Yikes. OK, how about healthcare. Are 20 million people who could well be without healthcare shortly an insignificant detail? Is not having healthcare insignificant? It is until you're ill, then there is nothing more significant in the world. Same with gay marriage or abortion - insignificant, until it really really isn't.
You're looking for a different economic system that isn't on offer, and that sucks. But the things you mention as "insignificant bullshit" is a colossally dismissive attitude to take. You don't care about those things, but then I'm guessing you're not gay or female.
I get that First-Past-The-Post is not the best system and has lead to a disconnected 2-party hegemony, but to say that they're both the same is kindof mental. Some people are going to lose out big because of the new administration's changes, and to hand-wave that away as "oh they're all the same" is a level of dismissal that is hardly going to help. There are certainly good and bad choices to be made between the 2 parties that you have.
Do you mean to tell me that gimmicks have no longevity?
Craziness.
Of course, determining what's the gimmick and what is the Next Big Thing (TM) is the real problem. There were Apple engineers working on the first iPhone that thought the big touchscreen was a gimmick. It's not always clear...
All the apps require all the rights. If I do not give them the permissions they won't run. So I have no choice, I have no security then and I cannot store any valuable data on the phone.
Why the apps are lying they need global files access to only store their own data? I have found in some Android SDK doc they can store their own data even without global files access.
Other apps could provide functionality without that specific feature but they refuse to run at all unless they get all the permissions they ask for.
Even opening local files could be done safely by an Android-provided dialog box, without giving uncontrolled permissions to the whole disk.
Apps used to need full access to the sd card to write any files there, and it's relatively recent that they don't have to. Mostly it is lazy/ignorant developers. You should probably not use apps that require this.
And you really shouldn't use the accusation "lying" unless you're pretty sure it's deliberate and malicious.
I'm surprised it took Google this long to admit doing something like this.
Sounds like you don't know how searching on the web works. You agreed to give them your search term when you made the search in the first place, the fact that the device is clever enough to hold on to it until you have signal makes no difference to your privacy.
It's a payment network. It wasn't designed as a replacement to the dollar but rather as a replacement to Paypal. As such it shouldn't be too surprising that it doesn't make a good currency; it's just not designed for that.
It's a shame that it's not that good at that either, transaction confirmation times often are faaar to long.
I understand that BC is not a "widely accepted" currency and odds are that you have to cash-in eventually, but the point of Bitcoin is to become an alternate way to ease the trade of goods and services, and it should be used like that. Trying to convert it into "real" money misses the point completely. I think that if people have bitcoins, they should use them only to replace conventional currency in their transactions, not to try to convert them.
It's not a usable currency because one of the points of currency is a value store - a way of 'keeping score'. To do that it must have a relatively stable value, which is demonstrably doesn't. Bitcoin is a gambling mechanism, and a way of hiding transactions, but it is not a usable currency.
Bitcoin is a great way to make a lot of money or lose a lot of money if you don't mind taking a gamble or being very patient. It will inevitably rise and fall like crazy.
One of the reasons that Bitcoin is (supposedly) Good is the stability in its supply, that it can't be diluted by evil government and made valueless. But since nobody is looking after it, it is vulnerable to horrible fluxations way worse than anything than properly managed fiat currency does. Bitcoin as a means of transfer, fine, but Bitcoin as a value store, terrrrriiible.
Initially the whole point of ARM that made it so successful on the mobile platform, was simple and energy efficient architecture. Lately it seem that ARM is more about fitting as much complexity as possible into a single chip..
Yes, but if useful functionality/complexity can be added without using more power, that's a good thing isn't it? Seems that ARM (et al) so far are doing a pretty good job of increasing performance and decreasing power usage with each new iteration. Simplicity doesn't not automatically mean efficiency, indeed more performant chips can go back to sleep quicker than slower ones.
I am the 'guys'? There you go, making assumptions again. I'm open with Android's flaws, it has several. I don't feel the need to personally insult people who disagree with me, unlike you based on your posting history.
It's hardly surprising at this point, despite what the zealots will have you believe, both Android and iOS are mature enough now that they've shared the major advantages each had - and there's few compelling reasons to switch. There still is a learning curve though, so the cost/benefit is highly weighted towards everyone staying where they are.
So you admit counting all Android phones towards smartphone market share is bullshit because most are actually used as dumb- or feature-phones.
