The problem is that we're picking sides between two states that each engage in racism, murder, breaking of international laws and treaties, and other assorted evil. To single out one over is stupid and unconscionable.
Agreed. There is absolutely a market for high-end smartphones that aren't iPhones. There are a not-insignificant number of people who won't buy an iPhone because it's an Apple product, but who want a great smartphone nonetheless. Samsung makes great smartphones.
I don't remember that, and I can't find it online. Citation? What I do remember from that campaign is that Smith ran a very dirty campaign and Wyden's grew increasingly mud-slinging in response. So what you say could be essentially true, although I suspect a bit exaggerated.
Dirty campaigns aside, Wyden's performance in office has been, overall, pretty fantastic. There aren't many politicians nowadays who represent actual human beings, and he's one of them.
They don't have my legal name. They do have the name that I usually go by online, though. It's the name that I've been using online from before the internet was open to the public, and at this point it's no less my "real" name than my legal name is. I don't use Google+, however, were I to, doing so under my legal name would make it essentially impossible for my online friends to find me. Few of them know my legal name and even those that do would have problems -- it's a very, very common one. My pseudonym IS my "real" name, or one of them, and especially online.
It's all academic, though, as I will never use Google+ even if they were to actually allow pseudonyms for real (i.e., without giving Google itself my legal name). Google's public statements over this issue have been very clear and very insulting. I can do without them. They've burnt that bridge.
It's not quite as clear-cut as that. First, as PPH points out, the range is also dependent on the power of the reader, as well as the sizes of each antenna. Among commercial RFID chips, there is a wide variety of antenna sizes. Some can only be read (with normal readers) an inch or two away, some from a half dozen feet or so. With less common equipment this range can indeed be extended to 40 feet or more.
It looks like modern RFID tech can passively be scanned up to 40 feet in "normal conditions", and I'd have to assume that interstate, windshield-mounted, directional travel is rather normal.
No, this use would not count as "normal conditions" at all. Rather far from it. Cars are very electrically noisy (and there's a lot of them around on the highway), the RFID chips are near lots of metal, even in a windshield, and they are traveling relatively fast. All in all, it's a pretty bad environment for radio equipment. I think it's overwhelmingly likely that the RFID being used in these devices is powered for two reasons: first, reliability. Passive RFID would be pretty hit and miss under these circumstances, even with a high power reader, and second is cost. Powered RFID would be a lot cheaper than the fancier passive systems that might be able to operate under these conditions.
When given a preference, engineers using RFID will opt for the powered variety unless the design precludes it for size or weight reasons. Powered RFID is much better and more reliable than passive.
The newer models are entirely sealed, and do not require a battery because they work by RFID chips.
I just wanted to note that long-range RFID (such as would be used in this type of application) does require the RFID chip to be powered. The ones that don't need a battery only work at very short ranges.
I stopped using FF because of two related things: their rapid release cycle, and the direction they're taking the browser in. I hate the loss of control on my own machine, I hate their attitude toward users, and I hate that they seem to think that FF should be like a web app or an OS.
This makes me really sad. I've been with FF from the very beginning, but this has all been too much for me. It's my machine, not theirs, and I will not be dictated to or forced to upgrade on their terms. They've told me unequivocally it's their way or the highway. I choose the highway.
This doesn't mean that TSA employees are not people to.
Of course they are people too. They are people who willingly decided to become TSA agents, which immediately makes them more suspect than normal people.
A lot of people do a lot of stupid, malicous, misleading, dishonest things when they're presented with the chance to act 'anonymously'.
And those people will also do a lot of stupid, malicous, misleading, dishonest things without the anonymity. It seems to me, when comparing and contrasting the actions of anonymous with theoretically not-anonymous people online, that there is very little difference. Some are great, and some suck.
I said "theoretically" because there is no way of knowing, really, if someone is using a pseudonym or not. Even Google can't be sure, and isn't trying. They've already said outright that they just want people to have realistic names, not necessarily accurate ones.
But you're right on one point -- Google+ certainly isn't for me.
Nope, I dislike Chrome. For my Linux boxen, in the short term, I'll go with opera or Konq. The longer term will require some research. For my Windows boxen, it will be IE.
Nope, I dislike Chrome. In the interim, on my Linux boxen, perhaps Opera, maybe Konq. In the long run, I have some research to do. On my windows boxen, probably IE.
So FF is now going to treat us like we're running a web app. I get that. And it's why I'm no longer going to use FF. The web app model blows, and is tolerable only because there's no other way to realistically do it if you really want to have something as a web app (never understood why people want that, but I know that lots of people do). Native apps, however, have much better options. Like the one they're ditching.
Not so much because of the version number thing itself, which is relatively minor since you can still get the version number pretty easily.
