It never made any sense to me why you would pay for hardware just to loose your privacy. I do all my computing on my local machine. I'd gladly pay extra to control my data. Now if Google were to pay people to use the Chromebooks, that would be another thing. Then you would go into it with open eyes and as a somewhat equal business partner.
Microsoft- logs all sorts of information about you and invades your privacy. Google- logs all sorts of information about you and invades your privacy. Apple- logs all sorts of information about you and invades your privacy.
They're all doing it; pick who you trust raping your privacy the most, or acknowledge there isn't really a safe choice between those three and use some other factor to decide your laptop.
But the guy is already on a freakin' Mac, thus he should be using macOS - why are you bringing up Windows and Linux?
There's about a $1000 difference between a good Mac and a good Chromebook laptop. He would certainly be more familiar with macOS having a Max; and a Mac could certainly do a lot more things. But $1000 is a lot of overhead if you don't need to do those extra things.
Chromebooks are not for everyone; they can't do everything; but I suspect they do enough for 90% of the population.
As he says in the article, there are security aspects that appeal to him. You get tired after a while of hearing about all the Microsoft and Linux vulns.
My kids all got Chromebooks as their first laptop for that very reason; I don't want them getting spyware and viruses, and whereas that is still possible with a chromebook, it is less likely.
I've posted on this elsewhere, but I agree. The could do it, but I hardly imagine it to be very maintainable. Their algorithm is already hard enough to tweak without adding in manually set vectors everywhere.
Indeed, and not only that but they wouldn't deliberately cut their market share in half in an important market just to be political.
The simplest explanation is probably the true one. Conspiracies are rarely the simplest explanation.
Even if it were a conspiracy. It's not illegal for a private company to post with a bias. I honestly don't think Google is deliberately posting a bias against Trump; but, even if they were. That's not illegal. It's perfectly legal for a private company to have a negative opinion about someone and share it.
Trump has always been about squashing liberties. Now he wants to squash freedom of speech and freedom of the press. (actually, he's been against those two things all along- this is just another example).
It may not be the most scenic reef to visit. It sounds like it is mostly a monoculture of one specific type of not particularly attractive coral and it's deeper and probably not going to have all the scenic colourful reef fish.
A great ecological find; not really much of a boost for tourism.
and has evolved / adjusted to continue surviving at about 30 meters depth (which could also be the limit of light penetrating the ocean).
Apparently the coral growing here is a little different to the ones nearer the water surface. They don't have a symbiotic relationship with algae like other coral- they feed on wee-beasties in the water so don't need sunlight. It is possible there is a lot more of this type of coral in the oceans than we know about.
I have no idea. Let me use Google to find the answer.
Because of google we probably have fewer things memorized- but we are capable of doing so much more by googling an answer. Google enables our embetterment.
Glad I didn't do that with Black Mirror. The first episode was about the prime minister having sex with a pig. Then it good better, until the Americans got hold of it and cheesed it up.
It was an interesting show, but I think Black Mirror is one of those shows that people rave about that I just didn't find all that enjoyable... I mean, a lot of the ideas behind the show were interesting and could have been very promising... I think I got through about 5 episodes- but I found the actual writing of the show to be a little below par. It's something I would watch in the old days before Netflix and choice and it came on, but not something I'd actively seek out.
My problem with most ratings is this:
Critics; critics watch too many movies and shows. They're too jaded and their choice in movies reflect in that. They also seem to be too much up their own arses. Any time a film comes out that is about Hollywood, or about making movies- it's all thumbs up and 10 out of 10; even though the film is almost always horrible. Films about films or Hollywood are almost always awful- but critics love them.
Random Joe reviews I find are the opposite extreme- the average cinema goer is a dunce and likes dumb shows.
I don't find Critics or Random Joe as much of a useful metric on how to decide what I will like to watch.
House ends up with a lot higher percent of the pie in a casino. Slightly less than half Crypto speculators win and half lose. In a casino almost everyone loses.
The good news is that they did not get credit card numbers, social security numbers, or passwords, according to the company
Way to spin a disaster... oh yeah, we got hacked... but they didn't get your Credit Card Number... BUT GOOD NEWS EVERYONE they just everything they need to know to sign you up for fake Credit Cards and otherwise fake your identity.
