It's true that with a gorilla glass screen you don't need a screen protector, but it seems the vast majority of phones have screen protectors on them anyway (being that it is now 100% required to have a full case on all new phones, the screen protector tends to happen anyway) And with a screen protector on, you can't feel the difference between glass or plastic screens.
That said, all my earlier phones had plastic screens, none had screen protectors or cases, and none had any problem. Better yet, you can get plastics to be matte, which makes it hundreds of times easier to read, no glare!
It's being worked on. Rollable phones have been a staple of science fiction for years, and several companies are trying to get there. These foldable phones are the first step. The technology just isn't quite there yet to go further, but all the big names know that if they can find a way, rollable phones will make them a pile of money. Give it time.
Before glass screens, phones lasted a long time and without any case needed. Now with glass on both sides of every phone, everyone needs a case, and half the phones you see have at least one corner of them cracked and shattered, the lifespan of a phone has also dropped dramatically while prices soar.
The sooner we kill off the all glass phone the better!
Corning is scared. Right now they have a monopoly on phone screens, and increasingly on the backs of phones as well. If someone dares make a phone without gorilla glass on both sides, and it sells well, people might realize what a horrible product glass is for use on devices that risk ever being dropped. If that happens, sales of gorilla glass will plummet.
Glass is a very poor material for a phone screen, and is positively inexcusable on the back of a phone, but Corning has done well in the pr department.
Don't think that the Calgary police are purely altruistic here, many of the cameras are in places engineered to make the maximum possibly amount of money. There's a spot leaving town where the speed limit goes up from 90kph - 110kph, and there's almost always a speed camera sitting a couple hundred meters before the change, she you can see the sign for the increase, where the road has already widened to look like the out of town highway, and where people have already drifted up towards the higher speed. There's another intersection in a road where the limit is 100kph, except for a couple hundred meters at 70kph before going back up to 100kph, there's a permanent camera there, and they've admitted it's the most profitable in the city. Sure most people don't obey the limit there, but the problem is the couple hundred meters of absurdly low speed limit, not the drivers ignoring it, it sure appears that the only reason for the 70 zone is to get more ticket revenue.
There's actually a big debate right now in the province leading up to this spring's election where both major parties are promising to "put down the cash cow of photo radar" the current governing party claims they'll make the police justify all locations from a safety perspective, and prohibit cameras within 200m of a speed limit change, the other party (and most likely to win) says they'll "go further" but haven't said what that means.
Speed cameras have been proven not to be a universal deterrent because they require local knowledge to know where they'll be, and are generally hidden as much as possible. If you want real deterrent you use a marked cruiser parked in a visible location. It works much better at getting people to slow down, but doesn't make nearly as much money.
the subway and interstates are both government run. Broadband is not.
I didn't say regulation was necessarily bad. I just pointed out that if you have an independent company, with all sorts of rules protecting their monopoly, but none protecting their customers, the results aren't the least bit surprising.
Regulation isn't the problem, half measures of it are.
Some things just naturally are a monopoly, (ie. highways and subways as you point out) It could be argued that last mile broadband also falls in that category. But it isn't treated the same as roads and subways for some reason, and the results aren't stellar.
Hint, a law restricting competition, IS regulation. It's not pro-consumer regulation, but that doesn't make it less regulatory.
The problem is that the laws remove competition, without adding any other balancing force. If you're going to get rid of the competition, you need to do something else to replace the forces that competition would otherwise provide, such as also regulating pricing and service levels. If you regulate only half the equation, you're bound to have the situation that we're all familiar with today.
In my original comment, I said that we could debate the merits of the system, but that doesn't make it pure capitalism.
In reality, I think the issue is that it's "semi-regulated". This is due to regulatory capture by the telcos. I agree that the last mile is a natural monopoly, and it makes sense to be so. After all, how many sets of wires do you really want going to every house? But in regulating out the competition, you also need to replace those competitive pressures with something. So either you go all the way, and make the last mile government run. or you need to regulate the prices and service levels of the company that does run it. You can't expect a company that has been handed a government backed monopoly to give excellent service and great prices out of the kindness of their heart. It just doesn't work that way.
The internet hasn't met capitalism. The infrastructure is heavily regulated by the government with a view to limiting the number of competing providers. You can argue about whether or not that's a good thing, but you can't say that is a free market. Limiting the number of providers will always result in lower quality, and higher priced, service.
is it a real policy, or a PR policy? have you looked at the voting record? how often do members exercise that right? I bet you'll find almost all votes are still right along party lines.
Someone at some time decided that software and hardware would not be treated equally. That's where it all fell apart. And only because people deliberately chose not to understand what software is.
