It's Christmas, so take that Christmas chill pill and relax. There will always be free ROMs as long as Google doesn't shut off AOSP completely. And unlike the article says, you don't need an Android system most people can build from scratch: what you do need is Android free as it is today, OEMs providing open drivers or at least driver packages that can be bundle with custom ROMs, and the dedicated developers on XDA that will have your back because they love what they do and they have the time. I know how selfish that sounds, but I have been spoiled and I know the official CM team has long done nothing different than what other non-CM based ROMs have.
I would too. 2 screens are better than one and the DS and Wii U should be proof of that (even if the former didn't sell as much). Nintendo is going backwards, and worse, it's probably gonna kill it's portable market by committing to a portable that can "talk" to a TV but brings nothing new other than the larger screen and a wireless controller. Imagine a world where Nintendo releases a dedicated portable (the 3DS replacement) alongside the Switch - one won't make sense with the other by then, and it is known that Nintendo fans are the ones more likely to buy both portable and static systems making a bigger profit. Now imagine a world where only the Switch will be released for 2 years and 3ds is eventually outdated by then - will the switch deliver as much as the 3ds to gamers? Or to put it in other words, will it ship enough units to be as relevant as a 3ds? To me, with the investment made with their proprietary, wonderfully working Miracast-clone, it's mesmerizing to force people to dock the console... Why not just make it more expensive and double up on hardware, while making a miles-better experience?
Enough people (from Nintendo's perspective) buy 3ds's to supplement their mobiles, because their mobiles don't run the big Nintendo exclusives. So it's fair to say enough people will buy these too, unless the Nintendo Run trend picks up a fair share of market (it needs that Android version out to be proven true first though).
As I once stated in a comment around here, I have seen loads of over-engineering hours wasted by Android dev teams trying to fit a square peg to a round hole: many a times MVP/MVC or other "responsibility containment" patterns refactoring hours are applied to existing, super complex activities that will never be reused; other times applied to super sort activities that need no testing. This cuts 2 of the more relevant benefits of refactoring (testing and reuse). I see technical debt tasks so often, just for the sake of "patternizing" things, without a clear long-term goal (or even a problem to begin with), save for cargo cult programming - 10-file activity modules with 10 LOCs each, when the same could be achieved with 2 or 3 class/interface files providing readable and conceptualizable code still keeping the same testability and re-usability. Even starting something from scratch is no excuse to make it "standardized" - you start with the basics, and when you find reuse/testing/containment problems, you decide to change to a complex approach.
And this is for Android: an already complex, well engineered API that intrinsically forces you to separate responsibilities, and is a reuse/testing heaven. I like most of the SDK and it does look clean. This is so because it provides thousands of official and community documentation pages. You don't see that code and doc quality from small teams that define set standards and work on a fraction of Google's budget (read: more man-month AND more punch per "man"). All in all, most benefits of advanced software engineering are lost, in practice, when applied by small software houses. This is why I believe that even though patterns have a purpose, its benefits are tightly coupled with good judgement of its usage. Over-engineering is a serious disease in the industry.
They decide which target sdk and which min sdk version they support (compile sdk doesn't really matter for liability purposes). They should be aware of the consequences of supporting older versions. If they use a feature that is vulnerable in one of the versions they support, it's CLEARLY their fault;-)
This reminds me of a question I once answered - someone wanted to store passwords on Android's SharedPreferences for "remember password" feature. Someone told them to use SharedPreferences. I replied stating SharedPreferences can be seen in cleartext if the an app is using root to poll the filesystem (SharedPreferences' defense is nothing more than storing them in filesystem encrypted files, which # simply bypasses). Whose fault is it that a phone is rooted/rootable or that the app escalated by itself? Doesn't matter. These are clear case of snowball growing, but in practice, if you're using a feature of an API for which you can see the source (because you can, it's AOSP...), you're always to blame for the dangers you put on your software. I learned that the soft way, and so did Tesla - they better prevent the hard way from happening with a quick fix. As they probably are storing the token in a SharedPref, the secure-preferences lib probably solves their problem or heavily mitigates attacks.
It was a quote, and the only thing wrong in the post was he forgot to omit the trivial (for us/. readers) stuff so that context wasn't lost on the following phrase, which went through the whole yard of router products Apple will stop producing. Arguably not all of us know he entire line (me included) - I had no idea they had an EXTREME version of an airport. I wonder what them Frankfurt folks have to say about it..
Correction: By "raid laptop", I meant a laptop with 2 actual m.2 pci-e nvme slots soldered to the board. I believe the dell options, even with raid available on the config, use an m.2. adaptor ("interposer" as they call it) which just uses the SATA bus, which bottlenecks pci-e. The only reason wanting something like this would be for fast RAID 2 (reliability), but it would seriously hamper the soldered m.2 ssd performance, as every write would have to wait for the slower SSD. Reads would probably not be affected unless there was a memory miss on the SSD, something that takes decades according to current marketed specs. Then again, what am I talking about RAID 2 for SSDs:D
I honestly think the XPS 15 is a top choice too, although the reasoning for this is not directly for design/size/display, but mostly because it ticks all the right boxes specs-wise that make a great laptop. For an all around machine, meaning it can be used both as a work performer or an entertainment, i'd rarelly take away these features:
- Intel Skylake 40w+ TDP QUAD chip (usually ending in HQ), be it i5 or i7, later preferable if doing any heavy rendering (video, stills, photoshop, audio, 2 or 3d modelling/CAD) - previous or current gen nvidia or radeon #60 line graphics or above, with 2GB dedicated DDR5, or quadro/firepro equivalents - 16GB RAM at minimum. 8GB no longer cuts it, even on Linux machines with nvme ssds. I believe app and OS usage of swap/pagefile is still very flawed and one of the main detriments of user experience in modern times, probably one of the best tools to degrade products to force users to a new purchase - 1tbs+ speed nvme solution, with at least 256GB capacity if the laptop is an on-the-go machine and you keep something better at a fixed location - retro-illuminated keyboard is a must for anyone - optional: if you only use a laptop, it becomes essential to have a dual secondary, 2.5 SATA memory option of at least 1TB. Speed not relevant - Display is easy for most: FHD (aka 1080p), wide-angle screen (keyword: IPS/OLED). Preferably no glare, but that's a personal/professional choice. - consider the max and min brightness settings if your use-cases can be affected by very bright or very low necessities - display special cases: 2k wide-angle for those that have absolutely no myopia and consider the real estate comfy and the cost is no object; 4k, high color gamut for any professional that can use it and afford it. Touch functionality on a no-makeshift tablet laptop is useless (but some 4k options gotta have it...)
