>"Smoke some pot, drink less, chill out, sleep for 9hrs easy. Stupid govt and people who thinks pot is bad, "just do it""
Smoking anything is "bad" if you define unhealthy as "bad". In which case it should be eaten or vaped.
It is also "bad" if you define endangering others as "bad". In which case it should be used on your own time and in a way not endangering others when in an altered state.
>"Does it still look like complete garbage though?"
By looks do you mean the icons are pretty or something? Or that it is cluttered with lots of controls? I don't know, looks fine to me. I am more interested in how it works than looks. And it works really well. The "looks" haven't changed at all in many years. And I think that is a good thing, especially because I detest the way applications have moved to "hiding" everything and using "stylish" icons that are impossible to know what they mean.:) I like real scrollbars that don't disappear. I like real menus with no changing with "context". I like good use of color and fixed controls that don't change meaning to try and do 100 things.
>"If I had to describe the experience of computing without a mouse in a word, I'd say it was fucking fantastic."
Well, it is not so fantastic for lots of things. I have used just about every interface- touchscreens, lightpens, digitizer tablets, voice, eye control, alternative keyboards, touchpads, joysticks, trackballs, VR, you name it (and yes, using computers before there were such things a mice). I find a combination of mouse AND keyboard for navigating and control to be the best, over just about any other combination, for the majority of uses. Only one or the only the other, not so much.
In any case, if you like keyboard use, you should try installing Claws as your Email client- it is extremely keyboard friendly (because it is designed that way) and yet works great with a mouse, too. It is nice that there are programs that let you work they way you want to work. https://www.claws-mail.org/
>"I like what China is doing of tying online identity to real identity. The US can do the same without infringing on free speech."
That is not free speech. That is exactly the opposite of free speech. When the government monitors what you say, then rewards or punishes you based on what you say, how is that free?
Well, no. Please remember that perhaps the majority of "Trump voters" were voting against Hillary, not for Trump. In many ways, she was her worst enemy.
We need instant runoff voting in all primaries and all elections, desperately. https://fairvote.org/
>"Welcome to the internet. You seem to be new here..."
Indeed. There is a component of Internet users who apparently have a huge lack of social skills, respect for others, or even basic moral values. Having watched this Internet grow from nothing to what it is today, I think it is showing just how detached some humans can be from reality when they are not actually in front of other people. They can spew hatred and stupidity without any regard to how it affects others, because perhaps those others are not real.
It seems to be the same thing that happens when some people drive- it is as if their brains fail to compute that those other cars around them are not just stupid machines in your way, but vehicles being driven by people. People who have thoughts, feelings, motivations, desires, hopes, goals, deadlines, frustrations, just like your own and yet with different viewpoints and realities.
The other main problem with Internet communication it that it is primary written. And usually written rapidly and with little thought. As a social creature, humans rely surprisingly heavily on social cues when communicating. We already went through one dramatic change when phones came on the scene- we lost all visual cues and had to adapt to just vocal ones. But with text, we lose not only visual cues, but the audible ones as well. It is so very easy to completely misunderstand such text- especially when emotions are involved.
So my advice to those using the Internet/texting/whatever:
1) Remember that you should never write (or say) things you wouldn't do if your audience weren't right in front of you. There are actual people behind the scenes.
2) Remember the golden rule.
3) Remember that what you write/say/do is often public record. And even if it were meant to be public, it can easily be so when copied/forwarded.
4) Remember to give people the benefit of the doubt. Don't assume you know exactly what was meant.
5) Remember to place reason above emotion. I am not saying you shouldn't be emotional, or have emotion, or passion, or empathize; just don't let emotion drive all your interpretations and responses.... try to have balance and run things through your logical mind before acting.
>"It's entirely possible that twins have different fathers"
But the article is about "identical" twins, not "fraternal" twins. Identical twins cannot have two fathers. It is pretty easy to identify identical twins because.... they look identical. That is not going to happen with fraternal twins.
