Well, keep in mind those sorts of maps are a bit misleading, as it just shows any preference for Republicans above 50% in lower population areas. It does look visually striking, though.
Interesting... Thanks for the correction and information. The low radioactivity would explain why it couldn't be detected then, I suppose. And it also explains why the military didn't bother to continue looking for it, since by your description, it doesn't seem all that dangerous (relatively speaking, as it's still a bomb).
The problem with analogies is that they're all flawed in some way. I should know better by now, because invariable the arguments focus on the analogy rather than the point being made. Fine, forget the analogies.
I'd agree that consumer device security is a major issue (especially with the short supported lifespans of phones and IoT devices), but I think analysis of malware is important in creating better security by analyzing attack patterns. I'm not sure how you could argue that the two are unrelated.
If someone hands me malware, I ignore it and move to something else.
Oh, if only it were that simple. There are examples of malware that require no user interaction in order to compromise a machine, as demonstrated by the semi-recent Stagefright flaws in Android, or any number of "go to this webpage and you're infected" attacks in the past. The reason critical-rated vulnerabilities are often so labeled is because there's nothing a user can do to mitigated it, short of avoiding it or disabling the offending feature - one of the reasons many people like myself block ads. These are a bit more rare than they used to be, but they still show up once in a while.
Because that's how it's distributed to clients, of course. To use an analogy: "guns only kill when they're fired at people". Therefore, we should take no notice of our aggressive neighbor amassing an army on our border.
I do agree that "cloud repositories" is a pretty buzzword-bingo way to describe "e-mail and web servers".
Most professional game developers I know (who work on PC and console games) also despise the freemium-style games as the exploitive crapware that they are. And it's certainly not relegated to mobile games, but it does seem endemic there, as well as with online-only games (Facebook, MMOs, etc). But unfortunately, that model has proven to be financially successful, and so it continues. People are reluctant to pay up front for a games, which is understandable when there's a lot of garbage out there, but these games thrive on finding and exploiting addictive personalities who often pay enormous amounts of money for ridiculously overpriced in-game items.
Still, it's not hard to find games you can buy once and play forever, as you claim. Look for games with an up-front cost and no in-app purchases. There are a gazillion of them. Plenty of developers still prefer that nice, straightforward financial model. But unless people support that nice, straightforward financial model, you'll continue to get a lot of freemium play-to-play crap.
How do they know that Chrome has 2 billion active installs? Is it because Chrome always phones home?
At the very least, it does when it checks home to see if it needs to auto-update. And certainly if it's tied to your Google account, syncs your settings and bookmarks, etc. I bet there are options to send metrics and diagnostic information as well.
So, yeah... It's probably pretty easy for Google to get pretty accurate global install counts from all this.
Maybe people like me like to know? I certainly don't see anyone "breathlessly" claiming it's going to be the celestial event of the century, just an interesting astronomical tidbit. Every time I see a full moon, it captures my attention for a minute, so why not check it out at its best? I plan to wander outside and take a quick peek, and hope that cloud cover doesn't foil my plans.
Anyone who believe he actually can or will do anything about this is naive to the point of being retarded. Trump will game this to his own best advantage and seek to help his own enterprises and cronies profit. To believe otherwise is idiotic.
I knew it wouldn't be long before someone would Godwin this thread. The slight difference is that Trump doesn't want to exterminate the entire race of Hispanic people, and isn't intent on conquering some Lebensraum for his master race to spread out into Canada. Don't forget, we've had men of questionable morals in the White House before, and we certainly will again. Probably women too, in the future. Trump is an arrogant ass, but seriously comparing him to one of the most evil mass-murderers in modern history demonstrates a lack of perspective, or at least a severe lack of faith in the people of the US, to think anyone would go along with such schemes.
I'd hope that you can now understand the angst of conservative voters when President Obama won the last two elections. Or perhaps I can at least empathize with you a bit because of that, if you're not feeling very empathetic yourself yet. Many conservatives predicted the end of America as we know it, and they were just as wrong. I believe America is still a strong country, generally made up of good people who just want to get along with their neighbors and live their lives in peace. Maybe you think that's naive or optimistic, but so be it.
