Often they don't. Basically the only legal way they can work in Arizona (and the only way they can legally work anywhere) is if they can provide proof that they are here legally. Screening is REQUIRED by the employer under rules defined by the federal government. That leaves a few options for work: Either under the table wage (no income taxes paid) or work under a false (often stolen) identity.
A very common sight in some areas (especially downtown areas in suburban cities) is a group of illegals waiting on a sidewalk for somebody to pick them up for some kind of hard labor or yard work. I've done it once, you just pay them cash, effectively under the table, and it is perfectly legal since in a peer to peer transaction there is no requirement to verify, but they'd be stupid to report it to the IRS.
I've also known a few businesses that hire them full time with under the table wages. This isn't a guess, I knew the owners personally.
Or you can just not log in to a Google account, then it doesn't send anything to Google. For apps you'll need fdroid and/or Amazon (which is mostly crap since Amazon's whitelisted security model means few developers update their apps.) If you try to run a Google app and it asks you to login, you can either delete or disable the app (it never runs, just sits there on your phone's storage with all user data and updates deleted, and you have to go through several menus just to find an icon for it) and get an alternative.
Some apps aren't entirely dormant though, for example some other apps require Google maps installed to work, and all they do is hook into its API. Either way, the Google apps don't send stuff to Google without an active account. Apps from fdroid and Amazon don't rely on any Google apps being present, so they'd never be used at all.
If you suffer from paranoid-schizophrenia and/or autism, then use AOSP is your only option, and it's usually buggy because dinners. Also, your choice of newer phones is very limited, with the best phones being Google branded phones, and absolutely no phones with Verizon or AT&T branding (my only guess for this is that they can treat you as a captive audience by preventing you from removing spammy carrier apps, blocking certain apps from being installed, and disabling some of Android's built in features.)
Vaccines are beneficial, GMO has yet to offer any significant benefit.
Total utter bullshit. GMO has proven to be incredibly effective at its goals, primarily among them is increasing crop yields. The number one reason behind destruction of forests and other habitats is to make way for more farmland. GMO has already gone a long ways in reducing the landmass AND water required for farming. The reason you don't know this is because you're willfully ignorant about it and you're only willing to look for something bad to say about it.
Why do you think farmers have adopted it en masse, in spite of patent royalties often attached? Because it still reduces their cost. (Once Monsanto's glyphosate resistance patent expired, many university and other sources began giving the seeds away for free because they recognize its environmental benefits.)
I don't know your motivations, but presumably they include one or all of:
- Generally thinking natural is either usually or always better (false) - GMO is a corporate conspiracy (false) - GMO causes cancer (this is a whopper: the scientist who tried to prove GMO causes cancer committed scientific fraud, just like the one who tried to prove vaccination causes autism) - GMO is deleterious to human health (false) - GMO is bad for the environment (another whopper, people who talk about bad agricultural practices and tie them to GMO conveniently ignore that all of those apply to traditional crops as well.) - GMO contaminates wild plants (In the past this was feasible, but not anymore.) - We don't know what all genetic modification does, therefore it's better to ban it (false and false; unlike other methods of getting plants to have desired traits, we know EXACTLY what the modification did because it is very precise and targeted, whereas other methods we have no idea what all changed.) - OH MY GOD FRANKENFOOD! They put a salmon gene in the tomatoes they sell! Scary! (This was actually an experiment to better understand how certain genes work. They've done similar things like put eye genes from a rabbit into a fruit fly, replacing its own eye genes. This was an experiment to prove that genes are modular between species. I somehow doubt they intend to put fruit flies on store shelves.) - GMO is bad because Monsanto (This is easily the most senseless argument. Yes, Monsanto has a history of unethical behavior, and yes, they hold a number of gene patents. But this is as senseless as saying that we should stop using computers because of Microsoft and Google.) Tese arguments are all very similar (if not the same) as the arguments anti-vaxxers use. They also, like you, believe that their hated subject provides no benefit. This is why those of us who take a more objective approach to this can't tell the difference between you and anti-vaxxers: You're the same thing, only with the sole exception that you're against GMO instead. Much like vaccination, nearly every scientist that has gone against GMO has credibility problems.