If I buy hardware, I'm allowed to do anything I want with it. It's mine. But if I buy something with software on it, it's NOT mine, and I can't do what I want with it. Suddenly companies can revoke all your rights just by implementing a feature in software instead of hardware. Of course almost everything these days is software, so as a result, almost nothing is actually yours anymore.
Never should the implementation have mattered. I don't care if my toaster has a spring and gears to time the toast, or if it has a microcontroller and an operating system. I just want it to work. There's no reason why I should be allowed to fix and modify the former, while being prevented from even looking at the latter. There's fundamentally no difference between a hardware feature and a software feature except because lawmakers decreed it to be so. It's the old joke of everything being brand new if it's "on a computer" or "on the internet", that doesn't make it new, it's just presented differently, and no new laws should have been required to deal with it.
Members voting not along party lines? In Canada? Where have you been for the past couple of decades? That simply doesn't happen. Ever.
Sure, it used to, but not anymore. At this point, a majority government is really a government by one person. The Premier/Prime Minister. They tell their party how to vote on every issue, and that's what happens. Really we should simply eliminate all the individual members and their offices and save money. They aren't allowed to represent their constituents anyway.
going over well? I hope that was sarcasm. John Deere is probably the leading lobbyist against right to repair. So I doubt they'll find friends in the farm equipment industry. As for cars. Try to repair your own Tesla and get back to me. They'll fight you tooth and nail on that one.
So you really believe that switching a single person in office will make any difference at all? You do realize that there are thousands of politicians in the country, from both major parties, who have had their chances recently, and all have been keen to expand this sort of thing and clamp down on "freedon" as much as they possibly can.
Changing one person in the government won't restore the freedom you long for, and it's highly doubtful that this person even wrote the legislation, he's just presenting what he was told to present. If he's not there anymore, a different person will present the same, or substantially similar, bill.
Just look at the comments section to see it's still shared by the majority. Most of the comments on this story aren't "blame the government" they're "blame Republicans!" or "blame Democrats!"
As long as people keep thinking politics is a team sport where they need to cheer for "their" team, neither party, nor the bureaucrats and lobbyists who are actually in charge, are going to be worried.
After investigating, it looks like Google backtracked on it, and removed the async dns resolver a little while ago (here's a post that talks about what it was: https://discourse.pi-hole.net/t/disable-async-dns-resolver-in-google-chrome/9500)
So yes, Chrome DID have it's own internal resolver, but they seem to have backtracked and now only have a cache (which still will cause problems if you're switching between servers such as internal corporate DNS to outside world when you connect/disconnect your company VPN).
That said other apps (especially mobile games) have been caught with their own internal resolvers so as to ensure no adblocker (or malware blocker) can be used.
I've been running my own mail server for almost 20 years. I have no trouble sending or receiving mail to any of the big players. There are a couple of caveats though, you must have several things in place in the modern world of email: - you must be hosted on a "server" IP, if big names think it's a dynamic or residential IP, you'll never get through. - Reverse DNS that matches your domain's MX - SPF records - DKIM signatures - DMARC records - No open relays, all your users must be authenticated. - Never let SPAM, or anything that could be construed as SPAM originate from your server. And for your own sanity: - Positively exceptional SPAM filtering
Failure to have any of those set up perfectly will get you in big trouble. But with all of that set up right, I haven't had any problems.
Libertarians don't blame the government for the effects of deregulation. They blame the government for the OTHER regulations that are still in place and no longer countered by the regulations that were removed.
Libertarians are tired of the government causing problems, and then adding even more rules to try to correct the problem, then being called hypocrites for lamenting when the government gets rid of the correcting rules, without getting rid of the ones that caused the problem in the first place.
This is a prime example of you cherry picking which regulations you think libertarians are against, you think they're only against the ones that solved problems that the government created in the first place!
Which is exactly the same with phones. The recent craze of "bigger screens" hasn't actually been larger screens, it's just been different shapes, the screen aspect ratio these days is 2:1 or in some cases even narrower (I've seen 19:9) It's pure marketing, screens are measured diagonally, and the narrower and taller the display, the larger that number appears for the same number of pixels. And worse yet, the usable area is smaller than before because we're now back to watching movies with black bars on the sides, playing games with black bars on the sides, and trying to read text that's like an old fashioned newspaper column (2 words wide, 50 lines long)
Now a 7.2 inch square, that's probably useful, though there are a bunch of other UI/usability issues to be considered first.
Slashdot Mirror
It's true that with a gorilla glass screen you don't need a screen protector, but it seems the vast majority of phones have screen protectors on them anyway (being that it is now 100% required to have a full case on all new phones, the screen protector tends to happen anyway) And with a screen protector on, you can't feel the difference between glass or plastic screens.
