Not like a cancer, because cancer isn't contagious. GPL is more like a virus -- consciously and intentionally so. That's one of it's primary benefits, imo.
Microsoft *thought* the desktop should lean toward touch. They seem to have revised their opinion on that.
Or so they claim. I haven't seen much real evidence of that, though. Win 8.1.1 threw a couple of small bones in that direction, but those changes were pretty weak sauce. Perhaps Win 9 will show something more substantial.
there are legions of old infected machines that are a nuisance to everyone, making botnets and spamnets and other malware infection injectors.
Yes, and there are also legions of new infected machines doing the same thing. Yet I don't see the same kind of anger about people using those operating systems.
Why are people getting so worked up over the fact that lots of people are deciding not stick with XP? Everyone has heard about the issue by now, and in the end it's their choice to make. It affects nobody else. So why do people care at all?
While I understand the social frustrations -- they aren't unique to SF and where I live there are very similar issues around gentrification -- the reactions I've been hearing about in that area are rapidly reaching the "crazy" level. Sounds like it's time to avoid San Francisco.
I'm guessing joke, too. However, given all the nonsense we're seeing in the beta, this seems entirely plausible as a serious thing. Poe's law may be at work here.
I sort like this frequently (I use a real mailreader, not gmail). My use case is that I find it useful to bunch together all of the emails from a certain person or with a certain subject, in chronological order. It often makes it much easier to find the exact email I'm looking for.
I know that I just said that my use case is that I find it useful. But, really, that's plenty enough justification.
(most mailreaders couldn't handle conversation threading then, and tagging is much more useful than folders)
Literally every mailreader I've used in the many years before gmail existed did conversation threading just as gmail does. What they didn't tend to do is enable it by default, which is just as reasonable as enabling it by default (some people don't like mail threading, so either way you go with the default you're going to force some people to change a setting.)
Tagging was not a common feature, but it wasn't totally unheard of. Neither of those things are exampels of gmail being innovative.
You and I have very different ideas of what constitutes "a pretty good deal". At full price, an iPhone 5 runs from $400 to $600 depending on features and where you buy it from. If we assume you paid $600, the $120 insurance on it constitutes 20% of that. I call that expensive.
How about this: on principle, the phone belongs to me. If I don't want a third party to have that level of control over my phone, then they shouldn't have that level of control over my phone. Period.
Are you sure that behind the scenes there is much of a difference between a FB login and an Instagram login anymore? Are you sure that the data collection doesn't all end up in the same database?
I know that you're making a point about Google, but my objection to the FB deal is not that OR sold out to a large corporation. It's that they sold out to Facebook specifically.
Facebook is not a trustworthy company. Oculus being owned by Facebook means that, as far as I'm concerned, Oculus Rift no longer exists at all. It may end up being a commercial success, but that doesn't make the situation any better for me, personally. It still doesn't get VR in my own hands.
Look at Neuromancer, Snow Crash, and Surrogates, now mix Occulus Rift with Playstation Home and you have those worlds. Those realities aren't too far off.
Well, being as good as in those stories is a ways off, but I agree with the gist of your comment. However, I disagree that Oculus Rift itself will be part of the mix. That's a Facebook thing, now, so the most talented developers are far more likely to use a different platform that isn't tied to the like of Facebook.
Or, so I hope. I really want such a thing to happen, but if I have to be a part of the Facebook ecosystem for it, then it's as good as nonexistent to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Not like a cancer, because cancer isn't contagious. GPL is more like a virus -- consciously and intentionally so. That's one of it's primary benefits, imo.
Linux is no panacea. It is, however, a completely reasonable alternative for those who don't like Windows.
Microsoft *thought* the desktop should lean toward touch. They seem to have revised their opinion on that.
Or so they claim. I haven't seen much real evidence of that, though. Win 8.1.1 threw a couple of small bones in that direction, but those changes were pretty weak sauce. Perhaps Win 9 will show something more substantial.
Yes, I'm familiar with the statistics.
there are legions of old infected machines that are a nuisance to everyone, making botnets and spamnets and other malware infection injectors.
