I said you had failed to make a clear argument. I didn't say I failed to understand your argument; despite its lack of clarity, I was able to follow what you were saying. I thought it was a load of cack, but I could follow it.
By all means, conflate these two things in your head if it makes you feel better. Just so long as you're clear they're not conflated in mine.
Did any of that really make sense in your head? It didn't work so well once you tried to communicate it to everyone else. Random things like saying "again" when you weren't repeating a point. And thinking that discussing the meaning of gerrymander is somehow not "respecting the rules as they are" and that it makes sense to try to change the rules but not to complain about the rules. Etc etc. If you can figure out how to express a substantive argument in nice clear sentences, do feel free to come back and set it out.
You're indulging in a stupid moralistic culture war. It may make you feel good about yourself, but it's not an accurate reflection of the world you live in.
It isn't just the same effect as gerrymandering -- it absolutely is gerrymandering. It is gerrymandering in favour of rural populations and against urban populations, rather than geographical gerrymandering, but it is nonetheless a deliberate gaming of the vote.
But there are tons of simple ways of transferring files from an iOS device to a Linux device. FileExplorer Pro, for example. https://www.skyjos.com/fileexp...
No idea if it works with a USB cable, but mainly because I can't be bothered to do all the checking.
I didn't promise that it was easy or straightforward to transfer files from an iOS device to a Linux laptop! I said it was easy to transfer files via AirDrop. You said "what about Linux". I said "here's a solution for Linux". I didn't promise easy. It really shouldn't be a surprise to you that iOS to MacOS file transfer is easier, more secure etc than iOS to Linux. Nor is it immoral of Apple to have this be the case, as you seem to think.
Do you, in fact, have a Linux laptop to which you wish to transfer files from an iOS device, or is this all completely theoretical?
That sentence doesn't make sense. You're not going to be led by the nose to use AirPlay because you don't have a Mac so it doesn't work for you. But for your Windows and Linux laptops, I've suggested solutions.
A thank you would have been nice. But then, that would have required you to recognise that someone was offering you some help for a problem you professed to have.
AirDrop and Android -- this makes no sense. You were talking about transferring data from an iOS phone to a laptop. AirDrop and Linux -- no, you use a method like this: http://www.libimobiledevice.or... AirDrop and Windows -- no, you use one of the methods here https://it.toolbox.com/blogs/a... AirDrop is designed for secure and private transfer of data between Apple devices. The whole point of the Apple proposition is to be able to offer solutions that take advantage of the tight integration of software and hardware. So they are inherently non-cross-platform. Affecting shock or dismay at this situation is just stupid.
And why you are fussed about transferring data securely and privately if you're just going to move it to an insecure platform that doesn't protect privacy is beyond me.
As a tech person, was it really so difficult for you to search for this stuff?
This is wrong on multiple levels. iCloud is a cloud storage service offered by Apple. Obviously, Apple receives the data you put on iCloud, because that is what the service is.
But iCloud encrypts the data at rest and in transit (there's one complicated exception for email). Some data (eg Home, Health, payment, etc) is end-to-end encrypted.
If you bother reading Apple's privacy policy *carefully*, you will see that Apple collects location data "in a form that does not, on its own, permit direct association with any specific individual". It goes on to spell out that "Unless you provide consent, this location data is collected anonymously in a form that does not personally identify you and is used by Apple and our partners and licensees to provide and improve location-based products and services."
Siri isn't discussed in the privacy policy. It's discussed elsewhere, extensively, and it doesn't work the way you think it does. "The longer you use Siri and Dictation, the better they understand you and improve. To help them recognize your pronunciation and provide better responses, certain information such as your name, contacts, music you listen to, and searches is sent to Apple servers using encrypted protocols. Siri and Dictation do not associate this information with your Apple ID, but rather with your device through a random identifier. Apple Watch uses the Siri identifier from your iPhone. You can reset that identifier at any time by turning Siri and Dictation off and back on, effectively restarting your relationship with Siri and Dictation. When you turn Siri and Dictation off, Apple will delete the User Data associated with your Siri identifier, and the learning process will start all over again."
The FBI case was nothing like what you describe. The iPhone in question had iCloud enabled. But the FBI had the corporate owner of the iPhone reset the iCloud password, which meant new data couldn't be backed up to iCloud.
How do you get to be so confidently wrong about everything?!
Despite the huge amounts of nonsense talked about below, there is a spectacularly easy method to copy files to your phone. It's called AirDrop and it uses TLS encryption to directly transfer data, peer-to-peer. The WiFi radios of the two devices communicate directly.
