If they are consumers, there is literally no reason to create a Pro version of the device.
I agree. There is no reason for a Pro version of the device, but not for the reasons you outlined.
Do the people who use a Chromebook create anything or are they simply consuming web content?
Chromebooks are not great for consuming content. Android tablets are better for that. The very fact that Chromebooks have keyboards means that you can do some light office work and light content creation with them. That being said, they're very limited, and their limitations can be considered their core strengths.
The old chromebooks for instance have extremely good battery life. You can give your kids a Chromebook with their own accounts, a couple of offline apps, and disabled internet connection, and the only thing they can do with it is actual work. Your kids can physically destroy the Chromebook and it's not the end of the world. They're cheap. Chromebooks are secure and free of junk. Chromebooks start instantly and you almost never plug them in (the older ones anyway). Chromebook don't have games on it (although Google is working to destroy that feature by making Chromebooks capable of running Android). Chromebooks don't have touchscreens (although, many manufacturers are working to destroy that feature too, which will sacrifice the battery life for little benefit).
In other words, the Chromebook is currently the perfect device for kids, grandpa/grandma, house guests (on anonymous mode), and as a secondary laptop you can take on vacation (that you can afford to lose/get stolen on that trip, or get confiscated by customs). It's not meant to be Pro device at all, unless you're a non-technical employee who only needs to do light office work, or a blogger who only needs to do light creative work. And it should really remain that way.
May be a taxi would have been available, but it really depends on the time he called.
In those cities that have an artificially limited number of medaillons, drunk people can not get taxis during peak hours. The peak hours for drunk people are actually the result of other regulations that force bars and night clubs to shut down at the same times, thus flooding the streets with people needing rides all during those same times.
Uber and Lyft left Austin because the VOTERS decided in a referendum to demand that they do ground checks based on fingerprints. Uber and Lyft said that what they had was good enough. Lyft and Uber lost badly and they so they left. So, to be clear for you my astroturfing friend, most people VOTED AGAINST LYFT and UBER.
I think it's fair to say that most people (over 50%) have never taken Uber or Lyft and were just going by the horror stories they heard on the news. Also, those people voted for more regulations, from a consumer's point of view, more regulations on others can't be that bad. Nobody likes to be regulated, but everyone is willing to regulate others.
That being said, the suggested regulation went above and beyond requiring fingerprinting the ten fingers and doing an FBI background check (which is what the UberBlack drivers are already doing as a requirement for UberBlack, and not UberX). The new regulation extends to having special lanes for taxis and buses where ridesharing cars are specifically excluded. Personally, I understand why Uber and Lyft pulled out. The fingerprinting for all its drivers is one annoyance, but having lanes designated for taxis only in a city where the taxi lobby is strong, would have been a slow way to boil the frog (or in this case, a slow way to boil Uber and Lyft).
So yeah, it seems like idiots all around this issue. None of them understood email or security or anything more than click-here-to-make-blackberry-work.
That's what happens when any technical objection can be construed as an act of open rebellion and disloyalty.
The only remaining people who stay at your side with any power are spineless Yes-Men and Yes-Women.
If you start out talking about "100k in Gross Fares" then reveal that number was wrong,
One problem is that this 100k figure was quoted in 2013 (and I assume it only covered year 2012 for a Uber driver, to make the company look as good as possible).
We're now in 2016, and the article compares the 2013 (2012 year) to a calculation done for the 2015 year. The problem is that Uber has lowered its base rate since that quote in 2013, flooded the market with new drivers since then, added UberPool in some regions with an even lower base rate (and increased risks for drivers who don't get the per person safety fee that Uber collects despite the fact that drivers make that many more stops when pooling), and in addition to that, Uber has increased the commission percentage it took from drivers. In other words, Uber drivers that used to drive around that 2012 period used to make a lot more and are super upset at the company (and for good reasons).
