And here's another point: Google made their support promise for Nexus devices legally binding, while other manufacturers, including Apple have not. If you want guaranteed support for some predetermined period, you get a Nexus device, period. If you really don't care about getting updates or security (in which case, shut the hell up already), then you buy something else.
While Apple has generally been good about long term device support, there is nothing indicating that they will continue to be. As my wife is an iPhone user and her and I are both iPad users, I certainly hope the keep it up, but I'll be neither surprised not disappointed if they do not; I knew what I was buying when I bought it.
You mean your 4 year old phone that you bought while Google had a published 2 year (from first sale) major update, 3 year (again, from first sale; or 18mo from last sale in the Google store) security update policy? If you're claiming you didn't know what you were buying, that's on you. That said, there's nothing stopping you from installing Chroma on it; Android 6.0.1, splt-screen windowing, and a host of other features, including these updates once the maintainers issue another release after the updates hit AOSP today.
So wait, your argument boils down to... *facepalm* you weren't sure whether he was saying he would or would not let some bozo off the street perform surgery on him? Seriously? And you think he and I are the idiots? Anyone reading this thread will pick out the inconsistencies in your position without a second glance; not, I'm not trying to "get" you, you've already "gotten" yourself. Good on you for getting another reply out of me, though; I figure if it were nearly as boring for you as you claim, you'd have left it alone when I said I was done.
To clarify, the newest Nexus phone that is stuck on 4.x is the Galaxy nexus, which is over 4 years old. Is that what you're complaining about?
If so, you need to remember that it's only "stuck" if you insist on running a factory image; there are plenty of Lollipop and Marshmallow ROMs to choose from.
Huh... What more do you want? Once it's 2 years old it's well past obsolete, and at 3 years it's unlikely current versions of many popular apps (e.g. what you can get from the market) will run on it.
And, even before that announcement, Google's policy has been to provide updates for 3 years from date of first sale, or 18mo from date of last sale in the Google store, whichever is longer. That sure beats most of Apple's offerings (I think they had one model that had support for longer than 18mo from last sale in an Apple store), and all offerings of any other Android manufacturer.
Of course, the same people complaining that they can't get updates from Google after 3 years are the ones who loudly proclaim that they bought a Nexus device in the first place so they could run whatever ROM they want on it, making manufacturer updates irrelevant for those complaining in the first place.
You can afford a VPN but need to cut costs on your phone bill? Well hell, I'll help you cut costs on the VPN, as well: Turn off Binge-on since you're not benefiting from it anyway if using a VPN.
Huh, I wonder if they're just doing this in areas with higher than average usage. I just watched this video from my phone, wi-fi turned off, binge-on turned on, without a single stutter, in full 1080p glory.
And this is how all T-Mobile offerings have been for the first 3mo of their release, for at least as long as I've been with them (e.g. since Simple Choice). It's the price of being first-to-market, but they do at least tend to fix the issues by the end of 3 months, so tweet John Legere your complaint and be amazed as he actually listens!
Can we wait to see T-mobile's response to this? It's quite likely a misconfiguration, too loose of a filter on things, and will be sorted out. My experience with them over the duration of the time they've offered the Simple Choice plan is that it takes them almost exactly 3 months to iron out the kinks in a new offering, including getting their CS reps up to speed, getting billing worked out, and getting the service actually working as advertised. I have been an early adopter of every single one of their offerings since they came out with Simple Choice and this has been a consistent theme with literally all of them (to the tune of many credits and months of comp service for dealing with it), and this just started on 11/19 for existing customers, so I'll expect it to be ironed out by 2/19, give or take a couple of days.
You see, when a pipe is only so big, only so much can fit through it. It would sure seem to make sense to let someone who hasn't had a chance at the tap yet get on in there and have a drink before someone who's had a few glasses already, no? That's not saying "no, you can't have more" or "you have to slow down", that's saying "let someone else have a go at it first" and that's certainly not limiting, it's just life. Unless you're an egotistical dick who thinks you should have everything and everyone else can just live off your scraps, in which case I think Verizon has a plan for you.
Ok, I lied, I got curious just how far up there your head was, so I kept reading.
