It's actually relatively easy to switch your email away from Google. I did it when I was in China and Google services were blocked.
It was a few clicks in Microsoft Live Mail to set up. I could have done it at the domain level but it was only temporary. For people who want to keep their gmail address it works great.
You can also just download your entire mailbox in mbox format with Google Takeout. It's really only the @gmail.com address that is an issue, which is why I encourage people to simply buy themselves a personal domain.
Edge moved to Chromium because Microsoft doesn't see the value in continuing to develop its own rendering engine. What benefit does it bring them?
Despite decades of trying and being the default they still can't make a popular browser. Edge has a severe lack of good add-ons and Chromium brings them instant compatibility with most of the Chrome/Firefox ones. They already tied themselves to that mast with Visual Studio Code (which is built on Electron, which is Chromium).
They lost that fight years ago. Edge was the last ditch attempt, and it failed.
We know for a fact that the US already does that. The NSA intercepts Cisco gear being shipped, installs its own malware under the OS so that it survives updates and is very hard to detect, and then sends it on to the victim. No courts involved, we only found out thanks to Snowden.
Maybe we should be buying NEC network gear. Maybe the Japanese government has it's hooks in it, but at least they seem fairly benign.
Huawei has spent a lot of money on independent code audits, and allows certain people to view the source code themselves (mainly government orgs and very large customers). What has Cisco done, other than get hit with literally hundreds of critical vulnerabilities, often backdoor accounts and hard coded passwords?
At least Huawei are trying. We know for a fact that the NSA targets Cisco gear and they have done very little about it.
They did not. The report clearly says that the "support" for Clinton was only to the extent that it pushed her supporters to be more extreme and make her and the Democrats look bad, e.g. by attacking Sanders.
In fact they did a lot of sabotage Clinton. Releasing those emails just before the vote, spreading misinformation to discourage or prevent her supporters from voting.
"populism" is now considered a bad word
It always was. It refers to politics that offers seemingly simple solutions to often largely invented problems for the sake of gaining power, rather than making things actually better.
It's ironic that many Trump supporters use the "will of the people" argument, except when it is pointed out that he lost the popular vote at which point they claim the electoral college system is protection from the tyranny of the majority.
The left is focused on basics like education and healthcare because those are the things that tend to keep people poor. Education opens up more opportunities, and that includes learning trades as well as purely academic study.
Clinton's real problem was that she had too much baggage. Nothing was wrong with her policies really. She was an easy target for a populist promising to "drain the swamp" and offer a bunch of simplistic solutions to complex problems that in reality take many years of sustain effort to fix.
The scale of what Russia has been up to is incredible. They even trolled against movies like The Last Jedi, knowing that it would create division and feed the "sjws are taking over" meme. And somehow it's taken us this long to even understand it.
How is creating an open, patent and licence free standard, with free and open implementation (BSD) and presenting it to the W3 for ratification "wrestling control"?
By that logic then half the technologies that have been powering the web for decades are just a power grab. Javascript worked out really well for Netscape.
And how is putting congestion control in the client a power grab? Surely it allows other browsers to implement their own even better schemes and creates the competition and innovation that will drive everyone forward.
A slightly less good site that still works, all because your browser doesn't support the features needed to provide the more advanced stuff, isn't breaking sites for other browsers. And in this case the guy is complaining that YouTube "broke" by stopping their brittle power optimizations from working by adding an invisible div - does that sound like robust production ready and standards compliant code?
Fix what issue? Should Google stop developing new technology? A lot of the improvements to the standards have come from Google and other doing this kind of work. HTTP3 is based on Google technology that was pioneered with Chrome and Google sites, and it's excellent.
Microsoft's stuff was closed source proprietary bug-ridden crap. Lack of support broke sites, while Google is careful to ensure that sites work fine in other browsers. Remember when you couldn't download stuff from Microsoft.com because it needed IE?
There are other alternatives than just wood, although even wood can be used safely if treated properly.
For example rather than using concrete blocks you can use polystyrene blocks. They are great insulators too. Obviously not so strong but great for using inside walls.
Concrete is cheap but as soon as we find something cheaper it will be replaced. That's always what kills off old tech.
They will try to make Android less reliant on Google Search services. They already had to due to EU competition investigations anyway. If they can make Android work in China with the Play Store and other Google services but without Search, the bit which everyone is upset over censorship of, they can still get all that revenue.