The straw that broke the camel's back is the developer's comments in the discussion group linked to in the OP. I've been truly hating the UI direction that FF has been taking lately. It's made FF more difficult to use and substantially uglier. That discussion, however, has made it plain to me that this trend will not only continue, but accelerate. And this version number move is the first step in doing their best to force users into the latest version of FF -- which is without question not where I want to be.
I, for one, won't continue to use FF because it's become a product that actively irritates me when I use it. Worse than that, the developers have a clearly antagonistic and paternalistic attitude that is not only insulting but gives me zero confidence that the user interface will ever be actually improved or at least made nonirritating.
Oh, and constant behind-the-scenes updating? That's never a good thing. I don't allow any other software to do this, and I'm not going to make an exception for FF. Which means I need ready access to version numbers, despite the dev's assertion that they're only needed for debugging.
To avoid dodgy business tactics people can simply do what you're already doing: don't buy Apple products.
Problem solved.
Really? And that will keep Apple (or Google, for that matter) from including my wireless router and its location in their databases every time someone carrying one of these damned phones walks or drives by?
Does it really make more sense to increase service charges uniformly for everybody?
Yes.
If you can clearly identify the 1% of users that create 20% of the traffic, then isn't it best for everybody to charge those users appropriately?
I don't know abut "best for everybody", but it certainly is a reasonable approach. And a reasonable way to do it is simply to charge on a per-bit basis. It still doesn't matter where the bits are coming from and going to, and so the ISPs don't have to pay attention to you on that level....and this is the way billing is done right now. Facebook, Google, etc.,, pays more for their internet service than you do, because they use a whole lot more than you.
If the current pricing means that the ISPs really can't make enough money to build infrastructure, they need to raise their prices, not start instituting baseless surcharges on specific sites. They shouldn't care what sites you go to, period.
But the fact is that the telecoms are making bank, and that they want to do things like the presentation outlines is pure, unmitigated greed.
All of your examples are about usability, not trust. Apple & oranges. Cars do indeed trust their drivers, in that a driver can pop open the hood, poke around, fix things (and break them!) swap components out, etc. should they want to. That they don't have to is good usability design.
Although some cars take away a lot of this ability by enforcing choices via their computers, but I don't buy those cars. Neither would I buy (use) Chrome OS, for the same reason.
I own the hardware I buy, and if I want to change it, infect it, or blend it, that's my choice. Google's (or any manufacturer) "trust" is irrelevant and worthless, since I make no promises to Google that I won't do stupid things.
Beside, such trust would have to be two-way, and I don't trust Google any more than I trust any other random company.
So basically they are saying that *because* it is possible to produce a shoddy PDF file which is basically an image dump, that this is reason enough not to use the format?
I think it's more a case of saying that PDFs shouldn't be used inappropriately. If you're producing something which really has to be viewed and/or printed in a visually consistent way analogous to a magazine page, it's hard to beat PDFs. If you're producing something that is to be used in any other way, PDFs blow.
This has long been my beef with PDFs, this inappropriate use. If the document is intended as a reference, or is text-heavy and intended to be read more than viewed, PDFs and the second-worst choice possible (flash would be the worst). It doesn't adapt to displays of varying geometries, it can't be searched easily from outside the PDF reader, and etc. Text files are still king for this kind of document.
So what's the alternative? That we all revert back to ASCII text since its incapable of holding graphics?
Yes! If the graphics are really that critical to the document, then use PDF (or, generally better, HTML -- at least that way you aren't stuck on a screen geometry and can still grep). Even better, make the graphics less central in the document design, so you can just include a jpeg or two with the document.
Don't get me wrong, PDFs have their place. The main problem I have with them is that easily 90% of the PDF documents I see are made less useful to me by being PDFs.
Thanks to Javascript a web application can still avoid popping up
That's the only Javascript seems to avoid popping up.
Thank you, I'll be here all week.
But in all seriousness, Adding Javascript to the mix kinda makes everything worse. There's a good reason that I cannot stand to use the web without NoScript, and if javascript is actually required for any given site, that's a large minus. The site has to be much more compelling to me to get me to come back, and has to be fairly exceptional to get me to run its scripts.
Javascript might be able to patch over many of the problems with HTTP, but it brings its own sphere of madness, one the I think is even worse than plain vanilla HTTP+HTML.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that we're picking sides between two states that each engage in racism, murder, breaking of international laws and treaties, and other assorted evil. To single out one over is stupid and unconscionable.
I agree. Every single thing we have done in response to 9/11 has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are cowards.
Agreed. There is absolutely a market for high-end smartphones that aren't iPhones. There are a not-insignificant number of people who won't buy an iPhone because it's an Apple product, but who want a great smartphone nonetheless. Samsung makes great smartphones.