I doubt it would be as severe as he predicts but we're overdue for a downturn.
Let's see...
- We've seen a very long bull market - basically ongoing since the US managed to recover from the banking meltdown in 2008-2009 - A giant tax cut passed last year which will added billions/trillions in debt to the US going forward - Over the last 12 months the US has started trade wars with US allies and foes, unsettling world markets
Nah, there's no reason to worry about the economy
He predicted "Every American" would be poor. I can see a return to 2008 around the corner- but I don't see another Great Depression (which is essentially what he is predicting).
Now Trump resorts to no less than blackmail, publicly declaring that the U.S. economy would collapse if he was impeached.
Honestly, he might be right. I doubt it would be as severe as he predicts but we're overdue for a downturn. Global economy is weak. Tarriffs are causing issues. Our GDP and employment numbers are strong- but real wages are down after inflation and falling.
Any turbulence with the running of the country could cause a stock market shock and that might be all it takes to bring down the economy, it's already on shaky ground.
You are pulling all that out your ass. We have nothing but conjecture as to why we beat them out. It could be for no more than we were smarter and out competed them.
We know a lot more about them than you probably think.
We know a lot about their physical features, we also know their diets; what and how they ate- and what their bodies needed from that we can deduce calorie requirements. They needed 600-700 more calories than a modern human just to survive each day. We can't know for sure their intelligence, but we know they had rituals, which signifies culture and beliefs; they had arts such as art and they probably had music too. We can't say for sure if they had language- we know their voices would have been amusingly (for us) high pitched for their size but physiologically their is no reason they couldn't have had language. They had huge brains- larger than ours.
They weren't too incompatible for lots of mating to occur between the species.
It is unlikely the intelligence between the two species (or subspecies) was vastly different. They did live in smaller groups and were a little less social though so innovation would spread slower. They were less suited for roaming long distances than us- so had different hunting techniques.
Ultimately though, most of the leading theories now come down to they couldn't eat enough; either through hunting pressure from us, or that their higher dietary needs made them starve during hardtimes. It's likely a combination of both... so yes, our more lazy ways and less demanding bodies was almost certainly a factor in their demise and why we out competed them.
Being lazy = needing fewer calories = more survival.
One of the reasons modern Homo Sapiens outlived Neanderthals is because our less muscular bodies and smaller brains needed fewer calories (yes, our brains are smaller- although that doesn't mean less cognitive ability).
They also lived in smaller groups so each individual had to do more tasks and was less efficient.
When food became scarce we could live off less food than they needed- they had to work harder just to stay alive. We outsurvived Neanderthals by being the lazier species.
I'm fairly averse to bitcoin for all the reasons previously expressed n/.; though I can't help but wonder if this is a good buying opportunity while the price is 'low'... Time will tell I suppose.
I was reading an article this morning that the price has spiked again.
Only a matter before it falls again too. It's a gamble with more risks than just going up and down. You can lose money due to a technicality or to theft; but there is money to be made- it's just high risk.
Not true. There is plenty of money to be made on speculation bubbles, just like in a casino, it is not impossible possible to win, just unlikely.
For every person that won $900 in crypto another person lost $1000. It's not like Casino where it all goes to the house. It was an exchange of money from one fool to another with the exchange companies taking a bite here and there and the utility companies taking a chunk of the pie.
There was a lot of money to be made by the lucky ones who sold before the bubble burst.
very few? this "joke" is posted in every single bitcoin thread ever
Yeah- it's very overused. And not entirely analogous since there is a market for bitcoins still- even if it is just in the dark web. Bitcoin lost 75% of it's value- that's pretty steep but not all to nothing like the Tulips. It was definitely a bubble but it wasn't a tulip situation.
Slashdot Mirror
It never made any sense to me why you would pay for hardware just to loose your privacy. I do all my computing on my local machine. I'd gladly pay extra to control my data. Now if Google were to pay people to use the Chromebooks, that would be another thing. Then you would go into it with open eyes and as a somewhat equal business partner.
Microsoft- logs all sorts of information about you and invades your privacy.
Google- logs all sorts of information about you and invades your privacy.
