...if not to prevent bugs like this. Isn't all the stuff that makes your hardware work supposed to be contained in the/vendor partition and not updated with new OS versions. Surely the ability to fast charge would be part of that, no? Or does Google put out a whole new/vendor setup when they upgrade you anyway. If so, what's the point?
I'm sure that's all true. But if your need for Windows is only occasional, and the app in question runs okay under WINE, that might be an even better solution. Firing up WINE takes seconds, not minutes like Windows. And, of course, it's free. Won't work for everything, but I assume most everything you run on MacOS is native. So WINE might just be all the Windows you need.
I use Wineskins to provide a single.app file with my custom win32 app and WINE bundled together and configured the way I want my users to see it. Sure, I suppose they'd prefer a native Mac version, but we really haven't gotten many requests for Mac support at all. So far the Mac users have been happy.
Funny how concepts like States' Rights lose their importance when you don't like what the States are doing - but are a useful cover when you want to, say, destroy unions - or pander to racist voters.
That's what I was thinking. What's left of the desktop these days - besides legacy Win32 apps that can't run anywhere else? Even Microsoft's own apps are moving to the web. But if they can milk a steady revenue stream from corporate users to enable you to run some desktop app or other that they still need, there's a business in that - I guess. If nothing else, though, this implies that the 'new' Windows desktop is DOA. Or at least, Microsoft thinks so - and those wedded to the old regime, well they just haven't figured it out yet.
Perhaps. But duckduckgo seems a little disingenuous as well. They apparantly 'aggregate' search results from all the Google competitors and provide you with generic, ad-supported search results. All well and good, I guess - except for my suspicion that the reason those Google competitors allow DDG to use their search results is that they can't compete with Google, and are quietly 'funding' a privacy-oriented alternative with free data. And I'm guessing that of all those competitors, Bing is the primary data source. And if DDG ever caught on, they'd probably pull the plug.
There's no shortage of evil out there. I guess you kind of have to pick your poison...
But they won the Office application market by tying it to the desktop OS. And they won the desktop OS market (for Windows, that is) by cutting deals to throw it in for free along with MS-DOS, for which they already had questionable deals to require a payment on every machine they sell. That's not so different than Google's 'if you sell android on any device, you can only sell the real android on all your devices'.
But as far as search is concerned, Google had won search long before Android came along. And part of the reason for Android was to prevent Microsoft from being the OS alternative to Apple - and bundling Bing to hurt Google. So we may have ended up in a bad place, but how we got there is a long and winding road, littered with lots of bad behavior. And 'bad' is relative, since Android already provides as much or more flexibility than Windows does in terms of letting you replace the built-in default software. And OEM's are even allowed to install competing options on new devices - which Microsoft still doesn't allow...
And voters in Wyoming, Alaska and Vermont do get representation. Proportionally in the House, and way disproportionately in the Senate. To say that limiting them to proportional representation in Presidential elections would somehow deprive them of representation is pretty disingenuous. Especially when you start getting the EC 'overruling' the popular vote. You can't sustain a democracy that way. It's just never been a problem before - because the country hasn't been so divided politically between rural and urban voters before.
But has Android been a 'monopoly' for 10 years? Apple had a head start, and Nokia was still going strong for a while there. And even feature phones supported web browsing, so Chrome didn't have any kind of monopoly for quite a while. In fact Chrome on Android wasn't even viable for the first few years. I'm just saying that "Android was released 10 years ago" doesn't provide much of a counterargument to what I said.
The only think that seems unreasonable about it to me is the bit about "if you make any phones with the Play store and Google shit, all your phones have to include it". Assuming that Fire phones don't corrupt Android, they why should Samsung or Motorola not be allowed to do the same.
Of course, Fire phones may well corrupt Android if their replacements for Google services don't work with all apps. At that point, Android is no longer a single platform for developers - and selling your fork as Android would be misleading. So maybe Google has a point there - and the only remedy should be removing the requirement to place Google apps front and center on the first boot. I wonder if having them in the app drawer instead of on the front screen would be in violation too. How about a quick installer icon - and allowing OEM's to include similar installers for competing products?
