No they don't. They want to sell ACCESS to you. There's a big difference. Google are about the people I most trust with my information as they are the least likely to give it away to someone else.
Microsoft on the other hand don't have a business model that depends on owning your data. When ownership of your data is a secondary profit for the company they are much more likely to just sell it wholesale.
If you don't trust Microsoft, you can live a Microsoft-free life.
I don't know why people keep reverting to the anecdote is not data fallacy. 2016? Fuck if my phone did that I'd get a warranty replacement for a defective screen.
Sure, in some countries they may just shoot you if you refuse to hand over the logs
No you misunderstand. Most countries don't give a flying fuck about the USA or USA problems, and especially don't give a flying fuck about the moaning of the USA corporate welfare.
The point of VPN endpoints is to appear somewhere outside the reach of those trying to persecute you. A Chinese person will be just fine using a Ukrainian VPN with a Swedish endpoint to escape from China's watch, regardless of how much is logged. Likewise the USA can't even get basic enforcement against known criminals in other countries, let alone persecute someone using a foreign VPN service with an even more foreign endpoint.
Not every corporation or country is beholden to the not-as-far-reaching-as-you-think eyes of the USA's TLAs. You just need to not commit a crime in the country where your VPN is hosted or end-pointed. That is pretty easy to do. Bonus points if you pick a country that actively hates the one you're trying to avoid.
And no VPN service that is run commercially can say "no" when the Feds want logs to be recorded and handed to them.
Sure they can. By "feds" I'm assuming you one of America's three letter agencies. The reality is that there are many countries in the world who don't play America's bullshit game.
It doesn't require intelligence. It requires assessment culminating in a go / stop response. If driving was left up to intelligence we would never have adopted it as a species. Instead the entire process and experience is completely defined by rules.
My S7 does not have a removable back, and I can't get at the battery.
And yet functionality is still there if you want it. https://www.gottabemobile.com/... You're just being pedantic about the specifics of exactly how you want to achieve it.
However, the new phones from Google and Apple do not. Again, this is a significant change in strategy.
Actually there's more than 2 phones on the market too. Having to quote a Google pixel doesn't help your case. No one gives a crap about a phone with almost no market share. Apple can wallow in their filth. Wake me when I am unable to buy a flagship phone with that feature. Otherwise it's just complaining that not every single manufacturer supports every single feature.
I assume you were at least trying to make a point, but I'm not seeing it.
That much is obvious. You're spending so much time wanking over phone feature lists on GSM arena that you're ignoring the underlying point: Battery technology and battery life has improved incredibly over many years. Phones and all sorts of portable devices have been enabled and improved by these, and we have more functional variation on the market than we ever have had before allowing everyone to buy that phone that they want.
The fact that you compare modern better technology to the thought that you're being screwed points more to your entitled little snowflake status than technology itself.
lol.:)
I'll say, you just got insulted over the internet. Welcome to the "better" world.
A problem solved several years ago. OLED are now expected to outlive all devices with which they are sold. Not just phone but TVs and upcoming computer displays too. Though that part one is the only one in skeptical about.
Seriously fading was a problem with first and second generation smartphones and no one has spoken about it since.
Self-driving cars and 800 mph trains in a tube by next year doesn't pass the giggle test.
Neither did 3D graphics on computers. Neither did colour television. Or for that matter any television. Or electricity.
This is kind of why the term "breakthrough" exists. Elon Musk is an egg machine. Everyone laughs at him constantly for everything he says. Then they end up with egg on their faces. If I am secretly giggling at something he says, I sure as hell don't have the guts to post about it, especially how he went from nothing to having cars drive hands free down highways in pretty much no time at all.
And where do you take that absolutely baseless claim?
Philiosophy from the sound of it, but think hard about it. Eyes are poor, the brain puts an incredibly amount of effort into just simply seeing what isn't immediately in-front of us (interpolating from subtle movements of the eye to build a more complete view of the surroundings).
The sensor capability of humans was exceeded by technology many many years ago. The only thing computers lack is understanding of what to do with the information. i.e. the software behind the cameras.
Though given the complexity of the software, the hardware to run the software may be more interesting. But there's absolutely nothing baseless about the idea that a computer shouldn't need any more visual input than 2 cameras to match what humans do with just two eyes.
Then why can't computers. We have an advantage that we can fill missing pieces in stereoscopic vision to complete our perception and it is incredibly difficult for algorithms to do that. Radar makes up for that, but it is simply possible that Tesla is closer to that then GM is.
Computer's can do stereoscopic vision just fine. The problem isn't perception, it is understanding.
He had the requisite knowledge and resources to invent.