Apple- logs all sorts of information about you and invades your privacy.
They're all doing it; pick who you trust raping your privacy the most, or acknowledge there isn't really a safe choice between those three and use some other factor to decide your laptop.
But the guy is already on a freakin' Mac, thus he should be using macOS - why are you bringing up Windows and Linux?
There's about a $1000 difference between a good Mac and a good Chromebook laptop. He would certainly be more familiar with macOS having a Max; and a Mac could certainly do a lot more things. But $1000 is a lot of overhead if you don't need to do those extra things.
Chromebooks are not for everyone; they can't do everything; but I suspect they do enough for 90% of the population.
As he says in the article, there are security aspects that appeal to him. You get tired after a while of hearing about all the Microsoft and Linux vulns.
My kids all got Chromebooks as their first laptop for that very reason; I don't want them getting spyware and viruses, and whereas that is still possible with a chromebook, it is less likely.
Of course... I just realized... an iPatch is probably what you call a pirated iPhone.
An IP isn't enough to identify a pirate?
An "I" Patch?
What we need is more walls to keep the birds from flying into this country and spreading flu.
I've posted on this elsewhere, but I agree. The could do it, but I hardly imagine it to be very maintainable. Their algorithm is already hard enough to tweak without adding in manually set vectors everywhere.
Indeed, and not only that but they wouldn't deliberately cut their market share in half in an important market just to be political.
The simplest explanation is probably the true one. Conspiracies are rarely the simplest explanation.
Even if it were a conspiracy. It's not illegal for a private company to post with a bias. I honestly don't think Google is deliberately posting a bias against Trump; but, even if they were. That's not illegal. It's perfectly legal for a private company to have a negative opinion about someone and share it.
Trump has always been about squashing liberties. Now he wants to squash freedom of speech and freedom of the press. (actually, he's been against those two things all along- this is just another example).
Time to break out my free-diving fins and mask!
It may not be the most scenic reef to visit. It sounds like it is mostly a monoculture of one specific type of not particularly attractive coral and it's deeper and probably not going to have all the scenic colourful reef fish.
A great ecological find; not really much of a boost for tourism.
and has evolved / adjusted to continue surviving at about 30 meters depth (which could also be the limit of light penetrating the ocean).
Apparently the coral growing here is a little different to the ones nearer the water surface. They don't have a symbiotic relationship with algae like other coral- they feed on wee-beasties in the water so don't need sunlight. It is possible there is a lot more of this type of coral in the oceans than we know about.
I have no idea. Let me use Google to find the answer.
Because of google we probably have fewer things memorized- but we are capable of doing so much more by googling an answer. Google enables our embetterment.
Nice to meet someone who lets others dictate his own tastes.
There's not a person on this planet who isn't at least a little influenced by others.
Glad I didn't do that with Black Mirror. The first episode was about the prime minister having sex with a pig. Then it good better, until the Americans got hold of it and cheesed it up.
It was an interesting show, but I think Black Mirror is one of those shows that people rave about that I just didn't find all that enjoyable... I mean, a lot of the ideas behind the show were interesting and could have been very promising... I think I got through about 5 episodes- but I found the actual writing of the show to be a little below par. It's something I would watch in the old days before Netflix and choice and it came on, but not something I'd actively seek out.
My problem with most ratings is this:
Critics; critics watch too many movies and shows. They're too jaded and their choice in movies reflect in that. They also seem to be too much up their own arses. Any time a film comes out that is about Hollywood, or about making movies- it's all thumbs up and 10 out of 10; even though the film is almost always horrible. Films about films or Hollywood are almost always awful- but critics love them.
Random Joe reviews I find are the opposite extreme- the average cinema goer is a dunce and likes dumb shows.
I don't find Critics or Random Joe as much of a useful metric on how to decide what I will like to watch.
House ends up with a lot higher percent of the pie in a casino. Slightly less than half Crypto speculators win and half lose. In a casino almost everyone loses.
The good news is that they did not get credit card numbers, social security numbers, or passwords, according to the company
Way to spin a disaster... oh yeah, we got hacked... but they didn't get your Credit Card Number... BUT GOOD NEWS EVERYONE they just everything they need to know to sign you up for fake Credit Cards and otherwise fake your identity.
