Google arranged that Android cannot reliably be updated to its latest version. That pro-malware destructiveness is profitable.
It seems to me that Google was using the (at the time) existing paradigm that OEMs are entirely responsible for providing updates, and carriers were entirely responsible for deploying it. Industry politics basically made this mandatory at the time, and they still do to a huge extent. Apple gets around this because they are vertically integrated. Microsoft promised to not have this problem, but because they aren't vertically integrated, they ultimately ran into the same problem (only for them it's even worse: Practically no app compatibility across major OS versions.)
There's pretty much nothing you can do about this without being fully vertically integrated. Google has been making efforts over the years to make it easier and/or encourage OEMs to upgrade more often, especially in the upcoming Android O release, but ultimately it will likely just be the Nexus/Pixel devices that do so.
That's kind of shortsighted. No one thought anybody would plan on attacking the World Trade Centers, or crowds in France, or nightclubs, etc.
The night club attacks were certainly predictable. WTC had already been attacked prior to 9/11, and another attack was predictable. The problem with 9/11 was that nobody figured aircraft hijackers would not only take control of the aircraft (as opposed to simply coercing the pilot) but also go on a suicide mission.
And at the end of the day, anything can happen, but what's the likelihood? If you're really that paranoid, then go out in the woods, live in a tree, and wipe your ass with leaves.
Really? Have you seen the shit these fuckers are carrying these days? Perhaps you should brush on current events. They're well beyond the "RPG" stage.
You mean like a 50cal or a mk19? Both could be avoided by a craft like this by going to around 3000ft altitude. Yes, the maximum effective range of both of these weapons is about 2km, but not if they have to go upwards. Stinger missile might do some damage, but still survivable.
Wow, that's a brilliant fucking plan. Do you know more than all the generals too, or did you get this bit of wisdom from the Discovery Channel?
Seriously? This isn't a military aircraft you idiot. Why would any generals give a shit about it? If a general had any sense at all he'd easily find more strategic targets than some rich dude's toy.
Careful, he's one of only three remaining, which makes him an endangered species. He can't get any more lumias, so should his perish, he'll perish with it.
but you would have to substantially decrease the quality of the video
No you don't. It is in fact possible to edit compressed video content on a pixel level without needing to re-encode the whole thing. This is actually how proper watermarks are inserted.
It's very non-trivial to do and as far as I know there's no publicly available software to do it with, which means it would probably be a while before scene groups obtain that capability.
Nonetheless, you could spot the watermarks by comparing two of the same video and then changing them once identified.
I've seen IT contracts that pay as much as $90 an hour. Granted they're short term (i.e. 6 months) but that's more money than most people make in an entire year, which means you could take the rest of the year off if you wanted to, or go find another contract.
It's actually quite common to find IT people that have multiple jobs that lasted less than a year, and it's normal because many prefer contract work.
Typical contract I get offered is about $50 an hour, though I personally am not interested in contract work.
Typically AJAX, WebGL, and other interactive content is much smoother and faster on Chrome.
I just recently switched to chrome because I was tired of Firefox lagging when I used any one of the various mapping sites. My smartphone just shouldn't be faster at rendering them in a web browser than my PC.
Every UBI proposal I've heard of doesn't pay enough to stop somebody from losing their house if they rent or have a mortgage in any place that is at the national average for cost of living.
Even if it did, what are you going to eat, and how are you going to afford transportation?
No it won't. That's the most naive belief about this whole concept. Many homeless people already make a lot more money from panhandling than these UBI programs have proposed giving them, and they still don't have a home.
Besides, when incomes increase, rents and housing prices also increase. If you just give everybody free money, you're going to put a lot of upward pressure on both, and you'll make them less affordable overall.
I think what it will end up doing is raising the price on inferior goods and rents, and ultimately you'll end up no better off than when you started; probably worse off because any cash you had saved up will lose its value.
Also, psychiatrists I've spoken to said they don't like putting their clients on social security, even if they have severe problems. The reason why is because whenever they do this, the client tends to just stay on the dole system and never get a job, which means they tend to be inactive, which exacerbates their mental health issues.
UBI would make this much worse. Not to mention, having more income doesn't actually make people happier.
