The review of a laptop will say something like "HP Mobile 2300" but there'll be about 200 variations encompassing cpu/gpu/ram/display tech/hard drive size-speed-architecture/northbridge/etc/etc/etc. You'll never find the one which was reviewed for sale in your country and that's assuming the review actually mentioned the various product id which would enable you to even look for it. So yeah, great, thanks for the 3dbench scores and "this was faster than that pc" but I have no idea what you just reviewed.
> Wow... So, file-sharing is wrong and "out of China" is an aggravating circumstance.
Is "run from a country with a track record of flagrant disregard of international copyright law, and where it's impossible for IP owners to seek redress through the courts" any better?
Do you have a citation for the legal requirement that all US cellphones must have any FM radio functionality disabled? It would certainly be bizarre if true. All I can find is evidence that some carriers don't allow it on phones they ship.
> So, those hard drives I bought, are telling the world more about me than if I posted every pic on Facebook? > Explain, because I gave them my credit card and get email from the place I bought them from. If I was stupid > enough to use FB I'm giving out less info?
You're conflating the difference between storing images on a high drive vs posting them on facebook with my comparison between using a free service to share images vs using a paid service. Keep up!
Now you're implying that I didn't previously realize that if you post something on the internet somebody else could read it; perhaps (wrongly) assuming this makes some sort of case for law abiding people avoiding sharing photos on facebook.
> Go get a script blocker. Enable it 100 percent. Now start enabling scripts. A whole lot of them are facebook and > they are tracking you even if you don't "belong". You'll have to look them up, because unlike Google, Facebook > obfuscates where they are sending your info.
I block javascript and trackers, and destroy cookies via plugins on all browsers i use. I also post photos to facebook. I'm failing to see any contradiction.
> Despite your lofty claims of superiority, you kind sir, are doing a fine imitation of baseless stupidity.
That's a two way street.
> Or does > Facebook have paid shills here now, because you ar either purposely dissembling, challenged, or paid to > distribute the inaccurate info.
You're just struggling to understand what I posted and are rambling meaninglessly about...well, fuck knows. Just anti-facebook bollocks as far as I can tell.
> You mad bro? Hey, some of us spout it becuse we did the research. And have determined that people like > you are spreading BS. I've got friends outside of FB. I see them in person every day. As for "cool", The > FaceBook crowd would be on AOL in another era. But they are tracking the bejabbers out of most of us. And > in Corporate America, nothing is done without pecuniary purpose.
More random typing. Facebook is a business which exists to make money; primarily through ads based on users' interests, just like several other successful companies. I have no problem with any of them, trackers or no trackers. It's how they turn a profit (and keep all the servers running). "Doo...facebook users are so stupid, like AOL users were...gu-hoo gu-hoo gu-hoo! Wake up, sheeple!". You're quite the rebel prophet, aren't you?
> That's the theory. Haven't you noticed that Democracy is broken? Besides, things like the PATRIOT act were > a) never part of an election platform and b) received overwhelming BIPARTISAN support. So that theory of > yours...
You've given an example of something with bipartisan support which is exactly what I did with support for laws clamping down on the use of encryption so that didn't really bring anything much to the table.
If you look you'll probably find both parties in the US stated they'd "protect" the public through "strong defence" and "homeland security measures".
Democracy is very broken, of course, but even in countries where it works better you don't typically choose from a list of choices on tax, policing, copyright law, drug control, foreign policy etc. You vote for a party based on the ideological slant that party has. You're an idiot if you think, for example, that the republican party is going to suddenly start giving a shit about the war on drugs/black people.
They're wrong. It's a free service because it costs no money. It's a simple as that. Even things which cost you money can result in you losing privacy; nearly always you'll lose more, in fact, because you end up paying via methods which reveal information about you, so that cost - if you want to look at it as a cost - is decreased too when it's free.
People can say stuff's not free because, for example, Facebook have your photos, or they can sell or use your browsing habits (in a very limited sense), it doesn't impinge on your freedom in any observable way. I mean, people are free to claim that wifi gives you cancer or whatever but they're just that; baseless, stupid claims. And other people repeat it just because they don't like facebook because they don't have friends or because it's not cool or whatever. Good for them, I saw. Go grow a stupid hipster beard or something.
> Tablets are meant for consumption, not production.