And speaking of trying out proprietary technologies in your own browser, we all remember Active X and IE HTML extensions and Frontpage server side extensions.
This whole thing is bollocks anyway. Google isn't breaking sites in other browsers like Microsoft did, the are just developing new tech that eventually they propose as a standard if it works out. And the YouTube "attack" on Edge sounds more like a bug, especially since they fixed it in an update. Likely the Edge code was brittle and heavily optimized to win battery benchmarks at the expense of compatibility, i.e. it was tuned to YouTube so specifically that the addition of an invisible div broke it.
I used to live in the UK where you could get the TV and I think some music. There is some good stuff on the TV, like The Man in the High Castle, but after about a month you have exhausted the original content and it's not worth renewing.
In Ireland you can't seem to get the TV. At least my smart TV tells me it's not available in my region. There is no Amazon Ireland per-se, they have a distribution centre in Dublin but you use the.co.uk domain and pay in Sterling.
2029 is not very ambitious. Shenzhen in China has been 100% electric busses for a few years now, and more than 80% of new busses in China are electric. Maybe they are waiting for US manufacturers to catch up rather than buy Chinese.
I guess they meant the last few years. Paris, Manchester, Las Vegas... Seems like security has got better in 2018, but of course parent's are still worried when their kids want them to buy them Taylor Swift tickets.
Prime isn't worth it, and this just makes it an even worse deal. Items eligible for Prime delivery cost more anyway, i.e. they already have the cost of expedited shipping added in. Amazon isn't all that cheap anyway for most things, it's only the free super-saver delivery that saves it.
Being able to get basic stuff delivered added a lot of value to Prime, in terms of convenience. They are really trying to make it unattractive.
Most phones with notches let you "disable" the cut out by shrinking the screen a little so that it's just the rectangular area under it. Works with every app, at least on Android (have not looked at iOS). So at the very worst you end up with a screen just like it would have been had they not bothered with a notch and simply reserved the top area for sensors.
What about that says censorship? No, they are talking about the crappy YouTube recommendation system that gives you flat earth bullshit and conspiracy theories when you are looking for NASA videos.
Is not recommending something censorship? Does free speech depend on your ability to game the ranking algorithm now? Are people who block spam fascists?
Here's what TFA actually says, since apparently you can't be bothered to click on the link:
The issue that upset so many YouTube fans, it turns out, was what the Rewind video did not show. Many of the most notable YouTube moments of the year â" such as the August boxing match between KSI and Logan Paul, two YouTube stars who fought in a highly publicized spectacle watched by millions â" went unmentioned. And some prominent YouTubers were absent, including Felix Kjellberg, a.k.a. âoePewDiePie,â one of the most popular creators in YouTubeâ(TM)s history, who had appeared in the Rewind videos as recently as 2016.
Some YouTubers enjoyed the video. But to many, it felt like evidence that YouTube the company was snubbing YouTube the community by featuring mainstream celebrities in addition to the platformâ(TM)s homegrown creators, and by glossing over major moments in favor of advertiser-friendly scenes.
What part of that counts as "people dissatisfied that YouTube isn't doing more to suppress speech that The Times itself fears"?
Trek did stories about both gender and race. In fact the one where a woman swaps bodies with Kirk used the fact that women could not become captains in Star Fleet as the major motivation, but then shied away from actually addressing it. The pilot had a female Number 1 but the studio demanded they change it. Roddenberry was very much trying to get as much of that stuff in as he could get away with.
I guess the popular anti-feminist narrative about TLJ completely misses the fact that it was a story about the male characters and their growth. Finn found a cause, Poe learned to trust his superiors and be a better solider than relying on his skills and glorious but costly victories could allow, and Luke came to accept that the Jedi were flawed and needed to come to an end.
But what does any of this have to do with Who now? Maybe if you are not British (I don't know, are you?) you don't get the context of some of it... Like there were lots of stories in the 70s about workers fighting corporations or how in the future the same basic problems still exist for them, which was very relevant to what was happening in the UK at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
It's actually relatively easy to switch your email away from Google. I did it when I was in China and Google services were blocked.
It was a few clicks in Microsoft Live Mail to set up. I could have done it at the domain level but it was only temporary. For people who want to keep their gmail address it works great.
You can also just download your entire mailbox in mbox format with Google Takeout. It's really only the @gmail.com address that is an issue, which is why I encourage people to simply buy themselves a personal domain.
