Voice messages also cannot be categorized, are interpreted much slower than reading, can be very ambiguous if the audio quality is poor, and require significantly more space to store (not a concern if you're one employee with a work drive that's 5% full, but for the employer maintaining a central server, that space stacks up quickly). Honestly, voice memos are basically voice mail on the phone, and while there are times it works well, voice memos are definitely no email replacement.
Maybe I shouldn't impulse post, but wow, that's significantly higher than I thought! Political posts are almost always emotional tirades, rarely including any new facts or analysis, and are extremely repetitive, and you're telling me ~ 8% of the population can be swayed by this? That's enough to convert some swing states, and for how little effort they require, that's a massive gain. On the contrary, if you could snatch 8% of your opponent's supporters, by investing as little as half an hour per day in a post, then I'd be inclined to label this as quite possibly the single most effective method for garnering votes then - even conventions are usually filled with people who already support you, and TV audiences are likewise rather polarized. For how much more these cost, somebody should see what percentage of people are swayed by political ads...
Slashdot has the best system I've seen so far. Reddit's just leads to bandwagoning. Slashdot is capped at -2:5.
Additionally if I only have 5 points I'll usually not waste them on 0, I normally just browse at +2. Back in the day you would have entire threads of +5s. I'll save them for someone that needs modded up, not waste it on someone that doesn't need to be heard.
Agreed. Slashdot has easily the single best method of moderating out of every major website, changing that would be foolish. Besides, moderators are surprisingly fair - I have gone against the grain plenty of times, and extremely often these reached +4 or +5. If you state your opinion reasonably and rationally, Slashdot is almost always interested in hearing it. Character attacks on unnamed moderators, with no examples or anything of substance at all, are not inside this category.
Twitter provides a block feature, a mute feature, the ability to report harassment, and various features to control how public your tweets are. If someone is harassing you, why don't you block them? I'm not sure why we need to kill free speech to fix a problem that appears to be already solved...
Unlike the popular Slashdot opinion I am all for Intellectual Property rights...
I don't think that Slashdot readers want to abolish Intellectual Property rights completely. We just want reasonable terms. Start with copyright duration. Author's death + 70 years would be ridiculous if it wasn't true.
This. We don't have any problem with the spec of intellectual properly and copyright, we have problem with the implementation. While we have many frivolous ones, the patent system is actually a great idea - it allows people protection to turn a profit, and thereafter turns it into the public domain. By making copyrights last almost 150 years, in some cases, you completely stunt our cultural development - do you think the Greeks and Romans would have had such a rich literature if they had to wait 150 years before they could retell a story? Do you think the US would have become a world power if everything had been locked up and restricted by the various European countries?
I don't see why the ISP's don't simply claim immunity due to their common carrier status. Of course, that would make them concede to the FCC, but on the upside they also aren't liable for things like terrorist attacks coordinated through their infrastructure.
Because it's not a profitable decision. Being liable for terrorist attacks, eh, maybe a $150,000 settlement once a decade, and potentially some bad press which doesn't mean anything when your reputation is crap. On the flip side, the FCC is the only entity with significant power that wants an open Internet, and that scares ISPs shitless. If they become regulated, they'll actually be required to provide decent service for a reasonable price, and they would probably have to invest money into upgrading their infrastructure. Worse yet, there would be at least some form of compeition, as opposed to the current scheme where they all conveniently agree to not charge below certain prices. What's a few dead people and some angry bloggers compared to that red ink?
But what's wrong with allowing edit until someone replies? Or even allow edit up until someone begins to compose a reply. And then, if the original author is editing, and the person wanting to reply clicks reply, they get a helpful message saying "author is editing, reply not allowed until editing is complete/times out". I know it's a hassle to enumerate the possible combinations, but it wouldn't be too much AJAX to make it work.
However, making it work nicely with those using static HTML (who I support 100% BTW) is much trickier. For those users it becomes a bit more tedious. Their reply goes up to the server, but if an edit occurred before their reply was received, the reply content gets bounced back to the user and they are given a chance to edit it in context with the new post content. That way they can decide if their reply is still relevant. There is one more combination that would be robust, but may piss some users off as their new post/or edit (depending on how you want to slice it) would be bounced.
Anyway, I normally get paid quite well to work this stuff out for my clients. Slashdot certainly isn't paying me enough to write any more than this...
This system also adds a bunch of complexity, runs a lot of scripts that need to be maintained, potentially introduces a vector for security bugs, slows down comment writing by potentially a significant amount, and breaks the page for people who disable advanced JavaScript. Furthermore, if your comment is valuable, it will usually get a reply pretty quickly, rendering the whole system mute. It sounds weird, but there's a reason why there isn't one after all these years, and it's not because the idea wasn't considered.
