Hey stupid, how else would people I barely know see where I am vacationing and what the food I'm eating looks like? And yeah, I need to be in the picture to prove I was there / I ate it.
First, it's not 1993 anymore. Almost every web page has javascript. Which is, you know, code?
Second, WTF is your point? It's the OP that claimed a browser could perform all of these functions, if so coded. If you code a browser page to do things like playback audio slower or faster, that's an app. Go tell the OP that browsers don't run apps if you want to fight that battle.
They mean the ability to pre-download podcasts while on wifi or charging (or whatever) and have them available for listening offline.
Change playback rate? can be accomplished via html code or in-app (like a media player)
Yes, we understand that you can write code to do it on any platform, including a browser.
Cross-device bookmark sync? Hello, Google!
They mean the ability to sync downloaded content and playback location so I can drop one device and pick up listening at the same spot on another device.
Or... it's exactly what modern web browsers do. Changing playback rate is about the only questionable thing there.
A web browser isn't an app. It's a platform for running apps. You might be able to write an excellent podcast app for a browser, but who cares that's not the point. Nobody is claiming you can't write apps to run in a browser. They are saying dedicated podcasts apps have something over a simple list of links which is RSS.
When has a privacy policy ever prevented a company from pimping customer data?
In fact, all privacy policies I've ever read exist to inform the user they are going to harvest and sell your data. There's some generic template of a privacy policy everyone uses that essentially (attempts) to give the company the rights to do whatever the hell they want.
Refusing to take personal responsibility for your actions is the foundation of the left.
Any comment that is "the left always does X" and "only the right does Y" is a troll. Nobody is retarded enough to type on a keyboard and truly believe that one party or the other has some lock on truth and justice and the other is controlled by Satan.
You aren't that dumb, and you aren't fooling anyone.
It's much more freedom to simply never have to worry about fussing with setting things to be available offline track by track or for some time period.
You are right. If you already have every song you'll ever want to listen to loaded on a SD card that's already inserted in your phone, streaming isn't worth it for you.
Maybe you need to try a modern streaming service. Sounds like you tried Pandora in 2001 and gave up.
No it lets me rent access to it as long as I pay $10/month in perpetuity
You are right. If you never plan to pay for new music again in your life, it's a better to deal buy that 1 CD and listen to it over and over. For people that are actively listening to new music streaming saves them money.
so long as I have an active internet connection.
You understand that's not true right? Streaming services allow you to mark things to keep offline. Yes, you do need an internet connection at some point to download the music to your device. If you are saying you don't have internet at all, then well I agree streaming is a terrible option for you.
Even when I've shared detailed information about what I actually do like they still fail completely to find recommendations much better than random chance.
You aren't forced to listen by recommendation. Is that what you think? You can pick whatever you want to listen.
rent access
Life is too short of worry about semantics. If at the end of the day you have access to more music in a more flexible manner and you save money, that's a win.
Plus the price of upgrading your cellular service from a pay-as-you-go plan with few minutes and no data to a data plan with a big enough usage quota.
Or, you can tag anything including full albums as "keep offline" when you are at home on wifi. If this helps you, think of it like your iPod from 1997. Except you have access to an unlimited catalog, you don't need to go to your computer and fart around with ripping CDs, don't need iTunes, and don't have to manage gigabytes of ripped audio files.
I'll happily pay $10 for something I know I like and can enjoy multiple times over $10 for a bunch of stuff I mostly will not like every time.
You do realize that a streaming service gives you access to the music you like now, new music as it's released, and music from the past that you don't know exists but might like if you heard it.
"Sir, you can have the steak for $29.99, or steak and lobster for the same price." "Give me 1/2 of the steak."
Maybe you like $media_corp tracking which songs you listen to, and how many times.
I don't mind it. Why would I care?
Or perhaps you'd like some government deciding that because you've streamed some song or other—hm, I dunno, how about this one? [youtube.com]—one too many times that you should be on a watchlist.
Whatever you do, don't link the source! The government must be really bogged down tracking the 1 million people that have viewed that video.
