Yes yes very sarcastic of you... You're comparing a specialised Linux niche with what is available on all Android devices that exist. I'm looking at default Android against default Linux.
Google didn't create Android, they backed it and later bought it. The original developers thought users were too dumb to use Linux, so they dumbed it down by stripping the security out of it to make it user friendly.
I don't really understand how this is 'true'. Linux security doesn't isolate process disk data from each other, anybody can read any part of the disk under the same user, which in practice is all apps a user use because they all run under the user's account. Android has a far *better* security model in this respect because it puts different applications in different users, so they can't get at each other. Also, permissions for system information is far more granular in Android than plain Linux, in Linux you just look at/proc whereas Android has to actually get types of permissions for sensitive data.
How about Google does something about it? Like remove the app and takes Uber to court? I'm sure they can find a few terms in the app developer contract that they have violated.
Worse than that, Google an an invester of Uber. They have put in $250million, they should just go and demand that Uber stop fucking about.
I just disagree that this is 'screwing people over'. You contribte to a Kickstarter, and they start a 2-year development cycle, it's a bit naive to expect exactly everything to work out as was originally planned. You have to expect a bit of give and take in the actual result.
As has been pointed out before in this story, a lie requires intent. It is a bit of a stretch to claim they never intended to make a disconnected game, just that it hasn't worked out that way. A project that has been in development for nearly 2 years does not know all the challenges and how the whole thing is going to turn out. Things change all the time.
It would be far more accurate to say that they 'failed' to make what was initially promised, and then perhaps we can be a little less over emotional about it.
What you need to do is pay attention to who is in charge of this, and find ways to boycott any products they have anything to do with in the future. Especially the bastards who were involved in the marketing.
Yeah! Let's make sure we punish people for the rest of their lives! Damn them for not providing me with my exact requirements!
The internet has turned into somewhere we can destroy people. It's ugly.
I think his point is that you can shortcut the inevitable ignoring of a badly worded threat if you get a well-worded threat in the first place. Given the damage that's currently being done waiting the 7 days or whatever and actually starting a lawsuit you probably don't actually want to carry out... better to get a lawer immediately.
All they have, before they release the probe, was a series of GO / NO GO checklist, on the few chosen "preferred landing spot" on that comet
There was no contigensy plan for the many "what ifs" that may happen
Do you have any reason to believe this, any actual evidence that there wasn't a long list of contingencies, or are you just making it up? Because I certainly don't know all the inner workings of the ESA, and since you've provided no links then I somewhat doubt that you do either.
Do you honestly think that network traffic will never be contested? That it is realistic to have highways wide enough that there will never be congestion? In a real internet (in fact on the internet for its entire existence), the network is managed. Different data has different priorities, it just does. It would be nice if the user could determine them but at the moment the technology is that the network provider determines them.
The real question is is the provider being a dick about it, not whether they manage their network.
Plenty of other employers around, the staff don't have to work at ASDA if they don't want to.
Ah yes, in a country with permenantly more people than jobs (only recently dropping below 7%) is clearly a country with plenty of other employers around. Some people do not have a great deal of choice over their employer.
Fully agreed. But this is slashdot, so don't think your entirely reasonable response won't be met with a litany of "I have the right to say whatever I want" kneejerks...
I hope they have defined properly what they mean with "trolling". By definition, trolling means writing inflammatory comments that excite people to write indignant responses. Thus, for example, bullying or threats do not technically count as trolling.
Not really, the definition has shifted in popular use. Like 'hacking' meaning 'programming quickly' changed to 'illegally gaining access', trolling now is synonymous with 'bullying / threatening online' in popular usage. Its use has changed therefore your definition doesn't follow anymore.
If we care about him, and we should, we must help him become more socially capable. For example, he could recognize when his anger is caused by not getting enough caring in childhood,
Who the FLYING FUCK are you to determine that? What gives you the right to judge the way someone else goes about their interactions? To decide that they are in need of you help?
