I followed the link and skimmed quickly, just to look at pictures. After the initial image of the upcoming products, there is a sweet ass picture of a phone that looks like it wipes the floor with all competitors. Unlike a lot of crap out there, it appears they left enough space in the case to fit in a real battery, and it has physical buttons too! Win/win. Finally, there's going to be be good phone hardware on the market! I was getting excited.
Then the caption explains that it's the G1, the first Android phone. The best-looking product on the page is the one the author hates the most, and apparently Google too since you can't buy anything like that anymore.
Fuuuuuuuuck....
(To be clear, I was just judging the book by its cover. I'm not saying the G1 has a great processor or enough storage or anything like that. I'm just saying that it looks like an outstanding case compared to anything you can get from Google, Apple, Samsung, etc.)
She consented to installing their software and allowing it to watch her every move. She installed their software and gave it whatever permissions it wanted. She ran it. She brought her computer, running that software, with her to work.
The other people she was with, did the same thing. Everyone did everything they could think of, to help give this information to Facebook.
You're saying that if you and I both agree to allow a third party to surveil us, we bring our bugs with us and know they're operating, and then this third party pays attention to the data that our computers sent (with our knowledge and consent) that's felony wiretapping?!
If two-party consent isn't enough, then how many is? Should they have gotten a notary with them in the room, to sign a form that they both agree to have their computers sharing where they are?
Face it: people went to a lot of trouble to opt in. They definitely did it, and not accidentally and not without their knowledge. There was informed consent in every single meaningful way. Except: they just didn't think about all the consequences.
And now you want to not only blame the party that they selected to share data with, but use force against them too? Geez, you people can't be trusted with any power at all.
Why should Microsoft do that, and probably-related: why would you want one from them (compared to pretty much anyone else)?
I'd think the only reason MS would sell an Android phone, would be to preload software on it to try to lock people into their desktop and server products. If you don't want it "customized" (i.e. bloated) then you're taking away 100% of Microsoft's incentive.
Does anyone have examples of "highly distracted" experiences outside of social networking on the web?
The arrival of a new email, maybe?
My boss beats me at this!! He had tens of thousands of unread emails, so doesn't notice when a new one comes in. I keep it at 0 and when the thunderbird icon shows a little red number, I have to click it to make it go away, or else.
(Or else what? Fuck if I know. Don't ask me to explain that; ask a psychiatrist.)
If mail order isn't getting things done with less labor, then you wouldn't expect the prices to be any better. And if the prices aren't better, then the reason consumers are choosing it must be convenience or some other quality.
Hmm. Yeah, actually, I can believe that. Fits my experience, anyway. Score 1 anecdote point.
Sometimes I think I'm on a different planet than everyone else. You think your subject line is a rhetorical question with no answer, and I think it's easy to answer (but no, I don't think Microsoft is able to address the situation).
So why does Android need another browser/launcher? Because the existing ones are lameass! They are ad-company-centric instead of user-centric. Firefox is the only one of 'em that blocks bullshit worth a damn, and we don't even know how long that one will be around and after every update it seems like a lose an extension or two.
Android users need a good browser, because they don't have one yet.
And if you think this is a not-so-veiled cry for help ("hey, anyone heard of a good web browser for Android?") I'll totally admit that, but I'm pretty sure mine is the true rhetorical question. I've tried many. They suck.
For all its faults, I think Firefox is the best web browser for Android. The Android version of Chrome is so broken, it can't even run the plugins that people need these days (e.g. ublock origin, privacy badger). Seriously, how can you tolerate Chrome (same goes for Pale Moon, for some weird reasons) on Android? (I'll admit the desktop situation is different and it's hard to motivate myself to start Firefox there.) Don't all the ads drive you nuts?!?
Android desperately needs more web browsers. I don't believe Microsoft has what it takes to compete, but maybe seeing them "try" will inspire a more serious developer to really try.
Sure, you block ads and so do I. But that's not typical. If Facebook were a total fraud, their customers would eventually stop buying ads. And spam exists because spam works.