I'm not surprised that there are more anti GMO people than anti-vaxxers though, namely because of the billions of dollars spent to lobby against it, as well as paying lots of money to commission studies to try to find anything that they possibly can to use against it. The organic industry (which has huge profits and deep pockets, and many big name brands you see at every grocery store, gives them lobbying money) is trying its hardest to gain regulatory capture by having its biggest competitor banned.
Greenpeace is also lobbying against this, and in a really bad way: Organic food, which they promote, is BAD BAD BAD for the environment. Really, it is, and the fact is that it doesn't actually provide any proven benefit at all. Organic is incredibly wasteful on both landmass and water usage. Essentially, organic is what you get when you revert agricultural technology to what we had in the 1950s. If the whole world suddenly went on an organic diet, you would see mass famines overnight -- including
ince the Android landscape is so broken and fragmented
It's interesting how iFans like to speak negatively about this, when it's really Android's biggest strength. Apple caters to hipsters, people with deep pockets, and especially the douchebags that prominently display all of the latest apple devices in their bedroom or office and buy any decoration they can find to complement the appearances of their idevices.
because it will have its own store, wallet, and other branded crap
Seriously? This is your reasoning? Or, you know, you can just ignore all of that. Really, you can. What a novel concept. But I already know that you're talking about Samsung (nobody else does this,) and there's way more to Android than Samsung's shit. On the one Samsung phone I've ever owned, I never touched their store, their browser, or their wallet, and removed all of them. The only reason to buy Samsung or Apple is if you really like flashy colors and looks, and you need to carry a status symbol in order to feel secure. And yes, I'm saying this as somebody who (reluctantly) carries around an iphone, even though it spends almost all of its life either on dresser or in my pocket (next to my pixel, which keeps the iphone from bending, though it hasn't been able to prevent the iphone's screen from lifting because of a manufacturing defect, unfortunately.)
Android isn't doing much to ensure I don't have a fragmented and proprietary experience.
Because it doesn't need to. The idea is and always has been to buy a phone you like.
As long as there's 50 different flavors of Android
...it will continue to succeed. This is exactly why you're seeing Android become so popular, and why its loyalty is growing. If they only made two different form factors and two different colors, there would be far less market interest. And in spite of the differences between these devices, they still maintain compatibility.
then abandoning the device for updates as soon as you've bought it
You're thinking of the Chinese brands. But even then, Google is actively working on this so that the cost involved keeps shrinking.
Hoe can a switch from iOS to Android be more "complicated" than a switch from Android to iOS?
Probably because just about everything will integrate with Android, whereas Apple always has had and keeps adding more restrictions on what kind of devices AND software they'll allow to integrate with iOS. If it's not made by Apple, it almost certainly works with 100% of its features on Android, but the reverse is not true. This is why, for example, that even though Microsoft is good buddies with Apple (and mortal enemies with Google) they went with Android when their own platform met its inevitable end.
This is why I buy Apple shares even though I don't buy Apple stuff: I like profiting off of hipsters who love to give Apple money and then complain that their rent is too high.
The cans are expected to launch at the end of this year and will rival headsets from market leaders like Bose and even the company's own Beats by Dre brand.
Other words they'll sound like crap, carry a high price tag, and people will buy them (especially high school age girls) as more of a status symbol.
Duopolies inevitably result in any market that requires both developer and end user support. Microsoft was well aware of this, but thought they could money their way into being the third in the economic rule of three that applies to most other markets {this was their words, by the way.) Combine that with the fact that Microsoft kills its developer platforms all the time, and you didn't need to be an expert to figure out where this was headed.
I just turned on my Galaxy Note 4 after several years of it being just buried in a drawer. Turns out that they have been issuing security updates this entire time. Sure, Android 5 is out of date, but it's rare to find an app that doesn't work with it as most are built against Android 4.0 these days (before 4.0 was technically 2.3, and you can find plenty of apps that support that even.)
Unlike Windows Phone, Android never broke app compatibility between major versions; developers only have a need to increase the OS version requirement when they need to use newer hardware functionality, which makes upgrading the OS on an older phone moot for that purpose anyways. Microsoft completely changed the windows phone application framework (meaning new apps for the incoming OS version won't work on the old version) on four separate occasions over a 5 year span, which means that the mean time before your OS can't run the latest apps is about 1 year and 3 months with windows phone.