Yeah, they're not replacements for a laptop. But a lot of people use laptops as a replacement for a desktop. I'm not down with that. Laptops always seem slow and shitty after a few years; the keys fall off, the battery ends up lasting for 30 minutes, and so on. A desktop - which I put together myself - are a lot cheaper (for a given spec) and you can upgrade them and reuse. Ultimately, if you're not out and about on your laptop you might as well not have one.
So I don't have one, and the stuff I do on my tablets is stuff like surfing, reading gaming, shopping etc when i can't be arsed to sit in front of my desktop, and when i'm not out and about with my phone. I understand this is a popular use case.
If I was in a restaurant, or getting someone to fix my car or paint my house and i wasn't giving them any money I'd set my expectations accordingly.
If you want to keep your pictures safe, just don't upload them to facebook and hope they'll keep them safe foryou forever; spend a few pennies on a usb key and keep them safe yourself forever, and/or store them on google photos.
This really isn't something which should a surprise a developmentally normal adult.
If you do want to keep links private, there are services which let you share URLS by sticking them behind another url which only works once, and/or needs a password etc.
Why are people complaining that something which is sent over an unencrypted channel is visible to people other than the intended recipient? Even facebook provides a solution for that; whatsapp.
A bit disingenuous. You don't vote on issues; you vote for parties who represent your vote and take predictable actions (ie they want you to vote for them next time too). No parties have come out against encryption restrictions, and therefore you're voting FOR encryption restrictions.
The people who control the planet are in no way interested in improving the lot of the average person, just the very rich, so you're simply not going to notice an improvement in your quality of life from AI unless you're extremely easily amused.
The little darlings certainly look different and special to me. "It's a tribal thing...I have tribal stuff on my face". Yes you do, don't you. I look forward to seeing you hang around train stations in about 15 years begging for spare change when you finally give up at attempting to find a job"
Sure, but it's not interesting to read. The other day some twat on reddit was whining because he couldn't get his kindle replaced for free outside of the warranty period. He had an online chat with a customer services person and kept giving them links to pages which apparently described people getting post-warranty kindle replacement and he was outraged that the amazon stuff weren't interested. Reading people whining about facebook is a little like that; absent the moral outrage of child rape or whatever you're just going to come across as cranky and obsessive.
It's great people are getting excited about AI. I'm looking forward to reading about it every fucking day, just like I did about voice recognition, how apps would change my life etc. At the very least, I hope it means it will become slightly easier to say things like "set an alarm at 2.30" and not end up with a calender entry which reads "self harming - tooth hurty" or whatever, but can we sort of pre-empt the whole thing and start thinking about what comes after AI so those of use who find it a little dull already can read about something else?
> The German political foundation "Heinrich BÃfll Stiftung" did a workshop on this phenomenon. Unfortunately > there is little English language reporting I found
Possibly because that sounds both like a made up joke name, and obscene, so you'll probably have to disable any sort of "safe surf" moderation on your search results.
I can't anything there that would explain why a company known for quality products would want to go near Indian manufacturing with a barge pole. Perhaps they can make shiny gold-coloured phone cases, replacement cables etc. Let's not get ahead of ourselves, eh?
Can you please explain why a fix for Stagefright couldn't be rolled out directory to users devices? Does the upgrade process (ie Google Play, or anything else Google can deploy for this sort of thing) not allow the upgrade of that type of component? Was it considered likely to cause problems when upgraded? It would seem that the relevant library was something which was very unlikely to have been customized in any way by a manufacturer.
Could Google consider dividing components into stuff which Google *will* upgrade at will and stuff it won't, minimizing the stuff manufacturers are responsible for?
And why both making the claim in public that manufacturers must support all major versions of Android released within 18 months of the launch date of the phone/tablet and then not enforce that when Samsung consistantly totally fails to comply? Is it part of a contract Google can enforce or not?
"Itâ(TM)s sort of a funny question. Would I trade 96% of the market for 4% of the market?... Thereâ(TM)s no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance."
Slashdot Mirror
I'm using fewer and fewer apps. It's making less difference to me which OS I use on a phone. I prefer and use Android but it's good to have a plan b.
The review of a laptop will say something like "HP Mobile 2300" but there'll be about 200 variations encompassing cpu/gpu/ram/display tech/hard drive size-speed-architecture/northbridge/etc/etc/etc. You'll never find the one which was reviewed for sale in your country and that's assuming the review actually mentioned the various product id which would enable you to even look for it. So yeah, great, thanks for the 3dbench scores and "this was faster than that pc" but I have no idea what you just reviewed.