Of course there's more to surgery and, speaking of disingenuous, it's funny you'd imply that I ever claimed otherwise.
I made no such implication. You inferred it. I was caliming that the person I was responding to made this implication. Try to pay attention.
Oh, I'm paying attention alright. I especially paid attention when the other person you were responding to said the following:
Knives are very easy to use, but that doesn't mean I'll let some random bozo perform surgery on me.
Why do you think he would not let some random bozo perform surgery on him? Is it, perhaps, because he is implying, even acknowledging, that there is more to surgery than using a knife? I think so, and if you were paying attention you'd have caught that.
I will entertain this ridiculous example of a knife having input and output.
And you'll entirely miss the point by focusing on that and not acknowledging that, at the end of the day, that knife allows you to cut and carve without knowing anything about metallurgy, without knowing how to forge a blade or harden steel, without knowing any of the things the person who made that knife must know. Just like the computer operator in your example can Google things without understanding Markov chains, or even knowing they exist as a concept. If you can't draw the parallels yourself, hopefully that direct comparison helped; if not, you're hopeless. Either way, that's where I stopped reading your comment. I am done with this thread.
Your reading comprehension needs some work. T-mobile has two different "unlimited" data options, one which is unlimited 2g with an allotment of (limited) 4g LTE bandwidth, and one that is unlimited 4g LTE. What you've quoted refers to the former, while for $95 you get the latter (along with unlimited talk and text).
comparing a knife as a tool vs software as a tool is a bit disingenuous considering software actually does the work *for* the human
The data fed to the software (by the human) is the software's input, whatever the software does with that software is its output (e.g. work); the position, pressure, and direction of force (e.g. data) fed to the knife (by the human) is the knife's input, the resulting cut is the knife's output (e.g. work). In both scenarios, the human does the work of inputting the data and the tool does the work of providing a result, how is that disingenuous?
The whole point of software is automation. That's why you can have people who are good at using photoshop without a having any clue how the math behind a Gaussian blur works, and it's why you are able to google things without understanding Markov chains.
And the whole point of knives is cutting. That's why we have people who are good at carving turkeys without having a clue how to forge a blade, and it's why you are able to cut your steak without understanding metallurgy.
There is a lot more to surgery than just knowing how a knife works. There is apparently not all that much more to Windows IT than knowing how to use Windows admin software.
Of course there's more to surgery and, speaking of disingenuous, it's funny you'd imply that I ever claimed otherwise. There is also a lot more to Windows IT than simply knowing how to use the tools; and I'm not speaking as a windows IT worker here, just using common sense; as in any field, it's not just knowing how to use the tools, but when,/em> (e.g. which tool for which job). Of course, there is also the essential skill of knowing how to make and maintain your own tools for the use cases and scenarios that toolmakers before you did not think of (I feel like I'm repeating myself here) and even maintaining the existing toolchain. There's actually a lot more to being a Windows IT admin than firing up some software and clicking around, if you're going to be good at the job, just like any other field. And only an idiot would hire an idiot admin, likely to administer their own idiocy as they're clearly too idiotic to do it themselves.
And, clearly, if Linux admins are still higher paid than Windows admins, while those of us with any real aptitude for maintaining computer systems often find the task easier to do in Linux, that simply says that nobody working in Windows IT really knows what they're doing enough to command a higher salary; it honestly says nothing about how easy or difficult the job is. On your typical corporate (e.g. Windows) network, you're dealing with a lot more moving parts than the typical human body, so I think the comparison is fair, even if I don't think the post you initially replied to was making that comparison (at least, not intentionally). I'll repeat (I seem to have to do that a lot with you): The poster was making a point about not letting people who don't know how (and when) to use the tools do the job, regardless of what the job is.
Wait, so your point in comparing a surgeon to an Windows IT guy was to show that it is absurd to do so? Then yes, I did totally miss your point. The post you were replying to was making no such comparison but, rather, implying that eas-of-use of the tools required for the job in now way indicated possession of the required skills, id est, you still missed the point.
And I'm really starting to think you're nowhere near the philosopher you fancy yourself. It doesn't surprise me, though; most people who try to sound "smarter" than others by posing philosophical questions in the midst of non-philosophical discussions are usually just spouting something they heard when the happened to take their headphones off for a moment during class, or, as is apparent in your case, attempting to mimic what they heard, rather than repeat if verbatim.
