I'm not being critical of you personally, but when people sugarcoat bad aspects of android as if it were a 'feature', it really seems like it's shilling.
If you're not being critical of me, why would you bring this up out of the blue? If you're not accusing me of doing it, who exactly have you seen do this, and what does it have to do with my comment?
The undeletable preinstalled bloatware is incredibly annoying. Merely being able to disable it, sucks too.
I understand that the bloat is annoying, but what sucks about "merely being able to disable it"? Is it just one of those pet-peeve things? If not, what's the actual difference between deleting it and disabling it, and how does it impact you?
Why on earth is it a feature of android that some apps can't be deleted?
It's not; the feature is being able to factory reset the phone to it's original condition at any time. The fact that you cannot delete parts of the original system is a byproduct of that.
Don't pretend that this is an android only thing, either. I've never seen a phone which lets you arbitrarily delete included programs. My original 1990s Nokia certainly wouldn't let you do that, nor any of my subsequent flip phones or BlackBerrys. And certainly the iCrap devices won't let you delete or modify the system in any significant way. So this has always been standard across all mobile devices; the only thing that differs is how much crap is bundled onto them in the first place.
Android is actually superior in one respect; being open source it is relatively easy for me to replace the entire OS on my android phone with a stripped down and customized version. I can't really do that with any of the competing choices.
I, for one, do not understand very well how a nuclear bomb works. But I still think it's generally a bad idea to use them.
You're also not running around screaming about how nuclear bombs don't really work, and that the whole Hiroshima and Nagasaki thing was just propaganda made up by Monsanto to make us think that atoms exist. You know, the kind of idiotic bullshit that the other nimrod was spouting.
Also nobody is suggesting that it's a GOOD idea to use nukes, so you're not a lone crank challenging the scientific consensus. You don't need to know anything about a subject to be able to accept the conclusion of experts. You better know a hell of a lot if you plan to challenge them.
You're a great example of what the article was talking about. You know nothing about the science and have to resort to conspiracy theories in order to prop up your preconceived narrative... yet you speak as if you were an authority on the subject.
Your analogy fails because every single one of us knows (or should know) that our houses are insecure. Lockpicking is shit simple - I do that for fun also - but even without picking locks anyone can get into your house by busting a window, or breaking down the door. Houses aren't meant to be secure, and very few people are interested in implementing the kind of security needed to make them secure. Whereas every admin I've ever met wants to do everything he can to make sure his systems are secure.
In any event, I'm OK with you thinking I'm creepy. That's a subjective valuation which means little to me. I'm not OK with the other fuckwit claiming I'm causing harm.
That's possible; I have no inside info on how exactly they make those determinations so I'm fine with deferring to your anecdote. Either way it's irrelevant. Modern phones come with 32 GB of storage minimum, and most have 64+. Minimizing the system partition would have been helpful when the standard was 8-16, but these days it's entirely pointless. And any such changes aren't going to help you with your old phone anyway.
Every police killing is entirely avoidable if we just convince cops to die instead of shooting first. Is that what you mean by "entirely avoidable"? Or do you have some other objective universal metric you're applying here?
We have the number of deaths. We don't have the number of innocents killed, primarily because "innocent" itself is difficult to quantify and often pretty subjective. You are confusing two different things and then blaming the cops for your ignorance. Status quo.
Round-up causes cancer, albeit only slightly increasing the risk and then only to those directly handling it, according to the available evidence, but Monsanto has used sophistry ("The active ingredient doesn't cause cancer!") to convince people otherwise.
There is zero evidence of that. You're referring to the additives in roundup, but those additives are basically soap, or detergent. The one study which claimed to find a link essentially added soap to a petri dish of cells, and was then amazed when it did bad shit to them.
Is it possible that roundup could cause cancer? Yeah, there's some tiny possibility. But if it does, it would be in concentrations so high that you would pretty much be bathing in the stuff. No consumer is ever going to get cancer from roundup, and no responsible agricultural worker will either. Don't bathe in roundup, and don't drink soap; you'll be fine. For those who do... well, there's always a Darwin Award.
No, fuckwad. Of course there are some scientists in Europe who say such bullshit. Some of those scientists exist in the US also. But the scientific consensus in Europe is the same as the scientific consensus in the USA, which is why every major scientific organization around the globe agrees that there are no extra risks from the currently available GMO crops.