Bit of a leap from "fewer apps installed" to "most are used as dumb phones" don't you think? You seem to be very personally invested in OS usage patterns. If that makes you happy - go for it, I don't care.
I don't recall activating my new Android tablet, whatever that means.
Where do I sign up?
You install an app that uses Flurry Analytics. Done.
Flurry isn't an ideal sampler though - it's much more used in iOS than Android apps, and seems to be persistently under-counting Android because of that.
Claim all the Fandroids, because Flurry proves that Android users use less apps. Which is easily shown by comparing cross platform apps that of course show usage patterns on both platforms fairly.
*Sigh*. Android users use less apps, yes we all know this. That also means doesn't it that the thing that's being claimed here can't be accurately measured from what Flurry can tell you. If Flurry only knows about a device when a suitable app is installed, then Flurry being less used for Android apps, and Android users installing less apps, is going to undercount Android *devices*. This article is trying to measure *device* numbers, which it's unsuitable for doing so. Give me comparison figures from Facebook, or some ubiquitous cross-platform app, but Flurry itself is flawed.
I don't recall activating my new Android tablet, whatever that means.
Where do I sign up?
You install an app that uses Flurry Analytics. Done.
Flurry isn't an ideal sampler though - it's much more used in iOS than Android apps, and seems to be persistently under-counting Android because of that.
Yeah - this is exactly my worry about the enforced OS upgrades. It's all well-and-good having your device upgraded to the latest version, but if that version is next to unusable then what have you really gained?
I'm hardly saying that the Android situation is great, but one side-effect is that old devices don't get upgraded into obsolescence, and Android app developers don't assume that everyone's running on the latest OS like iOS developers do so you can usually still use the apps you want.
How many people honestly run a mobile device with no app store?
My flip-phone serves all the functions of a telephone (you can talk on it). Honestly, how can anyone who reads Slashdot use one of those locked-down user-hostile spy-computers that the gullible masses have been tricked into calling "smart" "telephones"? "Smart" is just a euphemism for "Treacherous." Stallman was right.
Because people have different tradeoffs - maps / games / video outweigh thouse considerations, for me. And bear in mind that you have also made a tradeoff, you carry a phone that is locatable at all times, has a completely closed-source OS that could be doing all sorts of things you pin on Google Services - you don't know.
is it legal to sell one thing to two different people?
It depends. If you read the fine print on the back of your airline ticket (or on the website if you buy online) it specifically says that you may get bumped, and it also says that a refund or replacement ticket is your only legal recourse. You agreed to those terms when you bought the ticket. So in this case, yes it is legal.
And it depends on the law at your location. EU rules about delays and cancellations are quite strict,it's about a mandatory €300 compensation if you're bumped. (Depends on his far and how late)
Bullshit. The guy earning 100,000,000 Euros a year is happier than the guy earning 75,000 Euros. Why? Because he can lose his job at anytime, or choose to work on something else, or retire. The 75,000 Euro guy doesn't have that luxury. He NEEDS his job.
Pretty much your every post on this subject starts with "bullshit", which almost no actual justification.
Try to understand that not everybody is made happy solely by money (or stability). Being able to do *anything* is in itself a stress. Ever felt guilty about not doing anything on a lazy Sunday? Imagine that for the rest of your life.
Slippery slope alert... Just turn off automatic updates. And if the carrier turns off your signal, you can still use the wifi and you'll have a nice mini tablet..
Eh?? How is this a "slippery slope", I'm not describing a possible future escalation, we're talking about a thing that *Actually Happened*. A book that was bought in good faith was unbought by the seller. That would not be possible with a physical product.
As for the Galaxy Note, you don't actually know that this will be a refusable update, it is technically possible that the remote bricking can happen if you want it or not. You should not have to anticipate (and defend against) your device vendor turning against you, nor is it realistic to ask a normal person to know to do that. This is exactly the sort of reason we have consumer protection laws for.
In active safety recall it has been carrier disabled for faulty hardware. It has no other function.
Without mobile network access it still has bluetooth, wifi, plays games. It's a fully functioning computer. You're showing a colossal lack of imagination.
Slashdot Mirror
Yikes. OK, how about healthcare. Are 20 million people who could well be without healthcare shortly an insignificant detail? Is not having healthcare insignificant? It is until you're ill, then there is nothing more significant in the world. Same with gay marriage or abortion - insignificant, until it really really isn't.
