Well, he's moving to Qatar, so apparently he doesn't like the idea of being American anymore. I can't blame him for that, but I have no sympathy for someone who complains their civil rights have been violated and then moves to a country that still practices slavery.
Voter registration info should be secret, not distributed at a whim. I'm sick of getting spam, junk mail, and robocalls from people who have gotten my info off the registration rolls.
Once again a dead-tree newspaper demonstrates total lack of technical awareness.
Though they do mention how Binge On actually works (implement the technical requirements, fill out a form, and it works) they try to imply that T-Mobile will choose to exclude services based on their own non-technical criteria.
T-Mobile so far has shown they're not going to exclude competitor's services, and said that they won't exclude services based on content. Of course, NYT's editorial staff probably can't understand the technical aspects of the service, and what they know of the business doesn't fit their narrative. While the NYT might think so, "Binge On" does not appear to be designed to steer user's content choices.
This reminds me of the Washington Post claiming that technical companies could come up with a "golden key" for law enforcement to break encryption and somehow magically prevent criminals from using it (and then accusing tech companies of lying about it). It's just technical illiteracy mixed with contempt for the industry they see as "destroying journalism".
These prototypes may not be ready for prime time. Personally, I wouldn't buy a car that can't cross the Bay Bridge.
However, other "Google Cars" (like the modified Lexus) are capable of full highway speed. There are several autonomous vehicles that are being tested at highway speed.
You're absolutely certain it was a Verizon store and not a "premium reseller" (which often use the Verizon branding)? And you're sure Verizon themselves don't sell your information?
Practically any company you've given your number to in the past 14 years might have decided to sell it to some scummy company, but it's extremely unlikely that it was Apple.
The various Apple license agreements are at http://www.apple.com/legal/ , I'd be interested to see what clause you think Apple has that would allow them to sell your phone number.
I just got a new iPhone (in September) with a new number. No telemarketing calls at all. Of course, I bought the phone at the Apple store and use it on T-Mo. If you're getting calls, I'll bet it's not Apple that gave out the number.
These statistics are meaningless without actual install numbers. Of the computers scanned, how many actually had QuickTime installed? How many had Java?
I do wish Apple would stop pushing QuickTime, I don't have it installed on my Windows PC and I don't use it on my Mac.
Argh, second to last paragraph is supposed to say:
The only problem I can see is when the network status isn't visible, like when the "< Back to App" display is on, or when the app is fullscreen. Apple should probably make sure the network display shows up for a few seconds when the network switches for any reason.
One solution that comes to mind is a nag-screen-like alert
God that would be annoying. Maybe Apple should have made WiFi Assist opt-in rather than opt-out, but I really don't see the problem with this feature. It's limited to foreground applications, and respects settings that various apps (like Netflix) shouldn't use cellular data. The network status display also changes when the feature turns on.
On the other hand, I've had countless cases where I had to switch off WiFi to get off a weak or extremely slow network and switch to LTE, it always seemed stupid the OS couldn't do this for me. Of course, if you then tried to open a map application, it would try to get you to switch WiFi back on.
The only problem I can see is when the network status isn't visible, like when the "
Of course, my carrier doesn't charge if I go over the cap, just slows down the connection.
Do you seriously think the Interstate Highway System didn't create jobs? Or diverted money and labor to unproductive activity? I'll bet the ROI on it has been way higher than the cost.
Similarly, without an efficient way to move passengers, the state will end up spending more than the cost of the railroad on airport and highway expansion.
Are you speaking from the perspective of the cop or the suspect? I guess the difference is the cops are *definitely* armed.
Interesting how the FBI's argument could also be used to stop the use of body cameras. The argument is also based on supposition, the directors "feelings", whereas recent events have proven that cops use excessive force, even to the point of murdering people, and lie about it. I'm not saying it's all cops, or that the other side is blameless. Within minutes of Darren Wilson's death, people started gathering around and lying about what they had seen so that they could "get" a cop. The low crime rates we had up until now would seem to be based on a system of injustice and lies that, in the plain light of day, is unacceptable to the vast majority of the population.
