>"It's amazing that the app can demand access to everything (address book, camera, sms, phone calls, location, etc.) and my choices are accept or don't install. Why isn't there an easy option"
Google was about to introduce PER APP permissions that allowed you to deny single permissions and developers revolted and Google caved in and ditched it. Doesn't matter anyway, because they would then design the apps to just say "OK, if you won't give me your contacts, then I will just not work".
However, you can still get that, but you have to root the phone and install your own 3rd party Android. THEN you can turn off any permission you like. And if the app can't or won't deal with that, there is a setting to feed it FAKE DATA! *THAT* condition is when you know you actually own your own phone.
Huh? Try that again, please. Most sources estimate Android phones have an 86-88% global market share. Whatever is left is every other platform AND Apple (not that there are many other platforms nowadays on smart phones).
Of course, there are a zillion ways to measure market share, but based on my observations (which is not in any way scientific) it does seem like about at least 8 out of 10 people I see have an Android phone.
>"If you want to stay on the same time all year around, stay on Standard Time. Being in a fake time zone an hour ahead of solar time is almost as stupid as changing time artificially 2x a year."
No it isn't. All time is "fake". MOST of the year, we are in DST, and that *is* the time during those months. Being on DST is much more convenient for the vast majority of people- regardless of the month. If time is a construct and we can make it so we don't keep changing it AND we can make it more convenient and enjoyable at the same time by staying on DST, then why not do it? I don't give a damn if the sun is at its highest at noon.... I expect most don't care. I DO care about not having to get up in the dark AND getting home in the dark in the winter months, and moving to DST permanently would help with that. Besides, those living close to a different time zone are already a minimum of almost an hour off of high noon being high sun for ALL of the year.
>"Did they just pass a law saying agreeing to send the entire state of Florida into the future by one hour? But seriously, how about make the time be what time it actually is?"
And what exactly would that be? MOST of the year, we are in DST, and that *is* the time, if everyone agrees it is. So just do DST the rest of the year too and be done with it!
>"I'm for staying with Standard Time year round. The sun should be at its highest at noon, not 1:00. 12:00 noon should be sun on the meridian, more or less - it depends on how far east or west you are from the center of your timezone."
Like you said, if you are on the edge of a timezone, it wouldn't be noon at high sun, anyway. We already engage in DST for most of the year anyway, and nothing falls apart that noon isn't at the highest point in the sky for the sun. I would go for anything that doesn't change time, ever. But I still would prefer "summer time" year-round.
PLEASE bring this to my State (and all States). I am so over changing time twice a year for absolutely no real reason my whole life. And picking to stay on Daylight Saving Time year-round ("permanent daylight saving time" is the best possible choice. I am very jealous. And yet, this could be the start of something great...
-Changing time- Saves energy: FALSE Helps farmers: FALSE Gives extra sleep: FALSE Reduces accidents: FALSE Causes lots of lost productivity: TRUE Causes a nightmare for people with sleep disorders: TRUE Causes minor health problems even for normal people: TRUE Generates a lot of hassle and confusion: TRUE Hurts the economy: TRUE
>"Viewing the televisions before Samsung's event, the ambient really did appear to blend them into the walls at first blush."
Except that Samsung and apparently most of the other manufacturers are in love with stupid, GLOSSY screens. So no, it will not be invisible, it will reflect every stray light and everything else, even when it is on. (Can you tell I am a fan of now nearly unobtainable MATT displays?)
I can guess their "sample" setup was engineered VERY carefully to try and hide the actual reality of reflections that would be present in any real-world use.
Ah, so those are the same people who now want the government to "filter" and "restrict" the Internet unless you pay more for certain parts of it. Doesn't sound very neutral. Doesn't sound like freedom. Doesn't sound like keeping ISP's from interfering with accessing of information.
That is completely independent of the total impossibility of an ISP being able to figure out how and which sites serve "porn" and exactly what constitutes "porn" and what happens when things are misfiltered.
