It certainly does raise that question, but frankly, I donâ(TM)t care about the answer. Any move towards less ads is a positive move IMO. If they cease to exist altogether Iâ(TM)ll shed no tears. Sadly, I doubt that will ever happen.
Wow, calm down. I did say unless you use cash; obviously that is the most private option. Not necessarily less secure though, if you include physical security.
Look, obviously youâ(TM)re paranoid so by all means, continue believing whatever you want to believe. But Apple Pay *is* more secure than using a credit card directly. Yes, Visa and your bank still see the transactions. duh. But the merchant doesnâ(TM)t get your card number so that is a big security improvement.
If you believe Appleâ(TM)s âoespyingâ (whatever that means) decreases transaction security, please, tell us how. And please show proof that any Apple Pay user has ever been compromised as a result of using it.
Apple Pay is more secure and private than using a credit card because the merchant receives a random card number. If you're not using it, you're handing over valuable information about yourself every time you pay with a credit card and they sell that to aggregators. So do Visa and your bank btw.
Most of that rant sounds like that of someone who doesn't understand what's going on under the covers. Unless you're living in the dark ages and paying with cash for everything, you're actually safer and more private with Apple Pay.
Our findings highlight the growing importance of targeting and relevance in advertising
No, the findings highlight the fact that consumers don't want advertising. Anyone other than a marketing droid would see this as declining importance of ads. Talk about cognitive dissonnance.
Did they make noise or didnâ(TM)t they? Itâ(TM)s not like we donâ(TM)t have the ability to reliably detect sound.
As for hearing, of course the petals vibrate. The question is whether the vibrations have any effect. I canâ(TM)t imagine how temporal correlation between sonic emissions and chemial changes couldnâ(TM)t be found conclusively if the phenomenon exists.
While I mostly agree, is not having a phone really a choice today? Soon you won't be able to buy a car that doesn't have its own connection. We have choices today, but they are disappearing fast.
Regarding red light cameras I frequently say that if you're automatically caught for any infraction then you are not truly free. I'd say the same here except that in China that's already a given.
It isnâ(TM)t, and yet no laptops have it. The story here isnâ(TM)t that lid switches are innovative, itâ(TM)s that finally a company understands that privacy is a feature.
Dr. Hawking didn't say or mean that it was because people used to believe disability was caused by sin that he doesn't believe God exists. That was simply an example of something people used to believe which he does not. It is an an analogy of the folly of people who still believe there is a God.
Exactly. Wondering why things are the way they are is only natural and is something humans have been doing as long as we've been capable of it.
The difference between the early days and now is that rather than make up answers to these questions, or believe what others have told us or written without evidence, we (hopefully) require a higher standard of proof. That doesn't mean we have all the answers, it means we know and admit what we do and do not know.
What I know is that there is no evidence of the existence of God. If that changes I will happily reconsider.
The difference is scientists like Dr. Hawking try to find the answers to the hard questions through experiment whereas theists believe things they've been told without any evidence.
Disagree. The problem with ML1 isnâ(TM)t computing power at all, itâ(TM)s the diffraction grating. All the computing power in the world isnâ(TM)t going to get you more than two focal planes, a wider field of view, occlusion of objects in the real world or overhead lights that donâ(TM)t turn into rainbows.
What they promised was a new optical technology that brings the future of AR we all imagine onto our faces today. What we got was a slightly better diffraction grating. Personally Iâ(TM)m not convinced diffraction gratings will ever bring us that future. Itâ(TM)s entirely possible that the tech we need simply doesnâ(TM)t exist yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Itâ(TM)s not a false dichotomy; the stats say 57% would drop if ads were introduced. Subscribe/not subscribe is a binary state.
It certainly does raise that question, but frankly, I donâ(TM)t care about the answer. Any move towards less ads is a positive move IMO. If they cease to exist altogether Iâ(TM)ll shed no tears. Sadly, I doubt that will ever happen.
Wow, calm down. I did say unless you use cash; obviously that is the most private option. Not necessarily less secure though, if you include physical security.