And the 2 most important things, unfortunately also the 2 hardest ones to get right:
- proven thermal solution that can keep up with heavy load for at least 5min without any throttling (both CPU and GPU). The XPS is decent only on this dept.
- very solid bios, bios options, support, and a brand/model/line reputation for performance oriented support. This is where the XPS fails hard, but the Precision variant has this covered.
These last 2 can usually only be found on business or ultra-premium gaming oriented products, such as Alienware, Voodoo, Dell Precision/Latitude (XPS, lacks the bios options), Toshiba Tecra, Lenovo Thinkpad (stay away from consumer Lenovo stuff), HP Elitebooks and the likes. Notable exceptions might apply if heavily supported by community bios'es. Thinkpads and Dell Latitudes are notable for getting hacked/wrd party bios for making fun things.
My personal recommendations are either a topped up Dell Precision 15 5000 (the business-line XPS) with Xeon and Quadro chips, or if performance is pinnacle and money no object, the heavier Precision 7000 which can have up to 64GB RAM, ECC support, and well, all the configurations you can dream of in a 15 incher. The 5000's have a much worse thermal solution, still great, but no match for a large form-factor work-centric machine such as the Precision 7000 machines. The 7000 can also be much cheaper, or much costlier than the 5000, depending on config. And it is a SOLID machine. Note both 5000 and 7000 support multi-m.2 nvme SSD on raid configs. I wonder when we'll get a dual nvme m.2 raid laptop - I'd love to see that secondary memory reliability OR performance feature in a top-tier machine.
The only reason I see for this would be from a procedural point of view (read: programming). No schedule-accustomed mind would ever feel right rationalizing the same hours for every different places, where they now do the same things at somewhat specific hours. A guy would think bedtime hours in Paris are like 10pm, then travel to the US and have to calculate a new bedtime hour - and every single other schedule that matters. This is exponentially irregular, and our brain is not fond of a high number of irregularities. It's much easier to adjust the clock with the time zone (1 irregularity) and stay around the somewhat similar schedules (which are regular).
Now, when we got about our space-faring adventures in a not-so-distant future, then we might have a compelling argument to switch to UTC. But even then I would assume this would only be so for exchanges between intra and extra planetary entities. No other reason for the paradigm shift for those interacting within such entities. But even then I think something better might surface when we effectively get to such a point; something that we haven't thought yet logical, feasible or even possible.
So basically this guys is asking their government to pull an NSA on their citizens. Good thing it's China then. Don't know about you but I'm gonna scale da fck down my Ali-Express shopping starting right now. It's not like what they have can't be found on ebay or other chinese wholesale-2-consumer competitors anyway.
Despite the big, commercial-grade numbers (11k), making books available on the internet should be seen as a feat for human civilization. This is another case of state money being used to hamper human development. Who buys and reads paper books anyway, let alone purchase ebooks when the pdf is a free google search away?
If any state agent is reading this: I urge you to start considering using our funds for the greater good, and not the specific good of publishers making a bigger profit than they have to. Capitalism is only as good as the companies that make things actually stocking and making them affordable enough for universal availability. If you're protecting a publisher solely by restricting the channels they offer their products in physical form, limited editions, and medium class-oriented, highly inflated pricing, you're hampering innovation. And innovation is the number 1 rule in capitalism-driven society (right after human rights). Going against it is an oppressive measure. Spend money somewhere else, like feeding the poor or highly overseeing malpractice and anti-competitiveness on books, scientific journals, papers and whatnot.
And the obvious reason there are less accidents in the autobahn is highly likely for the number of lanes, the low rate of curves, the quality of the road, and the high tolls for trucks (less trucks, less takeovers from slower cars, more slow cars on the outer lanes). You really tried to turn an argument around using nothing but flawed logic. I took logic as the main issue and so did Elon.
I don't have to: the statistical argument is invalid. There's a reason insurance doesn't pay for high-speed accidents in the autobahn.
Reckless driving is reckless driving no matter how statistics want to play them. That's why there are speed limits. Uncontrollable things that happen at 230kmh, things you can't put a fault on anything else other than the speed the car is driving: the statistically odd bird comes around the windshield, you die; a tire bursts, you die; drivetrain cracks under pressure, you die; somebody takes over without signaling to your lane (a mild driving offense in most countries, not a serious one) and you're at 15m from them, everyone dies. The lack of control, and the lack of liability, is the real issue here. Insurers would have never allowed such a thing unless immunity in the autobahn wasn't a thing. And it became a thing . And that is the proof it is reckless.
The same statistical argument can be said about autopilot systems: if everyone is using the same programmed driving (and that programming is half-decent), less accidents happen. I guaran-fuking-tee you this with my life, it's the easiest calculation anyone in IT will be able to make. Yet, it does not make it any less reckless to not have a driver paying attention. That is a fair argument. Much like it is super NOT reckless to have speed limits no matter what.
Commercial airliner flight is 99% autopilot, yet they still need the pilots there for a reason: they are carrying the responsibility the computer programs won't legally carry. And in case you didn't read the fine print, that's the real problem - German automakers don't have enough technology/money/liability combo to back a product like Tesla's in production cars at such a scale, at least not in financially favorable way to them. The politicians are defending this interest in hampering autopilot initiatives until german makers can abide, much like the autobahn was put in place when engines reached a certain maturity, which despite being useless, made for a good reason for profit scaling (SELL FAST CARS AT PREMIUM). They can't be driven like this anywhere else other than circuits... Simple state-self-defense tactics imho.