Just as I've done all my life: as many times as I freaking want to, without worrying about whether I have a network connection and without getting billed for it each and every time, thanks very much.
If you are trying to assert that you have more freedom to listen to music that you've bought on a CD or ripped or something that's of course false. If you are a hoarder though I can see the attraction of having a bunch of CDs piled up on a bookcase.
The times when people are out of network coverage are offset by the requirement to load bits onto a music player of some sort and the obvious capacity limitations of said devices. Regardless the music service I use has offline downloads. I suspect they all do.
The streaming service I use costs less than a single CD per month. So for the price of one CD I (and all my family) get access to what is essentially all CDs, ever.
Is it possible that in some dystopian future where all network infrastructure and digital media is destroyed that you'll still have your music, and I won't? Sure, but to be honest access to music is going to be one of the last things I worry about. I also wonder about a situation where network access and computers are destroyed but CD players work fine.
Android uses Linux drivers as well, but for some reason, there isn't just some universal Android dist out there that can be plopped on any device and run. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to solve that mystery.
When all you run is a browser, yeah, the software stack is quite straight forward.
They run Android apps now and will run Linux apps soon.
If ChromeOS ever tries to do more than just that basic functionality (local storage for example)
They have local storage, and include a file manager sort of app.
The hardware required to run a browser is quite small as well
Performance-wise, this is a fallacy. Browsers are memory hungry, and CPU intensive. If you buy a $199 Chromebook you are going to get a terrible web browsing experience. And if you buy a core-i level Chromebook, you might as well be purchasing a laptop that runs Linux or Windows because it's going to cost just as much.
It's possible to run Linux on some Chromebook models, and not others. And it's a big YMMV situation. Don't expect a clean experience. If you want a Linux laptop but a laptop that ships with some flavor of Linux. That ensures there at least exists drivers for all the hardware components.
As I said, I don't seed anything "hundreds of times."
Oh I see. When I said "Hi, we noticed..." you thought I was addressing you personally, and felt the need to answer my question telling me you do not personally share movies or seed.
Linux ISOs are frequently shared by torrents.
I said: "No one that uses bittorrent to download Linux ISOs is being targeted". Do you understand the difference?
You clearly know shit about bittorrent
Maybe. But you lack basic reading comprehension. I'd rather be me.
Clearly I could not have shared anything hundreds of times.
Not only do you have no morals around paying for content, you have no morals among pirates either. A leech is a leech. You as an expert in bittorrent should know that if everyone shared 1:1 nothing would be shared. So you rely on other people breaking the law to preserve your 1:1 ratio.
It is effectively the same as video taping something off HBO and lending it to your buddy was in the 80s and 90s.
I think if someone had invented a way to instantly copy VHS movies for free, and a way to instantly transfer the copied movies anywhere in the world for free they'd have had a problem with that as well. Just because they didn't run around prosecuting people that copied VHS movies doesn't mean they condoned it.
Sorry, you don't get to change your criteria in the middle of the conversation. We both know what were were talking about. It's topic of this article if you get confused go back and read it. We're talking about a specific thermal throttling bug, as reported by the YoutTuber.
You're trying to change the criteria to "can Apple make the Macbook Pro conform to my personal definition of satisfactory performance". I'm willing to bet the answer to that is no. Sleep tight knowing you're victorious.
Slashdot Mirror
puts their picture in social media?
Hey stupid, how else would people I barely know see where I am vacationing and what the food I'm eating looks like? And yeah, I need to be in the picture to prove I was there / I ate it.
Hypertext pages aren''t apps.
First, it's not 1993 anymore. Almost every web page has javascript. Which is, you know, code?
Second, WTF is your point? It's the OP that claimed a browser could perform all of these functions, if so coded. If you code a browser page to do things like playback audio slower or faster, that's an app. Go tell the OP that browsers don't run apps if you want to fight that battle.
Stream or download? check.
They mean the ability to pre-download podcasts while on wifi or charging (or whatever) and have them available for listening offline.