Yes, there's been an uptick in crime, but the director's argument basically boils down to certain neighborhoods having a naturally high murder rate, kept down only by police with no fear of being held responsible for their actions. I'd be more interested to see why those murders are happening in the first place, and tackling that, rather than having large swathes of the population walking around every day with the fear that the next cop they see will beat them to death or shoot them.
If these powers start to be used routinely in criminal investigations then the very idea of the "rights of the accused" will be a joke. This is about intelligence, not law enforcement, though I realize the line is getting blurrier by the day. Intelligence and law enforcement officers that cross that line should be getting jailed.
The idea of the Wilson doctrine is that if intelligence started spying on MPs they could find embarrassing information and use it to blackmail parliament, thus subverting democracy. It's an incredibly important protection, but it's not getting enforced properly.
If I started spraying my lawn with a pesticide, and it turned out that kids walking on the grass absorbed the pesticide through their skin became deathly ill, I'd be ordered to stop immediately. Even if breaking the law is an unintentional side-effect, once the effect becomes clear the behavior has to stop. Instead, even though we know GCHQ and the NSA are collecting data that they cannot legally acquire, they're being allowed to continue because it's "unintentional". Absolutely ridiculous, jail them, all of them.
I take issue with this, they're calling themselves "technologists" as though that would somehow make up for forgetting about user experience. I'm a technologist, and my job requires considering user experience.
I've seen this in online advertising for years. The ad industry measured how many people clicked, but not how many people they pissed off. They didn't care about users at all, not because they were technologists, but because of the ethos of their industry. Now that there's backlash they'll pay lip service to "user experience".
Text and (motionless) images only. No scripting, strong privacy protections. Build the ad blockers into the browsers, set to block any ads that do not declare compliance with industry rules. One site, network, or advertiser breaks one rule and that organization is blocked automatically by all browsers for at least 2 years.
I don't use AdBlock Plus, I use uBlock. To answer your points:
1) My browser blocks malicious sites, I'm certainly not going to trust you over Google. 2, 3, 4) I find it's better not to get infected by a virus rather than trying to block it from communicating 5) I don't see Google DNS going down as a big risk, in fact I'd see the possibility of outdated DNS entries in the hosts file as worse 6) DNS poisoning applies to insecure routers. If my router has a security hole I'm getting it fixed/replaced, not using a sticking plaster 7) Ghostery and uBlock both block trackers. There are pages that break without them, so I like having a quick switch to turn off this functionality when absolutely needed. I ran into this just yesterday while activating a credit card. 8, 9) This is absolute bullshit, your software does nothing directly against phishing or spam, this is basically just a duplicate of #1 10) You won't reduce data usage any more than uBlock does, and my home internet connection isn't capped. 11) Again, Google Public DNS, no blocks 12) Any caching resolver can do that 13) Caching resolver, like the one in my router 14) Complete lie, your software is Windows only. And if your software isn't required for a hosts solution (which it isn't), then why are you pushing it so hard? 15) Really? If it's so easy to control where's the source code so I can modify it? 16) uBlock is much more efficient than ABP was, and the additional features provided by uBlock (like per-site whitelisting and blacklisting) are worth the additional resources.
I don't actually read your replies to my comments, I had to go and find this one. I do occasionally see the titles. By all means, keep trolling me. The day I stop seeing you post I'll know to start checking the obits. I want to make sure I get a chance to dance on your grave before everyone else gets there.
JPEG can add this to the standard, but nobody will implement it. Think about it, why would Google or Mozilla decide to make these images work in their browsers? Why would Microsoft or Apple implement it?
DRM on video (and to a lesser degree music) only worked because there was a captive market. Blu-ray players, DVD players, and iPods would implement whatever DRM the movie/music industry specified. Browsers and smartphones won't. Without them the audience is so small that it won't matter.
Actually he's obviously wrong on several points. His software won't run on anything but Windows (point #14). It also can't block various things that uBlock/ABP can. Example: that annoying bar at the bottom of Wikia sites, or the donation stuff on Wikipedia, or the native ads on/. So it doesn't "do more with less", at best it does less with less. It also can't block IP addresses, which phishing and malware attacks can and do use.
Many of the Latitude series also come with McAfee pre-installed.