Taking the advice of a handful of cranks is not science-based policy. It's politics.
The system partition is already far larger than it needs to be. Manufactures reserve space for future upgrades. There's no reason to think that they would significantly shrink the system partition just because you forced them to make some of the bloat deletable... especially since they would almost certainly maintain copies of it on the system partition in order to restore them during a "factory reset".
If we really wanted to maximize the amount of space we would just eliminate partitioning entirely. Maybe use BTRFS on android and make the system "partition" just a subvolume, and then have the OS monitor free space and reserve just enough so that it doesn't run into issues. That would definitely give you your space back. However, it's a solution in search of a problem. Most modern phones have way more free space than they really need, and a couple hundred megabytes (or even a whole gigabyte) isn't going to make any real difference to the consumer. Your problem is likely caused entirely by the fact that you have a much older phone which was severely limited on space to begin with.
That would be ideal, yes. Matrix, fpr example, has a lot of promise as a secure distributed platform not controlled by active. The issue as always is momentum. Same reason we still have POTS.
Legally, they're the Japanese government and I doubt there's much stopping them. Would be different in the states.
Even if they don't have the legal authority to patch it, they could almost certainly order the ISP to take that IP offline until the customer has been contacted and has patched the issue.
Yes. I've hacked various networks and then left messages for the admin to fix the vulnerability. Was me doing that worse for them?
As long as the Japanese government is honest about the aim of this project, then the end result will be a benefit for the people of Japan. Of course some transparency and third-party verification would be nice to keep them honest. But there's nothing inherently harmful about what they're doing.
I have been under the impression that the problem with solar as a power source wasn't the collection or direction of light but the conversion process itself, no? If that is the case, how do intensifiers or collectors help with this?
Well, for instance, the solar panels on the market today have efficiency ratings between about 15 and 22 percent. Additionally in the lab there have been examples of panels which were as much as 40% efficient.
The cost of panels tend to reflect their efficiency. You'll pay more for a 22% efficient panel than for a 15% efficient one. If the 40% efficient ones could be mass produced it's safe to assume they would be even more expensive.
If you can have cheap intensifiers then you don't need to buy as many panels. If you need fewer panels then maybe you can afford more expensive ones. If your intensifier has the same surface area as your neighbours non-intensified 15% efficient array, but you are focusing the sunlight hitting that surface onto a much smaller 40% efficient array, you're actually producing twice as much energy as he is, hopefully at a comparable cost.
That's an overly simplistic analysis for sure; how well it actually works in real life will depend on all kinds of factors which I can't possibly fully know right now. But that's the general idea... if you can focus light cheaply, you can have a more efficient system at a lower cost.
Unless the amount of energy you use is zero, inventing a more efficient way of producing energy is still beneficial. Since the world as a whole will continue to use slightly more than zero energy for the foreseeable future, any improvement in the generation of that energy will be massively beneficial.
You're making it into an either/or scenario which is completely absurd.
More and bigger are essentially equivalent in this case. A 200 MW solar array is bigger than a 20 MW solar array... because it has more panels. You're arguing semantics.
End to end enceyption just means they cant view your messages in transit. They own the app. That means they can still view the message at either end point, plus display whatever ads they want in the chat window. I have no evidence that they DO spy on us at the endpoints, but they certainly CAN.
That's why the protocol isn't open. If I could write my own app to use the WhatsApp protocol they would lose all ability to spy on me or advertise to me. Even if they're not doing it now, they definitely want to have the option in the future.
Isn't it interesting how the market haven't provided you with what you want and you have to rely on the legislation in another country for companies to get it.
It is almost as if market capitalism doesn't work as advertised unless there are more than a hundred vendors to choose from.
Market capitalism has never meant that every whim of every individual will be satisfied. You're thinking of "magic".
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not being critical of you personally, but when people sugarcoat bad aspects of android as if it were a 'feature', it really seems like it's shilling.
If you're not being critical of me, why would you bring this up out of the blue? If you're not accusing me of doing it, who exactly have you seen do this, and what does it have to do with my comment?
The undeletable preinstalled bloatware is incredibly annoying. Merely being able to disable it, sucks too.
