Right. And personal experience is what I gave him. From personal experience mobile data in all of North America is expensive. If you don't want to pay through the nose for mobile data, your best bet is to avoid using it as much as possible.
There is no: "one weird trick they don't want you to know" to get around it.
In this particular case perhaps where Christ tells people to stop stoning sinners?;-)
Christ also said he wasn't changing any of the 'law', and that everything was still applicable....
Matthew 5-18 "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
In bibles that highlight jesus' own words in red... this is red. I'm not sure how this passage doesn't carry Jewish law forward to the followers of Christ.
It makes picking and choosing whatever you want a lot easier when Jesus gave all sides lots of ammo to use.
Where does "Jewish Law" end and "Christian Law" begin exactly? It seems the prevalent practice is for Christians to pick and choose whatever parts they like and say the Bible instructs them thus, and any parts they don't like... "that was just for the Jews not us".
After all, all the 'bible against the gays' stuff is from the same sections that outlaws bacon and endorses stoning rape victims who were too afraid, too confused, or too drunk to cry out...
I compared Thunderbird to Outlook, Thunderbird with extensions comes close
On paper maybe. But not in reality.
I've never seen Outlook correctly connect to (open) CalDAV servers
So? They use google g suite sync or hosted exchange (office 365), where calendar sync works brilliantly. Saying Outlook doesn't play as well with CalDAV servers is like saying Thunderbird doesn't play well with exchange that's only available through https proxy...
Its true... but kind of irrelevant.
the integration on iOS and Mac of open source calendaring, address book,
OSX mail + address book + calendar? Please. Simple toys that only work well if you fit everything you need to fit into their substantial limitations.
OwnCloud also seems to be getting close to it although I don't personally use it
I use owncloud, and its not trivial to get it working with phones etc. Yes It works... but my mom couldn't do it. Just as she isn't going to cobble a complete system together out of Tbird extensions.
Well, as Subby says, they're from 'not in the US,' and they're going to be 'In the US.' He was looking for real-world suggestions on good national carriers with decent coverage and prices
There are 4 national carriers, it wouldn't take long to look at each one.
ATT, Verizon, TMobile, Sprint Next largest is US Cellular about which is about 1/10th the size of sprint, and is regional only.
The subby also said they've been here before. And they already know the lay of the land so-to-speak -- given they're aware of the billing situation that they are trying to cut down; so they likely already know who the 4 are, and they've likely already determined that they're all about the same price. But if not, I think they can figure that out.
How else would you suggest he go about getting that sort of info?
I'm not an american, and I'm not in the USA. I certainly didn't have to ask slashdot to get a list of the major national carriers in the United States, or to look up their rate plans.
No, if a band demands expensive caviar at every meal, and asks the catering guy to look into less expensive means of getting cavier; for example, switching suppliers, ordering in bulk, etc etc, simply coming back and saying 'you shouldn't be eating caviar in the first place' is categorically the wrong answer.
Why is someone asking slashdot for solutions to a problem that could be answered with "have you considered switching suppliers?"
What's else? Should I ask to make sure they aren't on prepaid no included data and roaming from Canada?
Coming back and saying 'having looked at several options, there's really no way to eat this much caviar without spending this much money' may well be appropriate.
That's the reality. You aren't going to get a TB of 4G mobile data cheap. You might be able cut a few corners, but I don't think a 10 or 15% or even 20% reduction is going to cut it here.
That's not what most of the suggestions in this thread are saying.
I skimmed the suggestions before I posted. I didn't see anything practical. "write your congress critter"? follow a greyhound and try to leech from them?...? What suggestion are you thinking of that you think really nails it?
The only approach I saw that might help a little is to get n separate LTE plans, and then rotate through them. That will work, by avoiding the exorbitant overage rate and just using each plan up to the caps... but really what does that accomplish. Verizon's 'unlimited' mobile plan throttles you to 3G speeds after 10GB, which is pretty shit for streaming and its $80/mo... $80/mo for 10 GB... is $8/GB that's in the 5-10$/GB overage rate they are likely paying now. Another carrier might have some better plan and some better way to rig it, so there might be a bit of savings there... maybe they can get it down to 3-4$ per GB. But it's ugly as hell, and its still going to be pretty expensive if they need 500-1000GB/mo.
"We need more bandwidth." "Guys, guys, no, you're doing it wrong. You should be reading books, instead!" "You're fired. New guy, we need more bandwidth."
If the band demands expensive caviar at every meal, and then complains it's breaking their budget -- the solution is either to make a lot more money or to stop eating expensive caviar at every meal.