*sigh* Why must everybody continue to use this left vs right nonsense? You'd have to be pretty one dimensional to think that political stances can be described by a single dimension. Seriously, what does left mean? What does right mean? What does centrist mean?
IMO there shouldn't be any fewer than three dimensions:
libertarian vs authoritarian welfare vs austerity community vs individualism
Ideally, two other dimensions as well:
communal ownership of property vs private ownership of property free markets vs price controlled markets (i.e. government sets prices on everything)
That's Uber, who has no engineering talent at all, and in fact they stole their designs from Google and couldn't implement them right. Meanwhile, Google does make viable self-driving cars. Tesla is getting pretty close, but they're aiming to do it without LIDAR, so they have a few more engineering challenges than Google does. (And I see why they don't like LIDAR: They don't want their cars having a big ugly bulb on the roof.)
Millennial here, parents didn't give me anything. Paid for my own college, and now I'm saving roughly $2000 per month towards a house, just waiting for the bubble to pop. I'm at about $63,000 saved right now.
To me, "the web" is the physical infrastructure that allows communication using the internet protocol (with IP addresses like 8.8.8.8 that can be resolved using nameservers) and port numbers. If you don't know what I'm talking about, try issuing the command "ping -c 1 8.8.8.8" from the command line, then replace "8,8,8,8" with "google.com". The "google.com" works because a nameserver is involved. That's the internet to me.
To you maybe, but this is very far removed from reality.
- The web is not physical any more than the last song you downloaded is physical. It's literally just an application, and it works with or without the internet. That HTTP you type in URLs is completely optional in the sense that you don't have to use HTTP. If your web page is coded for it. you could "surf the web" (as it is called) on FTP, or even if your HTML documents are stored locally, you could "surf" them without even having any kind of network connectivity or even a functional TCP stack.
- Your example of pinging 8.8.8.8 doesn't involve the web at all, rather that is strictly using the internet. Ping isn't even an application, strictly speaking, rather it's a built in feature of Internet Protocol. (Fun fact: 8.8.8.8 is an anycast IP, as opposed to unicast like the IP your computer uses.)
(If you don't know what a command line is never mind, I'm just doing some nerdy rambling.)
Eh...not really. I work with people who are not technical at all, and they still pretty plainly understand what a command line is.
It was actually people subscribing to cable in such big numbers that the demand put upward pressure on the prices. People wanting to cut the cord has put downward pressure in the form of skinny bundles, but the cable companies ultimately have to deal with the content providers that essentially charge whatever they want, and the content providers behave more like a content cabal, and refuse to sell their content to anybody who doesn't also buy content from a bunch of their other friends.
And because of that, the bundles can only get so skinny.
What's the pre-dominant application on the web today? The web browser.
The web itself IS just an application. You have to understand that the internet and the web are not the same thing, and in fact work independently of one another, or rather, they don't need one another to work, at all.
When did the web browser came into existence? 1995.
Nope, it was definitely 1990.
What year did the unwashed masses discover the web? 1995.
Depends on how you define unwashed masses. The "digital divide" certainly hadn't passed 50% by that time, and "online services" were still what most of them used, with very few actually using the web.
What application did the unwashed masses use to access the web? The web browser.
For the web? Yeah, but most people didn't use it.
Back in 1995, online services like AOL, Compuserve, and Prodigy still reigned supreme for most laypeople, or the "unwashed masses" as you put it (and just before that, BBSes reigned supreme.) (What also reigned supreme among the masses was the concept of paying by how long you were connected, measured in hours.) To them, being "online" meant using an online service GUI, and you maybe had very limited web access through it, but most people just stuck to the online service specific content, which wasn't web based.
Just to give you an idea, nowadays companies give you their facebook identities, twitter handles, youtube channels, etc. But back in these days, social media involved things like "AOL keywords" or "Compuserve Go" prompts. That said, anybody who tells you that the old days were better because people didn't think "facebook" was the internet doesn't actually remember what the older days looked like.
These services also weren't internet services in the sense that when you dialed in, you didn't use the internet protocol suite, rather you used some protocol(s) specific to that provider. If you needed to communicate across the internet, then their application provided its own sockets for your programs (i.e. netscape navigator, IRC clients, etc) to communicate with.
