The author has a good point, and I've always felt that the transaction fees were a big problem for bitcoin. Many of the people who are looking for an alternative form of payment are trying to get away from all the fees banks put on their money, but if you have to spend more than 5% in transaction fees to get your payment processed, have you really gained anything?
I like the concept behind crypto-currencies, but it's just not going to work if it's more expensive to use it than to use existing payment methods.
I have to agree. I have a Samsung Galaxy Note 4. It's several years old now, so I thought maybe I should get something newer. Only problem is that every newer phone is in one way or other a downgrade from what I currently have.
I was excited about the new phones with 6" displays instead of the 5.7" display that I currently have, until I learned that they're 18:9 instead of 16:9 meaning that they're actually narrower than what I currently have. Nope, not a chance! (I think they're larger numbers for marketing, but actually smaller in square inches for manufacturing)
Then I realized that nobody seems to make a phone that still has a removable battery, considering I'm on my 3rd battery since the phone was new, I'm not really ready to give up that feature yet. (I think this one is just to try to force you to buy a new phone every year and a half when the battery dies instead of buying a $20 battery)
And I also see that many phones are ditching the headphone jack I use all the time, and none of the new phones with their fancy USB-C connectors still support MHL, another feature I use all the time. "Use wireless headphones" they scream, but ignore other use cases like tying in to my existing stereo system, or my wife's car's "line in". They tell you to use "cast" for watching video from the phone on your TV, and then ignore that many video sources either don't support it, or actively block it "because piracy".
Most phones have also moved the fingerprint sensor to the back of the phone, making it impossible to unlock without picking up the phone, no thanks.
It also seems many of the newer phones are getting harder to root, and even harder to maintain safetynet (for android pay) once you have due to various bootloader tricks. I'm not willing to give up my ad-blocking and firewalls.
So what would I gain with a newer phone? a slightly faster processor, but my existing one never seems to lag. They say the camera is better on many of the new phones, but honestly I've never had any complaints about my current one. Some of the new ones are waterproof, but if I haven't killed my Note4 that way yet, I don't think it's a pressing concern. As for software... much of the list at the top of the article I already have: "instant apps" (also known as webpages), picture in picture (never use it), find my device (this is ancient now), new emoji (needed root, but I did it), I have all of those, and the remaining things don't look like anything I should want or care about.
So what killer feature do any of the new phones have that I don't have on my old Note 4?
I've found it's app dependent, but this week when I re-flashed my phone I was surprised at how many apps already do this automatically. If the phone is linked to your google account (as is the default) all your apps will be back, and most of them will have all your settings intact.
There are a few notable exceptions: - text messages don't get backed up automatically, I use a special app for this - wallpapers, widgets, and icon placements don't get backed up, had to restore them manually
Sure you can. You'll need root to fully uninstall it, but you can likely block it without that. On the bright side, most android phones are relatively easy to root.
It's not a new feature by a long shot, Samsung's been doing it for years on some of their phones.
It's one of those "love it or hate it" features, I know some people who think it's the best thing ever, but personally I never end up using it, I have a Note4 so I have one of the largest screens available, and it's still not really big enough to conveniently show 2 windows at once. I'm more likely to swap back and forth than have 2 open at the same time.
it would be nicer if these "apps" just allowed you to bookmark the website in your normal browser instead. I'm sick of having dozens of apps on my phone that are all just mini web-browsers.
You can also authorize multiple phones, so my wife's phone is authorized as 2fa on my account, that allows me to find and wipe my phone by using 2fa on her phone.
So you wish me harm because I use a product safely and as advertised and refuse to let a company reach in to a product after purchase and remove functionality?
Wow...
And why do you think I would get myself killed while driving responsibly and paying attention to the traffic around me?
So you'll train it with the "kill lots of people" vs the "avoid killing people" data sets and that's fine?
Grow up and get a clue. Regulators will never approve that. Cars that drive themselves will need to make appropriate road decisions or they will very quickly be banned. And part of those decisions will be avoiding collisions and minimizing harm.
They flat out lie in all their public statements, and they steal functionality after the sale without permission. I'm not sure how that didn't come through in my statements.
I hope for everyone's sake that you NEVER get behind the wheel of an automobile. Your attitude is the most dangerous I've ever seen. You don't care who dies as long as what you do wasn't technically illegal. That's a horrible mindset to have, and I'm glad that those designing and regulating self driving vehicles don't think like you do!
Not every situation in driving is black and white, follow the law or don't. There are many things that are perfectly legal to do, but will get you killed because they are incredibly stupid. If we only needed self driving vehicles to follow the laws, they'd have been here a decade ago or more. The problem isn't making a vehicle that can follow the rules, the problem is making one that doesn't kill people while doing so.
