No, my portrayal comes from reality, whereas yours is breathtakingly naive.
Sitting on that money is EXACTLY what the rich do. Why? Because they consider it "keeping score", trying to having a bigger number than their other rich friends and acquaintances. Don't believe me? Google it. It's a direct quote.
I mean, seriously... there is SO much evidence out there that you are wrong that I am in awe that you have the nerve to even make the claim. Panama papers? Trump being sued *repeatedly* for refusing to pay contractors and whhatnot? Hell, the wealthy even have a specific technique of declaring bankruptcy just so they can renege on their debts. They openly laugh about it, calling it "good business practice".
That is by far the stupidest thing I've heard in a very long time.
You honestly think that because shareholders were outraged over the firing of the single most influential figurehead of Disney, that a random janitor at IBM is going to benefit from these tax breaks?
I have some news for you. The world isn't as happy-rosy as you think it is. Those fantastic tax cuts that go to publically traded corporations go nowhere except the top people, and as dividends to the shareholders. I would be shocked if a corporation even gave their employees a one time small bonus for those savings. And anyone who is a contractor will get jack all.
Trickle down economics is the idea that if you give a break to the people at the top, then then will share the benefits of that break to the people under them, and so on.
Reality has demonstrated that this is absolutely NOT what happens. When you give the rich breaks, they keep it all for themselves and fuck everybody underneath.
blah blah blah hypothetical scenarios that didn't actually happen
Apparently you'd rather play victim instead of understanding the difference between calling ideas stupid and calling people stupid. We're talking about an idea of a law being stupid. I could have called the author stupid but did not. He's probably not stupid, just ignorant. And his ignorance means he wrote a stupid law. And that law happens to be the subject of this discussion, not some specific action by Verizon in the past. We're looking at a bigger picture here. Can you keep up?
I dunno, can you stop being a "I must win the argument at all costs even if I have to make stuff up" asshole long enough to actually read your own writing? How exactly am I playing the victim? Actually, you know what, I don't know what you're talking about nor do I care. You're clearly too busy inventing hypothetical scenarios to look at the actual events that led up to why this law was being introduced.
The "big picture" is that he introduced a law *in direct response to something Verizon did*. Okay? Is that really so hard for you to grasp? This law is EXACTLY because of "some specific action by Verizon in the past". I mean, seriously, how the hell did you manage to miss that part?
If Verizon didn't do what they did, this law wouldn't be in play. PERIOD.
There were no bandiwdth issues. Ok? Let me say it again. There were no bandwidth issues This is about Verizon trying to gouge during a crisis and a law maker is rightfully giving them the middle finger, and he is right to do so. Don't like it? Go cry to your corporate welfare friends at Fox News. Or maybe Putin. Whoever your handler is.
It's only stupid if you ignore inconvenient things like 'reality'.
We arn't talking about public events where there is a ridiculous number of people concentrated in a tiny area that would completely overload a tower. We're talking about wide-scale disasters like forest fires where the current population is running for their lives.
Why would Verizon need to talk to me directly? If they were actually having bandwidth issues, don't you think they would have gone to the news with that for their defense? I haven't seen one single article where Verizon said, "Yeah, unfortunately we had to limit bandwidth because we lost our towers and the remaining ones became saturated." But this isn't even relevant, as is your "point".
Finally, and this is the single most important point that you seem to be going out of your way to ignore, is that Verizon tried to charge them more money for the privilege of not getting throttled. So the issue was *never* a technical one, and *everything* about Verizon trying to gouge a public service organization during a time of crisis.
So maybe you should spend less time accusing other people of being stupid and a little more time actually trying to understand the actual situation, hmm?
If an application is forcibly preinstalled, it shouldn't count towards the Play Store's install count. It's completely disingenuous, and implies far greater interest than there actually is.
That's a moronic argument and you damn well know it.
"Lets compare an effectively unlimited resource with extremely limited resources! Yeah, that totally makes sense!"
It is truly depressing that we're on slashdot, yet apparently not a single person commenting on this story understands that INTERNET IS AN UNLIMITED RESOURCE. The only restriction is the total bandwidth available at a given time, and at no point has Verizon complained that this is an issue.
So a few people immediately jump on, "What is everyone is watching youtube?" Yeah, because if I'm in the middle of a raging fucking forest fire,my first thought will be "Holy shit! I can burn through my monthly data in 5 minutes! Lets get crazy!"