Mine is (Samsung Infuse).
Which patents does Android violate?
I don't remember that, and I can't find it online. Citation? What I do remember from that campaign is that Smith ran a very dirty campaign and Wyden's grew increasingly mud-slinging in response. So what you say could be essentially true, although I suspect a bit exaggerated.
Dirty campaigns aside, Wyden's performance in office has been, overall, pretty fantastic. There aren't many politicians nowadays who represent actual human beings, and he's one of them.
They don't have my legal name. They do have the name that I usually go by online, though. It's the name that I've been using online from before the internet was open to the public, and at this point it's no less my "real" name than my legal name is. I don't use Google+, however, were I to, doing so under my legal name would make it essentially impossible for my online friends to find me. Few of them know my legal name and even those that do would have problems -- it's a very, very common one. My pseudonym IS my "real" name, or one of them, and especially online.
It's all academic, though, as I will never use Google+ even if they were to actually allow pseudonyms for real (i.e., without giving Google itself my legal name). Google's public statements over this issue have been very clear and very insulting. I can do without them. They've burnt that bridge.
It's not quite as clear-cut as that. First, as PPH points out, the range is also dependent on the power of the reader, as well as the sizes of each antenna. Among commercial RFID chips, there is a wide variety of antenna sizes. Some can only be read (with normal readers) an inch or two away, some from a half dozen feet or so. With less common equipment this range can indeed be extended to 40 feet or more.
It looks like modern RFID tech can passively be scanned up to 40 feet in "normal conditions", and I'd have to assume that interstate, windshield-mounted, directional travel is rather normal.
No, this use would not count as "normal conditions" at all. Rather far from it. Cars are very electrically noisy (and there's a lot of them around on the highway), the RFID chips are near lots of metal, even in a windshield, and they are traveling relatively fast. All in all, it's a pretty bad environment for radio equipment. I think it's overwhelmingly likely that the RFID being used in these devices is powered for two reasons: first, reliability. Passive RFID would be pretty hit and miss under these circumstances, even with a high power reader, and second is cost. Powered RFID would be a lot cheaper than the fancier passive systems that might be able to operate under these conditions.
When given a preference, engineers using RFID will opt for the powered variety unless the design precludes it for size or weight reasons. Powered RFID is much better and more reliable than passive.
The newer models are entirely sealed, and do not require a battery because they work by RFID chips.
I just wanted to note that long-range RFID (such as would be used in this type of application) does require the RFID chip to be powered. The ones that don't need a battery only work at very short ranges.
I stopped using FF because of two related things: their rapid release cycle, and the direction they're taking the browser in. I hate the loss of control on my own machine, I hate their attitude toward users, and I hate that they seem to think that FF should be like a web app or an OS.
This makes me really sad. I've been with FF from the very beginning, but this has all been too much for me. It's my machine, not theirs, and I will not be dictated to or forced to upgrade on their terms. They've told me unequivocally it's their way or the highway. I choose the highway.
This doesn't mean that TSA employees are not people to.
Of course they are people too. They are people who willingly decided to become TSA agents, which immediately makes them more suspect than normal people.
I thought you were scared witless by terrorists, not authorities, but I guess I was wrong.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. The last ten years have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are, by and large, cowards.
A lot of people do a lot of stupid, malicous, misleading, dishonest things when they're presented with the chance to act 'anonymously'.
And those people will also do a lot of stupid, malicous, misleading, dishonest things without the anonymity. It seems to me, when comparing and contrasting the actions of anonymous with theoretically not-anonymous people online, that there is very little difference. Some are great, and some suck.
I said "theoretically" because there is no way of knowing, really, if someone is using a pseudonym or not. Even Google can't be sure, and isn't trying. They've already said outright that they just want people to have realistic names, not necessarily accurate ones.
But you're right on one point -- Google+ certainly isn't for me.
What cable box?
Yes to both flash and HTML 5. (Google "konqueror flash" for how to make that work.)
Nope, I dislike Chrome. For my Linux boxen, in the short term, I'll go with opera or Konq. The longer term will require some research. For my Windows boxen, it will be IE.
Nope, I dislike Chrome. In the interim, on my Linux boxen, perhaps Opera, maybe Konq. In the long run, I have some research to do. On my windows boxen, probably IE.
*sigh*
So FF is now going to treat us like we're running a web app. I get that. And it's why I'm no longer going to use FF. The web app model blows, and is tolerable only because there's no other way to realistically do it if you really want to have something as a web app (never understood why people want that, but I know that lots of people do). Native apps, however, have much better options. Like the one they're ditching.
I'm giving up on FF.
