Everyone already buys bootlocked phones, this is simply the next logical step.
We just discussed this in an article on Netflix not loading on rooted Androids, and when I suggested that it was only a matter of time before the same became true for computers I was told there's no way that would ever fly. But the thing is, it will. It won't be long before locked bootloaders and walled gardens are the norm for the PC world just as they are for phones. Probably only a few more years before it becomes extremely difficult to buy a computer that isn't locked down, and shortly thereafter, even if your computer is still unaffected, you'll stop being able to use it for anything involving media watching, banking, or even games. This is already happening on phones, it will happen on computer too.
When you don't know how to manage your workers, you do it the easy way by watching the punch-clock. It does absolutely nothing to help your company, but it's easy, and it makes the boss feel good.
The real issue on the web is unnecessary code. Far too often if you look at the code for a simple paragraph of text, it's thousands of lines long, and most of those lines are there to make the rendering worse. For example, the millions of sites that only let you read text on the middle third of your monitor with huge empty fields on both sides, the ones that won't let you resize things on your mobile phone to make them easier to read, the ones that assume that every person on the planet is using the same identical monitor that the developer used and everyone else can scroll in every direction, and the absolute worst breed on the web, those that think people on mobile phones want a different website than if they were in front of a computer.
I had an argument with my boss the other day because he wanted me to make a page "responsive" by hardcoding percentages and pixel widths in to every part of the content, I challenged him to find me a device that wasn't displaying the page well as it was with the existing site that had none of that garbage. He couldn't. Not only is it easier to write without all the arbitrary limitations, it works better on more devices, and the page sizes are less than half so bandwidth and load times are both down.
You don't need thousands of lines of script to display raw text. Pick a font and a colour, then write the text, it's that simple.
For all the "advances" in the web, the vast majority of the content would benefit by being taken back to before all the fancy additions were added to the standards, and leave all the scripting for content that actually needs it (which is really few and far between)
Depends what you consider "similar class" Tesla claims they compete with Mercedes S class, BMW 7 series, etc. In those classes the Tesla is about the same price, so you can't buy "a lifetime supply of gas" with the difference as there really isn't a difference.
Now if you decide to compare the Model S to a Civic or something, sure, you'll always come out cheaper with the Civic, but it's not really a good comparison.
That said, Tesla's comparison isn't right either, but honestly, there simply ISN'T a comparison for the Model S, it's got worse interior quality than a $30,000 Kia, but it has more advanced driver assistance tech than a $100,000 luxury car. It also has the acceleration of a $1,000,000 supercar, and the cargo capacity of a large SUV, which obviously comes with worse handling than the supercar, and the cargo layout is far from optimized. It's actually really hard to place in a "class" at all. It really boils down to what you want in a car, it may be the best thing you've ever found, or a huge disappointment.
Before NN laws we had defacto NN. But there is no possible way to go back to defacto NN because the cat is out of the bag, the technical ability to mess with the internet is now cheap and easy to implement, and providers have realized that there's money to be made in doing so.
Asking if there was a problem before net-neutrality laws, while ignoring the specific cases that caused those laws to be implemented in the first place, is like saying we don't need traffic laws because there were no car crashes before cars were invented. Simply repealing the speed limit won't magically make people trade their cars for horse and buggies.
What opponents of Net Neutrality fail to realize is that despite the fact that the actual net neutrality laws were relatively new, for the most part (except for a few incidents that caused the laws to be enacted) we've always had net neutrality in the past. Now the reasons were different, originally net neutrality existed because it was simply too hard and expensive for a provider to discriminate. The equipment to do so was expensive, and to do so on a large scale without killing your throughput was simply prohibitive. Additionally it was simply that corporations hadn't even thought of it.
Once the equipment to filter became easily accessible, and corporations thought of how to monetize it, they immediately started screwing with the internet. Luckily at the time, the FCC saw what was happening and fixed it.
People who think that by removing the laws we'll go back to a point before companies had the technical ability, and inclination to screw with the internet have completely forgotten the actual incidents that caused the FCC to act in the first place, the proof that ISPs aren't going to suddenly forget that there's a whole lot of money to be made in trying to turn the internet in to cable TV.
Actually, it IS the same as full control. Find me a file on the system that I can't delete or modify (ignoring that it may break things) .
If you're saying that sometimes individual apps lock out your control of various things, that's entirely different, and there's nothing stopping someone from writing that same type of app and using it on a rooted phone. The situation is 100% identical. In both cases the user has the same amount of control of the system.
Then stop trying to hide root, and start running the apps in a virtual phone on the real phone. The virtual phone wouldn't be rooted, so there's no root to detect.
