That was, to be fair, true anyway. Powershell is supposed to be an improvement on cmd.exe, but like 99% of Slashdotters, while I've heard of it, I've never actually used it or tried to find out what it can do, so I'll reserve judgement.
It's a figure of speech (I used to be British, we don't really do the yelling and screaming thing about things that we're angry about, we just tut tut.)
Well, no, they wouldn't, because they wouldn't sell the phones.
In business, you charge an optimal price for a item. You go into business selling that item if you can produce it for less than the optimal price.
Yes, the optimal price will vary a little if the profit margin is substantially lower, but it's still going to be in the same ballpark using the figures quoted here. Could Apple get away with selling their iPhones for $800? Probably not, it would result in a colossal loss in sales.
Apple is storing the call data without the user's knowledge or ability to control it.
I disagree on all points.
The user can control it, they can choose whether to link their device to iCloud or not. And saying it's "without the user's knowledge" is rather like saying "It stores the user's phonebook without their knowledge" or "It stores the user's photos without their knowledge". Sure, it may or may not explicitly state that, but it's implied by the very act of syncing.
This is, at best, a user pig-ignorance thing: by pig ignorance, I mean not merely that the user is ignorant, which is OK, it happens, not everyone's a tech expert, but one where a user hasn't even bothered to think about what enabling a particular feature on their phone means.
I'm struggling to be outraged. iCloud stores a lot of stuff that's more personal than your call history, and for all Apple's faults, they've proven to be fairly strong on the privacy front.
(Also I'm still a little pissed that my BLU smartphone has been sending my SMS messages to China until today for reasons that nobody is willing to give an even vaguely plausible answer to.)
I'm not pro-Apple (see previous comments) but this isn't unexpected, secret, behavior. When you link your iDevice to something supposedly intended to keep it sync'd and backed up, this is exactly what you'd expect it to do. This isn't even a bug.
Not a huge fan of his ideas (Hyperloop? Urgh) but at least he's pouring money into projects that might make the world a better place if they succeed, rather than into electing fascists, unlike certain other members of the PayPal Mafia.
OMG yeah, there's only so much space in space. I mean, with so many Satellites out there, you're not going to be able to leave Earth without crashing into something!
I'm more hoping they intend to give the finger to Oracle by making C# a first class citizen on Android, and deprecating Java.
C# is a better language anyway, and Google's adoption of Java has kept a language on life support that... well, it's not a terrible language, but it has a Donald Trump of an owner if you know what I mean. Better to move on to something both technically superior and politically undamaged.
That's exactly it. There's some twisted argument along the lines of "Well, they say BLACK lives matter, therefore they must be against WHITE LIVES11!!1!" that some use, but other than illiterates, I think the main argument boils down to "Those are people protesting against something I agree with, therefore I'm going to throw out insults without caring what they mean."
Yeah, because people were listening to each other's different viewpoints on Twitter.
Well, OK, but if you did a search for opposing viewpoints, you could at least find well argued insightful comments on Tw...
OK, wait, no, let's not. This'll make no difference whatsoever.
And to be honest, it might even be a good thing. It might be good for the left to enter their own echo chambers, and the right to enter their's, and instead of the two spending all their time yelling at each other, the two try to figure out how to make their own ideologies work.
Because, to be honest, I don't think Trump would have been elected if the right wing had kept an eye on the right wing. I don't think he would have even been nominated. And I doubt that Clinton would have been either. I think there's actually a good chance the Republicans would have nominated someone right wing, maybe a little over ideological, but someone who isn't a fascist. And I think the left would have laughed at the idea that a woman associated with neo-conservatism and triangulation would best represent them, and would have found someone more representative of our values too.
Maybe it would have ended up being Rand Paul vs Bernie Sanders. Or, maybe Marco Rubio vs Elizabeth Warren. Or maybe Rubio vs Biden. I don't know.
But you have to admit, any of those choices would have been not only better than what we were stuck with, but also more representative of the parties and factions overall.
Oh you mean one of the two parts of the ACA that Trump just agreed with and said he would keep on 60 minutes
Yeah, he did, but there's a lot of "Yes he will", "No we won't" coming from the Republicans right now, and a lot of raised eyes by anyone who knows how the ACA works.