I'll address your points so that you can see that, despite my relative short stature, my head and rectum have more distance between them than other participants in this thread.
1. The fact that not every high skilled person is high skilled in every possible skill, does not imply that every high skilled person is/ can be only skilled at one thing.
Indeed, I'm also highly mechanically skilled, just not where it requires very detailed fine motor skills (such as assembling very tiny and delicate parts) amongst other skills; of course I understand that a person can be skiled in multiple fields. Speaking of assumptions...
2. The skills that "people" have are not static. Even if it were true that every person's skills never changed througout their lifetime, the skillset of society would be constantly changing as people died and new people are born.
Indeed, I'm always learning new languages and programming techniques and philosophies; as well, I had to learn a new set of tools and assemblies to work on the new car I recently bought. If my skills were static, as you wish to imply I think they are, this would not have been possible.
3. The skills people choose to acquire can be influenced by technology and economics. If a certain skill commands a high salary, it incentivizes more people to acquire that skill. If the demand for a skill is lowered or the supply of that skill is raised due to better technology making the skill easier to have (like windows IT), then the lower salary would disincentivize more ambitious people from acquiring this skill and/or encourage less ambitious people to acquire this new skill that has been made easier to acquire and within their reach.
Yes, of course economics and technology can influence the skills people choose to acquire. If, some day, my job as a software developer become irrelevant, I'll certainly be glad I've padded my skill set with a number of hobbies I've chosen to not simply be satisfied being mediocre at. And, of course, many people have worked for many years before me to make it easier to acquire the skills that I have; those people were experts, just as the people who maintain the technologies that keep those skills accessible and attainable are experts.
Back to my point, however: Never underestimate the value of expertise, even in a field that has been made highly accessible. there will always be a use for an expert to maintain that accessibility, and to handle use cases the previous experts did not consider.
Slashdot Mirror
And here's another point: Google made their support promise for Nexus devices legally binding, while other manufacturers, including Apple have not. If you want guaranteed support for some predetermined period, you get a Nexus device, period. If you really don't care about getting updates or security (in which case, shut the hell up already), then you buy something else.
While Apple has generally been good about long term device support, there is nothing indicating that they will continue to be. As my wife is an iPhone user and her and I are both iPad users, I certainly hope the keep it up, but I'll be neither surprised not disappointed if they do not; I knew what I was buying when I bought it.
And the same applies to and computer system. Funny, that.
You mean your 4 year old phone that you bought while Google had a published 2 year (from first sale) major update, 3 year (again, from first sale; or 18mo from last sale in the Google store) security update policy? If you're claiming you didn't know what you were buying, that's on you. That said, there's nothing stopping you from installing Chroma on it; Android 6.0.1, splt-screen windowing, and a host of other features, including these updates once the maintainers issue another release after the updates hit AOSP today.
Or a Nexus device. I already have these updates.
So wait, your argument boils down to... *facepalm* you weren't sure whether he was saying he would or would not let some bozo off the street perform surgery on him? Seriously? And you think he and I are the idiots? Anyone reading this thread will pick out the inconsistencies in your position without a second glance; not, I'm not trying to "get" you, you've already "gotten" yourself. Good on you for getting another reply out of me, though; I figure if it were nearly as boring for you as you claim, you'd have left it alone when I said I was done.
To clarify, the newest Nexus phone that is stuck on 4.x is the Galaxy nexus, which is over 4 years old. Is that what you're complaining about?
If so, you need to remember that it's only "stuck" if you insist on running a factory image; there are plenty of Lollipop and Marshmallow ROMs to choose from.
Huh... What more do you want? Once it's 2 years old it's well past obsolete, and at 3 years it's unlikely current versions of many popular apps (e.g. what you can get from the market) will run on it.
And, even before that announcement, Google's policy has been to provide updates for 3 years from date of first sale, or 18mo from date of last sale in the Google store, whichever is longer. That sure beats most of Apple's offerings (I think they had one model that had support for longer than 18mo from last sale in an Apple store), and all offerings of any other Android manufacturer.
