When I buy computers, I always delete the Windows installation that comes with them. Although I qualify to get reimbursed for the Windows portion of the selling price, I've never bothered -- it just wasn't enough money to be worth the hassle.
It doesn't sound strange at all -- I do exactly this.
If your phone has an unlocked bootloader, or has a crack available to unlock the bootloader, you can achieve what you want by installing one of the many 3rd party Android ROMs. None of those come with Google Apps -- you have to download and install them as a separate step, so it's entirely optional.
As a bonus, doing so means that you're no longer dependent on your carrier to push updates to you.
There are some apps that won't run if you don't have Google Apps installed, but there are replacements for every one of those that I've encountered.
Just like how it was an "enormous stretch" that smartphones would be used to track our every movement and association, right?
Not at all. It's very much a smaller stretch to think that devices will be used like that than to think that it would become anything other than exceptionally rare at worst that people will use SDCs as a means to kidnap and/or murder.
For one thing, how are they going to keep the victims in the car? Wouldn't it be a lot easier and more certain just to shoot them?
People who blindly trust the government tend to be the first ones down chute.
This has nothing to do with blindly trusting the government. It has a lot more to do with plain common sense.
I can technically wear over-the-ear headphones at work as well. My problem is that I can't stand wearing those things when there's people around -- it makes me jumpy and always looking over my shoulder thinking that someone is trying to get my attention.
Just as off target refusing to buy the product with Face ID.
Agreed. As long as it can be disabled, I see no reason to avoid something just because Face ID is included.
Being that Apple had stated
What I mean is that the only information we have as to how secure it is comes from Apple. Which means that we have no actual information about how secure it is. All we have are manufacturer's claims.
The real issue is that it's becoming increasingly difficult to avoid being spied on even if you aren't using those services.
Privacy is not an on/off thing.
However, most of these services are architected so that it is essentially an on/off thing.
This need is orthogonal to the very functionality of comm tech. Your communication will have to pass through other parties and systems.
The need for privacy does not preclude the use of comm tech at all. End to end encryption is a thing. Your communication is passed through foreign servers, yes, but that doesn't mean that it has to be readable to them.
Forget Microsoft, everyone knows about the NSA these days, it's an open "secret."
NSA, Microsoft, Google, etc., are all hostile actors in the information space. None have clean hands here.
It just seems to me that in 2017 anyone who's upset about Google or Microsoft and the ways in which they collect and leverage communication data is fundamentally misconstruing the nature of the technology ecosystem right now.
How so? It seems that they are understanding it perfectly -- they just object to it.
You have to decide -- are you doing something private, or are you just doing something average
I've already decided: literally everything that I do that I don't intend to be broadcast to the public is, by definition, private.
there just seems to be a new presumption that we've solved it for some reason, and that the Big Bad Corporations are keeping us from enjoying our solution.
Not at all. I doubt anybody has ever felt this was a solved problem. But Big Data is absolutely making it more difficult.
you're vulnerable on account of everyone to whom you've delegated things. As it has always been.
We agree on this!
Which is why I need to be able to choose not to delegate to people and organizations that I don't trust. Such as Google, Microsoft, etc.
I understand the appeal of these sorts of services to you, I really do. I won't ever tell you not to use them.
Personally, however, they are simply too expensive for my tastes. Too much loss of control, too much datamining, too much exposure to corporations who don't have my interests at heart.
But, as with all things, what's too expensive for one person is priced right for another.
They're experts in their existing ways of doing things, and a successful product changes the way people do things.
Not necessarily. A successful product solves a problem customers have. That may or may not involve changing the way they do thing.
Still, this "I know better than everyone" attitude has become an enormous problem. Not only is it arrogant and untrue, it's increasingly leading to software becoming more expensive, more intrusive, and less able to solve the problems real people have.
I think that you hit on the main reason why: producing a solution to people's problems requires a dialogue (as in, two-way conversation) with those people. The trend over the last few years has been to not do that.
Instead, companies unilaterally decide what path "is best" and write off objections from customers as "being afraid of change", "hating the new", etc. -- when the real issue is that the companies are producing things that are worse at solving the customers problems than what came before. Instead of listening to their customers, companies have taken to insulting them and writing them off.
App compatibility isn't necessary unless your goal is to unseat Android or iOS.
But it is entirely feasible to have a profitable OS that never gains enough market share to accomplish that. And it would be good for the market as a whole.
is it really a stretch of the imagination to believe that a 'self-driving car' may, someday, become an effective method of weeding out dissent, whether by intentional equipment "malfunctions," or redirecting their route to the nearest re-education camp?
Yes, it is. And not just a little stretch, but an enormous one.
People are not special. Your privacy is still yours.
Microsoft, Google, ad networks, etc., all provide ample evidence that you're incorrect. If our personal minutia was really of no interest, then these companies wouldn't be spending hundreds of millions of dollars creating systems to collect, store, and datamine it.
This is actually my only real problem with the cars they're showcasing right now. If there's no manual override, then you can't consider the car "reliable transportation".
