You should look into Korean gaming competition like StarCraft for example. Those guys takes it way more seriously than your "average" pro athlete. They make athletes look like amateurs in terms of commitment.
They may take it seriously. They may be very skilled and talented. It still isn't a sport though. Somethings like Poker, Board games, Video Games, Golf, Darts, etc... as talented as you might be to do them and even as dedicated as may need to be- they just don't belong in an atheltics competition.
When you go to install an app, you are told if it tracks your location. No one tries to hide the fact. You get to choose whether or not to install apps that do this.
Yeah, and when you say don't share location information- it still does, just not with GPS. It uses for example Wifi signals in range to guess where you are.
That's good advice, but not foolproof. I have Google AdSettings set to Opt out of Ads Personalization; however, they still personalize it. If I google something, I still get ads for that product for weeks afterwards.
Heck, if my wife does a search for something I get ads shown up on my completely separate device with a completely separate account for the things that SHE is looking for. For example, I'm pretty sure I'm getting a Tile for xmas (don't really want one, so I have to feign surprise and excitement on xmas morning now). How do I know? My phone (which she never uses) browser shows a bunch of ads for Tile. Google has obviously figured out me and my wife live together and shows me ads for things that she has searched for. I think it links us because my e-mail is the recovery address for her e-mail.
(I won't use Chrome for looking up xmas presents for her- I use an anonymous browser to shop and go through a VPN).
Google doesn't need to share your GPS location in order to serve you the proper ad, they just need to know your location. They can serve you that ad without sharing that location to anyone.
I think that that is acceptable. It's when they share information about me, presumably anonymous or not, that it violates privacy. And it's not like we as consumers have a choice. If you buy a smartphone (which some will say is essential to a lot of jobs nowadays) you choose between Apple and Google; both of whom willingly share your data with lots of other people. Most of which come with apps like Facebook preinstalled as bloatware which tracks your information and sells it even if you don't use the app (you should be able to disable it though).
You have to go to a lot of work to protect your data, and even then, are you really?
It's got to the point where you can't protect your privacy easily and function in modern society. It has gone beyond consumer regulated- we're at the point where we need some sort of government regulation on who can share data and sell your information.
The fact that Google is one of the most popular brands among consumers, and the fact that millions upon millions (perhaps billion(?)) people are on Facebook shows you how little people care to know, and care about privacy!
Despite all the noise about Facebook freely sharing user data with third-parties, and despite all the noise about Google providing a backdoors to three-letter agencies.
It's a sad state of affairs!
I think most people don't know about the privacy issues- and many that do feel like they "have to be on facebook to stay relevant" (ridiculous belief, but one shared by many). Honestly, you can say it is the user's fault, and in large part it is (but really, do even relatively informed people know how often data is shared about them and who is sharing data about them?)
I bet each and everyone of us has had data about us shared WITHOUT us knowing.
A lot of businesses in the IT sector would hate this, but I would propose making it illegal to sell data on a individual WITHOUT them giving explicit consent EACH TIME. So, just having a EULA saying "we're going to sell your data and you give consent" is not enough. If Facebook want to sell information to Wells Fargo- they have to get your permission first.
I think we could cut back on 90% of privacy violations with such a ruling.
Apple Computer, IPod and iPhone are all great examples of marketing though. None of them were the first of their industries. In the case of the iPhone it was quite a lot better than the competition at the time (not quite true about the first Apple computers or iPod though). The were made paramount in the industry through slick marketing.
Most are treated as knock-offs because they actually are - witness the notch nonsense, which wasn't even Apple's idea to start with. And then how every manufacturer suddenly came out with a laptop that like a MacBook Air - some of them are still embarrassingly obvious MacBook Pro clones.
If I ran a competing company and could poach any one employee from Apple- it would be their head of marketing.
What you say is true, other companies do copy Apple. (sure Apple copies the competition too- but there is more Apple mimicry than the other way around).
It's not that Apple is the only company with good ideas, and it's not that all the features copied from Apple are good ideas- some of them are terrible, but other companies copy them nonetheless. Somehow much of society has the idea that Apple is the end product that others should strive to be (even if in somecases the competition has a better product).
I'm not sure how they did it, but their head of marketing must be a genius.
Welcome to Luxembourg, where the definition of 'free' is 'the government pays for it".