But you're right, there's actually exactly one Latitude that falls near the requirements, the Latitude 14 5000. It has a 14" screen, and costs $1000, making it $100 less than a Macbook Air. Of course, it still comes with an Office "trial", which would likely have to be uninstalled before I could install Office through our subscription. I'm not sure what else would be pre-installed.
As for alternate vendors: Lenovo's obviously out. I generally assume all other PC vendors pre-install junk, not that they'll tell you before you buy it. If there's a vendor that doesn't pre-install, I'd love to know about them.
"Available to pre-install" is not the same as "pre-installed". Unless something major has changed recently, Dells come with McAfee actually installed. Under Windows 8.1, removing it was a multi-step process (run the uninstaller, run MCPR, then repair Windows Update which McAfee somehow breaks). That's not even counting all the other junk, like say Wild Tangent.
And yet all of this will be covered with crap in the form of McAfee and a hundred other apps you don't want, but take hours to remove. Or, you can try installing Windows from scratch, which also takes hours, and then your fancy new hardware won't work until you find Dell's special drivers for each device.
My company's purchases are too small for a business account, so we end up buying consumer hardware. We were only buying from the Microsoft Store, since that at least is junkware free. Now, the Microsoft Store has very little in stock, so the last time we had to buy a new PC we wound up with a Macbook Air. That was to replace a 2013 Dell XPS 13 that somehow is still broken after 2 motherboard replacements, and is now at Dell's repair center.
Dell really should have their own version of the Microsoft Signature program, the cost of the time it takes to clean a "new" machine makes a $900 PC cost more than an $1100 Mac. (For those of you thinking "you can get a PC for $500!", time = money, including time spent waiting for a 5400RPM spinning disk. My minimum specs are Core i5/8GB RAM/128GB SSD/13 inch screen.)
Windows 10 made it worse, now that you have to uninstall the "Get Skype" and "Get Office" apps. Plus switch the privacy settings to prevent Microsoft giving away the Wi-Fi password. I doubt we'll buy any PCs going forward.
That doesn't block spam itself, and I've seen plenty of links in spam that do point directly to an IP address, it's probably the most common place I see such links.
I've been annoyed by this many times. The solution is to get a card from a better bank. Cap One is awful for many, many reasons (former customer).
First time, HSBC started refusing charges while I was three hours from home. Took them hours to call me and re-enable the card.
Fidelity's FIA-issued Amex is the absolute worst. I had an online purchase declined, called them (they don't call you when it happens) and was then told their computers were down and they couldn't fix it. I've been told the same thing at least 2 other times in the last six months (when I've called over other declines, including one less than a thousand feet from my home).
Citibank is the only card I've had where the system is reasonable. When the card has been declined (once for a web purchase, the other buying an iPhone at a store). The automated system calls me immediately, and it's pretty simple to get it to allow the transaction on retry. Ideally you'd have the option of confirming the purchase via an app. Touch ID on a confirmed phone should be more secure than an IVR call.
The Citibank system works fine for now though, there's really no excuse for other banks to not use a similar system. I've actually stopped using my Fidelity card because their fraud system is so paranoid.
One of his points is that a hosts file can protect against spam, which is about as likely as aspirin protecting against spam unless you're hosting your own mail server (and who the hell would run a mail server on Windows?).
As for the rest, hosts blocking can't block the "please donate/subscribe to us" banners on sites, and blocking trackers can break various sites. That's fine when you're using something like Ghostery/uBlock, where you can temporarily turn it off for a specific page (or even whitelist just one tracker on one site, i.e. whitelist New Relic on New Relic). A hosts file is a sledge hammer approach.
APK's standard response (those bits that are comprehensible) seem to revolve around these plugins using too much memory/CPU time. If I was concerned about that I'd still be using a green screen terminal. The standard solution doesn't require administrative rights, can block more, and can be turned off if it breaks a site (which means the lists can be very expansive if you want).
APK's solution is like looking at a light bulb and deciding what the world really needs is a brighter candle.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, he's moving to Qatar, so apparently he doesn't like the idea of being American anymore. I can't blame him for that, but I have no sympathy for someone who complains their civil rights have been violated and then moves to a country that still practices slavery.