No, that is why most companies that handle conflicting business reach a point where they either split themselves in multiple companies with separate interests, or enter legal fights over the right to keep their practice. From the top of my head I remember Ebay+Paypal, Google+Android+Search+Ads+etc. They either do this or start being heavily scrutinized by whatever authority regulates fair game and competitive rules, and not only in their base countries but all countries they operate. Just look at all the problems Microsoft and Google have with the EU Commission for very basic things such as user privacy or not forcing a browser into a user just because the installed a specific OS...
The thing is, most of these regulations aren't created a priori because, in capitalism, innovation is supposedly (and highly likely) hampered by excessive regulation. But it does come to a point where regulation becomes essential to prevent consumer abuse. This is one such case. Uber, many say, is another as it works outside regulation and cab drivers feel discriminated because they have stricter rules (which also didn't exist in the first place but they started abusing the system...). There are many sides to this coin, but the bottom line is: consumers are starting to lose choice, freedom and availability of the internet because a company wants to be profitable. Regulations need to be put in place, and companies are bound to fight their fortune-making scheme because that is what their investors demand.
The only reason 3/4/5/X-play ISP bundles exist is because most companies in this field have ease entering common fields, as the infrastructure is very similar. But in strict terms, they are hampering the consumer by forcing high prices for services they might not need and offering exorbitantly priced single-service alternatives. Why rent routers? Why rent set-top boxes? Why does my service require restricted equipment when there are hundreds of modems out there? Telcos are the top lobbying companies in DC up there (and many times above) defense, IT, Pharma and energy for a reason - they like the tit they've been sucking in for 20 years, and now they have the money to buy the cow.
I would say no argument there: the bundle itself becomes anti-competitive as the company is no longer prividing an infrastructure service such as those found in normal ISP bundles: cable, TV, phone, internet, 3/4g, wifi hotspots, roaming packs and whatnot. They would be including a completely different form of business that is not justifiable to include in an internet service as it infringes itself in the now cardinal rule of internet policy: that the internet service has to be unbiased towards content.
The moment you offer no data caps or in some way an unrestricted usage of a service, bundled with a supposedly generic data plan, you're pretty much hogging other services, that plan stops being generic - it is a service bound to favor the bundle products. And that my friend, is the basis of anti-competitive practices - having something nobody else CAN have, attaching it to a turd of an internet service (capped), and selling that turd for a premium because "SPOTIFY" (e.g.).
To all the people here trying to make this connection about the "auto" part of autobahn he's referring is about "automatic", you should think again: he's obviously stating there is such a thing as a reckless road where there are no speed limits in Germany, because that's the only place the rich could justify their 250km/h top speed purchases legally. The autobahn is an obvious incentive to German auto high-end purchasing, sponsored by the government. Now there is government-sponsored public chatter trying to take away from Tesla one of their key features, in obvious favor to German automakers' features that are still not ready for production, or aren't as fully-featured as Tesla's. For the sake of the argument, I'm pretty much an unbiased party: I am from Portugal, and I don't own any interests in whatever form in Tesla or any auto company. I do drive a SEAT car with a VW engine, but it's a 2000 model and I have no particular feelings towards the engine-makers.
TL:DR - The comment is obviously about the irony of the comment coming from a government official, from a state who already showed disregard for safety in favor of boosting German car purchases.
T-Mobile NL is complaining about having a music streaming service (such as Spotify, Deezer, Soundlcoud, Apple Music, whatever) that does not count towards the data cap, and it helps them get users. We also have a lot of these stunts here in Portugal (e.g. for Youtube, Vodafone, Spotify, and even ISP-exclusive services), and this is a good example on why this might seem as "going too far" in their scope: it is affecting their marketing. Honestly, I believe hard measures like this are for the best, as they ultimately force ISPs to end any sort of "hit-a-brick-wall" traffic limitation. Because you know what, these caps are always a measure for the ISP to make more money, and never to keep average quality good through acceptable policy or to keep control their infrastructure.
There have been much better "acceptable policies" in place since the inception of broadband, and they have always worked well enough for all sorts of users: you are on the top percentile traffic count of a specific demographic, such as "people connected to the same node", you get to have ALL your traffic QoS'd until you fall into more acceptable practices. You have critical services that can't be QoS'd? Pay a real premium service that can only be supplied to organizations with plausible justification, such as one explicit in law. there are examples of this: not many people here know about it but in many countries, such as Portugal, there are state-owned fiber optic lines for utilities, that go through rural areas for instance, and that can be pulled for whoever makes a founded request. Problem is some "privileged" people abuse power when it is so obscure and not publicly advertised, but a better way for such a system would be to restrict it to registered organizations and companies, who would still be required to define strictly and found well their specific needs. After all, you only should get a Formula 1 car if you know the car and have the credentials for using it.
Why aren't measures like these used for wireless data? It's obvious: cell providers never found a good way, with data caps, to scale wireless internet revenue as profit to their investors, and different ISPs entered in consensus about this. It's the only place they can make the ever-hungrier normal user shell out more money when he gets hooked to the service, which he is bound to because the technology in his pocket evolves in directions that enable him to. We are literally carrying year 1998 super computers with in our pockets, at multiple orders of magnitude above RDIS throughput these days.
I actually agree with this sans the profanity, but remember Slashdot articles are short "stories" and they always require a source link, and you should always use that if the article really gets your interest. Usually, I also expect a bit more detail but the source link presented here is also vague. They do provide, however, a very good example on what the critics address - T-Mobile NL complains about having a music streming service (such sa Spotify, Deezer, Soundlcoud, Apple Music, whatever) that does not count towards the data cap. We also have a lot of those here in Portugal (for Youtube, Vodafone, Spotify, and even ISP-exclusive services), and this is a good example on why this might seem as "going too far" in their scope: it is affecting their marketing. Honestly I believe hard measures like this are for the best, as they ultimately force ISPs to end any sort of total traffic limitation. Because you know what, these caps are always a measure for the ISP to make more money, and never to make the user have an acceptable policy.
