There is a reason that everyone uses google and only google.
The main reason is that that is the default search on virtually all computer and mobile browsers.
Of course it got to be the default search rather than earlier market leaders such as Webcrawler, Lycos and Altavista through quality innovations. But it retains it now through inertia, and because whilst other search engines are as good, none are a generation ahead. And that's what's needed to change an established monopoly.
Also, I am not sure these guys know it, but Android is free to install.
It's not really of interest to users, as they pay for a mobile phone - the BOM is not their concern. So we have manufacturer's getting a benefit from Google and users paying for it. So that's not quite right.
Tell that to all the people who've needed to be rushed to hospital in a car in an emergency. After a heart attack, or because there's a childbirth problem, or because of a life threatening accident.
Yes, keyless cars usually have a manual backup lock buried behind some trim, but they are so rarely needed that most owners won't know they are there.
If my car's remote unlock doesn't work then I sigh and use the key to get in.
I didn't say remote unlock. I said proximity lock. And they are so reliable that the keyhole is usually buried behind some trim and most owners don't even know it's there.
If my gun fails to fire during the admittedly rarer time when I need it for defense well let's just say there probably won't be anyone to register a complaint.
Because these systems virtually always work on cars there is a vanishingly small chance that it won't work when you need it in the very unlikely chance you ever need your gun for an emergency.
Against that vanishingly small possibility, you have to weigh all the lives that would be saved by the gun not being able to be used by people other than the owner. For example, rather than the hypothetical you pose, how many real children are killed because they or their friend got hold of a gun to play with?
You seem to have confused a citation with a link. I've told you exactly where and how to find the information. If you were actually interested in the facts you'd look. But you aren't. Presumably because as I said you have been here long enough to already know what I said is true.
You really think Stalin, Kim Jung Il, Pol Pot, or Fidel Castro were "sharing" with the rest of their so-called equality societies?
Point 1) None of those societies were called "equality societies". So they aren't "so-called equality societies".
Point 2) WTF are you talking about? That's a non-sequiteur.
What exactly is wrong with cutting and pasting?
Nothing, so long as you attribute it. But putting "Shall I go on" at the end instead implies that you actually wrote something already when you did not.
The fact remains a lot of politicians swore to uphold the constitution (which, at its core says that government doesn't decide what government is) then make a career of armed robbery to buy votes and championing ideas like disarmament of the public.
Well, that's not a fact. That's another problem with randomly copy/pasting long lists of claimed quotes, without context. We don't know their legitimacy, and neither do you. We only know that you read it somewhere and want to believe it.
Here's the real irony: Liberals say that only the police and military should have guns. Liberals at their core really hate the police and military.
Some liberals say that. Some liberals hate the police. Some hate the military. They are not usually the same liberals. When you classify everybody to the left of George W Bush as a liberal, that covers an awful lot of diverse opinions.
I'm not sure if you mean the same thing. I don't mean the ones where you press a button on the key or fob. I mean the ones that unlock and enable the ignition automatically when you come close.
So you had a faulty vehicle. That doesn't mean that people generally have problems with proximity locking. It doesn't mean there's a a significant chance of it not working when you need it.
Heck any car with a modern immobiliser is undrivable unless the proximity key is working. Yet we don't hear many stories of people being stuck because of the immobiliser not working.
Forget the issue and attack the poster! Leftist playbook, page 3.
The irony of this is most amusing. Given that the story it's attached to is about some gun nuts stalking a woman for being a rep for a company selling a gun technology they don't approve of. Who's really attacking the messenger?
I would and have criticised others for cutting and pasting material and passing it off as their own in the comments under all sorts of topics. It's a dumb thing to do.
We already have proximity keys on automobiles. How often do they let people down? How often are people locked out of their car because the key doesn't work? Not often enough for it to be an issue. But then car owners aren't nearly so hysterical as gun nuts.
Speaking from Europe, where we've been using Chip&PIN for nearly a decade, it is only used for in person purchases.
Internet purchases fall back on the old card number plus 3 digit "security number" from the back of the card, plus the need to specify a delivery address who's digits have the correct hash value. Same as presumably happens now in the US.
I guess the point is that's it's trivial to "clone" a mag-stripe card, but not a chip and pin one. Just because it doesn't also solve internet frauds doesn't mean the cloning problem isn't worth dealing with.
2. Before the idiots chime in here and say "but nobody should be looking at all!!#$!$#!@#" - not every country has the same privacy laws, and not every provider in the RECEIVED: chain has the same policies. Depending on Google to defend your privacy with plaintext messages is dumb.