With operating systems becoming more and more secure, hackers are increasingly focusing on end user programs, such as VLC. Do you think the project needs work in this regard? If so, may I ask what your plans and ideas for improving it would be?
By the way, thank you for all of your hard work! VLC isn't my day to day player, but nonetheless it has come in handy many, many times, and my life is much easier because of it. I heavily appreciate your taking time out of your day to answer our questions!:)
Currently, we live in an era where media players have become quite a bit more sophisticated. For example, Windows Media Player or iTunes offer some pretty advanced features for managing large libraries, integrate heavily within their ecosystems, and some even come with complete stores, where you can buy songs with a single click. On the other end, there's players such as Audacious that focus on playing music, and only on that - and the result is that you get a very speedy and lightweight player, and the support of winamp skins makes it possible to heavily personalize. What role do you think VLC plays in the ecosystem, and more specifically, where do you think you want to take the project in the future?
Actually it is, because diversity brings new opinions and viewpoints. If all you hire are white men you're only going to ever have the viewpoints of white men. And if the talent pool is heavily biased against non white men you need to go out of your way to choose diversified talent to make your company better.
You're making a grave and extremely patronizing mistake, whether you know it or not. The whole concept of diversity is based around the concept that people of different ethnicities have had significantly different life experiences, and this assumption is flawed in two ways; for starters, people who grow up in the same country, with the same economic and educational backgrounds, do actually tend to think alike. Take a black person and a white one from Seattle; notice that both are pretty likely to support gay rights. Take a black person and a white one from smallsville Idaho, and notice that both are pretty likely to vote against it. The point is, social class and physical location forms one's opinion far more than skin color. You would get significantly different viewpoints if you hire two white (or two black) people from two different cities than if you hire one each from the same city.
Second off, the whole concept is incredibly degrading, for everyone involved. You assume white people come from one well off background and are incapable of imaging what being poor or discriminated against is like. You assume that people with minority skin color can't handle the work, and so we need special accommodations for them. And you assume that quality of work is no longer the only criteria you should be using to judge employees. This whole movement is largely based on assumptions, and blatantly racist ones at that. Yes, there are plenty of white people who are the minority ethnicity where they live. I myself have lived in Japan for years, being the only white european person for miles when I walk on the streets, so you can cut the judgmental crap about not understanding being a minority. Furthermore, just because I am white skinned, does that automatically tell you my upbringing? How about a person from France? Do you think we have the same opinions, philosophy, and views on life, despite coming from entirely separate cultures, just because our skin color and gender are the same?
I don't know if you intend diversity to be kind or something, in a really twisted and demeaning version, but racism is still racism even when you say it with ("good") intentions. You should judge employees by the quality of work, and ideally nothing more (you're being paid to help the company, not fix society at the expense of it). If you really want to get different perspectives, sit down with a cup of coffee in a cafe with your employees, ask a few philosophical questions, and see what happens. You will get a far, far better answer than looking at a checkbox or groping their genitals ever will.
Even assuming your comment was sarcasm, I still think it's worth investigating how this 'bug' appeared only months after the acquisition.
Yeah because Microsoft decides periodically to cause mischief just because it can, in a product that it's desperately trying to groom, at a time when this issue is a very sensitive topic, in the wake of a large controversy over its star breadwinner, in regions where it could potentially face serious and sustained liability.
Let's not kid ourselves here, this is almost certainly a "Joe updated the server side dictionary manager but Jaine is behind schedule on the client" situation.
The scary part is that I had both the cloud sharing and the custom dictionary disabled, and yet I got suggestions too. It should have been impossible to receive these suggestions even if there was a bug in either or both sides, which tells me the "disable" option isn't really disabling anything. Looks like it's time to find a new keyboard... (and yes, I'm actually serious)
This feature is solely for the use of emergency service providers, and your precise location is never seen or handled by Google. It is sent from your handset to emergency services only when you explicitly place an emergency call, either directly or through your mobile network.
From article:
It uses your Wi-Fi, GPS and cell tower information to pinpoint exactly where you are and sends across the data without allowing it to be accessed by anyone else.
Doesn't sound like it can't be accessed by anyone else like the article states, just that it gets sent on a direct route between your phone and emergency services. OTA MITM attacks could still get that information.
If you have explicitly placed a call to 911, I think having your location information intercepted is the least of your worries:-)
it will refuse to boot or will boot in a limited capacity mode (presumably akin to safe mode)
It's right there in the summary... underlined no less.
I'm more concerned about the fact that I may not be able to replace the stock android with a custom firmware. Thanks to all the crapware that manufacturers insist on pre-installing on most handsets, and their refusal to provide updates, you're basically forced to use a custom firmware just to have a usable phone.
