Just enter your credit card number? are we that fucking lazy?
Do you write your pin code on your credit card? Do you post-it your password to your screen?
I honestly can't believe you would carry around a card with a bunch of numbers on it that allows someone to buy something without any additional checks. Lazy doesn't come into it. I can't remember 19 digits, but I can remember 3 (CVV code) and when I do then I can stop carrying a stealable physical item around that anyone who pick pocket me can use to run up charges.
If the payment info is stored in the browser, then *any* website can query your browser for available payment info. In addition, the browser maker - Mozilla, Microsoft, Google, etc... - could (will) have access to this info and any transactions.
Okay so since this features has been available for a while why not look at how it actually works:
- The browser implementation never hands over the CC info without checking with the user. - The browser does not hand over the CVV code. - Google's implementation at least handles the CC info exactly the same was as it does on Google's Play store so if you already have a mobile phone and purchased an app on it, you're level of trust does not change between using this new system vs buying an app on your phone. - Additionally Google's implementation won't hand over any CC info if the security chain isn't perfect which is a damn sight better and more secure than how the vast majority of users handle their credit card online.
As it is now, for me at least, is that, with the exception of Amazon, I don't save my payment information on any website and prefer to re-enter it whenever I make a payment.
Then you should love this system.
Furthermore, on sites other than Amazon, I almost always use a virtual credit card (ShopSafe) so the CC info is different for each vendor/purchase - rendering storing it in the browser useless.
Why? I know the USA lack all sorts of basic consumer protection laws, but I was under the impression that your quite well covered for credit card fraud.
However, it is also true that most Slashdotters hate single-owner "proprietary", and that AptX fails that test
Only when it affects them. They hate being limited in software options, they hate being drawn into licensing agreements, they hate the proprietary lock-in being used for pesky shit like DRM etc. For the most part people (including most slashdot users) don't give two shits about something buried deep in a communications protocol unless it a) has a negative affect on quality or b) doesn't work.
As for Apple putting weight into their earbuds (I note that you didn't specify EarPods), there is another possible explanation: Retention in the ear, and/or balance.
They didn't do it on Earpods, that would be stupid. They would fall out of your ears. But then we were also talking about high quality audio here. Apple doesn't pitch their Earpods as their top quality audio product.
TL;dr Give it a rest, Hater.
To be fair I'm an equal opportunity hater and a bit of an arse online. I don't care if it's Windows chewing up your dataplan, Samsung phones bursting into flames for shithouse quality control, or Apple blowing marking gas out their arse attempting to do something different while also justifying the highest markup in the audio industry, hating is a hobby of mine, and slashdot... well the amount of cannon fodder I get here makes I like my crack dealer.
And no, the proprietary aptX is NOT an equivalent. And did I mention "proprietary" (owned by Qualcomm)?
By contrast, AAC is an industry-standard (not Apple-proprietary, as many believe).
If I wanted to sit around the fireplace and sing Kum ba yah while ranting against corporate ownership, I too would support AAC. In the meantime I'll happily say that apt-x and AAC sound no different, offer no real benefits over one another to the end user who really doesn't give a shit as long as it works, and yet we still get average quality sound many thanks to sub-standard use as little power as possible because we gotta blow it all on bluetooth DACs mounted in cheaparse headsets.
Apple supports AAC? Fantastic. Wake me when they stop supporting gluing bits of metal into their plastic headphones simply to make them feel heavier and higher quality than they are.
The audio sounds fine. What part of my experience sucks?
The audio. Don't worry, if you can't hear a difference then be happy and keep using what you have. I also have bluetooth and non-bluetooth headphones. The bluetooth ones also have the ability to be plugged in and there's quite a night and day difference.
Not 100% sure if it's the crap compression codec (though they are apt-x and so is the transmitter) or more likely the anaemic and harsh designed for as low power as possible and small size at the expense of audio quality Digital Analogue Converter (or following amplifier), but I have yet to find a set of bluetooth headphones that sound as good wirelessly as they do plugged in.