I personally only used regular internet service providers because Kali and Quake didn't work terribly well with online services, assuming they even worked at all.
To be more precise, the web is just another application, and your web browser transmits and receives data from the web server over the internet, using the internet protocol suite. The word "web" refers to content linking to other content, an allegory to a spiderweb. The word "internet" is short for "internetwork" and literally means multiple networks communicating with one another (as opposed to two devices communicating on one network.)
The web works without the internet, and the internet works without the web.
Regimes like China have to maintain a facade that they are the best and unparalleled, or else the whole power structure falls apart. This is actually the whole point of censorship, and why it is integral to autocracy (or any other highly concentrated power structure.)
Yeah, and after facebook bought it they still haven't really figured out how to monetize it, so I wouldn't be surprised if they specifically allowed this. Remember that they tried to remove its encryption so that they could do marketing analytics, but regulators stopped that from happening because it was part of the deal they agreed to when they bought it.
Anyways if this voicemail spam becomes reality, it will just mean that voicemail dies in favor of other means of leaving messages. Few people even like voicemail as it is; I personally only occasionally listen to my voicemail, usually just calling the person back instead.
Buddy, we have net neutrality rules in place now and have since 2015.
Not really. If the FCC doesn't enforce the rules, then we basically have none at all. And truth be told, we had serial violators of the rules even right after they were implemented, for example Verizon is zero-rating its crappy Go90 service while still billing customers for data used for its competitor, netflix. It actually began doing this under Wheeler, by the way.
Some ISPs are now trying to put up walled garden plans at a steep discount
Slashdot Mirror
You aren't leveraging what you have if you're sitting on 63k in a future down payment. Do you even know what "leverage" means in this context?
I'm talking about leveraging my knowledge, idiot. And that $63k I have started from zero.
Google arranged that Android cannot reliably be updated to its latest version. That pro-malware destructiveness is profitable.
It seems to me that Google was using the (at the time) existing paradigm that OEMs are entirely responsible for providing updates, and carriers were entirely responsible for deploying it. Industry politics basically made this mandatory at the time, and they still do to a huge extent. Apple gets around this because they are vertically integrated. Microsoft promised to not have this problem, but because they aren't vertically integrated, they ultimately ran into the same problem (only for them it's even worse: Practically no app compatibility across major OS versions.)
There's pretty much nothing you can do about this without being fully vertically integrated. Google has been making efforts over the years to make it easier and/or encourage OEMs to upgrade more often, especially in the upcoming Android O release, but ultimately it will likely just be the Nexus/Pixel devices that do so.
That's kind of shortsighted. No one thought anybody would plan on attacking the World Trade Centers, or crowds in France, or nightclubs, etc.
The night club attacks were certainly predictable. WTC had already been attacked prior to 9/11, and another attack was predictable. The problem with 9/11 was that nobody figured aircraft hijackers would not only take control of the aircraft (as opposed to simply coercing the pilot) but also go on a suicide mission.
And at the end of the day, anything can happen, but what's the likelihood? If you're really that paranoid, then go out in the woods, live in a tree, and wipe your ass with leaves.
Really? Have you seen the shit these fuckers are carrying these days? Perhaps you should brush on current events. They're well beyond the "RPG" stage.
You mean like a 50cal or a mk19? Both could be avoided by a craft like this by going to around 3000ft altitude. Yes, the maximum effective range of both of these weapons is about 2km, but not if they have to go upwards. Stinger missile might do some damage, but still survivable.
Wow, that's a brilliant fucking plan. Do you know more than all the generals too, or did you get this bit of wisdom from the Discovery Channel?
Seriously? This isn't a military aircraft you idiot. Why would any generals give a shit about it? If a general had any sense at all he'd easily find more strategic targets than some rich dude's toy.
I really don't think anybody would plan on attacking this thing other than maybe a muslim terrorist, and at best they'd be carrying an rpg.
Either way, just stay out of the regions that they have any political influence in and you'll be fine.
He's talking about the smartphone you have in your pocket.
Careful, he's one of only three remaining, which makes him an endangered species. He can't get any more lumias, so should his perish, he'll perish with it.