You can't get rid of the pre-existing conditions coverage without also removing the mandate, otherwise insurance prices will go sky high, leading to a death spiral and insurers going bankrupt at the end of it.
So that leaves a choice of: either the Republicans will present a bill to Trump pretty much eliminating the entire thing, or the ACA will be kept until they can figure out a way to get around the mandate.
Which do you think the Republicans will do? And do you think Trump will really refuse to sign off on abolishing the hated ACA because one aspect of the soon to be killed bill was kinda sorta popular? (Though not-popular enough to ensure people refused to vote Republcian unless they kept the whole thing, apparently?)
There is literally not a single statement above that's actually truthful in any way. This story IS about Twitter applying individuals to create filters for their own feed. Twitter has never been caught applying filters to people they ideologically disagree with (if they had, half the third party blocking solutions wouldn't exist.) And, frankly, the only reading comprehension being shown here to be abandoned for partisan hackery is your own.
People have been investigating those so called "Trump-caused hate incidents" and a lot of them turn out to be faked
A lot of them, huh? Not all of them? Just a lot of them?
So in other words, there have been numerous Trump-related hate incidents - acts of violence, acts of vandalism, people going up to Spanish speakers and telling them in front of their kids that they're going to be deported, etc, but the fact that some of them are fake means people who lost the election are trying to smear Trump.
Right.
That's some intellectual gymnastics there bud.
Hey, remember when Trump implied that almost all illegal immigrants were rapists and murderers? But he totally wasn't racist because he said "some, I assume, are good people" afterwards which still meant he was saying that almost all illegal immigrants are rapists and murderers, but, uh... What was the reason why this wasn't racist again?
Good times anyway.
Remember when he offered to pay the legal bills of any thug on his team that attacked a protestor? Remember when that totally wasn't supporting violence against opponents because, uh, a discredited extreme right wing operative released a video supposedly showing that a low level Clinton supporter had suggested, in the abstract, well after this had happened, trying to demonstrate Trump's supporters are violent by protesting peacefully nearby in a way likely to result in violent people being violent?
Good times!
Here's a question: why are you defending this man?
Trump's a fascist. He showed that before the election. He's not shown any signs of backing down. His post-election behavior, right down to appointing a white supremacist as his chief policy adviser, shows he has no intention of moving away from his campaign's special brand of thuggery, dehumanization, and violent populism.
You know that, so why are you pretending it's not happening?
Did you vote for him because you really weren't that familiar with him, and then suddenly are a little shocked at the backlash, and you really don't want to believe he's a fascist?
Or do you agree with him, do you like seeing immigrants dehumanized, Muslims smeared, Jews scared, do you like seeing violence against peaceful protestors who don't support the things you do, do you like seeing the law abused to punish opposition politicians? Is your objection here that you've never realized this collection of principles falls under the umbrella of "Fascism", and boy, you don't like the idea that it would be, because you support all those things, and supporting those things makes you a fascist, and you've heard that's a bad word?
Kinda like the racists who get very upset when they're called racists?
What is it? Are you going to stop it with the apologism and the normalization, and stand against this evil like the rest of us?
Exactly what is wrong with giving people filters so they can decide who talks to them or not?
I mean, you're suggesting it's some kind of attack on speech, but there's never been a right to be listened to. I'd semi-agree if this was Twitter removing posts it doesn't want anyone to read, but it's not.
Most USENET news readers circa 1992 had killfiles and filters for exactly this purpose. USENET remains, as far as most of us who remember it are concerned, the greatest forum for free speech the Internet has ever seen.
Also the "Left are rioting, we didn't!" claim ignores the situation that violence seems to be everywhere right now. Plenty of "sore winner" Trump fans beating up people, plenty of pro-Trump or fascist vandalism, etc.
So the smug lectures from the right about how they didn't riot (guess what! I didn't either!) are woefully misplaced.
I've no idea what the motives of those "rioting" at anti-Clinton rallies are. But right now I know people are legitimately terrified of what Trump is bringing. With Trump supporters telling people in front of their children they're going to be deported, with Jewish journalists sent pictures of their children being gassed in ovens by a smiling Trump, and with Trump's own violent and hate filled rhetoric, they have good reason to be scared.
