Sadly, you only get USB-C connectors, which is the main reason I have asked my company to refrain from upgrading my 2015 MBP (my existing peripherals won't work, plus there will be an extra little box to carry around with me)
Your existing USB-A peripherals will work fine. You may need to buy a couple of these. Not sure what extra little box you're talking about, but maybe you mean one of these? I have one (not that model, but similar) and I think it's great because it combines all of the less-needed ports into a single compact unit -- HDMI, Ethernet, SD card, etc.
One non-obvious upside of USB-C on Macbooks is that you can use any of the ports for charging, which means you can plug your charging cable in from whichever side is convenient. This seems like an irrelevant advantage until you've actually lived with it for a while. Another thing I really like, since my phone and bluetooth headphones use USB-C as well, is that I now travel with only a single charger, my laptop charger. I used to carry extra charging cables so I could charge the phone and headphones from the laptop, but now I don't bother. One charger and one cable, is all I need. It even works if I need to connect phone to laptop because the cable between the computer and charger is a normal male-to-male USB-C cable. So I can just disconnect it from the charger and use it to connect laptop to phone. The fact that it's a standard cable also means that when I got annoyed that Apple's provided cable was too short, I just bought a longer one and swapped it out.
So, IMO, the USB-C ports are great.
However, there is a good reason to stick with your 2015 MBP: the new keyboard sucks, and while the touchstrip isn't awful it's not great either.
I agree with the heavy fines. Green cards for rats is a terrible idea though. People will cross illegally and then turn on each other so one of them can win the "lottery".
I doubt any significant number of green cards would be handed out, because employers would know that they are almost guaranteed to be caught, and so would refuse to take the risk.
All it takes to thwart any laser based weaponry is to come covered in something that reflects and scatters light well.
Try moving around on a sunny day in reflective gear to see how well that works on a battlefield.
OTOH, you could have reflective gear with an ablative camouflage coating over it. The laser would burn off the camo, then get reflected from the reflective layer.
Raising the minimum wage is a potentially disastrous idea. We're already on the verge of an automation-induced crash in employment, artificially boosting the cost of labor will accelerate the trend.
Scam business set up to provide citizenship in 3..2..
Heavy fines would make that uneconomical. Or, if the scam businesses have no assets, then we should add criminal penalties with significant prison time.
A hike in the minimum wage coupled with real efforts to prosecute employers who break immigration law would be a much more effective solution.
Making e-verify mandatory and prosecuting employers who don't use it would do the job without a minimum wage hike. To really make it effective, I suggest that we also offer permanent residency to any illegal alien who rats out their boss.
I *want* illegals to be reported and kicked out of the country
Is it important that they be reported and kicked out, or would you be okay if they just left on their own?
If the latter, then here's a better solution for you: Let's impose heavy fines on any American business who employs an illegal immigrant without validating them via e-verify, and significant jail time for American who does so knowingly. Also, let's offer permanent residency (a green card) to any illegal alien who rats out their boss.
Illegals will instantly become unemployable. Very few green cards will be handed out. With the economic motive for staying in the US removed, the vast majority of illegals will leave. No Orwellian tracking required.
But if Mueller finds evidence of criminal behavior by Trump and turns it over to Congress, and if the House chooses to impeach Trump and if the Senate convicts him, then he'll be removed from office -- and can be indicted and prosecuted. This allows the investigation to be as non-political as possible, by placing the political decision of what to do about whatever the investigation finds in the hands of Congress.
W.T. actual F? Congress is apolitical? Bwhahahaha. It's the definition of a political body. Chances of the house actually doing something with Mueller's evidence, is slim to none. A special prosecutor was appointed for the reason to find the truth regardless of political climate, but GOP don't want the truth.
I said this way the investigation is non-political, and that the political decision is places in the hands of Congress -- the political body.
This seems like it is at the central concern for why Trump chose Kavanaugh in particular, and they haven't denied that they considered Kavanaugh's opinion that the President should be protected from legal inquiry of various kinds.
I'm not sure that Kavanaugh's opinion helps Trump as much as he might think it does. All it would take is for Mueller to agree that he cannot indict Trump, and all of Kavanaugh's concerns are addressed. As long as Trump can't be targeted for prosecution, there's no reason he shouldn't be compelled to answer Mueller's questions, much less be able to shut down the investigation. I don't see anything in Kavanaugh's opinion that indicates he believes the president should be above the law.
