> #1 Smartphone preference is not a measurement of the level of honesty of a person.
Here's a scientific study that shows your belief system is wrong. Unless you can come up with contradictory results from a more authoritative study, its a done deal. Sorry but your personal feelings don't trump scientific method. That all said, I'm quite happy to agree at least from my own personal experience of studying Psychology at university, that Psychology studies generally do not apply scientific method in a rigorous way.
Only a few years ago, most phone manufacturers (except Apple) wouldn't have dared to release a phone with a non-user-replaceable battery.
If only the dumb consumer sheeple that happily spent $600+ on a phone with a built-in battery (i.e. designed-in obsolescence) weren't in the majority, we wouldn't be having this problem at all.
> and even then, if the penalty for the crime you're alleged to have committed is worse than the penalty for refusing to divulge your password, you'll keep your mouth shut.
Yeah. Thats called your 5th amendment rights.
> First, it's different because high-quality safes are expensive and rare.
So in practice it was a freedom limited to the rich/priviledged then. I think we've already seen far too much of that sort of thing in the US already.
> the sort of police state we'd need to put in place to effectively restrict secure encryption is simply unacceptable
True, but even if they did ban encryption, there will always be some other way to achieve the same ends, especially if you are a criminal who doesn;t care about the law.
Just like trying to ban guns by law Its a stupid idea to begin with, since it only limits/restricts/unnecessarily punishes law-abiding people, so they weren't ever a threat anyway.
> "With good reason, the people of the United States -- through judges and law enforcement -- can invade our private spaces," Comey said, adding that that "bargain" has been at the center of the country since its inception.
Yes, but for specific limited instances and after obtaining warrants for each case. What Comey/The FBI are actually demanding is our freedom to use encryption be completely removed so that they can perform warrantless mass monitoring on a national scale.
>> more mobile- and web-friendly languages like Swift and Go are starting to eat its lunch.
Clearly you have no clue about how much embedded/realtime software programming is also going on out there, where using any garbage-collected language is simply not an option.
Here's a thought, maybe she's not a techy geek hipster millenial who thinks that the worst thing that could ever happen to them is to be temporarily disconnected from TwitterBook.
I didn't think of the Assange angle (interesting thought) but the "Foreign hackers hired by Hillary" thing was pretty much exactly what I was getting at.
If someone is stupid enough to be on my property and looking through my windows in the first place, they deserve everything nasty that they might get. Lets call it "natural selection in action".
Other than risking a 9mm bullet between the eyes, one of the other (probably worse) fates they might suffer is being mentally scarred for life by seeing me jumping around my lounge/"roomscale area" dressed only in my underpants and my VR helmet, because even with the AC on, its HOT here in Phoenix in the summer..
You're right they're all bad, however bad is relative. I would contend that Hilary is obviously worse than Trump because she is blatantly corrupt (primary mechanism being the Clinton foundation), habitually lies on a level bordering psychopathy, and is not even eligible to get security clearance necessary to be president. http://thehill.com/policy/nati... http://www.nationalreview.com/...
At least one source has evidence that in fact she never had actually passed security clearance. http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
She has already also clearly sold out the US many times to enrich herself/the Clinton foundation. Do some research for yourself into exactly why middle eastern countries like Saudi are donating millions to the Clinton Foundation.
Trump is a clueless pompous asshat but at least he isn't blatantly corrupt career criminal, and also I beleive he's clearly more of a patriot that Clinton, in that he would be far more likely to put the interests of the US first than she ever would, given she's already provably sold it out for her own benefit many times.
Slashdot Mirror
> #1 Smartphone preference is not a measurement of the level of honesty of a person.
Here's a scientific study that shows your belief system is wrong. Unless you can come up with contradictory results from a more authoritative study, its a done deal. Sorry but your personal feelings don't trump scientific method. That all said, I'm quite happy to agree at least from my own personal experience of studying Psychology at university, that Psychology studies generally do not apply scientific method in a rigorous way.
Its marketing 101. Even if its true, admitting that its Android-based is the same as telling you that their product is just like everyone else's.
No, I just don't wanna waste my time with shallow superficial women.
nah by that time I've already had a call from a friend who needs my help immediately.