When something is "Free" there is ALWAYS someone else paying for it. (or someone else forgoing collection for service rendered)
Of course the people are still paying for it (via taxes), as does anyone else who pays VAT or sales tax inside the country. However, it may be a net-gain for the people. Places with subsidized transport typically see increase in property value (desirability goes up), along with that wages often increase too.
That's not always the case of course, but frequently is. So yes, the people may be paying for the service in their taxes- but their wealth might also be increasing because of the transportation (case by case basis if it does)- so there is probably a net gain for everyone because of this. Especially so for anyone who might be able to now do away with a car. Now they have lots more discretionary income. More than they're paying for taxes in transportation.
That would be nice, but Microsoft switching browser code doesn't magically make IE11 and his older siblings go away. God, I wish it had. Edge was a great step toward standards compliance; any CSS I write for Firefox renders perfectly in Chrome, Safari, and Edge. Edge is even up there with supporting CSS grid. But we still have dinosaurs that use Windows 7 and 8 and don't know how to download and run a new browser. That "e" with the swoosh on their desktop stands for "eeenternet" so they can log into Yahoo Mail and send their family FWDs about Russian models being better immigrants than Mexican welfare babies.
As a web designer, I'm ambivalent about this. Maybe Microsoft can contribute something worthwhile to the Chromium project.
CSS works great on Edge. I still see differences in how Microsoft handles JavaScript compared to the other browsers.
But should Standards Compliant be based off the same code set? There is often more then one way to code a product and still follow the same standards, some features will run faster then others, others may be sacrificed. A newer build would be based on current browsing habits vs older ones. Also this could mean greater security issues, as there will be mostly a unified browser engine across all the major browsers, so with the same code set behind it, a flaw will have more of a universal problem.
I'll give you that. It would be better if Microsoft managed Standards Compliance on their own and had a separate source and perhaps different vulnerabilities to make a hack one place not work everywhere.
They tried to be standard with Edge, and it was an improvement, but there were still a few issues. (Edge is much closer to where MS needed to be though).
What is it with Microsoft and their continued exercise to keep making their products worse and worse.
The problem is, they have to keep changing UI and pictures so you know they're still working. They redesign the icons so that you don't forget they're still an active company and it looks fresher.
Honestly though, every time they come up with a new UI change it always takes a few years to get used to, because they always pick some weird idea or image style... they when you finally are accepting of their ugly UI and icons they feel the need to look fresh again.
It's probably like how some composers will throw dissonance into something pretty occasionally so you notice the change in tone and stay connected. If everything was pretty and slick you wouldn't stop to think about the UI you're using.
Oh please. Scientology for the celebrities is a business proposition. The celebrity gets to hide their wealth or taxable income, and the church gets to use the celebrity's membership as a marketing gimmick.
There are more moral ways to hide your wealth than give it to a cult that causes financial, societal, and family pain to those most in trouble. Scientology isn't a religion- its a business that preys on the weak and helpless. I can't really respect anyone who puts millions into financing such an operation. Or helps such an operation stay afloat.
Either way- my thoughts on this are the same as they were back when I first heard about this: excellent news for web developers. It's about time Microsoft had a standards-compliant browser so we don't have to have two sets of code; one for Microsoft, and one for everyone else.
That came out of the mainstream scientific community, and was promoted by the various government meteorological offices and so forth. In the case of the UK, the MET openly stated that kids wouldn't know what snowfall was by I think it was 2015 or something.
It's much more likely that a journalist twisted the words of a scientific study to be more "newsworthy" than for any scientist to say that. Most of the sensationalist science stories are exaggerated from less sensational science studies to make them more shock-value.
Polar air hasn't ever stayed at the poles.
No, it hasn't, but hasn't historically moved so far from the poles with regularity as it does now. It's almost a guarantee that somewhere far from the poles will have an astoundingly cold winter and somewhere else will have an astoundingly warm winter now. What used to be a rare occurrence is now happening every year and it's travelling further than what used to be the norm.
Greenland has not been green during human habitation of the island. It was called "Greenland" not because it was green but because it was easier to convince people to move there with that name rather than if it was called "Freezingcoldbarrenpieceofshitland".
Seriously, that's why it was called Greenland, because it sounded pleasant and made getting colonists to go there easier.
Indeed. One of the biggest impacts we can see is damage from precipitation changes. Areas once fertile are now not getting enough rain- areas that once got less rain are now getting more- which is bad for cities which don't have proper storm drainage and leads to more flooding events. It's quite possible that climate change already costs the world many billions of dollars a year and we just can't measure the full scale of it accurately yet.