But if Mueller finds evidence of criminal behavior by Trump and turns it over to Congress, and if the House chooses to impeach Trump and if the Senate convicts him, then he'll be removed from office -- and can be indicted and prosecuted. This allows the investigation to be as non-political as possible, by placing the political decision of what to do about whatever the investigation finds in the hands of Congress.
The justices could simply rule the law unconstitutional because it lacks clarity or specificity. If you cannot understand what the law is to do, then by default it is unconstitutional. So toss the law and force Congress to try again.
In this case, you could write the clearest and most specific law possible to ensure net neutrality -- and Kavanaugh would rule it an unconstitutional infringement of the free speech of ISPs.
Of course, the ideal solution is competition. Given a choice between an ISP that restricts your choices and one that doesn't, you'll take the latter -- unless the restricted ISP costs a lot less or offers some other compelling advantage. This question only arises because so many consumers have no real choice of ISP.
You can easily get a 7kW (32A) charger installed -- I have one. They're installed on an isolator switch, before the consumer panel.
They could be installed before the consumer panel, but there's really no reason not to install the circuit in the consumer panel, unless it's full, or you can't easily run the wiring from it, or some such issue.
Every older release back to the one that introduced Now?
I don't know about older releases, sorry. I could flash older ones and test, but I'm not *that* interested:-)
Or maybe you specifically changed the default behaviour.
Definitely not. I just factory reset my device this morning, so it's a very stock configuration.
You're clever. That doesn't mean Google's actions aren't intentionally devious. They created a specific mode in their App specifically designed to not obey Android defaults.
> but most of it is because good software engineers who also know security are just hard to find.
So, why doesn't Google just hire some software engineers and put them through a training camp/apprenticeship? This excuse of every company is getting tired. Are you willing to invest in your work-force or not?
We do quite a bit of that (apprenticeship, I mean; training camps aren't effective). But training new people takes time and energy from the existing staff, which reduces the work they can get done. Even for experienced hires, it takes a year or more before they're really productive; add another two or three years for those who aren't.
Actually, it's pretty darned hard to do that on an up-to-date device (e.g. Pixel). There will always be vulnerabilities, but SELinux and other efforts have made Android a pretty hard target lately. Except, of course, for the fact that many device makers don't update.
And these are the companies that supposedly have the best developers and essentially unlimited resources.
Regarding Google, I think the developers are generally quite good, but resources are far from unlimited. I work on the Android platform security team, and we're always overstretched. That's partly because we set ambitious goals, but mostly because it's just really hard to find people. Part of that is location -- we currently only hire in Mountain View, Kirkland and London, so we can only hire people willing to live in one of those locations -- but most of it is because good software engineers who also know security are just hard to find.
Linus is right... but note that he talked about eyeballs, not open vs closed source. If an open source project is obscure, or if the code is too hard to read, it may not get any scrutiny. On the other hand, closed source code from companies that care about security enough to pay security firms to scrutinize their code, or to hire security-knowledgeable developers and have them look at it carefully, can get a lot of eyeballs.
In the normal course of events, though, open source code almost always gets more attention than closed source, just because anyone who wants to look, can.
"post-truth types"... ahh yes, because we all know GameboyRMH has an iron grasp on the truth, even when it contradicts his worldview.
LOL. What a perfect example of GameboyRMH's point. "Exactly, and making perfect the enemy of good is just the tactic post-truth types love to use against fact-checking."
Obviously there are a large number of things GameboyRMH is wrong about, so we should dismiss his comments about everything. Never mind that "there are a large number of things X is wrong about" is true of absolutely everyone, and that following this line of reasoning to its logical end results in having to decide that there is no such thing as truth.
This quickly devolves into a one side versus the other argument that authoritative sources almost never win.
Depends on what you mean by "win". If by "win" you mean that the conspiracy theorists are convinced of the error of their ways, yeah, that's not going to happen. But if you mean that you'll prevent a significant number of visitors who would otherwise get sucked into the weirdness from getting sucked in, that seems much more feasible.