All these developers so far have avoided any sandboxing of apps and instead rely on hiding one or two telltale signs. They need to step up and really put the app in an environment that it thinks is a real un-rooted phone, but that is really just a software container.
Ever interacted with a cop? they have actual authority over you, not the pretend authority the teacher has, and yet they call you Sir or Maam. Respect goes both ways, if you want it, you need to give it out as well.
Trying to rub it in that you have the authority by forcing other people to call you by a title while refusing to do the same doesn't get you any respect, and it certainly doesn't make you look good.
And here's the thing. Years ago it DID go both ways, teachers addressed their students as Mr/Miss, and students addressed their teachers with titles as well. But many years ago teachers stopped using titles with their students, and now they are upset when the students do the same.
If you don't think it's respectful when a student uses your first name instead of a title, then don't call them by their first name either.
Do you address them by their first names? That didn't used to be the case either you know. If you want them to call you Mr. Lastname, you should be calling them Mr/Ms Lastname as well.
I teach in a professional setting, we would never dream of asking our students to address us by anything other than our first names, they're adults, and we treat them as such.
Insisting that they use a title to address you, while not doing so in return indicates that you are trying to demonstrate that you are "better" than they are. Yet they're the ones who pay your salary, maybe you should respect them as well.
If you are in fact using a title to address them, then you are simply indicating a very formal and detached setting. I have less of an issue in that case, however I do think it's rather stuck-up, and probably not particularly conducive to actual learning.
No, using a title doesn't show respect, it shows obedience. And "etiquette" was long ago ignored by those very same institutions.
As for "Look it up sometime", I'm pretty sure I see neither respect nor etiquette in your response, so it seems rather ironic that you'd be defending it.
Calling someone by a title doesn't indicate respect, it indicates obedience.
I don't demand that others call me by a title. And I've never requested it of my students either, but then again, I teach in a professional setting where we assume people are adults and don't use childish tricks like this to make them "prove it" to us.
I don't think it's the lack of updating the product that did it in, there's no way they could have realistically competed with the average smartphone. In fact, they haven't been able to compete with the average smart phone for many years now.
What TI apparently failed to do was update their brib^H^H^H^Hlobbying. After all this was a government mandated profit stream, you have to work to maintain those!
A couple of decades ago it almost made sense, but now that every student has a more powerful device in their pocket already, it's ridiculous that they've been forced to shell out so much money for such an antiquated device.
This is 2 different problems. 1) Not being able to write appropriately. "U" isn't a word, and using it as such is never appropriate. When you write a formal report, it should be using appropriate words and phrasing. 2) Calling an instructor by their first name. I'm not sure I can understand the problem here. If I hire a plumber, do I have to address him by some weird title, or can I simply call him by his first name? Why is it different if I hire a teacher? Does the teacher address the students as Master/Mistress? Why the double standard? Now if they're being insulting in some other way, maybe there's a problem, but if they are being respectful I can't see the problem with using the instructor's first name. Pretentious titles don't do anything for me, if you want my respect, earn it, don't demand it, and I'll do the same in return.
We've been debating killing Netflix for a while now, as there's plenty of content I can watch on the big screen at home without it, but the recurring theme is that it's the only legal way we can watch stuff on our phones when we're not home (and as difficult as the content providers make it, we do try to do things the legal way, even if it would be far more convenient not to). If Netflix is going to stop doing that, then it stops having any value to me. And no, I'm not giving up my ad blocker, my firewall, and my resolution settings just to be able to watch Netflix on occasion, it's just not worth that much to me.
Hide my root hasn't worked in any other situation, why would this be different?
I have a half dozen apps I'd like to run, but can't because my phone is rooted, I've tried dozens of different root hiding apps, none have ever allowed even a single one of those apps to run.
I don't however want to run any of them badly enough to give up: - changing my resolution to something that doesn't think I'm trying to use my 5" screen from across the living room. I'm not blind! - ad blocking - firewalls
Newsflash, not one of these apps is worth enough to me to destroy the rest of the user experience on my phone. (Ignore for the fact that none of the 3 items I listed above should require advanced hacking of your device to accomplish!)
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone already buys bootlocked phones, this is simply the next logical step.
We just discussed this in an article on Netflix not loading on rooted Androids, and when I suggested that it was only a matter of time before the same became true for computers I was told there's no way that would ever fly. But the thing is, it will. It won't be long before locked bootloaders and walled gardens are the norm for the PC world just as they are for phones. Probably only a few more years before it becomes extremely difficult to buy a computer that isn't locked down, and shortly thereafter, even if your computer is still unaffected, you'll stop being able to use it for anything involving media watching, banking, or even games. This is already happening on phones, it will happen on computer too.