If nothing else, just keep reminding yourself that you'll have another chance to vote him out in four years.
I'd say that double standard, or at least the perception of it, is a big part of what got Trump elected. That, and the fact that Hillary comes across so generally unlikable. She's a typical Washington-insider-back-dealing politician, but without the charming personality her husband had. Think about it... Wall Street is freaking out over Trump's impending presidency. They knew *exactly* what to expect with Hillary, which was "business as usual". No one has a fucking clue what Trump is going to do.
My going theory is that if either side had put up a remotely likeable candidate, it would have been a landslide. Instead, the Democrats put forth the "next-in-line" insider despite her baggage, and the Republican elite alienated their base so badly that the rank-and-file instead insisted on the "anti-candidate" which NO Republican beltway insider wanted.
You're already at +5, so I'll just say: well said. You're absolutely correct. For most of us, it's our daily clocks that are important, not for the time, but what that time represents in terms of actual daylight, and UTC doesn't convey that. We're not going to suddenly synchronize our behavior to an international clock, so it makes no sense to sync our time as well.
Well, to be fair, just about any big city is a Democrat stronghold. So, yeah, I guess? Not too surprising, as it seems like many tech millionaires lean to the left.
You should see who my neighbors in Seattle keep electing. It's pretty entertaining to see left-leaning Democrats on the city council being berated by hard-core Socialists also on the council for not being liberal enough. Did you know they actually spend city money to paint crosswalks in rainbow colors? Hooray, right?! Yet a lot of Seattleites still can't get decent internet, largely because of local laws, bureaucracy, and corporate foot-dragging. Seriously, in Seattle. Rather entertaining to watch from a slight distance, so long as I don't have to actually live in the city itself!
See that second sentence of my post? That's me agreeing with you. My bad for assuming everyone here understood what Google's services actually are and how they operate. I'll make sure to state it very clearly in each Google-related post so you don't assume I'm a bloody ignoramus.
Google and Alphabet are gigantic shareholder corporations whose main goal is to increase profit, share value, market penetration, and so forth.
Yes, and you also just described nearly every for-profit corporation in the world.
Google makes much money by selling end-user data to advertisers.
Actually, you don't even have that correct. Google sells advertising services, but not people's personal data. And you completely missed my point anyhow.
Google created Chrome and gives it away because it helps users get to their services, which in turm drives eyeballs to their real business of selling online advertising. In other words, it's known as a business driver. It has jack-all to do with "advancement of free and open technologies", which I never uttered in my post, but which you mysteriously read into it somehow.
I think Google made Chrome was to help drive the internet the way they wanted it to go (you can take that however you want). Google is a company that depends entirely on internet technology to supply their services. I'd guess they weren't comfortable leaving that client-side connectivity to their services in the hands of other companies, some of them competitors. So, I believe that by creating their own browser, they were attempting to control their own destiny rather than leaving it to middlemen.
We see today Google using Chrome to experiment with new web technologies to improve connection speed via new standards extensions, advanced security issues, research projects, ensure standards compliance, and many other things. To me, I see it as a same way a company that makes products with Linux installed on it would probably make contributions to the Linux kernel. Not altruistic, certainly, but also not nefarious.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, keep in mind those sorts of maps are a bit misleading, as it just shows any preference for Republicans above 50% in lower population areas. It does look visually striking, though.
I found that maps that show the difference in shades between red and blue tend to represent the difference a bit better. Here's a page that demonstrates several ways to represent the electoral split with more accuracy.
Interesting... Thanks for the correction and information. The low radioactivity would explain why it couldn't be detected then, I suppose. And it also explains why the military didn't bother to continue looking for it, since by your description, it doesn't seem all that dangerous (relatively speaking, as it's still a bomb).
The problem with analogies is that they're all flawed in some way. I should know better by now, because invariable the arguments focus on the analogy rather than the point being made. Fine, forget the analogies.