Look, obviously youâ(TM)re paranoid so by all means, continue believing whatever you want to believe. But Apple Pay *is* more secure than using a credit card directly. Yes, Visa and your bank still see the transactions. duh. But the merchant doesnâ(TM)t get your card number so that is a big security improvement.
If you believe Appleâ(TM)s âoespyingâ (whatever that means) decreases transaction security, please, tell us how. And please show proof that any Apple Pay user has ever been compromised as a result of using it.
See anonymous reply. The DAN cannot be used by an aggregator to uniquely identify you. Your card number can.
It's cute that you believe your bank and credit card provider aren't selling your transaction data.
Also, get off his lawn!
Apple Pay is more secure and private than using a credit card because the merchant receives a random card number. If you're not using it, you're handing over valuable information about yourself every time you pay with a credit card and they sell that to aggregators. So do Visa and your bank btw.
Most of that rant sounds like that of someone who doesn't understand what's going on under the covers. Unless you're living in the dark ages and paying with cash for everything, you're actually safer and more private with Apple Pay.
Maybe you should get a phone that's, you know, not shitty.
Here in Canada Apple Pay support is ubiquitous and my Apple Watch or iPhone will work every time. Maybe the problem isnâ(TM)t the technology.
No, the findings highlight the fact that consumers don't want advertising. Anyone other than a marketing droid would see this as declining importance of ads. Talk about cognitive dissonnance.
Did they make noise or didnâ(TM)t they? Itâ(TM)s not like we donâ(TM)t have the ability to reliably detect sound.
As for hearing, of course the petals vibrate. The question is whether the vibrations have any effect. I canâ(TM)t imagine how temporal correlation between sonic emissions and chemial changes couldnâ(TM)t be found conclusively if the phenomenon exists.
While I mostly agree, is not having a phone really a choice today? Soon you won't be able to buy a car that doesn't have its own connection. We have choices today, but they are disappearing fast.
Regarding red light cameras I frequently say that if you're automatically caught for any infraction then you are not truly free. I'd say the same here except that in China that's already a given.
Does using an Android device count as a sign of trauma?
Do you bother kneecapping someone whose head you just blew off?
You sure make a compelling argument for courteous Americans!
"platform-train interface" sounds like the train version of this ðY
It isnâ(TM)t, and yet no laptops have it. The story here isnâ(TM)t that lid switches are innovative, itâ(TM)s that finally a company understands that privacy is a feature.
So which laptop that you designed has this simple feature?
Oh thatâ(TM)s right, you didnâ(TM)t think of it. Just like everyone else.
So what? Itâ(TM)s implemented in the chip but not software controllable. Seems pretty straightforward.
The wheel is pretty easy to implement too.
Pointing such a bot at its own codebase is how skynet happens.
Dr. Hawking didn't say or mean that it was because people used to believe disability was caused by sin that he doesn't believe God exists. That was simply an example of something people used to believe which he does not. It is an an analogy of the folly of people who still believe there is a God.
Exactly. Wondering why things are the way they are is only natural and is something humans have been doing as long as we've been capable of it.
The difference between the early days and now is that rather than make up answers to these questions, or believe what others have told us or written without evidence, we (hopefully) require a higher standard of proof. That doesn't mean we have all the answers, it means we know and admit what we do and do not know.
What I know is that there is no evidence of the existence of God. If that changes I will happily reconsider.
The difference is scientists like Dr. Hawking try to find the answers to the hard questions through experiment whereas theists believe things they've been told without any evidence.
I'll continue listening to scientists.
Disagree. The problem with ML1 isnâ(TM)t computing power at all, itâ(TM)s the diffraction grating. All the computing power in the world isnâ(TM)t going to get you more than two focal planes, a wider field of view, occlusion of objects in the real world or overhead lights that donâ(TM)t turn into rainbows.
What they promised was a new optical technology that brings the future of AR we all imagine onto our faces today. What we got was a slightly better diffraction grating. Personally Iâ(TM)m not convinced diffraction gratings will ever bring us that future. Itâ(TM)s entirely possible that the tech we need simply doesnâ(TM)t exist yet.
Check out https://www.kguttag.com/ for a lot of information of this sort of thing.
How many parsecs is that?