That being said, I have no reason to believe that Uber lied to the Wall Street Journal in 2013, and to imply that Uber did, is just lazy click-bait journalism. And I really do mean lazy. It's not like there is a shortage of Uber drivers that you can interview (all Uber drivers know this stuff, even the new ones). And that so-called Buzzfeed reporter could have just called an Uber driver to get a reaction on that story, or just plainly have done a google search on ridesharing bulletin boards, where all of this is talked about in thousands of bulletin threads. But that writer did no such thing, neither did her Buzzfeed News Data Editor listed next to her byline, which brings me to another point.
Buzzfeed staff are probably paid very little to nothing at all (one would surmise). If paid something, they're probably paid on the amount of controversy and clicks they can generate, not on the amount of time the spent researching the topic. There is obviously little to no quality control done on each article and no double-checking of any kind. And Buzzfeed readers are actually dumber for having read Buzzfeed than not having read it.
Please do not re-use the term botnet for this. That term was obviously used to overstate the importance of this story. This is the current definition of a botnet.
a network of private computers infected with malicious software and controlled as a group without the owners' knowledge, e.g., to send spam messages.
This isn't a botnet. This is botspam. And for all we know in 2014, Twitter wasn't even checking that new accounts were created through different ip addresses, for the simple reason that companies like Twitter often tout the number of accounts created on their platform as their own measure of success.
The illegality of non-competes certainly hasn't caused the tech industry here to collapse in on itself.
In fact, it could be argued that the opposite was true.
Everyone wants to replicate the success of Silicon Valley, but you can't really have a vibrant tech community if employees of large companies are not able to launch their own small startups, nor can you really have a vibrant tech community if all the work that employees do on their own time and with their own equipment belongs to their current employers (even if that work has nothing to do with the market or the products that their current employers are into). Having one-sided clauses like that makes the burden of starting a new tech business impossibly high.
It sounds like a hoax, designed to maximize outrage.
This is not to say that there aren't companies intending to violate our privacy in that way, it is just that most companies wouldn't be so blatant and upfront about breaking the law.
Would I love to have a speedy android phone with a narrow-format blackberry-style physical keyboard? Yep.
Those already exist. My Motorola XPRT is like that. It's also a world phone with two sim card slots.
And there are several others. That market niche is already filled if you ask me.
The problem with BlackBerry is that they're not really Android phones. Sure, they can run Android, but all the security features they have that prevent sharing outside of BBM, that prevent you from installing custom keyboards (assuming it's not your company phone), and the lack of official Google applications and APIs makes it more like a crippled Android phone.
"...let's say you remove all files the files I own from your server, allow me access that I may be satisfied to the fact it is destroyed and no spare copies exist...
So you're demanding root access to all his servers, email accounts, cloud accounts, passwords, phones, tablets, external drives, usb flash drives, SD Cards, burned DVDs, tape backups, any accounts of his friends and family, his garage, his home, his gym locker, any and all his body cavities, etc.
And even then, do you realize that even if he gave you all of these things, that it will never guarantee that the data "was destroyed and no spare copies exist". No, no. If your data has been compromised. It has been compromised. Once the cat is out of the bag, you should simply assume that every bad guy has it by now, or will have it at some time in the future. And you're better off just biting the bullet now and letting your management, any other stakeholder, and your customers know about the breach as soon as possible. Because even if you did pay them money to keep this information secret, there is simply no guarantee this blackmailer won't turn around and sell your secrets to other groups of people, or won't turn around and ask for more payments down the road.
Also, why are we even listening to what a war criminal has to say?
Forget Snowden for now. Eric Holder is currently in the US. Snowden is not.
Before Eric Holder flees to South America, we need to arrest him and make him accountable for his tacit approval of war crimes. Waterboarding was unacceptable during World War II. We executed Japanese soldiers over it. Waterboarding is still unacceptable today.
I don't think we should execute Eric Holder, but I do think he should rot in jail for a while until we dismantle the entire conspiracy of high level politicians that have been complicit in protecting the practice of waterboarding and torture.
Waze (also owned by Google) has transparent popups, but they only popup when you're stopped and disappear as soon as you move. I never had a problem with them.
It's way easier to broadcast emergency instructions over FM to three million people in a metro area, than to support three million active streams over a data network, especially in an emergency.
