is that a comment on driving skills or prejudice of testers?
I don't know. It still seems to hold in cities which are predominantly black/Asian, eg. "Birmingham (Garretts Green)" where only 10% of candidates are labelled "White".
Worth mentioning that most ethnic minorities live in cities and are likely to take their test in cities, which is a much harder place to take a test than a rural / suburban situation that a good number of whites would test in.
Of course you can know. This guy knew. He was deliberately trying to find stuff that he knew wasn't supposed to be public. If you didn't know then that would be a defence, but I can't see that being the case here.
The law isn't technical absolute booleans, intent matters, and what the person is trying to do is part of it. What a reasonable person expects and would I don't see the photography thing as a crazy law, should you be allowed to pry into my house just because technically you can and there's no cast-iron technical way to say not to?
Step in your house, no. LOOK in your house from the curb, sure. If the doors are open it's a public place.
At the risk of propagating this analogy-hell, I'm pretty sure that if your door is open, your property is still not a public place.
In the UK for example, if you point a camera at a building with a normal lens, that is fine. If you point a camera at a window with a high-zoom, that is not. Intent matters!
What should've happened instead was that the Bell system should've been broken up at the physical plant level. ILECs should've been left owning nothing more than the physical plant, selling access to it, at tariffed rates, to any CLEC that wants to provide voice or data service over the last mile.
Interestingly this is roughly what happened in the UK with voice and data telecoms. BT (as the previously nationalised monopoly) is left with all the infrastructure, and the services on top, but they have to run them as separate businesses. Other companies have the right to piggy back on the last mile, and install their network hardware in BT exchanges. It worked very well for the ADSL-era, though an argument can be made that BT have wrested a bit too much influence again now that we're moving to fibre. Heavily regulated private business *can* work...
Alright there Mister Patronising... Not really Android is it though? When Android for vast majority of devices effectively means stock+tweaks+Google Play, solutions that are only for manufacturers to implement is a bit useless for the rest of us, isn't it?
We need to recognize that premium android might as well be a different OS than white label android. The apps will be different, the languages will be different, the monetization will be different, the fragmentation will be different.
What are you talking about? I have a white-box Chinese Android tablet. It came with Android 4.2, gmail, Play store, google maps, etc. All of the no-name (Aldi Branded / Walmart / etc) tablets I've seen are the same.
An easy way to tell when someone doesn't know what they fuck they're talking about is if they mention the word "fragmentation". As an Android developer I can say that I barely worry about different devices with different capabilities. For the large majority of apps it doesn't matter. Nearly all my bugs are because I've done something wrong, not because a particular device is doing something wrong.
The really decisive fighter of WWII was the American P51 Mustang
Well that all depends on your timeframe. Later on, perhaps, but at the Battle of Britain, the UK stood alone and was in immediate danger of being invaded. If that had happened it would likely have fallen as the UK didn't have the war industry at that time to defend on land. The technical superiority of the Spitfire (& to some extent Hurricane, not as good a plane but in far greater numbers) at that point in time saved the UK from invasion since air superiority couldn't be achieved.
I think "preventing invasion" could be described as fairly decisive...
I suppose 98% of the rest 2% can be done today in HTML5.:)
Yup, just as long as you are willing to give up any sense of decent UI, performance, etc. Mobile devices are shockingly bad at rendering HTML at a good rate, and I'm yet to see a HTML5 page that properly scales to different screen sizes, has good information density, or works properlly offline.
That's not to say these things aren't possible, but I have to assume that they are very hard because nobody seems to be doing them.
*Fuck*. Why, after apparently 20 years, are we still having to explain this! So-called professional, intelligent people can't seem to grasp the fact that *bundling* is not problem. Bundling AND being in a monopoly position to enforce that bundle *is*. It's a logical AND. We're not talking mental gymnastics here, and you've had 20 years to understand, I would have thought a MS employee would especially be wanting to understand this. Jesus.
And don't think Google are somehow immune from this, Chrome on ChromeOS is fine since it's not in any way in a dominant position on operating systems, but using search monopoly to push their own products does have them currently in trouble with the EU.
You always own the code you write. What you don't own is the code that other people wrote which you're piggybacking on, free of charge.
If you don't like their terms of use and redistribution, you can easily solve the problem by writing your own implementation of their functionality.
Well indeed, which is presumably why Google chose not to go with one. They were more interested in generating developer and manufacturer support (where "oo, free stuff!" is attractive) than maintaining absolute openness all the way down the chain.
Personally, I like copyleft, but sometimes getting people to piggyback is more important to your goals.
People complain when there's fragmentation, people complain when there's an effort to prevent it.