And, knowing that some people block ads and some don't, might you be able to draw some inferences about the people who don't? Perhaps non-blockers are actually particularly ripe for certain types of ad targeting.
As it happens, I've never actually seen the original, but I've nevertheless learned of the meme third-hand: "You wouldn't download a car, would you?" Isn't that intended for a certain kind of person, who just happens to also be the kind of person most likely to see it?
Second, why do we allow companies, politicians, and news outlets to lie routinely?
Because we don't have a problem with lying. It's ok to lie.
And even if we did have a problem, letting them do it is easier than the alternative of not-letting them do it. What am I going to do, stop buying their products? Stop voting for them? Stop watching their ads?
Don't be silly. You can lie to me all you want. If you're a liar and if I'm not ok with that, that's my problem, not yours.
I don't think he was asking if it's always sensible. It looked more like he was asking if it might be a sensible idea on an island subject to hurricanes. More specifically, I bet he was asking about Puerto Rico.
Nothing?! Dude, if you carry a car around under your ass, people will think twice before ever attacking you. Those things are dangerous, and even the most fearless attacker will respect their power.
The problem with cars is that even if you have a concealed carry permit, it's hard to conceal a car. The best setup I saw was something George Jetson had, but I'm told it was just some Hollywood fakery.
There is no reason to believe that we are in a sim.
That said, if we were in a sim, the simulation could fake the complexity that you're observing, without doing as much computation. You can't disprove the sim hypothesis from "here" in the alleged sim because all of your evidence would be tainted.
The sim hypothesis is just another religion. You can't confirm it or disprove it.
They defend censorship of Google and Facebook when it's the USA. But when it's the EU doing it, they deride it.
Who are these "they?" If you've found a specific hypocrite, call him out by name/id. I think most of us are pretty consistently pro-censorship or anti-censorship.
You can't sign away a right. If you can, it was never a right.
I think this is not only a weird and new way to think of rights, but it's a bad one, because it makes rights meaningless. If we were to use your concept of rights, then not a single person in the world would have any rights at all. Rights wouldn't exist.
That's a useless way to define something. It's better to define rights in a way that some can exist, so that the word actually has real-world meaning instead of being some theoretical ideal that no person will ever enjoy.
By having rights be a thing that rightsholders can sacrifice, or trade to one another, you'll have many situations where rights are a real thing and are meaningful. (And bonus: you start speaking the same language as everyone else!)
Within the mainstream concept of rights, I can have the right to possess the money that's in my pocket, and you can have the right to possess a widget that you made, and you and I can trade money-for-widget. But by your concept of rights, no person can own anything since owning something means you're not allowed to trade it!
Within the mainstream concept of rights, someone can have the right to live, and also the right to die. (Though some people would deny the second right, they'd still at least acknowledge that the language allows it to make sense.) But by your idea of rights, you can't have the right to live and die, since exercising one right always infringes the other!
For quite a few years now, cell phones sold within the USA MUST HAVE the E911 feature turned on without any ability for the end user to turn it off.
This is the next problem. This E911 law needs to be more easily and automatically circumvented by default, if we can't get it repealed. And we can't get it repealed. I think that law is a bad idea, and yet there are some pretty obvious and irrefutable arguments in favor of it. It's ambiguously bad, and that's enough to keep it forever.
Therefore, we need our phones to finally stop being phones. To put it in AppleSpeak, we need it to be easier to upgrade iPhones to iPod Touches. Or from Android phones to 5" Android mini-tablets. Then tack on the cellphone transceiver as an aftermarket add-on... which people who live in ubiquitous-wifi areas might literally not bother doing.
For this to work well (have add-on peripherals become viable; currently all our phones totally suck to an embarrassing degree, compared to even a 30-year-old desktop) we need standardized form factors and for "build your own white-box" to be happening. But the fucking market isn't supporting that. It's hard to get there, yet it's so damn attractive. Oh well, it's something to strive for and encourage. Today's phones suck so much, in so many ways, and this would solve many of the problems, including the always-being-tracked problem.