The main issue is that I have already been interrupted. I don't want to be interrupted in the first place nor later with bogus voicemail. I want technology to screen the calls for me to ensure that it is an actual legit call before getting my attention with a ring OR allowing voicemail.
This is why dumping to voicemail fails. This is why "DND" fails. This is why ignoring calls fails. This is why existing anti-spam call apps fail (because they ring through once and/or still allow voicemail).
We have the technology now, we just need to use it. I hardly ever give my mobile number out to anyone, certainly not any business of any type. Yet I give my work land-line number out freely and never get ANY automated calls and rarely get human spam calls. Why? Because my work number is answered by an auto-attendant and they must enter my extension number to get to me. So all the robocalls get trapped at the front door. Doing something similar in a local app should be exceedingly easy now.
>"One could simply whitelist their calls; unrecognized numbers go to voicemail."
And you get a notification for voicemail, then have to stop and go into that app and wait for it to load it, then play it back, only to find the message is a robocall, then delete it. And yes, about 1/4 of such annoying calls leave messages on both my home and cell phone.
I would much prefer to have:
1) No more number spoofing- or at least a huge improvement.
2) The ability to completely silently throw a captcha at any incoming number not in my contacts or whitelisted. Something like "dial 32 to continue" or "press 1 to hang up, 2 to ring through, or 3 to hold" or a list of names with which button to press, only one being correct. Having more than a few would be helpful.
3) The ability for it to then HANG UP on any failed captcha calls with NO ability for them to leave annoying voicemail. Logging is good, though.
4) Bonus for doing something similar for texting (seems to be much less of a problem, however).
This should be possible, all locally, with a local app, if Android allows the correct permissions (like to prevent ringing AND to hang up on a call). No servers. No monthly fees. No data dependency. I seem to remember this being a problem on unrooted Android, though.
Of course, that wouldn't do much for land line- but there are already similar devices available for that:
>"After AT&T and T-Mobile said they would stop selling their customers' phone location data to third parties, Sprint has followed suit."
1) Yet the information will still be collected. 2) Yet the information will still be stored. 3) We have no idea how long the information is stored. 4) The announcement says "sell", nothing about giving, trading, lending, supplying to the government, etc. 5) Will they put it in their user agreements/disclosures? Or is this just some verbal "promise"? 6) Where is Verizon in all this? Somehow their absence doesn't surprise me.
>"There are hacks that allow speakers to be used as microphones."
Yeah, security is such a nightmare now. At least in the case of the "Alias", it emits a constant stream of noise that blocks the mic and would likely block the speaker portion acting as a mic.
>"now I suppose it could record and then wait for the wake word to transmit"
It might also only transmit when it needs to, which will look like normal traffic but could be metrics you don't expect. Again, it is a "black box". It might also do so only if and when you are targeted, or only when it hears certain things that you didn't supply during testing, or only if it was hacked. There are lots of ways something can spy on you without it just transmitting in obvious ways.
>"but if I'm that paranoid, why wouldn't I just install a bunch of smart sockets to turn the power to my devices off when I want true privacy?"
You could, but then it wouldn't be convenient or easy- defeating what people like the most about it. So that really is what Alias is doing- trying to keep it convenient. And yes, even with Alias, it doesn't address all those other cases of spying when you are actually using it. Of course, that applies to just about any "black box", like your phone or car.
>"Because it is a hardware switch which cuts off electricity to the microphone. This has been explored by many many tear-downs. Search for yourself."
Thanks. I didn't know that. Besides, that is not typical at all for mute buttons. Plus, three are many "smart speakers" now and by many companies. I was speaking more in abstract and not about one particular model from one particular company and right now.
In any case, you can't activate a mute button remotely, so I still see how this Alias thing would be useful.
>"How do you KNOW the mute button works or what it does? Perhaps it still listens and doesn't respond. There is no way to know what it is doing."
Reply to self. I should have added:
And even if you know what it does now, how do you know that won't change later? The company could decide, at any point, to change the behavior because it is a soft function. And if they can change it, then so can hackers. And perhaps there are back doors and the government can gain access directly or indirectly. None of this is far-fetched, we have plenty of evidence that it has already happened and is happening.