When you don't know how to manage your workers, you do it the easy way by watching the punch-clock. It does absolutely nothing to help your company, but it's easy, and it makes the boss feel good.
This is exactly the situation.
The real issue on the web is unnecessary code. Far too often if you look at the code for a simple paragraph of text, it's thousands of lines long, and most of those lines are there to make the rendering worse. For example, the millions of sites that only let you read text on the middle third of your monitor with huge empty fields on both sides, the ones that won't let you resize things on your mobile phone to make them easier to read, the ones that assume that every person on the planet is using the same identical monitor that the developer used and everyone else can scroll in every direction, and the absolute worst breed on the web, those that think people on mobile phones want a different website than if they were in front of a computer.
I had an argument with my boss the other day because he wanted me to make a page "responsive" by hardcoding percentages and pixel widths in to every part of the content, I challenged him to find me a device that wasn't displaying the page well as it was with the existing site that had none of that garbage. He couldn't. Not only is it easier to write without all the arbitrary limitations, it works better on more devices, and the page sizes are less than half so bandwidth and load times are both down.
You don't need thousands of lines of script to display raw text. Pick a font and a colour, then write the text, it's that simple.
For all the "advances" in the web, the vast majority of the content would benefit by being taken back to before all the fancy additions were added to the standards, and leave all the scripting for content that actually needs it (which is really few and far between)
Depends what you consider "similar class"
Tesla claims they compete with Mercedes S class, BMW 7 series, etc. In those classes the Tesla is about the same price, so you can't buy "a lifetime supply of gas" with the difference as there really isn't a difference.
Now if you decide to compare the Model S to a Civic or something, sure, you'll always come out cheaper with the Civic, but it's not really a good comparison.
That said, Tesla's comparison isn't right either, but honestly, there simply ISN'T a comparison for the Model S, it's got worse interior quality than a $30,000 Kia, but it has more advanced driver assistance tech than a $100,000 luxury car. It also has the acceleration of a $1,000,000 supercar, and the cargo capacity of a large SUV, which obviously comes with worse handling than the supercar, and the cargo layout is far from optimized. It's actually really hard to place in a "class" at all. It really boils down to what you want in a car, it may be the best thing you've ever found, or a huge disappointment.
So if I had an iPhone I could get it, but because I have an Android that's more than a month old, I can't?
c'mon Google! let me download an upgrade from "ok google" to google assistant!
And just what court is likely to care?
The one who's latest appointment was made by the same person who appointed the new head to the FCC? yeah, I see that going well.
There never was a "before NN".
Before NN laws we had defacto NN. But there is no possible way to go back to defacto NN because the cat is out of the bag, the technical ability to mess with the internet is now cheap and easy to implement, and providers have realized that there's money to be made in doing so.
Asking if there was a problem before net-neutrality laws, while ignoring the specific cases that caused those laws to be implemented in the first place, is like saying we don't need traffic laws because there were no car crashes before cars were invented. Simply repealing the speed limit won't magically make people trade their cars for horse and buggies.
Why would the next comment period be different from the first?
By law, the FCC must accept comments. But they have no legal requirement to care what they say, and they have just proved that once again.
What opponents of Net Neutrality fail to realize is that despite the fact that the actual net neutrality laws were relatively new, for the most part (except for a few incidents that caused the laws to be enacted) we've always had net neutrality in the past.
Now the reasons were different, originally net neutrality existed because it was simply too hard and expensive for a provider to discriminate. The equipment to do so was expensive, and to do so on a large scale without killing your throughput was simply prohibitive. Additionally it was simply that corporations hadn't even thought of it.
Once the equipment to filter became easily accessible, and corporations thought of how to monetize it, they immediately started screwing with the internet. Luckily at the time, the FCC saw what was happening and fixed it.
People who think that by removing the laws we'll go back to a point before companies had the technical ability, and inclination to screw with the internet have completely forgotten the actual incidents that caused the FCC to act in the first place, the proof that ISPs aren't going to suddenly forget that there's a whole lot of money to be made in trying to turn the internet in to cable TV.
Actually, it IS the same as full control. Find me a file on the system that I can't delete or modify (ignoring that it may break things) .
If you're saying that sometimes individual apps lock out your control of various things, that's entirely different, and there's nothing stopping someone from writing that same type of app and using it on a rooted phone. The situation is 100% identical. In both cases the user has the same amount of control of the system.