Edge moved to Chromium because Microsoft doesn't see the value in continuing to develop its own rendering engine. What benefit does it bring them?
Despite decades of trying and being the default they still can't make a popular browser. Edge has a severe lack of good add-ons and Chromium brings them instant compatibility with most of the Chrome/Firefox ones. They already tied themselves to that mast with Visual Studio Code (which is built on Electron, which is Chromium).
They lost that fight years ago. Edge was the last ditch attempt, and it failed.
We know for a fact that the US already does that. The NSA intercepts Cisco gear being shipped, installs its own malware under the OS so that it survives updates and is very hard to detect, and then sends it on to the victim. No courts involved, we only found out thanks to Snowden.
Maybe we should be buying NEC network gear. Maybe the Japanese government has it's hooks in it, but at least they seem fairly benign.
Huawei has spent a lot of money on independent code audits, and allows certain people to view the source code themselves (mainly government orgs and very large customers). What has Cisco done, other than get hit with literally hundreds of critical vulnerabilities, often backdoor accounts and hard coded passwords?
At least Huawei are trying. We know for a fact that the NSA targets Cisco gear and they have done very little about it.
They supported both Clinton and Trump.
They did not. The report clearly says that the "support" for Clinton was only to the extent that it pushed her supporters to be more extreme and make her and the Democrats look bad, e.g. by attacking Sanders.
In fact they did a lot of sabotage Clinton. Releasing those emails just before the vote, spreading misinformation to discourage or prevent her supporters from voting.
"populism" is now considered a bad word
It always was. It refers to politics that offers seemingly simple solutions to often largely invented problems for the sake of gaining power, rather than making things actually better.
It's ironic that many Trump supporters use the "will of the people" argument, except when it is pointed out that he lost the popular vote at which point they claim the electoral college system is protection from the tyranny of the majority.
The left is focused on basics like education and healthcare because those are the things that tend to keep people poor. Education opens up more opportunities, and that includes learning trades as well as purely academic study.
Clinton's real problem was that she had too much baggage. Nothing was wrong with her policies really. She was an easy target for a populist promising to "drain the swamp" and offer a bunch of simplistic solutions to complex problems that in reality take many years of sustain effort to fix.
The scale of what Russia has been up to is incredible. They even trolled against movies like The Last Jedi, knowing that it would create division and feed the "sjws are taking over" meme. And somehow it's taken us this long to even understand it.
Why was it wrong for Russia to try to influence the election in 2016?
What, what stage is this again? We have had
1. It didn't happen
2. It did happen, but was insignificant
3. It was significant but good because her emails
And now "it was bad but Russia has a democratic right to participate in US elections!"
I'm intrigued to know where this is going next.
How is creating an open, patent and licence free standard, with free and open implementation (BSD) and presenting it to the W3 for ratification "wrestling control"?
By that logic then half the technologies that have been powering the web for decades are just a power grab. Javascript worked out really well for Netscape.
And how is putting congestion control in the client a power grab? Surely it allows other browsers to implement their own even better schemes and creates the competition and innovation that will drive everyone forward.
A slightly less good site that still works, all because your browser doesn't support the features needed to provide the more advanced stuff, isn't breaking sites for other browsers. And in this case the guy is complaining that YouTube "broke" by stopping their brittle power optimizations from working by adding an invisible div - does that sound like robust production ready and standards compliant code?
Fix what issue? Should Google stop developing new technology? A lot of the improvements to the standards have come from Google and other doing this kind of work. HTTP3 is based on Google technology that was pioneered with Chrome and Google sites, and it's excellent.
Microsoft's stuff was closed source proprietary bug-ridden crap. Lack of support broke sites, while Google is careful to ensure that sites work fine in other browsers. Remember when you couldn't download stuff from Microsoft.com because it needed IE?
What exactly has Google done wrong here?
There are other alternatives than just wood, although even wood can be used safely if treated properly.
For example rather than using concrete blocks you can use polystyrene blocks. They are great insulators too. Obviously not so strong but great for using inside walls.
Concrete is cheap but as soon as we find something cheaper it will be replaced. That's always what kills off old tech.
They will try to make Android less reliant on Google Search services. They already had to due to EU competition investigations anyway. If they can make Android work in China with the Play Store and other Google services but without Search, the bit which everyone is upset over censorship of, they can still get all that revenue.
And speaking of trying out proprietary technologies in your own browser, we all remember Active X and IE HTML extensions and Frontpage server side extensions.