Yes, I know you could always just stick with a Nexus branded device, but then you'd miss out on potentially interesting innovations provided by another manufacturer.
Google should never have permitted the android ecosystem to become a dichotomy of "You can get updates, or you can get a cool device, but not both."
Err, you already can't replace stock Android with a custom firmware if the manufacturer doesn't support it. For example, I have an Asus Memopad, and because Asus doesn't allow it to be unlocked I can't reflash the OS. One of the only downsides to it:/
Though honestly, the bloat ware is actually sometimes useful for once, and that is a nice change of pace.
Wow, I'd love to see the statistics that back that up. My personal experience says that GenX, Boomers, Millennials and everyone else only get clueful about backups after they've lost data. And sometimes not even then.
This guy gets it. I have absolutely no idea why the funk the first post is ranked so highly. If I said black people were terrible at backups, or that all them' thar' illegal Mexicans can't never do no right proper server maintenence, of course it'd be unacceptable. If I said lesbians are too stupid to do backups, of course it'd be stupid. If I said Veterans are too insane to do a real citizen's work, it would rightfully be ignored as a moronic statement. So why the f**k is his age an appropriate measure?
I'm starting to worry humanity will forever be doomed to jumping to conclusions on the most stupid and absolutely asinine of things. We sit on our Twitter feeds all day and publicize and celebrate how diverse, smart, and accepting we are, and yet we're just as quick to label people as the earliest and most uncivilized brutes who lived in caves. At least the butt probing aliens want everybody's behind, no matter religious, age, or racial makeup.
First T-mobile doesn't stop data, it just slows it at a certain data level (depending on your plan). So no matter what website/app you're not getting blocked and if you haven't reached your data level you'll be at the same speed.
Second T-mobile is doing this as a benefit to its customers. Its a perk. Its not charging us differently, its not charging Pokemon Go to do this. etc.
Third because it doesn't count against your data cap, you can use the data you would have used playing pokemon-go on the other apps.
I see no reason why this would be a bad thing for anyone except ATT, Sprint and Verizon...
It's not bad with Pokemon Go, but what if they offered free data for Netflix but not for Amazon Prime Video, for example? While I don't think T-mobile has done anything wrong here, and I like that they're giving out little benefits, we need to be very careful of the precedent we risk setting. It's fine to give out free data for an app which has no direct competition, but once we start moving into custom stores or services, then I think that, faced with one being free data and the other not, I think the choice is pretty clear what most people are going to make, and it becomes easy for somebody like ATT and Verzion to partner with Netflix and drive out all competition, in exchange for a cut of Netflix's profits. It literally becomes unprofitable to make a competition video service in such a case.
Well yeah, of course. Look at the situation of a young college grad today; they're entering the workforce loaded on with $80,000+ dollars of debt, in an extremely cutthroat environment that pays minimum wage on entry, and for companies that lower pay and outsource year after year. Silicon Valley is frankly just not really viable for starters anymore, it's too expensive and cutthroat, and I wouldn't move to San Francisco in that kind of a climate either. Furthermore, Silicon Valley is dominated by experienced people who've worked numerous high profile projects, and often have a whole rainbow array of certifications and degrees.
If you're just starting out, you're hammered between the minimum wage jobs in China and India that take away your entry level positions, and you can't compete with the existing crowd because they outclass you in experience, titles, and existing reputation in almost every way (even after accounting for the whole age thing). Honestly, young people in many jobs face a similar problem - it's not exclusively a tech industry problem, we just see it to the strongest degree at the moment - It's a serious issue, and if we don't start to do something about it and soon, we are going to slowly but surely strangle off our workforce.
In the US, our internet service providers promised that with those sweet, sweet government enabling funds, we'd all be connected with "high speed" internet at a "reasonable" price. Here we are, a market with three competitors, a significant portion of the country running under a monopoly, extremely high prices for a limited amount of data (it's not rare to pay $150+ for what goes for €30 here in Germany), and are on the verge to legally owning something the government paid to build and would be promised is theirs. Even if the EU consents, why should they actually build it out? They are promising a verbal contract here, one that technically isn't valid, and if they actually did write a contract it would have the stipulation such that 95% of the country has to use more than 128 Terabytes per month or so. As soon as net neutrality is off the table, you will have to pay €150 for anything faster than 256 kpbs, I guarantee you.
And that's not even considering what the internet was actually for. It may just be a giant commercial venue today, but it's mind blowing to think that once upon a time, it actually was for academic purposes and freedom of speech and all that. While I don't think it should be exclusively a government service, it should at the very least be regulated as a utility should be, or if not that than the government should provide its own service to compete with the private ones. It would be insane to think of a water company limiting your water supply to a trickle, or your electric company deciding that if you don't double your monthly payment they will halve your power supply, and I don't understand why the internet shouldn't be opened the same way, especially given that we've already suffered through every website being a front to sell something, there's enough pure profit going on as it is.