OTOH, enough people will probably own cars that it makes sense for new construction to include a 50A circuit to the garage. The cost of adding the circuit before drywall is up is minimal. Heck, some of those who don't want to use it to charge their car might want to use it to run a welder.
The UK uses 240V by default, right? That's why they have those massive clublike plugs?
True, and Google tells me the normal wall plug in the UK can provide 13A. That's 3.1kW, which isn't unusable. Assuming consumption of 250 Wh/mile, such a charger will add 12 miles of range per hour, so charging overnight will add 100+ miles of range. However, you'd want to be sure nothing else is on that circuit, and it really would be better to install 50A.
Ever clicked on something from the Google Now search?
I just installed Firefox, searched for something in Now (whatever it's called these days), and the system prompted me to pick whether I wanted to use Firefox or Chrome. I am running P, so it's possible that this is something that was broken in older releases. Another possibility is that your device maker has broken this behavior (I'm using a Pixel).
This sounds like one of those situations where they install charging stations all over the place, then in ten years there is a new standard and all the old charging stations are now obsolete.
Meh.
The charger isn't the expensive part of adding a charging station, it's getting a high-amperage power line run to the right place. Done during new construction, that costs very little. Done after the fact... it can be cheap or it can be really expensive, depending.
If I were advising the government, I'd tell them not to bother with the chargers, just add a requirement to the building code: a 240V 50A outlet should be provided in the parking lot area (in the US, it would be a NEMA 14-50 outlet; not sure what the UK equivalent is). With the power available, you can always install a charger. They don't cost much.
If they must install chargers, J1772 is standard enough. And if something else is needed, most likely you can just slap an adapter on it (I charge my Tesla with a J1772 plus a $35 adapter).
The OP spoke of the OS, not add-on services or apps, so that's what I was referring to. Granted that I said "everything Google provides". Sorry, I should have been clearer.
You're right, of course, that the Google apps and Google Play services are closed source.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, you only get USB-C connectors, which is the main reason I have asked my company to refrain from upgrading my 2015 MBP (my existing peripherals won't work, plus there will be an extra little box to carry around with me)
Your existing USB-A peripherals will work fine. You may need to buy a couple of these. Not sure what extra little box you're talking about, but maybe you mean one of these? I have one (not that model, but similar) and I think it's great because it combines all of the less-needed ports into a single compact unit -- HDMI, Ethernet, SD card, etc.
One non-obvious upside of USB-C on Macbooks is that you can use any of the ports for charging, which means you can plug your charging cable in from whichever side is convenient. This seems like an irrelevant advantage until you've actually lived with it for a while. Another thing I really like, since my phone and bluetooth headphones use USB-C as well, is that I now travel with only a single charger, my laptop charger. I used to carry extra charging cables so I could charge the phone and headphones from the laptop, but now I don't bother. One charger and one cable, is all I need. It even works if I need to connect phone to laptop because the cable between the computer and charger is a normal male-to-male USB-C cable. So I can just disconnect it from the charger and use it to connect laptop to phone. The fact that it's a standard cable also means that when I got annoyed that Apple's provided cable was too short, I just bought a longer one and swapped it out.
So, IMO, the USB-C ports are great.
However, there is a good reason to stick with your 2015 MBP: the new keyboard sucks, and while the touchstrip isn't awful it's not great either.
I agree with the heavy fines. Green cards for rats is a terrible idea though. People will cross illegally and then turn on each other so one of them can win the "lottery".
I doubt any significant number of green cards would be handed out, because employers would know that they are almost guaranteed to be caught, and so would refuse to take the risk.
And what, exactly, are you positing would happen at the end of your countdown?
YouTube does, technically, support RSS feeds, but you have to know the secret handshake in order to get the feed address.
Or, alternatively, you could google "youtube rss" and find the Google support page that tells you how to do it: https://support.google.com/you...
All it takes to thwart any laser based weaponry is to come covered in something that reflects and scatters light well.
Try moving around on a sunny day in reflective gear to see how well that works on a battlefield.
OTOH, you could have reflective gear with an ablative camouflage coating over it. The laser would burn off the camo, then get reflected from the reflective layer.
Raising the minimum wage is a potentially disastrous idea. We're already on the verge of an automation-induced crash in employment, artificially boosting the cost of labor will accelerate the trend.