A common talking point that windows phone fans make about Android is how fragmented it is, but Windows Phone is much worse. Besides, being fragmented actually works towards Android's advantage, and is not a bad thing, and in the case of Android is perhaps its biggest strength: Customers are offered many choices, and OEMs are more than willing to sell devices because theirs doesn't have to be the same as the next guy's. Windows phone completely threw out all of these potential advantages, and worse, actually broke compatibility between major versions (and Microsoft wonders why no OEMs were willing to build windows phones.)
If Microsoft is bringing back the phone, make Microsoft Launch a part of it as well
I think if they were bringing it back, they would have resumed development on windows 10 mobile already. This just sounds like the last of the channel inventory that has been sent back to Microsoft from retailers who couldn't sell it. It would make sense too, given they're already gone. Judging by Microsoft's own internal phone deployments, I imagine that if the mythical "Surface phone" ever showed up, it would probably be an Android variant with Microsoft apps installed by default, and probably with the Amazon app store for a wider selection.
On that date, the final nail will be hammered on the windows phone coffin, unless you're a windows 10 mobile enterprise customer, (do any exist?) then you get patches until some time in 2021.
Absolutely, but windows phone has neither, both of which were a consequence of Microsoft using a horribly kneecapped API. Too many app developers (after being harassed by windows phone fans on developer forums for not "doing enough") said they wanted to have feature parity with their apps on competing OSes, but they cited limitations in windows phone for why they couldn't add X feature.
Only better if you prefer tiles that flip even when you're not finished reading it and it only opens the app when you tap it, vs widgets which are fully interactive (i.e. a scrollable calendar) and tapping the event/email/stock quote opens that within the app rather than simply starting the app and then having to find it.
Also if you like wasting bezel space on an ultimately useless search button that other phones got rid of 8 years ago, windows phone is great.
Actually there are TONS if reasons why the UI was crap, (not to mention looked like a Fisher-Price toy) why it got bad reviews from everybody but die-hard Microsoft fanboys, why carrier stores refused to stock them, (usually because most people just returned it shortly after purchase) why windows phone 10 sold very few devices and had sky high return rates in spite of delivering everything that was promised, and why Joe Belfiore told Microsoft's customers that they should switch to another phone.
Notice they were mentioning movies and TV as well. And during that event, the republicans were saying "It's just a video game." Something they've always been saying, since well before it was considered related to gun control. And this all started because somebody told Joe Lieberman that there was a "scantily clad" woman shown in Night Trap, a game that practically nobody heard of until this, and then most people forgot about it afterwards.
The very progressive state of California passed a law to ban violent video games in 2011, until SCOTUS shot it down:
And I think every gamer remembers Jack Thompson who tried to get Doom banned after Columbine since the shooters were big fans of Doom and even commented that their spree would be just like Doom. Of course, he didn't stop there.
I kind of doubt Trump's base is pushing towards this. Maybe, but it's most likely that Trump, having been born without a filter, just randomly came up with it, just like everything else he does and says.
Except they don't. Private health care and private prisons are big money.
Actually prison reform is routinely lobbied against mostly by prison guard unions, which by the way, are REALLY opposed to legalization of marijuana. The union management itself spends big money to lobby against prison reform and basically any kind of decriminalization, and they lobby for increased prison sentences for some crimes.
Slashdot Mirror
Just use container tabs in Firefox. They're built exactly for this purpose, or even having two accounts on the same website open simultaneously.
Often they don't. Basically the only legal way they can work in Arizona (and the only way they can legally work anywhere) is if they can provide proof that they are here legally. Screening is REQUIRED by the employer under rules defined by the federal government. That leaves a few options for work: Either under the table wage (no income taxes paid) or work under a false (often stolen) identity.
A very common sight in some areas (especially downtown areas in suburban cities) is a group of illegals waiting on a sidewalk for somebody to pick them up for some kind of hard labor or yard work. I've done it once, you just pay them cash, effectively under the table, and it is perfectly legal since in a peer to peer transaction there is no requirement to verify, but they'd be stupid to report it to the IRS.
