Oi! Twattish AC! You don't actually have to accuse someone of "lying" if they merely have a different opinion to you! You're being factually incorrect, and you make yourself look aggressive and unreasonable for doing so.
Size is going up because for those people bigger is better, because its more useful when you are doing *smart* things on one. One of the reasons for iPhones plummeting market share worldwide is due to it not having a product in this desirable market.
Yeah, but my pockets are only so big. And I have a Nexus 7 in my bag, the phone in my pocket doesn't need to be anywhere near as smart. One of the big advantages of Android was supposed to be the variety of devices possible that different manufacturers could come up with to suit different needs, and we are getting that in terms of TV dongles, laptops, tablets, etc, but phones all seem to be the same, growing, size. Variety seems to be reducing not increasing.
Perhaps my experience of the US isn't particularly extensive, but when I was there you have already gone significantly down this road to all intents and purpose. I couldn't go into a bar or buy a drink without showing ID (I'm clearly in my 30s). I couldn't buy anything on a credit card without showing ID. Since the US is a largely car driving nation, most people there have to carry ID to go about their daily lives. In the UK I genuinely don't carry ID and can live a normal life (you don't have to carry with you when you drive, and no shop or pub will ID me because it's a waste of time), but in the US I had to have my passport constantly with me to do anything.
If it ever comes to that, I will get a pocket copy of the Constitution and hand them that whenever asked to display papers.
Ahahahahaaa! You're funny. When a firearms & combat trained policeman with daily experience and backup wants to see your papers, he's going to see your papers. When he has his knee on your neck, or has actually shot you, you'll be less smug about your little pocket constitution. Don't be so naive. You need to fight this actively *now*, so they don't ever believe that it's acceptable.
It's not the users that are the problem its the dev teams because if you're writing for Apple you only need to test on few handsets & tablets. However, if you're writing for Android you need to test on fucking hundreds of different hand sets because each manufacturer has fucked with the OS. So either apps don't get written for android or if they do they normally get approx 100th the testing apps get on Apple.
Except if you were actually a developer working in the real life world (I am, on an app with 2 million daily active users) you'll know that that is not at all necessary. There are device-specific bugs, but they're rare, and in the most part we rotate testing on about 6 devices, and use bug reporting libraries to catch the rest. Our crash-rate is a tenth of the iOS team's crash-rate.
For things that don't need to be secure, sure, Wireless is OK.
Wait... we're talking about *charging*. Transmitting power to the phone, not interacting with data.
My home is completely wired, and I don't ever see that changing (I don't own a Smart Phone etc.).
Ah, that atleast is clear. What exactly is the point of a mobile phone that cannot communicate via wireless?
That's MY preference, but I understand completely that most people, seemingly yourself; don't really care about privacy or security.
What the fuck? That's a bit of a leap to get to that judgement! And you understand that even a wired connection is vulnerable? Perhaps the whole NSA revelations passed you by... Maybe you should disconnect completely, if you don't you 'obviously' don't care about privacy or security.
You'd think so, wouldn't you? Technically, you're right - you need a license if you watch or record programmes as they are being shown (no matter what device is used). However in practise, it's assumed that everyone watches TV and thus you'll have to prove that you don't.
They use very suspect, threatening and antisocial methods, but they *do not have the right to come round and demand to inspect your house*. They can get a warrant if they have cause to suspect, but just not having a licence isn't enough.
We're already paying for our ability to comment on Slashdot. Granted it's not in dollars, but in the collective effort and time spent down-voting bad comments and up-voting good ones.
...in a country that doesn't require you to be legally responsible for their content. Want to be?
The very central premise of capitalism is that in most cases *you can't start a business*.
There's plenty of room on the market for new companies. Just because you're too risk-averse to step out of your "work x hours per day, get paid" comfort zone, doesn't mean you couldn't start a successful business if you actually tried.
It's not just about time! It's about risk, capital, and probably most importantly: *skillsets*. From my own experience, I'm a pretty good programmer, but a godawful businessman. Secondly, society is best served by me doing what I'm actually good at, rather than trying to do other things. It's not hard to imagine (well it seems to be for some people) that not everyone is going to have the particular personality that works running their own business.
Oh for god's sake, do you want to actually read the whole paragraph rather than take the most literal stupid meaning that you can possible parse?
Technically of course you have the freedom to, and if you're in the right place with the right new idea you could do quite well, but
It's not a realistic possibility for a large number of people, but clearly some can. Doesn't mean we should atleast spend a little time considering that the system cannot function without a large number of *employees*, and that they should have some protection/consideration.
You can start a company, pay people whatever you think is fair. That is your right.
For someone with the username containing 'gandhi' you show a surprising lack of concern for civil rights.
The very central premise of capitalism is that in most cases *you can't start a business*. Technically of course you have the freedom to, and if you're in the right place with the right new idea you could do quite well, but capitalism thrives off economies of scale, and economies of scale mean that your little business is at a huge disadvantage to the incumbents. At some point we need a cut-off to prevent people from being abused.