As far as allowing for competing app stores - why? If part of Google's business model is to take a cut of app sales, the only 'anti-competitive' aspect of that is competing app stores. But if the app store is the thing they're selling, who says others are free to create a competing business there. That's not the same as bundling search or email with your phone OS. Those functions are unrelated to the OS. It gets muddied, I guess, because Google sells music and video in the 'app' store. So maybe those functions need to be broken out.
If Zuckerberg "doesn't think sites like Infowars are intentionally getting things wrong", he's in a state of such denial that his opinion doesn't matter. Because many of these sites exist to spread disinformation - if only to gin up attention and make money. And Zuck's own site exists for mainly the same purpose. Granted, his site can generate plenty of attention with baby and cat pictures - but he'll always want more, and go for it right up to the line where his users abandon his platform in large numbers.
Of course, if what you want is to eliminate tracking from phones in the EU, you could pass laws that, y'know, eliminate tracking. I imagine Google - and others - could still make bundles without tracking individual users, but if they can make more with tracking, they're gonna do it.
Meanwhile, nobody seemed to care about Google search and gmail being included in Android phones till they got too popular - and presumably, competitors started bribing politicians. That doesn't mean the behavior shouldn't be stopped, but imposing a huge fine over past behavior that only crossed the line at some undetermined point in the past seems draconian. If you can't act soon enough to prevent the harm, you can't (well, I guess maybe you can), punish past legal behavior for retroactively becoming illegal. That's not quite fair.
When they went after Microsoft, they first got a consent decree ("we won't do that any more") and then fined them for violating it. Was such an agreement made - and violated - in Google's case with Android?
And in Microsoft's case, the remedy was to force them to allow a choice of browsers. Android already does that. And a choice of launchers (with or without the Google search widget). What's missing here? Only the option for OEM's to accept payments from Microsoft to build phones with Bing instead of Google?
Also, even if it weren't overly hard to get the documentation (and I'm not saying it isn't), the voter ID folks are playing the margins. If they can prevent a small number of Democrats from voting in a few states in a close election, they can pull off an upset victory like Trump's.
That's why the Russians targeted black voters with fake "Black Lives Matter" groups either misdirecting potential black voters or telling them not to bother voting. And it worked in places like Michigan and Winsconsin. Along with voter ID laws that similarly suppressed the black vote enough to tip the balance.
The Electoral College allocation of extra votes to small population states is a problem too. But that's in the Constitution and hard to change. Voter suppression enjoys no such protection, and needs to be fought if you believe in one-person, one-vote.
But the counterargument is - who the hell needs a 4K or 5K display in a 13" laptop. Which could also be said of the "fastest SSD in any laptop".
We've long passed the time when desktop/laptop hardware improvements actually improve the experience of using the device - and we're rapidly approaching that time for mobile devices too. There may be some use cases that demand the best/fastest/highest resolution hardware money can buy - but it's not your average MacBook user's use case.
Which, I guess in a way is a shame. Improvements in commodity hardware led the way to improvements everywhere. Server hardware got cheaper because they could use RAID arrays of the same commodity hard drives that desktops - and later laptops - used, benefiting from the economies of scale that apply to consumer hardware, even though servers didn't sell at anywhere near those levels. But that party's over - and since most server platforms today scale horizontally, they have other ways of improving performance than relying on raw horsepower improvements.
Censorship and 'transmission neutrality' are still different things. Yes, theoretically, without net neutrality, your ISP could censor content (assuming the connection was not encrypted so the ISP could actually see it). But that's not what net neutrality is about. Net neutrality requires that you are free to access whatever content you want and that is available on the web. That doesn't mean you're free to post whatever you want wherever you want - or that websites are required to post any particular information. And it also means that Facebook is free to determine whether they think an article is true before allowing you to link to it on their platform. There's good and bad to that - but just because you don't like some aspect of it doesn't mean that it falls under the category of net neutrality.
Actually, I kind of hope Kavinaugh is stupid or ignorant enough not to get that distinction. Then maybe he's willing to be educated about what net neutrality actually means before he ultimately rules on it. Doubtful, of course, since he's obviously of the phony 'originalist' bent - which essentially means "decide which side of an issue business is on and tie yourself in knots to justify voting that way". The only thing 'originalist' about that is that it's a handy justification that covers a lot of cases without too much knot-tying.
Facebook is not an ISP. Sure, they can control what's on Facebook. But Verizon should not be allowed to control whether you can access Facebook. Is it really so hard to understand that distinction?
