than even facebook in this regard. It is ok if an empty shell account is created. And synchronization of contacts might be enabled by the user without realizing they are giving away their people network - it is probably even enabled by default. But Google uses this information to discover people networks.
I used to synchronize contacts earlier - and from that I get Play Store application recommendations from people who used to be in my contact list earlier.I have no explicit connection to them in Google+, or facebook. I haven't even stored their email address in my contacts - just phone number. This is why now I prefer cyanogenmod based ROMs which don't even have the synchronization capability.
Samsung cannot create Software, nor run Software a market, to save their lives. The sooner they realize this, the better. Same goes for most other OEMs - Xiaomi does punch above its weight in this field but the weight is very small.
And the threat is less for Google's applications, and more for Google's services. It is easy to create a video application, close to impossible to create and run something matching Youtube.
So if Samsung's bloat is trying to do something, it is a misguided attempt and they are failing miserably. The only option for OEMs is to unite and learn how to create usable software. Vaguely like what Symbian could have been earlier, minus the later full control by Nokia.
Yes, if lower standard of living is acceptable, it will work. Generally populations do not accept a lower standard of living than they have, but it is not impossible.
Do you think some of these "nations" will try to bring back slavery?
If yes, they bicker about the currency policy. All of those 5 would not benefit identically by same currency policies.
If not, their economies collapse as oil is no longer forcibly sold in their currencies, their currencies cannot be artificially/militarily propped up like the US dollar is. They lose the other economic advantages of the large US military like forcing other countries to live by US ideas of intellectual property. And some of those 5 nations go into cold wars or arms races with each other and with other parts of the world.
Looking at the video of someone bending an iPhone 6 Plus deliberately in their hands, the pressure needed is about the same as it would take to bend a key.
But much less than the pressure it would take to bend Moto X, a Lumia, Note 3, and iPhone 6.
Moto X, some Lumia, iPhone 6 bend much much less than iPhone 6+ on similar force. HTC One M8 bends more, though not as permanently as iPhone 6+.
So even if we accept your meaning of "why" (which IMO stretches the actual meaning of "why" considerably),
No. I am describing the meaning of "why" as used by almost everyone without many realizing it. "Why a shirt exists", makes the "shirt" the subject of the sentence. Grammar and philosophy have a subconscious connection - and in this case sows the seeds of the idea that shirt is somehow the actor. It is not. The questioner is the actor.
So even if we accept your meaning of "why", asking why the universe exists does posit the existence of the person asking the question but it does not posit the existence of a creator, as you seem to be claiming.
Not "even if". Only by realizing that "why" actually means what I am saying it means, does it not sow the seeds of an idea of a creator or universe being sentient. And "why" actually does mean what I am saying it does.
It is useful to separate grammatical "subject" of a statement and philosophical "subject" of an action. My restatement of "why" does that.
Above all, it explains that "reason" is not a scientific concept, when applied to non-sentient things. A "reason" for a shirt to exist is actually the "reason" the questioner should expect it to exist - using the other definition of "reason" which only applies to sentient beings.
Why should I pay taxes on money that I'm not getting to put in savings or exchange for goods or services that I get to keep and/or use?
If you donate to red-cross, you bought abstract goods or services. As abstract as a blowjob - fundamentally what makes it "obvious" that you pay taxed money to the hooker and non-taxed money to red-cross? It is also as abstract as "investment advice", or doctor's advice in return for money.
It is not obvious. And certainly not because you are not "keeping" the money given to red-cross but "keeping" the money given to the doctor.
Most people would call that money which is not taken from them by the government what they get to keep, but I guess you're not one of them.
Those that understand taxation wouldn't. Because tax in a huge majority of places and cases is NOT on kept money. If you have an employer, and they "kept" the money instead of paying you, government wouldn't get any tax in that process. In NOT "keeping" the money, and giving it to you - the employer created a tax opportunity for the government to tax you. So "kept" money and "taxed" money are not only not same, but have somewhat of an inverse relationship.
Taxation is leak in money FLOW, not from money STORAGE. While there are wealth taxes and accrual based gains taxes in many places, the amount thus taxed fades massively in comparison to flow taxes.
Any comment on taxation without this fundamental understanding is likely invalid, and it turns out in your case it is invalid.