And that's before we discuss the fact that I have yet to find a really top quality set of wireless headphones. The Bose.... well at least the noise cancelling is good. B&W PX are slowly getting there, the B&O Beoplay H9s sound good but you're paying a big premium for wireless, I think they are about on par with my very old Sennheiser hd580s which I got for about half the price. But if price is completely ignored there's still nothing on the market that sounds even remotely like a set of reference grade headphones like Grado RS1s or Sennheiser HD800s.
you even get a blurb of text on the screen "Disconnecting from {wifi name}."
Funny that really doesn't mean anything. If a user is expecting WiFi to turn off it stands to reason that they'd be warned they are getting disconnected. That's the problem here.
The feature itself isn't a bad idea. Quite the opposite, I like the idea of being able to disconnect WiFi without turning WiFi off. However putting that feature over another existing feature with existing behaviour, and moving that other one into some sub-menu somewhere and then providing an utterly useless message is exactly what the almighty gods of usability (Apple, at least back 10 years ago) deserve to be criticised for.
Queue freakout.
We didn't need your permission for that, and I'm sorry you feel your pet company is attacked for it. But the truth is, we are equal opportunity complainers about stupid changes to an OS. Did you defend Microsoft when they changed the shutdown button in Windows to not fully shutdown the system but put it into a fast-startup state? Well we ran multiple stories freaking out on that, but you didn't defend that practice then. Oh it's very easy to get back to a normal shutdown, and also very easy to get to clean state in the OS. But I can't help but noticing you didn't defend them in any of the stories where that was covered on Slashdot.
Don't worry. We'll run another 2 stories on this bashing Apple, that way you won't feel like Slashdot is biased.
It did,... From the very beginning,... And pressing the button cycled through all three states.
There was never any confusion about the fact that there were 3 states which did three things and at no point did they change one behaviour for another in some way that wasn't obvious to the user.
The problem here is not that WiFi or Bluetooth aren't disabled, it's the way that Apple chose to do it and present it to the user made it not immediately obvious that this is the case nor made it obvious how the user can actually control it (by hiding one setting in the settings menu while the other controlling with a button press).
The behaviour changed from and on / off with the button itself unable to do a three way toggle. The result is a user who probably is unable to understand the distinction between disconnected and off, also has the expectation that the button worked like it always did in the absence of an immediate 3rd option.
Hence what was "communicated" by the interface choice is that "disconnected" is now the replacement for "off". Really shitty from a company that prides itself on easy customer UI design.
Fully cycling any lithium cell destroys it. Panasonic rate the cells for X milliamps, which factors in the minimum discharge and max charge levels. They don't lie like other manufacturers.
And Telsa purposely derates them even further which is my point.
It has just made my day that you linked to Wikipedia but not to the article on Neoicotinoids which has a specific subsection dedicated to talking about it's various effects on bees.
You have an amazing political career in front of you.
The cells used in Tesla cars, chemistry and manufacturing developed by Panasonic, are rated for 3000 cycles.
Where were all the * and [note] and other references that you left out? The cells are not rated for 3000 complete cycles. They are rated to 3000 of the cycles that Tesla's software considered complete which is purposefully a subset of the actual rated power of the cells.
I find it hard to follow an article which straight up mis-references its own source to the tune of 10%, and its source which mis-references the supply system for a material by quoting hard rock mining which makes up just a percentage of lithium production as it is more expensive than simply extracting from a spring. Mind you even quoting somewhere between 30-40Mt is nothing compared to the 290000Mt of lithium that could potentially be extracted from seawater.
We won't *ever* run out of lithium. The price may just waver a bit as the economics and technologies around extraction change.
Because some systems are implicitly trusted. Like my removable HDD which I plug in to my home computer, that gets auto-mounted. It doesn't on my laptop*.
The protection should match the threat. A lot of encryption is to stop basic things like a thief selling a HDD of yours full of data on ebay.
*But it could be too. Windows 10 relies on your login credentials to protect the key to auto-decrypt drives. This is why having a windows password in place is sufficient to protect bit-locker encrypted drives even if they are configured to automatically mount on the machines.
Therefore historically it's been easier and cheaper to get drugs approved in Europe than in the US. Europeans got cheaper medicines faster, Americans got better, more expensive medicine. (The difficult and expensive FDA process isn't a total waste).