Of course, the same people complaining that they can't get updates from Google after 3 years are the ones who loudly proclaim that they bought a Nexus device in the first place so they could run whatever ROM they want on it, making manufacturer updates irrelevant for those complaining in the first place.
You can afford a VPN but need to cut costs on your phone bill? Well hell, I'll help you cut costs on the VPN, as well: Turn off Binge-on since you're not benefiting from it anyway if using a VPN.
With LTE band 12 and VoLTE, yes, now they do.
Huh, I wonder if they're just doing this in areas with higher than average usage. I just watched this video from my phone, wi-fi turned off, binge-on turned on, without a single stutter, in full 1080p glory.
And this is how all T-Mobile offerings have been for the first 3mo of their release, for at least as long as I've been with them (e.g. since Simple Choice). It's the price of being first-to-market, but they do at least tend to fix the issues by the end of 3 months, so tweet John Legere your complaint and be amazed as he actually listens!
Yes and it's apparently perfectly fine to hate us for it.
My guess is one reason to do that is to avoid having customers go over their monthly cap and pay extra
No, T-Mobile solved that by making all of their data plans unlimited 2g (except for the unlimited 4g LTE plan) with an allotment of 4g LTE service.
Can we wait to see T-mobile's response to this? It's quite likely a misconfiguration, too loose of a filter on things, and will be sorted out. My experience with them over the duration of the time they've offered the Simple Choice plan is that it takes them almost exactly 3 months to iron out the kinks in a new offering, including getting their CS reps up to speed, getting billing worked out, and getting the service actually working as advertised. I have been an early adopter of every single one of their offerings since they came out with Simple Choice and this has been a consistent theme with literally all of them (to the tune of many credits and months of comp service for dealing with it), and this just started on 11/19 for existing customers, so I'll expect it to be ironed out by 2/19, give or take a couple of days.
That's not limiting, though... oops.
You see, when a pipe is only so big, only so much can fit through it. It would sure seem to make sense to let someone who hasn't had a chance at the tap yet get on in there and have a drink before someone who's had a few glasses already, no? That's not saying "no, you can't have more" or "you have to slow down", that's saying "let someone else have a go at it first" and that's certainly not limiting, it's just life. Unless you're an egotistical dick who thinks you should have everything and everyone else can just live off your scraps, in which case I think Verizon has a plan for you.
I think you should think before you type.
Of course there's more to surgery and, speaking of disingenuous, it's funny you'd imply that I ever claimed otherwise.
I made no such implication. You inferred it. I was caliming that the person I was responding to made this implication. Try to pay attention.
Oh, I'm paying attention alright. I especially paid attention when the other person you were responding to said the following:
Knives are very easy to use, but that doesn't mean I'll let some random bozo perform surgery on me.
Why do you think he would not let some random bozo perform surgery on him? Is it, perhaps, because he is implying, even acknowledging, that there is more to surgery than using a knife? I think so, and if you were paying attention you'd have caught that.
I will entertain this ridiculous example of a knife having input and output.
And you'll entirely miss the point by focusing on that and not acknowledging that, at the end of the day, that knife allows you to cut and carve without knowing anything about metallurgy, without knowing how to forge a blade or harden steel, without knowing any of the things the person who made that knife must know. Just like the computer operator in your example can Google things without understanding Markov chains, or even knowing they exist as a concept. If you can't draw the parallels yourself, hopefully that direct comparison helped; if not, you're hopeless. Either way, that's where I stopped reading your comment. I am done with this thread.
Sounds like you should leave AT&T.
Your reading comprehension needs some work. T-mobile has two different "unlimited" data options, one which is unlimited 2g with an allotment of (limited) 4g LTE bandwidth, and one that is unlimited 4g LTE. What you've quoted refers to the former, while for $95 you get the latter (along with unlimited talk and text).
I should think not; perhaps wait until the debate is finished before passing judgment.
Damn, missed the < in my closing em tag.
comparing a knife as a tool vs software as a tool is a bit disingenuous considering software actually does the work *for* the human
The data fed to the software (by the human) is the software's input, whatever the software does with that software is its output (e.g. work); the position, pressure, and direction of force (e.g. data) fed to the knife (by the human) is the knife's input, the resulting cut is the knife's output (e.g. work). In both scenarios, the human does the work of inputting the data and the tool does the work of providing a result, how is that disingenuous?