Knowledge how to run a business in a way to recruit and retain engineering talent?
The definition isn't pedantic by the way. The GP used two different words for a reason. Both words exist for a reason. Inventors make physical things, Visionaries use ideas to change markets. Not being an inventor doesn't make you a dummy, and being a genius doesn't make you an inventor.
This trend goes all the way back to the 70s where Woz was the inventor and Jobs the visionary. e.g. Woz created a version of pong. Jobs was the one who took it to Atari. Woz invented the Apple I, Jobs is the one who figured out how to sell it. Woz developed the Apple II system, Jobs ensured that it looked marketable.
Jobs is a visionary. Frankly that in itself is far more important and amazing than being an inventor. Any clever schmuck can be an inventor.
Funny enough the slowest thing you can run on your computer is Windows Vista. Each subsequent release of Windows has required fewer resources loaded into RAM and been more intelligent and back-grounding the OS when the computer is in use. Providing there aren't hardware compatibility issues you should see a speed improvement for every successive Microsoft OS release in the past 10 years.
If no longer being in orbit rules it out from being called "oldest," then the headline is just tautological.
Only when you ignore generally accepted meaning of language. When we talk about things in their current active form with respect to age we generally accept the age to be an indication of its active life.
While you're technically right, being pedantic with a concept as fluid as language when the vast majority of the people understood the meaning and intent is like arguing with your wife. Just remember you have two options: "You can be either right, or happy"
If you can't read an article because some of the text is tinted blue you have bigger problems.
But we do have those bigger problem. Text emphasis was designed to stand out. Its sole purpose is to break the flow of reading. It's purpose is to emphasise certain part of the text. If this text that is being emphasised is not actually the important bit then the text itself becomes hard to read and confusing.
ITS MUCH THE SAME AS WRITING ALL CAPS or omitting grammar from the sentence all of this is designed to make it easier for us to read the important points
The way text is displayed conveys meaning.
I hope you never have to read a scholarly article with all those distracting footnotes.
There is a very good reason why they are footnotes, why they are on the bottom of the page, and why references to the footnotes are made as unobtrusive OMG FOOTNOTE READ ME NOW [[[[1]]]] as possible rather than being something incredibly attention grabbing [2].
Providing links to enable people to get more information is a huge boon
Yes it does. One good way of doing it would be to put links into... footnotes.
[1]: You don't need to read this. [2]: I hope you recognise how hard it was to read this post compared to if I just replied normally.
Sure, this API may make things simpler for you -- the purchaser -- but it seems the focus is on benefiting the seller.
A purchaser / seller relationship is just that, a relationship. It can get frustrated and end for external reasons. That doesn't mean it benefits one side or the other. E.g. I am hungry, I see McDonalds, I drive into the drive through and see a huuuuuuuuge queue. I leave. Sure If they efficiently handled the drive through and there was no queue my shopping there may have "benefited the seller" but as I drive away I'm still hungry.
If you get to the point where you check-out, not being able to complete the sale due to frustration over the payment process has just as much focus on you as it does the person whose risking losing your business. After all as a frustrated buyer you now need to repeat the process elsewhere.
unless the browser vendors can cooperate on a single, shared data storage method.
I don't like this idea. Adding more options exposes more ways that it could go wrong. Not only that each browser seems to handle things differently. I like the idea of tying it to companies and methods we already trust. (e.g. Google Payments, Apple Pay etc)
The researcher notes that sites that don't sell any products or advertisers could abuse the API to fingerprint and profile users (detect what payment options each user/browser has stored in its settings), or detect when the user is paying from a normal or incognito mode session.
Just great. Then any website could query your browser for available payment information.
And? Note that they just say payment information. They don't say anything about credit card details, which don't get handed over without user interaction, and in the case of Chrome still needs a CVV code manually entered. Whether or not you have 1 VISA, or 1 Mastercard and 1 PayPal as a payment option really doesn't matter much. Tracking users is already done with near perfect success. It's kind of hard to get worked up about the leak of trackable information.
Slashdot Mirror
Screw that. I want to be born on Jupiter. I'll come to earth as a super human.
They want to sell YOU.
No they don't. They want to sell ACCESS to you. There's a big difference. Google are about the people I most trust with my information as they are the least likely to give it away to someone else.
Microsoft on the other hand don't have a business model that depends on owning your data. When ownership of your data is a secondary profit for the company they are much more likely to just sell it wholesale.
If you don't trust Microsoft, you can live a Microsoft-free life.
Oh now I KNOW your are high.
I don't know why people keep reverting to the anecdote is not data fallacy. 2016? Fuck if my phone did that I'd get a warranty replacement for a defective screen.
