No indeed. I'm an atheist and try to treat all religions with the same casual disdain, rather than hatred.
I referred specifically to your blanket statements regarding Libertarians/Republicans/gun owners in the recent past.
Libertarians and republicans I disagree with politically but don't hold them responsible for violence and terrorism. Pro gun people on the other hand I do. They value their toys over the safety of others.
Most of the pro-gun people are also either libertarian or Republican so whilst I may be attacking Libertarians/Republicans/Tea-baggers on the issue, it's because of their pro-gun views.
Now if a Muslim were to come here to express pro-gun views they too would feel the sharp end of my tongue.
Fair questions, but how would you have designed it? Think carefully about the edge cases and user experience for both questions. I think it also helps to keep in mind lessons learned from incessant dialogs. Users are now desensitized and trained to click OK, despite not having read the message.
The fact that a lot of people will just click OK on dialogs without consideration is well worth bearing in mind. But the Android method does not get an advantage there. People who do this will click on OK in a dialog at install time, even more so than when an unpredictable one comes up.
Better to bring up a dialog which is specific to a particular permission, at the time the app is first trying to do it. Than a user can better understand why they are being asked the question.
But ultimately, the best UI is no UI so where possible you avoid having to ask the user about permissions at all. One way to do this is to have a curated App Store where apps that do bad things aren't allowed. So then you only need permissions for things that are genuine permission preferences, not to protect from malware.
"Please run this random program you got from somewhere because we asked you to". Then something bad happens. What's Android platform specific about this?
It depends whether the actions follow from the ideology, or are coincidental.
Take for example Northern Ireland. The terrorism there was about sovereignty, not the Catholic religion. It all dates back to a botched Irish independence and a military massacre of Irish civilians by British military. So no rational person holds Catholics per se responsible for terrorism.
On the other hand, right wing atrocities, such as the ones by Timothy McVey, and Anders Breivik were driven by their right wing ideology, and was not coincidental.
The Middle Eastern terrorism belongs in the same camp as Northern Irish terrorism. The reasons are ones of reaction to imperialism not religion. Their religion is coincidental.
Tranquilliser darts are obviously dosed differently for different types and sizes of animals. Humans are no different from other animals, they also have appropriate doses.
You're the one in favour of profiling. Of judging people not by what they've done, but what they look like and the what they believe. And yes, you are likely to be one of the victims of that very thing.
The GPL prevents you from restricting the freedoms of others.
No it doesn't. Under the BSD license there is absolutely nothing I can do to restrict anyone's freedom to that software.
The GPL tries to apply itself to software that was not written by the person applying the license. The GPL tries to restrict people's freedom, BSD doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh I don't think anyone thinks it's evil, just that it's pure self-interest rather than generosity.
Which is the same reason anyone that contributes to open-source does it. Self-interest. So why are Apple being singled out?
No indeed. I'm an atheist and try to treat all religions with the same casual disdain, rather than hatred.
I referred specifically to your blanket statements regarding Libertarians/Republicans/gun owners in the recent past.
Libertarians and republicans I disagree with politically but don't hold them responsible for violence and terrorism. Pro gun people on the other hand I do. They value their toys over the safety of others.
Most of the pro-gun people are also either libertarian or Republican so whilst I may be attacking Libertarians/Republicans/Tea-baggers on the issue, it's because of their pro-gun views.
Now if a Muslim were to come here to express pro-gun views they too would feel the sharp end of my tongue.
If the LLVM/Clang developers had have more forethought and picked GPL they could have forced Apple though court to release those changes.
Clang was created by Apple. Why would they want to take themselves to court?
Of course there's no private fork on the web, then it wouldn't be very private.
If it were so private they weren't distributing the binary, they wouldn't have to distribute the source with GPL either.
