Flying LA-Vegas or Boston-NYC is idiotic when you could build a train or hyperloop, both of which can be powered electrically without dealing with batteries. Flying requires expending energy to climb to altitude, whereas trains run on the surface (more or less). And regenerative braking in planes would tend to be inefficient compared to wheeled vehicles.
That's frankly BS, and you know it (thus your posting as AC). Most of the devices known for catching fire (Samsung S7, MacBooks) has built-in batteries. I haven't heard of many people being randomly blown up while plugging a battery in to a Thinkpad or Moto phone.
It's planned obsolescence in the guise of cowardice (we must protect the cheeeeeeeelllldren).
How common are battery explosions in Thinkpads and Moto phones with removable batteries, vs Crapple MacBooks and Samsung Galaxy S7s? Sounds like it's a non-issue in real life despite your paternalistic yammering.
Yep, this is just proof that the average sheepsumer is a fucking cretin with no understanding of technology beyond "yeeeeeah, SHINY!" If you read the article, this only bans batteries as cargo, not as carry-on items.
The proper response would have been to ban all Li-Ion batteries from passenger aircraft holds and cargo aircraft. This would have forced manufacturers to air-ship phones and laptops without batteries. With any luck, this would have encouraged the development of standardized, user installable batteries for electronics that would have ground-shipped to brick-and-mortar places and been readily available for sale.
Sadly, no one has the balls to disrupt the disposable device cartels.
Frankly, I don't want cloud storage as an option, unless it's encrypted with my own keypair. I don't want to buy a camera, then pay monthly for the privilege of contributing to Amazon's outsourced surveillance network.
Get a cloudfree camera and internal DVR. Same functionality without you paying to contribute to the massive surveillance networks Scumazon and Scroogle are building.
The problem is that the US is extremely authoritarian while marketing itself as free. The watchdogs are powerless over the wails of cops and cowards that "if you have nothing to hiiiiiiiide, why do you need priiiiiiivacy?"
The fourth problem is that not everyone wants to tie their usage of Web services to a phone number (aka a real-world identity). Requiring a phone number to create an account is a loss of privacy.
I don't want to be dependent on a given device or ecosystem for using a website or an app, and I don't necessarily want to tie it to my identity via biometrics. I can make passwords arbitrarily complex, yet easy to remember, and even write them down in a little book (kind of hard to hack remotely).
Password-less authentication isn't about security -- it's about control and LACK of security. Google wants to hold the keys to the city.
Happy medium... keep the phone as a communication device, ditch the data plan. Meaning that "going online" is no longer effortless -- outside of your usual spaces (work, school, home), you have to make an effort to seek out public WiFi and connect to it.
5G isn't for the customer -- the customer already has fast data in the form of 4G. It's for device makers who want to put a camera and mic in everything, phoning (hah!) home to the mothership, governments that want to roll out surveillance networks on the cheap. You're the product, not the customer.
Me? I've turned off my data plan and now pay under $20/mo, if and when I choose to bring my cell with me. All hail Ned Ludd!
Video phone calls: a solution without a problem. Very few people want to show their tired face to others when talking to them or have to preen for the camera.
Let's say you're working on something confidential on a tablet. Yes, your seatmate can see you, but they're unlikely to record what you're working on. BTW - the solution isn't to increase the number of security cameras further. It's to lobby against security cameras, even in public. If it increases crime, so be it. Don't be cowards, people.
in olden days, someone could leave a given city or town and start a new life in another, with no one being the wiser. So there was functionally a "right to be forgotten", assuming one wasn't a visible member of an outcast or slave caste.
Which is why the unions need to become more active again -- worker protections weren't created by nicey-nice people negotiating with employers in a boardroom. They were created because factories and mines mysteriously started having expensive accidents if the unions weren't treated fairly by their employers.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't do US 4G frequencies, unfortunately. If it did, I'd buy one (or 10) over any US "flagshit" phone.
Flying LA-Vegas or Boston-NYC is idiotic when you could build a train or hyperloop, both of which can be powered electrically without dealing with batteries. Flying requires expending energy to climb to altitude, whereas trains run on the surface (more or less). And regenerative braking in planes would tend to be inefficient compared to wheeled vehicles.
