Except that has nothing to do with why we don't see it.
Much of that has to do with that it's not a manufacturer's top priority, and also that just because a research battery achieves this doesn't mean it's ready for prime time. They still have to manufacture it into the form factors they want and test those, etc.
except your statement doesn't reflect on reality. a: batteries have increased in both runtime and capacity and b: there's nothing wrong with expecting that trend to continue as it has. There are 8+ hour laptops now that don't involve carrying a brick with you - in fact, the only brick-carrying laptops now are the gaming laptops and that's the AC power brick they use.
Aside from that, your statement is completely wrong.
exactly. this "limited duration" thing is Taser intentionally designing this to be abused. Anyone who believes otherwise is foolish.
Taser is the same company that produces lethal (not "safe") tasers that kill people, as well. They have no interest but $$, and safety is not a part of that.
anytime the statement is "the left", or "the right" - it's only guaranteed to be one thing: "the Wrong". If you can't see past the party line then you've effectively told us that you should not be associated with political analysis on any level.
"get a permit, lodge a protest dressed in decent clothes and presentable facial hair (the scraggly beards with the last 2-3 meals encrusted in it doesn't help matters), and when done with the march, LEAVE."
Uh, have you ever heard of civil disobedience? this statement I quoted from above is the exact opposite of what a protest is for. Meanwhile, Teabaggers have funding from incredibly wealthy vested interests so they had tons more publicity. OWS coverage was minimized due to the same people's interests.
lesson wrong: anonymous.
While shouting is not going to get a protest message across, you can't expect everyone to magically dress like a lawyer when they protest.
It wasn't direct RIAA, it was law enforcement on behalf of the RIAA. So I don't think it's unreasonable to blame the US if they're allowing themselves to be proxies.
I'm not in agreement with you at all. I'm highlighting that you shitposted on your first post and made no statement other than "Dotcom is a douche".
"Doctom is a crook" is just as homimen (you stating otherwise just means you're intellectual dishonest) in relation to your ad-hom in your original post. "Doctom was convicted of things in the past" would not be an ad hominem statement. I know that in your world you believe I agree with you, but I assure you as "violently" as possible, that I think you have simply managed to post things that are wrong, which I do not agree with. The only true statement is that he has been convicted before. Your whole point, of your OP, was "Dotcom is a douche". There was no other "point" because they weren't made until this reply.
I agree with NZ still being responsible, and I think that's why the judge is pushing back so much on the NZ prosecution: they basically followed the US's statements without even reviewing them, and already apologized many times. It's not enough, but it's a start.
I think it's the US government that did what they did, not NZ law enforcement. This was proven by the case itself and the push to extradite. I however, do have a problem with serviscope's comment about being a douche, because last I checked how people consider someone "being a douche" is not even consistent between individuals and is not illegal or even relevant, as stated.
it's not as incredible as a complete shitpost for a first post that has no relation to the situation and instead is an ad hominem comment about Kim Doctom. Whether he has an ego or not, whether he's douchey or not, who *cares*?
the problem is the US government is breaking the law just to try to prosecute file sharers, and no government in the world (including the US's own caselaw) really support this concept.
precedent? do you think this is the first time in history someone had a website with a legitimate name a company stupidly later decided to use? This has been going on for years.
maybe you should go to an actual farmers market and not a local grocery store. I think you have them mixed up. Farmers markets are pretty damn proud of growing their own shit, not "we just got the shipment of bananas off the truck from mexico".
farmers markets and CSA's exist for a reason, and exist everywhere. it's more common the more rural you are. That's all you have to find. I'd be shocked to find an area of the USA where there isn't a CSA or farmers market within 20-40 miles.
umm, I get your intended point, but the reality of the situation is not like that. Whether you install vanilla windows, OEM,retail, or enterprise - there is plenty of tracking automatically agreed to by installing windows, which there is *no* opt out or opt in for, and that includes search information. Just because it doesn't pop up on your screen doesn't mean anything. In the case of vanilla windows, you are considered to have opted in by downloading the ISO. There are such disclaimers on the original links to the downloads. The only way to "opt out" of windows search tracking in a windows install is to *NEVER* have the computer able to access the internet. As in solely offline computer 24/7. So it's nice to believe you don't aren't being forced to opt in, but reality disagrees completely.
