...ad hosting network (that happens to be used by major search providers) compromised to serve malware.
I suppose you can be mad at Microsoft for not constantly scanning their customers, but "Bing ads" is still misleading in the usual headline sensationalism way...
You might get 10 years in Saudi Arabia for violating public morality, where you might only get a fine here for the same thing. On the other hand, murder in the US might get you life without parole, but murder in Portugal can only get you 25 years.
While our morals might differ - they're always going to seem "right" to the people who's morals they are. Not every Saudi agrees with "Saudi morals," and not every US citizen agrees with "US morals; but we all have a moral code that seems right to us.
that "...small, windowless room high up in a San Francisco office building (that) gets no service at all." sure has one hell of a view according to the pic in TFA.
The shielded room, about the size of a walk-in closet, only has space for a small desk, a couple of chairs and a bank of network equipment. It isn't meant to stay wireless-free. Instead, Verizon engineers use current and emerging wireless gear to create special radio environments for testing.
Agreed. It is difficult for sociopaths to engage in basic human interactions because they don't understand them.
If you say that you honestly don't get how tacit agreements work, and see that we successfully engage in them constantly, you're either being intentionally obtuse, or perhaps you lack whatever genes allow for humans to interact with each other without handing each other contracts every time we pass in the street.
You summarized my position as "I guess you're entitled if you can't be bothered to watch ads" and followed that immediately with, "That's exactly what I said."
Someone reading your post could easily conclude that I said, "I guess you're entitled if you can't be bothered to watch ads" -- which wasn't what I said.
There's a sense of entitlement in this country - and getting shit for free on the internet is part of that sense of entitlement.
Try reading the reply the AC replied to: "but that doesn't change the sense of entitlement of people who can't be bothered to watch a 15-second ad before being served endless on demand video streaming by YouTube or mostly-free music by Pandora." I guess you're entitled if you can't be bothered to watch ads. That is exactly what he said; read the comment yourself.
It's not "exactly what I said."
I'll be clearer.
If you expect services like YouTube or Pandora for free, you've likely got an entitlement problem.
Well done targeted advertising brings me things that I might not have otherwise known about and might be interested in spending my money on. It's part of why I went "all in" with Google's services. Not only do I think I get back more from them in services than I give up in data*, but I believe most of the advertising I get from them is either (a) useful, or (b) easy to ignore.
I thank Google for telling me about a restaurant near the place it knows I'm likely driving to tonight. I thank Google for checking my inbox a few days before Valentines, noticing I don't have a confirmation email for flowers and showing me some 1-800-Flowers or ProFlowers or FTD ads.
[*They likely feel the same way -- that they're getting the good end of the deal, and maybe we're both right.]
You're not likely to scratch them with keys in the way your angry ex-girlfriend would key your car....it's more the rubbing together of things in pockets that contain small amounts of sand and dirt and dust - small abrasives, more than big sharp things.
I'd at least consider paying for an ad-free YouTube, at least if I used it more. [I seek out the occasional song to play for someone, or watch the occasional device tear-down or home-improvement/repair video..] Pandora and its ilk pretty much all offer this. Many websites do as well.
Guy A builds website. Guy A puts advertising on his website to support it and/or turn a profit from it. Guy B wants to use the content on the website without viewing the ads, so does so by simple technological means. Guy A is entitled.
Unless you've agreed to some sort of TOS, you don't have a specific obligation.
I'm apparently in the/. minority, but I still believe there's a tacit agreement to keep websites operational by at least giving their revenue model a chance. Right now, that model is mostly advertising.
I have the option of disabling ads here, but they're fairly unobtrusive (and generally well targeted since I'm "all-in" with Google), so I do the "right" thing and leave them on. I do similar by leaving the ads on at places like 2+2.
Does giving them a chance equate to clicking every banner, watching every video and donating to every request? For me. No....but that doesn't change the fact that I believe that we have a tacit agreement to not simply "steal" the bandwidth from sites we frequent because ad-blocking makes our lives easier.
As a result of this thinking, I try to pick good sites to suck bandwidth from.
Meanwhile an October 17th debt ceiling that will cripple the world economy goes mostly unnoticed.
Mostly unnoticed by whom?
The debt ceiling is the #2 political story right now, and delivered as a tie-in to the lead news story of the shutdown.