If it wasn't about violating the law, then you wouldn't have to remove courts as an option. Remember, courts only make findings of law. So if you follow the law, then you don't need to worry about what the courts are going to say.
I didn't watch harry potter, and I didn't get killed. So obviously you're not referring to me.
I use the feature responsibly, and fully understand that it's just slightly improved cruise control. Unfortunately it's much LESS improved cruise control now than it was when I bought the car because a company with no legal authority over me decided to STEAL functionality from a vehicle that they don't own.
Why don't I go and steal your car from you right now? you'd be statistically safer without it, and I have just as much legal right to do so as Tesla did to take functionality away from me after purchase.
It doesn't matter what argument Tesla decides to make, they still break the law by stealing functionality after delivery. The only organization that is allowed to steal property from me is the government, and they specifically have not done so in this case. There has been no recall, no government mandated changes, and only a company who has zero ownership of the vehicle involved.
I can argue that you'd be safer without your car, that doesn't give me the right to take it from you without your permission, I have no claim to it because I don't own it.
The programmer does feed in the data sets though. And the car does only what it's programmed to do.
In your fantasy world if a car plowed through a crowd of people for no reason killing several of them you'd just shrug and say "the car wasn't programmed, it was just trained with data sets" That's not how it works, and if in fact it did work the way you suggest, I can 100% guarantee that no regulatory agency on this planet would ever approve a self driving vehicle.
Luckily for everyone, you don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about.
If you don't pay $30, it's highly unlikely the company will sue. Most likely they'll call and harass you, they put it on your credit report, and eventually send it to collections, but they are highly unlikely to ever take you to court over it, it just costs too much.
You're funny. Big companies never accept that, they just tell you to either accept the contract as is, or go elsewhere, you're not worth their time to negotiate a contract individually.
There is no such thing as a place where pedestrians can't leap out without warning, it happens everywhere. So you want the car to do 15km/hr on the highway, just in case? That's ridiculous, and nobody will buy that car. You can't avoid ALL collisions, it's just not possible, you also can't avoid all situations where you might have to take evasive action.
People like you who think driving is black and white, need to get off the road, you are unsafe.
Slashdot Mirror
The author has a good point, and I've always felt that the transaction fees were a big problem for bitcoin. Many of the people who are looking for an alternative form of payment are trying to get away from all the fees banks put on their money, but if you have to spend more than 5% in transaction fees to get your payment processed, have you really gained anything?
I like the concept behind crypto-currencies, but it's just not going to work if it's more expensive to use it than to use existing payment methods.
I have to agree. I have a Samsung Galaxy Note 4. It's several years old now, so I thought maybe I should get something newer. Only problem is that every newer phone is in one way or other a downgrade from what I currently have.
I was excited about the new phones with 6" displays instead of the 5.7" display that I currently have, until I learned that they're 18:9 instead of 16:9 meaning that they're actually narrower than what I currently have. Nope, not a chance! (I think they're larger numbers for marketing, but actually smaller in square inches for manufacturing)
Then I realized that nobody seems to make a phone that still has a removable battery, considering I'm on my 3rd battery since the phone was new, I'm not really ready to give up that feature yet. (I think this one is just to try to force you to buy a new phone every year and a half when the battery dies instead of buying a $20 battery)
And I also see that many phones are ditching the headphone jack I use all the time, and none of the new phones with their fancy USB-C connectors still support MHL, another feature I use all the time. "Use wireless headphones" they scream, but ignore other use cases like tying in to my existing stereo system, or my wife's car's "line in". They tell you to use "cast" for watching video from the phone on your TV, and then ignore that many video sources either don't support it, or actively block it "because piracy".
Most phones have also moved the fingerprint sensor to the back of the phone, making it impossible to unlock without picking up the phone, no thanks.
It also seems many of the newer phones are getting harder to root, and even harder to maintain safetynet (for android pay) once you have due to various bootloader tricks. I'm not willing to give up my ad-blocking and firewalls.
So what would I gain with a newer phone? a slightly faster processor, but my existing one never seems to lag. They say the camera is better on many of the new phones, but honestly I've never had any complaints about my current one. Some of the new ones are waterproof, but if I haven't killed my Note4 that way yet, I don't think it's a pressing concern. As for software... much of the list at the top of the article I already have: "instant apps" (also known as webpages), picture in picture (never use it), find my device (this is ancient now), new emoji (needed root, but I did it), I have all of those, and the remaining things don't look like anything I should want or care about.
So what killer feature do any of the new phones have that I don't have on my old Note 4?
At last check, only about 87% of the smartphone market was on Android, so no, hardly anyone uses it.
I've found it's app dependent, but this week when I re-flashed my phone I was surprised at how many apps already do this automatically. If the phone is linked to your google account (as is the default) all your apps will be back, and most of them will have all your settings intact.