But of course neither you nor anyone else in this thread could be expected to know about this. I mean it's only been around for the last seven years. And it's not llke Slashdot is a tech site.
It's very very sweet, if slightly amazingly stupid, that you think that fossil fuel power plants represent a more distributed form of energy generation than PV.
Who's said anything of the sort? I think people have said that Norway is an excellent example of how a government can use its powers of taxation to change citizen behaviour. Norwegians (and many other Europeans) are by and large pretty comfortable with the notion of regulated markets with taxation used to incentivise particular behaviours, and are pretty uncomfortable with the notion of free markets unfettered by regulation.
Have you really never heard of the concept of not letting the best be the enemy of the good? There is a scale of environmental damage for transport that runs the gamut from walking to Ferraris (and beyond -- this is just an illustrative example, in case you're prone to being literal). EVs are further towards walking than are ICEs.
Subsidising the costs of production for coal companies is a pretty ineffectual method of limiting the retail price that poorer consumers pay for energy. If you want to do the latter, price capping is much more effective. The UK has just introduced price capping.
That would be a Wikipedia article (and a Daily Mail article, which presumably you added in for a laugh, because you must surely recognise that the Mail is not a go-to source for people looking to defend indefensible scientific positions like "drinking too much water is bioaccumulation"). If you look at an actual scientific article, you will see that bioaccumulation is about the *concentration* of the chemical in the body. And even in that Wiki you'll see that -- surprise! -- there are zero mentions of water as a bioaccumulated chemicals and quite a lot of mentions of substances that actually do bioaccumulate. Like mercury.
I say again, seeing as you seem determined to be particularly obtuse on this: there is not a single article in the scientific press about that discusses the bioaccumulation of water in those terms. That Wiki on water intoxication that you linked to does not refer to water being bioaccumulated either. Tell you what, why don't you edit it to use that term and see how long your edit lasts before everyone tells you it's a stupid fucking edit because it's not using the term correctly. Or you can start quoting some scientific articles about bioaccumulating water (ha! as if).
I know a shit load more about water intoxication than you, mate. I helped a friend when they were writing a paper on a patient who suffered hyponatraemia as a result of drinking too much water. It's not bioaccumulation no matter how much you want it to be.
It's time to stop digging that hole -- it's bioaccumulating the watery shite you're spewing and you're drowning it.
Stop whinging. Slashdot has hundreds of users who post views similar to the ones you've expressed here. LynwoodRooster, Luckyo, etc etc. Slashdot has become more right-leaning over time. Christ, the new right is so fucking whiny.
Jesus fucking wept. Bioaccumulation is a scientific term. It doesn't mean "when you get too much of something in your body". It means the intake of a chemical and its concentration in the body.
Water doesn't get more concentrated in the body when you drown or systematically drink too much of it. Mercury does get more concentrated in the body when you are exposed to it. So does Strontium-90. So does Vitamin A in the livers of polar bears. So does DDT.
There has never been a single scientific paper written about the "bioaccumulation of water".
Stop twisting science for politics. It's stupid and venal.
It gets better when you consider he thinks EVs can't manage a typical US commute, which is about 32 miles. A shitty PHEV can manage a typical US commute. A typical EV can manage five days' worth before it needs charging.
Capitalism isn't an independent entity that makes promises of its own accord. If you don't anthropomorphise concepts, your life becomes a lot easier to navigate.
I'm also not aware of any political or economic theorists who would make the claim that capitalism provides a mechanism to meet every individual's every need and desire. It's too obviously impossible. In fact, the concept of market failure is a standard term in talking about capitalism, so no-one even begins to pretend it's some kind of nirvana.
You're attacking a strawman of your own creation. Maybe it gives you some small pleasure to do this, but it's a bit of a pointless exercise. Surely you'd be better of using your prodigious talent to propose some entirely new way of organising the allocation of economic resources that avoids all the problems of all the systems we've tried so far. You're a fan of perfection, after all.
Many, many large scale institution have their own cafeterias, often with partial or total subsidy of food costs. Universities do; many factories do; hospitals do; accountancy firm offices do; etc etc. I don't understand what makes it worse when it's a tech firm doing this.
Slashdot Mirror
I said you had failed to make a clear argument.
I didn't say I failed to understand your argument; despite its lack of clarity, I was able to follow what you were saying. I thought it was a load of cack, but I could follow it.
By all means, conflate these two things in your head if it makes you feel better. Just so long as you're clear they're not conflated in mine.
