I'm guessing the percentage is extremely small. I have no evidence, but anecdotally, I've known a large number of high IQ people over the decades, and have yet to meet an actual a Mensa member in person (at least none that were willing to volunteer that information).
Is it better to require most computer users to purchase, maintain, and carry multiple brands of computer in order to run exclusive applications
I don't understand this question. Why would users be required to own multiple platforms? If someone actually needs to use an application that is exclusive to a platform, they should own that one.
Because both of those are ported to Windows, what makes them any more "native" on X11/Linux than on Windows?
By "native", I mean compiled for the platform it's being run on, rather than interpreted or pseudo-interpreted, such as with Javascript, etc.
Looking to religion for scientific statements is as silly as looking to science for a moral code, and certainly isn't the reason religions persisted for millennia.
Yes, this.
Or, as I like to put it... science is trying to answer the questions of "what" and "how", religion is trying to answer the question of "why".
Science properly has no comment about things that cannot be tested. Therefore, a statement like "there's a possible correlation between science and religion" is not a scientific statement, it's a philosophical one.
Science says "there was a point in time when nothing existed, and then everything existed."
To be pedantic about it, "science" doesn't say there was a time when nothing existed. "Science" says we don't know what was going on prior to the big bang.
They didn't specify the specs of the device that runs multiple days on a charge, so the statement is utterly meaningless. I have numerous computing devices that can go days -- even weeks between charges. But none of them are phones, tablets, or laptops.
You don't even need to have an account with a cell phone service provider for 911 access. You just need a basic cell phone that can turn on and talk with a tower. 911 will work whether or not there's an account associated with the phone.
It is possible to minimize or spoof a lot of it, but I don't know of any browsers that let you disable it. Even the various "privacy modes" don't stop it. That's why browser fingerprinting can be so effective for advertisers to ID you in the absence of cookies.
I can see how you might come by this preference not to outsource services
The main reason I avoid it is to guarantee continuity of services. Companies and services occasionally end, and I don't want such an event to disrupt my activities or software.
I tend avoid apps that are implemented in cross-platform frameworks for simple quality reasons. Native apps tend to be of higher quality (depending on the engineer who wrote them, of course). Cross-platform frameworks tend to be "least common denominator" kinds of things.
Who handles your website, your mail, your chat logs, and your offsite backup, including keeping the data synchronized across your PC and your phone?
I do, although I also have a few websites that I host with third parties (the ones intended for public use). Those are noncritical, though.
For nontechnical people, or people who don't mind the tradeoffs involved, I think online services are fine. Although I can imagine native applications that could handle most of the work. For my own stuff (offsite backups, synchronization, etc.), I have most of it automated anyway, so it doesn't require a great deal of attention from me. I imagine it would be possible to create an application that does that (it may exist, for all I know -- I've never looked).
My response was that you aren't giving them blanket permission. If I go to a site and allow Javascript to run, I am not giving them blanket permission to do anything they want with the Javascript. The implicit permission is that they can do what is necessary to make the site work.
I'm talking about permission in the human sense, not the technical sense. Last I checked, there's no way for you to tell a browser "allow the site to do this thing, but not anything else".
If a service can be accessed through a progressive web app, a macOS app, or an iOS app, which would you choose?
I wouldn't choose any of them.
Users of subscription web applications pay not only for the application but also for the storage of their backed-up or shared documents
I understand that, but you were asking about me, personally, not users of subscription services. One of the reasons that I avoid subscription services is because I don't want to store my data on third-party servers if at all avoidable.
Would you prefer to access a service through a progressive web app without charge, a native application licensed for life for $49.90 with ads, or a native application licensed for life for $99.90 with no ads?
Again, assuming the app is one that is worthwhile to me, I'd go with the $100 option. If it's not worth $100 to me, then I won't use the app.
I do not have nor is it even remotely likely I'll ever have a smartphone.
I do have one, and I really enjoy having it. It's extraordinarily convenient.
But it's far from a necessity. I agree with you, people should be honest with themselves about this: it's a very handy tool, but people have them because they want them, not because they need them.
and you have a recipe for never having your privacy, and never having anything on your smartphone secure against intrusion.
This is actually an easy problem to solve. There are a wide variety of stylish phone cases that double as faraday cages. If your phone is in one of these, it can't talk to anything. Or, you could go cheap and wrap the thing in aluminum foil.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing the percentage is extremely small. I have no evidence, but anecdotally, I've known a large number of high IQ people over the decades, and have yet to meet an actual a Mensa member in person (at least none that were willing to volunteer that information).
From TFS:
A team of U.S. researchers surveyed 3,715 members of American Mensa with an IQ higher than 130.
So how do we know that this isn't just a case that mentally ill people are more interested in joining Mensa?
Until virtually all sites require it.
I don't think that will happen, but if it does, all it means is that I'll stop going to websites. The web is incredibly convenient, but not mandatory.
Except that it's not, as evidence by the fact that I mostly keep it disabled when I'm browsing.
So no, the loss of service workers is not an acceptable loss.
It is to me, which is all I was commenting on.
