Of course, it actually requires doing some real physical work and looking at ads.
You're right. If your time has no value then you can almost certainly save a few cents by pissing time away instead. I'm not sure I'd be bragging about if my time was that cheap though personally.
And how exactly do you suggest that Google stops the Play store from selling things to minors? Require that users go to a shop with photo ID to be authenticated and have fingerprints taken before they are allowed to buy things on the store which then require the matching fingerprints?
If a child knows the credit card details then they could buy something on the Play store and it can't viably be stopped by Google. It's a concern but not one that does or doesn't make what Google are doing illegal in itself.
It would be no different than taking your child to a store, allowing them to pick an item which you then purchase with your card by swiping and signing, BUT for the next half hour they're able to just grab whatever they want
It would be quite different. However it would have some similarities to agreeing to a room tab at a hotel that anyone with your room key could use to buy drinks then giving your kid the room key and being surprised when you get billed for the drinks they buy.
I find it one of the amusing ironies of many/.ers that they're sticklers for the laws when it comes to laws they approve of but when it comes to things they don't agree with they think the law must somehow make it illegal. Google 'should' change how the system operates because it's the right thing to do but that doesn't magically mean I think what they are doing currently is illegal.
No - because if you read TFA people are authorising a payment and google is taking more without authorisation.
Yes - because the terms the user has agreed to are clear. Should Google make it easier to use the device in the way the majority of parents and children want to use it? Yes. Is Google breaking any laws by providing a device that doesn't? Not that I'm aware of.
It's better than nothing, but a 50 mi x N mi grid search of the ocean floor is pretty much a non-starter in most areas of the globe.
Compared to the current situation of searching the length of a country and huge areas off both coasts that's a considerably easier task. Finding some wreckage within an area that size would be a comparative breeze. His point is that considerably less information, shared considerably less often would give the vast majority of the benefit and it's a good one.
This tech would NOT have to survive a crash, and that makes it a lot easier to build and prove/verify.
That's a big assumption and one I'm certain won't be accurate if this tech did get implemented. Unless the data transfer tech is 100% accurate until the planes complete destruction then investigators are going to want a crash resistant unit so that they can recover it if the transfer fails or is incomplete.
Nevertheless, $100k is a lot of money. Would the passengers have been willing to pay more for the tickets so that their loved ones would have a slightly better idea where they crashed? Probably not.
The solution being proposed here is that all black box data is constantly sent back from the plane. What I think you've highlighted is that 99% of the real benefit is just knowing where the fuck it was, getting the black box data a little faster really isn't that important. So the question is really is it worth playing that much for all the data if there is a cheaper solution that would just provide location information?
There's more you can do, and given how easy it is I'd suggest they do:
1/ You can remotely track, lock & blank the phone via the play store on the web
2/ If you're using two factor authentication for your google account then it would stop them doing any real damage before you have blanked the device
Careful, I'm not sure you can see over the top of all that hyperbolic. It isn't impossible for most people to hold the view that crime is bad an should be discouraged and that taking moderate steps to moderate your risk of being a victim is sensible; if you haven't already tried it then I'd strongly suggest giving it a go.
Not that it is without side effect... water is pretty darned important to human health.
Which is arguably why it shouldn't be 'wasted' by producing animal feed that is uses large amounts of water in regions susceptible to droughts.
In the UK the average 4 person family uses 165m^3 of water a year. If they were charged $0.03 per m^3 of water that would add ~$5 a year to their bills. It would also add $500,000,000 to the cost of producing Alfalfa based on the articles figures which might encourage farmers to either grow it more efficiently or grow something that requires less water.
The other solution is to have someone in government deciding what you can or can't use water for, banning some crops, forcing people to grow others etc. Does that really sound like a cheap and/or effective solution? It doesn't to me but then apparently enough dumb-asses on here can't see an argument based on pricing without a knee jerk response of modding it flame-bait it seems.