Or you could just use sms to text them (or use a combination of text and text-to-speech).
After all, even if their chip supports FM, the physical phones themselves haven't been built with the required FM antenna, so they must rely on wired headphones/earbuds (which most people don't have, or have stashed somewhere they have no idea where - comes the time of a disaster).
It would also be helpful and possibly more equitable to out the people who frequent the sex workers.
Don't worry. The 70% figure is a complete fabrication. The figure is more like 1 billion %. This is a click-bait slash-advertisement disguised as a news item.
It's far easier to identify the Johns themselves thanks to commercial license plate scanner databases. Those are actually reliable (assuming a car is used during the interaction). And even then, they'd need to have pretty good video evidence to demonstrate that they were not just asking for directions, or that the girls didn't go up to their car unsolicited.
Can anyone explain to me how analyzing Facebook algorithms that drive ad tactics is part of their overall charter to serve and protect?
I am not sure, but this would explain why when you're crossing from France into Belgium on the highway/freeway, all the ad billboards suddenly stop when you get into Belgium. This is not that I really like advertising billboards, I usually complain about them, but this made it difficult to find a cheap hotel.
Also, it didn't help that my cheap French sim card stopped working when I crossed into Belgium.
Slashdot Mirror
If they are consumers, there is literally no reason to create a Pro version of the device.
I agree. There is no reason for a Pro version of the device, but not for the reasons you outlined.
Do the people who use a Chromebook create anything or are they simply consuming web content?
Chromebooks are not great for consuming content. Android tablets are better for that. The very fact that Chromebooks have keyboards means that you can do some light office work and light content creation with them. That being said, they're very limited, and their limitations can be considered their core strengths.
The old chromebooks for instance have extremely good battery life. You can give your kids a Chromebook with their own accounts, a couple of offline apps, and disabled internet connection, and the only thing they can do with it is actual work. Your kids can physically destroy the Chromebook and it's not the end of the world. They're cheap. Chromebooks are secure and free of junk. Chromebooks start instantly and you almost never plug them in (the older ones anyway). Chromebook don't have games on it (although Google is working to destroy that feature by making Chromebooks capable of running Android). Chromebooks don't have touchscreens (although, many manufacturers are working to destroy that feature too, which will sacrifice the battery life for little benefit).
In other words, the Chromebook is currently the perfect device for kids, grandpa/grandma, house guests (on anonymous mode), and as a secondary laptop you can take on vacation (that you can afford to lose/get stolen on that trip, or get confiscated by customs). It's not meant to be Pro device at all, unless you're a non-technical employee who only needs to do light office work, or a blogger who only needs to do light creative work. And it should really remain that way.
May be a taxi would have been available, but it really depends on the time he called.
In those cities that have an artificially limited number of medaillons, drunk people can not get taxis during peak hours. The peak hours for drunk people are actually the result of other regulations that force bars and night clubs to shut down at the same times, thus flooding the streets with people needing rides all during those same times.
Uber and Lyft left Austin because the VOTERS decided in a referendum to demand that they do ground checks based on fingerprints. Uber and Lyft said that what they had was good enough. Lyft and Uber lost badly and they so they left. So, to be clear for you my astroturfing friend, most people VOTED AGAINST LYFT and UBER.
I think it's fair to say that most people (over 50%) have never taken Uber or Lyft and were just going by the horror stories they heard on the news. Also, those people voted for more regulations, from a consumer's point of view, more regulations on others can't be that bad. Nobody likes to be regulated, but everyone is willing to regulate others.
That being said, the suggested regulation went above and beyond requiring fingerprinting the ten fingers and doing an FBI background check (which is what the UberBlack drivers are already doing as a requirement for UberBlack, and not UberX). The new regulation extends to having special lanes for taxis and buses where ridesharing cars are specifically excluded. Personally, I understand why Uber and Lyft pulled out. The fingerprinting for all its drivers is one annoyance, but having lanes designated for taxis only in a city where the taxi lobby is strong, would have been a slow way to boil the frog (or in this case, a slow way to boil Uber and Lyft).
