to put a web browser in their software, but we're still waiting all these years later.
You can talk all you want, but either someone understands ethics and ethical behavior, or they don't. If they do, you're wasting your breath. If they respond with some claptrap about how stealing music, videos, or software without compensating the owner/producer for their work is fine, or come up with excuse after excuse why ethics work on a sliding scale, you're wasting your breath.
This should be at +5 insightful.
Ethics. How on earth can you teach ethics to adults?How on earth can people wish to have ethics when it is obvious that at the highest positions, sociopathy is apparently ethics?
But somehow, we are going to take one niche of STEM, and demand that they must act ethically.
I see. This seems like a training program to firmly seat the sociopaths that control these "ethical programmers".
In the big picture, ethics is simple. The golden rule. Or even Bill and Ted's "Be excellent to each other".
But let's face it. People in positions of power don't often have it. And if you don't "Have it" when taking your programming classes, you aren't going to ever get it.
And of course there is that nasty matter of definition. Give me 10 people, and I'll get 6 or 7 versions of what is or isn't ethical.
I got much of my ethics from my mother, and much from an innate rationale that the golden rule makes good sense. But I also understand that there are people who will never be ethical, but are psychopathic.
And there are occasions that they get curb stomped, and it is right and just.
The specific issue is the bundling. Manufacturers can install their own app stores, and many do, but they need the Play Store or it's not Android and doesn't get updates from Google. And if they have the Play Store then Google requires them to install Google Search and Chrome and make them the defaults.
Really? I've got DDG running default on all of my Adroid's browsers. and Play Store still works.
I'm trying to see the specific harm here. None of my present Androids are rooted, so I'm not doing anything technical to run other devices. This seems like a follow the money shtick. Something doesn't add up other than aheavy handed money grab, or perhaps collecting money from a competitor.
I don't think buying an Android phone really forces any other products on you, but Google do make several awesome products, so unsurprisingly Android users use more than 1.
Yeah, I mean on my Android tablets, I have 2 browsers on two of them, and 3 on the other I search with DDG, but keep Google around as well.
I use the play store 90 percent of the time, but if I want ot go somewhere else I do.
The presumed harm versus fine leads me to conclude a simple case of extortion on the EU's part. And I have a bit of a historical record based trust issue with Europe, so sometimes wonder if there are other motivations as well.
The judgement was that Google was "abusing its dominance", i.e. using the fact that manufacturers really have no other choice than Android for their phones to force them to pre-install Chrome and Google Search.
What are they going to do, install Windows Phone instead?
It's so strange - I have a couple Android devices, and don't often use Chrome, and almost never use Google search.
As for the Google play store, That is Google's, and where anyone sensible would go for wares. I can go to some other places if I wished, but that's probably not terribly smart. Perhaps the EU could open their own play store?
And make no mistake - I don't like Google very much. But none of what they have done in this matter has harmed me in any way. What exactly is the harm?
But 5 Billion fine? Occams explains that away as EU sponsored extortion.
The media induces panics all the time. Remember in 2011 they scaremongered about nuclear power? Germany got rid of its nuclear plants and is digging for coal. The media induced a panic about DDT and millions have died of malaria as a result. Fear mongering is standard practice for the media and they won't stop because they don't bear the costs of their malfeasance.
Umm, what panic? Is panic some dog whistle for "I do not like this news, so we must suppress it"?
First, your desire apparently needed classifying Fukushima images and reporting as top secret. Deal with it, not many people are going to see reactor buildings blowing up and think - I want one of those in my town.
And DDT is not some sort of majick gift from God. It is a pesticide, and as such, suffers from the same problems of resistance as other pesticides. And while you are lamenting the "millions" of dark skinned people who died because of the media (care for giving the citations presenting the evidence of multiple millions dead because of removing DDT?)
>> What if the natural gas is not cheap?
Then even cheaper renewables will do the trick.
Natural gas is always cheaper than coal - assuming a good supply.
Once drilled and put into the pipelines, the whole infrastructure takes remarkably little labor or materials to maintain.
Even with modern excavation and automation, coal has a much higher and constant need for the labor and excavation. And a gas pad is a hellava lot less intrusive than mountaintopping and standard strip mining.