The only issue we appear to have is that either water is being sold too cheaply or the most profitable use of water is growing animal feed. If water is too cheap then put a small charge on it and spend the money on measures to improve water retention and reduce usage. If Alfalfa is the most profitable thing then you're pretty much stuffed because cutting it back will hurt farmers and the wider economy.
A vegetarian who likes baths, or god forbid has a swimming pool, almost certainly consumes more water than an occasional meat eater with a water efficient home. So rather than blaming meat-eaters, or trying to judge lifestyles as good or bad, let's just stop discounting inefficient water usage and let people decide what use they want to cut back.
It sounds like several people probably had valid cause for complain. I certainly don't want random assholes buzzing me with their drones or RC aircraft, or getting in the way of manned aircraft.
Absolutely, the issue seems to be that the FAA sued him for using the drone without their permission and the judge slapped them down for the attempted land grab. If the bloke flew it dangerously then he should have been prosecuted for that (or laws should exist to make that a crime).
But when they do their job in a way that people disagree with, it's somehow time for impeachments and pitchforks and tomatoes.
Unfortunately true, but it doesn't undermine the point. I don't think society would be better if an unelected body gets to decide what is, or isn't legal.
As to the supreme court, one does indeed wonder exactly how we've ended up with some of the decisions they've come to. If it could be proved that they were acting politically then I'd be all in favour of trying them for treason (though obviously I don't think we can).
You're clearly new to the internet, it must be nice to be so naive;)
The world isn't going to end if there's a law passed that makes it a minor offence to try and use covert recording to look inside someone's clothes without them knowing. It's not going to lead to hundreds of innocent people being brought up on dodgy charges and it isn't the thin end of some terrible wedge that's going to ruin society. People want to be able to leave the house without worrying that people are going to go to absurd lengths to invade what is a distinctly reasonable expectation of privacy.
They created the first remotely popular crypto-currency and amassed a huge amount of money doing so. Given the influence and wealth it has given them I'm very interested to know who they are. I don't think that's unthical and I think the fact 'whoever they may be' has put effort into remaining anonymous means they must have known people would try to work out who they were when they designed it.
No it wasn't. Read it again and try not to add anything you imagine up in the process. He said "But when Apple not only puts their own web browser in their OS, *BUT FORBIDS INSTALLING ANY OTHER THIRD-PARTY BROWSER*". The words desktop, PC or anything else that could be taken to mean that was never mentioned.
Now he was comparing it to people bitching at Microsoft about something they did on a PC OS but that doesn't make what you're claiming remotely true. The guy was obviously referring to Apples iOS and never said anything to imply otherwise.
You should be, you're running the same crap browser with a chrome skin on it, people using android actually get the chrome browser. Is it the fact you've been lied to for so long or that Apple don't trust you to install the browser you want that disappoints you most??
Have you tried running the software on the later versions, personally the vast majority has run fine. Ultimately unless your solution is your gran dieing in the next couple of years then she's going to have to move off of XP eventually. If her use case is 100% using that piece of software and she can keep getting printers that work with it etc then why exactly should Microsoft care if she upgrades at all when 99.9% of other XP users would get more benefit out of upgrading.
It's simply not going to happen. In casual mobile gaming, yes, because the product is essentially interchangable and there's not a lot of specialist interest, but that's a much weaker phenomenon in console gaming and practically nonexistent in the sort of games Steam users tend to play.
It's already happening on PC and console. There are a crazy number of freemium PC games and they are increasingly popular with younger demographics. Free games on consoles (Xbox at least) exist and even the default for games we buy is that the retail price is subsidised by an endless stream of expansions.
As a generation who got into gaming without paying for games reaches the age where they would become the typical console market they aren't going to swallow $80 price tags, even if the games charging that are providing excellent value for money.
When I'm talking about holidays, I'd think someone who always needs to point out they don't take them was a chump. The same would be true if it was concerts, sporting events, computer games and yes, shock horror, television. It doesn't matter how much people talk about TV, you aren't obligated to go on about not watching it every time they discuss it and doing so comes across as pretty pathetic not as a sign of a more culturally enhanced existence.