Did any of that really make sense in your head? It didn't work so well once you tried to communicate it to everyone else. Random things like saying "again" when you weren't repeating a point. And thinking that discussing the meaning of gerrymander is somehow not "respecting the rules as they are" and that it makes sense to try to change the rules but not to complain about the rules. Etc etc. If you can figure out how to express a substantive argument in nice clear sentences, do feel free to come back and set it out.
You're indulging in a stupid moralistic culture war. It may make you feel good about yourself, but it's not an accurate reflection of the world you live in.
It isn't just the same effect as gerrymandering -- it absolutely is gerrymandering. It is gerrymandering in favour of rural populations and against urban populations, rather than geographical gerrymandering, but it is nonetheless a deliberate gaming of the vote.
But there are tons of simple ways of transferring files from an iOS device to a Linux device. FileExplorer Pro, for example.
https://www.skyjos.com/fileexp...
No idea if it works with a USB cable, but mainly because I can't be bothered to do all the checking.
I didn't promise that it was easy or straightforward to transfer files from an iOS device to a Linux laptop! I said it was easy to transfer files via AirDrop. You said "what about Linux". I said "here's a solution for Linux". I didn't promise easy. It really shouldn't be a surprise to you that iOS to MacOS file transfer is easier, more secure etc than iOS to Linux. Nor is it immoral of Apple to have this be the case, as you seem to think.
Do you, in fact, have a Linux laptop to which you wish to transfer files from an iOS device, or is this all completely theoretical?
That sentence doesn't make sense. You're not going to be led by the nose to use AirPlay because you don't have a Mac so it doesn't work for you. But for your Windows and Linux laptops, I've suggested solutions.
A thank you would have been nice. But then, that would have required you to recognise that someone was offering you some help for a problem you professed to have.
You can ask for what you like. What you get is not guaranteed.
AirDrop and Android -- this makes no sense. You were talking about transferring data from an iOS phone to a laptop.
AirDrop and Linux -- no, you use a method like this: http://www.libimobiledevice.or...
AirDrop and Windows -- no, you use one of the methods here https://it.toolbox.com/blogs/a...
AirDrop is designed for secure and private transfer of data between Apple devices. The whole point of the Apple proposition is to be able to offer solutions that take advantage of the tight integration of software and hardware. So they are inherently non-cross-platform. Affecting shock or dismay at this situation is just stupid.
And why you are fussed about transferring data securely and privately if you're just going to move it to an insecure platform that doesn't protect privacy is beyond me.
As a tech person, was it really so difficult for you to search for this stuff?
Erm, no
https://privacyinternational.o...
That's not how iMessage works. If the message is sent from or to an iPhone where iMessage is disabled, it is treated as an SMS.
All this is of course ignoring the fact that iMessage is end-to-end encrypted, and you can turn off iCloud Backup for iMessages.
And SMS's are inherently much less secure than iMessages.
This is wrong on multiple levels. iCloud is a cloud storage service offered by Apple. Obviously, Apple receives the data you put on iCloud, because that is what the service is.
But iCloud encrypts the data at rest and in transit (there's one complicated exception for email). Some data (eg Home, Health, payment, etc) is end-to-end encrypted.
If you bother reading Apple's privacy policy *carefully*, you will see that Apple collects location data "in a form that does not, on its own, permit direct association with any specific individual". It goes on to spell out that "Unless you provide consent, this location data is collected anonymously in a form that does not personally identify you and is used by Apple and our partners and licensees to provide and improve location-based products and services."
Siri isn't discussed in the privacy policy. It's discussed elsewhere, extensively, and it doesn't work the way you think it does. "The longer you use Siri and Dictation, the better they understand you and improve. To help them recognize your pronunciation and provide better responses, certain information such as your name, contacts, music you listen to, and searches is sent to Apple servers using encrypted protocols. Siri and Dictation do not associate this information with your Apple ID, but rather with your device through a random identifier. Apple Watch uses the Siri identifier from your iPhone. You can reset that identifier at any time by turning Siri and Dictation off and back on, effectively restarting your relationship with Siri and Dictation. When you turn Siri and Dictation off, Apple will delete the User Data associated with your Siri identifier, and the learning process will start all over again."
The FBI case was nothing like what you describe. The iPhone in question had iCloud enabled. But the FBI had the corporate owner of the iPhone reset the iCloud password, which meant new data couldn't be backed up to iCloud.
How do you get to be so confidently wrong about everything?!
Direct wifi transfer exists. It's called AirDrop. It's been around since iOS 7!