Why would an autonomous car bother to try to pass another vehicle that was going ~3 mph slower than the limit? Why not just hang out behind it?
This is a question I ask every time I see a human driver doing it. The answer, of course, is that humans have emotions and some get very, very angry when they can't go the exact speed they prefer.
If the car is doing the driving, those people will become no less angry. That will affect the sales of such cars.
Will self-driving cars still be reliable when the street is covered in snow, so it can't see the lines?
They will be better than you are.
That is unlikely to be true in my lifetime.
In addition, the only signs that are really important have unique, distinct shapes.
This is largely true, but not universally so. You certainly can't assume it.
a crosswalk is the only house-shaped pentagon.
This is not true. That shape is also used for country route markers. Other shapes that have multiple/ambiguous uses: diamond, rectangle, and trapezoid.
And the car will be able to "see" them (with radar) even in dark and snow, when you can't.
But can they read the text? For a lot of signs, it's also important to be able to read the text.
First, the car already has robotic assistance for that; it's called ABS
I don't think you can call that "robotic". Or at least, it's no more robotic than a vibrator.
Several companies (Google included) have very accurate maps of all public roads.
Oh? Which companies are those? Google's maps are excellent, but they aren't anywhere near accurate enough to drive blindly with. I don't think there's a single time that I've used them without noticing a few errors (misplaced streets, closed roads Google thinks are open, etc.)
Sure, you don't want the inconvenience of stolen data.
This isn't about "stolen data", it's about Big Data.
But as Equifax (latest in a long line) demonstrates, it's *going* to happen, and it doesn't require Skype or Google to be compromised.
Absolutely true, but so what? Just because thieves are a thing doesn't mean that it's OK to let companies spy.
Meanwhile, the life efficiency benefits from having good data vacuuming and processing are incredible.
That's arguable, but not very important. If you choose to take part in Big Data, more power to you. That's your choice. The real issue is that it's largely forced on people whether they want it or not.
Slashdot Mirror
When I buy computers, I always delete the Windows installation that comes with them. Although I qualify to get reimbursed for the Windows portion of the selling price, I've never bothered -- it just wasn't enough money to be worth the hassle.
This might change that equation!
It doesn't sound strange at all -- I do exactly this.
If your phone has an unlocked bootloader, or has a crack available to unlock the bootloader, you can achieve what you want by installing one of the many 3rd party Android ROMs. None of those come with Google Apps -- you have to download and install them as a separate step, so it's entirely optional.
As a bonus, doing so means that you're no longer dependent on your carrier to push updates to you.
There are some apps that won't run if you don't have Google Apps installed, but there are replacements for every one of those that I've encountered.
Just like how it was an "enormous stretch" that smartphones would be used to track our every movement and association, right?
Not at all. It's very much a smaller stretch to think that devices will be used like that than to think that it would become anything other than exceptionally rare at worst that people will use SDCs as a means to kidnap and/or murder.
For one thing, how are they going to keep the victims in the car? Wouldn't it be a lot easier and more certain just to shoot them?
People who blindly trust the government tend to be the first ones down chute.
This has nothing to do with blindly trusting the government. It has a lot more to do with plain common sense.
I can technically wear over-the-ear headphones at work as well. My problem is that I can't stand wearing those things when there's people around -- it makes me jumpy and always looking over my shoulder thinking that someone is trying to get my attention.
Just as off target refusing to buy the product with Face ID.
Agreed. As long as it can be disabled, I see no reason to avoid something just because Face ID is included.
Being that Apple had stated
What I mean is that the only information we have as to how secure it is comes from Apple. Which means that we have no actual information about how secure it is. All we have are manufacturer's claims.
(1) They don't have to use the service
The real issue is that it's becoming increasingly difficult to avoid being spied on even if you aren't using those services.
Privacy is not an on/off thing.
However, most of these services are architected so that it is essentially an on/off thing.
This need is orthogonal to the very functionality of comm tech. Your communication will have to pass through other parties and systems.
The need for privacy does not preclude the use of comm tech at all. End to end encryption is a thing. Your communication is passed through foreign servers, yes, but that doesn't mean that it has to be readable to them.
Forget Microsoft, everyone knows about the NSA these days, it's an open "secret."
NSA, Microsoft, Google, etc., are all hostile actors in the information space. None have clean hands here.
It just seems to me that in 2017 anyone who's upset about Google or Microsoft and the ways in which they collect and leverage communication data is fundamentally misconstruing the nature of the technology ecosystem right now.
How so? It seems that they are understanding it perfectly -- they just object to it.
You have to decide -- are you doing something private, or are you just doing something average
I've already decided: literally everything that I do that I don't intend to be broadcast to the public is, by definition, private.
there just seems to be a new presumption that we've solved it for some reason, and that the Big Bad Corporations are keeping us from enjoying our solution.
Not at all. I doubt anybody has ever felt this was a solved problem. But Big Data is absolutely making it more difficult.
you're vulnerable on account of everyone to whom you've delegated things. As it has always been.
We agree on this!
Which is why I need to be able to choose not to delegate to people and organizations that I don't trust. Such as Google, Microsoft, etc.