Here's hoping the EU has the balls to do what the US government couldn't (and still can't).
You don't need to be bitten by a bat in order to get rabies. any type of saliva exposure is adequate. rabies vaccines are inadequate. No vaccine has 100% effectiveness and rabies is close to 100% fatal. Given the bat vector, herd immunity does not apply. I think keeping the bats away is far preferable.
If saliva doesn't penetrate the skin, it's very unlikely to make you sick unless you decide it's a smart idea to rub your finger right over the spot and then put it in your mouth, and rabies vaccines are pretty effective, something like a 97% success rate even after 10+ years later, and bats are pretty unlikely to attack people, even the rabid ones, because we run on different circadian rhythms. The problem is applying the vaccines - I don't think rabies is a standard vaccine for people, and if we're going to encourage large scale residency of bats in a city, then I think at least recommending the vaccine might not be the worst of ideas. Honestly, I think the risk of rabies from a bat is significantly smaller than something taking hold in the excessive mosquito population, so it's definitely a decision I support, but I think we need to consider everything, and that includes the risk of a rabies outbreak.
Why people don't like bats is bejond me.
They are cute, it looks nice when they fly around and they harm no one.
They can spread rabies through their bites, and although they rarely attack people, they sometimes do if they feel threatened (as in old buildings). I think it's fantastic that people are finally starting to realize that nature provides its own balancing mechanisms, but I think that if the bat population becomes large enough, rabies vaccines might be a good idea.
My coffee machine runs on Java direct - none of this assembly or bytecode nonsense!
This is hilarious not only for the pun on coffee, but also because some coffee machines actually do run on Java. I am actually quite interested how that would work - I believe you can compile Java to regular assembly, as I believe Android 5+ does, but I'd imagine it wouldn't be worth it for that case since C would do the job too. So if you use a regular JVM, or even a customized version, I'd imagine you'd need some sort of proper OS too.
So then what does that make us? Nothing but merely exobytes of data in a sack of liquid, filled with billions of much smaller exobytes of data in sacks of fluid? If we really find a way to manipulate DNA, we've unlocked life itself. Haven't we?
This isn't Iran, if you have a problem you protest peacefully or become active in politics yourself, you don't fucking assassinate people.
- I disagree. I think assassinating government officials makes perfect sense, they don't give a hoot about assassinating anybody and everybody if that's what it takes to stay in power. Starting wars, murdering thousands, tens, hundreds of thousands, millions, all of this is done by governments. Sure, sure, governments have support of their people, but that's the problem - the people are very often uninformed, unintelligent creatures that follow another 'charismatic' asshole down the drain. Sometimes that 'charismatic' asshole needs to be taken down to pull the people out of their idiocy. Sometimes the dear leader simply cannot be replaced by any other means (see North Korea for example).
As to the fucking collectivist governments, like the ones in USA, EU, those are the worst types of offenders where it comes to impossibility of getting rid of a completely fucked up situation.
I am against the very existence of the IRS, Federal reserve bank, FDIC, FHA, EPA, FCC, FBI, departments of all shapes and sizes, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, every form of welfare, every form of theft and redistribution.
These things cannot be eliminated because the people who are voting will always vote to take from others what they think is their entitlement. These things should not exist in the USA in the first place, not a single one of them is Constitutional, every one of them is usurpation of power. AFAIC the power is already such that it is way beyond the normal process, there is no way to abolish all of these institutions without a violent event. A violent event is coming, it will be brought upon by the crash of the US bonds and the dollar itself. The violence is coming and these institutions will be gone simply because the very foundation for them, the US dollar that is fake (defaulted upon back in 1971) is going to fail and the Fed will make sure it fails in the worst way possible.
We are alive on this planet today, not tomorrow necessarily, not 100 years from now but right now. We should not suffer any of this right now.
Well, the US must be so hard for you, but Somalia embraces all of these. No IRS, no Medicaid, no government! Just those sweet leader assassinations and the warm African desert. What's not to like?
And how much are we willing to bet that all of these services, the retirement, the health insurance, the police, how much are we willing to bet you use all of these? You can't escape taxes without revoking your citizenship, but at least you can be an honest anarchist and refuse to use any and all government services.
Slashdot Mirror
Voice messages also cannot be categorized, are interpreted much slower than reading, can be very ambiguous if the audio quality is poor, and require significantly more space to store (not a concern if you're one employee with a work drive that's 5% full, but for the employer maintaining a central server, that space stacks up quickly). Honestly, voice memos are basically voice mail on the phone, and while there are times it works well, voice memos are definitely no email replacement.