Getting fired sounds like a far better option than working for entitled toddlers who don't understand that.
Either you missed the bit about this being a band on tour,
No. I saw that.
The big problem here is that if you're bored out of your mind in transit a few GB doesn't go far for entertainment.
Which is why i suggested loading up on offline entertainment.
I have enough problem with downloading offline movies for a 1 week intercontinental trip, let alone going to tour,
Hence the other suggestions: like walk into a used DVD shop, and buy a couple dozen movies.
and the WiFi in the hotel typically barely allows me to get an additional movie in for the day after, let alone cover 14 people in a bus all day.
Agreed. I said use wifi at the hotel to get your fix of youtube or grab that one movie you want but forgot. Get most of the offline content in advance, or in bulk.
Music for example, once you've got a 100GB offline you're set, sure you'll want to add new albums or tracks; but it can go on the next trip, and the one after that, etc.
There is a LOT of data that needs to be planned ahead if you're trying to do this trip without relying on mobile data.
Yep. Do it. Its how bands on a budget toured for the last 70+ years.
With 12 people, downloading music and streaming movies, we can easily exceed 12GB a day!
plus
you'd consider them working class if they were in a white colllar profession.
equals:
Hey dummy, don't do that.
Continually streaming music and movies while on a big road trip is expensive. The 'working class' solution to the problem is simple: don't.
Have them download movies movies and music to local storage for the bus; or dump what you need on a NAS and run a bus-wifi network or stick it on a USB drive. Throw 100GB of music on it and stream from that.
Pop into used dvd shop and pick up a couple dozen movies, and bring a portable dvd player or a laptop with a dvd player or ensure the bus media center can play DVDs.
Netflix also lets you do download stuff for offline movies. etc.
Hit up GoG.com and buy some games -- no drm, no online requirements, massive time sinks. Buy a Nintendo handheld. Buy some books, or an e-reader.
Get your fix of 'breaking news' streams while on wifi at the hotels.
Frankly, this should be fairly obvious, my children figured all this out pretty quick, because I won't let them stream netflix and youtube on my cellular plan on a road trip for the same reason.
I agree. However, the only reason to use Outlook is if one happens to have a Microsoft Exchange based messaging server, along w/ a need to integrate w/ an Office's e-mail setup
Yes, also Google Apps Sync with outlook is pretty decent too. Not as seamless, but still pretty solid.
Thunderbird/Fossamail works just fine
However, people subscribe to google apps for enterprises or office 365 (hosted exchange) in large part to get the functionality that Thunderbird + IMAP simply does not have.
I love Thunderbird.Thunderbird is great at what it does, but its missing some big things... because IMAP is missing some big things. And OSS has never really stepped up to the plate and solved any of those items in a really good way.
I mean, I've even got my own owncloud deployment and DAVdroid etc to give me calendars and contacts on my phone etc without having it tied to google or microsoft; and mail plugins for thunderbird... so I've done that. But its hard to rationalize it; given that its just seamless.with office 365, and almost seamless with googleapps for business with the outlook connector.
The premium cost for a basic mailbox with either gmail or microsoft vs an imap mailbox... just isn't that high, and it's pretty easy to justify the expense for the functionality.
"You want something that rivals Outlook? How about Thunderbird?"
I use both. Side by side. Thunderbird is fine and I love it. But its not even in the same league.
IMAP is simply not as powerful as Exchange; the meeting / calendar / contact / directory support for thunderbird is a PITA. You can't set up server side rule processing, away messages, forwarding, etc within Thunderbird. Moving large amounts of messages around still weak. Company contact directory support is a PITA. And even mailbox setup is simply more work; the autoconfiguration you get with Office 365 is fantastic.
" Outlook is absolute garbage"
It's really perfectly serviceable now. It was deplorable in the past.
"come back when you've tried a real PIM."
My Thunderbird profile is 4.5GB. I even used to post to USENET from it, and read RSS, because it wasn't a bad at that either. I still use it with 3 mailboxes, two proper IMAP, my ISP mail via POP3, and one gmail box via IMAP.
98% of the people who use office simply type letters and notes, maybe make a simple spreadsheet or two. Openoffice is entirely up to the task.
The issue is that 98% of people who use office exchange documents with the other 2%.
The other issue is that office 365 includes outlook, which open office does NOT match in any capacity. And the subscription includes a decent mailbox, with alll the bells and whistles - webmail/calendar/contact
mobile sync, windows active directory integration, etc... its a hell of a lot more than 'renting a word processor'.