Yes, and there are also legions of new infected machines doing the same thing. Yet I don't see the same kind of anger about people using those operating systems.
I said "not to stick with XP", but I meant "stick with XP". Sorry.
Why are people getting so worked up over the fact that lots of people are deciding not stick with XP? Everyone has heard about the issue by now, and in the end it's their choice to make. It affects nobody else. So why do people care at all?
While I understand the social frustrations -- they aren't unique to SF and where I live there are very similar issues around gentrification -- the reactions I've been hearing about in that area are rapidly reaching the "crazy" level. Sounds like it's time to avoid San Francisco.
This is true. I've never broken a phone. But if I were prone to do so, I still wouldn't buy the insurance. I'd buy a cheaper phone.
Offline mailreaders are not the same as webmail services.
True. I suppose that I just don't see that as a meaningful distinction.
I'm guessing joke, too. However, given all the nonsense we're seeing in the beta, this seems entirely plausible as a serious thing. Poe's law may be at work here.
I think it's an April Fool's joke. I hope. Dear god, please let it be an April Fool's joke.
I sort like this frequently (I use a real mailreader, not gmail). My use case is that I find it useful to bunch together all of the emails from a certain person or with a certain subject, in chronological order. It often makes it much easier to find the exact email I'm looking for.
I know that I just said that my use case is that I find it useful. But, really, that's plenty enough justification.
(most mailreaders couldn't handle conversation threading then, and tagging is much more useful than folders)
Literally every mailreader I've used in the many years before gmail existed did conversation threading just as gmail does. What they didn't tend to do is enable it by default, which is just as reasonable as enabling it by default (some people don't like mail threading, so either way you go with the default you're going to force some people to change a setting.)
Tagging was not a common feature, but it wasn't totally unheard of. Neither of those things are exampels of gmail being innovative.
The negativity isn't about the kill switch as such. It's about having someone other than the phones owner having access to the kill switch.
You and I have very different ideas of what constitutes "a pretty good deal". At full price, an iPhone 5 runs from $400 to $600 depending on features and where you buy it from. If we assume you paid $600, the $120 insurance on it constitutes 20% of that. I call that expensive.
But the idiots who don't remotely wipe their phone increase the insurance costs to everyone, leading us back to the costs.
Only if those people bought the insurance -- something that I'm still amazed anyone does. That's like buying an extended warranty, for eris' sake.
How about this: on principle, the phone belongs to me. If I don't want a third party to have that level of control over my phone, then they shouldn't have that level of control over my phone. Period.
People actually BUY that insurance???
Are you sure that behind the scenes there is much of a difference between a FB login and an Instagram login anymore? Are you sure that the data collection doesn't all end up in the same database?
The head of Oculus said explicitly (on Reddit) that you would not have to have a Facebook account to use the Oculus,
Yes, he did. But that he's foolish enough to believe Facebook doesn't mean anything at all.
Besides, my personal objection isn't about the risk of having to use a Facebook login. It's the risk of having Facebook datamine OR use.
My smartphone has no connection to Facebook.
I know that you're making a point about Google, but my objection to the FB deal is not that OR sold out to a large corporation. It's that they sold out to Facebook specifically.
Android phones have Google lock-in,
This is simply untrue as a blanket statement. My Android phone does not use Google services and does not report anything at all to Google.
Facebook is not a trustworthy company. Oculus being owned by Facebook means that, as far as I'm concerned, Oculus Rift no longer exists at all. It may end up being a commercial success, but that doesn't make the situation any better for me, personally. It still doesn't get VR in my own hands.
Look at Neuromancer, Snow Crash, and Surrogates, now mix Occulus Rift with Playstation Home and you have those worlds. Those realities aren't too far off.
Well, being as good as in those stories is a ways off, but I agree with the gist of your comment. However, I disagree that Oculus Rift itself will be part of the mix. That's a Facebook thing, now, so the most talented developers are far more likely to use a different platform that isn't tied to the like of Facebook.
Or, so I hope. I really want such a thing to happen, but if I have to be a part of the Facebook ecosystem for it, then it's as good as nonexistent to me.