There have been much better "acceptable policies" in place, since the inception of broadband and they have always worked well enough for all sorts of users: you are on the top percentile traffic count of a specific demographic, such as "people connected to the same node", you get to have ALL your traffic QoS'd until you fall into more acceptable practices. Why not use these for wireless data? It's obvious: cell providers never found a good way to scale revenue with profit to their investors, and data caps was the consensus for growth.
Being a huge fan of Blink 182 (in my top 10 bands), I can say the riffs are simple, which some might define as shitty if what they appreciate is sheer technical ability. And if have you ever seen them live, be it in person or on through a TV show where they actually singing and playing, you wouldn't even thought of writing that comment. I have actually seen them live and it's worse than shitty, especially Tom. One of the worst live bands ever, Sex Pistols-level. Mark's instrument being the bass and his low tone might be more forgiving, but Tom is buttfck bad bad live. Travis is decent, after all he's one of the best punk drummers of all time and any genre overall (for obvious reasons, punk might be one of the hardest genre's for the drums).
Yet I love their songs for sheer production, melody and the silly, comical, yet awkwardly logical lyrics. And most things in life are silly. Many internet trolls have higher IQ or even academic credentials than some PhDs, yet they love to be stupid. Art, beauty, taste are very subjective, and that's part of life's charm. The trolls are just people with different interests than ethical/moral-abiding people.
In any case, I'd still take a live ticket in my country (where they rarely come/came) than a rare CD/vinyl release any day (unless it comes with concert tickets, or I can resell it to the price of 20 tickets). Not only cuz I love them and the opportunity to see them live is rare, but also because of the comedy in their concerts, in which their shitty live act plays a big part.
...silly. He does have horrible live performances on the guitar, but he definitely doesn't sing that song. That song is all Mark (the bassist) except the chorus, which is sang in chorus (sorry) by both Mark and Tom. I just wanted to bring some sense to this senseless article is all.
For scientific completion, Tom says exactly 23 words of the chorus, roughly a third of the entire chorus words, 1/5 of the chorus duration:
"away from me"
"twenty three"
"TV Shows
"(hang) up on me"
"prank phone calls"
"freshman year
"(broke) up with me
"so seriously"
"fall in line"
Now, on the very next album song, Tom does sing some amazing wordsmith quotes like "He's a player, diarrhea giver". We can all assume that and his likely "abuse of substance" are very good credentials for someone stating anything about the paranormal.
I've logged in about 5 times the past 4 days, and it wasn't on the login page I used back then. It does seem to be there now, so clearly visible I am sure I couldn't have missed it before. Besides, what other people have said: if I don't login due to any of a multitude of reasons, there's still no way to find out, especially if I'm not in the tech business reading the news, or if I don't read mass media. But I am going to reiterate: I am 100% sure this wasn't there for my 5 most recent logins except the last one. The page has probably been changed recently. I could even place money on them having changed it in the last 2 days - even though it's my spam account, I have been looking at it a lot in different machines for a (different company) customer support reply I'm expecting.
This company is looking more and more like the Titanic (film), in the ways the ship is being "sold" to the sea of Verizon, and wanting to take 'em all souls down below by not letting them use lifeboats properly. Even the music playing 'till the very end to keep passengers amused as if nothing happened. Let's face it: the only way a company can save any kind of face from such a disaster is much like what Samsung is doing with the note 7: offer refunds, launch amazing new product pronto (fingers crossed for that, we don't want to lose that Android player, even if a seriously bloated one at that, the alternative is a closed ecosystem with an Apple and a price to match).
But do you really wanna know what hurts the most? I'm a Yahoo Mail user since like 1999, and to this date I haven't gotten a single email, notification, anything at all stating the leak details through "common channels": I didn't get a CS email; I didn't get a site-bound notification in the UI; I didn't get an email on my alternative, out-of-Yahoo account; I've been searching their news feed since the first rumors and got no hits. It's flat out offensive. If I was an American citizen, or if such a thing as class action existed where I'm from, I would be suing their asses to oblivion (because only through a class can this have any meaning to a judge). I'm calling upon you Americans reading this: stick it up to them for us, they do not deserve a penny of the Verizon deal, and such a company deserves to be dismembered so that the actual talent it still has can move forward to real challenges, and the a-holes making these obviously economically-bound reasons can burn in the hell they're destined to.
You went a bit out of topic but I totally agree with you. Maybe I made it sound that I supported the bashing of Hillary, which I don't. I would also rather prefer she'd won.
Thing is, I actually think such a leak about Hillary could be beneficial to her. Just look at her email server fiasco: she handled it with poise, and Trump kept making an a** of himself when using it to attack her, while she fended him off, in my opinion, in a stoic way but simultaneously showing off her technical and policy strong background, even though she did so in admitting there are limits to what one can control in those departments...
If this new leak is something like her getting some more money than she should from sponsoring events, or her making a tough decision during wartime, I think it will add to her character if Trump decides to use that: she already has her taxes made public and it would only make her look "smart" if she did manage to hide it - something Trump followers praise; similar results if something like having to issue a drone kill order arose, which would be a display of something most voters can't grasp being done by a woman like Hillary - her main weakness actually is appearing weaker than Trump.
In sum, like for Trump, there isn't such a thing as bad press for Hillary - the logic-unbounded voter who already decided for Trump isn't gonna change his mind anyway, but a logic-sensible voter on that side of the fence might have a compelling reason to jump if he sees a stronger, street-smarter in Hillary's skill-set. I would say Hillary might even be in harsh need to get some more dirt in her character in order to win.
So I shouldn't hang around the web, because I might stumble across a site with malware in some ad, flash code or whatever. I shouldn't connect my "things" to the web because they might become part of a botnet, quite easily apparently.
Can we get some sense in here and agree that Assange is in his right to tell you to disregard obvious attempts to discredit wikileaks before an important leak??