The platform is still open, but Google's services and ownership of the Play store is not. You can make an Android phone, fork it and do whatever you want, but if you want to run it on the Play store and Google Maps, whatever, you have to agree to the rules. Those rules, by the way, do a hell of alot to standardise and make the platform stable for developers.
Some people won't be happy until everything is completely gratis and uncontrolled, and we'll end up with the same mess we had with Symbian.
Yeah. The real problem with signature verification is you are relying on minimum wage checkout assistants to compare and *challenge* the customer. I used to do that job, how can it be worth me calling someone a liar for the hassle and abuse I'd get?
Fingerprint is a terrible security mechanism. Not only does it give someone a reason to steal you *finger*, you also leave your fingerprint on everything you touch. Credentials shouldn't be revealed unless you are actually in the process of using them.
I wonder how much of that is related to the lower birthrate today; rather than having (say) 7 kids people might have only one or two, so if one gets killed doing something dangerous that's a much bigger risk to a parent's "investment" than if you had several other kids.
I'm relatively sure that parents with lots of children don't think of them as a bunch of spares...
Maybe Google shouldn't have provided an API to do that in the first place.
Yeah, they didn't. This is just some user-interface weirdery that makes it look like you're rating in the app, and you only get forwarded to Google Play to do the real rating (again) if you chose 5*.
Never rate an app from within the app itself. We all know it's super convienent, but at the same time it's subject to this kind of trickery.
Never mind that it doesn't actually *do* anything. You can only rate apps from Google Play itself, the star rating in EA is a *separate* star rating system, that happens to forward you to Google Play (to rate again) if you clicked 5 stars.
It's sneaky and shit, but not actually a security issue in Play ratings.
Slashdot Mirror
is that a comment on driving skills or prejudice of testers?
I don't know. It still seems to hold in cities which are predominantly black/Asian, eg. "Birmingham (Garretts Green)" where only 10% of candidates are labelled "White".
Worth mentioning that most ethnic minorities live in cities and are likely to take their test in cities, which is a much harder place to take a test than a rural / suburban situation that a good number of whites would test in.
Of course you can know. This guy knew. He was deliberately trying to find stuff that he knew wasn't supposed to be public. If you didn't know then that would be a defence, but I can't see that being the case here.
The law isn't technical absolute booleans, intent matters, and what the person is trying to do is part of it. What a reasonable person expects and would I don't see the photography thing as a crazy law, should you be allowed to pry into my house just because technically you can and there's no cast-iron technical way to say not to?
Step in your house, no. LOOK in your house from the curb, sure. If the doors are open it's a public place.
At the risk of propagating this analogy-hell, I'm pretty sure that if your door is open, your property is still not a public place.
In the UK for example, if you point a camera at a building with a normal lens, that is fine. If you point a camera at a window with a high-zoom, that is not. Intent matters!
What should've happened instead was that the Bell system should've been broken up at the physical plant level. ILECs should've been left owning nothing more than the physical plant, selling access to it, at tariffed rates, to any CLEC that wants to provide voice or data service over the last mile.
Interestingly this is roughly what happened in the UK with voice and data telecoms. BT (as the previously nationalised monopoly) is left with all the infrastructure, and the services on top, but they have to run them as separate businesses. Other companies have the right to piggy back on the last mile, and install their network hardware in BT exchanges. It worked very well for the ADSL-era, though an argument can be made that BT have wrested a bit too much influence again now that we're moving to fibre. Heavily regulated private business *can* work...
Let me know when Android can even put two windows on the screen.
2012 called and wants its ignorance back.
http://liliputing.com/2013/09/...
Alright there Mister Patronising... Not really Android is it though? When Android for vast majority of devices effectively means stock+tweaks+Google Play, solutions that are only for manufacturers to implement is a bit useless for the rest of us, isn't it?
We need to recognize that premium android might as well be a different OS than white label android. The apps will be different, the languages will be different, the monetization will be different, the fragmentation will be different.
What are you talking about? I have a white-box Chinese Android tablet. It came with Android 4.2, gmail, Play store, google maps, etc. All of the no-name (Aldi Branded / Walmart / etc) tablets I've seen are the same.
An easy way to tell when someone doesn't know what they fuck they're talking about is if they mention the word "fragmentation". As an Android developer I can say that I barely worry about different devices with different capabilities. For the large majority of apps it doesn't matter. Nearly all my bugs are because I've done something wrong, not because a particular device is doing something wrong.
The really decisive fighter of WWII was the American P51 Mustang
Well that all depends on your timeframe. Later on, perhaps, but at the Battle of Britain, the UK stood alone and was in immediate danger of being invaded. If that had happened it would likely have fallen as the UK didn't have the war industry at that time to defend on land. The technical superiority of the Spitfire (& to some extent Hurricane, not as good a plane but in far greater numbers) at that point in time saved the UK from invasion since air superiority couldn't be achieved.