This whole thing is bollocks anyway. Google isn't breaking sites in other browsers like Microsoft did, the are just developing new tech that eventually they propose as a standard if it works out. And the YouTube "attack" on Edge sounds more like a bug, especially since they fixed it in an update. Likely the Edge code was brittle and heavily optimized to win battery benchmarks at the expense of compatibility, i.e. it was tuned to YouTube so specifically that the addition of an invisible div broke it.
Jog on Microsoft.
I used to live in the UK where you could get the TV and I think some music. There is some good stuff on the TV, like The Man in the High Castle, but after about a month you have exhausted the original content and it's not worth renewing.
In Ireland you can't seem to get the TV. At least my smart TV tells me it's not available in my region. There is no Amazon Ireland per-se, they have a distribution centre in Dublin but you use the .co.uk domain and pay in Sterling.
2029 is not very ambitious. Shenzhen in China has been 100% electric busses for a few years now, and more than 80% of new busses in China are electric. Maybe they are waiting for US manufacturers to catch up rather than buy Chinese.
You would agree with him after the 1200th can of grape soda.
I guess they meant the last few years. Paris, Manchester, Las Vegas... Seems like security has got better in 2018, but of course parent's are still worried when their kids want them to buy them Taylor Swift tickets.
So does pretty much every other celebrity of her stature and that is nothing new.
How does that excuse anything, or justify not using new technology when it becomes available?
It will be exceptionally easy for even well intentioned governments and private enterprises to abuse.
That boat sailed long ago. If you think Taylor Swift using it is the tip of the iceberg, I have some bad news for you.
Prime isn't worth it, and this just makes it an even worse deal. Items eligible for Prime delivery cost more anyway, i.e. they already have the cost of expedited shipping added in. Amazon isn't all that cheap anyway for most things, it's only the free super-saver delivery that saves it.
Being able to get basic stuff delivered added a lot of value to Prime, in terms of convenience. They are really trying to make it unattractive.
Most phones with notches let you "disable" the cut out by shrinking the screen a little so that it's just the rectangular area under it. Works with every app, at least on Android (have not looked at iOS). So at the very worst you end up with a screen just like it would have been had they not bothered with a notch and simply reserved the top area for sensors.
Sigh. Relevant part from your own quote:
pushing them toward
What about that says censorship? No, they are talking about the crappy YouTube recommendation system that gives you flat earth bullshit and conspiracy theories when you are looking for NASA videos.
Is not recommending something censorship? Does free speech depend on your ability to game the ranking algorithm now? Are people who block spam fascists?
Here's what TFA actually says, since apparently you can't be bothered to click on the link:
The issue that upset so many YouTube fans, it turns out, was what the Rewind video did not show. Many of the most notable YouTube moments of the year â" such as the August boxing match between KSI and Logan Paul, two YouTube stars who fought in a highly publicized spectacle watched by millions â" went unmentioned. And some prominent YouTubers were absent, including Felix Kjellberg, a.k.a. âoePewDiePie,â one of the most popular creators in YouTubeâ(TM)s history, who had appeared in the Rewind videos as recently as 2016.
Some YouTubers enjoyed the video. But to many, it felt like evidence that YouTube the company was snubbing YouTube the community by featuring mainstream celebrities in addition to the platformâ(TM)s homegrown creators, and by glossing over major moments in favor of advertiser-friendly scenes.
What part of that counts as "people dissatisfied that YouTube isn't doing more to suppress speech that The Times itself fears"?
Literally nobody believes it's just as bad for guys.
I do, therefore you are wrong, and I win!
Ha!
Trek did stories about both gender and race. In fact the one where a woman swaps bodies with Kirk used the fact that women could not become captains in Star Fleet as the major motivation, but then shied away from actually addressing it. The pilot had a female Number 1 but the studio demanded they change it. Roddenberry was very much trying to get as much of that stuff in as he could get away with.
I guess the popular anti-feminist narrative about TLJ completely misses the fact that it was a story about the male characters and their growth. Finn found a cause, Poe learned to trust his superiors and be a better solider than relying on his skills and glorious but costly victories could allow, and Luke came to accept that the Jedi were flawed and needed to come to an end.
But what does any of this have to do with Who now? Maybe if you are not British (I don't know, are you?) you don't get the context of some of it... Like there were lots of stories in the 70s about workers fighting corporations or how in the future the same basic problems still exist for them, which was very relevant to what was happening in the UK at the time.