Rhode Island- you must really like just PARTS of the Bill of Rights. But which parts? We know you dislike the 2nd Amendment, but I guess the 1st Amendment is now not to your liking, either? Which of the remaining 10 is next? Maybe the 4th?
This isn't just streaming. I use disc service also and now have over a dozen moves waiting in my queue with "Unknown" as the availability. Some for over a YEAR NOW. Most aren't even obscure, like Matrix Revolutions and Gladiator. Really? Some dork broke/lost/stole a disc and now Netflix won't even replace it with at least one copy???
>" Slavery was legal at the time and it said so in the Constitution."
Actually, that is not technically correct. The pre-13th-amendment-Constitution does not say slavery was legal. But it didn't say it wasn't, either. Slavery is only mentioned twice, in one place saying that slaves counted as 3/5ths of a "person" for representation, and in another saying that the laws of one state cannot excuse a person from "Service or Labor" in another state. It is more of an acknowledgement that it existed. Nowhere does it define what a slave is or is not, or that slavery was any sort of right. It is too bad it wasn't going to be possible at that time [when it was created] for it to make slavery illegal.
But I do agree with you that if you want real gun control, it would require an amendment to the Constitution to do so, legally. Meanwhile, the language of the 2nd Amendment is extremely strong- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Few Constitutional rights have such powerful and specific language behind them. Technically, ANY law that restricts ANY free citizen from owning/carrying/transporting/using ANY arm [weapon] in ANY way at ANY time ANYwhere would fail the test of Constitutionality, if using a literal interpretation.
>"It doesn't follow that you the right to bare any arm you wish. You don't have the right to own assault weapons, semi-automatic weapons, bump stocks, high capacity magazines, etc, etc."
I understand your point, but you undermine it with misinformation.
1) People don't generally have any access to "assault weapons". Those are AUTOMATIC fire, and HIGHLY restricted. If you are talking about something "scary looking" like an AR-15, that is just a modern rife, and is no more powerful or dangerous than any typical hunting rifle.
2) No right to semi-automatic? You do realize that ALL modern self-defense guns are semi-automatic, don't you? I mean, what, you want just revolvers? Do you know that revolvers fire almost as fast as semi-automatic guns? So you think people should defend themselves against bad people with semi-automatics using what, a flint-lock? A single shot, bolt-loading gun? You think you can just make semi-automatics disappear from the streets?
3) What do you define as a "high capacity magazine"? 5 shots? 10? 15? 20? 30? A typical full-sized handgun is 15 to 17 shots. Do realize it takes only a second to swap in a fresh magazine? Do you think laws limiting magazines to some arbitrary number like maybe 10 will stop a crazed person from obtaining and using something bigger, or 4 smaller ones instead?
>"For most of our history, reasonable gun regulations were enacted by states and municipalities across the United States. Only with the rise of radicalized NRA in the 1980s did this change..."
That statement is not really correct at all. The first sentence is mostly correct, depending on your view of what is "reasonable." The second sentence isn't- the NRA started to become more powerful BECAUSE more and more *unreasonable* gun regulations were being put forward, and more citizens joined, seeking protection of their Constitutional rights from further erosion. The NRA as a non-lobby is interested in ACTUAL gun safety (like training, handling, information), information and sports.
>"...in the 1980s did this change, and with it came the rash of school shootings and mass gun slaughter."
How ridiculously inaccurate and inflammatory. Gun violence has been DECREASING for decades. What has changed mostly is the emotional, hyper media coverage of such shootings, making it SEEM like it is the end of the world. When in reality, while unreasonable gun control laws have been taken down more and more, things have been getting better. And although overall gun violence is down, I believe that same hyper-sensationalist and slanted media coverage has absolutely encouraged more nut-cases to perform copy-cat mass shootings to get their day of "fame." So the cycle feeds on itself.
Really? My now old Moto 360.2 does- in fact, it lasts over TWO days. And I certainly don't wear it to bed, it goes on the charger at that point (and is fully charged quickly, often before I am even asleep).
My watch easily outlasts any phone charge... I don't wear that to bed, either.. And the Moto 360.2 display is on ALL THE TIME.