Sure, in some countries they may just shoot you if you refuse to hand over the logs
No you misunderstand. Most countries don't give a flying fuck about the USA or USA problems, and especially don't give a flying fuck about the moaning of the USA corporate welfare.
The point of VPN endpoints is to appear somewhere outside the reach of those trying to persecute you. A Chinese person will be just fine using a Ukrainian VPN with a Swedish endpoint to escape from China's watch, regardless of how much is logged. Likewise the USA can't even get basic enforcement against known criminals in other countries, let alone persecute someone using a foreign VPN service with an even more foreign endpoint.
Not every corporation or country is beholden to the not-as-far-reaching-as-you-think eyes of the USA's TLAs. You just need to not commit a crime in the country where your VPN is hosted or end-pointed. That is pretty easy to do. Bonus points if you pick a country that actively hates the one you're trying to avoid.
And no VPN service that is run commercially can say "no" when the Feds want logs to be recorded and handed to them.
Sure they can. By "feds" I'm assuming you one of America's three letter agencies. The reality is that there are many countries in the world who don't play America's bullshit game.
It doesn't require intelligence. It requires assessment culminating in a go / stop response. If driving was left up to intelligence we would never have adopted it as a species. Instead the entire process and experience is completely defined by rules.
You seem to confuse the words developer and inventor. Otherwise, I tend to agree.
aRTee
The only distinction is if the idea requires novel thinking to get to the solution.
My S7 does not have a removable back, and I can't get at the battery.
And yet functionality is still there if you want it. https://www.gottabemobile.com/... You're just being pedantic about the specifics of exactly how you want to achieve it.
However, the new phones from Google and Apple do not. Again, this is a significant change in strategy.
Actually there's more than 2 phones on the market too. Having to quote a Google pixel doesn't help your case. No one gives a crap about a phone with almost no market share. Apple can wallow in their filth. Wake me when I am unable to buy a flagship phone with that feature. Otherwise it's just complaining that not every single manufacturer supports every single feature.
I assume you were at least trying to make a point, but I'm not seeing it.
That much is obvious. You're spending so much time wanking over phone feature lists on GSM arena that you're ignoring the underlying point: Battery technology and battery life has improved incredibly over many years. Phones and all sorts of portable devices have been enabled and improved by these, and we have more functional variation on the market than we ever have had before allowing everyone to buy that phone that they want.
The fact that you compare modern better technology to the thought that you're being screwed points more to your entitled little snowflake status than technology itself.
lol. :)
I'll say, you just got insulted over the internet. Welcome to the "better" world.
You're overthinking it. Those videos are pending to be copyright claims. They are just scams. Anyone can upload one like it.
Google can't be trusted so you moved to Microsoft. ... Are you high?
Err no. The problem set to come up with a "step on brake" Vs "continue driving" conclusion is far smaller than that of a personal assistant.
A problem solved several years ago. OLED are now expected to outlive all devices with which they are sold. Not just phone but TVs and upcoming computer displays too. Though that part one is the only one in skeptical about.
Seriously fading was a problem with first and second generation smartphones and no one has spoken about it since.
Self-driving cars and 800 mph trains in a tube by next year doesn't pass the giggle test.
Neither did 3D graphics on computers.
Neither did colour television.
Or for that matter any television.
Or electricity.
This is kind of why the term "breakthrough" exists. Elon Musk is an egg machine. Everyone laughs at him constantly for everything he says. Then they end up with egg on their faces. If I am secretly giggling at something he says, I sure as hell don't have the guts to post about it, especially how he went from nothing to having cars drive hands free down highways in pretty much no time at all.
And where do you take that absolutely baseless claim?
Philiosophy from the sound of it, but think hard about it. Eyes are poor, the brain puts an incredibly amount of effort into just simply seeing what isn't immediately in-front of us (interpolating from subtle movements of the eye to build a more complete view of the surroundings).
The sensor capability of humans was exceeded by technology many many years ago. The only thing computers lack is understanding of what to do with the information. i.e. the software behind the cameras.
Though given the complexity of the software, the hardware to run the software may be more interesting. But there's absolutely nothing baseless about the idea that a computer shouldn't need any more visual input than 2 cameras to match what humans do with just two eyes.
Then why can't computers. We have an advantage that we can fill missing pieces in stereoscopic vision to complete our perception and it is incredibly difficult for algorithms to do that. Radar makes up for that, but it is simply possible that Tesla is closer to that then GM is.
Computer's can do stereoscopic vision just fine. The problem isn't perception, it is understanding.