I didn't watch any TV bar the odd news bulletin for years, I probably watch ~1-2 hours a week now via iPlayer/Netflix. I don't think anyone I know, who hasn't stayed at my house, would know and that's not because I hide it like a dark secret; it's because I don't inject it into every conversation I can as an attempt to build an image. There's some really great TV out there, so depriving yourself of it on principle just comes across as stunting yourself for ideological reasons. There's just been an excellent show on the relationship between the Kaizer, Tzar and British King in the run up to WW1 for example.
Slashdot Mirror
It's $99, because seriously, paying that little for convenience and quick delivery is soooooooo expensive?
Because we're not all boringly predictable ;)
And how exactly do you suggest that Google stops the Play store from selling things to minors? Require that users go to a shop with photo ID to be authenticated and have fingerprints taken before they are allowed to buy things on the store which then require the matching fingerprints?
If a child knows the credit card details then they could buy something on the Play store and it can't viably be stopped by Google. It's a concern but not one that does or doesn't make what Google are doing illegal in itself.
It would be quite different. However it would have some similarities to agreeing to a room tab at a hotel that anyone with your room key could use to buy drinks then giving your kid the room key and being surprised when you get billed for the drinks they buy.
/.ers that they're sticklers for the laws when it comes to laws they approve of but when it comes to things they don't agree with they think the law must somehow make it illegal. Google 'should' change how the system operates because it's the right thing to do but that doesn't magically mean I think what they are doing currently is illegal.
I find it one of the amusing ironies of many
Yes - because the terms the user has agreed to are clear. Should Google make it easier to use the device in the way the majority of parents and children want to use it? Yes. Is Google breaking any laws by providing a device that doesn't? Not that I'm aware of.
Compared to the current situation of searching the length of a country and huge areas off both coasts that's a considerably easier task. Finding some wreckage within an area that size would be a comparative breeze. His point is that considerably less information, shared considerably less often would give the vast majority of the benefit and it's a good one.
That's a big assumption and one I'm certain won't be accurate if this tech did get implemented. Unless the data transfer tech is 100% accurate until the planes complete destruction then investigators are going to want a crash resistant unit so that they can recover it if the transfer fails or is incomplete.
The solution being proposed here is that all black box data is constantly sent back from the plane. What I think you've highlighted is that 99% of the real benefit is just knowing where the fuck it was, getting the black box data a little faster really isn't that important. So the question is really is it worth playing that much for all the data if there is a cheaper solution that would just provide location information?
There's more you can do, and given how easy it is I'd suggest they do:
1/ You can remotely track, lock & blank the phone via the play store on the web
2/ If you're using two factor authentication for your google account then it would stop them doing any real damage before you have blanked the device
Careful, I'm not sure you can see over the top of all that hyperbolic. It isn't impossible for most people to hold the view that crime is bad an should be discouraged and that taking moderate steps to moderate your risk of being a victim is sensible; if you haven't already tried it then I'd strongly suggest giving it a go.
Which is arguably why it shouldn't be 'wasted' by producing animal feed that is uses large amounts of water in regions susceptible to droughts.
In the UK the average 4 person family uses 165m^3 of water a year. If they were charged $0.03 per m^3 of water that would add ~$5 a year to their bills. It would also add $500,000,000 to the cost of producing Alfalfa based on the articles figures which might encourage farmers to either grow it more efficiently or grow something that requires less water.
The other solution is to have someone in government deciding what you can or can't use water for, banning some crops, forcing people to grow others etc. Does that really sound like a cheap and/or effective solution? It doesn't to me but then apparently enough dumb-asses on here can't see an argument based on pricing without a knee jerk response of modding it flame-bait it seems.
The only issue we appear to have is that either water is being sold too cheaply or the most profitable use of water is growing animal feed. If water is too cheap then put a small charge on it and spend the money on measures to improve water retention and reduce usage. If Alfalfa is the most profitable thing then you're pretty much stuffed because cutting it back will hurt farmers and the wider economy.