It's listed in the first story that Google News shows me about the shutdown -- and the shutdown is the first thing on the page. In short, the second story on Google News is debt ceiling.
Myth: Busted Several countries have added internet access to their constitutions as a basic human right. Sorry if you don't live in one of those countries.
Is part of that right to internet access the right to use YouTube without seeing an ad for Colgate Toothpaste or listen to Pandora without hearing a blurb for a Ford Fusion?
Nothing's stopping you from walking over to your neighbor's house and doing those things already when they're out of town....or do they not have a breaker box?
I'm sure someone will respond telling me that advertising is an outdated business model, doomed to fail like music CDs, but that doesn't change the sense of entitlement of people who can't be bothered to watch a 15-second ad before being served endless on demand video streaming by YouTube or mostly-free music by Pandora.
Targeted ads have been around forever, but with less granularity. You don't advertise malt liquor in The New Yorker, and you don't advertise Tiffany in High Times. [Unless Tiffany started making bongs......did they......I digress.]
About a year ago, I took the plunge. I let Google see everything my Android sees and logged into Chrome.
Net result to me for giving up my privacy to big do-no-evil? Better service overall across the Google platform, with a minimal amount of what appears to be well tailored advertising for me. I'll let Google read my maps searches in exchange for being "politely notified" about a restaurant near my destination that has a 2-for-1 special that night.
I love 'em.
Also... Obligatory Futurama:
Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 21st century?" Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree.
Slashdot Mirror
...ad hosting network (that happens to be used by major search providers) compromised to serve malware.
I suppose you can be mad at Microsoft for not constantly scanning their customers, but "Bing ads" is still misleading in the usual headline sensationalism way...
I've never understood this either. Why don't I just want a tablet with keyboard at the same $300 price point new Chromebook devices are coming in at.
12" (class) screens? Seriously?
Where's my >14" (class) screen tablets? I'll get a keyboard, thanks.
1920x1080 would be fine, as well as a number of higher numbers.
While most westerners would agree this is, in a word, harsh -- it's still a matter of perspective.
Lots of countries don't have death penalties or life imprisonment, but we sure do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment#Overview_by_jurisdiction
You might get 10 years in Saudi Arabia for violating public morality, where you might only get a fine here for the same thing. On the other hand, murder in the US might get you life without parole, but murder in Portugal can only get you 25 years.
While our morals might differ - they're always going to seem "right" to the people who's morals they are. Not every Saudi agrees with "Saudi morals," and not every US citizen agrees with "US morals; but we all have a moral code that seems right to us.
that "...small, windowless room high up in a San Francisco office building (that) gets no service at all." sure has one hell of a view according to the pic in TFA.
The shielded room, about the size of a walk-in closet, only has space for a small desk, a couple of chairs and a bank of network equipment. It isn't meant to stay wireless-free. Instead, Verizon engineers use current and emerging wireless gear to create special radio environments for testing.
The "shielded room" is a small part of the VIC.
Agreed. It is difficult for sociopaths to engage in basic human interactions because they don't understand them.
If you say that you honestly don't get how tacit agreements work, and see that we successfully engage in them constantly, you're either being intentionally obtuse, or perhaps you lack whatever genes allow for humans to interact with each other without handing each other contracts every time we pass in the street.
I'm pretty sure the video above is guy-B complaining, not guy-A.
We non-sociopaths engage socially in tacit agreements all the time.
You summarized my position as "I guess you're entitled if you can't be bothered to watch ads" and followed that immediately with, "That's exactly what I said."
Someone reading your post could easily conclude that I said, "I guess you're entitled if you can't be bothered to watch ads" -- which wasn't what I said.
There's a sense of entitlement in this country - and getting shit for free on the internet is part of that sense of entitlement.
Try reading the reply the AC replied to: "but that doesn't change the sense of entitlement of people who can't be bothered to watch a 15-second ad before being served endless on demand video streaming by YouTube or mostly-free music by Pandora." I guess you're entitled if you can't be bothered to watch ads. That is exactly what he said; read the comment yourself.
It's not "exactly what I said."
I'll be clearer.
If you expect services like YouTube or Pandora for free, you've likely got an entitlement problem.
Well done targeted advertising brings me things that I might not have otherwise known about and might be interested in spending my money on. It's part of why I went "all in" with Google's services. Not only do I think I get back more from them in services than I give up in data*, but I believe most of the advertising I get from them is either (a) useful, or (b) easy to ignore.