Eventually as ever cheaper renewables take over, natgas will provide feedstock for plastics.
I wonder if sealing wax makers were as obtuse when their industry was collapsing?
Asking questions is not flame bait... modding my post flamebait is merely showing that you know that you don't want to answer the question.
Given that your "question" in response to the statement: "I can see some sense in "girl-only" instruction... For race it make NO SENSE" ran "[w]hat about Black (sic) girls only classes..." what would you prefer the reasonable reader take away? That your reading comprehension or reasoning ability is impaired, or that your "question" was never meant honestly to engage with the previous comment (and therefore demanded no answer)?
Personally, I would rather be taken to be flaming than to pose publicly as being intellectually challenged. YMMV.
More questions you ask? Why sure! Uncle Olsoc loves that you ask!
The question of utmost importance is to ask : Is the goal to have all (career X) to represent the racial and sexual and gender characteristics of society at large?
Now if the answer is yes, then you must ask "How do I bring this about? If it is decided that girls are intimidated by males and will ofherwise drop out of a career that they had a passion to go into, then yes - you must have girls only classes where they are not discouraged by males. Inclusivity and gender ratio demand it
Now we might get into why other underrepresented groups are avoiding these careers. If girls only classes succeed in the needed 50.8 to 49.2 distributinon of female to male that is deemed critical to success, then you must ask - can this segregation of women from men help to increase the number of women of dark pigmentation? If so, why would you not have classes that exclude others?
You're fake. You aren't a real punk. You wanna walk, talk, and act like a punk but you don't want the fights, jails, and heroin addiction to go along with it. Your joke isn't funny. Take your pathetic whoosh and shove it up your twat, wanker.
I had no idea that it was almost impossible, in any rate incredibly and prohibitively expensive for a phone company to tell who is making a call. Go figure.
Sounds like they lose a lot of money on each call.
I see, So whay didn't I get any of this crap back in say - the 1980s?
Why didn't you see caller ID spoofing before the advent of caller ID? Is this an actual question?
Pay attention to the conversation. The guy I was replying to was saying it wasn't possible to fix call spooking without destroying backwards compatibility. Seems like 1980's is backward.
The whole rationale for the amateur service is to promote the pushing of technology. If anything will kill ham radio, it's 'medallion cabdrivers'.
Exactly. I certainly don't have anything against a retro-inclined Ham building a latter day tube Ameco and spending his/her time with like minded individuals using OOK Morse. Or the 80 meter AM crowd patting themselves on the back as "The real Hams:"
But for those groups to promote themselves as the elusive real Hams is just silliness.
I recall giving a talk about Software Defined Radio at a club meeting one night. While most listened with rapt attention, there was a group who chatted among themselves, and guffawed about much of what I was saying. The usual olde farts.
I finally stopped talking, and asked them to share their conversation with the group, as it must be pretty important.
Regardless the stereotype of the ham operator as some old guy yapping about how things were so much better in the old days while talking on his tube radio is taking one small and shrinking group, and trying to force fit it on all of us.
And in this case I can tell you why it is not that easy. Change costs money and shifts prosperity. Big changes do this on a large scale.
Indeed it does. But the question is will the change caused by global warming/climate change cost you even more than doing something about it. Many people seem to think it won't but if what the climate scientists say is correct (and they get more things correct about it than wrong) the answer is no.
What is missing from most people's mindset is that a sort of roulette is being played out. As weather patterns shift, some areas that are now verdant will become jungles or perhaps deserts. As temperate zones move north some areas that are fringe civilization will become breadbaskets.
So good luck everyone. There will be big winners, and there will be big losers.
Now what I have seen is that if you press the deniers really hard, you'll find out they actually like the idea of warmth. Here in the soggy Northeast of the US, my older compatriots bitch about the record rainfall, but don't complain at all about how in mid October, the trees are still green, and it barely dropped below 70 last night.
The only rational conclusion is that the world is being run by complete anti-social psychopaths
Sorry, but that is just a populist opinion. The other possible rational conclusion is that things are not as simple as they appear to you. Which do you think is more likely?
Option three - The world is populated by psychopaths.