That's frankly BS, and you know it (thus your posting as AC). Most of the devices known for catching fire (Samsung S7, MacBooks) has built-in batteries. I haven't heard of many people being randomly blown up while plugging a battery in to a Thinkpad or Moto phone.
It's planned obsolescence in the guise of cowardice (we must protect the cheeeeeeeelllldren).
How common are battery explosions in Thinkpads and Moto phones with removable batteries, vs Crapple MacBooks and Samsung Galaxy S7s? Sounds like it's a non-issue in real life despite your paternalistic yammering.
Yep, this is just proof that the average sheepsumer is a fucking cretin with no understanding of technology beyond "yeeeeeah, SHINY!" If you read the article, this only bans batteries as cargo, not as carry-on items.
The proper response would have been to ban all Li-Ion batteries from passenger aircraft holds and cargo aircraft. This would have forced manufacturers to air-ship phones and laptops without batteries. With any luck, this would have encouraged the development of standardized, user installable batteries for electronics that would have ground-shipped to brick-and-mortar places and been readily available for sale.
Sadly, no one has the balls to disrupt the disposable device cartels.
Frankly, I don't want cloud storage as an option, unless it's encrypted with my own keypair. I don't want to buy a camera, then pay monthly for the privilege of contributing to Amazon's outsourced surveillance network.
Get a cloudfree camera and internal DVR. Same functionality without you paying to contribute to the massive surveillance networks Scumazon and Scroogle are building.
The problem is that the US is extremely authoritarian while marketing itself as free. The watchdogs are powerless over the wails of cops and cowards that "if you have nothing to hiiiiiiiide, why do you need priiiiiiivacy?"
The fourth problem is that not everyone wants to tie their usage of Web services to a phone number (aka a real-world identity). Requiring a phone number to create an account is a loss of privacy.
Yep, nailed it -- this is about techscum like Google wanting to hold the keys to the safe.
I don't want to be dependent on a given device or ecosystem for using a website or an app, and I don't necessarily want to tie it to my identity via biometrics. I can make passwords arbitrarily complex, yet easy to remember, and even write them down in a little book (kind of hard to hack remotely).
Password-less authentication isn't about security -- it's about control and LACK of security. Google wants to hold the keys to the city.
... which all work over wifi as well.
$15-20 and deliberately turning off data (see parent post) is better for this situation.
Added bonus, it's CHEAP to just have voice/text. Like $10-20 per month, not $50-70.
Happy medium ... keep the phone as a communication device, ditch the data plan. Meaning that "going online" is no longer effortless -- outside of your usual spaces (work, school, home), you have to make an effort to seek out public WiFi and connect to it.
Why not do both?
Why are you stinking your private photos with the clown? Enjoy your time with your family - you don't have to put every second of it on the Intarwebz.
5G isn't for the customer -- the customer already has fast data in the form of 4G. It's for device makers who want to put a camera and mic in everything, phoning (hah!) home to the mothership, governments that want to roll out surveillance networks on the cheap. You're the product, not the customer.
Me? I've turned off my data plan and now pay under $20/mo, if and when I choose to bring my cell with me. All hail Ned Ludd!
Video phone calls: a solution without a problem. Very few people want to show their tired face to others when talking to them or have to preen for the camera.
Vaseline also works -- it's even deniable. You touched the screen with greasy hands...
Let's say you're working on something confidential on a tablet. Yes, your seatmate can see you, but they're unlikely to record what you're working on. BTW - the solution isn't to increase the number of security cameras further. It's to lobby against security cameras, even in public. If it increases crime, so be it. Don't be cowards, people.
in olden days, someone could leave a given city or town and start a new life in another, with no one being the wiser. So there was functionally a "right to be forgotten", assuming one wasn't a visible member of an outcast or slave caste.
Which is why the unions need to become more active again -- worker protections weren't created by nicey-nice people negotiating with employers in a boardroom. They were created because factories and mines mysteriously started having expensive accidents if the unions weren't treated fairly by their employers.
No, but society can use the poor as an excuse to keep cash payments as an option, thus preserving privacy for everyone (including the less poor).