It should be quite easy to check when and how much it's transmitting, with a simply network sniffer.
My guess is that it will only send stuff if you actually ask it something, other than that probably just a ping once in a while for new software updates.
Personally, I live a rather boring life of very little interest to NSA or their equivalents. By keeping data collection turned on, I supply a lot of completely useless information, that may help others to blend in.
And it makes for much better plausible deniability if I happen to "accidentally" leave my phone at home or let it run out of battery.
That's very true, and also part of what I wrote. Some people open more possibilities, but that doesn't guarantee luck, it just increases the odds.
And if you're born into money/connections, you can afford to take the risks that open thos possibilities, without risking your livelihood (or your life, even). That's why we need a basic income system, to give more people the opportunity to take more chances.
No matter if you're persistent or not, no one has a "right to luck".
Everyone has an equal chance of being lucky, doesn't matter who you are or what you do.
What you can say is that some people opened more opportunities for luck to manifest itself, but that is not guarantee, no matter how hard you influence the odds. It may as well be the ordinary Workaday Joe who ends up getting lucky.
Not in most European cities. Hell, even smaller towns in my country can get at least 100Mbit/s, if they have cable TV available from one of the major providers.
So, TLDR: Data caps are ridiculous if we are paying for dedicated bandwidth. I don't think most of us are, we just assumed we are. I think we would be shocked at what the price would be for dedicated bandwidth.
Right now, I can order a 300/60 line for ~$52/month, with dedicated bandwidth, no data cap. Actual proper dedicated bandwidth, minimum speed 300/60 guaranteed.
Some places can already get 500Mbit, and 1Gbit support is being rolled out over the next couple of years. Sometimes it's just hella nice living in a small country with relatively compact infrastructure.
Usage limits are completely ridiculous, and are definitely not what people actually want. Everyone buys a usage limit that exceeds their actual usage, "to be on the safe side", and the ISPs are raking in the cash. You really should enter the 21st century and abolish usage limits.
Right now, I'm on DSL line provided to me by my employer, which is nominally 30/3, guaranteed at least 25/2. No ifs or buts, that is the absolute minimum speed my line will run at. If I wanted to pay for a faster connection, I can get a 100/100 from one provider (~$45/month) or 300/60 from another provider (~$52/month). And those are the guaranteed minimum speeds, too. No usage limits on any of them.
Sure, that's not including 24/7 support or 99.999% guaranteed uptime like you'd get on a commercial-grade connection, but the price is drastically lower to reflect that fact.
My point is that usage limits are pointless, there is no limit to the data a connection will transfer, the only limit is the bandwith.
That's waaaay overkill. Heck, even an Arduino is way overkill for those applications. All you need is a very simple little 8-bit PIC with a couple of I/O lines and less than 100 lines of C.
Slashdot Mirror
No, of course not.
That's why we, the people who know about sniffers and how to use them, have a responsibility to tell people when ugly shit is happening.
It could also be the update that pops open the hidden vial of sarin gas, and spreads it throughout your house.
What's stopping you from using the network sniffer occasionally, to verify that Google has not suddenly decided to listen to everything you say?
what did this guy do, he took the piss out of bullshitting politicians
Nah, he supported a targeted hate meme campaign against a presidential candidate.
Chromecast is pretty rad.
Do you use Chrome? Android? Google.com? Any other service used or owned by Google?
Congratulations, Google already knows everything about you.
It should be quite easy to check when and how much it's transmitting, with a simply network sniffer.
My guess is that it will only send stuff if you actually ask it something, other than that probably just a ping once in a while for new software updates.
Personally, I live a rather boring life of very little interest to NSA or their equivalents. By keeping data collection turned on, I supply a lot of completely useless information, that may help others to blend in.
And it makes for much better plausible deniability if I happen to "accidentally" leave my phone at home or let it run out of battery.
And that's why I distrust Google approximately 1% less than the others. Their motivations are clearer.
You make none of the shots you never take.
That's very true, and also part of what I wrote. Some people open more possibilities, but that doesn't guarantee luck, it just increases the odds.
And if you're born into money/connections, you can afford to take the risks that open thos possibilities, without risking your livelihood (or your life, even). That's why we need a basic income system, to give more people the opportunity to take more chances.
No matter if you're persistent or not, no one has a "right to luck".
Everyone has an equal chance of being lucky, doesn't matter who you are or what you do.
What you can say is that some people opened more opportunities for luck to manifest itself, but that is not guarantee, no matter how hard you influence the odds. It may as well be the ordinary Workaday Joe who ends up getting lucky.
There is no data cap on my current connection, and no caps on either of the two alternatives I mentioned.
I know the small print says that the speed is only guaranteed to the ISPs own network.
Not in most European cities. Hell, even smaller towns in my country can get at least 100Mbit/s, if they have cable TV available from one of the major providers.
My more detailed point is that usage limits are set arbitrarily and artificially low, compared to the available bandwidth.
So, TLDR: Data caps are ridiculous if we are paying for dedicated bandwidth. I don't think most of us are, we just assumed we are. I think we would be shocked at what the price would be for dedicated bandwidth.
Right now, I can order a 300/60 line for ~$52/month, with dedicated bandwidth, no data cap. Actual proper dedicated bandwidth, minimum speed 300/60 guaranteed.
Some places can already get 500Mbit, and 1Gbit support is being rolled out over the next couple of years. Sometimes it's just hella nice living in a small country with relatively compact infrastructure.
Usage limits are completely ridiculous, and are definitely not what people actually want. Everyone buys a usage limit that exceeds their actual usage, "to be on the safe side", and the ISPs are raking in the cash. You really should enter the 21st century and abolish usage limits.
Right now, I'm on DSL line provided to me by my employer, which is nominally 30/3, guaranteed at least 25/2. No ifs or buts, that is the absolute minimum speed my line will run at. If I wanted to pay for a faster connection, I can get a 100/100 from one provider (~$45/month) or 300/60 from another provider (~$52/month). And those are the guaranteed minimum speeds, too. No usage limits on any of them.
Sure, that's not including 24/7 support or 99.999% guaranteed uptime like you'd get on a commercial-grade connection, but the price is drastically lower to reflect that fact.
My point is that usage limits are pointless, there is no limit to the data a connection will transfer, the only limit is the bandwith.
ChromeOS is built on Gentoo. It may have a relatively simple and locked-down interface, but it's a full blown Linux distro underneath.
Cloudflare doesn't work for shit. There was a DDoS attack against Something Awful recently, and the DDoS "protection" crumbled almost completely.
A cherry bomb under an actual pie makes one hell of a mess.
Tesla is the automotive equivalent of Apple. Cheaper alternatives will come along (such as the Chevy Bolt).
But unfortunately no Acer Chromebook 13, even though it has an ARM processor (Nvidia Tegra K1) :-(
And no GPIO/TTL without adding a separate board.
Well yeah, it does on the raw computing performance front and x86 compatibility if you need that. But it fails on every other parameter.
Way too expensive and no GPIO/TTL are the biggest failures.
That's waaaay overkill. Heck, even an Arduino is way overkill for those applications. All you need is a very simple little 8-bit PIC with a couple of I/O lines and less than 100 lines of C.
An i7 in a subcompact notebook is just going to be held back by thermal throttling under any kind of load.
I propose a "none of the above" option on the ballot. If it gets the majority vote, all parties must put up a new candidate on a new ballot.