Okay. But do you want your ISP to have that information? I'm all for legislation to restrict ISP's from storing any information about your web browsing history. You're paying them for a pipe, not a service in exchange for your info. Come to think of it, that applies to your credit card company and anybody else you do paid business with.
I think the KDE Linux desktop has had the ability to group windows from different apps into a tabbed set for many years. I tried it once, and saw no practical use for it. I don't even know if that feature is still there.
...why on Earth does Facebook pay for content with your data? Because that seems to be their business model. They want games, etc. in order to keep you on their site - and sell ads against you. So far, so good. But why not give 3rd party content providers a cut of the ad revenue? Isn't that what Google does with YouTube?
As it is, Facebook seems to want the content - while hoarding all the ad revenue for itself. Nice business model, if you can manage to blur the lines enough so that your users don't understand just what greedy, unscrupulous shits you are. And 'they all do it' won't cut it. It just serves Facebook's agenda. They don't all do what is being described here. Only Facebook, that we know of, stoops that low.
It's not that they gave away the info you gave them that's the problem (though they did promise that they wouldn't give some of it away - and apparently broke that promise). But the thing about Facebook that's seriously scary is that they allowed 3rd parties to produce their own targeted advertising based on your public and private info. And alowed them to perpetrate fraud in the process.
I'm fine with Facebook aggregating me and targeting ads to maximize their 'effectiveness' and profitability. I'm not fine with allowing Cambridge Analytica to pose as a Black Lives Matter group and post 'stories' that recommended not voting in 2016 - only to selected users based on their personal, non-public information. Nobody should be...
Yes, but Trump is actually a strong sociopath unlike presidents for decades before him.
Um, Trump is a sociopath that makes 'strong' statements and routinely backs down from them. But he's so strong that he refuses to admit he's backed down. I guess as long as the press has some modicum of 'The Emporor's New Clothes' respect left for the office, he can get away with that. But how exactly does that make him strong?
And how the fuck have we gotten to the point where somebody like you, who seem nominally literate, will fawn over somebody being a sociopath - strong or otherwise? Or are paid trolls being dispatched to such obscure corners of the Internet as Slashdot? Now that's scary.
Thanks for the context. Isn't it amazing that at this stage of the game, people are still willing to take an out of context 'fact' from Trump and use it to justify his nonsense. People, Trump lies. All the time. Black is White, Up is Down class lies.
Trump's rant about imports of cars from Canada did make me wonder about the context of that. It's American car manufacturers building cars in Canada and importing them, NAFTA style back into the US. But why? This is Canada - not Mexico, let alone China. Is Canadian labor that much cheaper - or better educated - or something, than US labor? Do they not have unions there? Or is the fact that employers don't have to pay for medical insurance the thing that makes Canada a more viable location for auto plants than Detroit?
I suspect it's more like they always built cars for the Canadian market in Canada, and with NAFTA, it makes economic sense to build one model in one plant and another in another. So the models built in Canada end up getting imported here and vice versa. But is there more to it?
Nonsense. Trump will probably nod his head and agree to something Kim says that sounds good (like he did in the DACA 'negotiations' at the White House), and then when he gets home and his advisers tell him he can't agree to that, he'll reverse himself, and launch a Twitter attack on Kim to shift the blame and insist he didn't say what he plainly said.
The reason to have scientists and Korea experts in the room is to make sure Trump doesn't go off half-cocked and make a fool of himself. Of course, he's incapable of either seeing or acknowledging when he has made a fool of himself, so the whole thing's probably just a photo-op for him at this point.
All of your examples of Google killing off stuff were Google-developed stuff, that presumably was killed off because it either failed - or Google developed something else that suited their purposes better (if not, admittedly, always the users').
The Microsoft examples discussed here were all acquisitions of popular services that, presumably, were bought by Microsoft to keep them from developing into a threat - or, I guess, to compete with Google or Amazon in cases where they had something similar. One case is unfortunate, the other is anticompetitive.
Yes. No problem there. Obviously, It's letting me execute the app. It simply fails when the app tries to open a socket. And only when it's run from a LAN drive. The same executable works fine if I copy it to C:. Unless there's some ACL property for that, what would the issue be? And why would a Windows update change ACL's?