I've also known a few businesses that hire them full time with under the table wages. This isn't a guess, I knew the owners personally.
s/dinners/drivers
Or you can just not log in to a Google account, then it doesn't send anything to Google. For apps you'll need fdroid and/or Amazon (which is mostly crap since Amazon's whitelisted security model means few developers update their apps.) If you try to run a Google app and it asks you to login, you can either delete or disable the app (it never runs, just sits there on your phone's storage with all user data and updates deleted, and you have to go through several menus just to find an icon for it) and get an alternative.
Some apps aren't entirely dormant though, for example some other apps require Google maps installed to work, and all they do is hook into its API. Either way, the Google apps don't send stuff to Google without an active account. Apps from fdroid and Amazon don't rely on any Google apps being present, so they'd never be used at all.
If you suffer from paranoid-schizophrenia and/or autism, then use AOSP is your only option, and it's usually buggy because dinners. Also, your choice of newer phones is very limited, with the best phones being Google branded phones, and absolutely no phones with Verizon or AT&T branding (my only guess for this is that they can treat you as a captive audience by preventing you from removing spammy carrier apps, blocking certain apps from being installed, and disabling some of Android's built in features.)
Vaccines are beneficial, GMO has yet to offer any significant benefit.
Total utter bullshit. GMO has proven to be incredibly effective at its goals, primarily among them is increasing crop yields. The number one reason behind destruction of forests and other habitats is to make way for more farmland. GMO has already gone a long ways in reducing the landmass AND water required for farming. The reason you don't know this is because you're willfully ignorant about it and you're only willing to look for something bad to say about it.
Why do you think farmers have adopted it en masse, in spite of patent royalties often attached? Because it still reduces their cost. (Once Monsanto's glyphosate resistance patent expired, many university and other sources began giving the seeds away for free because they recognize its environmental benefits.)
I don't know your motivations, but presumably they include one or all of:
- Generally thinking natural is either usually or always better (false)
- GMO is a corporate conspiracy (false)
- GMO causes cancer (this is a whopper: the scientist who tried to prove GMO causes cancer committed scientific fraud, just like the one who tried to prove vaccination causes autism)
- GMO is deleterious to human health (false)
- GMO is bad for the environment (another whopper, people who talk about bad agricultural practices and tie them to GMO conveniently ignore that all of those apply to traditional crops as well.)
- GMO contaminates wild plants (In the past this was feasible, but not anymore.)
- We don't know what all genetic modification does, therefore it's better to ban it (false and false; unlike other methods of getting plants to have desired traits, we know EXACTLY what the modification did because it is very precise and targeted, whereas other methods we have no idea what all changed.)
- OH MY GOD FRANKENFOOD! They put a salmon gene in the tomatoes they sell! Scary! (This was actually an experiment to better understand how certain genes work. They've done similar things like put eye genes from a rabbit into a fruit fly, replacing its own eye genes. This was an experiment to prove that genes are modular between species. I somehow doubt they intend to put fruit flies on store shelves.)
- GMO is bad because Monsanto (This is easily the most senseless argument. Yes, Monsanto has a history of unethical behavior, and yes, they hold a number of gene patents. But this is as senseless as saying that we should stop using computers because of Microsoft and Google.)
Tese arguments are all very similar (if not the same) as the arguments anti-vaxxers use. They also, like you, believe that their hated subject provides no benefit. This is why those of us who take a more objective approach to this can't tell the difference between you and anti-vaxxers: You're the same thing, only with the sole exception that you're against GMO instead. Much like vaccination, nearly every scientist that has gone against GMO has credibility problems.
I'm not surprised that there are more anti GMO people than anti-vaxxers though, namely because of the billions of dollars spent to lobby against it, as well as paying lots of money to commission studies to try to find anything that they possibly can to use against it. The organic industry (which has huge profits and deep pockets, and many big name brands you see at every grocery store, gives them lobbying money) is trying its hardest to gain regulatory capture by having its biggest competitor banned.
Greenpeace is also lobbying against this, and in a really bad way: Organic food, which they promote, is BAD BAD BAD for the environment. Really, it is, and the fact is that it doesn't actually provide any proven benefit at all. Organic is incredibly wasteful on both landmass and water usage. Essentially, organic is what you get when you revert agricultural technology to what we had in the 1950s. If the whole world suddenly went on an organic diet, you would see mass famines overnight -- including
./ seems to do well allowing downvotes. There's certainly bias on certain subjects, but in general you find high quality comments on both sides.