Probably true. "They haven't been maintaining it quality wise as it once was." completely contradicts the notion that it's buggy. It certainly used to be a buggy, unstable, piece of crap.
If that were not true then we would already see production happening here in the US.
No, you wouldn't because this is a race to the bottom. Any smartphone manufacturer who employs cheap (foreign) labor ends up with a competitive advantage over a domestic manufacturer, while still benefiting from the domestic manufacturer's decision to build in the US and employ US workers.
Incidentally, it looks like nobody read the last line of my comment. I was not addressing whether a trade war would be positive or negative, I absolutely oppose a trade war. I was addressing the argument made by the person I was responding to.
It would be a very good thing if electronics makers were to start building in the US, but without being forced to as a group, it's not going to happen because while all of them building in the US together would have no negative impacts, any of them choosing not to participate would negatively impact those that do. Even so, I'm opposed to forcing them.
That wasn't ChrisW's point, so I didn't miss it, but for what it's worth I agree with you, which is part of the reason why I said I don't welcome a trade war with China.
The lawyers don't need to answer because it's already settled. We already have a centralized mechanism to pay for the damage caused by accidents involving cars and right now its used for everything from chipped paint to deaths. In all cases, car insurance is used, and it costs around $1,000 per year per vehicle.
The makers of autonomous can either require a subscription payment to the service costing something similar to that, or build it into their regular lease or sale pricing (ie a car expected to last an average of 20 years before being taken off the road will cost $20,000 more if it has automated driving.)
The lawsuits already exist. All we're talking about is a shift of whose names are on the lawsuits, but the fact that suddenly everyone's suing Ford rather than 10,000 Ford customers doesn't matter if Ford has the funds those 10,000 Ford customers would have used to pay for the accidents.
FWIW, Black Parrot, I think most people understood you perfectly fine. Yes, it's a better goal to reduce accidents than to try to keep the levels equal.
Slashdot Mirror
That was, to be fair, true anyway. Powershell is supposed to be an improvement on cmd.exe, but like 99% of Slashdotters, while I've heard of it, I've never actually used it or tried to find out what it can do, so I'll reserve judgement.
It's a figure of speech (I used to be British, we don't really do the yelling and screaming thing about things that we're angry about, we just tut tut.)
Well, no, they wouldn't, because they wouldn't sell the phones.
In business, you charge an optimal price for a item. You go into business selling that item if you can produce it for less than the optimal price.
Yes, the optimal price will vary a little if the profit margin is substantially lower, but it's still going to be in the same ballpark using the figures quoted here. Could Apple get away with selling their iPhones for $800? Probably not, it would result in a colossal loss in sales.
I disagree on all points.
The user can control it, they can choose whether to link their device to iCloud or not. And saying it's "without the user's knowledge" is rather like saying "It stores the user's phonebook without their knowledge" or "It stores the user's photos without their knowledge". Sure, it may or may not explicitly state that, but it's implied by the very act of syncing.
This is, at best, a user pig-ignorance thing: by pig ignorance, I mean not merely that the user is ignorant, which is OK, it happens, not everyone's a tech expert, but one where a user hasn't even bothered to think about what enabling a particular feature on their phone means.
I'm struggling to be outraged. iCloud stores a lot of stuff that's more personal than your call history, and for all Apple's faults, they've proven to be fairly strong on the privacy front.
(Also I'm still a little pissed that my BLU smartphone has been sending my SMS messages to China until today for reasons that nobody is willing to give an even vaguely plausible answer to.)
I'm not pro-Apple (see previous comments) but this isn't unexpected, secret, behavior. When you link your iDevice to something supposedly intended to keep it sync'd and backed up, this is exactly what you'd expect it to do. This isn't even a bug.
Not a huge fan of his ideas (Hyperloop? Urgh) but at least he's pouring money into projects that might make the world a better place if they succeed, rather than into electing fascists, unlike certain other members of the PayPal Mafia.
OMG yeah, there's only so much space in space. I mean, with so many Satellites out there, you're not going to be able to leave Earth without crashing into something!
I'm more hoping they intend to give the finger to Oracle by making C# a first class citizen on Android, and deprecating Java.