Maybe I shouldn't impulse post, but wow, that's significantly higher than I thought! Political posts are almost always emotional tirades, rarely including any new facts or analysis, and are extremely repetitive, and you're telling me ~ 8% of the population can be swayed by this? That's enough to convert some swing states, and for how little effort they require, that's a massive gain. On the contrary, if you could snatch 8% of your opponent's supporters, by investing as little as half an hour per day in a post, then I'd be inclined to label this as quite possibly the single most effective method for garnering votes then - even conventions are usually filled with people who already support you, and TV audiences are likewise rather polarized. For how much more these cost, somebody should see what percentage of people are swayed by political ads...
Slashdot has the best system I've seen so far. Reddit's just leads to bandwagoning. Slashdot is capped at -2:5.
Additionally if I only have 5 points I'll usually not waste them on 0, I normally just browse at +2. Back in the day you would have entire threads of +5s. I'll save them for someone that needs modded up, not waste it on someone that doesn't need to be heard.
Agreed. Slashdot has easily the single best method of moderating out of every major website, changing that would be foolish. Besides, moderators are surprisingly fair - I have gone against the grain plenty of times, and extremely often these reached +4 or +5. If you state your opinion reasonably and rationally, Slashdot is almost always interested in hearing it. Character attacks on unnamed moderators, with no examples or anything of substance at all, are not inside this category.
Twitter provides a block feature, a mute feature, the ability to report harassment, and various features to control how public your tweets are. If someone is harassing you, why don't you block them? I'm not sure why we need to kill free speech to fix a problem that appears to be already solved...
I don't think that Slashdot readers want to abolish Intellectual Property rights completely. We just want reasonable terms. Start with copyright duration. Author's death + 70 years would be ridiculous if it wasn't true.
This. We don't have any problem with the spec of intellectual properly and copyright, we have problem with the implementation. While we have many frivolous ones, the patent system is actually a great idea - it allows people protection to turn a profit, and thereafter turns it into the public domain. By making copyrights last almost 150 years, in some cases, you completely stunt our cultural development - do you think the Greeks and Romans would have had such a rich literature if they had to wait 150 years before they could retell a story? Do you think the US would have become a world power if everything had been locked up and restricted by the various European countries?
I don't see why the ISP's don't simply claim immunity due to their common carrier status. Of course, that would make them concede to the FCC, but on the upside they also aren't liable for things like terrorist attacks coordinated through their infrastructure.
Because it's not a profitable decision. Being liable for terrorist attacks, eh, maybe a $150,000 settlement once a decade, and potentially some bad press which doesn't mean anything when your reputation is crap. On the flip side, the FCC is the only entity with significant power that wants an open Internet, and that scares ISPs shitless. If they become regulated, they'll actually be required to provide decent service for a reasonable price, and they would probably have to invest money into upgrading their infrastructure. Worse yet, there would be at least some form of compeition, as opposed to the current scheme where they all conveniently agree to not charge below certain prices. What's a few dead people and some angry bloggers compared to that red ink?
I understand that logic.
But what's wrong with allowing edit until someone replies? Or even allow edit up until someone begins to compose a reply. And then, if the original author is editing, and the person wanting to reply clicks reply, they get a helpful message saying "author is editing, reply not allowed until editing is complete/times out". I know it's a hassle to enumerate the possible combinations, but it wouldn't be too much AJAX to make it work.
However, making it work nicely with those using static HTML (who I support 100% BTW) is much trickier. For those users it becomes a bit more tedious. Their reply goes up to the server, but if an edit occurred before their reply was received, the reply content gets bounced back to the user and they are given a chance to edit it in context with the new post content. That way they can decide if their reply is still relevant. There is one more combination that would be robust, but may piss some users off as their new post/or edit (depending on how you want to slice it) would be bounced.
Anyway, I normally get paid quite well to work this stuff out for my clients. Slashdot certainly isn't paying me enough to write any more than this...
This system also adds a bunch of complexity, runs a lot of scripts that need to be maintained, potentially introduces a vector for security bugs, slows down comment writing by potentially a significant amount, and breaks the page for people who disable advanced JavaScript. Furthermore, if your comment is valuable, it will usually get a reply pretty quickly, rendering the whole system mute. It sounds weird, but there's a reason why there isn't one after all these years, and it's not because the idea wasn't considered.
With operating systems becoming more and more secure, hackers are increasingly focusing on end user programs, such as VLC. Do you think the project needs work in this regard? If so, may I ask what your plans and ideas for improving it would be?