Slashdot Mirror
...if not to prevent bugs like this. Isn't all the stuff that makes your hardware work supposed to be contained in the /vendor partition and not updated with new OS versions. Surely the ability to fast charge would be part of that, no? Or does Google put out a whole new /vendor setup when they upgrade you anyway. If so, what's the point?
I'm sure that's all true. But if your need for Windows is only occasional, and the app in question runs okay under WINE, that might be an even better solution. Firing up WINE takes seconds, not minutes like Windows. And, of course, it's free. Won't work for everything, but I assume most everything you run on MacOS is native. So WINE might just be all the Windows you need.
I use Wineskins to provide a single .app file with my custom win32 app and WINE bundled together and configured the way I want my users to see it. Sure, I suppose they'd prefer a native Mac version, but we really haven't gotten many requests for Mac support at all. So far the Mac users have been happy.
Funny how concepts like States' Rights lose their importance when you don't like what the States are doing - but are a useful cover when you want to, say, destroy unions - or pander to racist voters.
That's what I was thinking. What's left of the desktop these days - besides legacy Win32 apps that can't run anywhere else? Even Microsoft's own apps are moving to the web. But if they can milk a steady revenue stream from corporate users to enable you to run some desktop app or other that they still need, there's a business in that - I guess. If nothing else, though, this implies that the 'new' Windows desktop is DOA. Or at least, Microsoft thinks so - and those wedded to the old regime, well they just haven't figured it out yet.
Perhaps. But duckduckgo seems a little disingenuous as well. They apparantly 'aggregate' search results from all the Google competitors and provide you with generic, ad-supported search results. All well and good, I guess - except for my suspicion that the reason those Google competitors allow DDG to use their search results is that they can't compete with Google, and are quietly 'funding' a privacy-oriented alternative with free data. And I'm guessing that of all those competitors, Bing is the primary data source. And if DDG ever caught on, they'd probably pull the plug.
There's no shortage of evil out there. I guess you kind of have to pick your poison...
But they won the Office application market by tying it to the desktop OS. And they won the desktop OS market (for Windows, that is) by cutting deals to throw it in for free along with MS-DOS, for which they already had questionable deals to require a payment on every machine they sell. That's not so different than Google's 'if you sell android on any device, you can only sell the real android on all your devices'.
But as far as search is concerned, Google had won search long before Android came along. And part of the reason for Android was to prevent Microsoft from being the OS alternative to Apple - and bundling Bing to hurt Google. So we may have ended up in a bad place, but how we got there is a long and winding road, littered with lots of bad behavior. And 'bad' is relative, since Android already provides as much or more flexibility than Windows does in terms of letting you replace the built-in default software. And OEM's are even allowed to install competing options on new devices - which Microsoft still doesn't allow...
And voters in Wyoming, Alaska and Vermont do get representation. Proportionally in the House, and way disproportionately in the Senate. To say that limiting them to proportional representation in Presidential elections would somehow deprive them of representation is pretty disingenuous. Especially when you start getting the EC 'overruling' the popular vote. You can't sustain a democracy that way. It's just never been a problem before - because the country hasn't been so divided politically between rural and urban voters before.
But has Android been a 'monopoly' for 10 years? Apple had a head start, and Nokia was still going strong for a while there. And even feature phones supported web browsing, so Chrome didn't have any kind of monopoly for quite a while. In fact Chrome on Android wasn't even viable for the first few years. I'm just saying that "Android was released 10 years ago" doesn't provide much of a counterargument to what I said.
The only think that seems unreasonable about it to me is the bit about "if you make any phones with the Play store and Google shit, all your phones have to include it". Assuming that Fire phones don't corrupt Android, they why should Samsung or Motorola not be allowed to do the same.
Of course, Fire phones may well corrupt Android if their replacements for Google services don't work with all apps. At that point, Android is no longer a single platform for developers - and selling your fork as Android would be misleading. So maybe Google has a point there - and the only remedy should be removing the requirement to place Google apps front and center on the first boot. I wonder if having them in the app drawer instead of on the front screen would be in violation too. How about a quick installer icon - and allowing OEM's to include similar installers for competing products?