Slashdot Mirror
It's Christmas, so take that Christmas chill pill and relax. There will always be free ROMs as long as Google doesn't shut off AOSP completely. And unlike the article says, you don't need an Android system most people can build from scratch: what you do need is Android free as it is today, OEMs providing open drivers or at least driver packages that can be bundle with custom ROMs, and the dedicated developers on XDA that will have your back because they love what they do and they have the time. I know how selfish that sounds, but I have been spoiled and I know the official CM team has long done nothing different than what other non-CM based ROMs have.
I would too. 2 screens are better than one and the DS and Wii U should be proof of that (even if the former didn't sell as much). Nintendo is going backwards, and worse, it's probably gonna kill it's portable market by committing to a portable that can "talk" to a TV but brings nothing new other than the larger screen and a wireless controller. Imagine a world where Nintendo releases a dedicated portable (the 3DS replacement) alongside the Switch - one won't make sense with the other by then, and it is known that Nintendo fans are the ones more likely to buy both portable and static systems making a bigger profit. Now imagine a world where only the Switch will be released for 2 years and 3ds is eventually outdated by then - will the switch deliver as much as the 3ds to gamers? Or to put it in other words, will it ship enough units to be as relevant as a 3ds? To me, with the investment made with their proprietary, wonderfully working Miracast-clone, it's mesmerizing to force people to dock the console... Why not just make it more expensive and double up on hardware, while making a miles-better experience?
Enough people (from Nintendo's perspective) buy 3ds's to supplement their mobiles, because their mobiles don't run the big Nintendo exclusives. So it's fair to say enough people will buy these too, unless the Nintendo Run trend picks up a fair share of market (it needs that Android version out to be proven true first though).
As I once stated in a comment around here, I have seen loads of over-engineering hours wasted by Android dev teams trying to fit a square peg to a round hole: many a times MVP/MVC or other "responsibility containment" patterns refactoring hours are applied to existing, super complex activities that will never be reused; other times applied to super sort activities that need no testing. This cuts 2 of the more relevant benefits of refactoring (testing and reuse). I see technical debt tasks so often, just for the sake of "patternizing" things, without a clear long-term goal (or even a problem to begin with), save for cargo cult programming - 10-file activity modules with 10 LOCs each, when the same could be achieved with 2 or 3 class/interface files providing readable and conceptualizable code still keeping the same testability and re-usability. Even starting something from scratch is no excuse to make it "standardized" - you start with the basics, and when you find reuse/testing/containment problems, you decide to change to a complex approach.
And this is for Android: an already complex, well engineered API that intrinsically forces you to separate responsibilities, and is a reuse/testing heaven. I like most of the SDK and it does look clean. This is so because it provides thousands of official and community documentation pages. You don't see that code and doc quality from small teams that define set standards and work on a fraction of Google's budget (read: more man-month AND more punch per "man"). All in all, most benefits of advanced software engineering are lost, in practice, when applied by small software houses. This is why I believe that even though patterns have a purpose, its benefits are tightly coupled with good judgement of its usage. Over-engineering is a serious disease in the industry.
Wow. HELL NO. I bet there are much, MUCH safer ways to see the linked-to-Google accounts. I believe one of them is supplied by Google.
My Android developer take on this same story:
It is Tesla's fault. Why?
They decide which target sdk and which min sdk version they support (compile sdk doesn't really matter for liability purposes). They should be aware of the consequences of supporting older versions. If they use a feature that is vulnerable in one of the versions they support, it's CLEARLY their fault ;-)
This reminds me of a question I once answered - someone wanted to store passwords on Android's SharedPreferences for "remember password" feature. Someone told them to use SharedPreferences. I replied stating SharedPreferences can be seen in cleartext if the an app is using root to poll the filesystem (SharedPreferences' defense is nothing more than storing them in filesystem encrypted files, which # simply bypasses). Whose fault is it that a phone is rooted/rootable or that the app escalated by itself? Doesn't matter. These are clear case of snowball growing, but in practice, if you're using a feature of an API for which you can see the source (because you can, it's AOSP...), you're always to blame for the dangers you put on your software. I learned that the soft way, and so did Tesla - they better prevent the hard way from happening with a quick fix. As they probably are storing the token in a SharedPref, the secure-preferences lib probably solves their problem or heavily mitigates attacks.
It was a quote, and the only thing wrong in the post was he forgot to omit the trivial (for us /. readers) stuff so that context wasn't lost on the following phrase, which went through the whole yard of router products Apple will stop producing. Arguably not all of us know he entire line (me included) - I had no idea they had an EXTREME version of an airport. I wonder what them Frankfurt folks have to say about it..
Correction: By "raid laptop", I meant a laptop with 2 actual m.2 pci-e nvme slots soldered to the board. I believe the dell options, even with raid available on the config, use an m.2. adaptor ("interposer" as they call it) which just uses the SATA bus, which bottlenecks pci-e. The only reason wanting something like this would be for fast RAID 2 (reliability), but it would seriously hamper the soldered m.2 ssd performance, as every write would have to wait for the slower SSD. Reads would probably not be affected unless there was a memory miss on the SSD, something that takes decades according to current marketed specs. Then again, what am I talking about RAID 2 for SSDs :D
I honestly think the XPS 15 is a top choice too, although the reasoning for this is not directly for design/size/display, but mostly because it ticks all the right boxes specs-wise that make a great laptop. For an all around machine, meaning it can be used both as a work performer or an entertainment, i'd rarelly take away these features:
- Intel Skylake 40w+ TDP QUAD chip (usually ending in HQ), be it i5 or i7, later preferable if doing any heavy rendering (video, stills, photoshop, audio, 2 or 3d modelling/CAD)
- previous or current gen nvidia or radeon #60 line graphics or above, with 2GB dedicated DDR5, or quadro/firepro equivalents
- 16GB RAM at minimum. 8GB no longer cuts it, even on Linux machines with nvme ssds. I believe app and OS usage of swap/pagefile is still very flawed and one of the main detriments of user experience in modern times, probably one of the best tools to degrade products to force users to a new purchase
- 1tbs+ speed nvme solution, with at least 256GB capacity if the laptop is an on-the-go machine and you keep something better at a fixed location
- retro-illuminated keyboard is a must for anyone
- optional: if you only use a laptop, it becomes essential to have a dual secondary, 2.5 SATA memory option of at least 1TB. Speed not relevant
- Display is easy for most: FHD (aka 1080p), wide-angle screen (keyword: IPS/OLED). Preferably no glare, but that's a personal/professional choice.