Humanity is strapped to a machine that is indifferent to human suffering or ecological collapse and is dragging us toward catastrophe for our species and most of the life in the known universe.
A few years back I was at a meeting with an insurance company mahatma.
The figures are stunning, and if an insurance company is going to survive, they have to take the effects of AGW into account.
Or even if they don't believe in it - they have to take into account whatever is mimicking Sea Level Rise.
The telecom companies that is forwarding that info to you has no way to know that the caller spoofed their caller ID. Not only do you have to trust the exchange you are getting the call from, but you must trust the exchange that connected to that exchange, and so on, all the way to the original caller, and there is no way for the receiver to positively identify these exchanges if the original caller happened to send false information in the first place.
The only fix for this would completely break backwards compatibility and would in general make it all but impossible to make long distance calls.
I see, So whay didn't I get any of this crap back in say - the 1980s?
And are you seriously suggesting that it is impossible to make certain that the number that pops up is the number that is calling?
Such a complex system that a call announcing system was developed that is not capable of ever working. Someone should be fired over developing that never working device.
Can you explain to me why people use capital letters for "ham"? Is it an acronym? If so, for what? And if LASER became laser over the decades, why didn't ham?
It's a name. Like Amateur, or Bob, or Anonymous Coward.
If I wanted to do health checks on old farts I would go to an old folks home. Repeaters are all dead because nobody wants to offend anyone and lose their license. Pirate radio is truly where its at.
Slashdot Mirror
to put a web browser in their software, but we're still waiting all these years later.
You can talk all you want, but either someone understands ethics and ethical behavior, or they don't. If they do, you're wasting your breath. If they respond with some claptrap about how stealing music, videos, or software without compensating the owner/producer for their work is fine, or come up with excuse after excuse why ethics work on a sliding scale, you're wasting your breath.
This should be at +5 insightful.
Ethics. How on earth can you teach ethics to adults?How on earth can people wish to have ethics when it is obvious that at the highest positions, sociopathy is apparently ethics?
But somehow, we are going to take one niche of STEM, and demand that they must act ethically.
I see. This seems like a training program to firmly seat the sociopaths that control these "ethical programmers".
In the big picture, ethics is simple. The golden rule. Or even Bill and Ted's "Be excellent to each other".
But let's face it. People in positions of power don't often have it. And if you don't "Have it" when taking your programming classes, you aren't going to ever get it.
And of course there is that nasty matter of definition. Give me 10 people, and I'll get 6 or 7 versions of what is or isn't ethical. I got much of my ethics from my mother, and much from an innate rationale that the golden rule makes good sense. But I also understand that there are people who will never be ethical, but are psychopathic.
And there are occasions that they get curb stomped, and it is right and just.
The specific issue is the bundling. Manufacturers can install their own app stores, and many do, but they need the Play Store or it's not Android and doesn't get updates from Google. And if they have the Play Store then Google requires them to install Google Search and Chrome and make them the defaults.
Really? I've got DDG running default on all of my Adroid's browsers. and Play Store still works.
I'm trying to see the specific harm here. None of my present Androids are rooted, so I'm not doing anything technical to run other devices. This seems like a follow the money shtick. Something doesn't add up other than aheavy handed money grab, or perhaps collecting money from a competitor.
I don't think buying an Android phone really forces any other products on you, but Google do make several awesome products, so unsurprisingly Android users use more than 1.
Yeah, I mean on my Android tablets, I have 2 browsers on two of them, and 3 on the other I search with DDG, but keep Google around as well.
I use the play store 90 percent of the time, but if I want ot go somewhere else I do.
The presumed harm versus fine leads me to conclude a simple case of extortion on the EU's part. And I have a bit of a historical record based trust issue with Europe, so sometimes wonder if there are other motivations as well.
You are the only one here using the word monopoly. I don't know what you mean with "trust".
When all else fails, read at least the summary. Its right in the first sentence.
The EU purports to be all powerful, but always needs MORE MONEY!!!111
Yup, Occam's shows this to be the most likely case.
The judgement was that Google was "abusing its dominance", i.e. using the fact that manufacturers really have no other choice than Android for their phones to force them to pre-install Chrome and Google Search.
What are they going to do, install Windows Phone instead?