I thank Google for telling me about a restaurant near the place it knows I'm likely driving to tonight. I thank Google for checking my inbox a few days before Valentines, noticing I don't have a confirmation email for flowers and showing me some 1-800-Flowers or ProFlowers or FTD ads.
[*They likely feel the same way -- that they're getting the good end of the deal, and maybe we're both right.]
You're not likely to scratch them with keys in the way your angry ex-girlfriend would key your car. ...it's more the rubbing together of things in pockets that contain small amounts of sand and dirt and dust - small abrasives, more than big sharp things.
I'd at least consider paying for an ad-free YouTube, at least if I used it more. [I seek out the occasional song to play for someone, or watch the occasional device tear-down or home-improvement/repair video..] Pandora and its ilk pretty much all offer this. Many websites do as well.
Guy A builds website.
Guy A puts advertising on his website to support it and/or turn a profit from it.
Guy B wants to use the content on the website without viewing the ads, so does so by simple technological means.
Guy A is entitled.
Wut?!?
Me me me me me me me me me me!
And as soon as everyone follows you, the shows you torrent will disappear.
Unless you've agreed to some sort of TOS, you don't have a specific obligation.
I'm apparently in the /. minority, but I still believe there's a tacit agreement to keep websites operational by at least giving their revenue model a chance. Right now, that model is mostly advertising.
I have the option of disabling ads here, but they're fairly unobtrusive (and generally well targeted since I'm "all-in" with Google), so I do the "right" thing and leave them on. I do similar by leaving the ads on at places like 2+2.
Does giving them a chance equate to clicking every banner, watching every video and donating to every request? For me. No. ...but that doesn't change the fact that I believe that we have a tacit agreement to not simply "steal" the bandwidth from sites we frequent because ad-blocking makes our lives easier.
As a result of this thinking, I try to pick good sites to suck bandwidth from.
YMMV.
Meanwhile an October 17th debt ceiling that will cripple the world economy goes mostly unnoticed.
Mostly unnoticed by whom?
The debt ceiling is the #2 political story right now, and delivered as a tie-in to the lead news story of the shutdown.
It's listed in the first story that Google News shows me about the shutdown -- and the shutdown is the first thing on the page. In short, the second story on Google News is debt ceiling.
Well sure. You deserve the internet.
Myth: Busted
Several countries have added internet access to their constitutions as a basic human right. Sorry if you don't live in one of those countries.
Is part of that right to internet access the right to use YouTube without seeing an ad for Colgate Toothpaste or listen to Pandora without hearing a blurb for a Ford Fusion?
A dozen posters above you have already mentioned that our hands and pockets are curved.
That makes your answers, "A design improvement," "It's more ergonomic," and "scores of people who were involved in the testing of this phone."
Also, please don't order one. More for the people who do.
the edges are noticably further away from you
Conceptually?
Nothing's stopping you from walking over to your neighbor's house and doing those things already when they're out of town. ...or do they not have a breaker box?
Well sure. You deserve the internet.
I'm sure someone will respond telling me that advertising is an outdated business model, doomed to fail like music CDs, but that doesn't change the sense of entitlement of people who can't be bothered to watch a 15-second ad before being served endless on demand video streaming by YouTube or mostly-free music by Pandora.
Targeted ads have been around forever, but with less granularity. You don't advertise malt liquor in The New Yorker, and you don't advertise Tiffany in High Times. [Unless Tiffany started making bongs... ...did they... ...I digress.]
About a year ago, I took the plunge. I let Google see everything my Android sees and logged into Chrome.
Net result to me for giving up my privacy to big do-no-evil? Better service overall across the Google platform, with a minimal amount of what appears to be well tailored advertising for me. I'll let Google read my maps searches in exchange for being "politely notified" about a restaurant near my destination that has a 2-for-1 special that night.
I love 'em.
Also... Obligatory Futurama:
Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 21st century?"
Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree.
Most of the access points at the casino hotels (and I've stayed at plenty) require a room number and a last name.
Change your MAC all you want, but much better to figure out the names of your neighbors.
You can absolutely make a SMALL quantity of old bills, and you can pass a few of them without issue. Small-time counterfeiters likely do.
But you can't move wholesale blocks of old currency without raising the wrong (right?) eyebrows.