That said, all my earlier phones had plastic screens, none had screen protectors or cases, and none had any problem. Better yet, you can get plastics to be matte, which makes it hundreds of times easier to read, no glare!
My earlier phones all had plastic touchscreens, felt fine, never cracked. They also had plastic or metal backs, also felt fine, and never cracked.
It's being worked on. Rollable phones have been a staple of science fiction for years, and several companies are trying to get there. These foldable phones are the first step. The technology just isn't quite there yet to go further, but all the big names know that if they can find a way, rollable phones will make them a pile of money. Give it time.
Before glass screens, phones lasted a long time and without any case needed. Now with glass on both sides of every phone, everyone needs a case, and half the phones you see have at least one corner of them cracked and shattered, the lifespan of a phone has also dropped dramatically while prices soar.
The sooner we kill off the all glass phone the better!
Corning is scared. Right now they have a monopoly on phone screens, and increasingly on the backs of phones as well. If someone dares make a phone without gorilla glass on both sides, and it sells well, people might realize what a horrible product glass is for use on devices that risk ever being dropped. If that happens, sales of gorilla glass will plummet.
Glass is a very poor material for a phone screen, and is positively inexcusable on the back of a phone, but Corning has done well in the pr department.
Don't think that the Calgary police are purely altruistic here, many of the cameras are in places engineered to make the maximum possibly amount of money. There's a spot leaving town where the speed limit goes up from 90kph - 110kph, and there's almost always a speed camera sitting a couple hundred meters before the change, she you can see the sign for the increase, where the road has already widened to look like the out of town highway, and where people have already drifted up towards the higher speed. There's another intersection in a road where the limit is 100kph, except for a couple hundred meters at 70kph before going back up to 100kph, there's a permanent camera there, and they've admitted it's the most profitable in the city. Sure most people don't obey the limit there, but the problem is the couple hundred meters of absurdly low speed limit, not the drivers ignoring it, it sure appears that the only reason for the 70 zone is to get more ticket revenue.
There's actually a big debate right now in the province leading up to this spring's election where both major parties are promising to "put down the cash cow of photo radar" the current governing party claims they'll make the police justify all locations from a safety perspective, and prohibit cameras within 200m of a speed limit change, the other party (and most likely to win) says they'll "go further" but haven't said what that means.
Speed cameras have been proven not to be a universal deterrent because they require local knowledge to know where they'll be, and are generally hidden as much as possible. If you want real deterrent you use a marked cruiser parked in a visible location. It works much better at getting people to slow down, but doesn't make nearly as much money.
In Calgary the police already post the locations on their website, so the fact Google is showing it too doesn't really change much.
the subway and interstates are both government run. Broadband is not.
I didn't say regulation was necessarily bad. I just pointed out that if you have an independent company, with all sorts of rules protecting their monopoly, but none protecting their customers, the results aren't the least bit surprising.
Regulation isn't the problem, half measures of it are.
Some things just naturally are a monopoly, (ie. highways and subways as you point out) It could be argued that last mile broadband also falls in that category. But it isn't treated the same as roads and subways for some reason, and the results aren't stellar.
Hint, a law restricting competition, IS regulation. It's not pro-consumer regulation, but that doesn't make it less regulatory.
The problem is that the laws remove competition, without adding any other balancing force. If you're going to get rid of the competition, you need to do something else to replace the forces that competition would otherwise provide, such as also regulating pricing and service levels. If you regulate only half the equation, you're bound to have the situation that we're all familiar with today.
In my original comment, I said that we could debate the merits of the system, but that doesn't make it pure capitalism.
In reality, I think the issue is that it's "semi-regulated". This is due to regulatory capture by the telcos. I agree that the last mile is a natural monopoly, and it makes sense to be so. After all, how many sets of wires do you really want going to every house? But in regulating out the competition, you also need to replace those competitive pressures with something. So either you go all the way, and make the last mile government run. or you need to regulate the prices and service levels of the company that does run it. You can't expect a company that has been handed a government backed monopoly to give excellent service and great prices out of the kindness of their heart. It just doesn't work that way.
The internet hasn't met capitalism. The infrastructure is heavily regulated by the government with a view to limiting the number of competing providers. You can argue about whether or not that's a good thing, but you can't say that is a free market. Limiting the number of providers will always result in lower quality, and higher priced, service.
It just proves that 2/3 of chrome extensions are pointless.
Seriously, what's the point of an extension that doesn't affect the content of the page?
is it a real policy, or a PR policy? have you looked at the voting record? how often do members exercise that right? I bet you'll find almost all votes are still right along party lines.
Someone at some time decided that software and hardware would not be treated equally. That's where it all fell apart. And only because people deliberately chose not to understand what software is.