Is it better to require most computer users to purchase, maintain, and carry multiple brands of computer in order to run exclusive applications
I don't understand this question. Why would users be required to own multiple platforms? If someone actually needs to use an application that is exclusive to a platform, they should own that one.
Because both of those are ported to Windows, what makes them any more "native" on X11/Linux than on Windows?
By "native", I mean compiled for the platform it's being run on, rather than interpreted or pseudo-interpreted, such as with Javascript, etc.
I absolutely agree, and readily condemn Mozilla for its weakness on this issue. But they're a minor devil in this play.
Looking to religion for scientific statements is as silly as looking to science for a moral code, and certainly isn't the reason religions persisted for millennia.
Yes, this.
Or, as I like to put it... science is trying to answer the questions of "what" and "how", religion is trying to answer the question of "why".
Science properly has no comment about things that cannot be tested. Therefore, a statement like "there's a possible correlation between science and religion" is not a scientific statement, it's a philosophical one.
Science says "there was a point in time when nothing existed, and then everything existed."
To be pedantic about it, "science" doesn't say there was a time when nothing existed. "Science" says we don't know what was going on prior to the big bang.
One of the things I've learned working in retail; it's better to bullshit than admit ignorance.
Really?
I know that when I'm being bullshitted by people in retail, I simply won't be coming back. If they admit ignorance instead of making stuff up, I will.
But perhaps retail workers like the idea of reducing the number of customers (and thus their workload).
Sortof, but that doesn't actually refute the AC's assertion.
This is about knowledge and consent.
The issue isn't bitcoin mining as such. The issue is doing it without the knowledge and consent of the user.
A while back, I played with a Flash player someone wrote in Javascript. That used quite a bit of CPU time.
Which would still waste a bit of the server's resources.
They didn't specify the specs of the device that runs multiple days on a charge, so the statement is utterly meaningless. I have numerous computing devices that can go days -- even weeks between charges. But none of them are phones, tablets, or laptops.
Yes, but at least they didn't do what Google, Microsoft, and Netflix did: actively push the EME into the standard.
If it weren't for those three companies, EME would not have happened.
Also you don't need a smartphone to call 911
You don't even need to have an account with a cell phone service provider for 911 access. You just need a basic cell phone that can turn on and talk with a tower. 911 will work whether or not there's an account associated with the phone.
I don't. :)
I also don't use Office, so that's not a concern for me.
Well, since the EME is just a plugin architecture, it should always be possible to find the plugin and delete it. I hope.
It is possible to minimize or spoof a lot of it, but I don't know of any browsers that let you disable it. Even the various "privacy modes" don't stop it. That's why browser fingerprinting can be so effective for advertisers to ID you in the absence of cookies.
I can see how you might come by this preference not to outsource services
The main reason I avoid it is to guarantee continuity of services. Companies and services occasionally end, and I don't want such an event to disrupt my activities or software.
I tend avoid apps that are implemented in cross-platform frameworks for simple quality reasons. Native apps tend to be of higher quality (depending on the engineer who wrote them, of course). Cross-platform frameworks tend to be "least common denominator" kinds of things.
Who handles your website, your mail, your chat logs, and your offsite backup, including keeping the data synchronized across your PC and your phone?
I do, although I also have a few websites that I host with third parties (the ones intended for public use). Those are noncritical, though.
For nontechnical people, or people who don't mind the tradeoffs involved, I think online services are fine. Although I can imagine native applications that could handle most of the work. For my own stuff (offsite backups, synchronization, etc.), I have most of it automated anyway, so it doesn't require a great deal of attention from me. I imagine it would be possible to create an application that does that (it may exist, for all I know -- I've never looked).
My response was that you aren't giving them blanket permission. If I go to a site and allow Javascript to run, I am not giving them blanket permission to do anything they want with the Javascript. The implicit permission is that they can do what is necessary to make the site work.
I'm talking about permission in the human sense, not the technical sense. Last I checked, there's no way for you to tell a browser "allow the site to do this thing, but not anything else".
If a service can be accessed through a progressive web app, a macOS app, or an iOS app, which would you choose?
I wouldn't choose any of them.
Users of subscription web applications pay not only for the application but also for the storage of their backed-up or shared documents
I understand that, but you were asking about me, personally, not users of subscription services. One of the reasons that I avoid subscription services is because I don't want to store my data on third-party servers if at all avoidable.
Would you prefer to access a service through a progressive web app without charge, a native application licensed for life for $49.90 with ads, or a native application licensed for life for $99.90 with no ads?
Again, assuming the app is one that is worthwhile to me, I'd go with the $100 option. If it's not worth $100 to me, then I won't use the app.
I do not have nor is it even remotely likely I'll ever have a smartphone.
I do have one, and I really enjoy having it. It's extraordinarily convenient.
But it's far from a necessity. I agree with you, people should be honest with themselves about this: it's a very handy tool, but people have them because they want them, not because they need them.
and you have a recipe for never having your privacy, and never having anything on your smartphone secure against intrusion.
This is actually an easy problem to solve. There are a wide variety of stylish phone cases that double as faraday cages. If your phone is in one of these, it can't talk to anything. Or, you could go cheap and wrap the thing in aluminum foil.