There are a few notable exceptions:
- text messages don't get backed up automatically, I use a special app for this
- wallpapers, widgets, and icon placements don't get backed up, had to restore them manually
Thing is, they're about 7 years behind on features compared to Android, so that's about right.
Nothing here will block f-droid, the only difference is that you'll need to approve the installs each time, hardly a major problem.
Sure you can. You'll need root to fully uninstall it, but you can likely block it without that. On the bright side, most android phones are relatively easy to root.
It's not a new feature by a long shot, Samsung's been doing it for years on some of their phones.
It's one of those "love it or hate it" features, I know some people who think it's the best thing ever, but personally I never end up using it, I have a Note4 so I have one of the largest screens available, and it's still not really big enough to conveniently show 2 windows at once. I'm more likely to swap back and forth than have 2 open at the same time.
it would be nicer if these "apps" just allowed you to bookmark the website in your normal browser instead.
I'm sick of having dozens of apps on my phone that are all just mini web-browsers.
Out of curiosity, what have they changed that makes it less useful or harder to use?
You can also authorize multiple phones, so my wife's phone is authorized as 2fa on my account, that allows me to find and wipe my phone by using 2fa on her phone.
So you wish me harm because I use a product safely and as advertised and refuse to let a company reach in to a product after purchase and remove functionality?
Wow...
And why do you think I would get myself killed while driving responsibly and paying attention to the traffic around me?
So you'll train it with the "kill lots of people" vs the "avoid killing people" data sets and that's fine?
Grow up and get a clue. Regulators will never approve that. Cars that drive themselves will need to make appropriate road decisions or they will very quickly be banned. And part of those decisions will be avoiding collisions and minimizing harm.
They flat out lie in all their public statements, and they steal functionality after the sale without permission. I'm not sure how that didn't come through in my statements.
It didn't break the law before, the manufacturer however now has by stealing functionality that they already sold.
You still don't get it at all.
I hope for everyone's sake that you NEVER get behind the wheel of an automobile. Your attitude is the most dangerous I've ever seen. You don't care who dies as long as what you do wasn't technically illegal. That's a horrible mindset to have, and I'm glad that those designing and regulating self driving vehicles don't think like you do!
Not every situation in driving is black and white, follow the law or don't. There are many things that are perfectly legal to do, but will get you killed because they are incredibly stupid. If we only needed self driving vehicles to follow the laws, they'd have been here a decade ago or more. The problem isn't making a vehicle that can follow the rules, the problem is making one that doesn't kill people while doing so.
If it wasn't about violating the law, then you wouldn't have to remove courts as an option. Remember, courts only make findings of law. So if you follow the law, then you don't need to worry about what the courts are going to say.
I didn't watch harry potter, and I didn't get killed. So obviously you're not referring to me.
I use the feature responsibly, and fully understand that it's just slightly improved cruise control. Unfortunately it's much LESS improved cruise control now than it was when I bought the car because a company with no legal authority over me decided to STEAL functionality from a vehicle that they don't own.
Why don't I go and steal your car from you right now? you'd be statistically safer without it, and I have just as much legal right to do so as Tesla did to take functionality away from me after purchase.
It doesn't matter what argument Tesla decides to make, they still break the law by stealing functionality after delivery. The only organization that is allowed to steal property from me is the government, and they specifically have not done so in this case. There has been no recall, no government mandated changes, and only a company who has zero ownership of the vehicle involved.
I can argue that you'd be safer without your car, that doesn't give me the right to take it from you without your permission, I have no claim to it because I don't own it.
The programmer does feed in the data sets though. And the car does only what it's programmed to do.
In your fantasy world if a car plowed through a crowd of people for no reason killing several of them you'd just shrug and say "the car wasn't programmed, it was just trained with data sets" That's not how it works, and if in fact it did work the way you suggest, I can 100% guarantee that no regulatory agency on this planet would ever approve a self driving vehicle.
Luckily for everyone, you don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about.
If you don't pay $30, it's highly unlikely the company will sue. Most likely they'll call and harass you, they put it on your credit report, and eventually send it to collections, but they are highly unlikely to ever take you to court over it, it just costs too much.
You're funny. Big companies never accept that, they just tell you to either accept the contract as is, or go elsewhere, you're not worth their time to negotiate a contract individually.
How about we get arbitration for everything? I kill you, you must agree to arbitration and I get to select the arbiter.
There's another option... companies could follow the law... just sayin'...
There is no such thing as a place where pedestrians can't leap out without warning, it happens everywhere. So you want the car to do 15km/hr on the highway, just in case? That's ridiculous, and nobody will buy that car. You can't avoid ALL collisions, it's just not possible, you also can't avoid all situations where you might have to take evasive action.
People like you who think driving is black and white, need to get off the road, you are unsafe.