Also, your use of "feminazi" really gives away the game about your true feelings on this issue. You don't really believe that feminists have any real political power, do you?
Great, so people here using the word grammar nazi have given themselves away too. They must be thinking grammar teachers have real political power.
buying 10,000 CNC mills to mill their phones' "unibody" frames from solid metal in mass production, when any sane phone company would use injection molded plastic because that's cheap and easy
Cheap, easy and better. Plastic doesn't dent, protects innards much better than metal, and even protects the screen somewhat better than metal. Metal is plainly the wrong material for phone body.
OK. So using statistics to prove statistical facts is not science? And/or statistical hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis? Much of chemistry, physics will turn out to be "not science" then.
reason for the shirt to exist. In that case, the answer is obvious: because someone created it
No. Answer could be 1. John didn't let me destroy the shirt 2. We failed to H-bomb the warehouse before the shirt was shipped from there.
See what happened? Asking "why" about non-sentient beings, or about sentient beings doing things unintentionally actually means "what could I have known which would enable ME to predict that this would happen ?" It is an imprecise question because the question is put in terms which mean different from what is being said. It is better to directly ask "what could I have done to predict this" when talking about precise things.
The real "why" is always about sentient beings. Either the being doing something, or about the questioner being able to predict the event.
"Why" is a very ambiguous and unhelpful question. In typical language, why means one of 2 very different things :
1. When asked of a sentient being, with an agency, doing an intentional activity - e.g. "why did the chicken cross the road". Here the question "why" expects the answer explaining something about the mental process of the sentient being which made it "want" to cross the road.
Once the question "why" is asked and like you do, speculated that there might be an answer to the "why", this is a huge logical fallacy many people fail to catch. This presupposes that there is a "sentient being" or one with agency that caused events. But since most people don't realize the meaning of "why", they are trapped.
2. When asked of non-sentient things, or beings doing something unintentionally, the question "why" is very ambiguous. E.g. "why did the pen catch fire". The answer is generally to read a lot into the question and describe "why" (1) the event should have been expected even before it happened. The expectation is by a sentient being, so the first definition of "why" is applicable. So the answer could be A. "because it was made of wood". B. "because ink in it was combustible". C. "because Greg burned it with a matchstick".
See what happened? A sentient being was invented - a great way to advance the cause of religion again.
In answer A, it is assumed the questioner did not expect a pen to be made of wood, but actually questioner did not ask what the pen was made of. Answer B is about the ink, again something that was not asked.
Basically, it is not incorrect to say, that "why" doesn't mean anything. At least when talking in precise terms, vague questions like "why" which are intentionally vague only make the conversation more difficult without contributing anything positive.
Honestly, I view statistics as the belief system of science. It can't be proven
A system cannot be proven. A hypothesis can be - in science at times the "proof" is just a single experiment and lack of refutation. So if you go about "proving" a "system", you come across like an idiot trying to "eat" "politics".
What hypothesis prevalent in the field of statistics do you think cannot be proven?
Yes, most of us agree that it's wrong to willfully hurt others, but why? If you think that we're just collections of cells, then the only thing you should care about is your own personal survival and comfort, and nothing else.
No, it does not even follow that a "collection of cells" should care about its own personal survival and comfort.
Slashdot Mirror
Except the bragging factor, latest versions of Android don't cause any real effect on 99% of mobile phone users' phone using lives. If users were happy with their phone with the version of Android it had, why does the release of a new Android version by Google suddenly make them unhappy?
Application security fixes come through Play Store, 10 months ago I got Maps update on Gingerbread. So this cannot be the excuse. OS security issues are rare.
Actually it was about general monopoly abuse, not about a specific anti-trust case. YOU brought in the idea of restricting the discussion to only a particular anti-trust case against Microsoft.
Farmville forced people to bother their "friends" to tend to their farms - people watered each others' farms if I remember correctly. This revealed to Facebook a lot of networks of "friends". My facebook account was created when I was bullied into virtual agriculture.
Google+ is doing more sneaky things than even facebook in this regard. It is ok if an empty shell account is created. And synchronization of contacts might be enabled by the user without realizing they are giving away their people network - it is probably even enabled by default. But Google uses this information to discover people networks.