If only they were running the Windows 95 app instead of Mac OS the virus wouldn't have worked.
I doubt it would be as severe as he predicts but we're overdue for a downturn.
Let's see...
- We've seen a very long bull market - basically ongoing since the US managed to recover from the banking meltdown in 2008-2009
- A giant tax cut passed last year which will added billions/trillions in debt to the US going forward
- Over the last 12 months the US has started trade wars with US allies and foes, unsettling world markets
Nah, there's no reason to worry about the economy
He predicted "Every American" would be poor. I can see a return to 2008 around the corner- but I don't see another Great Depression (which is essentially what he is predicting).
The technology does not exist to do such a thing.
Given enough money I bet we could figure it out. I don't think most people would be willing to pay the bill to get that flying though.
Now Trump resorts to no less than blackmail, publicly declaring that the U.S. economy would collapse if he was impeached.
Honestly, he might be right. I doubt it would be as severe as he predicts but we're overdue for a downturn. Global economy is weak. Tarriffs are causing issues. Our GDP and employment numbers are strong- but real wages are down after inflation and falling.
Any turbulence with the running of the country could cause a stock market shock and that might be all it takes to bring down the economy, it's already on shaky ground.
and have a government that spends so much effort on snooping and trying to tear everyone down to the lowest common denominator. /Sarcasm
Good job we have are not like China and corruption IS investigated and occasionally punished. The man or woman on top IS accountable here.
You are pulling all that out your ass. We have nothing but conjecture as to why we beat them out. It could be for no more than we were smarter and out competed them.
We know a lot more about them than you probably think.
We know a lot about their physical features, we also know their diets; what and how they ate- and what their bodies needed from that we can deduce calorie requirements. They needed 600-700 more calories than a modern human just to survive each day. We can't know for sure their intelligence, but we know they had rituals, which signifies culture and beliefs; they had arts such as art and they probably had music too. We can't say for sure if they had language- we know their voices would have been amusingly (for us) high pitched for their size but physiologically their is no reason they couldn't have had language. They had huge brains- larger than ours.
They weren't too incompatible for lots of mating to occur between the species.
It is unlikely the intelligence between the two species (or subspecies) was vastly different. They did live in smaller groups and were a little less social though so innovation would spread slower. They were less suited for roaming long distances than us- so had different hunting techniques.
Ultimately though, most of the leading theories now come down to they couldn't eat enough; either through hunting pressure from us, or that their higher dietary needs made them starve during hardtimes. It's likely a combination of both... so yes, our more lazy ways and less demanding bodies was almost certainly a factor in their demise and why we out competed them.
Being lazy = needing fewer calories = more survival.
One of the reasons modern Homo Sapiens outlived Neanderthals is because our less muscular bodies and smaller brains needed fewer calories (yes, our brains are smaller- although that doesn't mean less cognitive ability).
They also lived in smaller groups so each individual had to do more tasks and was less efficient.
When food became scarce we could live off less food than they needed- they had to work harder just to stay alive. We outsurvived Neanderthals by being the lazier species.
I'm fairly averse to bitcoin for all the reasons previously expressed n /.; though I can't help but wonder if this is a good buying opportunity while the price is 'low'... Time will tell I suppose.
I was reading an article this morning that the price has spiked again.
Only a matter before it falls again too. It's a gamble with more risks than just going up and down. You can lose money due to a technicality or to theft; but there is money to be made- it's just high risk.
Not true. There is plenty of money to be made on speculation bubbles, just like in a casino, it is not impossible possible to win, just unlikely.
For every person that won $900 in crypto another person lost $1000. It's not like Casino where it all goes to the house. It was an exchange of money from one fool to another with the exchange companies taking a bite here and there and the utility companies taking a chunk of the pie.
There was a lot of money to be made by the lucky ones who sold before the bubble burst.
very few? this "joke" is posted in every single bitcoin thread ever
Yeah- it's very overused. And not entirely analogous since there is a market for bitcoins still- even if it is just in the dark web. Bitcoin lost 75% of it's value- that's pretty steep but not all to nothing like the Tulips. It was definitely a bubble but it wasn't a tulip situation.