By the way, thank you for all of your hard work! VLC isn't my day to day player, but nonetheless it has come in handy many, many times, and my life is much easier because of it. I heavily appreciate your taking time out of your day to answer our questions! :)
Currently, we live in an era where media players have become quite a bit more sophisticated. For example, Windows Media Player or iTunes offer some pretty advanced features for managing large libraries, integrate heavily within their ecosystems, and some even come with complete stores, where you can buy songs with a single click. On the other end, there's players such as Audacious that focus on playing music, and only on that - and the result is that you get a very speedy and lightweight player, and the support of winamp skins makes it possible to heavily personalize. What role do you think VLC plays in the ecosystem, and more specifically, where do you think you want to take the project in the future?
Actually it is, because diversity brings new opinions and viewpoints. If all you hire are white men you're only going to ever have the viewpoints of white men. And if the talent pool is heavily biased against non white men you need to go out of your way to choose diversified talent to make your company better.
You're making a grave and extremely patronizing mistake, whether you know it or not. The whole concept of diversity is based around the concept that people of different ethnicities have had significantly different life experiences, and this assumption is flawed in two ways; for starters, people who grow up in the same country, with the same economic and educational backgrounds, do actually tend to think alike. Take a black person and a white one from Seattle; notice that both are pretty likely to support gay rights. Take a black person and a white one from smallsville Idaho, and notice that both are pretty likely to vote against it. The point is, social class and physical location forms one's opinion far more than skin color. You would get significantly different viewpoints if you hire two white (or two black) people from two different cities than if you hire one each from the same city.
Second off, the whole concept is incredibly degrading, for everyone involved. You assume white people come from one well off background and are incapable of imaging what being poor or discriminated against is like. You assume that people with minority skin color can't handle the work, and so we need special accommodations for them. And you assume that quality of work is no longer the only criteria you should be using to judge employees. This whole movement is largely based on assumptions , and blatantly racist ones at that. Yes, there are plenty of white people who are the minority ethnicity where they live. I myself have lived in Japan for years, being the only white european person for miles when I walk on the streets, so you can cut the judgmental crap about not understanding being a minority. Furthermore, just because I am white skinned, does that automatically tell you my upbringing? How about a person from France? Do you think we have the same opinions, philosophy, and views on life, despite coming from entirely separate cultures, just because our skin color and gender are the same?
I don't know if you intend diversity to be kind or something, in a really twisted and demeaning version, but racism is still racism even when you say it with ("good") intentions. You should judge employees by the quality of work, and ideally nothing more (you're being paid to help the company, not fix society at the expense of it). If you really want to get different perspectives, sit down with a cup of coffee in a cafe with your employees, ask a few philosophical questions, and see what happens. You will get a far, far better answer than looking at a checkbox or groping their genitals ever will.
Even assuming your comment was sarcasm, I still think it's worth investigating how this 'bug' appeared only months after the acquisition.
Yeah because Microsoft decides periodically to cause mischief just because it can, in a product that it's desperately trying to groom, at a time when this issue is a very sensitive topic, in the wake of a large controversy over its star breadwinner, in regions where it could potentially face serious and sustained liability.
Let's not kid ourselves here, this is almost certainly a "Joe updated the server side dictionary manager but Jaine is behind schedule on the client" situation.
The scary part is that I had both the cloud sharing and the custom dictionary disabled, and yet I got suggestions too. It should have been impossible to receive these suggestions even if there was a bug in either or both sides, which tells me the "disable" option isn't really disabling anything. Looks like it's time to find a new keyboard... (and yes, I'm actually serious)
From original post:
This feature is solely for the use of emergency service providers, and your precise location is never seen or handled by Google. It is sent from your handset to emergency services only when you explicitly place an emergency call, either directly or through your mobile network.
From article:
It uses your Wi-Fi, GPS and cell tower information to pinpoint exactly where you are and sends across the data without allowing it to be accessed by anyone else.
Doesn't sound like it can't be accessed by anyone else like the article states, just that it gets sent on a direct route between your phone and emergency services. OTA MITM attacks could still get that information.
If you have explicitly placed a call to 911, I think having your location information intercepted is the least of your worries :-)
it will refuse to boot or will boot in a limited capacity mode (presumably akin to safe mode)
It's right there in the summary... underlined no less.
I'm more concerned about the fact that I may not be able to replace the stock android with a custom firmware. Thanks to all the crapware that manufacturers insist on pre-installing on most handsets, and their refusal to provide updates, you're basically forced to use a custom firmware just to have a usable phone.
Yes, I know you could always just stick with a Nexus branded device, but then you'd miss out on potentially interesting innovations provided by another manufacturer.
Google should never have permitted the android ecosystem to become a dichotomy of "You can get updates, or you can get a cool device, but not both."