Scam business set up to provide citizenship in 3..2..
Heavy fines would make that uneconomical. Or, if the scam businesses have no assets, then we should add criminal penalties with significant prison time.
A hike in the minimum wage coupled with real efforts to prosecute employers who break immigration law would be a much more effective solution.
Making e-verify mandatory and prosecuting employers who don't use it would do the job without a minimum wage hike. To really make it effective, I suggest that we also offer permanent residency to any illegal alien who rats out their boss.
I *want* illegals to be reported and kicked out of the country
Is it important that they be reported and kicked out, or would you be okay if they just left on their own?
If the latter, then here's a better solution for you: Let's impose heavy fines on any American business who employs an illegal immigrant without validating them via e-verify, and significant jail time for American who does so knowingly. Also, let's offer permanent residency (a green card) to any illegal alien who rats out their boss.
Illegals will instantly become unemployable. Very few green cards will be handed out. With the economic motive for staying in the US removed, the vast majority of illegals will leave. No Orwellian tracking required.
But if Mueller finds evidence of criminal behavior by Trump and turns it over to Congress, and if the House chooses to impeach Trump and if the Senate convicts him, then he'll be removed from office -- and can be indicted and prosecuted. This allows the investigation to be as non-political as possible, by placing the political decision of what to do about whatever the investigation finds in the hands of Congress.
W.T. actual F? Congress is apolitical? Bwhahahaha. It's the definition of a political body. Chances of the house actually doing something with Mueller's evidence, is slim to none. A special prosecutor was appointed for the reason to find the truth regardless of political climate, but GOP don't want the truth.
I said this way the investigation is non-political, and that the political decision is places in the hands of Congress -- the political body.
This seems like it is at the central concern for why Trump chose Kavanaugh in particular, and they haven't denied that they considered Kavanaugh's opinion that the President should be protected from legal inquiry of various kinds.
I'm not sure that Kavanaugh's opinion helps Trump as much as he might think it does. All it would take is for Mueller to agree that he cannot indict Trump, and all of Kavanaugh's concerns are addressed. As long as Trump can't be targeted for prosecution, there's no reason he shouldn't be compelled to answer Mueller's questions, much less be able to shut down the investigation. I don't see anything in Kavanaugh's opinion that indicates he believes the president should be above the law.
But if Mueller finds evidence of criminal behavior by Trump and turns it over to Congress, and if the House chooses to impeach Trump and if the Senate convicts him, then he'll be removed from office -- and can be indicted and prosecuted. This allows the investigation to be as non-political as possible, by placing the political decision of what to do about whatever the investigation finds in the hands of Congress.
The justices could simply rule the law unconstitutional because it lacks clarity or specificity. If you cannot understand what the law is to do, then by default it is unconstitutional. So toss the law and force Congress to try again.
In this case, you could write the clearest and most specific law possible to ensure net neutrality -- and Kavanaugh would rule it an unconstitutional infringement of the free speech of ISPs.
Of course, the ideal solution is competition. Given a choice between an ISP that restricts your choices and one that doesn't, you'll take the latter -- unless the restricted ISP costs a lot less or offers some other compelling advantage. This question only arises because so many consumers have no real choice of ISP.
You can easily get a 7kW (32A) charger installed -- I have one. They're installed on an isolator switch, before the consumer panel.
They could be installed before the consumer panel, but there's really no reason not to install the circuit in the consumer panel, unless it's full, or you can't easily run the wiring from it, or some such issue.
Every older release back to the one that introduced Now?
I don't know about older releases, sorry. I could flash older ones and test, but I'm not *that* interested :-)
Or maybe you specifically changed the default behaviour.
Definitely not. I just factory reset my device this morning, so it's a very stock configuration.
You're clever. That doesn't mean Google's actions aren't intentionally devious. They created a specific mode in their App specifically designed to not obey Android defaults.
If so, it's apparently been changed in P.
> but most of it is because good software engineers who also know security are just hard to find.
So, why doesn't Google just hire some software engineers and put them through a training camp/apprenticeship? This excuse of every company is getting tired. Are you willing to invest in your work-force or not?