It's so strange - I have a couple Android devices, and don't often use Chrome, and almost never use Google search.
As for the Google play store, That is Google's, and where anyone sensible would go for wares. I can go to some other places if I wished, but that's probably not terribly smart. Perhaps the EU could open their own play store?
And make no mistake - I don't like Google very much. But none of what they have done in this matter has harmed me in any way. What exactly is the harm?
But 5 Billion fine? Occams explains that away as EU sponsored extortion.
The media induces panics all the time. Remember in 2011 they scaremongered about nuclear power? Germany got rid of its nuclear plants and is digging for coal. The media induced a panic about DDT and millions have died of malaria as a result. Fear mongering is standard practice for the media and they won't stop because they don't bear the costs of their malfeasance.
Umm, what panic? Is panic some dog whistle for "I do not like this news, so we must suppress it"?
First, your desire apparently needed classifying Fukushima images and reporting as top secret. Deal with it, not many people are going to see reactor buildings blowing up and think - I want one of those in my town. And DDT is not some sort of majick gift from God. It is a pesticide, and as such, suffers from the same problems of resistance as other pesticides. And while you are lamenting the "millions" of dark skinned people who died because of the media (care for giving the citations presenting the evidence of multiple millions dead because of removing DDT?)
Here's some reading material https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It is just another pesticide, and mosquitos were turning resistant to it in the mid 1950's.
But I mean it's the fucking media, amirite?
Any panic is on your end, for reading things that don't fit your narrative and that you want censored.
I know the "but Germany" argument comes up here and there, but it is simply wrong.
Probably Fox News, the ultimate arbiter of truth.
This is the same truth as the little known fact that Germany is sunnier than the USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Who knew?
>> What if the natural gas is not cheap? Then even cheaper renewables will do the trick.
Natural gas is always cheaper than coal - assuming a good supply.
Once drilled and put into the pipelines, the whole infrastructure takes remarkably little labor or materials to maintain.
Even with modern excavation and automation, coal has a much higher and constant need for the labor and excavation. And a gas pad is a hellava lot less intrusive than mountaintopping and standard strip mining.
Eventually as ever cheaper renewables take over, natgas will provide feedstock for plastics.
I wonder if sealing wax makers were as obtuse when their industry was collapsing?
Is there a monopoly or a trust when you don't have to use Android devices?
Google forcing "security" on people it has already stolen identities from.
Annnnnnnd? Holy hell - you are correct! I never thought of it this way, but Got-Damn, get that post to +5
Asking questions is not flame bait ... modding my post flamebait is merely showing that you know that you don't want to answer the question.
Given that your "question" in response to the statement: "I can see some sense in "girl-only" instruction ... For race it make NO SENSE" ran "[w]hat about Black (sic) girls only classes ..." what would you prefer the reasonable reader take away? That your reading comprehension or reasoning ability is impaired, or that your "question" was never meant honestly to engage with the previous comment (and therefore demanded no answer)?
Personally, I would rather be taken to be flaming than to pose publicly as being intellectually challenged. YMMV.
More questions you ask? Why sure! Uncle Olsoc loves that you ask!
The question of utmost importance is to ask : Is the goal to have all (career X) to represent the racial and sexual and gender characteristics of society at large?
Now if the answer is yes, then you must ask "How do I bring this about? If it is decided that girls are intimidated by males and will ofherwise drop out of a career that they had a passion to go into, then yes - you must have girls only classes where they are not discouraged by males. Inclusivity and gender ratio demand it
Now we might get into why other underrepresented groups are avoiding these careers. If girls only classes succeed in the needed 50.8 to 49.2 distributinon of female to male that is deemed critical to success, then you must ask - can this segregation of women from men help to increase the number of women of dark pigmentation? If so, why would you not have classes that exclude others?
You're fake. You aren't a real punk. You wanna walk, talk, and act like a punk but you don't want the fights, jails, and heroin addiction to go along with it. Your joke isn't funny. Take your pathetic whoosh and shove it up your twat, wanker.
U mad bro?
Sounds like they lose a lot of money on each call.
I see, So whay didn't I get any of this crap back in say - the 1980s?
Why didn't you see caller ID spoofing before the advent of caller ID? Is this an actual question?