I disagree with this. I don't think I've seen much in the way of "unsafe" products in the EU. Useless maybe, but certainly not unsafe as the products that are likely to have a positive effect on people end up being the same regardless where you buy them.
I certainly don't think paying $400 for an Epipen vs $40 makes it any different at all, and on the experimental side of the scale, deaths or problems from approved drugs in Europe are pretty much non-existent as is the ludicrous practice of marketing drugs directly to people and doctors.
Heck given the kind of "ask your doctor if something is right for you" or better still "don't because the doctor will just recommend what he was paid to anyway" you may Americans get better drugs, but not necessarily Americans get the right drugs.
It's sortof impressive how many times Uber apps have been found to contain questionable abilities that Uber claims they stopped using some time ago.
It's even more impressive that Apple hasn't booted them from the store because of this. Most other developers will be shown the door if Apple doesn't like the exact amount of grovelling they do to keep them from getting banned.
No you have this backwards. Apple owns the absolute control of your device. Any settings you have are gifted to you by them. They aren't bypassing your security, they simply aren't offering you security you want.
And you're talking about a planned event which specifically has advantages for the DSLR vs most of your life which doesn't.
As said in my post you'd be amazed at how many households actually have a mirrorless or DSLR precisely for the reasons* you list. But they won't be the most used cameras in the house, not by a longshot.
*I got a flurry of friends asking about good entry level DSLR cameras right as their baby bumps were forming.
It's not an outlier when you look at the content vs popularity. It's not an outlier if you look at other stories from that era. It's quite telling that many of the top stories on slashdot are not tech but politics. You may have rose coloured glasses, but politics has been part of slashdot for an incredibly long time.
The users have spoken, and their message has been consistent.
Slashdot Mirror
Just enter your credit card number? are we that fucking lazy?
Do you write your pin code on your credit card?
Do you post-it your password to your screen?
I honestly can't believe you would carry around a card with a bunch of numbers on it that allows someone to buy something without any additional checks. Lazy doesn't come into it. I can't remember 19 digits, but I can remember 3 (CVV code) and when I do then I can stop carrying a stealable physical item around that anyone who pick pocket me can use to run up charges.
What has this got to do with lazy?
If the payment info is stored in the browser, then *any* website can query your browser for available payment info. In addition, the browser maker - Mozilla, Microsoft, Google, etc... - could (will) have access to this info and any transactions.
Okay so since this features has been available for a while why not look at how it actually works:
- The browser implementation never hands over the CC info without checking with the user.
- The browser does not hand over the CVV code.
- Google's implementation at least handles the CC info exactly the same was as it does on Google's Play store so if you already have a mobile phone and purchased an app on it, you're level of trust does not change between using this new system vs buying an app on your phone.
- Additionally Google's implementation won't hand over any CC info if the security chain isn't perfect which is a damn sight better and more secure than how the vast majority of users handle their credit card online.
As it is now, for me at least, is that, with the exception of Amazon, I don't save my payment information on any website and prefer to re-enter it whenever I make a payment.
Then you should love this system.
Furthermore, on sites other than Amazon, I almost always use a virtual credit card (ShopSafe) so the CC info is different for each vendor/purchase - rendering storing it in the browser useless.
Why? I know the USA lack all sorts of basic consumer protection laws, but I was under the impression that your quite well covered for credit card fraud.
However, it is also true that most Slashdotters hate single-owner "proprietary", and that AptX fails that test
Only when it affects them. They hate being limited in software options, they hate being drawn into licensing agreements, they hate the proprietary lock-in being used for pesky shit like DRM etc. For the most part people (including most slashdot users) don't give two shits about something buried deep in a communications protocol unless it a) has a negative affect on quality or b) doesn't work.
As for Apple putting weight into their earbuds (I note that you didn't specify EarPods), there is another possible explanation: Retention in the ear, and/or balance.
They didn't do it on Earpods, that would be stupid. They would fall out of your ears. But then we were also talking about high quality audio here. Apple doesn't pitch their Earpods as their top quality audio product.
TL;dr Give it a rest, Hater.
To be fair I'm an equal opportunity hater and a bit of an arse online. I don't care if it's Windows chewing up your dataplan, Samsung phones bursting into flames for shithouse quality control, or Apple blowing marking gas out their arse attempting to do something different while also justifying the highest markup in the audio industry, hating is a hobby of mine, and slashdot ... well the amount of cannon fodder I get here makes I like my crack dealer.
