It's easy to forget the WP7 is a 1.0 product, but I do feel sorry for the people who have phones running that OS.
Remember, a lot of non-savvy people opted for WP7 based on the name of Microsoft. They will be shocked to find Skype missing.
Eh, WP7 is old. I don't think people will be that shocked. They should feel guilty for being so far behind the times, and give all their money to a smartphone manufacturer right away./sarc
I'm sure somebody at Microsoft is annoyed at this, but the Skype devs are probably relieved to stop supporting it. It's easy to forget that WP7 was essentially a 1.0 product. It was a restart from Windows Mobile 6.5, and very limited versus concurrent Android and iOS. With WP8 and 8.1 they've been getting up to speed nicely. I still want to see better third party Bluetooth support for devs, though.
1. Exploit sellers will turn around and secretly sell the same goods to other parties regardless of any agreement they signed with the US government.
2. This will inflate the sale price and create perverse incentives to inject defects to "discover" and sell them later.
3. The government is really bad at pretty much everything it does. Some of it is necessary stuff so we tolerate it, but c'mon, this isn't!
4. Everybody is mad at the NSA for its misbehavior and spying on Americans/the world right now -- is this really the best time to remind people that the US government wants to collect tools to hack everybody?
My comments were re: general usability. I don't know that I've lost email, and my message history goes back to 2000. Hmmm, this is disturbing, will have to research this some more. Do you have any specifics about how it happened, or did stuff just disappear?
Yahoo mail improved dramatically after Marissa Mayer became CEO. It seems to me that they are actually trying to be more like Gmail, and it shows in a positive way. They still fall short, but as a longtime Yahoo mail user I'll take what I can get. At least their recent improvements are much better than your characterization, for sure.
To be fair, I'd rather be an ethnically-Persian-to-some-degree Jew or Catholic living in Iran than the equivalent in Palestinian controlled Gaza. The Iranians pride themselves on at least paying lip service to tolerating Persian Jews and Christians, as opposed to forming mobs and murdering them. For example, Iran actually has a Jewish member of Parliament. Of course, democratic/representative government there is basically a sham since it's all under the ayatollah.
And yet, Iran is the most imminent threat to Israel and Iran's rulers routinely scream about their murderous intent involving WMDs.
Before anybody dons the proverbial tin foil hat, consider:
1. It is not possible to exert mind control over an intelligent and reasonable person simply by throttling their social media streams. 2. The "stuff you don't like" that it hides is more likely to be worthless drivel than desperate attempts of the suppressed Resistance to unify against The Man.
This is all speaking as an outsider -- I don't use Facebook and I can't imagine what would make me want to (to each his own, I suppose).
cheaper to snip around in their brain than house them for 20 years
I can think of somewhere else to snip first that would probably have a significant effect. (And no, I don't support punishment of "thought-crimes", even though as a parent I can't help but perceive risk from people inclined to such things.)
They're still of interest in the field
on
The CIA Does Las Vegas
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If you hosted a well known "true black hat" hacker at the conference they would still command everybody's respect purely for their abilities, and everybody would want to hear what they had to say. You take for granted that much of it is going to be a lie, but it's still more interesting and on topic than (say) inviting a politician to speak.
Just from what I've seen (not a user yet) Swift seems like an intelligently put together language. But I'd like it a lot better if somebody ported it so it can be useful across multiple platforms. I'm a C# developer who uses Xamarin's platforms, and compiling my code for all the major mobile and desktop platforms is a really good feeling. (Paying Xamarin's licensing fees isn't, but you know how that goes.)
Yeah, spoken like someone who has never had constipation. And looking at that stew the Jedi Master cooked in his little Dagobah hut, I'm not surprised.
With regard to Windows Phone you may have a point. Microsoft and Nokia have really aggressively pursued the low end of smartphones, particularly outside the USA, and have been seeing some traction in terms of devices sold.
However, in terms of profits, it's pretty much Apple and Samsung [running Android]. Bleeding millions of dollars has certainly done something, but I'm not sure what Microsoft's plan for the endgame is at this point.
My sister had that done as a Type 1 diabetic with severe cataracts. The cataracts are gone and she jumped to perfect correction of her nearsightedness, although she immediately needed to start wear bifocals for near vision, despite being in her 20's. Not entirely sure how that worked, but that's all I know.
No, they put a few drops of some chemical on your eyes, then wait a few minutes, and the chemical forces your pupils to dilate, in other words the hole at the front of your eye gets bigger and more open. Then they can look inside your eye and see if the retina looks healthy -- it gives them a bigger hole to peer through.
After the procedure your eyes take a while to re-adjust so the pupil stays dilated for a bit. My eye doctor gives patients free eyeshades if they don't have sunglasses with them, as it can be really hard on your eyes to go out in the sunlight with pupils still dilated -- sunlight can be extremely bright and painful. It wears off over an hour or two and your pupils get back to normal.