So? If I by a box of lego and create a truly good model, its all made from components from elsehwere, but the model is still designed here by me; and the objective quality of that design is mostly in how I've assembled it, how complex, how well it works, how much fun it is, etc etc.
Then there is the fact that I chose to make it out of lego instead of one of the knockoffs that doesn't fit as well together.
Apple may be building their model out of the same box of components as other people have, but that doesn't mean there's nothing special about their build.
That said, while I'm not an apple fan; my issues mostly revolve around the ios lock down, and the design choices apple has made (no headphone jack...); but the phone build itself is still impressive.
" it is mostly criminals, perverts and politicians who need it."
But why shouldn't criminals get it? I mean, once they've served out their sentence and are trying to get on with their lives?
Having this stuff in their record... its never going to completely go away and it shouldn't go away.
But as a society don't we want to enable someone trying to go straight to actually succeed? How is labelling them a criminal and having their past 1 click away for the rest of their lives going to facilitate that?
"how many left wing people would like someone like Donald Trump to be able to purge his less honorable history from the Internet. Remember the settlements that his father made for not renting to black people. That would be gone. While he was elected through the electoral college, it was appropriate for the populace to know his past. The same with Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. The politicians want to hide their dirty past."
That's not quite how it works. It's not "gone" its just not 1-click away. Its not going to come up on google results when you type Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump; but someone doing any sort of actual investigative journalism would still be able to dig it up with some effort. And once its dug up, and reported on, it would be "current news about a current politician" -- and that isn't eligible to be de-indexed because its highly relevant political discourse.
"does password masking do anything beyond preventing the casual shoulder-surfer?"
Erm...that is precisely ALL it has ever done?! What else do you think it does? Frankly, most password boxes should have a 'show' password option because its user friendly -- put the user in charge of whether or not the password is visible -- they can decide the risk of exposure.
Although i do think showing it by default is a bit absurd. On the other hand, with a new router out of the box; the default password is a known quanity or on the labelling anyway... so not a lot of harm exposing it there.
You want to say: o the sensor that registers how hard the pedal is pressed down failed? o the oil pressure sensor of the breaking oil failed? o all 2 sensors for the ABS on all 4 wheels failed? o the sensors for electronic lane stabilization failed?... hve to check again how many sensors are involved in breaking...
And/or all data transmissions to the log failed?
No. Just the first one. The rest of the sensors all correctly show that the car didn't brake, because as far as the car was concerned the driver never pressed them.
"Yes, because the most important part of the log has nothing to do with the brakes at all: acceleration sensors."
They show it driving into the wall. And coming to a rather sudden stop.
Now, for a typical current car, you are right in the sense that any sensor on the pedal is supplementing a mechanical system; but what about a brake-by-wire car where the brake pedal isn't mechanically attached, where a sensor records how much the brake pedal is depressed and relays that back to the computer.... much the same way video game steering and pedal sets work. Where if the 'brake pedal system' fails, and the brake event isn't recorded; the pedal doesn't do anything. And the rest of the car's telemetry agrees that the brakes weren't pushed.
Erm, and you really think this happens all the time????
In a typical cars brakes? No, of course not. They're primarily mechanical on most current cars. But all kinds of electronics and wiring problems do happen; especially as cars age. I had a car that started stalling -- some failure in the ignition switch itself... the the car thought the ignition had been turned off, when it hadn't been. A friends car had some weird glitch where activating the turn signals turned off the cruise control. (some sort of partial short with the brake lights). I've heard of a cases where when flooring the accelerator, the sunroof opened. Where turning activated the horn. Where hitting a bump in the road would activate something... turn on the radio, sound the horn, flash the highbeams, open the windows, release the trunk... etc. A failing switch or loose wiring, or a short somewhere... it happens ALL THE TIME.
Is it really so hard for you to imagine a drive-by-wire system failing to correctly sense driver inputs? Or to spuriously generate driver events that didn't actually happen? Especially in an intermittent failure mode? Really?
I'd hope (and expect) drive-by-wire brakes to have more robust design and more redundancy then the sunroof controls but i can still envision occasional failures happening.
And in other areas of the car... for example, to disengage the tesla autopilot, all you have to do is push a button. If the switch is starting to go, a bump on the road could trip it. If you aren't paying attention and have an accident, then what... Musk's techs show that you explicitly disengaged the autopilot a full 30 seconds before you drove into oncoming traffic...because the disengage button was logged as pushed... therefore you must have pushed it right? Because never in the history of switches have they ever started to fail and intermittently open or close without deliberate user intervention.
"There is no more "he said/she said" with a Tesla. That car will tell investigators everything."
The car won't lie, but its only as good as it's sensors and programming.