Sure, there are issues with smart watches, but battery really isn't one of them. Size/weight is probably my biggest complaint.
"is a tropical evergreen tree in the coffee family (Rubiaceae) native to Southeast Asia in the Indochina and Malaysia phytochoria (botanical regions). M. speciosa is indigenous to Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, and Papua New Guinea, where it has been used in traditional medicine since at least the 19th century. Kratom has some opioid- and stimulant-like properties."
>"Well a 10" tablet is quite silly. [...] 2 in 1 convertibles are nice, but holding a 10" screen gets tiresome. "
I disagree. For me, 10" is too small for desktop work, and 7" as a "tablet" is still too small to be worth not using a phone. 9-10" is a perfect compromise size. With a kickstand case, it holds itself fine, in most uses.
Almost all convertibles are now "flip" types, which means I would have to worry constantly about putting an unprotected keyboard on wet, rough, and dirty surfaces- like at a restaurant. And it makes it considerably thicker and heavier on a device which I do little typing.
Back to the main topic, I am still using an ancient Nexus 10 because I have yet to find a REPLACEMENT for it. I have the money just sitting there for something but nothing comes out-
1) I want a fast CPU 2) I want 3+GB RAM 3) I want 64GB storage or at least an SD card 4) I want a WIDE SCREEN display, which is ideal for watching standard 16:9 programs and movies 5) It needs to be Android and updated regularly and have an reasonably uncontaminated OS 6) Preferably front-facing stereo speakers
So in my case, it is the fascination with "convertibles" that has pushed away all the good tablets and reduced sales. There are still plenty of smaller, narrow, and lower-end tablets out there.
>How would that all be practical in a handheld console that wasn't massively large?
The Switch is not just handheld, it is also dockable. Either way, it doesn't matter because the screen resolution is good enough and it has more than enough resources/power to play Wii games, and the controllers should work on a similar principle.
The only technical obstacle would have been the lack of an optical disc drive. Of course, Nintendo could either transfer the games to cards or make them downloadable for those who send in discs, perhaps with a small processing fee.
I suspect it the main motivation is just to force people to buy all new games again:(
I would have bought one myself, if it could play my Wii games. My Wii is mostly defective, so I could certainly justify it if it did. But, alas, it doesn't.
Well, I guess I am in a minority on Slashdot, based on the apparent general approval of such a thing. I think it is a dangerous idea. The last thing on earth we need is more and bigger Federal government. Could one reason the Fed would want in on this is to guarantee their easy access to CONTROL and LISTEN IN on the network traffic? Remember, their notion of "Security" typically isn't the same as a consumer's. How many agencies are still SCREAMING for "back doors" in encryption?
Spectrum is limited, of course. And I have no problem with the Fed in control of who leases such spectrum- someone has to manage it. I even think it is a good thing to set and enforce standards and interconnection and communication. But handing them the keys to design, build it, and supposedly pay for it would likely:
1) Cost much, much more than expected- just like most every other Fed run program. 2) Be full of corruption and kickbacks- just like most every other Fed run program. 3) Take much longer to complete- just like most every other Fed run program.
Slashdot Mirror
>"It's amazing that the app can demand access to everything (address book, camera, sms, phone calls, location, etc.) and my choices are accept or don't install. Why isn't there an easy option"
Google was about to introduce PER APP permissions that allowed you to deny single permissions and developers revolted and Google caved in and ditched it. Doesn't matter anyway, because they would then design the apps to just say "OK, if you won't give me your contacts, then I will just not work".
However, you can still get that, but you have to root the phone and install your own 3rd party Android. THEN you can turn off any permission you like. And if the app can't or won't deal with that, there is a setting to feed it FAKE DATA! *THAT* condition is when you know you actually own your own phone.
https://github.com/M66B/XPriva...
Unfortunately, not only is the above damn complicated, there are other apps that will sense you rooted and then not work at all.
And so the war continues.
>"With Apple's ~40% market share"
Huh? Try that again, please. Most sources estimate Android phones have an 86-88% global market share. Whatever is left is every other platform AND Apple (not that there are many other platforms nowadays on smart phones).