Change playback rate? can be accomplished via html code or in-app (like a media player)
Yes, we understand that you can write code to do it on any platform, including a browser.
Cross-device bookmark sync? Hello, Google!
They mean the ability to sync downloaded content and playback location so I can drop one device and pick up listening at the same spot on another device.
Or... it's exactly what modern web browsers do. Changing playback rate is about the only questionable thing there.
A web browser isn't an app. It's a platform for running apps. You might be able to write an excellent podcast app for a browser, but who cares that's not the point. Nobody is claiming you can't write apps to run in a browser. They are saying dedicated podcasts apps have something over a simple list of links which is RSS.
being fired just for getting injured for their miserable safety and employee work conditions
Why can't people provide supporting links?!?? WHY! WHY!
Why do I need an extension that links me to pr0nhub? I already have it bookmarked.
When has a privacy policy ever prevented a company from pimping customer data?
In fact, all privacy policies I've ever read exist to inform the user they are going to harvest and sell your data. There's some generic template of a privacy policy everyone uses that essentially (attempts) to give the company the rights to do whatever the hell they want.
I don't think you should get caught up on the use of the word "hack". It's used pretty loosely these days.
Refusing to take personal responsibility for your actions is the foundation of the left.
Any comment that is "the left always does X" and "only the right does Y" is a troll. Nobody is retarded enough to type on a keyboard and truly believe that one party or the other has some lock on truth and justice and the other is controlled by Satan.
You aren't that dumb, and you aren't fooling anyone.
That's sort of a "cross that bridge when you come to it" problem. If Android is still a thing in 10 years I'm sure they can figure it out.
It's much more freedom to simply never have to worry about fussing with setting things to be available offline track by track or for some time period.
You are right. If you already have every song you'll ever want to listen to loaded on a SD card that's already inserted in your phone, streaming isn't worth it for you.
Maybe you need to try a modern streaming service. Sounds like you tried Pandora in 2001 and gave up.
No it lets me rent access to it as long as I pay $10/month in perpetuity
You are right. If you never plan to pay for new music again in your life, it's a better to deal buy that 1 CD and listen to it over and over. For people that are actively listening to new music streaming saves them money.
so long as I have an active internet connection.
You understand that's not true right? Streaming services allow you to mark things to keep offline. Yes, you do need an internet connection at some point to download the music to your device. If you are saying you don't have internet at all, then well I agree streaming is a terrible option for you.
Even when I've shared detailed information about what I actually do like they still fail completely to find recommendations much better than random chance.
You aren't forced to listen by recommendation. Is that what you think? You can pick whatever you want to listen.
rent access
Life is too short of worry about semantics. If at the end of the day you have access to more music in a more flexible manner and you save money, that's a win.
Plus the price of upgrading your cellular service from a pay-as-you-go plan with few minutes and no data to a data plan with a big enough usage quota.
Or, you can tag anything including full albums as "keep offline" when you are at home on wifi. If this helps you, think of it like your iPod from 1997. Except you have access to an unlimited catalog, you don't need to go to your computer and fart around with ripping CDs, don't need iTunes, and don't have to manage gigabytes of ripped audio files.
I'll happily pay $10 for something I know I like and can enjoy multiple times over $10 for a bunch of stuff I mostly will not like every time.
You do realize that a streaming service gives you access to the music you like now, new music as it's released, and music from the past that you don't know exists but might like if you heard it.
"Sir, you can have the steak for $29.99, or steak and lobster for the same price."
"Give me 1/2 of the steak."
Yet, still I'm a criminal! Dammit.
Nothing is really a crime if you rationalize it in your own little mind.
Maybe you like $media_corp tracking which songs you listen to, and how many times.
I don't mind it. Why would I care?
Or perhaps you'd like some government deciding that because you've streamed some song or other—hm, I dunno, how about this one? [youtube.com]—one too many times that you should be on a watchlist.
Whatever you do, don't link the source! The government must be really bogged down tracking the 1 million people that have viewed that video.