And no, the proprietary aptX is NOT an equivalent. And did I mention "proprietary" (owned by Qualcomm)?
By contrast, AAC is an industry-standard (not Apple-proprietary, as many believe).
If I wanted to sit around the fireplace and sing Kum ba yah while ranting against corporate ownership, I too would support AAC. In the meantime I'll happily say that apt-x and AAC sound no different, offer no real benefits over one another to the end user who really doesn't give a shit as long as it works, and yet we still get average quality sound many thanks to sub-standard use as little power as possible because we gotta blow it all on bluetooth DACs mounted in cheaparse headsets.
Apple supports AAC? Fantastic. Wake me when they stop supporting gluing bits of metal into their plastic headphones simply to make them feel heavier and higher quality than they are.
The audio sounds fine. What part of my experience sucks?
The audio. Don't worry, if you can't hear a difference then be happy and keep using what you have. I also have bluetooth and non-bluetooth headphones. The bluetooth ones also have the ability to be plugged in and there's quite a night and day difference.
Not 100% sure if it's the crap compression codec (though they are apt-x and so is the transmitter) or more likely the anaemic and harsh designed for as low power as possible and small size at the expense of audio quality Digital Analogue Converter (or following amplifier), but I have yet to find a set of bluetooth headphones that sound as good wirelessly as they do plugged in.
And that's before we discuss the fact that I have yet to find a really top quality set of wireless headphones. The Bose .... well at least the noise cancelling is good. B&W PX are slowly getting there, the B&O Beoplay H9s sound good but you're paying a big premium for wireless, I think they are about on par with my very old Sennheiser hd580s which I got for about half the price. But if price is completely ignored there's still nothing on the market that sounds even remotely like a set of reference grade headphones like Grado RS1s or Sennheiser HD800s.
Copied from "Samsung". This is not a standard Android feature.
you even get a blurb of text on the screen "Disconnecting from {wifi name}."
Funny that really doesn't mean anything. If a user is expecting WiFi to turn off it stands to reason that they'd be warned they are getting disconnected. That's the problem here.
The feature itself isn't a bad idea. Quite the opposite, I like the idea of being able to disconnect WiFi without turning WiFi off. However putting that feature over another existing feature with existing behaviour, and moving that other one into some sub-menu somewhere and then providing an utterly useless message is exactly what the almighty gods of usability (Apple, at least back 10 years ago) deserve to be criticised for.
Queue freakout.
We didn't need your permission for that, and I'm sorry you feel your pet company is attacked for it. But the truth is, we are equal opportunity complainers about stupid changes to an OS. Did you defend Microsoft when they changed the shutdown button in Windows to not fully shutdown the system but put it into a fast-startup state? Well we ran multiple stories freaking out on that, but you didn't defend that practice then. Oh it's very easy to get back to a normal shutdown, and also very easy to get to clean state in the OS. But I can't help but noticing you didn't defend them in any of the stories where that was covered on Slashdot.
Don't worry. We'll run another 2 stories on this bashing Apple, that way you won't feel like Slashdot is biased.
It did,...
From the very beginning,...
And pressing the button cycled through all three states.
There was never any confusion about the fact that there were 3 states which did three things and at no point did they change one behaviour for another in some way that wasn't obvious to the user.
The problem here is not that WiFi or Bluetooth aren't disabled, it's the way that Apple chose to do it and present it to the user made it not immediately obvious that this is the case nor made it obvious how the user can actually control it (by hiding one setting in the settings menu while the other controlling with a button press).
The entire problem here is simple UI interaction.
There's a fundamental problem there.
The behaviour changed from and on / off with the button itself unable to do a three way toggle. The result is a user who probably is unable to understand the distinction between disconnected and off, also has the expectation that the button worked like it always did in the absence of an immediate 3rd option.
Hence what was "communicated" by the interface choice is that "disconnected" is now the replacement for "off". Really shitty from a company that prides itself on easy customer UI design.
Fully cycling any lithium cell destroys it. Panasonic rate the cells for X milliamps, which factors in the minimum discharge and max charge levels. They don't lie like other manufacturers.