I understand the appeal of these sorts of services to you, I really do. I won't ever tell you not to use them.
Personally, however, they are simply too expensive for my tastes. Too much loss of control, too much datamining, too much exposure to corporations who don't have my interests at heart.
But, as with all things, what's too expensive for one person is priced right for another.
Or do you think that the "Suggestions" for search terms are magically created on your local machine.
What suggestions?
That's one of the first things I disable when installing a new browser.
They're experts in their existing ways of doing things, and a successful product changes the way people do things.
Not necessarily. A successful product solves a problem customers have. That may or may not involve changing the way they do thing.
Still, this "I know better than everyone" attitude has become an enormous problem. Not only is it arrogant and untrue, it's increasingly leading to software becoming more expensive, more intrusive, and less able to solve the problems real people have.
I think that you hit on the main reason why: producing a solution to people's problems requires a dialogue (as in, two-way conversation) with those people. The trend over the last few years has been to not do that.
Instead, companies unilaterally decide what path "is best" and write off objections from customers as "being afraid of change", "hating the new", etc. -- when the real issue is that the companies are producing things that are worse at solving the customers problems than what came before. Instead of listening to their customers, companies have taken to insulting them and writing them off.
This is abuse of dominance in a market. That's as plain as it gets.
I disagree. This is just marketing.
The more money Google spends on this sort of thing, the less they'll have available to spend on doing their evil stuff.
App compatibility isn't necessary unless your goal is to unseat Android or iOS.
But it is entirely feasible to have a profitable OS that never gains enough market share to accomplish that. And it would be good for the market as a whole.
Way back when, I was heavy into AOSP (and its predecessors).
The way that Android is progressing, I've started to seriously look into getting back into it again.
Who seriously runs AOSP without gapps
Hell, I run Android without gapps.
is it really a stretch of the imagination to believe that a 'self-driving car' may, someday, become an effective method of weeding out dissent, whether by intentional equipment "malfunctions," or redirecting their route to the nearest re-education camp?
Yes, it is. And not just a little stretch, but an enormous one.
They also seem fine with car automation so far.
I'm fine with it in concept. Right now, the hype of SDC companies is clearly far ahead of the reality of what the tech is capable of.
In 10 years? I hope that SDCs mean that I no longer have to own my own car.
People are not special. Your privacy is still yours.
Microsoft, Google, ad networks, etc., all provide ample evidence that you're incorrect. If our personal minutia was really of no interest, then these companies wouldn't be spending hundreds of millions of dollars creating systems to collect, store, and datamine it.
For the virtual assistants they all treat the phone as a thin client.
Yep, which is why I won't be getting on board this "virtual assistant" train. The whole thing seems reckless and dangerous to me.
This is actually my only real problem with the cars they're showcasing right now. If there's no manual override, then you can't consider the car "reliable transportation".
Why would an autonomous car bother to try to pass another vehicle that was going ~3 mph slower than the limit? Why not just hang out behind it?
This is a question I ask every time I see a human driver doing it. The answer, of course, is that humans have emotions and some get very, very angry when they can't go the exact speed they prefer.
If the car is doing the driving, those people will become no less angry. That will affect the sales of such cars.
It is just the stupid people who drive when condition are that bad.
Or people who can't afford to miss work, or people who are in urgent need of supplies, and etc.
Stupid people drive in those conditions when it's unnecessary. But it can be necessary.
Will self-driving cars still be reliable when the street is covered in snow, so it can't see the lines?
They will be better than you are.
That is unlikely to be true in my lifetime.
In addition, the only signs that are really important have unique, distinct shapes.
This is largely true, but not universally so. You certainly can't assume it.
a crosswalk is the only house-shaped pentagon.
This is not true. That shape is also used for country route markers. Other shapes that have multiple/ambiguous uses: diamond, rectangle, and trapezoid.
And the car will be able to "see" them (with radar) even in dark and snow, when you can't.
But can they read the text? For a lot of signs, it's also important to be able to read the text.
First, the car already has robotic assistance for that; it's called ABS
I don't think you can call that "robotic". Or at least, it's no more robotic than a vibrator.
What ability does a human have which it lacks, that would be critical in this situation?
Judgement and pattern recognition.
Several companies (Google included) have very accurate maps of all public roads.
Oh? Which companies are those? Google's maps are excellent, but they aren't anywhere near accurate enough to drive blindly with. I don't think there's a single time that I've used them without noticing a few errors (misplaced streets, closed roads Google thinks are open, etc.)
Sure, you don't want the inconvenience of stolen data.
This isn't about "stolen data", it's about Big Data.
But as Equifax (latest in a long line) demonstrates, it's *going* to happen, and it doesn't require Skype or Google to be compromised.
Absolutely true, but so what? Just because thieves are a thing doesn't mean that it's OK to let companies spy.
Meanwhile, the life efficiency benefits from having good data vacuuming and processing are incredible.
That's arguable, but not very important. If you choose to take part in Big Data, more power to you. That's your choice. The real issue is that it's largely forced on people whether they want it or not.