You don't have to go to google's homepage, and you don't have to have gmail or a google profile. But should focus on them, you're missing all the cookie tracking and unsolicited ad-spam that goes on whether you opt in or not. Calling attention to google is missing the forest for the trees and basically wasting your time.
okay, so the answer is - you opted in. I don't think you understand that you still have about 18 different variants of the "phone home ridiculousness" when you have finished an install. Whether you install bing is almost no impact. You're still sending them user data. You do not have the opt out.
you do understand that there is no "go backwards" on opting in, once you have done so if you're still using the OS, right?
if you try disabling the real microsoft phone home stuff it will immediately invalidate your WGA and the install will treat it as if you have an illegitimate license key.
actually, this article is creepy. being posted via a pseudonym for a known shitty slashdot editor, they only use that nym when they're posting "google is questionable" or heavily favoring microsoft type troll articles.
It's not even a remote surprise. You shouldn't expect reasoned and valid criticism of google, just bashing in said articles. This has been covered before on slashdot previously.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that has nothing to do with why we don't see it.
Much of that has to do with that it's not a manufacturer's top priority, and also that just because a research battery achieves this doesn't mean it's ready for prime time. They still have to manufacture it into the form factors they want and test those, etc.
except your statement doesn't reflect on reality.
a: batteries have increased in both runtime and capacity
and b: there's nothing wrong with expecting that trend to continue as it has. There are 8+ hour laptops now that don't involve carrying a brick with you - in fact, the only brick-carrying laptops now are the gaming laptops and that's the AC power brick they use.
Aside from that, your statement is completely wrong.
except that you have to agree to the MS TOS to get into the BIOS, but hey, what's a little legal agreement that violates your rights? /facepalm
Yeah, ok. troll better please.
it's been 4 weeks. Clearly we should go after those who disclose vulnerabilities instead of those responsible for fixing them. /sarcasm
exactly. this "limited duration" thing is Taser intentionally designing this to be abused. Anyone who believes otherwise is foolish.
Taser is the same company that produces lethal (not "safe") tasers that kill people, as well. They have no interest but $$, and safety is not a part of that.
uh, what?
people are always pitted against eachother. Even in a vested interests situation.
+1 for craziest strawman I've ever read.
lol what?
anytime the statement is "the left", or "the right" - it's only guaranteed to be one thing: "the Wrong". If you can't see past the party line then you've effectively told us that you should not be associated with political analysis on any level.
"get a permit, lodge a protest dressed in decent clothes and presentable facial hair (the scraggly beards with the last 2-3 meals encrusted in it doesn't help matters), and when done with the march, LEAVE."
Uh, have you ever heard of civil disobedience? this statement I quoted from above is the exact opposite of what a protest is for. Meanwhile, Teabaggers have funding from incredibly wealthy vested interests so they had tons more publicity. OWS coverage was minimized due to the same people's interests.
lesson wrong: anonymous.
While shouting is not going to get a protest message across, you can't expect everyone to magically dress like a lawyer when they protest.
It wasn't direct RIAA, it was law enforcement on behalf of the RIAA. So I don't think it's unreasonable to blame the US if they're allowing themselves to be proxies.
I'm not in agreement with you at all. I'm highlighting that you shitposted on your first post and made no statement other than "Dotcom is a douche".
"Doctom is a crook" is just as homimen (you stating otherwise just means you're intellectual dishonest) in relation to your ad-hom in your original post. "Doctom was convicted of things in the past" would not be an ad hominem statement. I know that in your world you believe I agree with you, but I assure you as "violently" as possible, that I think you have simply managed to post things that are wrong, which I do not agree with. The only true statement is that he has been convicted before. Your whole point, of your OP, was "Dotcom is a douche". There was no other "point" because they weren't made until this reply.