He had the requisite knowledge and resources to invent.
Knowledge how to run a business in a way to recruit and retain engineering talent?
The definition isn't pedantic by the way. The GP used two different words for a reason. Both words exist for a reason. Inventors make physical things, Visionaries use ideas to change markets. Not being an inventor doesn't make you a dummy, and being a genius doesn't make you an inventor.
This trend goes all the way back to the 70s where Woz was the inventor and Jobs the visionary. e.g. Woz created a version of pong. Jobs was the one who took it to Atari. Woz invented the Apple I, Jobs is the one who figured out how to sell it. Woz developed the Apple II system, Jobs ensured that it looked marketable.
Jobs is a visionary. Frankly that in itself is far more important and amazing than being an inventor. Any clever schmuck can be an inventor.
Funny enough the slowest thing you can run on your computer is Windows Vista. Each subsequent release of Windows has required fewer resources loaded into RAM and been more intelligent and back-grounding the OS when the computer is in use. Providing there aren't hardware compatibility issues you should see a speed improvement for every successive Microsoft OS release in the past 10 years.
If no longer being in orbit rules it out from being called "oldest," then the headline is just tautological.
Only when you ignore generally accepted meaning of language. When we talk about things in their current active form with respect to age we generally accept the age to be an indication of its active life.
While you're technically right, being pedantic with a concept as fluid as language when the vast majority of the people understood the meaning and intent is like arguing with your wife. Just remember you have two options: "You can be either right, or happy"
As long as the color of the link isn't overly distracting
You're not alone. You just happened to reiterate the fundamental point of the article.
If you can't read an article because some of the text is tinted blue you have bigger problems.
But we do have those bigger problem. Text emphasis was designed to stand out. Its sole purpose is to break the flow of reading. It's purpose is to emphasise certain part of the text. If this text that is being emphasised is not actually the important bit then the text itself becomes hard to read and confusing.
ITS MUCH THE SAME AS WRITING ALL CAPS or omitting grammar from the sentence all of this is designed to make it easier for us to read the important points
The way text is displayed conveys meaning.
I hope you never have to read a scholarly article with all those distracting footnotes.
There is a very good reason why they are footnotes, why they are on the bottom of the page, and why references to the footnotes are made as unobtrusive OMG FOOTNOTE READ ME NOW [[[[1]]]] as possible rather than being something incredibly attention grabbing [2].
Providing links to enable people to get more information is a huge boon
Yes it does. One good way of doing it would be to put links into ... footnotes.
[1]: You don't need to read this.
[2]: I hope you recognise how hard it was to read this post compared to if I just replied normally.
Simple solution:
[citation needed]. Is it really Simple? Wait did you provide a citation? I don't know, I'm not going to hover over every word.
so what would be the basis for dictating how they run their business?
Someone saw AIM shut doors, linked it to forced openness and figured that Facebook would be a good next target?
Sure, this API may make things simpler for you -- the purchaser -- but it seems the focus is on benefiting the seller.
A purchaser / seller relationship is just that, a relationship. It can get frustrated and end for external reasons. That doesn't mean it benefits one side or the other. E.g. I am hungry, I see McDonalds, I drive into the drive through and see a huuuuuuuuge queue. I leave. Sure If they efficiently handled the drive through and there was no queue my shopping there may have "benefited the seller" but as I drive away I'm still hungry.
If you get to the point where you check-out, not being able to complete the sale due to frustration over the payment process has just as much focus on you as it does the person whose risking losing your business. After all as a frustrated buyer you now need to repeat the process elsewhere.
unless the browser vendors can cooperate on a single, shared data storage method.
I don't like this idea. Adding more options exposes more ways that it could go wrong. Not only that each browser seems to handle things differently. I like the idea of tying it to companies and methods we already trust. (e.g. Google Payments, Apple Pay etc)
Saw this after posting above. Also from TFA:
The researcher notes that sites that don't sell any products or advertisers could abuse the API to fingerprint and profile users (detect what payment options each user/browser has stored in its settings), or detect when the user is paying from a normal or incognito mode session.
Just great. Then any website could query your browser for available payment information.
And? Note that they just say payment information. They don't say anything about credit card details, which don't get handed over without user interaction, and in the case of Chrome still needs a CVV code manually entered. Whether or not you have 1 VISA, or 1 Mastercard and 1 PayPal as a payment option really doesn't matter much. Tracking users is already done with near perfect success. It's kind of hard to get worked up about the leak of trackable information.
I don't trust any browser to store even my Slashdot login password.
Obviously this article is not aimed at the tinfoil hat crowd.
Google uses government mind control satellites for that.