Just as I've done all my life: as many times as I freaking want to, without worrying about whether I have a network connection and without getting billed for it each and every time, thanks very much.
If you are trying to assert that you have more freedom to listen to music that you've bought on a CD or ripped or something that's of course false. If you are a hoarder though I can see the attraction of having a bunch of CDs piled up on a bookcase.
The times when people are out of network coverage are offset by the requirement to load bits onto a music player of some sort and the obvious capacity limitations of said devices. Regardless the music service I use has offline downloads. I suspect they all do.
The streaming service I use costs less than a single CD per month. So for the price of one CD I (and all my family) get access to what is essentially all CDs, ever.
Is it possible that in some dystopian future where all network infrastructure and digital media is destroyed that you'll still have your music, and I won't? Sure, but to be honest access to music is going to be one of the last things I worry about. I also wonder about a situation where network access and computers are destroyed but CD players work fine.
Many of Google’s decisions have far-reaching consequences, with the maps driving increased traffic to quiet neighborhoods
Too bad. It isn't creating traffic it's a redistribution. Public streets are public.
Wait, ChromeOS doesn't use Linux drivers?
Android uses Linux drivers as well, but for some reason, there isn't just some universal Android dist out there that can be plopped on any device and run. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to solve that mystery.
Yes, by choice. Big difference.
As you stated above, you know Android has tracking. You know Google services have tracking. You know Microsoft tracks.
Why don't you choose not to use that software then? You know, how you choose to use this website?
When all you run is a browser, yeah, the software stack is quite straight forward.
They run Android apps now and will run Linux apps soon.
If ChromeOS ever tries to do more than just that basic functionality (local storage for example)
They have local storage, and include a file manager sort of app.
The hardware required to run a browser is quite small as well
Performance-wise, this is a fallacy. Browsers are memory hungry, and CPU intensive. If you buy a $199 Chromebook you are going to get a terrible web browsing experience. And if you buy a core-i level Chromebook, you might as well be purchasing a laptop that runs Linux or Windows because it's going to cost just as much.
It's possible to run Linux on some Chromebook models, and not others. And it's a big YMMV situation. Don't expect a clean experience. If you want a Linux laptop but a laptop that ships with some flavor of Linux. That ensures there at least exists drivers for all the hardware components.
Finally, the whole thing assumes that you have a 4G or 5G connection all of the time wherever you go.
Chromebooks do not require a 1Gb 5G mobile data connection.
I mean Linux as the only possible choice.
You mean, Linux disconnected from a network is the only possible choice. You are on this website logged in. You are being tracked.
As I said, I don't seed anything "hundreds of times."
Oh I see. When I said "Hi, we noticed..." you thought I was addressing you personally, and felt the need to answer my question telling me you do not personally share movies or seed.
Linux ISOs are frequently shared by torrents.
I said: "No one that uses bittorrent to download Linux ISOs is being targeted". Do you understand the difference?
You clearly know shit about bittorrent
Maybe. But you lack basic reading comprehension. I'd rather be me.
Clearly I could not have shared anything hundreds of times.
Not only do you have no morals around paying for content, you have no morals among pirates either. A leech is a leech. You as an expert in bittorrent should know that if everyone shared 1:1 nothing would be shared. So you rely on other people breaking the law to preserve your 1:1 ratio.
It is effectively the same as video taping something off HBO and lending it to your buddy was in the 80s and 90s.
I think if someone had invented a way to instantly copy VHS movies for free, and a way to instantly transfer the copied movies anywhere in the world for free they'd have had a problem with that as well. Just because they didn't run around prosecuting people that copied VHS movies doesn't mean they condoned it.
Sorry, you don't get to change your criteria in the middle of the conversation. We both know what were were talking about. It's topic of this article if you get confused go back and read it. We're talking about a specific thermal throttling bug, as reported by the YoutTuber.
You're trying to change the criteria to "can Apple make the Macbook Pro conform to my personal definition of satisfactory performance". I'm willing to bet the answer to that is no. Sleep tight knowing you're victorious.