C# is a better language anyway, and Google's adoption of Java has kept a language on life support that... well, it's not a terrible language, but it has a Donald Trump of an owner if you know what I mean. Better to move on to something both technically superior and politically undamaged.
That's exactly it. There's some twisted argument along the lines of "Well, they say BLACK lives matter, therefore they must be against WHITE LIVES11!!1!" that some use, but other than illiterates, I think the main argument boils down to "Those are people protesting against something I agree with, therefore I'm going to throw out insults without caring what they mean."
Yeah, because people were listening to each other's different viewpoints on Twitter.
Well, OK, but if you did a search for opposing viewpoints, you could at least find well argued insightful comments on Tw...
OK, wait, no, let's not. This'll make no difference whatsoever.
And to be honest, it might even be a good thing. It might be good for the left to enter their own echo chambers, and the right to enter their's, and instead of the two spending all their time yelling at each other, the two try to figure out how to make their own ideologies work.
Because, to be honest, I don't think Trump would have been elected if the right wing had kept an eye on the right wing. I don't think he would have even been nominated. And I doubt that Clinton would have been either. I think there's actually a good chance the Republicans would have nominated someone right wing, maybe a little over ideological, but someone who isn't a fascist. And I think the left would have laughed at the idea that a woman associated with neo-conservatism and triangulation would best represent them, and would have found someone more representative of our values too.
Maybe it would have ended up being Rand Paul vs Bernie Sanders. Or, maybe Marco Rubio vs Elizabeth Warren. Or maybe Rubio vs Biden. I don't know.
But you have to admit, any of those choices would have been not only better than what we were stuck with, but also more representative of the parties and factions overall.
Yeah, he did, but there's a lot of "Yes he will", "No we won't" coming from the Republicans right now, and a lot of raised eyes by anyone who knows how the ACA works.
You can't get rid of the pre-existing conditions coverage without also removing the mandate, otherwise insurance prices will go sky high, leading to a death spiral and insurers going bankrupt at the end of it.
So that leaves a choice of: either the Republicans will present a bill to Trump pretty much eliminating the entire thing, or the ACA will be kept until they can figure out a way to get around the mandate.
Which do you think the Republicans will do? And do you think Trump will really refuse to sign off on abolishing the hated ACA because one aspect of the soon to be killed bill was kinda sorta popular? (Though not-popular enough to ensure people refused to vote Republcian unless they kept the whole thing, apparently?)
Too soon man, too soon...
That was literally the first thing Mozilla wrote when it came into being as the successor to Netscape. It's called XUL.
There is literally not a single statement above that's actually truthful in any way. This story IS about Twitter applying individuals to create filters for their own feed. Twitter has never been caught applying filters to people they ideologically disagree with (if they had, half the third party blocking solutions wouldn't exist.) And, frankly, the only reading comprehension being shown here to be abandoned for partisan hackery is your own.
A lot of them, huh? Not all of them? Just a lot of them?
So in other words, there have been numerous Trump-related hate incidents - acts of violence, acts of vandalism, people going up to Spanish speakers and telling them in front of their kids that they're going to be deported, etc, but the fact that some of them are fake means people who lost the election are trying to smear Trump.
Right.
That's some intellectual gymnastics there bud.
Hey, remember when Trump implied that almost all illegal immigrants were rapists and murderers? But he totally wasn't racist because he said "some, I assume, are good people" afterwards which still meant he was saying that almost all illegal immigrants are rapists and murderers, but, uh... What was the reason why this wasn't racist again?
Good times anyway.
Remember when he offered to pay the legal bills of any thug on his team that attacked a protestor? Remember when that totally wasn't supporting violence against opponents because, uh, a discredited extreme right wing operative released a video supposedly showing that a low level Clinton supporter had suggested, in the abstract, well after this had happened, trying to demonstrate Trump's supporters are violent by protesting peacefully nearby in a way likely to result in violent people being violent?
Good times!
Here's a question: why are you defending this man?
Trump's a fascist. He showed that before the election. He's not shown any signs of backing down. His post-election behavior, right down to appointing a white supremacist as his chief policy adviser, shows he has no intention of moving away from his campaign's special brand of thuggery, dehumanization, and violent populism.