- consider the max and min brightness settings if your use-cases can be affected by very bright or very low necessities
- display special cases: 2k wide-angle for those that have absolutely no myopia and consider the real estate comfy and the cost is no object; 4k, high color gamut for any professional that can use it and afford it. Touch functionality on a no-makeshift tablet laptop is useless (but some 4k options gotta have it...)
And the 2 most important things, unfortunately also the 2 hardest ones to get right:
- proven thermal solution that can keep up with heavy load for at least 5min without any throttling (both CPU and GPU). The XPS is decent only on this dept.
- very solid bios, bios options, support, and a brand/model/line reputation for performance oriented support. This is where the XPS fails hard, but the Precision variant has this covered.
These last 2 can usually only be found on business or ultra-premium gaming oriented products, such as Alienware, Voodoo, Dell Precision/Latitude (XPS, lacks the bios options), Toshiba Tecra, Lenovo Thinkpad (stay away from consumer Lenovo stuff), HP Elitebooks and the likes. Notable exceptions might apply if heavily supported by community bios'es. Thinkpads and Dell Latitudes are notable for getting hacked/wrd party bios for making fun things.
My personal recommendations are either a topped up Dell Precision 15 5000 (the business-line XPS) with Xeon and Quadro chips, or if performance is pinnacle and money no object, the heavier Precision 7000 which can have up to 64GB RAM, ECC support, and well, all the configurations you can dream of in a 15 incher. The 5000's have a much worse thermal solution, still great, but no match for a large form-factor work-centric machine such as the Precision 7000 machines. The 7000 can also be much cheaper, or much costlier than the 5000, depending on config. And it is a SOLID machine. Note both 5000 and 7000 support multi-m.2 nvme SSD on raid configs. I wonder when we'll get a dual nvme m.2 raid laptop - I'd love to see that secondary memory reliability OR performance feature in a top-tier machine.
The only reason I see for this would be from a procedural point of view (read: programming). No schedule-accustomed mind would ever feel right rationalizing the same hours for every different places, where they now do the same things at somewhat specific hours. A guy would think bedtime hours in Paris are like 10pm, then travel to the US and have to calculate a new bedtime hour - and every single other schedule that matters. This is exponentially irregular, and our brain is not fond of a high number of irregularities. It's much easier to adjust the clock with the time zone (1 irregularity) and stay around the somewhat similar schedules (which are regular).
Now, when we got about our space-faring adventures in a not-so-distant future, then we might have a compelling argument to switch to UTC. But even then I would assume this would only be so for exchanges between intra and extra planetary entities. No other reason for the paradigm shift for those interacting within such entities. But even then I think something better might surface when we effectively get to such a point; something that we haven't thought yet logical, feasible or even possible.
So basically this guys is asking their government to pull an NSA on their citizens. Good thing it's China then. Don't know about you but I'm gonna scale da fck down my Ali-Express shopping starting right now. It's not like what they have can't be found on ebay or other chinese wholesale-2-consumer competitors anyway.
Despite the big, commercial-grade numbers (11k), making books available on the internet should be seen as a feat for human civilization. This is another case of state money being used to hamper human development. Who buys and reads paper books anyway, let alone purchase ebooks when the pdf is a free google search away?
If any state agent is reading this: I urge you to start considering using our funds for the greater good, and not the specific good of publishers making a bigger profit than they have to. Capitalism is only as good as the companies that make things actually stocking and making them affordable enough for universal availability. If you're protecting a publisher solely by restricting the channels they offer their products in physical form, limited editions, and medium class-oriented, highly inflated pricing, you're hampering innovation. And innovation is the number 1 rule in capitalism-driven society (right after human rights). Going against it is an oppressive measure. Spend money somewhere else, like feeding the poor or highly overseeing malpractice and anti-competitiveness on books, scientific journals, papers and whatnot.
And the obvious reason there are less accidents in the autobahn is highly likely for the number of lanes, the low rate of curves, the quality of the road, and the high tolls for trucks (less trucks, less takeovers from slower cars, more slow cars on the outer lanes). You really tried to turn an argument around using nothing but flawed logic. I took logic as the main issue and so did Elon.
I don't have to: the statistical argument is invalid. There's a reason insurance doesn't pay for high-speed accidents in the autobahn.
Reckless driving is reckless driving no matter how statistics want to play them. That's why there are speed limits. Uncontrollable things that happen at 230kmh, things you can't put a fault on anything else other than the speed the car is driving: the statistically odd bird comes around the windshield, you die; a tire bursts, you die; drivetrain cracks under pressure, you die; somebody takes over without signaling to your lane (a mild driving offense in most countries, not a serious one) and you're at 15m from them, everyone dies. The lack of control, and the lack of liability, is the real issue here. Insurers would have never allowed such a thing unless immunity in the autobahn wasn't a thing. And it became a thing . And that is the proof it is reckless.
The same statistical argument can be said about autopilot systems: if everyone is using the same programmed driving (and that programming is half-decent), less accidents happen. I guaran-fuking-tee you this with my life, it's the easiest calculation anyone in IT will be able to make. Yet, it does not make it any less reckless to not have a driver paying attention. That is a fair argument. Much like it is super NOT reckless to have speed limits no matter what.