I don't want them to hate us and look back on us with disgust.
For what it's worth, the evidence is that EVERY generation looks back on the ones that have gone before with some degree of disgust....
It's true in both directions. The older generation always thinks the younger generation is destroying society. There are lots of writers from classical Greece and Rome who have made comments about how the next generation will ruin civilization. One generation complaining about another has been a static theme in human history.
It will never snow in DC again, then DC is crippled by snow that year. It will never snow in UK again, then the UK is crippled by snow.
Whoever told you either of those two things is an idiot and no one in the mainstream scientific community believes that it will never snow again in those locations. What they probably said (or what the scientists said before twisted by someone somewhere) was, snow will be more rare- but also more extreme when it does occur in those locations.
Its the warmest year in the US by FAR, until you include Alaska that year then it was one of the coldest ever.
Yeah, and this coincides with the earlier point. As the global temperature rises, the cold polar air isn't staying put over the poles anymore- it drifts down one spot- that makes one part of the globe to get unseasonably cold and another part unseasonably warm. So yes- winter now is seeing both an increase in extreme heat AND extreme cold. It's also possible to have a highest global temperature on record whilst the US has a particularly cold season. Global climate change refers to the globe- not local weather conditions. Don't confuse local weather with global change.
That is incompatible with them due to temperature or chemical composition being off from what they evolved to survive in. Eventually they'll evolve again but fish levels will probably fall (or at least diversity will fall- there will likely be some species for whom the change is beneficial).
Yeah, but with the worker it would be an accident. The robot is really probing for weaknesses. This is how it begins.
They're seeing how we react. First it's mace. Then it's accidentally driving a Waymo into a farmers market. It won't be long until robots are launching nuclear weapons... we'll all be dead before we realize it wasn't bugs- it was sentient AI killing us all./true story
Slashdot Mirror
You should look into Korean gaming competition like StarCraft for example. Those guys takes it way more seriously than your "average" pro athlete. They make athletes look like amateurs in terms of commitment.
They may take it seriously. They may be very skilled and talented. It still isn't a sport though. Somethings like Poker, Board games, Video Games, Golf, Darts, etc... as talented as you might be to do them and even as dedicated as may need to be- they just don't belong in an atheltics competition.
When you go to install an app, you are told if it tracks your location. No one tries to hide the fact.
You get to choose whether or not to install apps that do this.
Yeah, and when you say don't share location information- it still does, just not with GPS. It uses for example Wifi signals in range to guess where you are.
That's good advice, but not foolproof. I have Google AdSettings set to Opt out of Ads Personalization; however, they still personalize it. If I google something, I still get ads for that product for weeks afterwards.
Heck, if my wife does a search for something I get ads shown up on my completely separate device with a completely separate account for the things that SHE is looking for. For example, I'm pretty sure I'm getting a Tile for xmas (don't really want one, so I have to feign surprise and excitement on xmas morning now). How do I know? My phone (which she never uses) browser shows a bunch of ads for Tile. Google has obviously figured out me and my wife live together and shows me ads for things that she has searched for. I think it links us because my e-mail is the recovery address for her e-mail.
(I won't use Chrome for looking up xmas presents for her- I use an anonymous browser to shop and go through a VPN).
Google doesn't need to share your GPS location in order to serve you the proper ad, they just need to know your location. They can serve you that ad without sharing that location to anyone.
I think that that is acceptable. It's when they share information about me, presumably anonymous or not, that it violates privacy. And it's not like we as consumers have a choice. If you buy a smartphone (which some will say is essential to a lot of jobs nowadays) you choose between Apple and Google; both of whom willingly share your data with lots of other people. Most of which come with apps like Facebook preinstalled as bloatware which tracks your information and sells it even if you don't use the app (you should be able to disable it though).
You have to go to a lot of work to protect your data, and even then, are you really?
It's got to the point where you can't protect your privacy easily and function in modern society. It has gone beyond consumer regulated- we're at the point where we need some sort of government regulation on who can share data and sell your information.
The fact that Google is one of the most popular brands among consumers,
and the fact that millions upon millions (perhaps billion(?)) people are on Facebook shows you how little people care to know, and care about privacy!
Despite all the noise about Facebook freely sharing user data with third-parties,
and despite all the noise about Google providing a backdoors to three-letter agencies.
It's a sad state of affairs!