Seriously people. What is WRONG with you? The level of conservative idiocy in the comments on this story is beyond the pale. "No! We must protect Verizon! We must support corporate welfare even if it endangers lives!"
Conservatives are so callous it makes me sick. Did you people have "Ha! Fuck people!" parties each time a pharmacutical raises the price of a drug by 3000% too?
"Leaving the network operation to the people who know how to do it" is what led to the current situation. Verizon throttled them *because they could*, completely irrespective of the actual situation and putting lives in danger.
Maybe your libertarian ideals mean it's acceptable to murder people for the sake of a quick buck, but thankfully not everyone thinks like that.
It would be really nice if Republicans would worry less about democrats and more about doing their bloody jobs. They literally worry more about sticking it to the Democrats than actually helping their constituents.
Oh no! Foxconn might bail! It MUST be the Democrats! It couldn't POSSIBLY be that Foxconn is dicking them around hoping to get a sweeter deal.
I'm mostly bothered that this idiot AC actually got a +1 moderation instead of the -1 he deserves.
Do you see everyone jumping from Windows en masse? No, you don't. Office? Nope. Having captured the majority of the market means something. Inertia means something.
People arn't going to drop Chrome and switch to a browser they never heard of just on your say so. We're already starting to see the IE6 effect all over again with Chrome.
Google has a serious issue with service stability. They create and drop services like a toddler with their coat. So it makes me wonder why anyone would trust anything made by Google at this point.
And it's not just services. Literally anything Google produces is at risk of being dropped or significantly refactored to the point of breaking existing stuff. Just look at AngularJS. They didn't like it and completely rewrote it, completely breaking all existing code.
At this point I try to avoid anything by Google where I can. If I do use something, it's not a core component that I can't live without.
Count me as one of them. IMO 2010 seems to have been the turning point. That's when they started using non-replaceable batteries. post-2015 was when they shit the bed entirely, with their idiotic all-TB3 models with the single shittiest keyboards I have ever seen (I'd take their old G3 keyboards over what they have now)
I'm still using an old 2011 MBP at home for basic stuff, and a MBP 2015 at work. My primary 'heavy hitter' machine is now a thin gaming laptop that dual boots between windows 10 and linux. Win10 for games (cause Win10 isn't trustworthy enough for anything else) and Linux for everything else.
If there was a decent office suite for Linux then I'd be able to move away from Windows and Mac entire. Unfortunately there isn't. Everything has some fundamental inadequacy. LibreOffice Impress still can't do OpenGL effects properly, making every presentation look like crap. SoftMaker is nice and fast but TextMaker has serious issues with handling Word formatting. Etc etc.
It amazes me the lengths that Trump apologists will go to vindicate their lord and saviour.
Trump has been full of shit on this wall since before he was even elected. First he said Mexico would pay for it. Then he said he would use tariffs to pressure Mexico to pay for the wall (showing that he doesn't understand how tariffs work...). Trump can't even properly justify why he needs almost $6bil to build this wall!
He had two years with house republicans to get that wall. But now that the Democrats have the house, NOW it's suddenly THEIR fault? Did the Democrats shut down the government? No, Trump did. Period. End of Story. The Democrats are not holding 800k lives in the balance. Trump is. Period. End of Story. Trump is basically acting like a terrorist, and the democrats are doing exactly what they should be doing and refusing to negotiate under duress.
But no, lets blame the Democrats because... because... if you don't blame the democrats then it's Trumps fault and you don't like that!
And if Trump does declare a national emergency? Part of me hopes that he won't be that breathtakingly stupid, but another part of me hopes he does, as it will cross the line and prove to the entire country what kind of a megalomaniac he is.
Wordpress is a sloppily designed CMS written in the sloppily designed language PHP.
The entire architecture is so laughably bad that it's no surprise at all that they have to deal with security issues on an almost weekly basis. Wordpress is designed to be easy to get up and running. That's why it's popular. Security, maintenance and data workflow are all afterthoughts that need to be shoehorned in.
This situation is completely unavoidable. There is no facility in the language for supporting something as sophisticated as sandboxing. Furthermore, WPML is a deeply embedded plugin that is effectively one layer directly above the actual content. Even if sandboxing were possible, WPML would be very difficult to sandbox because of how deeply it sticks its fingers.
Or, you know, employers could treat their employees well and build loyalty. Crazy, I know.
