how well supported is the typical Android phone past the first year (let alone 2nd or 3rd)? How well do the batteries hold up in them?
I don't know what's typical, but I replaced the battery in mine in the middle of year three, and it's good as new.
As to support, that's an entirely different issue from batteries -- but here's my take: Some people (such as yourself) care a great deal about it, and they should select what they buy accordingly. Other people (such as myself) really couldn't care less, and they should select what they buy accordingly.
My current phone, which is as thin as any Apple phone and has a user-replaceable battery, says that's not true. I think the actual reason is two-fold: it reduces manufacturing costs, and it encourages people to replace their phone rather than just the battery.
Yet there are some things that clearly benefit from lower latency such as voice communications or video to video conversations or even remotely controlling devices from afar.
Yep, and net neutrality in no way prevents quality-of-service prioritization to accommodate those sorts of things. What net neutrality prevents is prioritizing traffic based on who it's coming from or going to, rather than what sort of traffic it is.
You've always been able to, and will always be able to, prioritize traffic according to type, regardless of NN.
Separating content from presentation, graceful degradation, etc have very strong unix roots.
But nothing in the Unix world that I'm aware of (outside Ubuntu's attempt) consists of having a single UI that works on all form factors. The Unix way is to make it easy to attach a different UI on the same backend.
Probably because there's not a lot of saving in development costs that way. For most applications, it's the UI work that takes up the bulk of development time, not the business logic. If you still have to have a different UI for each platform, you aren't really saving much in terms of development costs.
The problem is that a "one UI for everything" approach appears to be inherently flawed. Different platforms have different strengths and weaknesses, and if you just address the least common denominator of them all, you end up with something pretty crappy.
Since everyone who has tried this "unified app" thing so far has done little more than demonstrate that it's a pretty terrible idea, I'm curious to see if Apple has some approach that could actually make it not suck.
It's pretty baffling to me how anyone thinks this is a valuable thing to have. Cops have power and do a job knowing that they may occasionally be put into danger (although being a cop isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous professions, so there's that).
That's a world of difference from helpless and innocent children being abducted, or being alerted to some imminent public danger.
Although, I have to admit, I opted out once Amber alerts were brought on board. That was already too much mission creep for me.
I don't know what you'd consider "good sources", but I think you'd do fine by just looking through the various news archives over the past ten years or so.
why didn't we need net neutrality before and what changed so that now we do? Why didn't it change sooner?
For a long time, NN was simply the accepted norm, enforced by the free market (this was back when people had choices about ISPs).
Two things changed... first, major companies (cable, mostly) successfully transformed the market into a defacto monopoly. Second, it was "entertainment" companies that did so, and they spent a lot of time convincing people that ISPs weren't telecommunications providers, but were content providers. Once they had all they pretty well locked down, they began to unfairly interfere with network traffic in ways that companies couldn't have gotten away with before.
That's why we need regulation. Without regulation, there's literally nothing to stop them from doing that, and since they will make more money by engaging in such behavior, that behavior is guaranteed.
I don't have the foggiest notion what this is supposed to accomplish, really. If a situation is such that a cop is seriously endangered, what in the world could I do about it?
It looks to me like all this does is to further decrease the signal-to-noise ratio in these sorts of things.
So it still leaves unexplained the FCC's decision to make such a sudden break with longstanding, bipartisan, and legal consensus that the Internet shouldn't be regulated like this.
No, it doesn't. First, there was no longstanding consensus that the internet shouldn't be regulated like this.
But, if you've been following this from the time before the FCC decision, you'll see that there is no mystery here at all. Here's the synopsis for you, but I encourage you to actually research the history of all of this.
1) ISPs began to abuse their position by unfairly interfering with internet traffic.
2) The FCC stepped in to try to stop it.
3) ISPs took it to court.
4) The court said the FCC didn't have the authority to stop the abuse because ISPs weren't categorized as common carriers by the FCC.
5) The FCC changed how they categorized ISPs so that they could put a stop to future abuse.
Thank you. It might have been easier and faster if you just stated your counterargument instead of trying so hard to be insulting that you ended up being obtuse.
I probably won't. Here's how it works with me -- once a company has violated my trust enough, I just remember not to use their products or services anymore. I don't bother remembering why (because it doesn't matter at that point). I just won't be going back to them.
Actually it's not getting screwed, because Google are one of the few companies I trust to keep my information entirely to themselves and not wholesale sell it to a third party.
So because you're personally OK with Google's spying ways, that means everybody should be OK with it?
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on how often you print. Personally, I print so little that it's not worth even dedicating storage space to personally owning one.
I need to print something a couple of times a year. What I do is email the document to my local copy shop, then pick it up at my convenience.
how well supported is the typical Android phone past the first year (let alone 2nd or 3rd)? How well do the batteries hold up in them?
I don't know what's typical, but I replaced the battery in mine in the middle of year three, and it's good as new.
As to support, that's an entirely different issue from batteries -- but here's my take: Some people (such as yourself) care a great deal about it, and they should select what they buy accordingly. Other people (such as myself) really couldn't care less, and they should select what they buy accordingly.