Despite the huge amounts of nonsense talked about below, there is a spectacularly easy method to copy files to your phone. It's called AirDrop and it uses TLS encryption to directly transfer data, peer-to-peer. The WiFi radios of the two devices communicate directly.
But of course neither you nor anyone else in this thread could be expected to know about this. I mean it's only been around for the last seven years. And it's not llke Slashdot is a tech site.
It's very very sweet, if slightly amazingly stupid, that you think that fossil fuel power plants represent a more distributed form of energy generation than PV.
Who's said anything of the sort? I think people have said that Norway is an excellent example of how a government can use its powers of taxation to change citizen behaviour. Norwegians (and many other Europeans) are by and large pretty comfortable with the notion of regulated markets with taxation used to incentivise particular behaviours, and are pretty uncomfortable with the notion of free markets unfettered by regulation.
Have you really never heard of the concept of not letting the best be the enemy of the good? There is a scale of environmental damage for transport that runs the gamut from walking to Ferraris (and beyond -- this is just an illustrative example, in case you're prone to being literal). EVs are further towards walking than are ICEs.
You should have sourced your figures properly as POOMA.
12 years. Pah.
Subsidising the costs of production for coal companies is a pretty ineffectual method of limiting the retail price that poorer consumers pay for energy. If you want to do the latter, price capping is much more effective. The UK has just introduced price capping.
That would be a Wikipedia article (and a Daily Mail article, which presumably you added in for a laugh, because you must surely recognise that the Mail is not a go-to source for people looking to defend indefensible scientific positions like "drinking too much water is bioaccumulation"). If you look at an actual scientific article, you will see that bioaccumulation is about the *concentration* of the chemical in the body. And even in that Wiki you'll see that -- surprise! -- there are zero mentions of water as a bioaccumulated chemicals and quite a lot of mentions of substances that actually do bioaccumulate. Like mercury.
For example:
https://link.springer.com/refe...
I say again, seeing as you seem determined to be particularly obtuse on this: there is not a single article in the scientific press about that discusses the bioaccumulation of water in those terms. That Wiki on water intoxication that you linked to does not refer to water being bioaccumulated either. Tell you what, why don't you edit it to use that term and see how long your edit lasts before everyone tells you it's a stupid fucking edit because it's not using the term correctly. Or you can start quoting some scientific articles about bioaccumulating water (ha! as if).
I know a shit load more about water intoxication than you, mate. I helped a friend when they were writing a paper on a patient who suffered hyponatraemia as a result of drinking too much water. It's not bioaccumulation no matter how much you want it to be.
It's time to stop digging that hole -- it's bioaccumulating the watery shite you're spewing and you're drowning it.
Stop whinging. Slashdot has hundreds of users who post views similar to the ones you've expressed here. LynwoodRooster, Luckyo, etc etc. Slashdot has become more right-leaning over time. Christ, the new right is so fucking whiny.
Jesus fucking wept. Bioaccumulation is a scientific term. It doesn't mean "when you get too much of something in your body". It means the intake of a chemical and its concentration in the body.
Water doesn't get more concentrated in the body when you drown or systematically drink too much of it. Mercury does get more concentrated in the body when you are exposed to it. So does Strontium-90. So does Vitamin A in the livers of polar bears. So does DDT.
There has never been a single scientific paper written about the "bioaccumulation of water".
Stop twisting science for politics. It's stupid and venal.
It gets better when you consider he thinks EVs can't manage a typical US commute, which is about 32 miles. A shitty PHEV can manage a typical US commute. A typical EV can manage five days' worth before it needs charging.
Capitalism isn't an independent entity that makes promises of its own accord. If you don't anthropomorphise concepts, your life becomes a lot easier to navigate.
I'm also not aware of any political or economic theorists who would make the claim that capitalism provides a mechanism to meet every individual's every need and desire. It's too obviously impossible. In fact, the concept of market failure is a standard term in talking about capitalism, so no-one even begins to pretend it's some kind of nirvana.
You're attacking a strawman of your own creation. Maybe it gives you some small pleasure to do this, but it's a bit of a pointless exercise. Surely you'd be better of using your prodigious talent to propose some entirely new way of organising the allocation of economic resources that avoids all the problems of all the systems we've tried so far. You're a fan of perfection, after all.
Many, many large scale institution have their own cafeterias, often with partial or total subsidy of food costs. Universities do; many factories do; hospitals do; accountancy firm offices do; etc etc. I don't understand what makes it worse when it's a tech firm doing this.