That's what I do, too. One with pre-paid, the other one with a regular contract but without included phone. (costs about the same)
But what's right for you and me is not neccessarily the best for others, so I don't want to stop anyone from getting a phone subsidized/financed by their carrier.
Because you agreed to the contract that included paying x for 24 months? Most carriers here would probably even agree to receive that as a lump sum and handover (unlock) your phone earlier, but that depends on the contract details.
Yes, the world would be better without SIM-Lock, but so would it be without High frequency Stock Trading and Justin Bieber but that alone is no reason to ban those.
Where I live, simlocking is not allowed. Every phone you buy will be unlocked.
Germany here.
Every phone you buy, yes.
But phones given to you as part of your plan aren't exactly bought. And getting a plan that pays for a phone with higher-than-usual minute prices may be stupid and a bet on your phone behaviour (by both sides of the deal...) but legal. And a legitimate reason for sim-locking.
So here, IIRC, it is legal to include a phone with sim-locking into your plan, but it has to be unlocked when the plan ends.
And most likely they were paraphrasing a scientist that actually said: "I would be really surprised if the guy really could overcome the principles of thermodynamic as he claims to do."
And why are current combustion engines better than the first version?
Because they were thrown out when they failed and replaced by improved models.
Failing fast is not the worst approach. And I'm pretty sure no one ever expected the voice activated robot dolls (Do I want to know what they were there for to begin with??!?) going wrong.
On the other hand, buying luggage transport robots that can't reach most of the rooms is nothing but stupid. After all, that's the one type of robot that is actually in use (in institutions with shared robot/human walkspace, e.g. in hospitals.)
I know. (I'm volunteering in the Google forums....) But it's not only lost passwords. it's anything that could go wrong, up to the remote possibility of Google shutting down the free services without prior notice.
You shouldn't rely your business on a service without any support or guarantees. Not mentioning any legal obligations bout business document retention for tax or other reasons.
If you're concerned about Google scanning your stuff, you can always buy her a GSuite subscription rather than use a consumer account. It's pretty cheap.
Which is what you want to do for some other reason, too. Free Google accounts come with absolutely zilch support. If she locks herself out of her account, it will be lost.
I don't agree and would rather describe it as a browser that became hardware.
But in the OPs situation, I would start with getting GSuite anyway. Gives you integrated file, user and device management. Then throw in a few chromebooks per person (add a cheap one for mobile use) a cash compensation for using her own PC for work and the promise to be able to use the company chromebook for personal use, too (after all, she can log in with her personal GMail account and it will be like a completly new machine) and let her deduct buying a personal PC from taxes.
Or some other rather basic scenarios that is not possible with any of the popular voice assistants:
* Switch the lights off when I leave home unless my wife is still home.
* Switch on lights when I get up, start the living room radio/coffee maker, but exclude bedroom lights if my wife is still sleeping.
* Adjust light color temp during the day as long as I'm home, keep lights off when absent.
All of this requires actual coding using additional control software like FHEM or OpenHAB, but that in turn will break most of integration with the "easy" controls as Google/Homekit/Alexa or even the basic Hue app. (There is no feedback to tell my server to stop adjusting light temp after I manually select a scene in the Hue app)
...and which you won't do if you don't happen to be near said fridge when you remember that you need to buy milk.
I own several different assistent devices (actually buying only one of them) and would agree that each of them is stupid in a different way...
(none of them can control ALL my smart lightbulbs - despite being connected to a single Hue bridge! To stream the same station from the same streaming service (tunein) one requires me to spell out the name of the station the other only works when I use the abbreviated station name! using the listing fron the same service!!! That's artificial dumbness!!!! to top it all of, the set of working features completly switches when I switch language settings!)... I'm afraid I disgress...... but I like to set kitchen timers and shopping items hands free while cooking.
Well I agree (and already did) on the identical behaviour, but NAT was used to hook up your roommates PC to one dialup. In the late 90s you wouldn't even think of anything else but hooking up your PC directly to the Internet. (think of the AOL era...)
Your company network probably had a firewall, but as likely enough public IP adresses for every workstation.
But I guess we can agree on the technical aspects and that this is rather a historical question.
No firewall was broken here. NAT is NOT a firewall and should NOT be considered as a security measure. The firewall-like behaviour is a side-effect that should not be relied on even though it has the same effect as you probably would configure an actual home-use firewall (everything out and nothing in)
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't as you can use the phone without a plan, unlock it, or use it with a cheaper plan with the same carrier.
Aehmm.. that's what SIM lock prevents.
Only if it is factored in into the minute price. It prevents switching to a cheaper provider.
That's what I do, too. One with pre-paid, the other one with a regular contract but without included phone. (costs about the same)
But what's right for you and me is not neccessarily the best for others, so I don't want to stop anyone from getting a phone subsidized/financed by their carrier.
Because you agreed to the contract that included paying x for 24 months? Most carriers here would probably even agree to receive that as a lump sum and handover (unlock) your phone earlier, but that depends on the contract details.