I understand that the bloat is annoying, but what sucks about "merely being able to disable it"? Is it just one of those pet-peeve things? If not, what's the actual difference between deleting it and disabling it, and how does it impact you?
Why on earth is it a feature of android that some apps can't be deleted?
It's not; the feature is being able to factory reset the phone to it's original condition at any time. The fact that you cannot delete parts of the original system is a byproduct of that.
Don't pretend that this is an android only thing, either. I've never seen a phone which lets you arbitrarily delete included programs. My original 1990s Nokia certainly wouldn't let you do that, nor any of my subsequent flip phones or BlackBerrys. And certainly the iCrap devices won't let you delete or modify the system in any significant way. So this has always been standard across all mobile devices; the only thing that differs is how much crap is bundled onto them in the first place.
Android is actually superior in one respect; being open source it is relatively easy for me to replace the entire OS on my android phone with a stripped down and customized version. I can't really do that with any of the competing choices.
I, for one, do not understand very well how a nuclear bomb works. But I still think it's generally a bad idea to use them.
You're also not running around screaming about how nuclear bombs don't really work, and that the whole Hiroshima and Nagasaki thing was just propaganda made up by Monsanto to make us think that atoms exist. You know, the kind of idiotic bullshit that the other nimrod was spouting.
Also nobody is suggesting that it's a GOOD idea to use nukes, so you're not a lone crank challenging the scientific consensus. You don't need to know anything about a subject to be able to accept the conclusion of experts. You better know a hell of a lot if you plan to challenge them.
You're a great example of what the article was talking about. You know nothing about the science and have to resort to conspiracy theories in order to prop up your preconceived narrative ... yet you speak as if you were an authority on the subject.
It's cute that you think math is faith based.
Your analogy fails because every single one of us knows (or should know) that our houses are insecure. Lockpicking is shit simple - I do that for fun also - but even without picking locks anyone can get into your house by busting a window, or breaking down the door. Houses aren't meant to be secure, and very few people are interested in implementing the kind of security needed to make them secure. Whereas every admin I've ever met wants to do everything he can to make sure his systems are secure.
In any event, I'm OK with you thinking I'm creepy. That's a subjective valuation which means little to me. I'm not OK with the other fuckwit claiming I'm causing harm.
And this time your problem is the use of the word "without", when the discussion is focused on "fewer".
That's possible; I have no inside info on how exactly they make those determinations so I'm fine with deferring to your anecdote. Either way it's irrelevant. Modern phones come with 32 GB of storage minimum, and most have 64+. Minimizing the system partition would have been helpful when the standard was 8-16, but these days it's entirely pointless. And any such changes aren't going to help you with your old phone anyway.
Define "entirely avoidable".
Every police killing is entirely avoidable if we just convince cops to die instead of shooting first. Is that what you mean by "entirely avoidable"? Or do you have some other objective universal metric you're applying here?
We have the number of deaths. We don't have the number of innocents killed, primarily because "innocent" itself is difficult to quantify and often pretty subjective. You are confusing two different things and then blaming the cops for your ignorance. Status quo.
Round-up causes cancer, albeit only slightly increasing the risk and then only to those directly handling it, according to the available evidence, but Monsanto has used sophistry ("The active ingredient doesn't cause cancer!") to convince people otherwise.
There is zero evidence of that. You're referring to the additives in roundup, but those additives are basically soap, or detergent. The one study which claimed to find a link essentially added soap to a petri dish of cells, and was then amazed when it did bad shit to them.
XKCD on point as always:
https://xkcd.com/1217/
Is it possible that roundup could cause cancer? Yeah, there's some tiny possibility. But if it does, it would be in concentrations so high that you would pretty much be bathing in the stuff. No consumer is ever going to get cancer from roundup, and no responsible agricultural worker will either. Don't bathe in roundup, and don't drink soap; you'll be fine. For those who do ... well, there's always a Darwin Award.
The point in any case is are you safe from accidental seeding?
Yes, you are. Provide just one single example of someone being sued for "accidental seeding", or shut the fuck up.
No, fuckwad. Of course there are some scientists in Europe who say such bullshit. Some of those scientists exist in the US also. But the scientific consensus in Europe is the same as the scientific consensus in the USA, which is why every major scientific organization around the globe agrees that there are no extra risks from the currently available GMO crops.