A vegetarian who likes baths, or god forbid has a swimming pool, almost certainly consumes more water than an occasional meat eater with a water efficient home. So rather than blaming meat-eaters, or trying to judge lifestyles as good or bad, let's just stop discounting inefficient water usage and let people decide what use they want to cut back.
Absolutely, the issue seems to be that the FAA sued him for using the drone without their permission and the judge slapped them down for the attempted land grab. If the bloke flew it dangerously then he should have been prosecuted for that (or laws should exist to make that a crime).
Unfortunately true, but it doesn't undermine the point. I don't think society would be better if an unelected body gets to decide what is, or isn't legal.
As to the supreme court, one does indeed wonder exactly how we've ended up with some of the decisions they've come to. If it could be proved that they were acting politically then I'd be all in favour of trying them for treason (though obviously I don't think we can).
Myth.
You're clearly new to the internet, it must be nice to be so naive ;)
The world isn't going to end if there's a law passed that makes it a minor offence to try and use covert recording to look inside someone's clothes without them knowing. It's not going to lead to hundreds of innocent people being brought up on dodgy charges and it isn't the thin end of some terrible wedge that's going to ruin society. People want to be able to leave the house without worrying that people are going to go to absurd lengths to invade what is a distinctly reasonable expectation of privacy.
They created the first remotely popular crypto-currency and amassed a huge amount of money doing so. Given the influence and wealth it has given them I'm very interested to know who they are. I don't think that's unthical and I think the fact 'whoever they may be' has put effort into remaining anonymous means they must have known people would try to work out who they were when they designed it.
No it wasn't. Read it again and try not to add anything you imagine up in the process. He said "But when Apple not only puts their own web browser in their OS, *BUT FORBIDS INSTALLING ANY OTHER THIRD-PARTY BROWSER*". The words desktop, PC or anything else that could be taken to mean that was never mentioned.
Now he was comparing it to people bitching at Microsoft about something they did on a PC OS but that doesn't make what you're claiming remotely true. The guy was obviously referring to Apples iOS and never said anything to imply otherwise.
You should be, you're running the same crap browser with a chrome skin on it, people using android actually get the chrome browser. Is it the fact you've been lied to for so long or that Apple don't trust you to install the browser you want that disappoints you most??
Have you tried running the software on the later versions, personally the vast majority has run fine. Ultimately unless your solution is your gran dieing in the next couple of years then she's going to have to move off of XP eventually. If her use case is 100% using that piece of software and she can keep getting printers that work with it etc then why exactly should Microsoft care if she upgrades at all when 99.9% of other XP users would get more benefit out of upgrading.
It's already happening on PC and console. There are a crazy number of freemium PC games and they are increasingly popular with younger demographics. Free games on consoles (Xbox at least) exist and even the default for games we buy is that the retail price is subsidised by an endless stream of expansions.
As a generation who got into gaming without paying for games reaches the age where they would become the typical console market they aren't going to swallow $80 price tags, even if the games charging that are providing excellent value for money.
When I'm talking about holidays, I'd think someone who always needs to point out they don't take them was a chump. The same would be true if it was concerts, sporting events, computer games and yes, shock horror, television. It doesn't matter how much people talk about TV, you aren't obligated to go on about not watching it every time they discuss it and doing so comes across as pretty pathetic not as a sign of a more culturally enhanced existence.
I didn't watch any TV bar the odd news bulletin for years, I probably watch ~1-2 hours a week now via iPlayer/Netflix. I don't think anyone I know, who hasn't stayed at my house, would know and that's not because I hide it like a dark secret; it's because I don't inject it into every conversation I can as an attempt to build an image. There's some really great TV out there, so depriving yourself of it on principle just comes across as stunting yourself for ideological reasons. There's just been an excellent show on the relationship between the Kaizer, Tzar and British King in the run up to WW1 for example.
Yet vastly more accurate than the nonsense you posted, so I'll give you -1 Wrong and -1 Ineffective attempt to act like you weren't.
Our beers pretty damn good, but even if it got 10x better it wouldn't be worth fucking a fat ass American for :P