Why are you assuming they didn't? Some people are just assholes. If someone is willing to pull a stunt like this, I'm inclined to believe that they weren't a particularly good admin to begin with.
This perfectly fits the saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."
Project Treble was a long time coming, and could be argued that Google should have baked this into Android since v1.
That being said, it's here now and one would think that it should make a huge difference, but all this is really doing is putting a spotlight onto how little manufacturers care about support after their product has been purchased.
What frustrates me the most is that Google has so much sway over the ecosystem via their certification processes, etc. Why has Google not put a stipulation in their certification process that says, "To be able to access Google services, you commit to updating your devices for x time."
Apps are a more complex subject, and I know the last time this issue came up in an interview or call or whatever, Cook took a mulligan and said that Apple cannot control what third parties do with data that their apps collect.
Apart from selective permission control (which Android finally now also has), I have no idea what special measures (if any) Apple is taking to prevent apps from collecting info they have no right to, such as EMEI data, etc.
Do you speak for the people who, for example, have endangered aircraft with their drones? If your drone risks my safety, then I damn well *do* have a say in it. You don't want me to have a say? Get your drone out of my face.
We already do this with cars. If you have a license, that means you accept responsibility of whatever happens when you are behind the wheel. If you are not willing to take on that responsibility, then you're not allowed to drive a car. Very simple.
Why should drones be any different? If you are not willing to take responsibility then there are two ways to go about it: *force* you to take responsibility, or deny you the privilege of owning a drone.
Your freedom to throw a punch ends at my nose, so to speak.
It will be entertaining to see how quickly this new company goes under.
They seem to be under the same delusion that TV manufacturers had with 4K, in that they think just having the technology is enough to have a successful product.
Technology for technology's sake is not good enough. There has to be a great enough value proposition to make the product worth buying. And I can't think of anything that would be valuable enough for me to justify spending $1500USD on a phone, regardless of how fancy the display is.
Slashdot Mirror
No, my portrayal comes from reality, whereas yours is breathtakingly naive.
Sitting on that money is EXACTLY what the rich do. Why? Because they consider it "keeping score", trying to having a bigger number than their other rich friends and acquaintances. Don't believe me? Google it. It's a direct quote.
I mean, seriously... there is SO much evidence out there that you are wrong that I am in awe that you have the nerve to even make the claim. Panama papers? Trump being sued *repeatedly* for refusing to pay contractors and whhatnot? Hell, the wealthy even have a specific technique of declaring bankruptcy just so they can renege on their debts. They openly laugh about it, calling it "good business practice".
That is by far the stupidest thing I've heard in a very long time.
You honestly think that because shareholders were outraged over the firing of the single most influential figurehead of Disney, that a random janitor at IBM is going to benefit from these tax breaks?
I have some news for you. The world isn't as happy-rosy as you think it is. Those fantastic tax cuts that go to publically traded corporations go nowhere except the top people, and as dividends to the shareholders. I would be shocked if a corporation even gave their employees a one time small bonus for those savings. And anyone who is a contractor will get jack all.
Trickle down economics is the idea that if you give a break to the people at the top, then then will share the benefits of that break to the people under them, and so on.
Reality has demonstrated that this is absolutely NOT what happens. When you give the rich breaks, they keep it all for themselves and fuck everybody underneath.
blah blah blah hypothetical scenarios that didn't actually happen
Apparently you'd rather play victim instead of understanding the difference between calling ideas stupid and calling people stupid. We're talking about an idea of a law being stupid. I could have called the author stupid but did not. He's probably not stupid, just ignorant. And his ignorance means he wrote a stupid law. And that law happens to be the subject of this discussion, not some specific action by Verizon in the past. We're looking at a bigger picture here. Can you keep up?
I dunno, can you stop being a "I must win the argument at all costs even if I have to make stuff up" asshole long enough to actually read your own writing? How exactly am I playing the victim? Actually, you know what, I don't know what you're talking about nor do I care. You're clearly too busy inventing hypothetical scenarios to look at the actual events that led up to why this law was being introduced.
The "big picture" is that he introduced a law *in direct response to something Verizon did*. Okay? Is that really so hard for you to grasp? This law is EXACTLY because of "some specific action by Verizon in the past". I mean, seriously, how the hell did you manage to miss that part?
If Verizon didn't do what they did, this law wouldn't be in play. PERIOD.