I think "preventing invasion" could be described as fairly decisive...
I suppose 98% of the rest 2% can be done today in HTML5. :)
Yup, just as long as you are willing to give up any sense of decent UI, performance, etc. Mobile devices are shockingly bad at rendering HTML at a good rate, and I'm yet to see a HTML5 page that properly scales to different screen sizes, has good information density, or works properlly offline.
That's not to say these things aren't possible, but I have to assume that they are very hard because nobody seems to be doing them.
*Fuck*. Why, after apparently 20 years, are we still having to explain this! So-called professional, intelligent people can't seem to grasp the fact that *bundling* is not problem. Bundling AND being in a monopoly position to enforce that bundle *is*. It's a logical AND. We're not talking mental gymnastics here, and you've had 20 years to understand, I would have thought a MS employee would especially be wanting to understand this. Jesus.
And don't think Google are somehow immune from this, Chrome on ChromeOS is fine since it's not in any way in a dominant position on operating systems, but using search monopoly to push their own products does have them currently in trouble with the EU.
You always own the code you write. What you don't own is the code that other people wrote which you're piggybacking on, free of charge.
If you don't like their terms of use and redistribution, you can easily solve the problem by writing your own implementation of their functionality.
Well indeed, which is presumably why Google chose not to go with one. They were more interested in generating developer and manufacturer support (where "oo, free stuff!" is attractive) than maintaining absolute openness all the way down the chain.
Personally, I like copyleft, but sometimes getting people to piggyback is more important to your goals.
before either arresting you for some crime related to not answering or refuse your entry.
*Searching for sarcasm... appears clean*.
So... In what way is that "working"? Ending up in prison or on a plane back home?
Well, for a start if you're not a British Citizen then you might not have a right to enter.
I work a 40 hour week and no more. I do just fine and don't spend more than 30% of any given paycheck.
Congratulations! You have just made an entirely pointless post that says nothing, and proves nothing!
I just wish you could uninstall Google apps...even Microsoft allows you to skinny up its default OS installs nowadays.
You can disable them, they don't get removed from the phone but they also don't run.
People complain when there's fragmentation, people complain when there's an effort to prevent it.
The platform is still open, but Google's services and ownership of the Play store is not. You can make an Android phone, fork it and do whatever you want, but if you want to run it on the Play store and Google Maps, whatever, you have to agree to the rules. Those rules, by the way, do a hell of alot to standardise and make the platform stable for developers.
Some people won't be happy until everything is completely gratis and uncontrolled, and we'll end up with the same mess we had with Symbian.
I have to admit, this sort of ignorant racist/nationalist bullshit is usually posted AC, but you put your name on it. Kudos.
Yeah. The real problem with signature verification is you are relying on minimum wage checkout assistants to compare and *challenge* the customer. I used to do that job, how can it be worth me calling someone a liar for the hassle and abuse I'd get?
Not to mention that schemes like Verified By Visa mean you often now have to enter a password into a bank-served iframe that verifies you.
Fingerprint is a terrible security mechanism. Not only does it give someone a reason to steal you *finger*, you also leave your fingerprint on everything you touch. Credentials shouldn't be revealed unless you are actually in the process of using them.
Damn...I've been avoiding cards with chips in them all these years.
I don't want a smart card.
You should also avoid cards with magnetic strips on them. Damn dirty electromagnetic field technology!
And what good does this do you when you buy online?
Nothing. Of course, any improvement in security that doesn't improve security in every possible case should be discounted completely!
I wonder how much of that is related to the lower birthrate today; rather than having (say) 7 kids people might have only one or two, so if one gets killed doing something dangerous that's a much bigger risk to a parent's "investment" than if you had several other kids.
I'm relatively sure that parents with lots of children don't think of them as a bunch of spares...
I always include a $20.00 and a note when I send a laptop in for repair. In the note I explain exactly what I'd like done. Always works with Lenovo.
You shouldn't have to bribe the employee to get a contractually-obliged fix done.
Maybe Google shouldn't have provided an API to do that in the first place.
Yeah, they didn't. This is just some user-interface weirdery that makes it look like you're rating in the app, and you only get forwarded to Google Play to do the real rating (again) if you chose 5*.
Never rate an app from within the app itself. We all know it's super convienent, but at the same time it's subject to this kind of trickery.
Never mind that it doesn't actually *do* anything. You can only rate apps from Google Play itself, the star rating in EA is a *separate* star rating system, that happens to forward you to Google Play (to rate again) if you clicked 5 stars.
It's sneaky and shit, but not actually a security issue in Play ratings.
That's because in the US people are citizens, in the UK they are subjects.
Not what it says on my passport...