Of course, there are a zillion ways to measure market share, but based on my observations (which is not in any way scientific) it does seem like about at least 8 out of 10 people I see have an Android phone.
>"If you want to stay on the same time all year around, stay on Standard Time. Being in a fake time zone an hour ahead of solar time is almost as stupid as changing time artificially 2x a year."
No it isn't. All time is "fake". MOST of the year, we are in DST, and that *is* the time during those months. Being on DST is much more convenient for the vast majority of people- regardless of the month. If time is a construct and we can make it so we don't keep changing it AND we can make it more convenient and enjoyable at the same time by staying on DST, then why not do it? I don't give a damn if the sun is at its highest at noon.... I expect most don't care. I DO care about not having to get up in the dark AND getting home in the dark in the winter months, and moving to DST permanently would help with that. Besides, those living close to a different time zone are already a minimum of almost an hour off of high noon being high sun for ALL of the year.
>"Why does it matter what time it gets dark? Get up and go to work earlier so you can leave sooner if it's that much of a concern."
You act as if most of us CAN set what time we go to work. And that is not reality.
>"Did they just pass a law saying agreeing to send the entire state of Florida into the future by one hour? But seriously, how about make the time be what time it actually is?"
And what exactly would that be? MOST of the year, we are in DST, and that *is* the time, if everyone agrees it is. So just do DST the rest of the year too and be done with it!
>"I'm for staying with Standard Time year round. The sun should be at its highest at noon, not 1:00. 12:00 noon should be sun on the meridian, more or less - it depends on how far east or west you are from the center of your timezone."
Like you said, if you are on the edge of a timezone, it wouldn't be noon at high sun, anyway. We already engage in DST for most of the year anyway, and nothing falls apart that noon isn't at the highest point in the sky for the sun. I would go for anything that doesn't change time, ever. But I still would prefer "summer time" year-round.
PLEASE bring this to my State (and all States). I am so over changing time twice a year for absolutely no real reason my whole life. And picking to stay on Daylight Saving Time year-round ("permanent daylight saving time" is the best possible choice. I am very jealous. And yet, this could be the start of something great...
-Changing time-
Saves energy: FALSE
Helps farmers: FALSE
Gives extra sleep: FALSE
Reduces accidents: FALSE
Causes lots of lost productivity: TRUE
Causes a nightmare for people with sleep disorders: TRUE
Causes minor health problems even for normal people: TRUE
Generates a lot of hassle and confusion: TRUE
Hurts the economy: TRUE
>"Viewing the televisions before Samsung's event, the ambient really did appear to blend them into the walls at first blush."
Except that Samsung and apparently most of the other manufacturers are in love with stupid, GLOSSY screens. So no, it will not be invisible, it will reflect every stray light and everything else, even when it is on. (Can you tell I am a fan of now nearly unobtainable MATT displays?)
I can guess their "sample" setup was engineered VERY carefully to try and hide the actual reality of reflections that would be present in any real-world use.
"Rhode Island just joined the list of the states with net neutrality legislation"
https://www.fastcompany.com/40...
Ah, so those are the same people who now want the government to "filter" and "restrict" the Internet unless you pay more for certain parts of it. Doesn't sound very neutral. Doesn't sound like freedom. Doesn't sound like keeping ISP's from interfering with accessing of information.
That is completely independent of the total impossibility of an ISP being able to figure out how and which sites serve "porn" and exactly what constitutes "porn" and what happens when things are misfiltered.
Rhode Island- you must really like just PARTS of the Bill of Rights. But which parts? We know you dislike the 2nd Amendment, but I guess the 1st Amendment is now not to your liking, either? Which of the remaining 10 is next? Maybe the 4th?
>"Weird. You must mean Gladiator from 1992, because the Russel Crowe one is available."
Yes, the original mega-hit.
>"$77 million a year to keep Trump safe..."
He must be doing something right, then, since it apparently cost $1.4 billion a year to keep Obama safe...
https://www.investopedia.com/n...