You're looking for a different economic system that isn't on offer, and that sucks. But the things you mention as "insignificant bullshit" is a colossally dismissive attitude to take. You don't care about those things, but then I'm guessing you're not gay or female.
I get that First-Past-The-Post is not the best system and has lead to a disconnected 2-party hegemony, but to say that they're both the same is kindof mental. Some people are going to lose out big because of the new administration's changes, and to hand-wave that away as "oh they're all the same" is a level of dismissal that is hardly going to help. There are certainly good and bad choices to be made between the 2 parties that you have.
There are different numbers for different purposes. They are not the same, but none of them are invalid, it depends what you want to know:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Do you mean to tell me that gimmicks have no longevity?
Craziness.
Of course, determining what's the gimmick and what is the Next Big Thing (TM) is the real problem. There were Apple engineers working on the first iPhone that thought the big touchscreen was a gimmick. It's not always clear...
All the apps require all the rights. If I do not give them the permissions they won't run. So I have no choice, I have no security then and I cannot store any valuable data on the phone.
Why the apps are lying they need global files access to only store their own data? I have found in some Android SDK doc they can store their own data even without global files access.
Other apps could provide functionality without that specific feature but they refuse to run at all unless they get all the permissions they ask for.
Even opening local files could be done safely by an Android-provided dialog box, without giving uncontrolled permissions to the whole disk.
Apps used to need full access to the sd card to write any files there, and it's relatively recent that they don't have to. Mostly it is lazy /ignorant developers. You should probably not use apps that require this.
And you really shouldn't use the accusation "lying" unless you're pretty sure it's deliberate and malicious.
I'm surprised it took Google this long to admit doing something like this.
Sounds like you don't know how searching on the web works. You agreed to give them your search term when you made the search in the first place, the fact that the device is clever enough to hold on to it until you have signal makes no difference to your privacy.
It's a payment network. It wasn't designed as a replacement to the dollar but rather as a replacement to Paypal. As such it shouldn't be too surprising that it doesn't make a good currency; it's just not designed for that.
It's a shame that it's not that good at that either, transaction confirmation times often are faaar to long.
I understand that BC is not a "widely accepted" currency and odds are that you have to cash-in eventually, but the point of Bitcoin is to become an alternate way to ease the trade of goods and services, and it should be used like that. Trying to convert it into "real" money misses the point completely. I think that if people have bitcoins, they should use them only to replace conventional currency in their transactions, not to try to convert them.
It's not a usable currency because one of the points of currency is a value store - a way of 'keeping score'. To do that it must have a relatively stable value, which is demonstrably doesn't. Bitcoin is a gambling mechanism, and a way of hiding transactions, but it is not a usable currency.
Bitcoin is a great way to make a lot of money or lose a lot of money if you don't mind taking a gamble or being very patient. It will inevitably rise and fall like crazy.
One of the reasons that Bitcoin is (supposedly) Good is the stability in its supply, that it can't be diluted by evil government and made valueless. But since nobody is looking after it, it is vulnerable to horrible fluxations way worse than anything than properly managed fiat currency does. Bitcoin as a means of transfer, fine, but Bitcoin as a value store, terrrrriiible.
Initially the whole point of ARM that made it so successful on the mobile platform, was simple and energy efficient architecture.
Lately it seem that ARM is more about fitting as much complexity as possible into a single chip..
Yes, but if useful functionality/complexity can be added without using more power, that's a good thing isn't it? Seems that ARM (et al) so far are doing a pretty good job of increasing performance and decreasing power usage with each new iteration. Simplicity doesn't not automatically mean efficiency, indeed more performant chips can go back to sleep quicker than slower ones.
It must be a wonderful reality inside your head.
I am the 'guys'? There you go, making assumptions again. I'm open with Android's flaws, it has several. I don't feel the need to personally insult people who disagree with me, unlike you based on your posting history.
It's hardly surprising at this point, despite what the zealots will have you believe, both Android and iOS are mature enough now that they've shared the major advantages each had - and there's few compelling reasons to switch. There still is a learning curve though, so the cost/benefit is highly weighted towards everyone staying where they are.
So you admit counting all Android phones towards smartphone market share is bullshit because most are actually used as dumb- or feature-phones.
Bit of a leap from "fewer apps installed" to "most are used as dumb phones" don't you think? You seem to be very personally invested in OS usage patterns. If that makes you happy - go for it, I don't care.