And there's no secret to what clang they are distributing:
clang -v
Apple LLVM version 4.2 (clang-425.0.28) (based on LLVM 3.2svn)
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin12.3.0
Thread model: posix
Please do share your crackpot theory of why Apple were evil to release Clang as open source. I could do with a laugh.
One of the great things about Clang and LLVM are they are BSD licensed rather than GPL.
Following myself up here:
Of course you also need a permissions section in an options screen somewhere in order that permissions that were given can be taken away again.
Fair questions, but how would you have designed it? Think carefully about the edge cases and user experience for both questions. I think it also helps to keep in mind lessons learned from incessant dialogs. Users are now desensitized and trained to click OK, despite not having read the message.
The fact that a lot of people will just click OK on dialogs without consideration is well worth bearing in mind. But the Android method does not get an advantage there. People who do this will click on OK in a dialog at install time, even more so than when an unpredictable one comes up.
Better to bring up a dialog which is specific to a particular permission, at the time the app is first trying to do it. Than a user can better understand why they are being asked the question.
But ultimately, the best UI is no UI so where possible you avoid having to ask the user about permissions at all. One way to do this is to have a curated App Store where apps that do bad things aren't allowed. So then you only need permissions for things that are genuine permission preferences, not to protect from malware.
"Please run this random program you got from somewhere because we asked you to".
Then something bad happens.
What's Android platform specific about this?
Well it doesn't happen on iOS.
So why do your kids have admin accounts on the computer?
YOU don't read the articles because you're a dumbass. And you'll stay a dumbass because you continue to avoid reading things that would inform you.
WE do read TFA. That's why we know what we are talking about.
It depends whether the actions follow from the ideology, or are coincidental.
Take for example Northern Ireland. The terrorism there was about sovereignty, not the Catholic religion. It all dates back to a botched Irish independence and a military massacre of Irish civilians by British military. So no rational person holds Catholics per se responsible for terrorism.
On the other hand, right wing atrocities, such as the ones by Timothy McVey, and Anders Breivik were driven by their right wing ideology, and was not coincidental.
The Middle Eastern terrorism belongs in the same camp as Northern Irish terrorism. The reasons are ones of reaction to imperialism not religion. Their religion is coincidental.
Confused little Google apologist aren't you.
You did nothing to show inaccuracy, you just claimed it.
And even if the one or two you objected to were incorrect it wouldn't change the point of the disparity on quantity.
But I note that your priority is winning pissing contests rather than the truth, otherwise you would have fixed the inaccuracy on Wikipedia.
You're not only a liar, you're not a very good one. You have no grasp of large numbers. $400 billion is more than either company is worth.
Well, you can disable Google saving your search at all... so there is that.
No you can't. You *may* be able to stop them associating them with your account. But they still save the searches.
Anyone have the timeline for Google's disassociation and destruction of search queries? I'm curious how Apple's policies compare against those.
Well Google saves your searches against your Google account if you have one. And they save them for years. So it's a whole different ballgame.
Did you try to shoot yourself in the head, but partially miss?
You do know how Wikipedia works don't you? If you see inaccuracy, fix it.
Cognitive dissonance still doesn't mean what you think it does.
WTF? I'm not in favour of profiling. You said you are. OK, since you either mad or a troll, end of conversation.
Humans *are* an average wild animal.
Tranquilliser darts are obviously dosed differently for different types and sizes of animals. Humans are no different from other animals, they also have appropriate doses.
You're the one in favour of profiling. Of judging people not by what they've done, but what they look like and the what they believe. And yes, you are likely to be one of the victims of that very thing.
Missing the point.
You might be.
The GPL prevents you from restricting the freedoms of others.
No it doesn't. Under the BSD license there is absolutely nothing I can do to restrict anyone's freedom to that software.
The GPL tries to apply itself to software that was not written by the person applying the license. The GPL tries to restrict people's freedom, BSD doesn't.
did I promote "watching" somebody?
Well you wouldn't, would you. Being in one of the groups that's likely to be watched.