So yeah, it seems like idiots all around this issue. None of them understood email or security or anything more than click-here-to-make-blackberry-work.
That's what happens when any technical objection can be construed as an act of open rebellion and disloyalty.
The only remaining people who stay at your side with any power are spineless Yes-Men and Yes-Women.
Why not? What would be in it for uber NOT to lie; it's not like WSJ would fact-check them on it.
I am only speaking from my personal experience of being a newer Uber driver myself who has talked to other older Uber drivers.
I am not asking that you believe me. For all you know, I could be full of it. I am not full of it, but of course I can not prove that.
If you start out talking about "100k in Gross Fares" then reveal that number was wrong,
One problem is that this 100k figure was quoted in 2013 (and I assume it only covered year 2012 for a Uber driver, to make the company look as good as possible).
We're now in 2016, and the article compares the 2013 (2012 year) to a calculation done for the 2015 year. The problem is that Uber has lowered its base rate since that quote in 2013, flooded the market with new drivers since then, added UberPool in some regions with an even lower base rate (and increased risks for drivers who don't get the per person safety fee that Uber collects despite the fact that drivers make that many more stops when pooling), and in addition to that, Uber has increased the commission percentage it took from drivers. In other words, Uber drivers that used to drive around that 2012 period used to make a lot more and are super upset at the company (and for good reasons).
That being said, I have no reason to believe that Uber lied to the Wall Street Journal in 2013, and to imply that Uber did, is just lazy click-bait journalism. And I really do mean lazy. It's not like there is a shortage of Uber drivers that you can interview (all Uber drivers know this stuff, even the new ones). And that so-called Buzzfeed reporter could have just called an Uber driver to get a reaction on that story, or just plainly have done a google search on ridesharing bulletin boards, where all of this is talked about in thousands of bulletin threads. But that writer did no such thing, neither did her Buzzfeed News Data Editor listed next to her byline, which brings me to another point.
Buzzfeed staff are probably paid very little to nothing at all (one would surmise). If paid something, they're probably paid on the amount of controversy and clicks they can generate, not on the amount of time the spent researching the topic. There is obviously little to no quality control done on each article and no double-checking of any kind. And Buzzfeed readers are actually dumber for having read Buzzfeed than not having read it.
That and the fact that if you hold your credit card-like iPhone just the right way, it would just vibrate and use your skull as a speaker.
Please do not re-use the term botnet for this. That term was obviously used to overstate the importance of this story. This is the current definition of a botnet.
a network of private computers infected with malicious software and controlled as a group without the owners' knowledge, e.g., to send spam messages.
This isn't a botnet. This is botspam. And for all we know in 2014, Twitter wasn't even checking that new accounts were created through different ip addresses, for the simple reason that companies like Twitter often tout the number of accounts created on their platform as their own measure of success.
The illegality of non-competes certainly hasn't caused the tech industry here to collapse in on itself.
In fact, it could be argued that the opposite was true.
Everyone wants to replicate the success of Silicon Valley, but you can't really have a vibrant tech community if employees of large companies are not able to launch their own small startups, nor can you really have a vibrant tech community if all the work that employees do on their own time and with their own equipment belongs to their current employers (even if that work has nothing to do with the market or the products that their current employers are into). Having one-sided clauses like that makes the burden of starting a new tech business impossibly high.
I think you're confusing Assange with Snowden.
It sounds like a hoax, designed to maximize outrage.
This is not to say that there aren't companies intending to violate our privacy in that way, it is just that most companies wouldn't be so blatant and upfront about breaking the law.
But I'm still not believing that there's any market at all for such things.
If there is a market for fire trucks with long ladders, there is a market for this device.
Would I love to have a speedy android phone with a narrow-format blackberry-style physical keyboard? Yep.
Those already exist. My Motorola XPRT is like that. It's also a world phone with two sim card slots.
And there are several others. That market niche is already filled if you ask me.