Can they give "warning shots" for some time period ahead of time to clear the area? Can they definitively detect whether any large mammals are in the vicinity before giving the big blasts?
Actually, even if they can, this sounds really bad, no pun intended.:(
I disagree. We are not entitled to say that a change in carbon will effect a change in net energy that we can predict using simple measurements. One reason is that a change in carbon causes changes in other features of the atmosphere that have a profound effect on the planet's warming or lack thereof. Climate change is chaotic and, thus far anyway, it's been impossible to predict over the long term.
Check out this article explaining why this is complex. For example, changing the CO2 changes the water vapor in the atmosphere, which will quickly goof up your best intentioned "back of the envelope" calculations.
Maybe you're in a different discussion by now, but many parents ago I posted:
Carbon sensitivity can make the difference between an expectation of climate change catastrophe, versus the anthropogenic component being dwarfed in the long term by the fluctuations of natural variability. As far as I can tell, the urgency or non-urgency of the climate change debate rests on this piece. And we don't know the answer to it.
So it's on topic for the discussion _I_ was having. Maybe you are talking to yourself./just-joking
There are, however, some things left unmentioned about the IPCC claims. For example, the observations are consistent with models only if emissions include arbitrary amounts of reflecting aerosols particles (arising, for example, from industrial sulfates) which are used to cancel much of the warming predicted by the models. The observations themselves, without such adjustments, are consistent with there being sufficiently little warming as to not constitute a problem worth worrying very much about.
In addition, the IPCC assumed that computer models accurately included any alternative sources of warming—most notably, the natural, unforced variability associated with phenomena like El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, etc. Yet the relative absence of statistically significant warming for over a decade shows clearly that this assumption was wrong. Of course, none of this matters any longer to those replacing reason with assertions of authority.
1. I don't care about any data I'm sharing with the site. So if my password was posted on Twitter, that would not cause a major problem for me.
2. I may not even trust such a site to handle my private data. So I would typically not even use my personal email address, but rather something like mailinator.com. (Credit: The AC who also replied makes this excellent point. Healthy online distrust should be extended to hosts and sites as well as to other internet users.)
Slashdot Mirror
It's easy to forget the WP7 is a 1.0 product, but I do feel sorry for the people who have phones running that OS.
Remember, a lot of non-savvy people opted for WP7 based on the name of Microsoft. They will be shocked to find Skype missing.
Eh, WP7 is old. I don't think people will be that shocked. They should feel guilty for being so far behind the times, and give all their money to a smartphone manufacturer right away. /sarc
I'm sure somebody at Microsoft is annoyed at this, but the Skype devs are probably relieved to stop supporting it. It's easy to forget that WP7 was essentially a 1.0 product. It was a restart from Windows Mobile 6.5, and very limited versus concurrent Android and iOS. With WP8 and 8.1 they've been getting up to speed nicely. I still want to see better third party Bluetooth support for devs, though.
1. Exploit sellers will turn around and secretly sell the same goods to other parties regardless of any agreement they signed with the US government.
2. This will inflate the sale price and create perverse incentives to inject defects to "discover" and sell them later.
3. The government is really bad at pretty much everything it does. Some of it is necessary stuff so we tolerate it, but c'mon, this isn't!
4. Everybody is mad at the NSA for its misbehavior and spying on Americans/the world right now -- is this really the best time to remind people that the US government wants to collect tools to hack everybody?
My comments were re: general usability. I don't know that I've lost email, and my message history goes back to 2000. Hmmm, this is disturbing, will have to research this some more. Do you have any specifics about how it happened, or did stuff just disappear?
Ah, I see. Poor linux support is a shame, but it doesn't surprise me.
Yahoo mail improved dramatically after Marissa Mayer became CEO. It seems to me that they are actually trying to be more like Gmail, and it shows in a positive way. They still fall short, but as a longtime Yahoo mail user I'll take what I can get. At least their recent improvements are much better than your characterization, for sure.
To be fair, I'd rather be an ethnically-Persian-to-some-degree Jew or Catholic living in Iran than the equivalent in Palestinian controlled Gaza. The Iranians pride themselves on at least paying lip service to tolerating Persian Jews and Christians, as opposed to forming mobs and murdering them. For example, Iran actually has a Jewish member of Parliament. Of course, democratic/representative government there is basically a sham since it's all under the ayatollah.
And yet, Iran is the most imminent threat to Israel and Iran's rulers routinely scream about their murderous intent involving WMDs.
Bottom line: Iran is a weird place.
Those nations don't just censor social media streams (Twitter, Facebook), they also censor regular news media, web sites and public conversations.
Before anybody dons the proverbial tin foil hat, consider:
1. It is not possible to exert mind control over an intelligent and reasonable person simply by throttling their social media streams.
2. The "stuff you don't like" that it hides is more likely to be worthless drivel than desperate attempts of the suppressed Resistance to unify against The Man.