I don't recall activating my new Android tablet, whatever that means.
Where do I sign up?
You install an app that uses Flurry Analytics. Done.
Flurry isn't an ideal sampler though - it's much more used in iOS than Android apps, and seems to be persistently under-counting Android because of that.
Claim all the Fandroids, because Flurry proves that Android users use less apps. Which is easily shown by comparing cross platform apps that of course show usage patterns on both platforms fairly.
*Sigh*. Android users use less apps, yes we all know this. That also means doesn't it that the thing that's being claimed here can't be accurately measured from what Flurry can tell you. If Flurry only knows about a device when a suitable app is installed, then Flurry being less used for Android apps, and Android users installing less apps, is going to undercount Android *devices*. This article is trying to measure *device* numbers, which it's unsuitable for doing so. Give me comparison figures from Facebook, or some ubiquitous cross-platform app, but Flurry itself is flawed.
I don't recall activating my new Android tablet, whatever that means.
Where do I sign up?
You install an app that uses Flurry Analytics. Done.
Flurry isn't an ideal sampler though - it's much more used in iOS than Android apps, and seems to be persistently under-counting Android because of that.
Yeah, this I always find hilarious too - people being *happy* that 2/3 of the cost of their phone is pure profit for the badge mannufacturer.
Yeah - this is exactly my worry about the enforced OS upgrades. It's all well-and-good having your device upgraded to the latest version, but if that version is next to unusable then what have you really gained?
I'm hardly saying that the Android situation is great, but one side-effect is that old devices don't get upgraded into obsolescence, and Android app developers don't assume that everyone's running on the latest OS like iOS developers do so you can usually still use the apps you want.
My flip-phone serves all the functions of a telephone (you can talk on it). Honestly, how can anyone who reads Slashdot use one of those locked-down user-hostile spy-computers that the gullible masses have been tricked into calling "smart" "telephones"? "Smart" is just a euphemism for "Treacherous." Stallman was right.
Because people have different tradeoffs - maps / games / video outweigh thouse considerations, for me. And bear in mind that you have also made a tradeoff, you carry a phone that is locatable at all times, has a completely closed-source OS that could be doing all sorts of things you pin on Google Services - you don't know.
is it legal to sell one thing to two different people?
It depends. If you read the fine print on the back of your airline ticket (or on the website if you buy online) it specifically says that you may get bumped, and it also says that a refund or replacement ticket is your only legal recourse. You agreed to those terms when you bought the ticket. So in this case, yes it is legal.
And it depends on the law at your location. EU rules about delays and cancellations are quite strict,it's about a mandatory €300 compensation if you're bumped. (Depends on his far and how late)
Learning C/C++ is hard as a first language, though it makes for better programmers.
Yah, sure. I don't know of many that actually believe this, and you're gonna have to back up that statement a little...
Bullshit. The guy earning 100,000,000 Euros a year is happier than the guy earning 75,000 Euros. Why? Because he can lose his job at anytime, or choose to work on something else, or retire. The 75,000 Euro guy doesn't have that luxury. He NEEDS his job.
Pretty much your every post on this subject starts with "bullshit", which almost no actual justification.
Try to understand that not everybody is made happy solely by money (or stability). Being able to do *anything* is in itself a stress. Ever felt guilty about not doing anything on a lazy Sunday? Imagine that for the rest of your life.
Hm, you might actually be right here. Though I think it's a bit more murky with copyright law vs physical objects.
Slippery slope alert... Just turn off automatic updates. And if the carrier turns off your signal, you can still use the wifi and you'll have a nice mini tablet..
Eh?? How is this a "slippery slope", I'm not describing a possible future escalation, we're talking about a thing that *Actually Happened*. A book that was bought in good faith was unbought by the seller. That would not be possible with a physical product.
As for the Galaxy Note, you don't actually know that this will be a refusable update, it is technically possible that the remote bricking can happen if you want it or not. You should not have to anticipate (and defend against) your device vendor turning against you, nor is it realistic to ask a normal person to know to do that. This is exactly the sort of reason we have consumer protection laws for.
In active safety recall it has been carrier disabled for faulty hardware. It has no other function.
Without mobile network access it still has bluetooth, wifi, plays games. It's a fully functioning computer. You're showing a colossal lack of imagination.