Having to unlock my phone is because of my older hardware that doesn't have a fingerprint reader. I already have NFC enabled because I use it for other things. If my phone isn't charged I just use a card, I don't worry about it. It's just another option, and one that works better than some of the other options.
I use Android Pay at Trader Joe's regularly specifically because it's faster than using my chip card. I unlock my phone while the cashier is ringing things up and when they are ready it takes two seconds to complete the transaction.
Yes, exactly. The stuff that's good enough for most consumers. And it's funny to complain about range as a downside of WiFi. What's the range of a 10" Ethernet cable?
That's funny, since T-Mobile increased the data caps in its plans around the same time that they started the Binge On program. And their prices are already better than any other provider.
Most video data isn't full of sharp high contrast lines. It doesn't matter if a difference is theoretically possible to see if in practice it never is.
You sound like a fundamentalist nut here. This program is optional and it benefits pretty much everyone across the board. Even services that aren't in the program benefit since their video still uses less bandwidth. Why not direct your rage at real threats to net neutrality, like Verizon's FreeBee program.
Please explain how conversations could be available from any browser you log in on if the messages are encrypted ended to end and the provider doesn't have access to the contents.
Calling me a shill doesn't magically make your idiocy right.
Who did say that they were? No one did, because they aren't. Did you have a point or are you just trying to look like an ass?
My point is that you are wrong in saying that they should because that would break how they work. If you want a service with end to end encryption and that doesn't keep your messages in a centralised location you simply need to look elsewhere. The services they are offering are completely different from what you want.
Neither Facebook or Google call their services "instant messaging". I think they qualify but if you don't and you are looking for something that does then they are not the right services for you.
A key part of the functionality of both Google and Facebook messengers is that the messages are archived on the server and available from any browser or client app that you log in with. This could not be done if the messages were encrypted end to end.
So what? When you use a service such as Facebook Messenger or Google Hangouts you know that they have access to your messages from the star. It's only right that they respect that trust you put in them by not sharing the data.
Depends on how the image data is being corrupted I suppose. A 0.00000004% change in the brightness of a pixel isn't going to be visible no matter how much you zoom in.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. My phone doesn't have a fingerprint reader.
It needs some sort of authentication, just like Apple Pay. If you have a fingerprint reader that is sufficient.
Sounds like ineptitude at the credit union to me.
Why make things more complicated? You already don't require any extra steps other than unlocking your phone.
Having to unlock my phone is because of my older hardware that doesn't have a fingerprint reader. I already have NFC enabled because I use it for other things. If my phone isn't charged I just use a card, I don't worry about it. It's just another option, and one that works better than some of the other options.
I use Android Pay at Trader Joe's regularly specifically because it's faster than using my chip card. I unlock my phone while the cashier is ringing things up and when they are ready it takes two seconds to complete the transaction.
So what, you have 100 meters of ethernet cable coiled up in your living room even when you're sitting right next to your cable modem?
Yes, exactly. The stuff that's good enough for most consumers. And it's funny to complain about range as a downside of WiFi. What's the range of a 10" Ethernet cable?
That's funny, since T-Mobile increased the data caps in its plans around the same time that they started the Binge On program. And their prices are already better than any other provider.
Most video data isn't full of sharp high contrast lines. It doesn't matter if a difference is theoretically possible to see if in practice it never is.
That's why the plan is optional. If you want to connect your phone to a 75" TV then don't use Binge On.
As a customer that is useless and no one would ever use it. Who wants to be responsible for micromanaging their bandwidth like that?
You sound like a fundamentalist nut here. This program is optional and it benefits pretty much everyone across the board. Even services that aren't in the program benefit since their video still uses less bandwidth. Why not direct your rage at real threats to net neutrality, like Verizon's FreeBee program.
What moving goalpost? That's how Facebook and Google both work now, you idiot.
Please explain how conversations could be available from any browser you log in on if the messages are encrypted ended to end and the provider doesn't have access to the contents.
Calling me a shill doesn't magically make your idiocy right.
Who did say that they were? No one did, because they aren't. Did you have a point or are you just trying to look like an ass?
My point is that you are wrong in saying that they should because that would break how they work. If you want a service with end to end encryption and that doesn't keep your messages in a centralised location you simply need to look elsewhere. The services they are offering are completely different from what you want.
Neither Facebook or Google call their services "instant messaging". I think they qualify but if you don't and you are looking for something that does then they are not the right services for you.
It's working on some people, the rest loath him. Is it working on enough people to get elected? That's doubtful.
A key part of the functionality of both Google and Facebook messengers is that the messages are archived on the server and available from any browser or client app that you log in with. This could not be done if the messages were encrypted end to end.
There are services that offer that functionality. These are not them. Choose the service that meets your requirements.
I feel the best way to destroy the Trump campaign is to keep letting people hear him.
So what? When you use a service such as Facebook Messenger or Google Hangouts you know that they have access to your messages from the star. It's only right that they respect that trust you put in them by not sharing the data.
Assuming the FBI is privy to the NSA's capabilities.
They can already win at Pong too.
Depends on how the image data is being corrupted I suppose. A 0.00000004% change in the brightness of a pixel isn't going to be visible no matter how much you zoom in.