Commercial airliner flight is 99% autopilot, yet they still need the pilots there for a reason: they are carrying the responsibility the computer programs won't legally carry. And in case you didn't read the fine print, that's the real problem - German automakers don't have enough technology/money/liability combo to back a product like Tesla's in production cars at such a scale, at least not in financially favorable way to them. The politicians are defending this interest in hampering autopilot initiatives until german makers can abide, much like the autobahn was put in place when engines reached a certain maturity, which despite being useless, made for a good reason for profit scaling (SELL FAST CARS AT PREMIUM). They can't be driven like this anywhere else other than circuits... Simple state-self-defense tactics imho.
No, that is why most companies that handle conflicting business reach a point where they either split themselves in multiple companies with separate interests, or enter legal fights over the right to keep their practice. From the top of my head I remember Ebay+Paypal, Google+Android+Search+Ads+etc. They either do this or start being heavily scrutinized by whatever authority regulates fair game and competitive rules, and not only in their base countries but all countries they operate. Just look at all the problems Microsoft and Google have with the EU Commission for very basic things such as user privacy or not forcing a browser into a user just because the installed a specific OS...
The thing is, most of these regulations aren't created a priori because, in capitalism, innovation is supposedly (and highly likely) hampered by excessive regulation. But it does come to a point where regulation becomes essential to prevent consumer abuse. This is one such case. Uber, many say, is another as it works outside regulation and cab drivers feel discriminated because they have stricter rules (which also didn't exist in the first place but they started abusing the system...). There are many sides to this coin, but the bottom line is: consumers are starting to lose choice, freedom and availability of the internet because a company wants to be profitable. Regulations need to be put in place, and companies are bound to fight their fortune-making scheme because that is what their investors demand.
The only reason 3/4/5/X-play ISP bundles exist is because most companies in this field have ease entering common fields, as the infrastructure is very similar. But in strict terms, they are hampering the consumer by forcing high prices for services they might not need and offering exorbitantly priced single-service alternatives. Why rent routers? Why rent set-top boxes? Why does my service require restricted equipment when there are hundreds of modems out there? Telcos are the top lobbying companies in DC up there (and many times above) defense, IT, Pharma and energy for a reason - they like the tit they've been sucking in for 20 years, and now they have the money to buy the cow.
I would say no argument there: the bundle itself becomes anti-competitive as the company is no longer prividing an infrastructure service such as those found in normal ISP bundles: cable, TV, phone, internet, 3/4g, wifi hotspots, roaming packs and whatnot. They would be including a completely different form of business that is not justifiable to include in an internet service as it infringes itself in the now cardinal rule of internet policy: that the internet service has to be unbiased towards content.
The moment you offer no data caps or in some way an unrestricted usage of a service, bundled with a supposedly generic data plan, you're pretty much hogging other services, that plan stops being generic - it is a service bound to favor the bundle products. And that my friend, is the basis of anti-competitive practices - having something nobody else CAN have, attaching it to a turd of an internet service (capped), and selling that turd for a premium because "SPOTIFY" (e.g.).
To all the people here trying to make this connection about the "auto" part of autobahn he's referring is about "automatic", you should think again: he's obviously stating there is such a thing as a reckless road where there are no speed limits in Germany, because that's the only place the rich could justify their 250km/h top speed purchases legally. The autobahn is an obvious incentive to German auto high-end purchasing, sponsored by the government. Now there is government-sponsored public chatter trying to take away from Tesla one of their key features, in obvious favor to German automakers' features that are still not ready for production, or aren't as fully-featured as Tesla's. For the sake of the argument, I'm pretty much an unbiased party: I am from Portugal, and I don't own any interests in whatever form in Tesla or any auto company. I do drive a SEAT car with a VW engine, but it's a 2000 model and I have no particular feelings towards the engine-makers.
TL:DR - The comment is obviously about the irony of the comment coming from a government official, from a state who already showed disregard for safety in favor of boosting German car purchases.
T-Mobile NL is complaining about having a music streaming service (such as Spotify, Deezer, Soundlcoud, Apple Music, whatever) that does not count towards the data cap, and it helps them get users. We also have a lot of these stunts here in Portugal (e.g. for Youtube, Vodafone, Spotify, and even ISP-exclusive services), and this is a good example on why this might seem as "going too far" in their scope: it is affecting their marketing. Honestly, I believe hard measures like this are for the best, as they ultimately force ISPs to end any sort of "hit-a-brick-wall" traffic limitation. Because you know what, these caps are always a measure for the ISP to make more money, and never to keep average quality good through acceptable policy or to keep control their infrastructure.
There have been much better "acceptable policies" in place since the inception of broadband, and they have always worked well enough for all sorts of users: you are on the top percentile traffic count of a specific demographic, such as "people connected to the same node", you get to have ALL your traffic QoS'd until you fall into more acceptable practices. You have critical services that can't be QoS'd? Pay a real premium service that can only be supplied to organizations with plausible justification, such as one explicit in law. there are examples of this: not many people here know about it but in many countries, such as Portugal, there are state-owned fiber optic lines for utilities, that go through rural areas for instance, and that can be pulled for whoever makes a founded request. Problem is some "privileged" people abuse power when it is so obscure and not publicly advertised, but a better way for such a system would be to restrict it to registered organizations and companies, who would still be required to define strictly and found well their specific needs. After all, you only should get a Formula 1 car if you know the car and have the credentials for using it.
Why aren't measures like these used for wireless data? It's obvious: cell providers never found a good way, with data caps, to scale wireless internet revenue as profit to their investors, and different ISPs entered in consensus about this. It's the only place they can make the ever-hungrier normal user shell out more money when he gets hooked to the service, which he is bound to because the technology in his pocket evolves in directions that enable him to. We are literally carrying year 1998 super computers with in our pockets, at multiple orders of magnitude above RDIS throughput these days.
I actually agree with this sans the profanity, but remember Slashdot articles are short "stories" and they always require a source link, and you should always use that if the article really gets your interest. Usually, I also expect a bit more detail but the source link presented here is also vague. They do provide, however, a very good example on what the critics address - T-Mobile NL complains about having a music streming service (such sa Spotify, Deezer, Soundlcoud, Apple Music, whatever) that does not count towards the data cap. We also have a lot of those here in Portugal (for Youtube, Vodafone, Spotify, and even ISP-exclusive services), and this is a good example on why this might seem as "going too far" in their scope: it is affecting their marketing. Honestly I believe hard measures like this are for the best, as they ultimately force ISPs to end any sort of total traffic limitation. Because you know what, these caps are always a measure for the ISP to make more money, and never to make the user have an acceptable policy.