Taking the advice of a handful of cranks is not science-based policy. It's politics.
The system partition is already far larger than it needs to be. Manufactures reserve space for future upgrades. There's no reason to think that they would significantly shrink the system partition just because you forced them to make some of the bloat deletable ... especially since they would almost certainly maintain copies of it on the system partition in order to restore them during a "factory reset".
If we really wanted to maximize the amount of space we would just eliminate partitioning entirely. Maybe use BTRFS on android and make the system "partition" just a subvolume, and then have the OS monitor free space and reserve just enough so that it doesn't run into issues. That would definitely give you your space back. However, it's a solution in search of a problem. Most modern phones have way more free space than they really need, and a couple hundred megabytes (or even a whole gigabyte) isn't going to make any real difference to the consumer. Your problem is likely caused entirely by the fact that you have a much older phone which was severely limited on space to begin with.
I always do. I've yet to see anyone other than you suggest that the market is supposed to be magic, though.
It's not your use of the word "less" that was the issue; it's your use of the word "only".
Clearly my point sailed completely over your head. No, it was not in any way fallacious.
That would be ideal, yes. Matrix, fpr example, has a lot of promise as a secure distributed platform not controlled by active. The issue as always is momentum. Same reason we still have POTS.
Legally, they're the Japanese government and I doubt there's much stopping them. Would be different in the states.
Even if they don't have the legal authority to patch it, they could almost certainly order the ISP to take that IP offline until the customer has been contacted and has patched the issue.
And you're the reason we can't have sensible laws.
Yes. I've hacked various networks and then left messages for the admin to fix the vulnerability. Was me doing that worse for them?
As long as the Japanese government is honest about the aim of this project, then the end result will be a benefit for the people of Japan. Of course some transparency and third-party verification would be nice to keep them honest. But there's nothing inherently harmful about what they're doing.
I have been under the impression that the problem with solar as a power source wasn't the collection or direction of light but the conversion process itself, no? If that is the case, how do intensifiers or collectors help with this?
Well, for instance, the solar panels on the market today have efficiency ratings between about 15 and 22 percent. Additionally in the lab there have been examples of panels which were as much as 40% efficient.
The cost of panels tend to reflect their efficiency. You'll pay more for a 22% efficient panel than for a 15% efficient one. If the 40% efficient ones could be mass produced it's safe to assume they would be even more expensive.
If you can have cheap intensifiers then you don't need to buy as many panels. If you need fewer panels then maybe you can afford more expensive ones. If your intensifier has the same surface area as your neighbours non-intensified 15% efficient array, but you are focusing the sunlight hitting that surface onto a much smaller 40% efficient array, you're actually producing twice as much energy as he is, hopefully at a comparable cost.
That's an overly simplistic analysis for sure; how well it actually works in real life will depend on all kinds of factors which I can't possibly fully know right now. But that's the general idea ... if you can focus light cheaply, you can have a more efficient system at a lower cost.
Unless the amount of energy you use is zero, inventing a more efficient way of producing energy is still beneficial. Since the world as a whole will continue to use slightly more than zero energy for the foreseeable future, any improvement in the generation of that energy will be massively beneficial.
You're making it into an either/or scenario which is completely absurd.
It's great that we have space cadets like you who don't bother reading anything at all and just shit on everyone else.
More and bigger are essentially equivalent in this case. A 200 MW solar array is bigger than a 20 MW solar array ... because it has more panels. You're arguing semantics.
End to end enceyption just means they cant view your messages in transit. They own the app. That means they can still view the message at either end point, plus display whatever ads they want in the chat window. I have no evidence that they DO spy on us at the endpoints, but they certainly CAN.
That's why the protocol isn't open. If I could write my own app to use the WhatsApp protocol they would lose all ability to spy on me or advertise to me. Even if they're not doing it now, they definitely want to have the option in the future.
Isn't it interesting how the market haven't provided you with what you want and you have to rely on the legislation in another country for companies to get it.
It is almost as if market capitalism doesn't work as advertised unless there are more than a hundred vendors to choose from.
Market capitalism has never meant that every whim of every individual will be satisfied. You're thinking of "magic".