Not so much because of the version number thing itself, which is relatively minor since you can still get the version number pretty easily.
The straw that broke the camel's back is the developer's comments in the discussion group linked to in the OP. I've been truly hating the UI direction that FF has been taking lately. It's made FF more difficult to use and substantially uglier. That discussion, however, has made it plain to me that this trend will not only continue, but accelerate. And this version number move is the first step in doing their best to force users into the latest version of FF -- which is without question not where I want to be.
I, for one, won't continue to use FF because it's become a product that actively irritates me when I use it. Worse than that, the developers have a clearly antagonistic and paternalistic attitude that is not only insulting but gives me zero confidence that the user interface will ever be actually improved or at least made nonirritating.
Oh, and constant behind-the-scenes updating? That's never a good thing. I don't allow any other software to do this, and I'm not going to make an exception for FF. Which means I need ready access to version numbers, despite the dev's assertion that they're only needed for debugging.
Bah. I'm done.
To avoid dodgy business tactics people can simply do what you're already doing: don't buy Apple products.
Problem solved.
Really? And that will keep Apple (or Google, for that matter) from including my wireless router and its location in their databases every time someone carrying one of these damned phones walks or drives by?
Does it really make more sense to increase service charges uniformly for everybody?
Yes.
If you can clearly identify the 1% of users that create 20% of the traffic, then isn't it best for everybody to charge those users appropriately?
I don't know abut "best for everybody", but it certainly is a reasonable approach. And a reasonable way to do it is simply to charge on a per-bit basis. It still doesn't matter where the bits are coming from and going to, and so the ISPs don't have to pay attention to you on that level. ...and this is the way billing is done right now. Facebook, Google, etc.,, pays more for their internet service than you do, because they use a whole lot more than you.
If the current pricing means that the ISPs really can't make enough money to build infrastructure, they need to raise their prices, not start instituting baseless surcharges on specific sites. They shouldn't care what sites you go to, period.
But the fact is that the telecoms are making bank, and that they want to do things like the presentation outlines is pure, unmitigated greed.
Obligatory (probably poor) car analogy:
All of your examples are about usability, not trust. Apple & oranges. Cars do indeed trust their drivers, in that a driver can pop open the hood, poke around, fix things (and break them!) swap components out, etc. should they want to. That they don't have to is good usability design.
Although some cars take away a lot of this ability by enforcing choices via their computers, but I don't buy those cars. Neither would I buy (use) Chrome OS, for the same reason.
I own the hardware I buy, and if I want to change it, infect it, or blend it, that's my choice. Google's (or any manufacturer) "trust" is irrelevant and worthless, since I make no promises to Google that I won't do stupid things.
Beside, such trust would have to be two-way, and I don't trust Google any more than I trust any other random company.
So basically they are saying that *because* it is possible to produce a shoddy PDF file which is basically an image dump, that this is reason enough not to use the format?
I think it's more a case of saying that PDFs shouldn't be used inappropriately. If you're producing something which really has to be viewed and/or printed in a visually consistent way analogous to a magazine page, it's hard to beat PDFs. If you're producing something that is to be used in any other way, PDFs blow.
This has long been my beef with PDFs, this inappropriate use. If the document is intended as a reference, or is text-heavy and intended to be read more than viewed, PDFs and the second-worst choice possible (flash would be the worst). It doesn't adapt to displays of varying geometries, it can't be searched easily from outside the PDF reader, and etc. Text files are still king for this kind of document.
So what's the alternative? That we all revert back to ASCII text since its incapable of holding graphics?
Yes! If the graphics are really that critical to the document, then use PDF (or, generally better, HTML -- at least that way you aren't stuck on a screen geometry and can still grep). Even better, make the graphics less central in the document design, so you can just include a jpeg or two with the document.
Don't get me wrong, PDFs have their place. The main problem I have with them is that easily 90% of the PDF documents I see are made less useful to me by being PDFs.
Thanks to Javascript a web application can still avoid popping up
That's the only Javascript seems to avoid popping up.
Thank you, I'll be here all week.
But in all seriousness, Adding Javascript to the mix kinda makes everything worse. There's a good reason that I cannot stand to use the web without NoScript, and if javascript is actually required for any given site, that's a large minus. The site has to be much more compelling to me to get me to come back, and has to be fairly exceptional to get me to run its scripts.
Javascript might be able to patch over many of the problems with HTTP, but it brings its own sphere of madness, one the I think is even worse than plain vanilla HTTP+HTML.
That said, I like the REST approach.
But they do. They are so keen on it that if you opt out of location tracking, you can't use the iTunes store. http://econsultancy.com/us/blog/6126-iphone-users-will-have-to-get-used-to-tracking