If the consortium didn't work with companies like Netflix, Berners-Lee wrote in a blog post, those companies would just stop delivering video over the web and force people into their own proprietary apps.
But that's happening anyway. It's just that the "proprietary apps" are called EME modules or drivers or whatever.
They're also going to be awesome for spreading malware. Instead of "install this CODEC to watch this porn" it's "install this EME module to watch this porn" and it'll be a normal and "legit" thing for the user to do, 90% of the time. (Because every service needs its own.)
That other 10% is going to keep us all working full time. Job security for anyone who makes money on when users lose. We'll be like construction contractors in a full-year hurricane season. The more broken windows, the better.
Fuckwits. We all need to be running browsers such that everyone can see user agent strings where they know this DRM fiasco isn't implemented. The server logs themselves need to say "you're going to lose money on this customer if you require EME, because they're just going to switch to pirating in order to be able to view the content."
"I want the ball. Throw the ball. I'm watching. Throw it. Let's play ball. Please, please, please throw the ball. OH! OH! Did you just say something about the ball?! Yes! I'm wagging with approval! Throw the ball! Ball! Let's play ball!"
"Food. Give me food. Food. Are you going to finish that? Food. You have my attention. Food? I want food. Look at me, because I'm cute. You should give me food."
That some of the leaks are believed to have come from Russia wasn't the thing I hadn't heard of. The thing I hadn't heard of was that some people believe Wikileaks is a Russian front.
You're right! Fine. Let's throw out the no-retards rule.
List 5 people who have the belief, preferably with a link or quotation for each one where they explain how they became aware of the sinister Kremlin-Wikileaks connection. And if all 5 say "I first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love," I swear none of us will giggle or smirk or anything like that!
Whoa! WTF? Not kidding, this is the very first time I have heard this conspiracy theory.
When you say "many", are you talking about a number of people approximately equal to the number of 9/11-Truthers? Half the number of Obama Birthers? C'mon, put this "many" into the units that we're familiar with, you know, like how you measure hard disks in terms of Libraries of Congress.
Slashdot Mirror
I followed the link and skimmed quickly, just to look at pictures. After the initial image of the upcoming products, there is a sweet ass picture of a phone that looks like it wipes the floor with all competitors. Unlike a lot of crap out there, it appears they left enough space in the case to fit in a real battery, and it has physical buttons too! Win/win. Finally, there's going to be be good phone hardware on the market! I was getting excited.
Then the caption explains that it's the G1, the first Android phone. The best-looking product on the page is the one the author hates the most, and apparently Google too since you can't buy anything like that anymore.
Fuuuuuuuuck....
(To be clear, I was just judging the book by its cover. I'm not saying the G1 has a great processor or enough storage or anything like that. I'm just saying that it looks like an outstanding case compared to anything you can get from Google, Apple, Samsung, etc.)
She consented to installing their software and allowing it to watch her every move. She installed their software and gave it whatever permissions it wanted. She ran it. She brought her computer, running that software, with her to work.
The other people she was with, did the same thing. Everyone did everything they could think of, to help give this information to Facebook.
You're saying that if you and I both agree to allow a third party to surveil us, we bring our bugs with us and know they're operating, and then this third party pays attention to the data that our computers sent (with our knowledge and consent) that's felony wiretapping?!
If two-party consent isn't enough, then how many is? Should they have gotten a notary with them in the room, to sign a form that they both agree to have their computers sharing where they are?
Face it: people went to a lot of trouble to opt in. They definitely did it, and not accidentally and not without their knowledge. There was informed consent in every single meaningful way. Except: they just didn't think about all the consequences.
And now you want to not only blame the party that they selected to share data with, but use force against them too? Geez, you people can't be trusted with any power at all.
Why should Microsoft do that, and probably-related: why would you want one from them (compared to pretty much anyone else)?
I'd think the only reason MS would sell an Android phone, would be to preload software on it to try to lock people into their desktop and server products. If you don't want it "customized" (i.e. bloated) then you're taking away 100% of Microsoft's incentive.