I'd agree that consumer device security is a major issue (especially with the short supported lifespans of phones and IoT devices), but I think analysis of malware is important in creating better security by analyzing attack patterns. I'm not sure how you could argue that the two are unrelated.
If someone hands me malware, I ignore it and move to something else.
Oh, if only it were that simple. There are examples of malware that require no user interaction in order to compromise a machine, as demonstrated by the semi-recent Stagefright flaws in Android, or any number of "go to this webpage and you're infected" attacks in the past. The reason critical-rated vulnerabilities are often so labeled is because there's nothing a user can do to mitigated it, short of avoiding it or disabling the offending feature - one of the reasons many people like myself block ads. These are a bit more rare than they used to be, but they still show up once in a while.
Shouldn't this thing be radiating radiation how could they not find it from that?
Perhaps the lead mentioned in the summary, who's purpose would likely be radiation shielding.
Because that's how it's distributed to clients, of course. To use an analogy: "guns only kill when they're fired at people". Therefore, we should take no notice of our aggressive neighbor amassing an army on our border.
I do agree that "cloud repositories" is a pretty buzzword-bingo way to describe "e-mail and web servers".
I'm not sure how you'd call this a landslide. Reagan's second term election... that was a landslide.
Most professional game developers I know (who work on PC and console games) also despise the freemium-style games as the exploitive crapware that they are. And it's certainly not relegated to mobile games, but it does seem endemic there, as well as with online-only games (Facebook, MMOs, etc). But unfortunately, that model has proven to be financially successful, and so it continues. People are reluctant to pay up front for a games, which is understandable when there's a lot of garbage out there, but these games thrive on finding and exploiting addictive personalities who often pay enormous amounts of money for ridiculously overpriced in-game items.
Still, it's not hard to find games you can buy once and play forever, as you claim. Look for games with an up-front cost and no in-app purchases. There are a gazillion of them. Plenty of developers still prefer that nice, straightforward financial model. But unless people support that nice, straightforward financial model, you'll continue to get a lot of freemium play-to-play crap.
It's still life eating life, except for plants, which feeds off the fecal matter and remnants of life.
Well, most of them. Some take matters into their own... leaves?
How do they know that Chrome has 2 billion active installs? Is it because Chrome always phones home?
At the very least, it does when it checks home to see if it needs to auto-update. And certainly if it's tied to your Google account, syncs your settings and bookmarks, etc. I bet there are options to send metrics and diagnostic information as well.
So, yeah... It's probably pretty easy for Google to get pretty accurate global install counts from all this.
Maybe people like me like to know? I certainly don't see anyone "breathlessly" claiming it's going to be the celestial event of the century, just an interesting astronomical tidbit. Every time I see a full moon, it captures my attention for a minute, so why not check it out at its best? I plan to wander outside and take a quick peek, and hope that cloud cover doesn't foil my plans.
For my part, I'm glad /. let me know about this.
Anyone who believe he actually can or will do anything about this is naive to the point of being retarded. Trump will game this to his own best advantage and seek to help his own enterprises and cronies profit. To believe otherwise is idiotic.
Not everyone is a Clinton, you know.
I knew it wouldn't be long before someone would Godwin this thread. The slight difference is that Trump doesn't want to exterminate the entire race of Hispanic people, and isn't intent on conquering some Lebensraum for his master race to spread out into Canada. Don't forget, we've had men of questionable morals in the White House before, and we certainly will again. Probably women too, in the future. Trump is an arrogant ass, but seriously comparing him to one of the most evil mass-murderers in modern history demonstrates a lack of perspective, or at least a severe lack of faith in the people of the US, to think anyone would go along with such schemes.
I'd hope that you can now understand the angst of conservative voters when President Obama won the last two elections. Or perhaps I can at least empathize with you a bit because of that, if you're not feeling very empathetic yourself yet. Many conservatives predicted the end of America as we know it, and they were just as wrong. I believe America is still a strong country, generally made up of good people who just want to get along with their neighbors and live their lives in peace. Maybe you think that's naive or optimistic, but so be it.