And Telsa purposely derates them even further which is my point.
It has just made my day that you linked to Wikipedia but not to the article on Neoicotinoids which has a specific subsection dedicated to talking about it's various effects on bees.
You have an amazing political career in front of you.
The cells used in Tesla cars, chemistry and manufacturing developed by Panasonic, are rated for 3000 cycles.
Where were all the * and [note] and other references that you left out? The cells are not rated for 3000 complete cycles. They are rated to 3000 of the cycles that Tesla's software considered complete which is purposefully a subset of the actual rated power of the cells.
Your 100% fully charged Tesla actually isn't.
There's not enough lithium on the planet to produce the batteries required to do this on a country sized scale:
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/08/nation-sized-battery/
I find it hard to follow an article which straight up mis-references its own source to the tune of 10%, and its source which mis-references the supply system for a material by quoting hard rock mining which makes up just a percentage of lithium production as it is more expensive than simply extracting from a spring. Mind you even quoting somewhere between 30-40Mt is nothing compared to the 290000Mt of lithium that could potentially be extracted from seawater.
We won't *ever* run out of lithium. The price may just waver a bit as the economics and technologies around extraction change.
You cant possibly be that fucking stupid.
You are right, but as evident by your asinine reply, *you* obviously can.
Better still, Technology is just applied physics.
Because some systems are implicitly trusted. Like my removable HDD which I plug in to my home computer, that gets auto-mounted. It doesn't on my laptop*.
The protection should match the threat. A lot of encryption is to stop basic things like a thief selling a HDD of yours full of data on ebay.
*But it could be too. Windows 10 relies on your login credentials to protect the key to auto-decrypt drives. This is why having a windows password in place is sufficient to protect bit-locker encrypted drives even if they are configured to automatically mount on the machines.
How can such a bug in a security sensitive component of OS-X be overlooked in testing?
Because the password hint field is often not considered critical functionality, test worthy or even security sensitive?
Neonics are one of the few things they can actually tolerate
You must have exceeded safe human exposure to Neonics if you think that.
Therefore historically it's been easier and cheaper to get drugs approved in Europe than in the US. Europeans got cheaper medicines faster, Americans got better, more expensive medicine. (The difficult and expensive FDA process isn't a total waste).
I disagree with this. I don't think I've seen much in the way of "unsafe" products in the EU. Useless maybe, but certainly not unsafe as the products that are likely to have a positive effect on people end up being the same regardless where you buy them.
I certainly don't think paying $400 for an Epipen vs $40 makes it any different at all, and on the experimental side of the scale, deaths or problems from approved drugs in Europe are pretty much non-existent as is the ludicrous practice of marketing drugs directly to people and doctors.
Heck given the kind of "ask your doctor if something is right for you" or better still "don't because the doctor will just recommend what he was paid to anyway" you may Americans get better drugs, but not necessarily Americans get the right drugs.
It's sortof impressive how many times Uber apps have been found to contain questionable abilities that Uber claims they stopped using some time ago.
It's even more impressive that Apple hasn't booted them from the store because of this. Most other developers will be shown the door if Apple doesn't like the exact amount of grovelling they do to keep them from getting banned.
bypass your security settings
No you have this backwards. Apple owns the absolute control of your device. Any settings you have are gifted to you by them. They aren't bypassing your security, they simply aren't offering you security you want.
Turns out you can't stream much on 0.9 Mbps DSL.
I think I'm going to start a collection for you. That is inhuman.
And you're talking about a planned event which specifically has advantages for the DSLR vs most of your life which doesn't.
As said in my post you'd be amazed at how many households actually have a mirrorless or DSLR precisely for the reasons* you list. But they won't be the most used cameras in the house, not by a longshot.
*I got a flurry of friends asking about good entry level DSLR cameras right as their baby bumps were forming.
They get all the context they need from automatically generated data-graphs.
You can't data graph data you don't have.
It's not an outlier when you look at the content vs popularity. It's not an outlier if you look at other stories from that era. It's quite telling that many of the top stories on slashdot are not tech but politics. You may have rose coloured glasses, but politics has been part of slashdot for an incredibly long time.
The users have spoken, and their message has been consistent.