I used to synchronize contacts earlier - and from that I get Play Store application recommendations from people who used to be in my contact list earlier.I have no explicit connection to them in Google+, or facebook. I haven't even stored their email address in my contacts - just phone number. This is why now I prefer cyanogenmod based ROMs which don't even have the synchronization capability.
Samsung cannot create Software, nor run Software a market, to save their lives. The sooner they realize this, the better. Same goes for most other OEMs - Xiaomi does punch above its weight in this field but the weight is very small.
And the threat is less for Google's applications, and more for Google's services. It is easy to create a video application, close to impossible to create and run something matching Youtube.
So if Samsung's bloat is trying to do something, it is a misguided attempt and they are failing miserably. The only option for OEMs is to unite and learn how to create usable software. Vaguely like what Symbian could have been earlier, minus the later full control by Nokia.
"Design to thwart lawful search warrants" , or even marketing that way, is NOT the same as being unable to respond to government warrants.
Yes, if lower standard of living is acceptable, it will work. Generally populations do not accept a lower standard of living than they have, but it is not impossible.
Do you think some of these "nations" will try to bring back slavery?
Do all the 5 nations use the same currency?
If yes, they bicker about the currency policy. All of those 5 would not benefit identically by same currency policies.
If not, their economies collapse as oil is no longer forcibly sold in their currencies, their currencies cannot be artificially/militarily propped up like the US dollar is. They lose the other economic advantages of the large US military like forcing other countries to live by US ideas of intellectual property. And some of those 5 nations go into cold wars or arms races with each other and with other parts of the world.
Looking at the video of someone bending an iPhone 6 Plus deliberately in their hands, the pressure needed is about the same as it would take to bend a key.
But much less than the pressure it would take to bend Moto X, a Lumia, Note 3, and iPhone 6.
Moto X, some Lumia, iPhone 6 bend much much less than iPhone 6+ on similar force. HTC One M8 bends more, though not as permanently as iPhone 6+.
So even if we accept your meaning of "why" (which IMO stretches the actual meaning of "why" considerably),
No. I am describing the meaning of "why" as used by almost everyone without many realizing it. "Why a shirt exists", makes the "shirt" the subject of the sentence. Grammar and philosophy have a subconscious connection - and in this case sows the seeds of the idea that shirt is somehow the actor. It is not. The questioner is the actor.
So even if we accept your meaning of "why", asking why the universe exists does posit the existence of the person asking the question but it does not posit the existence of a creator, as you seem to be claiming.
Not "even if". Only by realizing that "why" actually means what I am saying it means, does it not sow the seeds of an idea of a creator or universe being sentient. And "why" actually does mean what I am saying it does.
It is useful to separate grammatical "subject" of a statement and philosophical "subject" of an action. My restatement of "why" does that.
Above all, it explains that "reason" is not a scientific concept, when applied to non-sentient things. A "reason" for a shirt to exist is actually the "reason" the questioner should expect it to exist - using the other definition of "reason" which only applies to sentient beings.
Why should I pay taxes on money that I'm not getting to put in savings or exchange for goods or services that I get to keep and/or use?
If you donate to red-cross, you bought abstract goods or services. As abstract as a blowjob - fundamentally what makes it "obvious" that you pay taxed money to the hooker and non-taxed money to red-cross? It is also as abstract as "investment advice", or doctor's advice in return for money.
It is not obvious. And certainly not because you are not "keeping" the money given to red-cross but "keeping" the money given to the doctor.
Most people would call that money which is not taken from them by the government what they get to keep, but I guess you're not one of them.
Those that understand taxation wouldn't. Because tax in a huge majority of places and cases is NOT on kept money. If you have an employer, and they "kept" the money instead of paying you, government wouldn't get any tax in that process. In NOT "keeping" the money, and giving it to you - the employer created a tax opportunity for the government to tax you. So "kept" money and "taxed" money are not only not same, but have somewhat of an inverse relationship.
Taxation is leak in money FLOW, not from money STORAGE. While there are wealth taxes and accrual based gains taxes in many places, the amount thus taxed fades massively in comparison to flow taxes.
Any comment on taxation without this fundamental understanding is likely invalid, and it turns out in your case it is invalid.
Also, your use of "feminazi" really gives away the game about your true feelings on this issue. You don't really believe that feminists have any real political power, do you?