Err, you already can't replace stock Android with a custom firmware if the manufacturer doesn't support it. For example, I have an Asus Memopad, and because Asus doesn't allow it to be unlocked I can't reflash the OS. One of the only downsides to it :/
Though honestly, the bloat ware is actually sometimes useful for once, and that is a nice change of pace.
How would you know? How do you know he didn't purchase his copy of Mac OS?
How, exactly, would one purchase a free OS? (Not that I have problems with Hackintoshes, by the way, but I'm curious by what you mean)
Wow, I'd love to see the statistics that back that up. My personal experience says that GenX, Boomers, Millennials and everyone else only get clueful about backups after they've lost data. And sometimes not even then.
This guy gets it. I have absolutely no idea why the funk the first post is ranked so highly. If I said black people were terrible at backups, or that all them' thar' illegal Mexicans can't never do no right proper server maintenence, of course it'd be unacceptable. If I said lesbians are too stupid to do backups, of course it'd be stupid. If I said Veterans are too insane to do a real citizen's work, it would rightfully be ignored as a moronic statement. So why the f**k is his age an appropriate measure?
I'm starting to worry humanity will forever be doomed to jumping to conclusions on the most stupid and absolutely asinine of things. We sit on our Twitter feeds all day and publicize and celebrate how diverse, smart, and accepting we are, and yet we're just as quick to label people as the earliest and most uncivilized brutes who lived in caves. At least the butt probing aliens want everybody's behind, no matter religious, age, or racial makeup.
doesn't this violate net neutrality?
how would it violate net neutrality?
First T-mobile doesn't stop data, it just slows it at a certain data level (depending on your plan). So no matter what website/app you're not getting blocked and if you haven't reached your data level you'll be at the same speed.
Second T-mobile is doing this as a benefit to its customers. Its a perk. Its not charging us differently, its not charging Pokemon Go to do this. etc.
Third because it doesn't count against your data cap, you can use the data you would have used playing pokemon-go on the other apps.
I see no reason why this would be a bad thing for anyone except ATT, Sprint and Verizon...
It's not bad with Pokemon Go, but what if they offered free data for Netflix but not for Amazon Prime Video, for example? While I don't think T-mobile has done anything wrong here, and I like that they're giving out little benefits, we need to be very careful of the precedent we risk setting. It's fine to give out free data for an app which has no direct competition, but once we start moving into custom stores or services, then I think that, faced with one being free data and the other not, I think the choice is pretty clear what most people are going to make, and it becomes easy for somebody like ATT and Verzion to partner with Netflix and drive out all competition, in exchange for a cut of Netflix's profits. It literally becomes unprofitable to make a competition video service in such a case.
It's almost like he used a free service with no expectation of availability or warranty, to do all of his work.
He sounds Millenial.
Oooh, daaaaaang, he looks so young! I guess aging creams are all the rage these days. Kids, eh, always being hip, stylin', funkaaaay freshhhh!
Well yeah, of course. Look at the situation of a young college grad today; they're entering the workforce loaded on with $80,000+ dollars of debt, in an extremely cutthroat environment that pays minimum wage on entry, and for companies that lower pay and outsource year after year. Silicon Valley is frankly just not really viable for starters anymore, it's too expensive and cutthroat, and I wouldn't move to San Francisco in that kind of a climate either. Furthermore, Silicon Valley is dominated by experienced people who've worked numerous high profile projects, and often have a whole rainbow array of certifications and degrees.
If you're just starting out, you're hammered between the minimum wage jobs in China and India that take away your entry level positions, and you can't compete with the existing crowd because they outclass you in experience, titles, and existing reputation in almost every way (even after accounting for the whole age thing). Honestly, young people in many jobs face a similar problem - it's not exclusively a tech industry problem, we just see it to the strongest degree at the moment - It's a serious issue, and if we don't start to do something about it and soon, we are going to slowly but surely strangle off our workforce.
In the US, our internet service providers promised that with those sweet, sweet government enabling funds, we'd all be connected with "high speed" internet at a "reasonable" price. Here we are, a market with three competitors, a significant portion of the country running under a monopoly, extremely high prices for a limited amount of data (it's not rare to pay $150+ for what goes for €30 here in Germany), and are on the verge to legally owning something the government paid to build and would be promised is theirs. Even if the EU consents, why should they actually build it out? They are promising a verbal contract here, one that technically isn't valid, and if they actually did write a contract it would have the stipulation such that 95% of the country has to use more than 128 Terabytes per month or so. As soon as net neutrality is off the table, you will have to pay €150 for anything faster than 256 kpbs, I guarantee you.