We are entering a different age now- one in which our equipment is no longer really ours. We have less and less control over the things we are buying and using. Our phones, cars, TV's, tablets, watches... You don't have to think people are trying to break into your house to do something sensible like locking your doors. You don't have to think people are secretly trying to run into your car to wear a seatbelt.
>"I'm trying to figure out why the people who want the device but are worried about their privacy don't use the mute button on the top of their Echo. Is there some conspiracy about this not working that I'm unaware of?"
Doesn't have to be a "conspiracy". How do you KNOW the mute button works or what it does? Perhaps it still listens and doesn't respond. There is no way to know what it is doing.
>"Why would I replace the mute button with another device that may also be listening to me?"
Because they you have a device you control and know will and cannot listen to anything without your explicit permission. I think it is a fantastic idea.
>"Maybe I'm just in the minority in not wanting everything to be a video. [...] I don't want autoplay anything in my browser."
You might be in the minority, but you are FAR from alone. I *detest* ANY type of media autoplay- regardless of the type or if it is muted or not. And I think most users are very annoyed by any type of autoplay, but perhaps not motivated enough to fight it (especially if muted). Firefox is the only browser (I know of) so far that allows blocking autoplay of muted video (and no addon/plugin needed):
Although it will break some sites (I find in practice it is a rare thing, though). The Firefox UI currently includes no way to set the first two of the above, you must use about:config.
>"Maybe the issue is that the sites have no motivation to obey "no autoplay" because it would cost developer time to satisfy a very small group of visitors."
Or they are so arrogant and controlling they want to FORCE their crap down your throat regardless of your preferences, requests, or situation. I don't want my browsing experience to ever be like DVR-less "TV" or "Radio".
>"No, if they were so concerned they would phone or text."
No, if it weren't that urgent and they were considerate, it would be an Email. Something that can be longer, thoughtful, complete, and easy to reply to in comfort and without as much interruption.
>"Respond to what you can, and ignore the rest. Key to inbox infinity -- telling close contacts and family that your email replies might be slow in coming -- if at all -- as well as alternative ways to reach you"
That is just being an asshole. And what "alternative ways" are more efficient and less annoying? Being interrupted constantly with phone calls or texts? Writing a letter?
>"A good nanny state doesn't prevent what you put in your body, but instead stops companies from selling you poison while labeling it as food. This is what starts nanny states"
Exactly. I am all for the government testing things and providing information and warnings. But then it inevitably goes a step too far and the banning starts. Warn and educate, but citizens should be adults, responsible for their own actions.
>"Unfettered capitalism and Soviet-style Communism are just two sides of the same authoritarian coin."
You don't need to imagine extremes to describe the existing and ever-growing nanny state we have RIGHT NOW that tells us what we can put in our bodies, that we have to wear seat belts, that we must have 1,000 restrictions on Constitutional rights, what words we are allowed to say, that we aren't allowed to use plastic straws, etc.
I am certainly not in favor of anarchy, but there is a line we crossed, sometime, a long time ago. And each generation is more than willing to allow more government intrusion into their lives for "safety" or "convenience". Generation after generation, it is rapidly adding up. My great, great grandparents would be utterly shocked what the "land of the free" has become, especially people's lack of responsibility for their own actions and lack of respect for one another.
When consumers, like me, put black electric tape over the camera lenses. Of course, then expect that the car will "fail to start" or issue never-ending nag messages. Sometimes the future looks depressing.
I just don't see where it is any big deal with cameras to have 2 or 3 cards vs. a much more expensive single card. At least, not in my experience. Plus it is good to have the redundancy, in case of card failure. Some cameras even have dual slots and will write to both in mirror mode.
Slashdot Mirror
>"I've stuck with pine (now alpine) which I've used for... wow, I guess about 20 years now. "
I used Elm (and Zmail) for many years before switching to Claws :)
>"Smoke some pot, drink less, chill out, sleep for 9hrs easy. Stupid govt and people who thinks pot is bad, "just do it""
Smoking anything is "bad" if you define unhealthy as "bad". In which case it should be eaten or vaped.