As far as allowing for competing app stores - why? If part of Google's business model is to take a cut of app sales, the only 'anti-competitive' aspect of that is competing app stores. But if the app store is the thing they're selling, who says others are free to create a competing business there. That's not the same as bundling search or email with your phone OS. Those functions are unrelated to the OS. It gets muddied, I guess, because Google sells music and video in the 'app' store. So maybe those functions need to be broken out.
If Zuckerberg "doesn't think sites like Infowars are intentionally getting things wrong", he's in a state of such denial that his opinion doesn't matter. Because many of these sites exist to spread disinformation - if only to gin up attention and make money. And Zuck's own site exists for mainly the same purpose. Granted, his site can generate plenty of attention with baby and cat pictures - but he'll always want more, and go for it right up to the line where his users abandon his platform in large numbers.
Of course, if what you want is to eliminate tracking from phones in the EU, you could pass laws that, y'know, eliminate tracking. I imagine Google - and others - could still make bundles without tracking individual users, but if they can make more with tracking, they're gonna do it.
Meanwhile, nobody seemed to care about Google search and gmail being included in Android phones till they got too popular - and presumably, competitors started bribing politicians. That doesn't mean the behavior shouldn't be stopped, but imposing a huge fine over past behavior that only crossed the line at some undetermined point in the past seems draconian. If you can't act soon enough to prevent the harm, you can't (well, I guess maybe you can), punish past legal behavior for retroactively becoming illegal. That's not quite fair.
When they went after Microsoft, they first got a consent decree ("we won't do that any more") and then fined them for violating it. Was such an agreement made - and violated - in Google's case with Android?
And in Microsoft's case, the remedy was to force them to allow a choice of browsers. Android already does that. And a choice of launchers (with or without the Google search widget). What's missing here? Only the option for OEM's to accept payments from Microsoft to build phones with Bing instead of Google?
Also, even if it weren't overly hard to get the documentation (and I'm not saying it isn't), the voter ID folks are playing the margins. If they can prevent a small number of Democrats from voting in a few states in a close election, they can pull off an upset victory like Trump's.
That's why the Russians targeted black voters with fake "Black Lives Matter" groups either misdirecting potential black voters or telling them not to bother voting. And it worked in places like Michigan and Winsconsin. Along with voter ID laws that similarly suppressed the black vote enough to tip the balance.
The Electoral College allocation of extra votes to small population states is a problem too. But that's in the Constitution and hard to change. Voter suppression enjoys no such protection, and needs to be fought if you believe in one-person, one-vote.
But the counterargument is - who the hell needs a 4K or 5K display in a 13" laptop. Which could also be said of the "fastest SSD in any laptop".
We've long passed the time when desktop/laptop hardware improvements actually improve the experience of using the device - and we're rapidly approaching that time for mobile devices too. There may be some use cases that demand the best/fastest/highest resolution hardware money can buy - but it's not your average MacBook user's use case.
Which, I guess in a way is a shame. Improvements in commodity hardware led the way to improvements everywhere. Server hardware got cheaper because they could use RAID arrays of the same commodity hard drives that desktops - and later laptops - used, benefiting from the economies of scale that apply to consumer hardware, even though servers didn't sell at anywhere near those levels. But that party's over - and since most server platforms today scale horizontally, they have other ways of improving performance than relying on raw horsepower improvements.
Censorship and 'transmission neutrality' are still different things. Yes, theoretically, without net neutrality, your ISP could censor content (assuming the connection was not encrypted so the ISP could actually see it). But that's not what net neutrality is about. Net neutrality requires that you are free to access whatever content you want and that is available on the web. That doesn't mean you're free to post whatever you want wherever you want - or that websites are required to post any particular information. And it also means that Facebook is free to determine whether they think an article is true before allowing you to link to it on their platform. There's good and bad to that - but just because you don't like some aspect of it doesn't mean that it falls under the category of net neutrality.
Actually, I kind of hope Kavinaugh is stupid or ignorant enough not to get that distinction. Then maybe he's willing to be educated about what net neutrality actually means before he ultimately rules on it. Doubtful, of course, since he's obviously of the phony 'originalist' bent - which essentially means "decide which side of an issue business is on and tie yourself in knots to justify voting that way". The only thing 'originalist' about that is that it's a handy justification that covers a lot of cases without too much knot-tying.
Facebook is not an ISP. Sure, they can control what's on Facebook. But Verizon should not be allowed to control whether you can access Facebook. Is it really so hard to understand that distinction?