Great, so people here using the word grammar nazi have given themselves away too. They must be thinking grammar teachers have real political power.
Not sure why you appear to be complaining. It is a great business opportunity for you.
1. Start any labour intensive business.
2. Employ lots of women.
3. You get 40% more return on capital than your competitors.
4. ???
5. Profit
buying 10,000 CNC mills to mill their phones' "unibody" frames from solid metal in mass production, when any sane phone company would use injection molded plastic because that's cheap and easy
Cheap, easy and better. Plastic doesn't dent, protects innards much better than metal, and even protects the screen somewhat better than metal. Metal is plainly the wrong material for phone body.
Aren't you the idiot stereotype ? There is a difference between UNIX and open source.
You aren't going to "keep" any of your money. For appropriate definitions of "keep". Sooner or later. Money isn't for keeping.
Not a counter example. This is also about "what information would have enabled me to predict that sky would be blue without looking at it".
OK. So using statistics to prove statistical facts is not science? And/or statistical hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis? Much of chemistry, physics will turn out to be "not science" then.
reason for the shirt to exist. In that case, the answer is obvious: because someone created it
No. Answer could be
1. John didn't let me destroy the shirt
2. We failed to H-bomb the warehouse before the shirt was shipped from there.
See what happened? Asking "why" about non-sentient beings, or about sentient beings doing things unintentionally actually means "what could I have known which would enable ME to predict that this would happen ?" It is an imprecise question because the question is put in terms which mean different from what is being said. It is better to directly ask "what could I have done to predict this" when talking about precise things.
The real "why" is always about sentient beings. Either the being doing something, or about the questioner being able to predict the event.
"Why" is a very ambiguous and unhelpful question. In typical language, why means one of 2 very different things :
1. When asked of a sentient being, with an agency, doing an intentional activity - e.g. "why did the chicken cross the road". Here the question "why" expects the answer explaining something about the mental process of the sentient being which made it "want" to cross the road.
Once the question "why" is asked and like you do, speculated that there might be an answer to the "why", this is a huge logical fallacy many people fail to catch. This presupposes that there is a "sentient being" or one with agency that caused events. But since most people don't realize the meaning of "why", they are trapped.
2. When asked of non-sentient things, or beings doing something unintentionally, the question "why" is very ambiguous. E.g. "why did the pen catch fire". The answer is generally to read a lot into the question and describe "why" (1) the event should have been expected even before it happened. The expectation is by a sentient being, so the first definition of "why" is applicable. So the answer could be
A. "because it was made of wood".
B. "because ink in it was combustible".
C. "because Greg burned it with a matchstick".
See what happened? A sentient being was invented - a great way to advance the cause of religion again.
In answer A, it is assumed the questioner did not expect a pen to be made of wood, but actually questioner did not ask what the pen was made of. Answer B is about the ink, again something that was not asked.
Basically, it is not incorrect to say, that "why" doesn't mean anything. At least when talking in precise terms, vague questions like "why" which are intentionally vague only make the conversation more difficult without contributing anything positive.
Honestly, I view statistics as the belief system of science. It can't be proven
A system cannot be proven. A hypothesis can be - in science at times the "proof" is just a single experiment and lack of refutation. So if you go about "proving" a "system", you come across like an idiot trying to "eat" "politics".
What hypothesis prevalent in the field of statistics do you think cannot be proven?
You have a tremendous advantage though - you write beautifully. Your novel will sell well - just get some religious sociopath to market it.
Yes, most of us agree that it's wrong to willfully hurt others, but why? If you think that we're just collections of cells, then the only thing you should care about is your own personal survival and comfort, and nothing else.
No, it does not even follow that a "collection of cells" should care about its own personal survival and comfort.
Ok, so non-text binary logs are acceptable when equal or more variety of tools are available to view/manipulate them vs text binary logs.
Which is not yet, so your objection to objection to binary logs is invalid at the moment.
There is NO REASON a binary log format could not be as well documented and supported, particularly if it were a standard across all linux distros.
There is one. It is called text. Hence the objection against "binary" formats, which colloquially but imprecisely refers to "non-text binary" formats.
They patent in multiple countries. Congratulations on being exempt from patent laws.
They were with the patient in ambulance when doing this. Though the nudies and drugs idea is purely your own reflecting your mentality.