It is also "bad" if you define endangering others as "bad". In which case it should be used on your own time and in a way not endangering others when in an altered state.
>"Does it still look like complete garbage though?"
By looks do you mean the icons are pretty or something? Or that it is cluttered with lots of controls? I don't know, looks fine to me. I am more interested in how it works than looks. And it works really well. The "looks" haven't changed at all in many years. And I think that is a good thing, especially because I detest the way applications have moved to "hiding" everything and using "stylish" icons that are impossible to know what they mean. :) I like real scrollbars that don't disappear. I like real menus with no changing with "context". I like good use of color and fixed controls that don't change meaning to try and do 100 things.
>"If I had to describe the experience of computing without a mouse in a word, I'd say it was fucking fantastic."
Well, it is not so fantastic for lots of things. I have used just about every interface- touchscreens, lightpens, digitizer tablets, voice, eye control, alternative keyboards, touchpads, joysticks, trackballs, VR, you name it (and yes, using computers before there were such things a mice). I find a combination of mouse AND keyboard for navigating and control to be the best, over just about any other combination, for the majority of uses. Only one or the only the other, not so much.
In any case, if you like keyboard use, you should try installing Claws as your Email client- it is extremely keyboard friendly (because it is designed that way) and yet works great with a mouse, too. It is nice that there are programs that let you work they way you want to work. https://www.claws-mail.org/
>"I like what China is doing of tying online identity to real identity. The US can do the same without infringing on free speech."
That is not free speech. That is exactly the opposite of free speech. When the government monitors what you say, then rewards or punishes you based on what you say, how is that free?
>"In the US, we call them, "Trump voters". "
Well, no. Please remember that perhaps the majority of "Trump voters" were voting against Hillary, not for Trump. In many ways, she was her worst enemy.
We need instant runoff voting in all primaries and all elections, desperately. https://fairvote.org/
>"Welcome to the internet. You seem to be new here..."
Indeed. There is a component of Internet users who apparently have a huge lack of social skills, respect for others, or even basic moral values. Having watched this Internet grow from nothing to what it is today, I think it is showing just how detached some humans can be from reality when they are not actually in front of other people. They can spew hatred and stupidity without any regard to how it affects others, because perhaps those others are not real.
It seems to be the same thing that happens when some people drive- it is as if their brains fail to compute that those other cars around them are not just stupid machines in your way, but vehicles being driven by people. People who have thoughts, feelings, motivations, desires, hopes, goals, deadlines, frustrations, just like your own and yet with different viewpoints and realities.
The other main problem with Internet communication it that it is primary written. And usually written rapidly and with little thought. As a social creature, humans rely surprisingly heavily on social cues when communicating. We already went through one dramatic change when phones came on the scene- we lost all visual cues and had to adapt to just vocal ones. But with text, we lose not only visual cues, but the audible ones as well. It is so very easy to completely misunderstand such text- especially when emotions are involved.
So my advice to those using the Internet/texting/whatever:
1) Remember that you should never write (or say) things you wouldn't do if your audience weren't right in front of you. There are actual people behind the scenes.
2) Remember the golden rule.
3) Remember that what you write/say/do is often public record. And even if it were meant to be public, it can easily be so when copied/forwarded.
4) Remember to give people the benefit of the doubt. Don't assume you know exactly what was meant.
5) Remember to place reason above emotion. I am not saying you shouldn't be emotional, or have emotion, or passion, or empathize; just don't let emotion drive all your interpretations and responses.... try to have balance and run things through your logical mind before acting.
>"What if the two fathers are twins?"
LOL!
and
Eeeeeeeew!
>"It's entirely possible that twins have different fathers"
But the article is about "identical" twins, not "fraternal" twins. Identical twins cannot have two fathers. It is pretty easy to identify identical twins because.... they look identical. That is not going to happen with fraternal twins.
The main issue is that I have already been interrupted. I don't want to be interrupted in the first place nor later with bogus voicemail. I want technology to screen the calls for me to ensure that it is an actual legit call before getting my attention with a ring OR allowing voicemail.