The whole point of software is automation. That's why you can have people who are good at using photoshop without a having any clue how the math behind a Gaussian blur works, and it's why you are able to google things without understanding Markov chains.
And the whole point of knives is cutting. That's why we have people who are good at carving turkeys without having a clue how to forge a blade, and it's why you are able to cut your steak without understanding metallurgy.
There is a lot more to surgery than just knowing how a knife works. There is apparently not all that much more to Windows IT than knowing how to use Windows admin software.
Of course there's more to surgery and, speaking of disingenuous, it's funny you'd imply that I ever claimed otherwise. There is also a lot more to Windows IT than simply knowing how to use the tools; and I'm not speaking as a windows IT worker here, just using common sense; as in any field, it's not just knowing how to use the tools, but when,/em> (e.g. which tool for which job). Of course, there is also the essential skill of knowing how to make and maintain your own tools for the use cases and scenarios that toolmakers before you did not think of (I feel like I'm repeating myself here) and even maintaining the existing toolchain. There's actually a lot more to being a Windows IT admin than firing up some software and clicking around, if you're going to be good at the job, just like any other field. And only an idiot would hire an idiot admin, likely to administer their own idiocy as they're clearly too idiotic to do it themselves.
And, clearly, if Linux admins are still higher paid than Windows admins, while those of us with any real aptitude for maintaining computer systems often find the task easier to do in Linux, that simply says that nobody working in Windows IT really knows what they're doing enough to command a higher salary; it honestly says nothing about how easy or difficult the job is. On your typical corporate (e.g. Windows) network, you're dealing with a lot more moving parts than the typical human body, so I think the comparison is fair, even if I don't think the post you initially replied to was making that comparison (at least, not intentionally). I'll repeat (I seem to have to do that a lot with you): The poster was making a point about not letting people who don't know how (and when) to use the tools do the job, regardless of what the job is.
Wait, so your point in comparing a surgeon to an Windows IT guy was to show that it is absurd to do so? Then yes, I did totally miss your point. The post you were replying to was making no such comparison but, rather, implying that eas-of-use of the tools required for the job in now way indicated possession of the required skills, id est, you still missed the point.
I'll address your points so that you can see that, despite my relative short stature, my head and rectum have more distance between them than other participants in this thread.
1. The fact that not every high skilled person is high skilled in every possible skill, does not imply that every high skilled person is/ can be only skilled at one thing.
Indeed, I'm also highly mechanically skilled, just not where it requires very detailed fine motor skills (such as assembling very tiny and delicate parts) amongst other skills; of course I understand that a person can be skiled in multiple fields. Speaking of assumptions...
2. The skills that "people" have are not static. Even if it were true that every person's skills never changed througout their lifetime, the skillset of society would be constantly changing as people died and new people are born.
Indeed, I'm always learning new languages and programming techniques and philosophies; as well, I had to learn a new set of tools and assemblies to work on the new car I recently bought. If my skills were static, as you wish to imply I think they are, this would not have been possible.
3. The skills people choose to acquire can be influenced by technology and economics. If a certain skill commands a high salary, it incentivizes more people to acquire that skill. If the demand for a skill is lowered or the supply of that skill is raised due to better technology making the skill easier to have (like windows IT), then the lower salary would disincentivize more ambitious people from acquiring this skill and/or encourage less ambitious people to acquire this new skill that has been made easier to acquire and within their reach.
Yes, of course economics and technology can influence the skills people choose to acquire. If, some day, my job as a software developer become irrelevant, I'll certainly be glad I've padded my skill set with a number of hobbies I've chosen to not simply be satisfied being mediocre at. And, of course, many people have worked for many years before me to make it easier to acquire the skills that I have; those people were experts, just as the people who maintain the technologies that keep those skills accessible and attainable are experts.
Back to my point, however: Never underestimate the value of expertise, even in a field that has been made highly accessible. there will always be a use for an expert to maintain that accessibility, and to handle use cases the previous experts did not consider.