Yes, the world would be better without SIM-Lock, but so would it be without High frequency Stock Trading and Justin Bieber but that alone is no reason to ban those.
Where I live, simlocking is not allowed. Every phone you buy will be unlocked.
Germany here.
Every phone you buy, yes.
But phones given to you as part of your plan aren't exactly bought. And getting a plan that pays for a phone with higher-than-usual minute prices may be stupid and a bet on your phone behaviour (by both sides of the deal...) but legal. And a legitimate reason for sim-locking.
So here, IIRC, it is legal to include a phone with sim-locking into your plan, but it has to be unlocked when the plan ends.
And most likely they were paraphrasing a scientist that actually said: "I would be really surprised if the guy really could overcome the principles of thermodynamic as he claims to do."
who would pay for bots that just replicate the experience they have at home?
They tried to simulate the whole package and ended up with robot dolls complaining about your snoring....
And why are current combustion engines better than the first version?
Because they were thrown out when they failed and replaced by improved models.
Failing fast is not the worst approach. And I'm pretty sure no one ever expected the voice activated robot dolls (Do I want to know what they were there for to begin with??!?) going wrong.
On the other hand, buying luggage transport robots that can't reach most of the rooms is nothing but stupid. After all, that's the one type of robot that is actually in use (in institutions with shared robot/human walkspace, e.g. in hospitals.)
No. But that's what he said: People create superficial garbage for profit.
But that's only because the definition of "celebrity" went downhill.
ok.. 3rd time's the charm..... DSGVO = GDPR
oh and of course as the poster is based in europe....
The free services does not fulfill the DSGVO requirements if they want to handle customer data, while GSuite would provide the necessary certification
I know. (I'm volunteering in the Google forums....) But it's not only lost passwords. it's anything that could go wrong, up to the remote possibility of Google shutting down the free services without prior notice.
You shouldn't rely your business on a service without any support or guarantees. Not mentioning any legal obligations bout business document retention for tax or other reasons.
If you're concerned about Google scanning your stuff, you can always buy her a GSuite subscription rather than use a consumer account. It's pretty cheap.
Which is what you want to do for some other reason, too. Free Google accounts come with absolutely zilch support. If she locks herself out of her account, it will be lost.
"Superior" as in "more flexible"? as opposed to "restricted" and "manageable", which is usually preferred for business devices?
Yes, a regular laptop has much more options what you can do with as an employee. That's what actually pro chromebook.
I don't agree and would rather describe it as a browser that became hardware.
But in the OPs situation, I would start with getting GSuite anyway. Gives you integrated file, user and device management. Then throw in a few chromebooks per person (add a cheap one for mobile use) a cash compensation for using her own PC for work and the promise to be able to use the company chromebook for personal use, too (after all, she can log in with her personal GMail account and it will be like a completly new machine) and let her deduct buying a personal PC from taxes.
That would require something that could be called "AI"
I don't think using a neuronal network for voice recognition automaitically deservs that quality.
Not quite.... the voice recognition is constantly trained with the misheard samples. But after that, it's a bunch of scripts.
Why should they? There's no need to if they make people want to have them in their homes and buisnesses.
Or some other rather basic scenarios that is not possible with any of the popular voice assistants:
* Switch the lights off when I leave home unless my wife is still home.
* Switch on lights when I get up, start the living room radio/coffee maker, but exclude bedroom lights if my wife is still sleeping.
* Adjust light color temp during the day as long as I'm home, keep lights off when absent.
All of this requires actual coding using additional control software like FHEM or OpenHAB, but that in turn will break most of integration with the "easy" controls as Google/Homekit/Alexa or even the basic Hue app. (There is no feedback to tell my server to stop adjusting light temp after I manually select a scene in the Hue app)
...and which you won't do if you don't happen to be near said fridge when you remember that you need to buy milk.
I own several different assistent devices (actually buying only one of them) and would agree that each of them is stupid in a different way...
(none of them can control ALL my smart lightbulbs - despite being connected to a single Hue bridge! To stream the same station from the same streaming service (tunein) one requires me to spell out the name of the station the other only works when I use the abbreviated station name! using the listing fron the same service!!! That's artificial dumbness!!!! to top it all of, the set of working features completly switches when I switch language settings!) ... I'm afraid I disgress... ... but I like to set kitchen timers and shopping items hands free while cooking.
Well you might ask that the gp as he brought up some superhero - let's call it - "stuff" as an example of "culture"...
Well I agree (and already did) on the identical behaviour, but NAT was used to hook up your roommates PC to one dialup. In the late 90s you wouldn't even think of anything else but hooking up your PC directly to the Internet. (think of the AOL era...)
Your company network probably had a firewall, but as likely enough public IP adresses for every workstation.
But I guess we can agree on the technical aspects and that this is rather a historical question.
No firewall was broken here. NAT is NOT a firewall and should NOT be considered as a security measure. The firewall-like behaviour is a side-effect that should not be relied on even though it has the same effect as you probably would configure an actual home-use firewall (everything out and nothing in)