I don't think that has a realistic chance of working -- filesystems tend to write file contents in difficult to predict geographical locations.
I think what would be more realistic is using this as a hypervisor escape.
Even then, I'm curious how this attack is supposed to work now that most SSDs use wear leveling.
but you would have to substantially decrease the quality of the video
No you don't. It is in fact possible to edit compressed video content on a pixel level without needing to re-encode the whole thing. This is actually how proper watermarks are inserted.
It's very non-trivial to do and as far as I know there's no publicly available software to do it with, which means it would probably be a while before scene groups obtain that capability.
Nonetheless, you could spot the watermarks by comparing two of the same video and then changing them once identified.
I've seen IT contracts that pay as much as $90 an hour. Granted they're short term (i.e. 6 months) but that's more money than most people make in an entire year, which means you could take the rest of the year off if you wanted to, or go find another contract.
It's actually quite common to find IT people that have multiple jobs that lasted less than a year, and it's normal because many prefer contract work.
Typical contract I get offered is about $50 an hour, though I personally am not interested in contract work.
Typically AJAX, WebGL, and other interactive content is much smoother and faster on Chrome.
I just recently switched to chrome because I was tired of Firefox lagging when I used any one of the various mapping sites. My smartphone just shouldn't be faster at rendering them in a web browser than my PC.
Every UBI proposal I've heard of doesn't pay enough to stop somebody from losing their house if they rent or have a mortgage in any place that is at the national average for cost of living.
Even if it did, what are you going to eat, and how are you going to afford transportation?
Part of what UBI can solve is homelessness
No it won't. That's the most naive belief about this whole concept. Many homeless people already make a lot more money from panhandling than these UBI programs have proposed giving them, and they still don't have a home.
Besides, when incomes increase, rents and housing prices also increase. If you just give everybody free money, you're going to put a lot of upward pressure on both, and you'll make them less affordable overall.
I think what it will end up doing is raising the price on inferior goods and rents, and ultimately you'll end up no better off than when you started; probably worse off because any cash you had saved up will lose its value.
Also, psychiatrists I've spoken to said they don't like putting their clients on social security, even if they have severe problems. The reason why is because whenever they do this, the client tends to just stay on the dole system and never get a job, which means they tend to be inactive, which exacerbates their mental health issues.
UBI would make this much worse. Not to mention, having more income doesn't actually make people happier.
*sigh* Why must everybody continue to use this left vs right nonsense? You'd have to be pretty one dimensional to think that political stances can be described by a single dimension. Seriously, what does left mean? What does right mean? What does centrist mean?
IMO there shouldn't be any fewer than three dimensions:
libertarian vs authoritarian
welfare vs austerity
community vs individualism
Ideally, two other dimensions as well:
communal ownership of property vs private ownership of property
free markets vs price controlled markets (i.e. government sets prices on everything)
That's Uber, who has no engineering talent at all, and in fact they stole their designs from Google and couldn't implement them right. Meanwhile, Google does make viable self-driving cars. Tesla is getting pretty close, but they're aiming to do it without LIDAR, so they have a few more engineering challenges than Google does. (And I see why they don't like LIDAR: They don't want their cars having a big ugly bulb on the roof.)
Or, I understand economics and I know how to leverage what I have.
Millennial here, parents didn't give me anything. Paid for my own college, and now I'm saving roughly $2000 per month towards a house, just waiting for the bubble to pop. I'm at about $63,000 saved right now.
To me, "the web" is the physical infrastructure that allows communication using the internet protocol (with IP addresses like 8.8.8.8 that can be resolved using nameservers) and port numbers. If you don't know what I'm talking about, try issuing the command "ping -c 1 8.8.8.8" from the command line, then replace "8,8,8,8" with "google.com". The "google.com" works because a nameserver is involved. That's the internet to me.
To you maybe, but this is very far removed from reality.
- The web is not physical any more than the last song you downloaded is physical. It's literally just an application, and it works with or without the internet. That HTTP you type in URLs is completely optional in the sense that you don't have to use HTTP. If your web page is coded for it. you could "surf the web" (as it is called) on FTP, or even if your HTML documents are stored locally, you could "surf" them without even having any kind of network connectivity or even a functional TCP stack.