I like the periods... but I'm not sure of the need to require keeping a copy? Is this solving an actual problem? ie are creators deliberately destroying their work to prevent it falling into PD? That sounds bizarre and insane... and anyway, it only works if you have the only copy, any distributed copy is also out of copyright so that can be distributed by whoever has it. Is this actually going to help anything?
BBC destroyed the only copies of most of those episodes decades ago. The only existing copies are some that were sent overseas and temporarily lost, so they were not recovered and destroyed. Others only exist in the form of home-made speaker-to-microphone reel-to-reel audio tapes.
I think you're being funny, but for the benefit of those who have modded you 'informative'... it's absurd that this was an intentional avoidance of copyright. The BBC have been putting an inordinate amount of effort into recovering the lost material.
I don't see why they would want the SSL key, when presumably they have easy access to the data on the servers under the laughable "due process" already in place. Why would they want to intercept the traffic when they could just read it off the server?
Because presumably the whole point of Lavabit is that the stored email was encrypted based on a key that only the user had, so in-transit is the only place they could see it.
There have already been 17 major changes to Obamacare. Mainly exemptions for Obama's political allies and the 1 year delay of the employer mandate. If Obama and the Dems can make all those changes then what is wrong with the Repubs trying to get other delays and changes made?
Yeah, why not have any delay and change made, because it's been changed before, right?
You had the debate, and you can have ones again, but using the financial standing of the country is a dickish and unprecedented way to do it. If this is so normal then why has it only happened once before? By this measure, any law will can be completely repealed bit-by-bit by Congress because they get to make these 'compromise' demands once per year.
Of course, absolutely laws can be amended, but this way? A blackmail threatening to take down the economy, international standing (eg inability to service current debts)? You genuinely think this is a way to reasonably run a country?
Slashdot Mirror
'Factually incorrect' comment was only referring to AC's accusation of lying.
Oi! Twattish AC! You don't actually have to accuse someone of "lying" if they merely have a different opinion to you! You're being factually incorrect, and you make yourself look aggressive and unreasonable for doing so.
Size is going up because for those people bigger is better, because its more useful when you are doing *smart* things on one. One of the reasons for iPhones plummeting market share worldwide is due to it not having a product in this desirable market.
Yeah, but my pockets are only so big. And I have a Nexus 7 in my bag, the phone in my pocket doesn't need to be anywhere near as smart.
One of the big advantages of Android was supposed to be the variety of devices possible that different manufacturers could come up with to suit different needs, and we are getting that in terms of TV dongles, laptops, tablets, etc, but phones all seem to be the same, growing, size. Variety seems to be reducing not increasing.
Oh I'm not saying that we don't have problems here too...
Perhaps my experience of the US isn't particularly extensive, but when I was there you have already gone significantly down this road to all intents and purpose. I couldn't go into a bar or buy a drink without showing ID (I'm clearly in my 30s). I couldn't buy anything on a credit card without showing ID. Since the US is a largely car driving nation, most people there have to carry ID to go about their daily lives. In the UK I genuinely don't carry ID and can live a normal life (you don't have to carry with you when you drive, and no shop or pub will ID me because it's a waste of time), but in the US I had to have my passport constantly with me to do anything.
If it ever comes to that, I will get a pocket copy of the Constitution and hand them that whenever asked to display papers.
Ahahahahaaa! You're funny. When a firearms & combat trained policeman with daily experience and backup wants to see your papers, he's going to see your papers. When he has his knee on your neck, or has actually shot you, you'll be less smug about your little pocket constitution. Don't be so naive. You need to fight this actively *now*, so they don't ever believe that it's acceptable.
then your iOS team sucks
That is *also* true.
Actually fuckwad, Android revenue passed iOS about 6 months ago.
It's not the users that are the problem its the dev teams because if you're writing for Apple you only need to test on few handsets & tablets. However, if you're writing for Android you need to test on fucking hundreds of different hand sets because each manufacturer has fucked with the OS. So either apps don't get written for android or if they do they normally get approx 100th the testing apps get on Apple.
Except if you were actually a developer working in the real life world (I am, on an app with 2 million daily active users) you'll know that that is not at all necessary. There are device-specific bugs, but they're rare, and in the most part we rotate testing on about 6 devices, and use bug reporting libraries to catch the rest. Our crash-rate is a tenth of the iOS team's crash-rate.
For things that don't need to be secure, sure, Wireless is OK.
Wait... we're talking about *charging*. Transmitting power to the phone, not interacting with data.
My home is completely wired, and I don't ever see that changing (I don't own a Smart Phone etc.).
Ah, that atleast is clear. What exactly is the point of a mobile phone that cannot communicate via wireless?
That's MY preference, but I understand completely that most people, seemingly yourself; don't really care about privacy or security.