This sort of bullshit moral superior armslength personal judgement makes me So Fucking Angry. You don't know him. You are not his therapist. You have no right to tell someone you do not know how they are in need of your help.
Since cost of a wedding scales linearly with the number of attendees, it would seem the researches overlooked something.
Errr... how do you figure that? All other things being the same then it would, but obviously weddings aren't all the same. That's the entire point, it depends on what you choose to do. A big wedding that ends in a houseparty with food by potluck is going to be less expensive than a small wedding in a fancy venue with a provided meal.
So what you're saying is that everyone considers you married already, so effectively you are. In your country it would be about publicly making a promise about the other person, and since that is assumed then probably no reason at all.
Other countries and social structures are different though, sometimes there's a legal benefit (ie some hospitals in the states have been preventing gay partners from visiting their other because they're not family, because they have no legal status and presumably the hospital staff have some bigoted beliefs, and without that 'bit of paper' they can enforce them), and sometimes there's a social or personal reason for making a public statement.
Great, the standard defence that gets us nowhere. PROVE EVERYTHING! Because if there is no PROOF then something cannot be SAID!
How the fuck you are supposed to prove that anyway I have no idea. But fine, hide behind your belief nothing happens unless it is proven. I'm sure it's a much nicer world to believe that.
I don't know how the hell anyone is supposed to come up with stats, but from the examples that are reported it seems pretty clear to me. Just go look up the fate of any woman who has dared to say anything about the games industry.
Slashdot Mirror
Crap, I missed that...
Yes yes very sarcastic of you... You're comparing a specialised Linux niche with what is available on all Android devices that exist. I'm looking at default Android against default Linux.
Google didn't create Android, they backed it and later bought it. The original developers thought users were too dumb to use Linux, so they dumbed it down by stripping the security out of it to make it user friendly.
I don't really understand how this is 'true'. Linux security doesn't isolate process disk data from each other, anybody can read any part of the disk under the same user, which in practice is all apps a user use because they all run under the user's account. Android has a far *better* security model in this respect because it puts different applications in different users, so they can't get at each other. Also, permissions for system information is far more granular in Android than plain Linux, in Linux you just look at /proc whereas Android has to actually get types of permissions for sensitive data.
No Android app is safe, auto updates of a safe app can make it unsafe with no notice to the user.
Patently not true. If an app needs new permissions in an update it must be explicily accepted by the user.
How about Google does something about it? Like remove the app and takes Uber to court? I'm sure they can find a few terms in the app developer contract that they have violated.
Worse than that, Google an an invester of Uber. They have put in $250million, they should just go and demand that Uber stop fucking about.
I just disagree that this is 'screwing people over'. You contribte to a Kickstarter, and they start a 2-year development cycle, it's a bit naive to expect exactly everything to work out as was originally planned. You have to expect a bit of give and take in the actual result.
As has been pointed out before in this story, a lie requires intent. It is a bit of a stretch to claim they never intended to make a disconnected game, just that it hasn't worked out that way. A project that has been in development for nearly 2 years does not know all the challenges and how the whole thing is going to turn out. Things change all the time.
It would be far more accurate to say that they 'failed' to make what was initially promised, and then perhaps we can be a little less over emotional about it.
Frontier is going to fold, and you know it.
What you need to do is pay attention to who is in charge of this, and find ways to boycott any products they have anything to do with in the future. Especially the bastards who were involved in the marketing.
Yeah! Let's make sure we punish people for the rest of their lives! Damn them for not providing me with my exact requirements!
The internet has turned into somewhere we can destroy people. It's ugly.
I think his point is that you can shortcut the inevitable ignoring of a badly worded threat if you get a well-worded threat in the first place. Given the damage that's currently being done waiting the 7 days or whatever and actually starting a lawsuit you probably don't actually want to carry out... better to get a lawer immediately.