Scenario -- Car hits a concrete wall, catches fire, and partially burns out.
Driver -- car didn't stop when I hit the brakes. Car logs - driver didn't press on the brakes.
Reality - the brakes WERE depressed; the brake pedal sensors failed and then burned in the fire); and as far as the car's logging system is concerned the brakes were not used prior to the crash.
This kind of failure happens all the time. The self-test reports its fine, but it still doesn't work. The self-test reports it's fine, but its still not sending events properly. The sensor itself is fine, but the events are getting swallowed somewhere else along the way. Or the self-test is fine at cold while idling, but get it scorching hot after a few laps and things start flaking out... add in 10 years wear and tear, humidity, rain, spray, and the ravages of time on rubber, seals, lubricants, sealants... and you really want to bet that the computer log of what happened is infallible?
Its just a new witness to the event, it's more credible than a human in many ways; some of the time; but it's not infallible.
Arguing over the inanities of writers' drama seems like someone ordered a 55 gallon drum of nits from Costco.
I specifically said that it didn't bother me. I completely agree its a TV show.
The fact remains, the ability to auto magically dig through personal logs whenever a writer needs to existed, and more importantly, was used.
But the implications of that capability were never fully explored and integrated. It was a conceit of the setting that they had that this computer capability while somehow it didn't get abused; just like it was a conceit that an individual could own a spaceship that could roll around at the speed of light and they didn't have problems with people suiciding them into inhabited space stations and planets whenever they got depressed.
Standard procedure when an officer went missing was to ask the computer to locate them, and when it couldn't, dump the officer's personal logs for clues about where they had run off. It did happen all the time, crew were always asking the computer when and how other crewmembers left the ship.
Yes, you remember when it happened. You don't remember when it didn't. it certainly did happen when it furthered the plot. But watch through again, and see how often they *didn't* use the computer's universal monitoring when they could have.
Geordi spent an entire episode listening to the personal logs of an officer who went AWOL. Barclay was constantly getting in trouble for abusing the holodeck and his superiors would pull up the log of every program he had used.
I don't deny it happened when it happened. I'm just saying there were a multitude of times where it DIDN'T happen where it should have. just look at episode 2 of stng season one (that's as far as I had to go to find a crazy good example)... all kinds of places where a computer that knows where everyone is at all times, and listens/records everything that happens everywhere on the ship.
I mean less than a minute in before even the opening credits an away team is exploring a ship trying to figure out what happened...no life signs... but no one thought to just ask the computer to play back everything that happened...should have done that before even boarding the ship... of course that might have prevented them contracting the virus in the first place and would have made for a pretty boring episode.
Then they confine geordie to sick bay, and he just walks out. How was that not monitored? How wasn't he immediately run down by the ship who knows where everyone is, and can hear everything everywhere... sure he took off his communicator but so what?... they have to manually search the ship? because the computer couldn't have just told him where he went - figuring out what doors he opened... , etc etc or it couldn't pick him up by voiceprint chatting with Wesley in his room... etc etc etc etc...
I'm not irritated per se, it was a TV show, and although it was decent SF... it wasn't really trying to be a completely internally consistent hard-SF projection of humanity in the future. And It wasn't trying to explore what humanity would look like if it had a computer listening to everything said... that was just a plot gimmick -- used when convenient, forgotten when not. And the show was generally exploring other themes.
Yes, and that's exactly what happened when McCoy and Scott conspired to mutiny against Janice Lester who was impersonating Kirk at the time.
Yeah. One time. Once. On one episode. That's the flaw of star trek as a work of fiction. It would have been always happening, every episode.
The only way Picard or Kirk get away with disobeying orders is by virtue of being at the top of the chain of command and out of radio range of their superiors.
Really? How many episodes did they conspire against a superior officer on their OWN SHIP? Why didn't the ship rat them out?
And how many episodes did little Wesley or Worf or some red-shirt of the week break the rules and not get snitched on by the computer immediately?
How many times did someone go missing or rebel or whatever, without the first command being... hey computer, dump everything that officer said to anyone the last 48 hours, also what were they reading, who were they with, what's the last thing they ate and drank? If that computer were real, that would be step #1 for pretty much everything.
Slashdot Mirror
He's asking for personal experience.
Right. And personal experience is what I gave him. From personal experience mobile data in all of North America is expensive. If you don't want to pay through the nose for mobile data, your best bet is to avoid using it as much as possible.
There is no: "one weird trick they don't want you to know" to get around it.
Matthew 5-17-18 seems to carry Jewish law forward to the followers of Christ.