What the fuck? That's a bit of a leap to get to that judgement! And you understand that even a wired connection is vulnerable? Perhaps the whole NSA revelations passed you by... Maybe you should disconnect completely, if you don't you 'obviously' don't care about privacy or security.
You'd think so, wouldn't you? Technically, you're right - you need a license if you watch or record programmes as they are being shown (no matter what device is used). However in practise, it's assumed that everyone watches TV and thus you'll have to prove that you don't.
They use very suspect, threatening and antisocial methods, but they *do not have the right to come round and demand to inspect your house*. They can get a warrant if they have cause to suspect, but just not having a licence isn't enough.
http://www.televisionlicence.info/tvl/warrant
Basically in reality, if they hear or see a live TV, or you say something stupid to them.
We're already paying for our ability to comment on Slashdot. Granted it's not in dollars, but in the collective effort and time spent down-voting bad comments and up-voting good ones.
...in a country that doesn't require you to be legally responsible for their content. Want to be?
Wow, idiocy is spreading to other courts around the world.
Why? Moderation of comments isn't difficult.
Until you have 10 comments a minute. Or 100. Or 1000? Do you want to also pay for your ability to comment?
The very central premise of capitalism is that in most cases *you can't start a business*.
There's plenty of room on the market for new companies. Just because you're too risk-averse to step out of your "work x hours per day, get paid" comfort zone, doesn't mean you couldn't start a successful business if you actually tried.
It's not just about time! It's about risk, capital, and probably most importantly: *skillsets*. From my own experience, I'm a pretty good programmer, but a godawful businessman. Secondly, society is best served by me doing what I'm actually good at, rather than trying to do other things. It's not hard to imagine (well it seems to be for some people) that not everyone is going to have the particular personality that works running their own business.
Oh for god's sake, do you want to actually read the whole paragraph rather than take the most literal stupid meaning that you can possible parse?
Technically of course you have the freedom to, and if you're in the right place with the right new idea you could do quite well, but
It's not a realistic possibility for a large number of people, but clearly some can. Doesn't mean we should atleast spend a little time considering that the system cannot function without a large number of *employees*, and that they should have some protection/consideration.
You can start a company, pay people whatever you think is fair. That is your right.
For someone with the username containing 'gandhi' you show a surprising lack of concern for civil rights.
The very central premise of capitalism is that in most cases *you can't start a business*. Technically of course you have the freedom to, and if you're in the right place with the right new idea you could do quite well, but capitalism thrives off economies of scale, and economies of scale mean that your little business is at a huge disadvantage to the incumbents. At some point we need a cut-off to prevent people from being abused.
I like the periods... but I'm not sure of the need to require keeping a copy? Is this solving an actual problem? ie are creators deliberately destroying their work to prevent it falling into PD? That sounds bizarre and insane... and anyway, it only works if you have the only copy, any distributed copy is also out of copyright so that can be distributed by whoever has it. Is this actually going to help anything?
Namely, destruction of all extant copies.
BBC destroyed the only copies of most of those episodes decades ago. The only existing copies are some that were sent overseas and temporarily lost, so they were not recovered and destroyed. Others only exist in the form of home-made speaker-to-microphone reel-to-reel audio tapes.
I think you're being funny, but for the benefit of those who have modded you 'informative'... it's absurd that this was an intentional avoidance of copyright. The BBC have been putting an inordinate amount of effort into recovering the lost material.
What the fuck are you talking about? There is no requirement for someone to keep a copy of material they create. What sort of reality do you live in?
I don't see why they would want the SSL key, when presumably they have easy access to the data on the servers under the laughable "due process" already in place. Why would they want to intercept the traffic when they could just read it off the server?
Because presumably the whole point of Lavabit is that the stored email was encrypted based on a key that only the user had, so in-transit is the only place they could see it.
Yup. Absolutely. Because the US not paying it's debts for the first time in history is going to have no ill effect at all.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2013/09/30/shutdown-and-debt-ceiling-debate-prove-u-s-doesnt-deserve-aaa-credit-rating-sp/
I'll refrain from trying to teach you what 'communist' actually means, because it's not like you're interested.
"You ignore your own system,"
No, you just don't understand our system.
Fair enough.
You have a stupid system.
There have already been 17 major changes to Obamacare. Mainly exemptions for Obama's political allies and the 1 year delay of the employer mandate. If Obama and the Dems can make all those changes then what is wrong with the Repubs trying to get other delays and changes made?
Yeah, why not have any delay and change made, because it's been changed before, right?
You had the debate, and you can have ones again, but using the financial standing of the country is a dickish and unprecedented way to do it. If this is so normal then why has it only happened once before? By this measure, any law will can be completely repealed bit-by-bit by Congress because they get to make these 'compromise' demands once per year.
Of course, absolutely laws can be amended, but this way? A blackmail threatening to take down the economy, international standing (eg inability to service current debts)? You genuinely think this is a way to reasonably run a country?