He shouldn't get a cent.
Voter registration info should be secret, not distributed at a whim. I'm sick of getting spam, junk mail, and robocalls from people who have gotten my info off the registration rolls.
Once again a dead-tree newspaper demonstrates total lack of technical awareness.
Though they do mention how Binge On actually works (implement the technical requirements, fill out a form, and it works) they try to imply that T-Mobile will choose to exclude services based on their own non-technical criteria.
T-Mobile so far has shown they're not going to exclude competitor's services, and said that they won't exclude services based on content. Of course, NYT's editorial staff probably can't understand the technical aspects of the service, and what they know of the business doesn't fit their narrative. While the NYT might think so, "Binge On" does not appear to be designed to steer user's content choices.
This reminds me of the Washington Post claiming that technical companies could come up with a "golden key" for law enforcement to break encryption and somehow magically prevent criminals from using it (and then accusing tech companies of lying about it). It's just technical illiteracy mixed with contempt for the industry they see as "destroying journalism".
These prototypes may not be ready for prime time. Personally, I wouldn't buy a car that can't cross the Bay Bridge.
However, other "Google Cars" (like the modified Lexus) are capable of full highway speed. There are several autonomous vehicles that are being tested at highway speed.
You're absolutely certain it was a Verizon store and not a "premium reseller" (which often use the Verizon branding)? And you're sure Verizon themselves don't sell your information?
Practically any company you've given your number to in the past 14 years might have decided to sell it to some scummy company, but it's extremely unlikely that it was Apple.
The various Apple license agreements are at http://www.apple.com/legal/ , I'd be interested to see what clause you think Apple has that would allow them to sell your phone number.
I just got a new iPhone (in September) with a new number. No telemarketing calls at all. Of course, I bought the phone at the Apple store and use it on T-Mo. If you're getting calls, I'll bet it's not Apple that gave out the number.
These statistics are meaningless without actual install numbers. Of the computers scanned, how many actually had QuickTime installed? How many had Java?
I do wish Apple would stop pushing QuickTime, I don't have it installed on my Windows PC and I don't use it on my Mac.
Argh, second to last paragraph is supposed to say:
The only problem I can see is when the network status isn't visible, like when the "< Back to App" display is on, or when the app is fullscreen. Apple should probably make sure the network display shows up for a few seconds when the network switches for any reason.
One solution that comes to mind is a nag-screen-like alert
God that would be annoying. Maybe Apple should have made WiFi Assist opt-in rather than opt-out, but I really don't see the problem with this feature. It's limited to foreground applications, and respects settings that various apps (like Netflix) shouldn't use cellular data. The network status display also changes when the feature turns on.
On the other hand, I've had countless cases where I had to switch off WiFi to get off a weak or extremely slow network and switch to LTE, it always seemed stupid the OS couldn't do this for me. Of course, if you then tried to open a map application, it would try to get you to switch WiFi back on.
The only problem I can see is when the network status isn't visible, like when the "
Of course, my carrier doesn't charge if I go over the cap, just slows down the connection.
Do you seriously think the Interstate Highway System didn't create jobs? Or diverted money and labor to unproductive activity? I'll bet the ROI on it has been way higher than the cost.
Similarly, without an efficient way to move passengers, the state will end up spending more than the cost of the railroad on airport and highway expansion.
Are you speaking from the perspective of the cop or the suspect? I guess the difference is the cops are *definitely* armed.
Interesting how the FBI's argument could also be used to stop the use of body cameras. The argument is also based on supposition, the directors "feelings", whereas recent events have proven that cops use excessive force, even to the point of murdering people, and lie about it. I'm not saying it's all cops, or that the other side is blameless. Within minutes of Darren Wilson's death, people started gathering around and lying about what they had seen so that they could "get" a cop. The low crime rates we had up until now would seem to be based on a system of injustice and lies that, in the plain light of day, is unacceptable to the vast majority of the population.
Yes, there's been an uptick in crime, but the director's argument basically boils down to certain neighborhoods having a naturally high murder rate, kept down only by police with no fear of being held responsible for their actions. I'd be more interested to see why those murders are happening in the first place, and tackling that, rather than having large swathes of the population walking around every day with the fear that the next cop they see will beat them to death or shoot them.