This is all speaking as an outsider -- I don't use Facebook and I can't imagine what would make me want to (to each his own, I suppose).
cheaper to snip around in their brain than house them for 20 years
I can think of somewhere else to snip first that would probably have a significant effect. (And no, I don't support punishment of "thought-crimes", even though as a parent I can't help but perceive risk from people inclined to such things.)
If you hosted a well known "true black hat" hacker at the conference they would still command everybody's respect purely for their abilities, and everybody would want to hear what they had to say. You take for granted that much of it is going to be a lie, but it's still more interesting and on topic than (say) inviting a politician to speak.
Very nice -- like a marriage of Python and C#. Thanks for the link AC.
Just from what I've seen (not a user yet) Swift seems like an intelligently put together language. But I'd like it a lot better if somebody ported it so it can be useful across multiple platforms. I'm a C# developer who uses Xamarin's platforms, and compiling my code for all the major mobile and desktop platforms is a really good feeling. (Paying Xamarin's licensing fees isn't, but you know how that goes.)
Do. Or do not. There is no try.
Yeah, spoken like someone who has never had constipation. And looking at that stew the Jedi Master cooked in his little Dagobah hut, I'm not surprised.
With regard to Windows Phone you may have a point. Microsoft and Nokia have really aggressively pursued the low end of smartphones, particularly outside the USA, and have been seeing some traction in terms of devices sold.
However, in terms of profits, it's pretty much Apple and Samsung [running Android]. Bleeding millions of dollars has certainly done something, but I'm not sure what Microsoft's plan for the endgame is at this point.
FTFY
n/t (with unique-ifier that Slashdot demands).
My sister had that done as a Type 1 diabetic with severe cataracts. The cataracts are gone and she jumped to perfect correction of her nearsightedness, although she immediately needed to start wear bifocals for near vision, despite being in her 20's. Not entirely sure how that worked, but that's all I know.
No, they put a few drops of some chemical on your eyes, then wait a few minutes, and the chemical forces your pupils to dilate, in other words the hole at the front of your eye gets bigger and more open. Then they can look inside your eye and see if the retina looks healthy -- it gives them a bigger hole to peer through.
After the procedure your eyes take a while to re-adjust so the pupil stays dilated for a bit. My eye doctor gives patients free eyeshades if they don't have sunglasses with them, as it can be really hard on your eyes to go out in the sunlight with pupils still dilated -- sunlight can be extremely bright and painful. It wears off over an hour or two and your pupils get back to normal.
Can they give "warning shots" for some time period ahead of time to clear the area? Can they definitively detect whether any large mammals are in the vicinity before giving the big blasts?
:(
Actually, even if they can, this sounds really bad, no pun intended.
I disagree. We are not entitled to say that a change in carbon will effect a change in net energy that we can predict using simple measurements. One reason is that a change in carbon causes changes in other features of the atmosphere that have a profound effect on the planet's warming or lack thereof. Climate change is chaotic and, thus far anyway, it's been impossible to predict over the long term.
Check out this article explaining why this is complex. For example, changing the CO2 changes the water vapor in the atmosphere, which will quickly goof up your best intentioned "back of the envelope" calculations.
Carbon sensitivity can make the difference between an expectation of climate change catastrophe, versus the anthropogenic component being dwarfed in the long term by the fluctuations of natural variability. As far as I can tell, the urgency or non-urgency of the climate change debate rests on this piece. And we don't know the answer to it.
So it's on topic for the discussion _I_ was having. Maybe you are talking to yourself. /just-joking
No, we know how much heat CO2 traps based on direct measurement
Your faith is strong, but it's misguided and based on popular oversimplifications. Here's Richard Lindzen writing in a WSJ editorial:
There are, however, some things left unmentioned about the IPCC claims. For example, the observations are consistent with models only if emissions include arbitrary amounts of reflecting aerosols particles (arising, for example, from industrial sulfates) which are used to cancel much of the warming predicted by the models. The observations themselves, without such adjustments, are consistent with there being sufficiently little warming as to not constitute a problem worth worrying very much about.
In addition, the IPCC assumed that computer models accurately included any alternative sources of warming—most notably, the natural, unforced variability associated with phenomena like El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, etc. Yet the relative absence of statistically significant warming for over a decade shows clearly that this assumption was wrong. Of course, none of this matters any longer to those replacing reason with assertions of authority.
Fortunately, the software will have no bugs, and there will never be any lawsuits related to its performance. ;)
There are two things you aren't grasping here:
1. I don't care about any data I'm sharing with the site. So if my password was posted on Twitter, that would not cause a major problem for me.
2. I may not even trust such a site to handle my private data. So I would typically not even use my personal email address, but rather something like mailinator.com. (Credit: The AC who also replied makes this excellent point. Healthy online distrust should be extended to hosts and sites as well as to other internet users.)