I think most people don't know about the privacy issues- and many that do feel like they "have to be on facebook to stay relevant" (ridiculous belief, but one shared by many). Honestly, you can say it is the user's fault, and in large part it is (but really, do even relatively informed people know how often data is shared about them and who is sharing data about them?)
I bet each and everyone of us has had data about us shared WITHOUT us knowing.
A lot of businesses in the IT sector would hate this, but I would propose making it illegal to sell data on a individual WITHOUT them giving explicit consent EACH TIME. So, just having a EULA saying "we're going to sell your data and you give consent" is not enough. If Facebook want to sell information to Wells Fargo- they have to get your permission first.
I think we could cut back on 90% of privacy violations with such a ruling.
Apple Computer, IPod and iPhone are all great examples of marketing though. None of them were the first of their industries. In the case of the iPhone it was quite a lot better than the competition at the time (not quite true about the first Apple computers or iPod though). The were made paramount in the industry through slick marketing.
Most are treated as knock-offs because they actually are - witness the notch nonsense, which wasn't even Apple's idea to start with. And then how every manufacturer suddenly came out with a laptop that like a MacBook Air - some of them are still embarrassingly obvious MacBook Pro clones.
If I ran a competing company and could poach any one employee from Apple- it would be their head of marketing.
What you say is true, other companies do copy Apple. (sure Apple copies the competition too- but there is more Apple mimicry than the other way around).
It's not that Apple is the only company with good ideas, and it's not that all the features copied from Apple are good ideas- some of them are terrible, but other companies copy them nonetheless. Somehow much of society has the idea that Apple is the end product that others should strive to be (even if in somecases the competition has a better product).
I'm not sure how they did it, but their head of marketing must be a genius.
Welcome to Luxembourg, where the definition of 'free' is 'the government pays for it".
When something is "Free" there is ALWAYS someone else paying for it. (or someone else forgoing collection for service rendered)
Of course the people are still paying for it (via taxes), as does anyone else who pays VAT or sales tax inside the country. However, it may be a net-gain for the people. Places with subsidized transport typically see increase in property value (desirability goes up), along with that wages often increase too.
That's not always the case of course, but frequently is. So yes, the people may be paying for the service in their taxes- but their wealth might also be increasing because of the transportation (case by case basis if it does)- so there is probably a net gain for everyone because of this. Especially so for anyone who might be able to now do away with a car. Now they have lots more discretionary income. More than they're paying for taxes in transportation.
That would be nice, but Microsoft switching browser code doesn't magically make IE11 and his older siblings go away. God, I wish it had. Edge was a great step toward standards compliance; any CSS I write for Firefox renders perfectly in Chrome, Safari, and Edge. Edge is even up there with supporting CSS grid. But we still have dinosaurs that use Windows 7 and 8 and don't know how to download and run a new browser. That "e" with the swoosh on their desktop stands for "eeenternet" so they can log into Yahoo Mail and send their family FWDs about Russian models being better immigrants than Mexican welfare babies.
As a web designer, I'm ambivalent about this. Maybe Microsoft can contribute something worthwhile to the Chromium project.
CSS works great on Edge. I still see differences in how Microsoft handles JavaScript compared to the other browsers.
But should Standards Compliant be based off the same code set?
There is often more then one way to code a product and still follow the same standards, some features will run faster then others, others may be sacrificed. A newer build would be based on current browsing habits vs older ones. Also this could mean greater security issues, as there will be mostly a unified browser engine across all the major browsers, so with the same code set behind it, a flaw will have more of a universal problem.
I'll give you that. It would be better if Microsoft managed Standards Compliance on their own and had a separate source and perhaps different vulnerabilities to make a hack one place not work everywhere.
They tried to be standard with Edge, and it was an improvement, but there were still a few issues. (Edge is much closer to where MS needed to be though).
What is it with Microsoft and their continued exercise to keep making their products worse and worse.
The problem is, they have to keep changing UI and pictures so you know they're still working. They redesign the icons so that you don't forget they're still an active company and it looks fresher.
Honestly though, every time they come up with a new UI change it always takes a few years to get used to, because they always pick some weird idea or image style... they when you finally are accepting of their ugly UI and icons they feel the need to look fresh again.
It's probably like how some composers will throw dissonance into something pretty occasionally so you notice the change in tone and stay connected. If everything was pretty and slick you wouldn't stop to think about the UI you're using.
Oh please. Scientology for the celebrities is a business proposition. The celebrity gets to hide their wealth or taxable income, and the church gets to use the celebrity's membership as a marketing gimmick.