And that's not even considering what the internet was actually for. It may just be a giant commercial venue today, but it's mind blowing to think that once upon a time, it actually was for academic purposes and freedom of speech and all that. While I don't think it should be exclusively a government service, it should at the very least be regulated as a utility should be, or if not that than the government should provide its own service to compete with the private ones. It would be insane to think of a water company limiting your water supply to a trickle, or your electric company deciding that if you don't double your monthly payment they will halve your power supply, and I don't understand why the internet shouldn't be opened the same way, especially given that we've already suffered through every website being a front to sell something, there's enough pure profit going on as it is.
Here's hoping the EU has the balls to do what the US government couldn't (and still can't).
You don't need to be bitten by a bat in order to get rabies. any type of saliva exposure is adequate. rabies vaccines are inadequate. No vaccine has 100% effectiveness and rabies is close to 100% fatal. Given the bat vector, herd immunity does not apply. I think keeping the bats away is far preferable.
If saliva doesn't penetrate the skin, it's very unlikely to make you sick unless you decide it's a smart idea to rub your finger right over the spot and then put it in your mouth, and rabies vaccines are pretty effective, something like a 97% success rate even after 10+ years later, and bats are pretty unlikely to attack people, even the rabid ones, because we run on different circadian rhythms. The problem is applying the vaccines - I don't think rabies is a standard vaccine for people, and if we're going to encourage large scale residency of bats in a city, then I think at least recommending the vaccine might not be the worst of ideas. Honestly, I think the risk of rabies from a bat is significantly smaller than something taking hold in the excessive mosquito population, so it's definitely a decision I support, but I think we need to consider everything, and that includes the risk of a rabies outbreak.
Why people don't like bats is bejond me. They are cute, it looks nice when they fly around and they harm no one.
They can spread rabies through their bites, and although they rarely attack people, they sometimes do if they feel threatened (as in old buildings). I think it's fantastic that people are finally starting to realize that nature provides its own balancing mechanisms, but I think that if the bat population becomes large enough, rabies vaccines might be a good idea.
My coffee machine runs on Java direct - none of this assembly or bytecode nonsense!
This is hilarious not only for the pun on coffee, but also because some coffee machines actually do run on Java. I am actually quite interested how that would work - I believe you can compile Java to regular assembly, as I believe Android 5+ does, but I'd imagine it wouldn't be worth it for that case since C would do the job too. So if you use a regular JVM, or even a customized version, I'd imagine you'd need some sort of proper OS too.
So then what does that make us? Nothing but merely exobytes of data in a sack of liquid, filled with billions of much smaller exobytes of data in sacks of fluid? If we really find a way to manipulate DNA, we've unlocked life itself. Haven't we?
This isn't Iran, if you have a problem you protest peacefully or become active in politics yourself, you don't fucking assassinate people.
- I disagree. I think assassinating government officials makes perfect sense, they don't give a hoot about assassinating anybody and everybody if that's what it takes to stay in power. Starting wars, murdering thousands, tens, hundreds of thousands, millions, all of this is done by governments. Sure, sure, governments have support of their people, but that's the problem - the people are very often uninformed, unintelligent creatures that follow another 'charismatic' asshole down the drain. Sometimes that 'charismatic' asshole needs to be taken down to pull the people out of their idiocy. Sometimes the dear leader simply cannot be replaced by any other means (see North Korea for example).
As to the fucking collectivist governments, like the ones in USA, EU, those are the worst types of offenders where it comes to impossibility of getting rid of a completely fucked up situation.
I am against the very existence of the IRS, Federal reserve bank, FDIC, FHA, EPA, FCC, FBI, departments of all shapes and sizes, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, every form of welfare, every form of theft and redistribution.
These things cannot be eliminated because the people who are voting will always vote to take from others what they think is their entitlement. These things should not exist in the USA in the first place, not a single one of them is Constitutional, every one of them is usurpation of power. AFAIC the power is already such that it is way beyond the normal process, there is no way to abolish all of these institutions without a violent event. A violent event is coming, it will be brought upon by the crash of the US bonds and the dollar itself. The violence is coming and these institutions will be gone simply because the very foundation for them, the US dollar that is fake (defaulted upon back in 1971) is going to fail and the Fed will make sure it fails in the worst way possible.
We are alive on this planet today, not tomorrow necessarily, not 100 years from now but right now. We should not suffer any of this right now.
Well, the US must be so hard for you, but Somalia embraces all of these. No IRS, no Medicaid, no government! Just those sweet leader assassinations and the warm African desert. What's not to like?
And how much are we willing to bet that all of these services, the retirement, the health insurance, the police, how much are we willing to bet you use all of these? You can't escape taxes without revoking your citizenship, but at least you can be an honest anarchist and refuse to use any and all government services.
That includes both running water and electricity.