If I buy hardware, I'm allowed to do anything I want with it. It's mine. But if I buy something with software on it, it's NOT mine, and I can't do what I want with it. Suddenly companies can revoke all your rights just by implementing a feature in software instead of hardware. Of course almost everything these days is software, so as a result, almost nothing is actually yours anymore.
Never should the implementation have mattered. I don't care if my toaster has a spring and gears to time the toast, or if it has a microcontroller and an operating system. I just want it to work. There's no reason why I should be allowed to fix and modify the former, while being prevented from even looking at the latter. There's fundamentally no difference between a hardware feature and a software feature except because lawmakers decreed it to be so. It's the old joke of everything being brand new if it's "on a computer" or "on the internet", that doesn't make it new, it's just presented differently, and no new laws should have been required to deal with it.
So never buy anything with a computer chip in it. You have to go without any consumer electronics, and without any vehicle.
Sorry, not willing to go that far.
Members voting not along party lines? In Canada? Where have you been for the past couple of decades? That simply doesn't happen. Ever.
Sure, it used to, but not anymore. At this point, a majority government is really a government by one person. The Premier/Prime Minister. They tell their party how to vote on every issue, and that's what happens. Really we should simply eliminate all the individual members and their offices and save money. They aren't allowed to represent their constituents anyway.
going over well? I hope that was sarcasm. John Deere is probably the leading lobbyist against right to repair. So I doubt they'll find friends in the farm equipment industry. As for cars. Try to repair your own Tesla and get back to me. They'll fight you tooth and nail on that one.
So you really believe that switching a single person in office will make any difference at all? You do realize that there are thousands of politicians in the country, from both major parties, who have had their chances recently, and all have been keen to expand this sort of thing and clamp down on "freedon" as much as they possibly can.
Changing one person in the government won't restore the freedom you long for, and it's highly doubtful that this person even wrote the legislation, he's just presenting what he was told to present. If he's not there anymore, a different person will present the same, or substantially similar, bill.
Just look at the comments section to see it's still shared by the majority. Most of the comments on this story aren't "blame the government" they're "blame Republicans!" or "blame Democrats!"
As long as people keep thinking politics is a team sport where they need to cheer for "their" team, neither party, nor the bureaucrats and lobbyists who are actually in charge, are going to be worried.
After investigating, it looks like Google backtracked on it, and removed the async dns resolver a little while ago (here's a post that talks about what it was: https://discourse.pi-hole.net/t/disable-async-dns-resolver-in-google-chrome/9500)
So yes, Chrome DID have it's own internal resolver, but they seem to have backtracked and now only have a cache (which still will cause problems if you're switching between servers such as internal corporate DNS to outside world when you connect/disconnect your company VPN).
That said other apps (especially mobile games) have been caught with their own internal resolvers so as to ensure no adblocker (or malware blocker) can be used.
I've been running my own mail server for almost 20 years. I have no trouble sending or receiving mail to any of the big players. There are a couple of caveats though, you must have several things in place in the modern world of email:
- you must be hosted on a "server" IP, if big names think it's a dynamic or residential IP, you'll never get through.
- Reverse DNS that matches your domain's MX
- SPF records
- DKIM signatures
- DMARC records
- No open relays, all your users must be authenticated.
- Never let SPAM, or anything that could be construed as SPAM originate from your server.
And for your own sanity:
- Positively exceptional SPAM filtering
Failure to have any of those set up perfectly will get you in big trouble. But with all of that set up right, I haven't had any problems.
Libertarians don't blame the government for the effects of deregulation. They blame the government for the OTHER regulations that are still in place and no longer countered by the regulations that were removed.
Libertarians are tired of the government causing problems, and then adding even more rules to try to correct the problem, then being called hypocrites for lamenting when the government gets rid of the correcting rules, without getting rid of the ones that caused the problem in the first place.
This is a prime example of you cherry picking which regulations you think libertarians are against, you think they're only against the ones that solved problems that the government created in the first place!
Then you've proved my point. "If the military is with you, your handful of small arms won't be needed"
Which is exactly the same with phones. The recent craze of "bigger screens" hasn't actually been larger screens, it's just been different shapes, the screen aspect ratio these days is 2:1 or in some cases even narrower (I've seen 19:9) It's pure marketing, screens are measured diagonally, and the narrower and taller the display, the larger that number appears for the same number of pixels. And worse yet, the usable area is smaller than before because we're now back to watching movies with black bars on the sides, playing games with black bars on the sides, and trying to read text that's like an old fashioned newspaper column (2 words wide, 50 lines long)
Now a 7.2 inch square, that's probably useful, though there are a bunch of other UI/usability issues to be considered first.
Unfortunately the major export of the USA is policies like these. Most other countries bend over backwards to follow suit.