There are more moral ways to hide your wealth than give it to a cult that causes financial, societal, and family pain to those most in trouble. Scientology isn't a religion- its a business that preys on the weak and helpless. I can't really respect anyone who puts millions into financing such an operation. Or helps such an operation stay afloat.
Tom Cruise is legitimately a very accomplished dude.
Meh, if Tom Cruise thinks TV Frame Interpolation is a bad thing- then I'm all for it. Put it in everything I say! Even cheeseburgers.
...based browser? So it will download Chrome even faster or/and it will periodically set itself as the default browser?
I think they're hoping "why would anyone download Chrome if they have the same thing in different colour paper with our product?"
Is this a repeat or just an old story?
Either way- my thoughts on this are the same as they were back when I first heard about this: excellent news for web developers. It's about time Microsoft had a standards-compliant browser so we don't have to have two sets of code; one for Microsoft, and one for everyone else.
That came out of the mainstream scientific community, and was promoted by the various government meteorological offices and so forth. In the case of the UK, the MET openly stated that kids wouldn't know what snowfall was by I think it was 2015 or something.
It's much more likely that a journalist twisted the words of a scientific study to be more "newsworthy" than for any scientist to say that. Most of the sensationalist science stories are exaggerated from less sensational science studies to make them more shock-value.
Polar air hasn't ever stayed at the poles.
No, it hasn't, but hasn't historically moved so far from the poles with regularity as it does now. It's almost a guarantee that somewhere far from the poles will have an astoundingly cold winter and somewhere else will have an astoundingly warm winter now. What used to be a rare occurrence is now happening every year and it's travelling further than what used to be the norm.
Just asking...
Greenland has not been green during human habitation of the island. It was called "Greenland" not because it was green but because it was easier to convince people to move there with that name rather than if it was called "Freezingcoldbarrenpieceofshitland".
Seriously, that's why it was called Greenland, because it sounded pleasant and made getting colonists to go there easier.
Any vineyards in Scotland today?
Yes, there are vinyards in Scotland.
Indeed. One of the biggest impacts we can see is damage from precipitation changes. Areas once fertile are now not getting enough rain- areas that once got less rain are now getting more- which is bad for cities which don't have proper storm drainage and leads to more flooding events. It's quite possible that climate change already costs the world many billions of dollars a year and we just can't measure the full scale of it accurately yet.
For what it's worth, the evidence is that EVERY generation looks back on the ones that have gone before with some degree of disgust....
It's true in both directions. The older generation always thinks the younger generation is destroying society. There are lots of writers from classical Greece and Rome who have made comments about how the next generation will ruin civilization. One generation complaining about another has been a static theme in human history.
It will never snow in DC again, then DC is crippled by snow that year.
It will never snow in UK again, then the UK is crippled by snow.
Whoever told you either of those two things is an idiot and no one in the mainstream scientific community believes that it will never snow again in those locations. What they probably said (or what the scientists said before twisted by someone somewhere) was, snow will be more rare- but also more extreme when it does occur in those locations.
Its the warmest year in the US by FAR, until you include Alaska that year then it was one of the coldest ever.
Yeah, and this coincides with the earlier point. As the global temperature rises, the cold polar air isn't staying put over the poles anymore- it drifts down one spot- that makes one part of the globe to get unseasonably cold and another part unseasonably warm. So yes- winter now is seeing both an increase in extreme heat AND extreme cold. It's also possible to have a highest global temperature on record whilst the US has a particularly cold season. Global climate change refers to the globe- not local weather conditions. Don't confuse local weather with global change.
even if you do not care about polar bears or coral reefs.
Personally, I think we should genetically modify Polar Bears so that they can survive on coral reefs.
Anything about mankind ruining the environment has to be fake news, right?
Yes, if environmental change is too inconvenient to fit your political agenda, then yes, it is fake news.
...for the fish, enjoy more water!
That is incompatible with them due to temperature or chemical composition being off from what they evolved to survive in. Eventually they'll evolve again but fish levels will probably fall (or at least diversity will fall- there will likely be some species for whom the change is beneficial).
Yeah, but with the worker it would be an accident. The robot is really probing for weaknesses. This is how it begins.
They're seeing how we react. First it's mace. Then it's accidentally driving a Waymo into a farmers market. It won't be long until robots are launching nuclear weapons... we'll all be dead before we realize it wasn't bugs- it was sentient AI killing us all. /true story