- Your example of pinging 8.8.8.8 doesn't involve the web at all, rather that is strictly using the internet. Ping isn't even an application, strictly speaking, rather it's a built in feature of Internet Protocol. (Fun fact: 8.8.8.8 is an anycast IP, as opposed to unicast like the IP your computer uses.)
(If you don't know what a command line is never mind, I'm just doing some nerdy rambling.)
Eh...not really. I work with people who are not technical at all, and they still pretty plainly understand what a command line is.
AC is just trolling.
It was actually people subscribing to cable in such big numbers that the demand put upward pressure on the prices. People wanting to cut the cord has put downward pressure in the form of skinny bundles, but the cable companies ultimately have to deal with the content providers that essentially charge whatever they want, and the content providers behave more like a content cabal, and refuse to sell their content to anybody who doesn't also buy content from a bunch of their other friends.
And because of that, the bundles can only get so skinny.
What's the pre-dominant application on the web today? The web browser.
The web itself IS just an application. You have to understand that the internet and the web are not the same thing, and in fact work independently of one another, or rather, they don't need one another to work, at all.
When did the web browser came into existence? 1995.
Nope, it was definitely 1990.
What year did the unwashed masses discover the web? 1995.
Depends on how you define unwashed masses. The "digital divide" certainly hadn't passed 50% by that time, and "online services" were still what most of them used, with very few actually using the web.
What application did the unwashed masses use to access the web? The web browser.
For the web? Yeah, but most people didn't use it.
Back in 1995, online services like AOL, Compuserve, and Prodigy still reigned supreme for most laypeople, or the "unwashed masses" as you put it (and just before that, BBSes reigned supreme.) (What also reigned supreme among the masses was the concept of paying by how long you were connected, measured in hours.) To them, being "online" meant using an online service GUI, and you maybe had very limited web access through it, but most people just stuck to the online service specific content, which wasn't web based.
Just to give you an idea, nowadays companies give you their facebook identities, twitter handles, youtube channels, etc. But back in these days, social media involved things like "AOL keywords" or "Compuserve Go" prompts. That said, anybody who tells you that the old days were better because people didn't think "facebook" was the internet doesn't actually remember what the older days looked like.
These services also weren't internet services in the sense that when you dialed in, you didn't use the internet protocol suite, rather you used some protocol(s) specific to that provider. If you needed to communicate across the internet, then their application provided its own sockets for your programs (i.e. netscape navigator, IRC clients, etc) to communicate with.
I personally only used regular internet service providers because Kali and Quake didn't work terribly well with online services, assuming they even worked at all.
To be more precise, the web is just another application, and your web browser transmits and receives data from the web server over the internet, using the internet protocol suite. The word "web" refers to content linking to other content, an allegory to a spiderweb. The word "internet" is short for "internetwork" and literally means multiple networks communicating with one another (as opposed to two devices communicating on one network.)
The web works without the internet, and the internet works without the web.
Regimes like China have to maintain a facade that they are the best and unparalleled, or else the whole power structure falls apart. This is actually the whole point of censorship, and why it is integral to autocracy (or any other highly concentrated power structure.)
Yeah, and after facebook bought it they still haven't really figured out how to monetize it, so I wouldn't be surprised if they specifically allowed this. Remember that they tried to remove its encryption so that they could do marketing analytics, but regulators stopped that from happening because it was part of the deal they agreed to when they bought it.
Anyways if this voicemail spam becomes reality, it will just mean that voicemail dies in favor of other means of leaving messages. Few people even like voicemail as it is; I personally only occasionally listen to my voicemail, usually just calling the person back instead.
I don't see the difference. Metric is still based on artifacts that vary in measurement, just like the imperial system the US mostly uses.
You might have a point if you refer to a measurement system that is based on Plank units.
Buddy, we have net neutrality rules in place now and have since 2015.
Not really. If the FCC doesn't enforce the rules, then we basically have none at all. And truth be told, we had serial violators of the rules even right after they were implemented, for example Verizon is zero-rating its crappy Go90 service while still billing customers for data used for its competitor, netflix. It actually began doing this under Wheeler, by the way.
Some ISPs are now trying to put up walled garden plans at a steep discount
Example?