In this particular case perhaps where Christ tells people to stop stoning sinners? ;-)
Christ also said he wasn't changing any of the 'law', and that everything was still applicable....
Matthew 5-18 "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
In bibles that highlight jesus' own words in red... this is red. I'm not sure how this passage doesn't carry Jewish law forward to the followers of Christ.
It makes picking and choosing whatever you want a lot easier when Jesus gave all sides lots of ammo to use.
Where does "Jewish Law" end and "Christian Law" begin exactly? It seems the prevalent practice is for Christians to pick and choose whatever parts they like and say the Bible instructs them thus, and any parts they don't like... "that was just for the Jews not us".
After all, all the 'bible against the gays' stuff is from the same sections that outlaws bacon and endorses stoning rape victims who were too afraid, too confused, or too drunk to cry out...
I compared Thunderbird to Outlook, Thunderbird with extensions comes close
On paper maybe. But not in reality.
I've never seen Outlook correctly connect to (open) CalDAV servers
So? They use google g suite sync or hosted exchange (office 365), where calendar sync works brilliantly. Saying Outlook doesn't play as well with CalDAV servers is like saying Thunderbird doesn't play well with exchange that's only available through https proxy...
Its true... but kind of irrelevant.
the integration on iOS and Mac of open source calendaring, address book,
OSX mail + address book + calendar? Please. Simple toys that only work well if you fit everything you need to fit into their substantial limitations.
OwnCloud also seems to be getting close to it although I don't personally use it
I use owncloud, and its not trivial to get it working with phones etc. Yes It works... but my mom couldn't do it. Just as she isn't going to cobble a complete system together out of Tbird extensions.
She can use office 365.
Well, as Subby says, they're from 'not in the US,' and they're going to be 'In the US.' He was looking for real-world suggestions on good national carriers with decent coverage and prices
There are 4 national carriers, it wouldn't take long to look at each one.
ATT, Verizon, TMobile, Sprint
Next largest is US Cellular about which is about 1/10th the size of sprint, and is regional only.
The subby also said they've been here before. And they already know the lay of the land so-to-speak -- given they're aware of the billing situation that they are trying to cut down; so they likely already know who the 4 are, and they've likely already determined that they're all about the same price. But if not, I think they can figure that out.
How else would you suggest he go about getting that sort of info?
Same way I just did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I'm not an american, and I'm not in the USA. I certainly didn't have to ask slashdot to get a list of the major national carriers in the United States, or to look up their rate plans.
No, if a band demands expensive caviar at every meal, and asks the catering guy to look into less expensive means of getting cavier; for example, switching suppliers, ordering in bulk, etc etc, simply coming back and saying 'you shouldn't be eating caviar in the first place' is categorically the wrong answer.
Why is someone asking slashdot for solutions to a problem that could be answered with "have you considered switching suppliers?"
What's else? Should I ask to make sure they aren't on prepaid no included data and roaming from Canada?
Coming back and saying 'having looked at several options, there's really no way to eat this much caviar without spending this much money' may well be appropriate.
That's the reality. You aren't going to get a TB of 4G mobile data cheap. You might be able cut a few corners, but I don't think a 10 or 15% or even 20% reduction is going to cut it here.
That's not what most of the suggestions in this thread are saying.
I skimmed the suggestions before I posted. I didn't see anything practical. "write your congress critter"? follow a greyhound and try to leech from them? ...? What suggestion are you thinking of that you think really nails it?
The only approach I saw that might help a little is to get n separate LTE plans, and then rotate through them. That will work, by avoiding the exorbitant overage rate and just using each plan up to the caps... but really what does that accomplish. Verizon's 'unlimited' mobile plan throttles you to 3G speeds after 10GB, which is pretty shit for streaming and its $80/mo... $80/mo for 10 GB... is $8/GB that's in the 5-10$/GB overage rate they are likely paying now. Another carrier might have some better plan and some better way to rig it, so there might be a bit of savings there... maybe they can get it down to 3-4$ per GB. But it's ugly as hell, and its still going to be pretty expensive if they need 500-1000GB/mo.
"We need more bandwidth."
"Guys, guys, no, you're doing it wrong. You should be reading books, instead!"
"You're fired. New guy, we need more bandwidth."
If the band demands expensive caviar at every meal, and then complains it's breaking their budget -- the solution is either to make a lot more money or to stop eating expensive caviar at every meal.
Getting fired sounds like a far better option than working for entitled toddlers who don't understand that.
Customer: I'd like a burger, fries and cola please.
More like "Customer: I'd like Kobe steak every day month, and Kristal to drink, but I'm just working class and we can't afford it."
