While "delete your apps periodically and re-add them as needed" is probably very good advice most of the time, are there any cases where apps are getting worse with respect to privacy, and so having a newer version of an app is worse than having the older version?
It seems likely that someone out there, having gotten a whiff of the money that might be made, is actually getting worse about this...
Balderdash. Try reading Beowulf in the original. If you don't understand it perfectly, is that because you're lazy and stupid or because the English language has changed?
Maybe it's because I haven't taken the time to learn West Saxon, the language in which Beowulf was written?
Also, I might be lazy and stupid. I'll concede that point, if you'll concede that your metaphor is balderdash.
Your logic reported you to the UN for torturing it. Besides, if you really think soliders aren't capable of, and encouraged to, think of shooting someone in a warzone as an almost orgasmic experience, you really need to talk to a few more soldiers.
I don't believe that you've ever been in the same room as a soldier who wasn't made of molded plastic in your life.
It doesn't matter how many modules there are. It matters how many solid, well-documented modules there are that will continue to get updates and support.
I have no opinion over how much goodness there is in CPAN versus RubyGems; maybe RubyGems is really pulling ahead. But out of nearly nineteen thousand modules, how many really matter? (and how many are just another XML library that's just slightly different and incompatible with the bajillion other XML libraries already out there?)
Nothing spoils the joy of having an original idea more than discovering it's actually a basic concept of another discipline.
I used to feel that way, but now I don't. I've learned to take some comfort from the fact that if it's already a time-tested and useful idea, I can feel confident that I got it right.
In my own field, there's often as much as a ten year lag before some young upstart grad student comes along and proves that my ideas are bogus, and I hate the suspense.
Picking on ZFS for being slow when ported to a different OS and running on atypical hardware is like criticizing Stephen Hawking for being a poor juggler. It's focussing on the wrong thing.
The goals of ZFS are, in no particular order:
- Scalability to enormous numbers of devices
- Highly assured data integrity via checksumming
- Fault tolerance via redundancy
- Manageability/usability features (i.e., snapshots) that conventional file systems simply don't have
Oh, and if it's fast, well, that's gravy.
I've never understood exactly why Google shoveled so much money into Android, and from what I hear from Android developers, they're not sure either.
Google sells ads; they're very good at it, and they have excellent margins. It's hard for them to find another business where they can make money as efficiently, so maybe they shouldn't bother. When they started developing Android, perhaps Google was worried that there wouldn't be good smartphone platforms that they could use to sell ads on, but that's not a worry now. Google doesn't care much whether you visit their sites or use their aps on an Android-powered phone or any other kind of phone; they get paid either way. If Microsoft or Baidu is willing to take over some or all of the cost of developing the software necessary for Google to serve ads to mobile users, Google would probably be delighted to let them.
This just proves how little the Business community understands technology. Google could lose control of Android to Bing and Baidu if either of them were to come out with a superior product than Google.
Of course... that's how Microsoft makes all of their money--from superior products. That's why so many people haven't bothered to upgrade to XP--because Vista was too good for them.
Has anyone ever seen a google ad?
Well, other than astroturfing on slashdot... Google has ads everywhere. They've branded the bejesus out of everything they've ever touched. (Not that I blame them--it's good marketing sense--but I'm simply flabbergasted that someone using a computer claims they haven't seen a google ad.)
... new legislation in Arizona is already being written to address the issues of extragalactic planets mixing and mingling with our stars, taking orbits that could be used for native planets.
Owners of a content distribution channel for content are attempting to exercise their right to control how that channel is accessed, albeit in a stupid and pointless way! Horror!
Whoever wrote the summary should have read the article...
Here's my summary:
Microsoft: "Hey, smartphone makers, you're using some of our patented technology."
Smartphone makers: "Can't disagree with you."
Microsoft: "So, you should give me some money."
Smartphone makers: "Yeah, I guess."
Microsoft: "If you were already paying for them by buying a windows license, then we'd already square. But since you're not, then just give me a few bucks per unit. Cool?"
Smartphone makers: "Cool. Just don't tell the folks at slashdot, because they'll twist this around to make it sound like you're trying to intimidate us into not using Android, rather than us trying to license technology from you that we want to use in our phone."
Microsoft: "Yeah, and then somehow tie this in to their precious desktop linux."
The same kind of law that makes it illegal for some loving long-term monogamous couples to get married, while others can, for example.
Seriously, looking for logic, proportion and consistency in legal statutes is pointless at best, maddening at worst. A large number of laws are written by people with interests to protect, or beliefs to promulgate, rather than any notion or desire for justice.
That would be quite a breakthrough, but I am skeptical. Depending on policy-based security requires that you also have a language for policies that make it impossible to write bad policies.
I'd be thrilled with a programming language that makes it easy to write secure code, much less a language that makes it impossible not to.
Agreed. Facebook won't give up invading users' privacy until they get replaced by a site that cares about user privacy.
I think you mean "until they go out of business." The reason that they go out of business isn't terribly important, but as long as they're in business, this is the business they're in.
Slashdot Mirror
Three hundred pages to cover a "hello world" app and not "take the reader much further?"
Good lord, there must be a better programming platform for android than this. For comparison, the entirety of K&R is only 274 pages!
While "delete your apps periodically and re-add them as needed" is probably very good advice most of the time, are there any cases where apps are getting worse with respect to privacy, and so having a newer version of an app is worse than having the older version?
It seems likely that someone out there, having gotten a whiff of the money that might be made, is actually getting worse about this...
Balderdash. Try reading Beowulf in the original. If you don't understand it perfectly, is that because you're lazy and stupid or because the English language has changed?