I get a lot of -1 Disagree moderation here, though it usually comes from communists.
He doesn't hate her, rather when she's around he just stares blankly while Hootie and the Blowfish plays in his head.
ince the Android landscape is so broken and fragmented
It's interesting how iFans like to speak negatively about this, when it's really Android's biggest strength. Apple caters to hipsters, people with deep pockets, and especially the douchebags that prominently display all of the latest apple devices in their bedroom or office and buy any decoration they can find to complement the appearances of their idevices.
because it will have its own store, wallet, and other branded crap
Seriously? This is your reasoning? Or, you know, you can just ignore all of that. Really, you can. What a novel concept. But I already know that you're talking about Samsung (nobody else does this,) and there's way more to Android than Samsung's shit. On the one Samsung phone I've ever owned, I never touched their store, their browser, or their wallet, and removed all of them. The only reason to buy Samsung or Apple is if you really like flashy colors and looks, and you need to carry a status symbol in order to feel secure. And yes, I'm saying this as somebody who (reluctantly) carries around an iphone, even though it spends almost all of its life either on dresser or in my pocket (next to my pixel, which keeps the iphone from bending, though it hasn't been able to prevent the iphone's screen from lifting because of a manufacturing defect, unfortunately.)
Android isn't doing much to ensure I don't have a fragmented and proprietary experience.
Because it doesn't need to. The idea is and always has been to buy a phone you like.
As long as there's 50 different flavors of Android
...it will continue to succeed. This is exactly why you're seeing Android become so popular, and why its loyalty is growing. If they only made two different form factors and two different colors, there would be far less market interest. And in spite of the differences between these devices, they still maintain compatibility.
then abandoning the device for updates as soon as you've bought it
You're thinking of the Chinese brands. But even then, Google is actively working on this so that the cost involved keeps shrinking.
Hoe can a switch from iOS to Android be more "complicated" than a switch from Android to iOS?
Probably because just about everything will integrate with Android, whereas Apple always has had and keeps adding more restrictions on what kind of devices AND software they'll allow to integrate with iOS. If it's not made by Apple, it almost certainly works with 100% of its features on Android, but the reverse is not true. This is why, for example, that even though Microsoft is good buddies with Apple (and mortal enemies with Google) they went with Android when their own platform met its inevitable end.
He meant to say Auld Lang Syne.
https://youtu.be/Hm1hwxc92Mo?t...
This is why I buy Apple shares even though I don't buy Apple stuff: I like profiting off of hipsters who love to give Apple money and then complain that their rent is too high.
The cans are expected to launch at the end of this year and will rival headsets from market leaders like Bose and even the company's own Beats by Dre brand.
Other words they'll sound like crap, carry a high price tag, and people will buy them (especially high school age girls) as more of a status symbol.
I didn't say you don't have a phone. Android and iOS have gone way beyond being phones, however.
Duopolies inevitably result in any market that requires both developer and end user support. Microsoft was well aware of this, but thought they could money their way into being the third in the economic rule of three that applies to most other markets {this was their words, by the way.) Combine that with the fact that Microsoft kills its developer platforms all the time, and you didn't need to be an expert to figure out where this was headed.
That's fine too say and all, until the government probes and lawsuits begin.
Microsoft hasn't said that they're discontinuing Windows Phone 10.
Yes, they have:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/...
Very strong indication that the October release will be the last major build, save for any small patches.
I just turned on my Galaxy Note 4 after several years of it being just buried in a drawer. Turns out that they have been issuing security updates this entire time. Sure, Android 5 is out of date, but it's rare to find an app that doesn't work with it as most are built against Android 4.0 these days (before 4.0 was technically 2.3, and you can find plenty of apps that support that even.)
Unlike Windows Phone, Android never broke app compatibility between major versions; developers only have a need to increase the OS version requirement when they need to use newer hardware functionality, which makes upgrading the OS on an older phone moot for that purpose anyways. Microsoft completely changed the windows phone application framework (meaning new apps for the incoming OS version won't work on the old version) on four separate occasions over a 5 year span, which means that the mean time before your OS can't run the latest apps is about 1 year and 3 months with windows phone.