It's neither idiotic, nor dumb. The way email works might be part of your specialist knowledge (and mine and most people who read slashdot). But that doesn't mean that perfectly intelligent people in other domains know how email is implemented. If you took a survey of doctors or architects or humanities professors, then probably a minority would know about the plaintext transport of email, They are not stupid people, they just know about different things. And many things that they know about you don't. But they are not calling you an idiot.
When we criticise the bad behaviour of tech companies, we do it for EVERYONE, not just for computer geeks. People without this specific field of interest don't deserve to have their lack of specialist knowledge taken advantage of any more than they deserve to be called idiots by the likes of you.
The Google Play Store is checked for malware and things like that.
Auto-running a virus checker on uploaded apps does not a curated app store make. Curation is a human activity.
And Google Play is not free from malware. I've just been going through old Slashdot stories about mobile malware and most of the reports have been on Google Play (or The Android Market as it was previously known.). This notion that it's only the other stores that are a problem is false.
But you know what? More power to them. At least they can pick other places to shop instead of Apple's one sure way or go to the highway.
The freedom to have malware. One of the lesser known freedoms.
Type Malware into Slashdot's search box. Go back to 2011. At a rate of about once a month you'll see stories about multiple malware apps found on The Android Market as Google Play was known then. And you won't see any such stories for iOS.
Saying, "You owe me because you did X" doesn't really work if you forced me to do X.
Nobody forced anybody to develop an iOS app. Anyone that did so knew what the business proposition was when they made the app (or bought the company that made the app.)
It's also not at all unusual. Game consoles have had this as a standard arrangement all along. In fact more so... Apple will let anyone publish apps and provide IAP provided they go along with the rules. The games console companies select their partners and select the games. Consoles that have come along to provide more open models have all failed.
I really hope that's sarcasm.
No. Apple pay companies by cheque once a month. It's no more difficult for Amazon that it is for any other developer. It couldn't be more easy.
Huh? That doesn't even halfway make sense. What I said was that for smaller businesses who don't have an ongoing business relationship with the customer outside the iOS ecosystem, customers won't want to enter their credit card details. For large companies that already process payments outside of the iOS ecosystem, like Amazon, customers have already entered their credit card details when they created an account with the company.
And then you proposed that all kinds should be allowed to have their own billing systems. Thus making life more difficult for users.
If you use Apple's in-app purchase system for digital purchases from iOS, then suddenly you have a situation where one purchase on Amazon follows one set of refund rules, and another purchase follows a different set of rules, solely because of what device was used when the user purchased it.
Comixology users aren't confused by purchasing through the Comixology app. What's making them not just confused but angry is Android removing that functionality. Your notion that these are just other products from Amazon is simply nonsense. Amazon bought a going concern, and is angering the existing users.
And if you extend in-app purchases to other digital products sold via Amazon (e.g. the online videos), it would mean that the prices have to go up for everyone by 30% so that they can comply with Apple's most-favored-nation policy, which doesn't let them charge more to buy content through in-app purchase, thus pricing Amazon out of the market entirely, and giving Apple's iTunes Movie Store an illegal competitive advantage. That's where this really becomes a potential problem for Apple.
That's quite an amusing irony given that Amazon imposes most favoured nation clauses on it's own suppliers! Worse, Amazon decides the selling price of ebooks and if it decides to "sell" at zero, Amazon gets to promote themselves with free product without paying their supplier anything for the product.
It really is impossible to frame Amazon as a victim here.
Of course Apple used to be the market share leader. But Android also had most malware back then too.
It has nothing to do with market share. It's about security. The difference is a single curated market for Apple, vs multiple markets and no curation for Android.
That's quite amusing since Amazon also impose a most favoured nation clause on their suppliers. That makes it quite quite hard to make them out to be the victim here.
Worse, Amazon pay a percentage of ebook sales to authors. But Amazon themselves set the price. And of they decide it's zero, they are giving the ebook out to customers without the author receiving a penny. http://www.mhpbooks.com/amazon...
Slashdot Mirror
There is a reason that everyone uses google and only google.
The main reason is that that is the default search on virtually all computer and mobile browsers.
Of course it got to be the default search rather than earlier market leaders such as Webcrawler, Lycos and Altavista through quality innovations. But it retains it now through inertia, and because whilst other search engines are as good, none are a generation ahead. And that's what's needed to change an established monopoly.
Also, I am not sure these guys know it, but Android is free to install.
It's not really of interest to users, as they pay for a mobile phone - the BOM is not their concern. So we have manufacturer's getting a benefit from Google and users paying for it. So that's not quite right.
It wouldn't be relevant. Windows had a monopoly. Windows phone doesn't.