You have two options:
1) make more money.
2) eat something else.
Either you missed the bit about this being a band on tour,
No. I saw that.
The big problem here is that if you're bored out of your mind in transit a few GB doesn't go far for entertainment.
Which is why i suggested loading up on offline entertainment.
I have enough problem with downloading offline movies for a 1 week intercontinental trip, let alone going to tour,
Hence the other suggestions: like walk into a used DVD shop, and buy a couple dozen movies.
and the WiFi in the hotel typically barely allows me to get an additional movie in for the day after, let alone cover 14 people in a bus all day.
Agreed. I said use wifi at the hotel to get your fix of youtube or grab that one movie you want but forgot. Get most of the offline content in advance, or in bulk.
Music for example, once you've got a 100GB offline you're set, sure you'll want to add new albums or tracks; but it can go on the next trip, and the one after that, etc.
There is a LOT of data that needs to be planned ahead if you're trying to do this trip without relying on mobile data.
Yep. Do it. Its how bands on a budget toured for the last 70+ years.
With 12 people, downloading music and streaming movies, we can easily exceed 12GB a day!
plus
you'd consider them working class if they were in a white colllar profession.
equals:
Hey dummy, don't do that.
Continually streaming music and movies while on a big road trip is expensive. The 'working class' solution to the problem is simple: don't.
Have them download movies movies and music to local storage for the bus; or dump what you need on a NAS and run a bus-wifi network or stick it on a USB drive. Throw 100GB of music on it and stream from that.
Pop into used dvd shop and pick up a couple dozen movies, and bring a portable dvd player or a laptop with a dvd player or ensure the bus media center can play DVDs.
Netflix also lets you do download stuff for offline movies. etc.
Hit up GoG.com and buy some games -- no drm, no online requirements, massive time sinks. Buy a Nintendo handheld. Buy some books, or an e-reader.
Get your fix of 'breaking news' streams while on wifi at the hotels.
Frankly, this should be fairly obvious, my children figured all this out pretty quick, because I won't let them stream netflix and youtube on my cellular plan on a road trip for the same reason.
I agree. However, the only reason to use Outlook is if one happens to have a Microsoft Exchange based messaging server, along w/ a need to integrate w/ an Office's e-mail setup
Yes, also Google Apps Sync with outlook is pretty decent too. Not as seamless, but still pretty solid.
Thunderbird/Fossamail works just fine
However, people subscribe to google apps for enterprises or office 365 (hosted exchange) in large part to get the functionality that Thunderbird + IMAP simply does not have.
I love Thunderbird.Thunderbird is great at what it does, but its missing some big things... because IMAP is missing some big things. And OSS has never really stepped up to the plate and solved any of those items in a really good way.
I mean, I've even got my own owncloud deployment and DAVdroid etc to give me calendars and contacts on my phone etc without having it tied to google or microsoft; and mail plugins for thunderbird... so I've done that. But its hard to rationalize it; given that its just seamless.with office 365, and almost seamless with googleapps for business with the outlook connector.
The premium cost for a basic mailbox with either gmail or microsoft vs an imap mailbox... just isn't that high, and it's pretty easy to justify the expense for the functionality.
"You want something that rivals Outlook? How about Thunderbird?"
I use both. Side by side. Thunderbird is fine and I love it. But its not even in the same league.
IMAP is simply not as powerful as Exchange; the meeting / calendar / contact / directory support for thunderbird is a PITA. You can't set up server side rule processing, away messages, forwarding, etc within Thunderbird. Moving large amounts of messages around still weak. Company contact directory support is a PITA. And even mailbox setup is simply more work; the autoconfiguration you get with Office 365 is fantastic.
" Outlook is absolute garbage"
It's really perfectly serviceable now. It was deplorable in the past.
"come back when you've tried a real PIM."
My Thunderbird profile is 4.5GB. I even used to post to USENET from it, and read RSS, because it wasn't a bad at that either. I still use it with 3 mailboxes, two proper IMAP, my ISP mail via POP3, and one gmail box via IMAP.
98% of the people who use office simply type letters and notes, maybe make a simple spreadsheet or two. Openoffice is entirely up to the task.
The issue is that 98% of people who use office exchange documents with the other 2%.
The other issue is that office 365 includes outlook, which open office does NOT match in any capacity. And the subscription includes a decent mailbox, with alll the bells and whistles - webmail/calendar/contact
mobile sync, windows active directory integration, etc... its a hell of a lot more than 'renting a word processor'.