If you're using android (on a phone) then they have your mobile number. I think you need a phone number to sign up for any google service, don't you?
> Wow... So, file-sharing is wrong and "out of China" is an aggravating circumstance.
Is "run from a country with a track record of flagrant disregard of international copyright law, and where it's impossible for IP owners to seek redress through the courts" any better?
You presumably intentionally just provided a comparison which shows windows in a good light.
No, because there's no connection between Microsoft, drug lords or money laundering in this case.
Do you have a citation for the legal requirement that all US cellphones must have any FM radio functionality disabled? It would certainly be bizarre if true. All I can find is evidence that some carriers don't allow it on phones they ship.
Do people still use "Oh, wait"? Why?
> So, those hard drives I bought, are telling the world more about me than if I posted every pic on Facebook?
> Explain, because I gave them my credit card and get email from the place I bought them from. If I was stupid
> enough to use FB I'm giving out less info?
You're conflating the difference between storing images on a high drive vs posting them on facebook with my comparison between using a free service to share images vs using a paid service. Keep up!
> These idiots seem to have a little less freedom after sharing on Facebook: http://mashable.com/2012/12/12...
Now you're implying that I didn't previously realize that if you post something on the internet somebody else could read it; perhaps (wrongly) assuming this makes some sort of case for law abiding people avoiding sharing photos on facebook.
> Go get a script blocker. Enable it 100 percent. Now start enabling scripts. A whole lot of them are facebook and
> they are tracking you even if you don't "belong". You'll have to look them up, because unlike Google, Facebook
> obfuscates where they are sending your info.
I block javascript and trackers, and destroy cookies via plugins on all browsers i use. I also post photos to facebook. I'm failing to see any contradiction.
> Despite your lofty claims of superiority, you kind sir, are doing a fine imitation of baseless stupidity.
That's a two way street.
> Or does
> Facebook have paid shills here now, because you ar either purposely dissembling, challenged, or paid to
> distribute the inaccurate info.
You're just struggling to understand what I posted and are rambling meaninglessly about...well, fuck knows. Just anti-facebook bollocks as far as I can tell.
> You mad bro? Hey, some of us spout it becuse we did the research. And have determined that people like
> you are spreading BS. I've got friends outside of FB. I see them in person every day. As for "cool", The
> FaceBook crowd would be on AOL in another era. But they are tracking the bejabbers out of most of us. And
> in Corporate America, nothing is done without pecuniary purpose.
More random typing. Facebook is a business which exists to make money; primarily through ads based on users' interests, just like several other successful companies. I have no problem with any of them, trackers or no trackers. It's how they turn a profit (and keep all the servers running). "Doo...facebook users are so stupid, like AOL users were...gu-hoo gu-hoo gu-hoo! Wake up, sheeple!". You're quite the rebel prophet, aren't you?
> That's the theory. Haven't you noticed that Democracy is broken? Besides, things like the PATRIOT act were
> a) never part of an election platform and b) received overwhelming BIPARTISAN support. So that theory of
> yours...
You've given an example of something with bipartisan support which is exactly what I did with support for laws clamping down on the use of encryption so that didn't really bring anything much to the table.
If you look you'll probably find both parties in the US stated they'd "protect" the public through "strong defence" and "homeland security measures".
Democracy is very broken, of course, but even in countries where it works better you don't typically choose from a list of choices on tax, policing, copyright law, drug control, foreign policy etc. You vote for a party based on the ideological slant that party has. You're an idiot if you think, for example, that the republican party is going to suddenly start giving a shit about the war on drugs/black people.
They're wrong. It's a free service because it costs no money. It's a simple as that. Even things which cost you money can result in you losing privacy; nearly always you'll lose more, in fact, because you end up paying via methods which reveal information about you, so that cost - if you want to look at it as a cost - is decreased too when it's free.
People can say stuff's not free because, for example, Facebook have your photos, or they can sell or use your browsing habits (in a very limited sense), it doesn't impinge on your freedom in any observable way. I mean, people are free to claim that wifi gives you cancer or whatever but they're just that; baseless, stupid claims. And other people repeat it just because they don't like facebook because they don't have friends or because it's not cool or whatever. Good for them, I saw. Go grow a stupid hipster beard or something.