I don't think Android is big enough to be deemed a monopoly yet, but it's heading that way.
Windows Phone on the other hand is barely surviving, so doesn't need to worry about breaching any monopoly rules.
Tell that to all the people who've needed to be rushed to hospital in a car in an emergency. After a heart attack, or because there's a childbirth problem, or because of a life threatening accident.
Yes, keyless cars usually have a manual backup lock buried behind some trim, but they are so rarely needed that most owners won't know they are there.
If my car's remote unlock doesn't work then I sigh and use the key to get in.
I didn't say remote unlock. I said proximity lock. And they are so reliable that the keyhole is usually buried behind some trim and most owners don't even know it's there.
If my gun fails to fire during the admittedly rarer time when I need it for defense well let's just say there probably won't be anyone to register a complaint.
Because these systems virtually always work on cars there is a vanishingly small chance that it won't work when you need it in the very unlikely chance you ever need your gun for an emergency.
Against that vanishingly small possibility, you have to weigh all the lives that would be saved by the gun not being able to be used by people other than the owner. For example, rather than the hypothetical you pose, how many real children are killed because they or their friend got hold of a gun to play with?
You seem to have confused a citation with a link. I've told you exactly where and how to find the information. If you were actually interested in the facts you'd look. But you aren't. Presumably because as I said you have been here long enough to already know what I said is true.
Try leaving your gun in the garage for a few years and see how reliably it shoots.
but don't dare start trying to make me look like an inbred hick just because I happen to like to target shoot.
Are you threatening me?
Tell that to the person that needs rushing to hospital.
In most people's lives they are far more likely to have a life/death situations where they need a car than where they need a gun.
And then there are all the emergency service workers that are dealing with life/death situations every day and use cars.
Did you realise just how out of proportion your view of guns has become?
You really think Stalin, Kim Jung Il, Pol Pot, or Fidel Castro were "sharing" with the rest of their so-called equality societies?
Point 1) None of those societies were called "equality societies". So they aren't "so-called equality societies".
Point 2) WTF are you talking about? That's a non-sequiteur.
What exactly is wrong with cutting and pasting?
Nothing, so long as you attribute it. But putting "Shall I go on" at the end instead implies that you actually wrote something already when you did not.
The fact remains a lot of politicians swore to uphold the constitution (which, at its core says that government doesn't decide what government is) then make a career of armed robbery to buy votes and championing ideas like disarmament of the public.
Well, that's not a fact. That's another problem with randomly copy/pasting long lists of claimed quotes, without context. We don't know their legitimacy, and neither do you. We only know that you read it somewhere and want to believe it.
Here's the real irony: Liberals say that only the police and military should have guns. Liberals at their core really hate the police and military.
Some liberals say that. Some liberals hate the police. Some hate the military. They are not usually the same liberals. When you classify everybody to the left of George W Bush as a liberal, that covers an awful lot of diverse opinions.
After all new guns are "smart" guns, the next step is a remote kill switch.
An unfortunate choice of words. But it's certainly a good thing if the police can stop a criminal's gun firing.
I'm not sure if you mean the same thing. I don't mean the ones where you press a button on the key or fob. I mean the ones that unlock and enable the ignition automatically when you come close.
So you had a faulty vehicle. That doesn't mean that people generally have problems with proximity locking. It doesn't mean there's a a significant chance of it not working when you need it.
Heck any car with a modern immobiliser is undrivable unless the proximity key is working. Yet we don't hear many stories of people being stuck because of the immobiliser not working.
Forget the issue and attack the poster! Leftist playbook, page 3.
The irony of this is most amusing. Given that the story it's attached to is about some gun nuts stalking a woman for being a rep for a company selling a gun technology they don't approve of. Who's really attacking the messenger?
I would and have criticised others for cutting and pasting material and passing it off as their own in the comments under all sorts of topics. It's a dumb thing to do.
And "Elites"?! What a redneck numpty.
We already have proximity keys on automobiles. How often do they let people down? How often are people locked out of their car because the key doesn't work?
Not often enough for it to be an issue. But then car owners aren't nearly so hysterical as gun nuts.
Stop selling them to idiots with mental problems
I think that will kill the gun market right there.
Should I continue?
Well that all depends. Did the person you plagarised this from actually write any more examples for you to pass off as your own research?
And again, gun nuts show they are the last people that should be trusted to be responsible with anything.
Speaking from Europe, where we've been using Chip&PIN for nearly a decade, it is only used for in person purchases.
Internet purchases fall back on the old card number plus 3 digit "security number" from the back of the card, plus the need to specify a delivery address who's digits have the correct hash value. Same as presumably happens now in the US.