This is why dumping to voicemail fails.
This is why "DND" fails.
This is why ignoring calls fails.
This is why existing anti-spam call apps fail (because they ring through once and/or still allow voicemail).
We have the technology now, we just need to use it. I hardly ever give my mobile number out to anyone, certainly not any business of any type. Yet I give my work land-line number out freely and never get ANY automated calls and rarely get human spam calls. Why? Because my work number is answered by an auto-attendant and they must enter my extension number to get to me. So all the robocalls get trapped at the front door. Doing something similar in a local app should be exceedingly easy now.
>"One could simply whitelist their calls; unrecognized numbers go to voicemail."
And you get a notification for voicemail, then have to stop and go into that app and wait for it to load it, then play it back, only to find the message is a robocall, then delete it. And yes, about 1/4 of such annoying calls leave messages on both my home and cell phone.
I would much prefer to have:
1) No more number spoofing- or at least a huge improvement.
2) The ability to completely silently throw a captcha at any incoming number not in my contacts or whitelisted. Something like "dial 32 to continue" or "press 1 to hang up, 2 to ring through, or 3 to hold" or a list of names with which button to press, only one being correct. Having more than a few would be helpful.
3) The ability for it to then HANG UP on any failed captcha calls with NO ability for them to leave annoying voicemail. Logging is good, though.
4) Bonus for doing something similar for texting (seems to be much less of a problem, however).
This should be possible, all locally, with a local app, if Android allows the correct permissions (like to prevent ringing AND to hang up on a call). No servers. No monthly fees. No data dependency. I seem to remember this being a problem on unrooted Android, though.
Of course, that wouldn't do much for land line- but there are already similar devices available for that:
http://www.tel-lynx.com/
>"After AT&T and T-Mobile said they would stop selling their customers' phone location data to third parties, Sprint has followed suit."
1) Yet the information will still be collected.
2) Yet the information will still be stored.
3) We have no idea how long the information is stored.
4) The announcement says "sell", nothing about giving, trading, lending, supplying to the government, etc.
5) Will they put it in their user agreements/disclosures? Or is this just some verbal "promise"?
6) Where is Verizon in all this? Somehow their absence doesn't surprise me.
>"There are hacks that allow speakers to be used as microphones."
Yeah, security is such a nightmare now. At least in the case of the "Alias", it emits a constant stream of noise that blocks the mic and would likely block the speaker portion acting as a mic.
>"Are you perhaps also blocking Javascript by default?"
I am not, no. Blocking javascript breaks all sites and trying to tangle with that mess is almost impossible now.
>"now I suppose it could record and then wait for the wake word to transmit"
It might also only transmit when it needs to, which will look like normal traffic but could be metrics you don't expect. Again, it is a "black box". It might also do so only if and when you are targeted, or only when it hears certain things that you didn't supply during testing, or only if it was hacked. There are lots of ways something can spy on you without it just transmitting in obvious ways.
>"but if I'm that paranoid, why wouldn't I just install a bunch of smart sockets to turn the power to my devices off when I want true privacy?"
You could, but then it wouldn't be convenient or easy- defeating what people like the most about it. So that really is what Alias is doing- trying to keep it convenient. And yes, even with Alias, it doesn't address all those other cases of spying when you are actually using it. Of course, that applies to just about any "black box", like your phone or car.
>"Because it is a hardware switch which cuts off electricity to the microphone. This has been explored by many many tear-downs. Search for yourself."
Thanks. I didn't know that. Besides, that is not typical at all for mute buttons. Plus, three are many "smart speakers" now and by many companies. I was speaking more in abstract and not about one particular model from one particular company and right now.
In any case, you can't activate a mute button remotely, so I still see how this Alias thing would be useful.
>"How do you KNOW the mute button works or what it does? Perhaps it still listens and doesn't respond. There is no way to know what it is doing."