Nope, sorry, no reaction at all. Accusing someone of being gay doesn't really work if they actually are gay, and pretty much nobody enjoys prison.
I will make sure to leave that pride flag on your grave though.
Hi APK, do you think I have thin skin or something?
If these powers start to be used routinely in criminal investigations then the very idea of the "rights of the accused" will be a joke. This is about intelligence, not law enforcement, though I realize the line is getting blurrier by the day. Intelligence and law enforcement officers that cross that line should be getting jailed.
The idea of the Wilson doctrine is that if intelligence started spying on MPs they could find embarrassing information and use it to blackmail parliament, thus subverting democracy. It's an incredibly important protection, but it's not getting enforced properly.
If I started spraying my lawn with a pesticide, and it turned out that kids walking on the grass absorbed the pesticide through their skin became deathly ill, I'd be ordered to stop immediately. Even if breaking the law is an unintentional side-effect, once the effect becomes clear the behavior has to stop. Instead, even though we know GCHQ and the NSA are collecting data that they cannot legally acquire, they're being allowed to continue because it's "unintentional". Absolutely ridiculous, jail them, all of them.
I take issue with this, they're calling themselves "technologists" as though that would somehow make up for forgetting about user experience. I'm a technologist, and my job requires considering user experience.
I've seen this in online advertising for years. The ad industry measured how many people clicked, but not how many people they pissed off. They didn't care about users at all, not because they were technologists, but because of the ethos of their industry. Now that there's backlash they'll pay lip service to "user experience".
Text and (motionless) images only. No scripting, strong privacy protections. Build the ad blockers into the browsers, set to block any ads that do not declare compliance with industry rules. One site, network, or advertiser breaks one rule and that organization is blocked automatically by all browsers for at least 2 years.
I don't use AdBlock Plus, I use uBlock. To answer your points:
1) My browser blocks malicious sites, I'm certainly not going to trust you over Google.
2, 3, 4) I find it's better not to get infected by a virus rather than trying to block it from communicating
5) I don't see Google DNS going down as a big risk, in fact I'd see the possibility of outdated DNS entries in the hosts file as worse
6) DNS poisoning applies to insecure routers. If my router has a security hole I'm getting it fixed/replaced, not using a sticking plaster
7) Ghostery and uBlock both block trackers. There are pages that break without them, so I like having a quick switch to turn off this functionality when absolutely needed. I ran into this just yesterday while activating a credit card.
8, 9) This is absolute bullshit, your software does nothing directly against phishing or spam, this is basically just a duplicate of #1
10) You won't reduce data usage any more than uBlock does, and my home internet connection isn't capped.
11) Again, Google Public DNS, no blocks
12) Any caching resolver can do that
13) Caching resolver, like the one in my router
14) Complete lie, your software is Windows only. And if your software isn't required for a hosts solution (which it isn't), then why are you pushing it so hard?
15) Really? If it's so easy to control where's the source code so I can modify it?
16) uBlock is much more efficient than ABP was, and the additional features provided by uBlock (like per-site whitelisting and blacklisting) are worth the additional resources.
I don't actually read your replies to my comments, I had to go and find this one. I do occasionally see the titles. By all means, keep trolling me. The day I stop seeing you post I'll know to start checking the obits. I want to make sure I get a chance to dance on your grave before everyone else gets there.
JPEG can add this to the standard, but nobody will implement it. Think about it, why would Google or Mozilla decide to make these images work in their browsers? Why would Microsoft or Apple implement it?
DRM on video (and to a lesser degree music) only worked because there was a captive market. Blu-ray players, DVD players, and iPods would implement whatever DRM the movie/music industry specified. Browsers and smartphones won't. Without them the audience is so small that it won't matter.
Actually he's obviously wrong on several points. His software won't run on anything but Windows (point #14). It also can't block various things that uBlock/ABP can. Example: that annoying bar at the bottom of Wikia sites, or the donation stuff on Wikipedia, or the native ads on /. So it doesn't "do more with less", at best it does less with less. It also can't block IP addresses, which phishing and malware attacks can and do use.