I guess the point is that's it's trivial to "clone" a mag-stripe card, but not a chip and pin one. Just because it doesn't also solve internet frauds doesn't mean the cloning problem isn't worth dealing with.
2. Before the idiots chime in here and say "but nobody should be looking at all!!#$!$#!@#" - not every country has the same privacy laws, and not every provider in the RECEIVED: chain has the same policies. Depending on Google to defend your privacy with plaintext messages is dumb.
It's neither idiotic, nor dumb. The way email works might be part of your specialist knowledge (and mine and most people who read slashdot). But that doesn't mean that perfectly intelligent people in other domains know how email is implemented. If you took a survey of doctors or architects or humanities professors, then probably a minority would know about the plaintext transport of email, They are not stupid people, they just know about different things. And many things that they know about you don't. But they are not calling you an idiot.
When we criticise the bad behaviour of tech companies, we do it for EVERYONE, not just for computer geeks. People without this specific field of interest don't deserve to have their lack of specialist knowledge taken advantage of any more than they deserve to be called idiots by the likes of you.
New Google Mission Statement: "Don't continue to be evil after we've been called out on it in the tech press."
The Google Play Store is checked for malware and things like that.
Auto-running a virus checker on uploaded apps does not a curated app store make. Curation is a human activity.
And Google Play is not free from malware. I've just been going through old Slashdot stories about mobile malware and most of the reports have been on Google Play (or The Android Market as it was previously known.). This notion that it's only the other stores that are a problem is false.
But you know what? More power to them. At least they can pick other places to shop instead of Apple's one sure way or go to the highway.
The freedom to have malware. One of the lesser known freedoms.
You've been here long enough to have seen it.
Type Malware into Slashdot's search box. Go back to 2011. At a rate of about once a month you'll see stories about multiple malware apps found on The Android Market as Google Play was known then. And you won't see any such stories for iOS.
Saying, "You owe me because you did X" doesn't really work if you forced me to do X.
Nobody forced anybody to develop an iOS app. Anyone that did so knew what the business proposition was when they made the app (or bought the company that made the app.)
It's also not at all unusual. Game consoles have had this as a standard arrangement all along. In fact more so... Apple will let anyone publish apps and provide IAP provided they go along with the rules. The games console companies select their partners and select the games. Consoles that have come along to provide more open models have all failed.
I really hope that's sarcasm.
No. Apple pay companies by cheque once a month. It's no more difficult for Amazon that it is for any other developer. It couldn't be more easy.
Huh? That doesn't even halfway make sense. What I said was that for smaller businesses who don't have an ongoing business relationship with the customer outside the iOS ecosystem, customers won't want to enter their credit card details. For large companies that already process payments outside of the iOS ecosystem, like Amazon, customers have already entered their credit card details when they created an account with the company.
And then you proposed that all kinds should be allowed to have their own billing systems. Thus making life more difficult for users.
If you use Apple's in-app purchase system for digital purchases from iOS, then suddenly you have a situation where one purchase on Amazon follows one set of refund rules, and another purchase follows a different set of rules, solely because of what device was used when the user purchased it.
Comixology users aren't confused by purchasing through the Comixology app. What's making them not just confused but angry is Android removing that functionality. Your notion that these are just other products from Amazon is simply nonsense. Amazon bought a going concern, and is angering the existing users.
And if you extend in-app purchases to other digital products sold via Amazon (e.g. the online videos), it would mean that the prices have to go up for everyone by 30% so that they can comply with Apple's most-favored-nation policy, which doesn't let them charge more to buy content through in-app purchase, thus pricing Amazon out of the market entirely, and giving Apple's iTunes Movie Store an illegal competitive advantage. That's where this really becomes a potential problem for Apple.
That's quite an amusing irony given that Amazon imposes most favoured nation clauses on it's own suppliers! Worse, Amazon decides the selling price of ebooks and if it decides to "sell" at zero, Amazon gets to promote themselves with free product without paying their supplier anything for the product.
It really is impossible to frame Amazon as a victim here.
For what?
Of course Apple used to be the market share leader. But Android also had most malware back then too.
It has nothing to do with market share. It's about security. The difference is a single curated market for Apple, vs multiple markets and no curation for Android.
That's quite amusing since Amazon also impose a most favoured nation clause on their suppliers. That makes it quite quite hard to make them out to be the victim here.
Worse, Amazon pay a percentage of ebook sales to authors. But Amazon themselves set the price. And of they decide it's zero, they are giving the ebook out to customers without the author receiving a penny.
http://www.mhpbooks.com/amazon...
You were saying?