A common talking point that windows phone fans make about Android is how fragmented it is, but Windows Phone is much worse. Besides, being fragmented actually works towards Android's advantage, and is not a bad thing, and in the case of Android is perhaps its biggest strength: Customers are offered many choices, and OEMs are more than willing to sell devices because theirs doesn't have to be the same as the next guy's. Windows phone completely threw out all of these potential advantages, and worse, actually broke compatibility between major versions (and Microsoft wonders why no OEMs were willing to build windows phones.)
If Microsoft is bringing back the phone, make Microsoft Launch a part of it as well
I think if they were bringing it back, they would have resumed development on windows 10 mobile already. This just sounds like the last of the channel inventory that has been sent back to Microsoft from retailers who couldn't sell it. It would make sense too, given they're already gone. Judging by Microsoft's own internal phone deployments, I imagine that if the mythical "Surface phone" ever showed up, it would probably be an Android variant with Microsoft apps installed by default, and probably with the Amazon app store for a wider selection.
Windows Phone 10 is still alive and well.
Oh, and about that:
https://support.microsoft.com/...;
The OS will be fully dead and buried on December 10th, 2019 (unless you have windows phone embedded handheld edition, then it's some time in 2021.)
I'm actually tempted to try a windows phone
Just keep in mind that security patches are scheduled to be discontinued on December 10th, 2019, per Microsoft's website.
https://support.microsoft.com/...;
On that date, the final nail will be hammered on the windows phone coffin, unless you're a windows 10 mobile enterprise customer, (do any exist?) then you get patches until some time in 2021.
It should be about quality, not quantity of apps.
Absolutely, but windows phone has neither, both of which were a consequence of Microsoft using a horribly kneecapped API. Too many app developers (after being harassed by windows phone fans on developer forums for not "doing enough") said they wanted to have feature parity with their apps on competing OSes, but they cited limitations in windows phone for why they couldn't add X feature.
Only better if you prefer tiles that flip even when you're not finished reading it and it only opens the app when you tap it, vs widgets which are fully interactive (i.e. a scrollable calendar) and tapping the event/email/stock quote opens that within the app rather than simply starting the app and then having to find it.
Also if you like wasting bezel space on an ultimately useless search button that other phones got rid of 8 years ago, windows phone is great.
Actually there are TONS if reasons why the UI was crap, (not to mention looked like a Fisher-Price toy) why it got bad reviews from everybody but die-hard Microsoft fanboys, why carrier stores refused to stock them, (usually because most people just returned it shortly after purchase) why windows phone 10 sold very few devices and had sky high return rates in spite of delivering everything that was promised, and why Joe Belfiore told Microsoft's customers that they should switch to another phone.
Hey, mine are different shades of tope, guy!
anti-Hollywood story (that Democrats hate).
Tell me how many Democrats you count here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Notice they were mentioning movies and TV as well. And during that event, the republicans were saying "It's just a video game." Something they've always been saying, since well before it was considered related to gun control. And this all started because somebody told Joe Lieberman that there was a "scantily clad" woman shown in Night Trap, a game that practically nobody heard of until this, and then most people forgot about it afterwards.
The very progressive state of California passed a law to ban violent video games in 2011, until SCOTUS shot it down:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06...
Oh and then there's Hillary's stance on violent video games:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Obama threw a lot of money at the topic when pushing it towards a gun control issue (which is pretty much where this became a gun control topic):
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u...
And I think every gamer remembers Jack Thompson who tried to get Doom banned after Columbine since the shooters were big fans of Doom and even commented that their spree would be just like Doom. Of course, he didn't stop there.
I kind of doubt Trump's base is pushing towards this. Maybe, but it's most likely that Trump, having been born without a filter, just randomly came up with it, just like everything else he does and says.
Except they don't. Private health care and private prisons are big money.
Actually prison reform is routinely lobbied against mostly by prison guard unions, which by the way, are REALLY opposed to legalization of marijuana. The union management itself spends big money to lobby against prison reform and basically any kind of decriminalization, and they lobby for increased prison sentences for some crimes.