Many of the Latitude series also come with McAfee pre-installed.
But you're right, there's actually exactly one Latitude that falls near the requirements, the Latitude 14 5000. It has a 14" screen, and costs $1000, making it $100 less than a Macbook Air. Of course, it still comes with an Office "trial", which would likely have to be uninstalled before I could install Office through our subscription. I'm not sure what else would be pre-installed.
As for alternate vendors: Lenovo's obviously out. I generally assume all other PC vendors pre-install junk, not that they'll tell you before you buy it. If there's a vendor that doesn't pre-install, I'd love to know about them.
"Available to pre-install" is not the same as "pre-installed". Unless something major has changed recently, Dells come with McAfee actually installed. Under Windows 8.1, removing it was a multi-step process (run the uninstaller, run MCPR, then repair Windows Update which McAfee somehow breaks). That's not even counting all the other junk, like say Wild Tangent.
And yet all of this will be covered with crap in the form of McAfee and a hundred other apps you don't want, but take hours to remove. Or, you can try installing Windows from scratch, which also takes hours, and then your fancy new hardware won't work until you find Dell's special drivers for each device.
My company's purchases are too small for a business account, so we end up buying consumer hardware. We were only buying from the Microsoft Store, since that at least is junkware free. Now, the Microsoft Store has very little in stock, so the last time we had to buy a new PC we wound up with a Macbook Air. That was to replace a 2013 Dell XPS 13 that somehow is still broken after 2 motherboard replacements, and is now at Dell's repair center.
Dell really should have their own version of the Microsoft Signature program, the cost of the time it takes to clean a "new" machine makes a $900 PC cost more than an $1100 Mac. (For those of you thinking "you can get a PC for $500!", time = money, including time spent waiting for a 5400RPM spinning disk. My minimum specs are Core i5/8GB RAM/128GB SSD/13 inch screen.)
Windows 10 made it worse, now that you have to uninstall the "Get Skype" and "Get Office" apps. Plus switch the privacy settings to prevent Microsoft giving away the Wi-Fi password. I doubt we'll buy any PCs going forward.
That doesn't block spam itself, and I've seen plenty of links in spam that do point directly to an IP address, it's probably the most common place I see such links.
I've been annoyed by this many times. The solution is to get a card from a better bank. Cap One is awful for many, many reasons (former customer).
First time, HSBC started refusing charges while I was three hours from home. Took them hours to call me and re-enable the card.
Fidelity's FIA-issued Amex is the absolute worst. I had an online purchase declined, called them (they don't call you when it happens) and was then told their computers were down and they couldn't fix it. I've been told the same thing at least 2 other times in the last six months (when I've called over other declines, including one less than a thousand feet from my home).
Citibank is the only card I've had where the system is reasonable. When the card has been declined (once for a web purchase, the other buying an iPhone at a store). The automated system calls me immediately, and it's pretty simple to get it to allow the transaction on retry. Ideally you'd have the option of confirming the purchase via an app. Touch ID on a confirmed phone should be more secure than an IVR call.
The Citibank system works fine for now though, there's really no excuse for other banks to not use a similar system. I've actually stopped using my Fidelity card because their fraud system is so paranoid.
You're obviously APK, but try this:
One of his points is that a hosts file can protect against spam, which is about as likely as aspirin protecting against spam unless you're hosting your own mail server (and who the hell would run a mail server on Windows?).
As for the rest, hosts blocking can't block the "please donate/subscribe to us" banners on sites, and blocking trackers can break various sites. That's fine when you're using something like Ghostery/uBlock, where you can temporarily turn it off for a specific page (or even whitelist just one tracker on one site, i.e. whitelist New Relic on New Relic). A hosts file is a sledge hammer approach.
APK's standard response (those bits that are comprehensible) seem to revolve around these plugins using too much memory/CPU time. If I was concerned about that I'd still be using a green screen terminal. The standard solution doesn't require administrative rights, can block more, and can be turned off if it breaks a site (which means the lists can be very expansive if you want).
APK's solution is like looking at a light bulb and deciding what the world really needs is a brighter candle.
Don't worry, like a toddler, APK eventually tires himself out.