The problem with BlackBerry is that they're not really Android phones. Sure, they can run Android, but all the security features they have that prevent sharing outside of BBM, that prevent you from installing custom keyboards (assuming it's not your company phone), and the lack of official Google applications and APIs makes it more like a crippled Android phone.
Also, it kinda amazes me that the major candidates haven't been blasted with tons of chargebacks from such trolls.
May be, they have, but they don't want to feed the troll by telling the world what happened.
Also, candidates don't have a real-time update of campaign contributions they're getting, which defeats the main purpose of a troll.
Most trolls want attention and publicity. You deny them that possibility and they move on to easier targets.
That was my question exactly.
Why does no one object when I place a camera on the floor of a factory for safety reasons?
But everybody gets hysterical when I place that same camera in the employee toilet looking directly at the employees taking a dump?
What's up with that?
"...let's say you remove all files the files I own from your server, allow me access that I may be satisfied to the fact it is destroyed and no spare copies exist...
So you're demanding root access to all his servers, email accounts, cloud accounts, passwords, phones, tablets, external drives, usb flash drives, SD Cards, burned DVDs, tape backups, any accounts of his friends and family, his garage, his home, his gym locker, any and all his body cavities, etc.
And even then, do you realize that even if he gave you all of these things, that it will never guarantee that the data "was destroyed and no spare copies exist". No, no. If your data has been compromised. It has been compromised. Once the cat is out of the bag, you should simply assume that every bad guy has it by now, or will have it at some time in the future. And you're better off just biting the bullet now and letting your management, any other stakeholder, and your customers know about the breach as soon as possible. Because even if you did pay them money to keep this information secret, there is simply no guarantee this blackmailer won't turn around and sell your secrets to other groups of people, or won't turn around and ask for more payments down the road.
Also, why are we even listening to what a war criminal has to say?
Forget Snowden for now. Eric Holder is currently in the US. Snowden is not.
Before Eric Holder flees to South America, we need to arrest him and make him accountable for his tacit approval of war crimes. Waterboarding was unacceptable during World War II. We executed Japanese soldiers over it. Waterboarding is still unacceptable today.
I don't think we should execute Eric Holder, but I do think he should rot in jail for a while until we dismantle the entire conspiracy of high level politicians that have been complicit in protecting the practice of waterboarding and torture.
Until the browser makers remove the Symantec root Certificates, how can a consumer like myself remove those certificates from my own web browsers?
Copyright also deteriorates, at least it is supposed to.
Waze (also owned by Google) has transparent popups, but they only popup when you're stopped and disappear as soon as you move. I never had a problem with them.
He started with zero by submitting as an anonymous coward. No one modded him down. It's just that no one modded him up yet.
It's way easier to broadcast emergency instructions over FM to three million people in a metro area, than to support three million active streams over a data network, especially in an emergency.
Or you could just use sms to text them (or use a combination of text and text-to-speech).
After all, even if their chip supports FM, the physical phones themselves haven't been built with the required FM antenna, so they must rely on wired headphones/earbuds (which most people don't have, or have stashed somewhere they have no idea where - comes the time of a disaster).
I don't think he'd care.
There is already a video of him bareback riding a bear and he's rather proud of that one.
It would also be helpful and possibly more equitable to out the people who frequent the sex workers.
Don't worry. The 70% figure is a complete fabrication. The figure is more like 1 billion %. This is a click-bait slash-advertisement disguised as a news item.
It's far easier to identify the Johns themselves thanks to commercial license plate scanner databases. Those are actually reliable (assuming a car is used during the interaction). And even then, they'd need to have pretty good video evidence to demonstrate that they were not just asking for directions, or that the girls didn't go up to their car unsolicited.
Can anyone explain to me how analyzing Facebook algorithms that drive ad tactics is part of their overall charter to serve and protect?
I am not sure, but this would explain why when you're crossing from France into Belgium on the highway/freeway, all the ad billboards suddenly stop when you get into Belgium. This is not that I really like advertising billboards, I usually complain about them, but this made it difficult to find a cheap hotel.
Also, it didn't help that my cheap French sim card stopped working when I crossed into Belgium.