Reply to self. I should have added:
And even if you know what it does now, how do you know that won't change later? The company could decide, at any point, to change the behavior because it is a soft function. And if they can change it, then so can hackers. And perhaps there are back doors and the government can gain access directly or indirectly. None of this is far-fetched, we have plenty of evidence that it has already happened and is happening.
We are entering a different age now- one in which our equipment is no longer really ours. We have less and less control over the things we are buying and using. Our phones, cars, TV's, tablets, watches... You don't have to think people are trying to break into your house to do something sensible like locking your doors. You don't have to think people are secretly trying to run into your car to wear a seatbelt.
>"I'm trying to figure out why the people who want the device but are worried about their privacy don't use the mute button on the top of their Echo. Is there some conspiracy about this not working that I'm unaware of?"
Doesn't have to be a "conspiracy". How do you KNOW the mute button works or what it does? Perhaps it still listens and doesn't respond. There is no way to know what it is doing.
>"Why would I replace the mute button with another device that may also be listening to me?"
Because they you have a device you control and know will and cannot listen to anything without your explicit permission. I think it is a fantastic idea.
>"Maybe I'm just in the minority in not wanting everything to be a video. [...] I don't want autoplay anything in my browser."
You might be in the minority, but you are FAR from alone. I *detest* ANY type of media autoplay- regardless of the type or if it is muted or not. And I think most users are very annoyed by any type of autoplay, but perhaps not motivated enough to fight it (especially if muted). Firefox is the only browser (I know of) so far that allows blocking autoplay of muted video (and no addon/plugin needed):
media.autoplay.default=1
media.autoplay.enabled.user-gestures-needed=false
media.autoplay.allow-muted=false
Although it will break some sites (I find in practice it is a rare thing, though). The Firefox UI currently includes no way to set the first two of the above, you must use about:config.
>"Maybe the issue is that the sites have no motivation to obey "no autoplay" because it would cost developer time to satisfy a very small group of visitors."
Or they are so arrogant and controlling they want to FORCE their crap down your throat regardless of your preferences, requests, or situation. I don't want my browsing experience to ever be like DVR-less "TV" or "Radio".
>"No, if they were so concerned they would phone or text."
No, if it weren't that urgent and they were considerate, it would be an Email. Something that can be longer, thoughtful, complete, and easy to reply to in comfort and without as much interruption.
>"Respond to what you can, and ignore the rest. Key to inbox infinity -- telling close contacts and family that your email replies might be slow in coming -- if at all -- as well as alternative ways to reach you"
That is just being an asshole. And what "alternative ways" are more efficient and less annoying? Being interrupted constantly with phone calls or texts? Writing a letter?
>"A good nanny state doesn't prevent what you put in your body, but instead stops companies from selling you poison while labeling it as food. This is what starts nanny states"
Exactly. I am all for the government testing things and providing information and warnings. But then it inevitably goes a step too far and the banning starts. Warn and educate, but citizens should be adults, responsible for their own actions.
>"Unfettered capitalism and Soviet-style Communism are just two sides of the same authoritarian coin."
You don't need to imagine extremes to describe the existing and ever-growing nanny state we have RIGHT NOW that tells us what we can put in our bodies, that we have to wear seat belts, that we must have 1,000 restrictions on Constitutional rights, what words we are allowed to say, that we aren't allowed to use plastic straws, etc.
I am certainly not in favor of anarchy, but there is a line we crossed, sometime, a long time ago. And each generation is more than willing to allow more government intrusion into their lives for "safety" or "convenience". Generation after generation, it is rapidly adding up. My great, great grandparents would be utterly shocked what the "land of the free" has become, especially people's lack of responsibility for their own actions and lack of respect for one another.
>"But where will it end?"
When consumers, like me, put black electric tape over the camera lenses. Of course, then expect that the car will "fail to start" or issue never-ending nag messages. Sometimes the future looks depressing.
I just don't see where it is any big deal with cameras to have 2 or 3 cards vs. a much more expensive single card. At least, not in my experience. Plus it is good to have the redundancy, in case of card failure. Some cameras even have dual slots and will write to both in mirror mode.