Pay attention to the conversation. The guy I was replying to was saying it wasn't possible to fix call spooking without destroying backwards compatibility. Seems like 1980's is backward.
The whole rationale for the amateur service is to promote the pushing of technology. If anything will kill ham radio, it's 'medallion cabdrivers'.
Exactly. I certainly don't have anything against a retro-inclined Ham building a latter day tube Ameco and spending his/her time with like minded individuals using OOK Morse. Or the 80 meter AM crowd patting themselves on the back as "The real Hams:"
But for those groups to promote themselves as the elusive real Hams is just silliness.
I recall giving a talk about Software Defined Radio at a club meeting one night. While most listened with rapt attention, there was a group who chatted among themselves, and guffawed about much of what I was saying. The usual olde farts.
I finally stopped talking, and asked them to share their conversation with the group, as it must be pretty important.
Regardless the stereotype of the ham operator as some old guy yapping about how things were so much better in the old days while talking on his tube radio is taking one small and shrinking group, and trying to force fit it on all of us.
And in this case I can tell you why it is not that easy. Change costs money and shifts prosperity. Big changes do this on a large scale.
Indeed it does. But the question is will the change caused by global warming/climate change cost you even more than doing something about it. Many people seem to think it won't but if what the climate scientists say is correct (and they get more things correct about it than wrong) the answer is no.
What is missing from most people's mindset is that a sort of roulette is being played out. As weather patterns shift, some areas that are now verdant will become jungles or perhaps deserts. As temperate zones move north some areas that are fringe civilization will become breadbaskets.
So good luck everyone. There will be big winners, and there will be big losers.
Now what I have seen is that if you press the deniers really hard, you'll find out they actually like the idea of warmth. Here in the soggy Northeast of the US, my older compatriots bitch about the record rainfall, but don't complain at all about how in mid October, the trees are still green, and it barely dropped below 70 last night.
The only rational conclusion is that the world is being run by complete anti-social psychopaths
Sorry, but that is just a populist opinion. The other possible rational conclusion is that things are not as simple as they appear to you. Which do you think is more likely?
Option three - The world is populated by psychopaths.
Humanity is strapped to a machine that is indifferent to human suffering or ecological collapse and is dragging us toward catastrophe for our species and most of the life in the known universe.
A few years back I was at a meeting with an insurance company mahatma.
The figures are stunning, and if an insurance company is going to survive, they have to take the effects of AGW into account.
Or even if they don't believe in it - they have to take into account whatever is mimicking Sea Level Rise.
Will it be legal to shoot them down, like drones - if they fly over your property? :D
As your lovely nubile teenage daughter and her friends sunbathe semi nude in your backyard - you can't forget that part of the rationale.
https://www.cnet.com/news/judg...
In his 30 years of being "a cybersecurity professional" he never learned that caller ID is trivially faked?
Anyone using "cyber" as part of their description are fake themselves.
What about us cyber-punks, you insensitive clod?
The telecom companies that is forwarding that info to you has no way to know that the caller spoofed their caller ID. Not only do you have to trust the exchange you are getting the call from, but you must trust the exchange that connected to that exchange, and so on, all the way to the original caller, and there is no way for the receiver to positively identify these exchanges if the original caller happened to send false information in the first place.
The only fix for this would completely break backwards compatibility and would in general make it all but impossible to make long distance calls.
I see, So whay didn't I get any of this crap back in say - the 1980s?
And are you seriously suggesting that it is impossible to make certain that the number that pops up is the number that is calling?
Such a complex system that a call announcing system was developed that is not capable of ever working. Someone should be fired over developing that never working device.
> The practice is illegal in most other countries.
So is fraud; making things illegal won't stop criminals.
So the answer is to eliminate all laws to insure peace.
Can you explain to me why people use capital letters for "ham"? Is it an acronym? If so, for what? And if LASER became laser over the decades, why didn't ham?
It's a name. Like Amateur, or Bob, or Anonymous Coward.
That wasn't so hard, was it?
If I wanted to do health checks on old farts I would go to an old folks home. Repeaters are all dead because nobody wants to offend anyone and lose their license. Pirate radio is truly where its at.
Writes the sissy AC.