No, I want a virtual phone within my physical phone. One that is 100% stock and un-rooted, just for these apps.
Then stop trying to hide root, and start running the apps in a virtual phone on the real phone. The virtual phone wouldn't be rooted, so there's no root to detect.
All these developers so far have avoided any sandboxing of apps and instead rely on hiding one or two telltale signs. They need to step up and really put the app in an environment that it thinks is a real un-rooted phone, but that is really just a software container.
You'll be surprised to know that it doesn't change your risk level at all.
Banks will do everything they can to nail you to the cross either way.
It isn't, but if the instructors insist on it, why wouldn't it work both ways?
Ever interacted with a cop? they have actual authority over you, not the pretend authority the teacher has, and yet they call you Sir or Maam. Respect goes both ways, if you want it, you need to give it out as well.
Trying to rub it in that you have the authority by forcing other people to call you by a title while refusing to do the same doesn't get you any respect, and it certainly doesn't make you look good.
And here's the thing. Years ago it DID go both ways, teachers addressed their students as Mr/Miss, and students addressed their teachers with titles as well. But many years ago teachers stopped using titles with their students, and now they are upset when the students do the same.
If you don't think it's respectful when a student uses your first name instead of a title, then don't call them by their first name either.
Do you address them by their first names? That didn't used to be the case either you know. If you want them to call you Mr. Lastname, you should be calling them Mr/Ms Lastname as well.
I teach in a professional setting, we would never dream of asking our students to address us by anything other than our first names, they're adults, and we treat them as such.
Insisting that they use a title to address you, while not doing so in return indicates that you are trying to demonstrate that you are "better" than they are. Yet they're the ones who pay your salary, maybe you should respect them as well.
If you are in fact using a title to address them, then you are simply indicating a very formal and detached setting. I have less of an issue in that case, however I do think it's rather stuck-up, and probably not particularly conducive to actual learning.
No, using a title doesn't show respect, it shows obedience. And "etiquette" was long ago ignored by those very same institutions.
As for "Look it up sometime", I'm pretty sure I see neither respect nor etiquette in your response, so it seems rather ironic that you'd be defending it.
Calling someone by a title doesn't indicate respect, it indicates obedience.
I don't demand that others call me by a title. And I've never requested it of my students either, but then again, I teach in a professional setting where we assume people are adults and don't use childish tricks like this to make them "prove it" to us.
I don't think it's the lack of updating the product that did it in, there's no way they could have realistically competed with the average smartphone. In fact, they haven't been able to compete with the average smart phone for many years now.
What TI apparently failed to do was update their brib^H^H^H^Hlobbying. After all this was a government mandated profit stream, you have to work to maintain those!
A couple of decades ago it almost made sense, but now that every student has a more powerful device in their pocket already, it's ridiculous that they've been forced to shell out so much money for such an antiquated device.
This is 2 different problems.
1) Not being able to write appropriately. "U" isn't a word, and using it as such is never appropriate. When you write a formal report, it should be using appropriate words and phrasing.
2) Calling an instructor by their first name. I'm not sure I can understand the problem here. If I hire a plumber, do I have to address him by some weird title, or can I simply call him by his first name? Why is it different if I hire a teacher? Does the teacher address the students as Master/Mistress? Why the double standard?
Now if they're being insulting in some other way, maybe there's a problem, but if they are being respectful I can't see the problem with using the instructor's first name. Pretentious titles don't do anything for me, if you want my respect, earn it, don't demand it, and I'll do the same in return.
So continues the fall of netflix
FTFY
We've been debating killing Netflix for a while now, as there's plenty of content I can watch on the big screen at home without it, but the recurring theme is that it's the only legal way we can watch stuff on our phones when we're not home (and as difficult as the content providers make it, we do try to do things the legal way, even if it would be far more convenient not to). If Netflix is going to stop doing that, then it stops having any value to me. And no, I'm not giving up my ad blocker, my firewall, and my resolution settings just to be able to watch Netflix on occasion, it's just not worth that much to me.
Hide my root hasn't worked in any other situation, why would this be different?
I have a half dozen apps I'd like to run, but can't because my phone is rooted, I've tried dozens of different root hiding apps, none have ever allowed even a single one of those apps to run.
I don't however want to run any of them badly enough to give up:
- changing my resolution to something that doesn't think I'm trying to use my 5" screen from across the living room. I'm not blind!
- ad blocking
- firewalls
Newsflash, not one of these apps is worth enough to me to destroy the rest of the user experience on my phone. (Ignore for the fact that none of the 3 items I listed above should require advanced hacking of your device to accomplish!)