There were no bandiwdth issues. Ok? Let me say it again. There were no bandwidth issues This is about Verizon trying to gouge during a crisis and a law maker is rightfully giving them the middle finger, and he is right to do so. Don't like it? Go cry to your corporate welfare friends at Fox News. Or maybe Putin. Whoever your handler is.
It's only stupid if you ignore inconvenient things like 'reality'.
We arn't talking about public events where there is a ridiculous number of people concentrated in a tiny area that would completely overload a tower. We're talking about wide-scale disasters like forest fires where the current population is running for their lives.
Why would Verizon need to talk to me directly? If they were actually having bandwidth issues, don't you think they would have gone to the news with that for their defense? I haven't seen one single article where Verizon said, "Yeah, unfortunately we had to limit bandwidth because we lost our towers and the remaining ones became saturated." But this isn't even relevant, as is your "point".
Finally, and this is the single most important point that you seem to be going out of your way to ignore, is that Verizon tried to charge them more money for the privilege of not getting throttled. So the issue was *never* a technical one, and *everything* about Verizon trying to gouge a public service organization during a time of crisis.
Here's even a link for you if you can't be bothered to look yourself: https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
So maybe you should spend less time accusing other people of being stupid and a little more time actually trying to understand the actual situation, hmm?
If an application is forcibly preinstalled, it shouldn't count towards the Play Store's install count. It's completely disingenuous, and implies far greater interest than there actually is.
Yeah yeah I know. Apparently I'm new here.
That's a moronic argument and you damn well know it.
"Lets compare an effectively unlimited resource with extremely limited resources! Yeah, that totally makes sense!"
It is truly depressing that we're on slashdot, yet apparently not a single person commenting on this story understands that INTERNET IS AN UNLIMITED RESOURCE. The only restriction is the total bandwidth available at a given time, and at no point has Verizon complained that this is an issue.
So a few people immediately jump on, "What is everyone is watching youtube?" Yeah, because if I'm in the middle of a raging fucking forest fire,my first thought will be "Holy shit! I can burn through my monthly data in 5 minutes! Lets get crazy!"
Seriously people. What is WRONG with you? The level of conservative idiocy in the comments on this story is beyond the pale. "No! We must protect Verizon! We must support corporate welfare even if it endangers lives!"
Conservatives are so callous it makes me sick. Did you people have "Ha! Fuck people!" parties each time a pharmacutical raises the price of a drug by 3000% too?
"Leaving the network operation to the people who know how to do it" is what led to the current situation. Verizon throttled them *because they could*, completely irrespective of the actual situation and putting lives in danger.
Maybe your libertarian ideals mean it's acceptable to murder people for the sake of a quick buck, but thankfully not everyone thinks like that.
I don't understand how they are getting away with this. This is outright lying.
It would be really nice if Republicans would worry less about democrats and more about doing their bloody jobs. They literally worry more about sticking it to the Democrats than actually helping their constituents.
Oh no! Foxconn might bail! It MUST be the Democrats! It couldn't POSSIBLY be that Foxconn is dicking them around hoping to get a sweeter deal.
Aww,is poor Microsofty-watsy all butt hurt cause they had to give up on their own browser?
Just cause you guys are incompetent doesn't mean everyone else has to be too, and *somebody* has to challenge IE6 2.0.
Now if only this applies to phones in North America as well...
I'm mostly bothered that this idiot AC actually got a +1 moderation instead of the -1 he deserves.
Do you see everyone jumping from Windows en masse? No, you don't. Office? Nope. Having captured the majority of the market means something. Inertia means something.
People arn't going to drop Chrome and switch to a browser they never heard of just on your say so. We're already starting to see the IE6 effect all over again with Chrome.
I wish I could +1 in threats that I've commented in.
Much like your comment.
Google has a serious issue with service stability. They create and drop services like a toddler with their coat. So it makes me wonder why anyone would trust anything made by Google at this point.
And it's not just services. Literally anything Google produces is at risk of being dropped or significantly refactored to the point of breaking existing stuff. Just look at AngularJS. They didn't like it and completely rewrote it, completely breaking all existing code.
At this point I try to avoid anything by Google where I can. If I do use something, it's not a core component that I can't live without.
Count me as one of them. IMO 2010 seems to have been the turning point. That's when they started using non-replaceable batteries. post-2015 was when they shit the bed entirely, with their idiotic all-TB3 models with the single shittiest keyboards I have ever seen (I'd take their old G3 keyboards over what they have now)
I'm still using an old 2011 MBP at home for basic stuff, and a MBP 2015 at work. My primary 'heavy hitter' machine is now a thin gaming laptop that dual boots between windows 10 and linux. Win10 for games (cause Win10 isn't trustworthy enough for anything else) and Linux for everything else.