We do quite a bit of that (apprenticeship, I mean; training camps aren't effective). But training new people takes time and energy from the existing staff, which reduces the work they can get done. Even for experienced hires, it takes a year or more before they're really productive; add another two or three years for those who aren't.
You can still exploit Android
Actually, it's pretty darned hard to do that on an up-to-date device (e.g. Pixel). There will always be vulnerabilities, but SELinux and other efforts have made Android a pretty hard target lately. Except, of course, for the fact that many device makers don't update.
And these are the companies that supposedly have the best developers and essentially unlimited resources.
Regarding Google, I think the developers are generally quite good, but resources are far from unlimited. I work on the Android platform security team, and we're always overstretched. That's partly because we set ambitious goals, but mostly because it's just really hard to find people. Part of that is location -- we currently only hire in Mountain View, Kirkland and London, so we can only hire people willing to live in one of those locations -- but most of it is because good software engineers who also know security are just hard to find.
Linus is right... but note that he talked about eyeballs, not open vs closed source. If an open source project is obscure, or if the code is too hard to read, it may not get any scrutiny. On the other hand, closed source code from companies that care about security enough to pay security firms to scrutinize their code, or to hire security-knowledgeable developers and have them look at it carefully, can get a lot of eyeballs.
In the normal course of events, though, open source code almost always gets more attention than closed source, just because anyone who wants to look, can.
"post-truth types" ... ahh yes, because we all know GameboyRMH has an iron grasp on the truth, even when it contradicts his worldview.
LOL. What a perfect example of GameboyRMH's point. "Exactly, and making perfect the enemy of good is just the tactic post-truth types love to use against fact-checking."
Obviously there are a large number of things GameboyRMH is wrong about, so we should dismiss his comments about everything. Never mind that "there are a large number of things X is wrong about" is true of absolutely everyone, and that following this line of reasoning to its logical end results in having to decide that there is no such thing as truth.
This quickly devolves into a one side versus the other argument that authoritative sources almost never win.
Depends on what you mean by "win". If by "win" you mean that the conspiracy theorists are convinced of the error of their ways, yeah, that's not going to happen. But if you mean that you'll prevent a significant number of visitors who would otherwise get sucked into the weirdness from getting sucked in, that seems much more feasible.
Sure. The outlet is convenient, but not necessary.
OTOH, enough people will probably own cars that it makes sense for new construction to include a 50A circuit to the garage. The cost of adding the circuit before drywall is up is minimal. Heck, some of those who don't want to use it to charge their car might want to use it to run a welder.
The UK uses 240V by default, right? That's why they have those massive clublike plugs?
True, and Google tells me the normal wall plug in the UK can provide 13A. That's 3.1kW, which isn't unusable. Assuming consumption of 250 Wh/mile, such a charger will add 12 miles of range per hour, so charging overnight will add 100+ miles of range. However, you'd want to be sure nothing else is on that circuit, and it really would be better to install 50A.
Ever clicked on something from the Google Now search?
I just installed Firefox, searched for something in Now (whatever it's called these days), and the system prompted me to pick whether I wanted to use Firefox or Chrome. I am running P, so it's possible that this is something that was broken in older releases. Another possibility is that your device maker has broken this behavior (I'm using a Pixel).
Every asked Google to open something for you?
Just tried it, same story.
This sounds like one of those situations where they install charging stations all over the place, then in ten years there is a new standard and all the old charging stations are now obsolete.
Meh.
The charger isn't the expensive part of adding a charging station, it's getting a high-amperage power line run to the right place. Done during new construction, that costs very little. Done after the fact... it can be cheap or it can be really expensive, depending.
If I were advising the government, I'd tell them not to bother with the chargers, just add a requirement to the building code: a 240V 50A outlet should be provided in the parking lot area (in the US, it would be a NEMA 14-50 outlet; not sure what the UK equivalent is). With the power available, you can always install a charger. They don't cost much.
If they must install chargers, J1772 is standard enough. And if something else is needed, most likely you can just slap an adapter on it (I charge my Tesla with a J1772 plus a $35 adapter).
The Google services in question are not OSS.
The OP spoke of the OS, not add-on services or apps, so that's what I was referring to. Granted that I said "everything Google provides". Sorry, I should have been clearer.
You're right, of course, that the Google apps and Google Play services are closed source.