The arrival of a new email, maybe?
My boss beats me at this!! He had tens of thousands of unread emails, so doesn't notice when a new one comes in. I keep it at 0 and when the thunderbird icon shows a little red number, I have to click it to make it go away, or else.
(Or else what? Fuck if I know. Don't ask me to explain that; ask a psychiatrist.)
If mail order isn't getting things done with less labor, then you wouldn't expect the prices to be any better. And if the prices aren't better, then the reason consumers are choosing it must be convenience or some other quality.
Hmm. Yeah, actually, I can believe that. Fits my experience, anyway. Score 1 anecdote point.
Sometimes I think I'm on a different planet than everyone else. You think your subject line is a rhetorical question with no answer, and I think it's easy to answer (but no, I don't think Microsoft is able to address the situation).
So why does Android need another browser/launcher? Because the existing ones are lameass! They are ad-company-centric instead of user-centric. Firefox is the only one of 'em that blocks bullshit worth a damn, and we don't even know how long that one will be around and after every update it seems like a lose an extension or two.
Android users need a good browser, because they don't have one yet.
And if you think this is a not-so-veiled cry for help ("hey, anyone heard of a good web browser for Android?") I'll totally admit that, but I'm pretty sure mine is the true rhetorical question. I've tried many. They suck.
For all its faults, I think Firefox is the best web browser for Android. The Android version of Chrome is so broken, it can't even run the plugins that people need these days (e.g. ublock origin, privacy badger). Seriously, how can you tolerate Chrome (same goes for Pale Moon, for some weird reasons) on Android? (I'll admit the desktop situation is different and it's hard to motivate myself to start Firefox there.) Don't all the ads drive you nuts?!?
Android desperately needs more web browsers. I don't believe Microsoft has what it takes to compete, but maybe seeing them "try" will inspire a more serious developer to really try.
YES! They totally do, and they're right.
Sure, you block ads and so do I. But that's not typical. If Facebook were a total fraud, their customers would eventually stop buying ads. And spam exists because spam works.
And, knowing that some people block ads and some don't, might you be able to draw some inferences about the people who don't? Perhaps non-blockers are actually particularly ripe for certain types of ad targeting.
As it happens, I've never actually seen the original, but I've nevertheless learned of the meme third-hand: "You wouldn't download a car, would you?" Isn't that intended for a certain kind of person, who just happens to also be the kind of person most likely to see it?
Because we don't have a problem with lying. It's ok to lie.
And even if we did have a problem, letting them do it is easier than the alternative of not-letting them do it. What am I going to do, stop buying their products? Stop voting for them? Stop watching their ads?
Don't be silly. You can lie to me all you want. If you're a liar and if I'm not ok with that, that's my problem, not yours.
I don't think he was asking if it's always sensible. It looked more like he was asking if it might be a sensible idea on an island subject to hurricanes. More specifically, I bet he was asking about Puerto Rico.
Nothing?! Dude, if you carry a car around under your ass, people will think twice before ever attacking you. Those things are dangerous, and even the most fearless attacker will respect their power.
The problem with cars is that even if you have a concealed carry permit, it's hard to conceal a car. The best setup I saw was something George Jetson had, but I'm told it was just some Hollywood fakery.
There is no reason to believe that we are in a sim.
That said, if we were in a sim, the simulation could fake the complexity that you're observing, without doing as much computation. You can't disprove the sim hypothesis from "here" in the alleged sim because all of your evidence would be tainted.
The sim hypothesis is just another religion. You can't confirm it or disprove it.
Who are these "they?" If you've found a specific hypocrite, call him out by name/id. I think most of us are pretty consistently pro-censorship or anti-censorship.
I think this is not only a weird and new way to think of rights, but it's a bad one, because it makes rights meaningless. If we were to use your concept of rights, then not a single person in the world would have any rights at all. Rights wouldn't exist.
That's a useless way to define something. It's better to define rights in a way that some can exist, so that the word actually has real-world meaning instead of being some theoretical ideal that no person will ever enjoy.