Maybe it's because I haven't taken the time to learn West Saxon, the language in which Beowulf was written?
Also, I might be lazy and stupid. I'll concede that point, if you'll concede that your metaphor is balderdash.
Your logic reported you to the UN for torturing it. Besides, if you really think soliders aren't capable of, and encouraged to, think of shooting someone in a warzone as an almost orgasmic experience, you really need to talk to a few more soldiers.
I don't believe that you've ever been in the same room as a soldier who wasn't made of molded plastic in your life.
Wait, are we asking whether reading your spouse's email IS a crime (in Michigan, at least), or whether it OUGHT to be a crime?
This is slashdot. Laws are irrelevant here. Just stick IMHO in front of everything, including this paragraph, and you'll be fine.
It doesn't matter how many modules there are. It matters how many solid, well-documented modules there are that will continue to get updates and support.
I have no opinion over how much goodness there is in CPAN versus RubyGems; maybe RubyGems is really pulling ahead. But out of nearly nineteen thousand modules, how many really matter? (and how many are just another XML library that's just slightly different and incompatible with the bajillion other XML libraries already out there?)
Nothing spoils the joy of having an original idea more than discovering it's actually a basic concept of another discipline.
I used to feel that way, but now I don't. I've learned to take some comfort from the fact that if it's already a time-tested and useful idea, I can feel confident that I got it right.
In my own field, there's often as much as a ten year lag before some young upstart grad student comes along and proves that my ideas are bogus, and I hate the suspense.
Why not wait until 2pm before posting the article then ?
Anyone can comment on facts, but conjecture is more fun.
Damn. I was going to ask Stephen Hawking if he wanted to join a juggler's association.
I didn't say that he doesn't enjoy it.
Picking on ZFS for being slow when ported to a different OS and running on atypical hardware is like criticizing Stephen Hawking for being a poor juggler. It's focussing on the wrong thing. The goals of ZFS are, in no particular order:
- Scalability to enormous numbers of devices
- Highly assured data integrity via checksumming
- Fault tolerance via redundancy
- Manageability/usability features (i.e., snapshots) that conventional file systems simply don't have
Oh, and if it's fast, well, that's gravy.
I've never understood exactly why Google shoveled so much money into Android, and from what I hear from Android developers, they're not sure either.
Google sells ads; they're very good at it, and they have excellent margins. It's hard for them to find another business where they can make money as efficiently, so maybe they shouldn't bother. When they started developing Android, perhaps Google was worried that there wouldn't be good smartphone platforms that they could use to sell ads on, but that's not a worry now. Google doesn't care much whether you visit their sites or use their aps on an Android-powered phone or any other kind of phone; they get paid either way. If Microsoft or Baidu is willing to take over some or all of the cost of developing the software necessary for Google to serve ads to mobile users, Google would probably be delighted to let them.
This just proves how little the Business community understands technology. Google could lose control of Android to Bing and Baidu if either of them were to come out with a superior product than Google.
Of course... that's how Microsoft makes all of their money--from superior products. That's why so many people haven't bothered to upgrade to XP--because Vista was too good for them.
Has anyone ever seen a google ad?
Well, other than astroturfing on slashdot... Google has ads everywhere. They've branded the bejesus out of everything they've ever touched. (Not that I blame them--it's good marketing sense--but I'm simply flabbergasted that someone using a computer claims they haven't seen a google ad.)
Is Google some sort of Holy Pig that can destroy whatever they want to without anyone in the "community" standing up to them?
Hello, and welcome to slashdot.
Owners of a content distribution channel for content are attempting to exercise their right to control how that channel is accessed, albeit in a stupid and pointless way! Horror!
World's toughest server farm that you know about.
It's not nearly as secure now that we all know that it exists and where it is...
There's a long tradition of young folks picking up nasty viruses from anonymous strangers in NYC; now their computers can too.
God forbid that someone would be willing to pay money for something of value created by someone else!
(what exactly do you think Microsoft is "getting away with" here?)
Yup.
Whoever wrote the summary should have read the article...
Here's my summary:
Microsoft: "Hey, smartphone makers, you're using some of our patented technology."
Smartphone makers: "Can't disagree with you."
Microsoft: "So, you should give me some money."
Smartphone makers: "Yeah, I guess."
Microsoft: "If you were already paying for them by buying a windows license, then we'd already square. But since you're not, then just give me a few bucks per unit. Cool?"
Smartphone makers: "Cool. Just don't tell the folks at slashdot, because they'll twist this around to make it sound like you're trying to intimidate us into not using Android, rather than us trying to license technology from you that we want to use in our phone."
Microsoft: "Yeah, and then somehow tie this in to their precious desktop linux."
Smartphone makers: "(snort)"
The same kind of law that makes it illegal for some loving long-term monogamous couples to get married, while others can, for example.
Seriously, looking for logic, proportion and consistency in legal statutes is pointless at best, maddening at worst. A large number of laws are written by people with interests to protect, or beliefs to promulgate, rather than any notion or desire for justice.
Really?
That would be quite a breakthrough, but I am skeptical. Depending on policy-based security requires that you also have a language for policies that make it impossible to write bad policies.
I'd be thrilled with a programming language that makes it easy to write secure code, much less a language that makes it impossible not to.
If you actually use your real name and personal information on any social networking site, then you are an idiot, plain and simple.
Well, except maybe linkedin.
It's always easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to get permission.
Nah, it's easier to do neither. And a good business model, apparently.
Agreed. Facebook won't give up invading users' privacy until they get replaced by a site that cares about user privacy.
I think you mean "until they go out of business." The reason that they go out of business isn't terribly important, but as long as they're in business, this is the business they're in.