There have been much better "acceptable policies" in place, since the inception of broadband and they have always worked well enough for all sorts of users: you are on the top percentile traffic count of a specific demographic, such as "people connected to the same node", you get to have ALL your traffic QoS'd until you fall into more acceptable practices. Why not use these for wireless data? It's obvious: cell providers never found a good way to scale revenue with profit to their investors, and data caps was the consensus for growth.
Being a huge fan of Blink 182 (in my top 10 bands), I can say the riffs are simple, which some might define as shitty if what they appreciate is sheer technical ability. And if have you ever seen them live, be it in person or on through a TV show where they actually singing and playing, you wouldn't even thought of writing that comment. I have actually seen them live and it's worse than shitty, especially Tom. One of the worst live bands ever, Sex Pistols-level. Mark's instrument being the bass and his low tone might be more forgiving, but Tom is buttfck bad bad live. Travis is decent, after all he's one of the best punk drummers of all time and any genre overall (for obvious reasons, punk might be one of the hardest genre's for the drums).
Yet I love their songs for sheer production, melody and the silly, comical, yet awkwardly logical lyrics. And most things in life are silly. Many internet trolls have higher IQ or even academic credentials than some PhDs, yet they love to be stupid. Art, beauty, taste are very subjective, and that's part of life's charm. The trolls are just people with different interests than ethical/moral-abiding people.
In any case, I'd still take a live ticket in my country (where they rarely come/came) than a rare CD/vinyl release any day (unless it comes with concert tickets, or I can resell it to the price of 20 tickets). Not only cuz I love them and the opportunity to see them live is rare, but also because of the comedy in their concerts, in which their shitty live act plays a big part.
...silly. He does have horrible live performances on the guitar, but he definitely doesn't sing that song. That song is all Mark (the bassist) except the chorus, which is sang in chorus (sorry) by both Mark and Tom. I just wanted to bring some sense to this senseless article is all.
For scientific completion, Tom says exactly 23 words of the chorus, roughly a third of the entire chorus words, 1/5 of the chorus duration:
Now, on the very next album song, Tom does sing some amazing wordsmith quotes like "He's a player, diarrhea giver". We can all assume that and his likely "abuse of substance" are very good credentials for someone stating anything about the paranormal.
I've logged in about 5 times the past 4 days, and it wasn't on the login page I used back then. It does seem to be there now, so clearly visible I am sure I couldn't have missed it before. Besides, what other people have said: if I don't login due to any of a multitude of reasons, there's still no way to find out, especially if I'm not in the tech business reading the news, or if I don't read mass media. But I am going to reiterate: I am 100% sure this wasn't there for my 5 most recent logins except the last one. The page has probably been changed recently. I could even place money on them having changed it in the last 2 days - even though it's my spam account, I have been looking at it a lot in different machines for a (different company) customer support reply I'm expecting.
This company is looking more and more like the Titanic (film), in the ways the ship is being "sold" to the sea of Verizon, and wanting to take 'em all souls down below by not letting them use lifeboats properly. Even the music playing 'till the very end to keep passengers amused as if nothing happened. Let's face it: the only way a company can save any kind of face from such a disaster is much like what Samsung is doing with the note 7: offer refunds, launch amazing new product pronto (fingers crossed for that, we don't want to lose that Android player, even if a seriously bloated one at that, the alternative is a closed ecosystem with an Apple and a price to match).
But do you really wanna know what hurts the most? I'm a Yahoo Mail user since like 1999, and to this date I haven't gotten a single email, notification, anything at all stating the leak details through "common channels": I didn't get a CS email; I didn't get a site-bound notification in the UI; I didn't get an email on my alternative, out-of-Yahoo account; I've been searching their news feed since the first rumors and got no hits. It's flat out offensive. If I was an American citizen, or if such a thing as class action existed where I'm from, I would be suing their asses to oblivion (because only through a class can this have any meaning to a judge). I'm calling upon you Americans reading this: stick it up to them for us, they do not deserve a penny of the Verizon deal, and such a company deserves to be dismembered so that the actual talent it still has can move forward to real challenges, and the a-holes making these obviously economically-bound reasons can burn in the hell they're destined to.
You went a bit out of topic but I totally agree with you. Maybe I made it sound that I supported the bashing of Hillary, which I don't. I would also rather prefer she'd won.
Thing is, I actually think such a leak about Hillary could be beneficial to her. Just look at her email server fiasco: she handled it with poise, and Trump kept making an a** of himself when using it to attack her, while she fended him off, in my opinion, in a stoic way but simultaneously showing off her technical and policy strong background, even though she did so in admitting there are limits to what one can control in those departments...
If this new leak is something like her getting some more money than she should from sponsoring events, or her making a tough decision during wartime, I think it will add to her character if Trump decides to use that: she already has her taxes made public and it would only make her look "smart" if she did manage to hide it - something Trump followers praise; similar results if something like having to issue a drone kill order arose, which would be a display of something most voters can't grasp being done by a woman like Hillary - her main weakness actually is appearing weaker than Trump.
In sum, like for Trump, there isn't such a thing as bad press for Hillary - the logic-unbounded voter who already decided for Trump isn't gonna change his mind anyway, but a logic-sensible voter on that side of the fence might have a compelling reason to jump if he sees a stronger, street-smarter in Hillary's skill-set. I would say Hillary might even be in harsh need to get some more dirt in her character in order to win.
So I shouldn't hang around the web, because I might stumble across a site with malware in some ad, flash code or whatever. I shouldn't connect my "things" to the web because they might become part of a botnet, quite easily apparently.
Can we get some sense in here and agree that Assange is in his right to tell you to disregard obvious attempts to discredit wikileaks before an important leak??