So? If I by a box of lego and create a truly good model, its all made from components from elsehwere, but the model is still designed here by me; and the objective quality of that design is mostly in how I've assembled it, how complex, how well it works, how much fun it is, etc etc.
Then there is the fact that I chose to make it out of lego instead of one of the knockoffs that doesn't fit as well together.
Apple may be building their model out of the same box of components as other people have, but that doesn't mean there's nothing special about their build.
That said, while I'm not an apple fan; my issues mostly revolve around the ios lock down, and the design choices apple has made (no headphone jack...); but the phone build itself is still impressive.
" it is mostly criminals, perverts and politicians who need it."
But why shouldn't criminals get it? I mean, once they've served out their sentence and are trying to get on with their lives?
Having this stuff in their record ... its never going to completely go away and it shouldn't go away.
But as a society don't we want to enable someone trying to go straight to actually succeed? How is labelling them a criminal and having their past 1 click away for the rest of their lives going to facilitate that?
"how many left wing people would like someone like Donald Trump to be able to purge his less honorable history from the Internet. Remember the settlements that his father made for not renting to black people. That would be gone. While he was elected through the electoral college, it was appropriate for the populace to know his past. The same with Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. The politicians want to hide their dirty past."
That's not quite how it works. It's not "gone" its just not 1-click away. Its not going to come up on google results when you type Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump; but someone doing any sort of actual investigative journalism would still be able to dig it up with some effort. And once its dug up, and reported on, it would be "current news about a current politician" -- and that isn't eligible to be de-indexed because its highly relevant political discourse.
"does password masking do anything beyond preventing the casual shoulder-surfer?"
Erm...that is precisely ALL it has ever done?! What else do you think it does?
Frankly, most password boxes should have a 'show' password option because its user friendly -- put the user in charge of whether or not the password is visible -- they can decide the risk of exposure.
Although i do think showing it by default is a bit absurd. On the other hand, with a new router out of the box; the default password is a known quanity or on the labelling anyway... so not a lot of harm exposing it there.
A car that can not brake when its electric network/power supply fails wont ever get a clearance to be run on european streets.
It looks like they are talking independent / redundant power supplies at each brake as their approach to that hurdle.
but what about a brake-by-wire car where the brake pedal isn't mechanically attached, where a sensor records how much the brake pedal is depressed
They don't exist.
They will.
http://articles.sae.org/14570/
You want to say: ... hve to check again how many sensors are involved in breaking ...
o the sensor that registers how hard the pedal is pressed down failed?
o the oil pressure sensor of the breaking oil failed?
o all 2 sensors for the ABS on all 4 wheels failed?
o the sensors for electronic lane stabilization failed?
And/or all data transmissions to the log failed?
No. Just the first one. The rest of the sensors all correctly show that the car didn't brake, because as far as the car was concerned the driver never pressed them.
"Yes, because the most important part of the log has nothing to do with the brakes at all: acceleration sensors."
They show it driving into the wall. And coming to a rather sudden stop.
Now, for a typical current car, you are right in the sense that any sensor on the pedal is supplementing a mechanical system; but what about a brake-by-wire car where the brake pedal isn't mechanically attached, where a sensor records how much the brake pedal is depressed and relays that back to the computer.... much the same way video game steering and pedal sets work. Where if the 'brake pedal system' fails, and the brake event isn't recorded; the pedal doesn't do anything. And the rest of the car's telemetry agrees that the brakes weren't pushed.
Erm, and you really think this happens all the time????
In a typical cars brakes? No, of course not. They're primarily mechanical on most current cars. But all kinds of electronics and wiring problems do happen; especially as cars age. I had a car that started stalling -- some failure in the ignition switch itself ... the the car thought the ignition had been turned off, when it hadn't been. A friends car had some weird glitch where activating the turn signals turned off the cruise control. (some sort of partial short with the brake lights). I've heard of a cases where when flooring the accelerator, the sunroof opened. Where turning activated the horn. Where hitting a bump in the road would activate something... turn on the radio, sound the horn, flash the highbeams, open the windows, release the trunk... etc. A failing switch or loose wiring, or a short somewhere... it happens ALL THE TIME.
Is it really so hard for you to imagine a drive-by-wire system failing to correctly sense driver inputs? Or to spuriously generate driver events that didn't actually happen? Especially in an intermittent failure mode? Really?
I'd hope (and expect) drive-by-wire brakes to have more robust design and more redundancy then the sunroof controls but i can still envision occasional failures happening.