All they have, before they release the probe, was a series of GO / NO GO checklist, on the few chosen "preferred landing spot" on that comet
There was no contigensy plan for the many "what ifs" that may happen
Do you have any reason to believe this, any actual evidence that there wasn't a long list of contingencies, or are you just making it up? Because I certainly don't know all the inner workings of the ESA, and since you've provided no links then I somewhat doubt that you do either.
Do you honestly think that network traffic will never be contested? That it is realistic to have highways wide enough that there will never be congestion? In a real internet (in fact on the internet for its entire existence), the network is managed. Different data has different priorities, it just does. It would be nice if the user could determine them but at the moment the technology is that the network provider determines them.
The real question is is the provider being a dick about it, not whether they manage their network.
We don't need social networks at all.
*You* don't need them. The rest of us find them hugely useful.
Plenty of other employers around, the staff don't have to work at ASDA if they don't want to.
Ah yes, in a country with permenantly more people than jobs (only recently dropping below 7%) is clearly a country with plenty of other employers around. Some people do not have a great deal of choice over their employer.
Fully agreed. But this is slashdot, so don't think your entirely reasonable response won't be met with a litany of "I have the right to say whatever I want" kneejerks...
I hope they have defined properly what they mean with "trolling". By definition, trolling means writing inflammatory comments that excite people to write indignant responses. Thus, for example, bullying or threats do not technically count as trolling.
Not really, the definition has shifted in popular use. Like 'hacking' meaning 'programming quickly' changed to 'illegally gaining access', trolling now is synonymous with 'bullying / threatening online' in popular usage. Its use has changed therefore your definition doesn't follow anymore.
If we care about him, and we should, we must help him become more socially capable. For example, he could recognize when his anger is caused by not getting enough caring in childhood,
Who the FLYING FUCK are you to determine that? What gives you the right to judge the way someone else goes about their interactions? To decide that they are in need of you help?
This sort of bullshit moral superior armslength personal judgement makes me So Fucking Angry. You don't know him. You are not his therapist. You have no right to tell someone you do not know how they are in need of your help.
And it is powered by an Intel chip. Interesting that Google decided to go with Intel 64-bit SoC instead of ARM. This is a big win for Intel
How big a win can it be when it's flanked by 2 much more mass-market devices that are powered by the competition?
I have a Z1 Compact and I really like it, it's a solid little phone with decent battery life. The Z3 seem to be an upgrade on all sides.
Fair enough. It's so hard to know exactly who it is that's being a dick.
Since cost of a wedding scales linearly with the number of attendees, it would seem the researches overlooked something.
Errr... how do you figure that? All other things being the same then it would, but obviously weddings aren't all the same. That's the entire point, it depends on what you choose to do. A big wedding that ends in a houseparty with food by potluck is going to be less expensive than a small wedding in a fancy venue with a provided meal.
Also, parties are nice.
So what you're saying is that everyone considers you married already, so effectively you are. In your country it would be about publicly making a promise about the other person, and since that is assumed then probably no reason at all.
Other countries and social structures are different though, sometimes there's a legal benefit (ie some hospitals in the states have been preventing gay partners from visiting their other because they're not family, because they have no legal status and presumably the hospital staff have some bigoted beliefs, and without that 'bit of paper' they can enforce them), and sometimes there's a social or personal reason for making a public statement.
Great, the standard defence that gets us nowhere. PROVE EVERYTHING! Because if there is no PROOF then something cannot be SAID!
How the fuck you are supposed to prove that anyway I have no idea. But fine, hide behind your belief nothing happens unless it is proven. I'm sure it's a much nicer world to believe that.
I don't know how the hell anyone is supposed to come up with stats, but from the examples that are reported it seems pretty clear to me. Just go look up the fate of any woman who has dared to say anything about the games industry.
I really wish we could just drop the sexism part of this right now. Both genders get attacked by these people.
Both do, but it *is* sexist. It is far more widespread and vicious towards women. Ignoring that is not helping.