This isn't just streaming. I use disc service also and now have over a dozen moves waiting in my queue with "Unknown" as the availability. Some for over a YEAR NOW. Most aren't even obscure, like Matrix Revolutions and Gladiator. Really? Some dork broke/lost/stole a disc and now Netflix won't even replace it with at least one copy???
John Stossel likes to go after the whole overly "licensing" thing. Here are some good videos of him that are very relevant to the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Of course, few people think that all licensing should go away, Stossel doesn't either. But it is getting a bit ridiculous.
>"Labor Board Says Google Could Fire James Damore For Anti-Diversity Memo"
And thus, misinformation continues to flow. His memo was not "anti-diversity." A correct title could be:
"Labor Board Says Google Could Fire James Damore For Memo About Anti-Diversity Program"
"Labor Board Says Google Could Fire James Damore For His Memo Criticizing Google's Diversity Program"
>" Slavery was legal at the time and it said so in the Constitution."
Actually, that is not technically correct. The pre-13th-amendment-Constitution does not say slavery was legal. But it didn't say it wasn't, either. Slavery is only mentioned twice, in one place saying that slaves counted as 3/5ths of a "person" for representation, and in another saying that the laws of one state cannot excuse a person from "Service or Labor" in another state. It is more of an acknowledgement that it existed. Nowhere does it define what a slave is or is not, or that slavery was any sort of right. It is too bad it wasn't going to be possible at that time [when it was created] for it to make slavery illegal.
But I do agree with you that if you want real gun control, it would require an amendment to the Constitution to do so, legally. Meanwhile, the language of the 2nd Amendment is extremely strong- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Few Constitutional rights have such powerful and specific language behind them. Technically, ANY law that restricts ANY free citizen from owning/carrying/transporting/using ANY arm [weapon] in ANY way at ANY time ANYwhere would fail the test of Constitutionality, if using a literal interpretation.
>"It doesn't follow that you the right to bare any arm you wish. You don't have the right to own assault weapons, semi-automatic weapons, bump stocks, high capacity magazines, etc, etc."
I understand your point, but you undermine it with misinformation.
1) People don't generally have any access to "assault weapons". Those are AUTOMATIC fire, and HIGHLY restricted. If you are talking about something "scary looking" like an AR-15, that is just a modern rife, and is no more powerful or dangerous than any typical hunting rifle.
2) No right to semi-automatic? You do realize that ALL modern self-defense guns are semi-automatic, don't you? I mean, what, you want just revolvers? Do you know that revolvers fire almost as fast as semi-automatic guns? So you think people should defend themselves against bad people with semi-automatics using what, a flint-lock? A single shot, bolt-loading gun? You think you can just make semi-automatics disappear from the streets?
3) What do you define as a "high capacity magazine"? 5 shots? 10? 15? 20? 30? A typical full-sized handgun is 15 to 17 shots. Do realize it takes only a second to swap in a fresh magazine? Do you think laws limiting magazines to some arbitrary number like maybe 10 will stop a crazed person from obtaining and using something bigger, or 4 smaller ones instead?
>"For most of our history, reasonable gun regulations were enacted by states and municipalities across the United States. Only with the rise of radicalized NRA in the 1980s did this change..."
That statement is not really correct at all. The first sentence is mostly correct, depending on your view of what is "reasonable." The second sentence isn't- the NRA started to become more powerful BECAUSE more and more *unreasonable* gun regulations were being put forward, and more citizens joined, seeking protection of their Constitutional rights from further erosion. The NRA as a non-lobby is interested in ACTUAL gun safety (like training, handling, information), information and sports.
>"...in the 1980s did this change, and with it came the rash of school shootings and mass gun slaughter."
How ridiculously inaccurate and inflammatory. Gun violence has been DECREASING for decades. What has changed mostly is the emotional, hyper media coverage of such shootings, making it SEEM like it is the end of the world. When in reality, while unreasonable gun control laws have been taken down more and more, things have been getting better. And although overall gun violence is down, I believe that same hyper-sensationalist and slanted media coverage has absolutely encouraged more nut-cases to perform copy-cat mass shootings to get their day of "fame." So the cycle feeds on itself.