You know that, so why are you pretending it's not happening?
Did you vote for him because you really weren't that familiar with him, and then suddenly are a little shocked at the backlash, and you really don't want to believe he's a fascist?
Or do you agree with him, do you like seeing immigrants dehumanized, Muslims smeared, Jews scared, do you like seeing violence against peaceful protestors who don't support the things you do, do you like seeing the law abused to punish opposition politicians? Is your objection here that you've never realized this collection of principles falls under the umbrella of "Fascism", and boy, you don't like the idea that it would be, because you support all those things, and supporting those things makes you a fascist, and you've heard that's a bad word?
Kinda like the racists who get very upset when they're called racists?
What is it? Are you going to stop it with the apologism and the normalization, and stand against this evil like the rest of us?
Exactly what is wrong with giving people filters so they can decide who talks to them or not?
I mean, you're suggesting it's some kind of attack on speech, but there's never been a right to be listened to. I'd semi-agree if this was Twitter removing posts it doesn't want anyone to read, but it's not.
Most USENET news readers circa 1992 had killfiles and filters for exactly this purpose. USENET remains, as far as most of us who remember it are concerned, the greatest forum for free speech the Internet has ever seen.
Presumably not, as that one one Silicon Valley millionaire, not one or more "Internet Firms".
Politifact is the outlet that told everyone the Democrat's claim that the Republicans intend to abolish Medicare was the "Lie of the Year".
Yesterday Paul Ryan announced they're abolishing Medicare, completely in line with what Democrats had said they'd do.
Also the "Left are rioting, we didn't!" claim ignores the situation that violence seems to be everywhere right now. Plenty of "sore winner" Trump fans beating up people, plenty of pro-Trump or fascist vandalism, etc.
So the smug lectures from the right about how they didn't riot (guess what! I didn't either!) are woefully misplaced.
I've no idea what the motives of those "rioting" at anti-Clinton rallies are. But right now I know people are legitimately terrified of what Trump is bringing. With Trump supporters telling people in front of their children they're going to be deported, with Jewish journalists sent pictures of their children being gassed in ovens by a smiling Trump, and with Trump's own violent and hate filled rhetoric, they have good reason to be scared.
Let's not pretend this is an ordinary election.
Probably true. "They haven't been maintaining it quality wise as it once was." completely contradicts the notion that it's buggy. It certainly used to be a buggy, unstable, piece of crap.
No, you wouldn't because this is a race to the bottom. Any smartphone manufacturer who employs cheap (foreign) labor ends up with a competitive advantage over a domestic manufacturer, while still benefiting from the domestic manufacturer's decision to build in the US and employ US workers.
Incidentally, it looks like nobody read the last line of my comment. I was not addressing whether a trade war would be positive or negative, I absolutely oppose a trade war. I was addressing the argument made by the person I was responding to.
It would be a very good thing if electronics makers were to start building in the US, but without being forced to as a group, it's not going to happen because while all of them building in the US together would have no negative impacts, any of them choosing not to participate would negatively impact those that do. Even so, I'm opposed to forcing them.
That wasn't ChrisW's point, so I didn't miss it, but for what it's worth I agree with you, which is part of the reason why I said I don't welcome a trade war with China.
The lawyers don't need to answer because it's already settled. We already have a centralized mechanism to pay for the damage caused by accidents involving cars and right now its used for everything from chipped paint to deaths. In all cases, car insurance is used, and it costs around $1,000 per year per vehicle.
The makers of autonomous can either require a subscription payment to the service costing something similar to that, or build it into their regular lease or sale pricing (ie a car expected to last an average of 20 years before being taken off the road will cost $20,000 more if it has automated driving.)
The lawsuits already exist. All we're talking about is a shift of whose names are on the lawsuits, but the fact that suddenly everyone's suing Ford rather than 10,000 Ford customers doesn't matter if Ford has the funds those 10,000 Ford customers would have used to pay for the accidents.
No they don't. Buses are an extremely safe form of transportation at 0.11 deaths per billion passenger miles.
FWIW, Black Parrot, I think most people understood you perfectly fine. Yes, it's a better goal to reduce accidents than to try to keep the levels equal.