The quest for thinness.
My current phone, which is as thin as any Apple phone and has a user-replaceable battery, says that's not true. I think the actual reason is two-fold: it reduces manufacturing costs, and it encourages people to replace their phone rather than just the battery.
It's probably "temporary" in exactly the same sense as copyright terms are "limited".
If Apple is so concerned about the impact of old batteries, then why don't they make the batteries user-replaceable?
We don't need ISP to be regulated as utilities
I emphatically disagree. Internet service is, by any common-sense definition, a utility and should be regulated as such.
The head of the FCC is a straight-up liar.
Yet there are some things that clearly benefit from lower latency such as voice communications or video to video conversations or even remotely controlling devices from afar.
Yep, and net neutrality in no way prevents quality-of-service prioritization to accommodate those sorts of things. What net neutrality prevents is prioritizing traffic based on who it's coming from or going to, rather than what sort of traffic it is.
You've always been able to, and will always be able to, prioritize traffic according to type, regardless of NN.
But nothing in the Unix world that I'm aware of (outside Ubuntu's attempt) consists of having a single UI that works on all form factors. The Unix way is to make it easy to attach a different UI on the same backend.
I wonder why they're not encouraging that?
Probably because there's not a lot of saving in development costs that way. For most applications, it's the UI work that takes up the bulk of development time, not the business logic. If you still have to have a different UI for each platform, you aren't really saving much in terms of development costs.
The problem is that a "one UI for everything" approach appears to be inherently flawed. Different platforms have different strengths and weaknesses, and if you just address the least common denominator of them all, you end up with something pretty crappy.
Since everyone who has tried this "unified app" thing so far has done little more than demonstrate that it's a pretty terrible idea, I'm curious to see if Apple has some approach that could actually make it not suck.
A million times this.
It's pretty baffling to me how anyone thinks this is a valuable thing to have. Cops have power and do a job knowing that they may occasionally be put into danger (although being a cop isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous professions, so there's that).
That's a world of difference from helpless and innocent children being abducted, or being alerted to some imminent public danger.
Although, I have to admit, I opted out once Amber alerts were brought on board. That was already too much mission creep for me.
Got any good sources?
I don't know what you'd consider "good sources", but I think you'd do fine by just looking through the various news archives over the past ten years or so.
why didn't we need net neutrality before and what changed so that now we do? Why didn't it change sooner?
For a long time, NN was simply the accepted norm, enforced by the free market (this was back when people had choices about ISPs).
Two things changed... first, major companies (cable, mostly) successfully transformed the market into a defacto monopoly. Second, it was "entertainment" companies that did so, and they spent a lot of time convincing people that ISPs weren't telecommunications providers, but were content providers. Once they had all they pretty well locked down, they began to unfairly interfere with network traffic in ways that companies couldn't have gotten away with before.
That's why we need regulation. Without regulation, there's literally nothing to stop them from doing that, and since they will make more money by engaging in such behavior, that behavior is guaranteed.
I don't have the foggiest notion what this is supposed to accomplish, really. If a situation is such that a cop is seriously endangered, what in the world could I do about it?
It looks to me like all this does is to further decrease the signal-to-noise ratio in these sorts of things.
So it still leaves unexplained the FCC's decision to make such a sudden break with longstanding, bipartisan, and legal consensus that the Internet shouldn't be regulated like this.
No, it doesn't. First, there was no longstanding consensus that the internet shouldn't be regulated like this.
But, if you've been following this from the time before the FCC decision, you'll see that there is no mystery here at all. Here's the synopsis for you, but I encourage you to actually research the history of all of this.
1) ISPs began to abuse their position by unfairly interfering with internet traffic.
2) The FCC stepped in to try to stop it.
3) ISPs took it to court.
4) The court said the FCC didn't have the authority to stop the abuse because ISPs weren't categorized as common carriers by the FCC.
5) The FCC changed how they categorized ISPs so that they could put a stop to future abuse.
There's zero mystery here.
And Obama didn't influence the FCC at all, eh?
That's not what they said. What they said was that there was no improper influence.
Of course not, the professional world is still on Win7 so if they use a MS browser, it will be IE.
Not in my office. Everyone has to use Win 10, except for a couple of machines used for testing.
Thank you. It might have been easier and faster if you just stated your counterargument instead of trying so hard to be insulting that you ended up being obtuse.
I don't know, of course, but I do know this: I don't know a single person, either socially or professionally, who uses Edge.
I re-read the thread from the top. I don't see how it renders my question irrelevant. Care to explain?
I could not agree with this more.
no one is going to remember this in a month
I probably won't. Here's how it works with me -- once a company has violated my trust enough, I just remember not to use their products or services anymore. I don't bother remembering why (because it doesn't matter at that point). I just won't be going back to them.
Actually it's not getting screwed, because Google are one of the few companies I trust to keep my information entirely to themselves and not wholesale sell it to a third party.
So because you're personally OK with Google's spying ways, that means everybody should be OK with it?
This is the type of behavior that one would expect from malware.
Actually, this is the type of behavior I’ve come to expect from Microsoft in Windows 10.
Same thing.