By having rights be a thing that rightsholders can sacrifice, or trade to one another, you'll have many situations where rights are a real thing and are meaningful. (And bonus: you start speaking the same language as everyone else!)
Within the mainstream concept of rights, I can have the right to possess the money that's in my pocket, and you can have the right to possess a widget that you made, and you and I can trade money-for-widget. But by your concept of rights, no person can own anything since owning something means you're not allowed to trade it!
Within the mainstream concept of rights, someone can have the right to live, and also the right to die. (Though some people would deny the second right, they'd still at least acknowledge that the language allows it to make sense.) But by your idea of rights, you can't have the right to live and die, since exercising one right always infringes the other!
You should rethink rights.
This is the next problem. This E911 law needs to be more easily and automatically circumvented by default, if we can't get it repealed. And we can't get it repealed. I think that law is a bad idea, and yet there are some pretty obvious and irrefutable arguments in favor of it. It's ambiguously bad, and that's enough to keep it forever.
Therefore, we need our phones to finally stop being phones. To put it in AppleSpeak, we need it to be easier to upgrade iPhones to iPod Touches. Or from Android phones to 5" Android mini-tablets. Then tack on the cellphone transceiver as an aftermarket add-on... which people who live in ubiquitous-wifi areas might literally not bother doing.
For this to work well (have add-on peripherals become viable; currently all our phones totally suck to an embarrassing degree, compared to even a 30-year-old desktop) we need standardized form factors and for "build your own white-box" to be happening. But the fucking market isn't supporting that. It's hard to get there, yet it's so damn attractive. Oh well, it's something to strive for and encourage. Today's phones suck so much, in so many ways, and this would solve many of the problems, including the always-being-tracked problem.
But that's happening anyway. It's just that the "proprietary apps" are called EME modules or drivers or whatever.
They're also going to be awesome for spreading malware. Instead of "install this CODEC to watch this porn" it's "install this EME module to watch this porn" and it'll be a normal and "legit" thing for the user to do, 90% of the time. (Because every service needs its own.)
That other 10% is going to keep us all working full time. Job security for anyone who makes money on when users lose. We'll be like construction contractors in a full-year hurricane season. The more broken windows, the better.
Fuckwits. We all need to be running browsers such that everyone can see user agent strings where they know this DRM fiasco isn't implemented. The server logs themselves need to say "you're going to lose money on this customer if you require EME, because they're just going to switch to pirating in order to be able to view the content."
"I want the ball. Throw the ball. I'm watching. Throw it. Let's play ball. Please, please, please throw the ball. OH! OH! Did you just say something about the ball?! Yes! I'm wagging with approval! Throw the ball! Ball! Let's play ball!"
"Food. Give me food. Food. Are you going to finish that? Food. You have my attention. Food? I want food. Look at me, because I'm cute. You should give me food."
Why would anyone care who is building them? We're trying to embarrass Amazon, not their customers.
That some of the leaks are believed to have come from Russia wasn't the thing I hadn't heard of. The thing I hadn't heard of was that some people believe Wikileaks is a Russian front.
A major "FUCK YEAH!" to this.
Geez, we're not even merely talking about the Internet here. You just described how life works.
You're right! Fine. Let's throw out the no-retards rule.
List 5 people who have the belief, preferably with a link or quotation for each one where they explain how they became aware of the sinister Kremlin-Wikileaks connection. And if all 5 say "I first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love," I swear none of us will giggle or smirk or anything like that!
Whoa! WTF? Not kidding, this is the very first time I have heard this conspiracy theory.
When you say "many", are you talking about a number of people approximately equal to the number of 9/11-Truthers? Half the number of Obama Birthers? C'mon, put this "many" into the units that we're familiar with, you know, like how you measure hard disks in terms of Libraries of Congress.
If someone else's website is broken, what is the decision? Break into their server and fix it?
Which just goes to show, those people are all the same.
Why do ad people have to ruin everything?
Today I am pro-Apple. Well done, Apple! I am hearing nice things about you for a change.