If nothing else, just keep reminding yourself that you'll have another chance to vote him out in four years.
I'd say that double standard, or at least the perception of it, is a big part of what got Trump elected. That, and the fact that Hillary comes across so generally unlikable. She's a typical Washington-insider-back-dealing politician, but without the charming personality her husband had. Think about it... Wall Street is freaking out over Trump's impending presidency. They knew *exactly* what to expect with Hillary, which was "business as usual". No one has a fucking clue what Trump is going to do.
My going theory is that if either side had put up a remotely likeable candidate, it would have been a landslide. Instead, the Democrats put forth the "next-in-line" insider despite her baggage, and the Republican elite alienated their base so badly that the rank-and-file instead insisted on the "anti-candidate" which NO Republican beltway insider wanted.
It's the end result of a Canonical experiment designed to find the awkward sounding product name in the world, ever.
I think their heads are pointy and dense enough. I'm willing to volunteer my state's senator as a test fire.
You're already at +5, so I'll just say: well said. You're absolutely correct. For most of us, it's our daily clocks that are important, not for the time, but what that time represents in terms of actual daylight, and UTC doesn't convey that. We're not going to suddenly synchronize our behavior to an international clock, so it makes no sense to sync our time as well.
Done. It's actually daylight "saving" time. Think about it, and you'll see that usage makes much more sense.
queue sort of works, but only if you're willing for the current song to finish playing first.
Well, to be fair, just about any big city is a Democrat stronghold. So, yeah, I guess? Not too surprising, as it seems like many tech millionaires lean to the left.
You should see who my neighbors in Seattle keep electing. It's pretty entertaining to see left-leaning Democrats on the city council being berated by hard-core Socialists also on the council for not being liberal enough. Did you know they actually spend city money to paint crosswalks in rainbow colors? Hooray, right?! Yet a lot of Seattleites still can't get decent internet, largely because of local laws, bureaucracy, and corporate foot-dragging. Seriously, in Seattle. Rather entertaining to watch from a slight distance, so long as I don't have to actually live in the city itself!
It's not about forcing them to take their money.
Don't kid yourself. Ultimately, this is all about money. From the filed lawsuit:
Defendants’ conduct should be declared unlawful and enjoined, and appropriate penalties and monetary damages should be awarded.
"Racism, I say! I demand compensation for the pain and anguish of not being shown appropriate advertising as the law requires!"
How many zeroes do you think they'll be asking for to assuage their trauma?
Did he hack into the simulation to peek at our probable future?
Is there a way to mark entire articles -1 Flamebait?
See that second sentence of my post? That's me agreeing with you. My bad for assuming everyone here understood what Google's services actually are and how they operate. I'll make sure to state it very clearly in each Google-related post so you don't assume I'm a bloody ignoramus.
Google and Alphabet are gigantic shareholder corporations whose main goal is to increase profit, share value, market penetration, and so forth.
Yes, and you also just described nearly every for-profit corporation in the world.
Google makes much money by selling end-user data to advertisers.
Actually, you don't even have that correct. Google sells advertising services, but not people's personal data. And you completely missed my point anyhow.
Google created Chrome and gives it away because it helps users get to their services, which in turm drives eyeballs to their real business of selling online advertising. In other words, it's known as a business driver. It has jack-all to do with "advancement of free and open technologies", which I never uttered in my post, but which you mysteriously read into it somehow.
I think Google made Chrome was to help drive the internet the way they wanted it to go (you can take that however you want). Google is a company that depends entirely on internet technology to supply their services. I'd guess they weren't comfortable leaving that client-side connectivity to their services in the hands of other companies, some of them competitors. So, I believe that by creating their own browser, they were attempting to control their own destiny rather than leaving it to middlemen.
We see today Google using Chrome to experiment with new web technologies to improve connection speed via new standards extensions, advanced security issues, research projects, ensure standards compliance, and many other things. To me, I see it as a same way a company that makes products with Linux installed on it would probably make contributions to the Linux kernel. Not altruistic, certainly, but also not nefarious.