I agree with NZ still being responsible, and I think that's why the judge is pushing back so much on the NZ prosecution: they basically followed the US's statements without even reviewing them, and already apologized many times. It's not enough, but it's a start.
I disagree.
I think it's the US government that did what they did, not NZ law enforcement. This was proven by the case itself and the push to extradite. I however, do have a problem with serviscope's comment about being a douche, because last I checked how people consider someone "being a douche" is not even consistent between individuals and is not illegal or even relevant, as stated.
it's not as incredible as a complete shitpost for a first post that has no relation to the situation and instead is an ad hominem comment about Kim Doctom. Whether he has an ego or not, whether he's douchey or not, who *cares*?
the problem is the US government is breaking the law just to try to prosecute file sharers, and no government in the world (including the US's own caselaw) really support this concept.
it has benefits just as much as problems.
imagine if a cop knows he is being recorded by an unknown number of devices. You think he's still going to try to abuse a situation?
water purity (a long term issue) is a lot more important than the excuse of "energy" (immediate profits).
precedent? do you think this is the first time in history someone had a website with a legitimate name a company stupidly later decided to use? This has been going on for years.
yeah, because it has to be google, and can't be that github or anyone else has done this as well, right?
zzzzz
cmon anti-google trolls, you can do better than this.
uh, what?
maybe you should go to an actual farmers market and not a local grocery store. I think you have them mixed up. Farmers markets are pretty damn proud of growing their own shit, not "we just got the shipment of bananas off the truck from mexico".
uh, his response just confirmed they do exist, but he's just lazy.
your statement simply shows either a lack of reading comprehension or unwillingness to accept facts as reality.
farmers markets and CSA's exist for a reason, and exist everywhere. it's more common the more rural you are. That's all you have to find. I'd be shocked to find an area of the USA where there isn't a CSA or farmers market within 20-40 miles.
that was the laziest troll I have ever seen. I see you do it nonstop, but please do better than that.
umm, I get your intended point, but the reality of the situation is not like that. Whether you install vanilla windows, OEM,retail, or enterprise - there is plenty of tracking automatically agreed to by installing windows, which there is *no* opt out or opt in for, and that includes search information. Just because it doesn't pop up on your screen doesn't mean anything. In the case of vanilla windows, you are considered to have opted in by downloading the ISO. There are such disclaimers on the original links to the downloads. The only way to "opt out" of windows search tracking in a windows install is to *NEVER* have the computer able to access the internet. As in solely offline computer 24/7. So it's nice to believe you don't aren't being forced to opt in, but reality disagrees completely.
You don't have to go to google's homepage, and you don't have to have gmail or a google profile. But should focus on them, you're missing all the cookie tracking and unsolicited ad-spam that goes on whether you opt in or not. Calling attention to google is missing the forest for the trees and basically wasting your time.
okay, so the answer is - you opted in. I don't think you understand that you still have about 18 different variants of the "phone home ridiculousness" when you have finished an install. Whether you install bing is almost no impact. You're still sending them user data. You do not have the opt out.
you do understand that there is no "go backwards" on opting in, once you have done so if you're still using the OS, right?
if you try disabling the real microsoft phone home stuff it will immediately invalidate your WGA and the install will treat it as if you have an illegitimate license key.
actually, this article is creepy. being posted via a pseudonym for a known shitty slashdot editor, they only use that nym when they're posting "google is questionable" or heavily favoring microsoft type troll articles.
It's not even a remote surprise. You shouldn't expect reasoned and valid criticism of google, just bashing in said articles. This has been covered before on slashdot previously.
I don't recall people opting in to MS having a log of people's URLs in skype, even if it's under the bullshit excuse of "security".