Okay. But do you want your ISP to have that information? I'm all for legislation to restrict ISP's from storing any information about your web browsing history. You're paying them for a pipe, not a service in exchange for your info. Come to think of it, that applies to your credit card company and anybody else you do paid business with.
I think the KDE Linux desktop has had the ability to group windows from different apps into a tabbed set for many years. I tried it once, and saw no practical use for it. I don't even know if that feature is still there.
...why on Earth does Facebook pay for content with your data? Because that seems to be their business model. They want games, etc. in order to keep you on their site - and sell ads against you. So far, so good. But why not give 3rd party content providers a cut of the ad revenue? Isn't that what Google does with YouTube?
As it is, Facebook seems to want the content - while hoarding all the ad revenue for itself. Nice business model, if you can manage to blur the lines enough so that your users don't understand just what greedy, unscrupulous shits you are. And 'they all do it' won't cut it. It just serves Facebook's agenda. They don't all do what is being described here. Only Facebook, that we know of, stoops that low.
It's not that they gave away the info you gave them that's the problem (though they did promise that they wouldn't give some of it away - and apparently broke that promise). But the thing about Facebook that's seriously scary is that they allowed 3rd parties to produce their own targeted advertising based on your public and private info. And alowed them to perpetrate fraud in the process.
I'm fine with Facebook aggregating me and targeting ads to maximize their 'effectiveness' and profitability. I'm not fine with allowing Cambridge Analytica to pose as a Black Lives Matter group and post 'stories' that recommended not voting in 2016 - only to selected users based on their personal, non-public information. Nobody should be...
Yes, but Trump is actually a strong sociopath unlike presidents for decades before him.
Um, Trump is a sociopath that makes 'strong' statements and routinely backs down from them. But he's so strong that he refuses to admit he's backed down. I guess as long as the press has some modicum of 'The Emporor's New Clothes' respect left for the office, he can get away with that. But how exactly does that make him strong?
And how the fuck have we gotten to the point where somebody like you, who seem nominally literate, will fawn over somebody being a sociopath - strong or otherwise? Or are paid trolls being dispatched to such obscure corners of the Internet as Slashdot? Now that's scary.
Thanks for the context. Isn't it amazing that at this stage of the game, people are still willing to take an out of context 'fact' from Trump and use it to justify his nonsense. People, Trump lies. All the time. Black is White, Up is Down class lies.
Trump's rant about imports of cars from Canada did make me wonder about the context of that. It's American car manufacturers building cars in Canada and importing them, NAFTA style back into the US. But why? This is Canada - not Mexico, let alone China. Is Canadian labor that much cheaper - or better educated - or something, than US labor? Do they not have unions there? Or is the fact that employers don't have to pay for medical insurance the thing that makes Canada a more viable location for auto plants than Detroit?
I suspect it's more like they always built cars for the Canadian market in Canada, and with NAFTA, it makes economic sense to build one model in one plant and another in another. So the models built in Canada end up getting imported here and vice versa. But is there more to it?
Nonsense. Trump will probably nod his head and agree to something Kim says that sounds good (like he did in the DACA 'negotiations' at the White House), and then when he gets home and his advisers tell him he can't agree to that, he'll reverse himself, and launch a Twitter attack on Kim to shift the blame and insist he didn't say what he plainly said.
The reason to have scientists and Korea experts in the room is to make sure Trump doesn't go off half-cocked and make a fool of himself. Of course, he's incapable of either seeing or acknowledging when he has made a fool of himself, so the whole thing's probably just a photo-op for him at this point.
All of your examples of Google killing off stuff were Google-developed stuff, that presumably was killed off because it either failed - or Google developed something else that suited their purposes better (if not, admittedly, always the users').
The Microsoft examples discussed here were all acquisitions of popular services that, presumably, were bought by Microsoft to keep them from developing into a threat - or, I guess, to compete with Google or Amazon in cases where they had something similar. One case is unfortunate, the other is anticompetitive.
Yes. No problem there. Obviously, It's letting me execute the app. It simply fails when the app tries to open a socket. And only when it's run from a LAN drive. The same executable works fine if I copy it to C:. Unless there's some ACL property for that, what would the issue be? And why would a Windows update change ACL's?
hmmm. It worked fine for me until I applied the update last week.