>""Smart" watches don't last even a whole day."
Really? My now old Moto 360.2 does- in fact, it lasts over TWO days. And I certainly don't wear it to bed, it goes on the charger at that point (and is fully charged quickly, often before I am even asleep).
My watch easily outlasts any phone charge... I don't wear that to bed, either.. And the Moto 360.2 display is on ALL THE TIME.
Sure, there are issues with smart watches, but battery really isn't one of them. Size/weight is probably my biggest complaint.
Learn something new every day. Never even heard of "kratom" until today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"is a tropical evergreen tree in the coffee family (Rubiaceae) native to Southeast Asia in the Indochina and Malaysia phytochoria (botanical regions). M. speciosa is indigenous to Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, and Papua New Guinea, where it has been used in traditional medicine since at least the 19th century. Kratom has some opioid- and stimulant-like properties."
>"Well a 10" tablet is quite silly. [...] 2 in 1 convertibles are nice, but holding a 10" screen gets tiresome. "
I disagree. For me, 10" is too small for desktop work, and 7" as a "tablet" is still too small to be worth not using a phone. 9-10" is a perfect compromise size. With a kickstand case, it holds itself fine, in most uses.
Almost all convertibles are now "flip" types, which means I would have to worry constantly about putting an unprotected keyboard on wet, rough, and dirty surfaces- like at a restaurant. And it makes it considerably thicker and heavier on a device which I do little typing.
Back to the main topic, I am still using an ancient Nexus 10 because I have yet to find a REPLACEMENT for it. I have the money just sitting there for something but nothing comes out-
1) I want a fast CPU
2) I want 3+GB RAM
3) I want 64GB storage or at least an SD card
4) I want a WIDE SCREEN display, which is ideal for watching standard 16:9 programs and movies
5) It needs to be Android and updated regularly and have an reasonably uncontaminated OS
6) Preferably front-facing stereo speakers
So in my case, it is the fascination with "convertibles" that has pushed away all the good tablets and reduced sales. There are still plenty of smaller, narrow, and lower-end tablets out there.
>How would that all be practical in a handheld console that wasn't massively large?
The Switch is not just handheld, it is also dockable. Either way, it doesn't matter because the screen resolution is good enough and it has more than enough resources/power to play Wii games, and the controllers should work on a similar principle.
The only technical obstacle would have been the lack of an optical disc drive. Of course, Nintendo could either transfer the games to cards or make them downloadable for those who send in discs, perhaps with a small processing fee.
I suspect it the main motivation is just to force people to buy all new games again :(
I would have bought one myself, if it could play my Wii games. My Wii is mostly defective, so I could certainly justify it if it did. But, alas, it doesn't.
Well, I guess I am in a minority on Slashdot, based on the apparent general approval of such a thing. I think it is a dangerous idea. The last thing on earth we need is more and bigger Federal government. Could one reason the Fed would want in on this is to guarantee their easy access to CONTROL and LISTEN IN on the network traffic? Remember, their notion of "Security" typically isn't the same as a consumer's. How many agencies are still SCREAMING for "back doors" in encryption?
Spectrum is limited, of course. And I have no problem with the Fed in control of who leases such spectrum- someone has to manage it. I even think it is a good thing to set and enforce standards and interconnection and communication. But handing them the keys to design, build it, and supposedly pay for it would likely:
1) Cost much, much more than expected- just like most every other Fed run program.
2) Be full of corruption and kickbacks- just like most every other Fed run program.
3) Take much longer to complete- just like most every other Fed run program.
Be careful what you wish for....
>"To be fair it was Unity that moved the window controls to the left. Gnome 3 keeps them on the right where God intended."
Sorry, sometimes I get it mixed up. Unity is, of course, another whole list of disaster...
Reply to self- I left off perhaps my most hated thing with GTK3/Gnome- freaking HIDING everything, especially the damn scroll bars!