If there was a decent office suite for Linux then I'd be able to move away from Windows and Mac entire. Unfortunately there isn't. Everything has some fundamental inadequacy. LibreOffice Impress still can't do OpenGL effects properly, making every presentation look like crap. SoftMaker is nice and fast but TextMaker has serious issues with handling Word formatting. Etc etc.
I think this is a great idea. If Facebook controlling trunk networking isn't enough to encourage everyone to encrypt their transmissions, nothing is!
It amazes me the lengths that Trump apologists will go to vindicate their lord and saviour.
Trump has been full of shit on this wall since before he was even elected. First he said Mexico would pay for it. Then he said he would use tariffs to pressure Mexico to pay for the wall (showing that he doesn't understand how tariffs work...). Trump can't even properly justify why he needs almost $6bil to build this wall!
He had two years with house republicans to get that wall. But now that the Democrats have the house, NOW it's suddenly THEIR fault? Did the Democrats shut down the government? No, Trump did. Period. End of Story. The Democrats are not holding 800k lives in the balance. Trump is. Period. End of Story. Trump is basically acting like a terrorist, and the democrats are doing exactly what they should be doing and refusing to negotiate under duress.
But no, lets blame the Democrats because... because... if you don't blame the democrats then it's Trumps fault and you don't like that!
And if Trump does declare a national emergency? Part of me hopes that he won't be that breathtakingly stupid, but another part of me hopes he does, as it will cross the line and prove to the entire country what kind of a megalomaniac he is.
Wordpress is a sloppily designed CMS written in the sloppily designed language PHP.
The entire architecture is so laughably bad that it's no surprise at all that they have to deal with security issues on an almost weekly basis. Wordpress is designed to be easy to get up and running. That's why it's popular. Security, maintenance and data workflow are all afterthoughts that need to be shoehorned in.
This situation is completely unavoidable. There is no facility in the language for supporting something as sophisticated as sandboxing. Furthermore, WPML is a deeply embedded plugin that is effectively one layer directly above the actual content. Even if sandboxing were possible, WPML would be very difficult to sandbox because of how deeply it sticks its fingers.
Or, you know, employers could treat their employees well and build loyalty. Crazy, I know.
Why are you assuming they didn't? Some people are just assholes. If someone is willing to pull a stunt like this, I'm inclined to believe that they weren't a particularly good admin to begin with.
This perfectly fits the saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."
Project Treble was a long time coming, and could be argued that Google should have baked this into Android since v1.
That being said, it's here now and one would think that it should make a huge difference, but all this is really doing is putting a spotlight onto how little manufacturers care about support after their product has been purchased.
What frustrates me the most is that Google has so much sway over the ecosystem via their certification processes, etc. Why has Google not put a stipulation in their certification process that says, "To be able to access Google services, you commit to updating your devices for x time."
Why do they not do this?
Apps are a more complex subject, and I know the last time this issue came up in an interview or call or whatever, Cook took a mulligan and said that Apple cannot control what third parties do with data that their apps collect.
Apart from selective permission control (which Android finally now also has), I have no idea what special measures (if any) Apple is taking to prevent apps from collecting info they have no right to, such as EMEI data, etc.
Ilsa
Do you speak for the people who, for example, have endangered aircraft with their drones? If your drone risks my safety, then I damn well *do* have a say in it. You don't want me to have a say? Get your drone out of my face.
We already do this with cars. If you have a license, that means you accept responsibility of whatever happens when you are behind the wheel. If you are not willing to take on that responsibility, then you're not allowed to drive a car. Very simple.
Why should drones be any different? If you are not willing to take responsibility then there are two ways to go about it: *force* you to take responsibility, or deny you the privilege of owning a drone.
Your freedom to throw a punch ends at my nose, so to speak.
It will be entertaining to see how quickly this new company goes under.
They seem to be under the same delusion that TV manufacturers had with 4K, in that they think just having the technology is enough to have a successful product.
Technology for technology's sake is not good enough. There has to be a great enough value proposition to make the product worth buying. And I can't think of anything that would be valuable enough for me to justify spending $1500USD on a phone, regardless of how fancy the display is.