Call me strange but second only to lighting up a cigarette, I've always found it a turn-off if a woman pulls an iPhone out.
Well of course its the supply-sided communism but its people still buying their products that allows it to exist.
Only a few years ago, most phone manufacturers (except Apple) wouldn't have dared to release a phone with a non-user-replaceable battery.
If only the dumb consumer sheeple that happily spent $600+ on a phone with a built-in battery (i.e. designed-in obsolescence) weren't in the majority, we wouldn't be having this problem at all.
> and even then, if the penalty for the crime you're alleged to have committed is worse than the penalty for refusing to divulge your password, you'll keep your mouth shut.
Yeah. Thats called your 5th amendment rights.
> First, it's different because high-quality safes are expensive and rare.
So in practice it was a freedom limited to the rich/priviledged then. I think we've already seen far too much of that sort of thing in the US already.
> the sort of police state we'd need to put in place to effectively restrict secure encryption is simply unacceptable
True, but even if they did ban encryption, there will always be some other way to achieve the same ends, especially if you are a criminal who doesn;t care about the law.
Just like trying to ban guns by law Its a stupid idea to begin with, since it only limits/restricts/unnecessarily punishes law-abiding people, so they weren't ever a threat anyway.
They need to get rid of all those annoying posts from so-called friends too.
All I want is a continuous stream of pop-over ads.
Someone who puts the people's interest first, and isn't someone who can obviously be bought by criminals like Hilary.
> "With good reason, the people of the United States -- through judges and law enforcement -- can invade our private spaces," Comey said, adding that that "bargain" has been at the center of the country since its inception.
Yes, but for specific limited instances and after obtaining warrants for each case.
What Comey/The FBI are actually demanding is our freedom to use encryption be completely removed so that they can perform warrantless mass monitoring on a national scale.
He keeps proving it.
With the amount of money those panhandlers at intersections get, they aint gonna do shit for a measly $1.98/hr.
>> more mobile- and web-friendly languages like Swift and Go are starting to eat its lunch.
Clearly you have no clue about how much embedded/realtime software programming is also going on out there, where using any garbage-collected language is simply not an option.
Because we're not living under the illusion that the sheeple have any actual power or even independent thought.
I don't know what your slimy passive-agressive peecee attack is all about but I was responding to this:
> I suppose laws could have written allowing you to shoot people off of your property looking through your windows.
Here's a thought, maybe she's not a techy geek hipster millenial who thinks that the worst thing that could ever happen to them is to be temporarily disconnected from TwitterBook.
>> No flights beyond line-of-sight, over people,
This is totally gonna screw Amazons drone-delivery plans.
I didn't think of the Assange angle (interesting thought) but the "Foreign hackers hired by Hillary" thing was pretty much exactly what I was getting at.
I'd much prefer her living next to me than some peecee freak like you.
If someone is stupid enough to be on my property and looking through my windows in the first place, they deserve everything nasty that they might get. Lets call it "natural selection in action".
Other than risking a 9mm bullet between the eyes, one of the other (probably worse) fates they might suffer is being mentally scarred for life by seeing me jumping around my lounge/"roomscale area" dressed only in my underpants and my VR helmet, because even with the AC on, its HOT here in Phoenix in the summer..
The thing about the big corporates is they will always waste a disproportionately large amount of money on risk mitigation.
The same thing as when 105% of voters voted for Obama. Nothing.
Call me a paranoid conspiracy theorist but wouldn't this be more likely to be at least sponsored domestically?
You're right they're all bad, however bad is relative.
I would contend that Hilary is obviously worse than Trump because she is blatantly corrupt (primary mechanism being the Clinton foundation), habitually lies on a level bordering psychopathy, and is not even eligible to get security clearance necessary to be president.
http://thehill.com/policy/nati...
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
At least one source has evidence that in fact she never had actually passed security clearance.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
She has already also clearly sold out the US many times to enrich herself/the Clinton foundation. Do some research for yourself into exactly why middle eastern countries like Saudi are donating millions to the Clinton Foundation.
Trump is a clueless pompous asshat but at least he isn't blatantly corrupt career criminal, and also I beleive he's clearly more of a patriot that Clinton, in that he would be far more likely to put the interests of the US first than she ever would, given she's already provably sold it out for her own benefit many times.