And in other areas of the car... for example, to disengage the tesla autopilot, all you have to do is push a button. If the switch is starting to go, a bump on the road could trip it. If you aren't paying attention and have an accident, then what... Musk's techs show that you explicitly disengaged the autopilot a full 30 seconds before you drove into oncoming traffic...because the disengage button was logged as pushed... therefore you must have pushed it right? Because never in the history of switches have they ever started to fail and intermittently open or close without deliberate user intervention.
This is so true.
"There is no more "he said/she said" with a Tesla. That car will tell investigators everything."
The car won't lie, but its only as good as it's sensors and programming.
Scenario -- Car hits a concrete wall, catches fire, and partially burns out.
Driver -- car didn't stop when I hit the brakes.
Car logs - driver didn't press on the brakes.
Reality - the brakes WERE depressed; the brake pedal sensors failed and then burned in the fire); and as far as the car's logging system is concerned the brakes were not used prior to the crash.
This kind of failure happens all the time. The self-test reports its fine, but it still doesn't work. The self-test reports it's fine, but its still not sending events properly. The sensor itself is fine, but the events are getting swallowed somewhere else along the way. Or the self-test is fine at cold while idling, but get it scorching hot after a few laps and things start flaking out... add in 10 years wear and tear, humidity, rain, spray, and the ravages of time on rubber, seals, lubricants, sealants... and you really want to bet that the computer log of what happened is infallible?
Its just a new witness to the event, it's more credible than a human in many ways; some of the time; but it's not infallible.
Arguing over the inanities of writers' drama seems like someone ordered a 55 gallon drum of nits from Costco.
I specifically said that it didn't bother me. I completely agree its a TV show.
The fact remains, the ability to auto magically dig through personal logs whenever a writer needs to existed, and more importantly, was used.
But the implications of that capability were never fully explored and integrated. It was a conceit of the setting that they had that this computer capability while somehow it didn't get abused; just like it was a conceit that an individual could own a spaceship that could roll around at the speed of light and they didn't have problems with people suiciding them into inhabited space stations and planets whenever they got depressed.
Standard procedure when an officer went missing was to ask the computer to locate them, and when it couldn't, dump the officer's personal logs for clues about where they had run off. It did happen all the time, crew were always asking the computer when and how other crewmembers left the ship.
Yes, you remember when it happened. You don't remember when it didn't. it certainly did happen when it furthered the plot. But watch through again, and see how often they *didn't* use the computer's universal monitoring when they could have.
Geordi spent an entire episode listening to the personal logs of an officer who went AWOL. Barclay was constantly getting in trouble for abusing the holodeck and his superiors would pull up the log of every program he had used.
I don't deny it happened when it happened. I'm just saying there were a multitude of times where it DIDN'T happen where it should have. just look at episode 2 of stng season one (that's as far as I had to go to find a crazy good example)... all kinds of places where a computer that knows where everyone is at all times, and listens/records everything that happens everywhere on the ship.
I mean less than a minute in before even the opening credits an away team is exploring a ship trying to figure out what happened...no life signs... but no one thought to just ask the computer to play back everything that happened...should have done that before even boarding the ship... of course that might have prevented them contracting the virus in the first place and would have made for a pretty boring episode.
Then they confine geordie to sick bay, and he just walks out. How was that not monitored? How wasn't he immediately run down by the ship who knows where everyone is, and can hear everything everywhere... sure he took off his communicator but so what?... they have to manually search the ship? because the computer couldn't have just told him where he went - figuring out what doors he opened... , etc etc or it couldn't pick him up by voiceprint chatting with Wesley in his room... etc etc etc etc...
I'm not irritated per se, it was a TV show, and although it was decent SF... it wasn't really trying to be a completely internally consistent hard-SF projection of humanity in the future. And It wasn't trying to explore what humanity would look like if it had a computer listening to everything said... that was just a plot gimmick -- used when convenient, forgotten when not. And the show was generally exploring other themes.
Yes, and that's exactly what happened when McCoy and Scott conspired to mutiny against Janice Lester who was impersonating Kirk at the time.
Yeah. One time. Once. On one episode. That's the flaw of star trek as a work of fiction. It would have been always happening, every episode.
The only way Picard or Kirk get away with disobeying orders is by virtue of being at the top of the chain of command and out of radio range of their superiors.
Really? How many episodes did they conspire against a superior officer on their OWN SHIP? Why didn't the ship rat them out?
And how many episodes did little Wesley or Worf or some red-shirt of the week break the rules and not get snitched on by the computer immediately?
How many times did someone go missing or rebel or whatever, without the first command being... hey computer, dump everything that officer said to anyone the last 48 hours, also what were they reading, who were they with, what's the last thing they ate and drank? If that computer were real, that would be step #1 for pretty much everything.