> Tablets are meant for consumption, not production.
Yeah, they're not replacements for a laptop. But a lot of people use laptops as a replacement for a desktop. I'm not down with that. Laptops always seem slow and shitty after a few years; the keys fall off, the battery ends up lasting for 30 minutes, and so on. A desktop - which I put together myself - are a lot cheaper (for a given spec) and you can upgrade them and reuse. Ultimately, if you're not out and about on your laptop you might as well not have one.
So I don't have one, and the stuff I do on my tablets is stuff like surfing, reading gaming, shopping etc when i can't be arsed to sit in front of my desktop, and when i'm not out and about with my phone. I understand this is a popular use case.
Well, when you're using a free service, anyway.
If I was in a restaurant, or getting someone to fix my car or paint my house and i wasn't giving them any money I'd set my expectations accordingly.
If you want to keep your pictures safe, just don't upload them to facebook and hope they'll keep them safe foryou forever; spend a few pennies on a usb key and keep them safe yourself forever, and/or store them on google photos.
This really isn't something which should a surprise a developmentally normal adult.
Makes sense!
If you do want to keep links private, there are services which let you share URLS by sticking them behind another url which only works once, and/or needs a password etc.
Why are people complaining that something which is sent over an unencrypted channel is visible to people other than the intended recipient? Even facebook provides a solution for that; whatsapp.
A bit disingenuous. You don't vote on issues; you vote for parties who represent your vote and take predictable actions (ie they want you to vote for them next time too). No parties have come out against encryption restrictions, and therefore you're voting FOR encryption restrictions.
http://www.oxforddictionaries....
Yes.
The people who control the planet are in no way interested in improving the lot of the average person, just the very rich, so you're simply not going to notice an improvement in your quality of life from AI unless you're extremely easily amused.
The little darlings certainly look different and special to me. "It's a tribal thing...I have tribal stuff on my face". Yes you do, don't you. I look forward to seeing you hang around train stations in about 15 years begging for spare change when you finally give up at attempting to find a job"
Sure, but it's not interesting to read. The other day some twat on reddit was whining because he couldn't get his kindle replaced for free outside of the warranty period. He had an online chat with a customer services person and kept giving them links to pages which apparently described people getting post-warranty kindle replacement and he was outraged that the amazon stuff weren't interested. Reading people whining about facebook is a little like that; absent the moral outrage of child rape or whatever you're just going to come across as cranky and obsessive.
It's great people are getting excited about AI. I'm looking forward to reading about it every fucking day, just like I did about voice recognition, how apps would change my life etc. At the very least, I hope it means it will become slightly easier to say things like "set an alarm at 2.30" and not end up with a calender entry which reads "self harming - tooth hurty" or whatever, but can we sort of pre-empt the whole thing and start thinking about what comes after AI so those of use who find it a little dull already can read about something else?
I'll reach out to them and see what they say.
> The German political foundation "Heinrich BÃfll Stiftung" did a workshop on this phenomenon. Unfortunately
> there is little English language reporting I found
Possibly because that sounds both like a made up joke name, and obscene, so you'll probably have to disable any sort of "safe surf" moderation on your search results.
I can't anything there that would explain why a company known for quality products would want to go near Indian manufacturing with a barge pole. Perhaps they can make shiny gold-coloured phone cases, replacement cables etc. Let's not get ahead of ourselves, eh?
> (Google Android engineer here)
Can you please explain why a fix for Stagefright couldn't be rolled out directory to users devices? Does the upgrade process (ie Google Play, or anything else Google can deploy for this sort of thing) not allow the upgrade of that type of component? Was it considered likely to cause problems when upgraded? It would seem that the relevant library was something which was very unlikely to have been customized in any way by a manufacturer.
Could Google consider dividing components into stuff which Google *will* upgrade at will and stuff it won't, minimizing the stuff manufacturers are responsible for?
And why both making the claim in public that manufacturers must support all major versions of Android released within 18 months of the launch date of the phone/tablet and then not enforce that when Samsung consistantly totally fails to comply? Is it part of a contract Google can enforce or not?
"Itâ(TM)s sort of a funny question. Would I trade 96% of the market for 4% of the market?... Thereâ(TM)s no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance."