The difference between Aero and accessibility is that Aero added nothing in terms of functionality. It was useless, distracting eye-candy.
The only difference appears to be refusal or inability to understand that ones own opinions and value judgments are not universally shared by all.
The following is true for me "Accessibility adds nothing in terms of functionality. It is useless. Its various secret gestures invoked accidently have in fact wasted my time and distracted me."
The only difference I would never cheer for the removal of a feature that can easily be toggled from a sanely structured stack of options because I respect the needs and choices of people who have different opinions and value judgments from myself.
Bringing Aero back to Windows is one of the top ranked requests on Uservoice.
Tell that to Henry Ford. The KISS system has a lot going for it, and that includes removing useless eye candy bloat that makes the screen appear more cluttered.
The world is bigger than just your opinion. Knobs hidden away in a control panel many are likely to only ever see once are not hurting anyone. Only those who like "eye candy bloat" are being harmed.
I could just as easily assert the accessibility menu should go because KISS... less clutter less options is a good thing...because...ugh... Henry Ford.
And getting rid of Aero (which was a waste of cpu and made it harder for those with low vision to use Vista/Win7, as well as adding to the feel of desktop clutter) is great.
This is nonsense.
You have always had a choice. You could elect to turn off Aero and select larger fonts and high contrast themes.
People who prefer Aero in 8.1 have no choice...they can't turn it back on because it doesn't exist.
I want my phone software to be as lightweight/minimalistic as possible so my phone's battery can last, for example. A desktop doesn't have to care about that at all.
I'm just the opposite. I've always wanted a mobile handset to have a full operating system only with a different or scalable front end/shell. There is no longer a capability gap/excuse not to go there.
I don't buy battery life arguments and see little reason desktop apps would not also benefit from efforts to beat down unnecessary CPU usage including user knobs to freeze unused background tasks/windows.
Most handsets are currently being drained by constant communication with vendor motherships and assorted ad/spy networks which do users little to no good.
I'm tired of all the mobile ecosystem BS sooner it goes away the better. "app stores", walled gardens, no user OS choice, vendors abandoning hardware second of release, insane practice of building operating system images specifically for each and every device, allowing carriers to nerf software, unavoidable vendor "cloud" shit and generally crummy and incomplete APIs and capabilities.
Just make the best phone software, or PC software, you can, don't half-ass both.
I agree what would really suck is something like typical poorly implemented "responsive design" meme infecting the application space and everyone ending up with apps that look and act like shit on both mobile and desktop spaces.
When we are not actively broadcasting our location to third parties as an inherent part of the service? Privacy isn't possible when your phone is broadcasting constantly where it is.
This is really a political issue not a technological one. Just because something is possible does not mean doing it is permissible.
To put it another way just because the walls of your house are probably not thick enough to attenuate high energy x-ray backscatter or a laser based listening devices does not mean LEAs get to drive around and do whatever the fuck they want without first having to make a legal showing.
While I tend to favor technological solutions which deny capability sometimes it is better for everyone if sanity wins out.
Any more than privacy on the internet is possible, since everything you do, by the nature of the internet, passes through multiple parties' anonymous hands.
Privacy on the Internet is very possible because people have full control over packets and are easily able to construct overlay networks to mask even network identities of communicating peers.
The problem is garbage collection runs twice a week in NYC... people are obligated to produce enough waste to keep their cans full.
In all seriousness it isn't fair to compare NYC with Tokyo without compensation for Tokyo being a *much* warmer climate than NYC. I'm not arguing overall point just comparisons need to be apples to apples.
There's only one: you have very little RAM. Then you may well need to use some swap to get a modern browser running well enough to hit newegg or eBay and buy some RAM.
No, not using swap means less memory for applications, buffers and caching of persistent storage. This means degraded performance.
No. Swap causes graceless degradation. It's not so bad if you have SSD or hybrid disk, because it can handle seeking all over hell when it happens. But it's better to just let the OOM killer murder the out-of-control application. Save early, save often.
Let some algorithm determine what is "important".. Sounds like a (misguided) plan.
Swap was awesome back when RAM was expensive.
The equation has not changed.
Now swap is just stupid, unless you know you have a specific use case where it won't unacceptably degrade performance.
On this machine the presence of swap file currently means 6 GB of useless garbage is not loaded into main memory. 6 GB which can now be put to work to improve system performance.
As Heinlein famously put it in his The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (and he was just echoing the sentiment), There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch -- or in this case, a free app.
If they're not charging you, then you (or your time, your attention, or your information) are the product they're charging somebody else for. Or as Heinlein would have put it, even at a charitable soup kitchen you're going to have to listen to a sermon.
I don't think cost explains or excuses this phenomenon. There is always a motive for doing anything but traditionally much of it was side projects, hobbies, getting famous, filling resumes, PR and making money off pay version upgrades... the primary goal was never making money by fucking people over until the rise of the app store.
There must be countless hundreds of unique pieces of "free" software I use all the time on my desktop.. none of it is engaged in this bullshit.
The culprit in my view are perverted market pressures brought about by existence of app stores.
There is no useful quality filter.. You don't go to Walmart and walk out with a "free" or $3 PS4 title. When everything is free people who want to publish real software get fucked over by everyone expecting free or $1.50 while their product appears as just another piece of flotsam in a vast ocean of mostly useless crap.
Couple this with undeserved global exposure all apps automatically get regardless of whether they deserve it or not and feedback loops that make profiting from advertising and spying networks easy for app vendors and you get the current cesspool of mediocrity and hostility.
Was Mr. Gray really a victim or part of the greater problem? He was in fact a habitual
Judging others is a surprisingly worthless enterprise.
criminal with past of selling drugs like heroin.
One of the underlying problems governments face is they refuse to understand use of force to preserve "freedom for all" only works against outliers.
Illicit drug trade is one of the worlds largest enterprises. Millions of people use illicit drugs in the USA. Governments everywhere are squandering their legitimacy to create artificial scarcity fueling a self-destructive feedback loop. As a result entire countries have or are on the verge of loosing their monopoly on the use of force.
Oh and by the way capitalism, technology and global labor markets are not free. If winners (those who have means) are not serious about helping losers don't expect resulting society to not suck.
have military doing crowd control exercises and practicing for martial law and yet we protest over the death of a drug dealer?
We can all walk and chew gum at the same time. Unprofessional behavior of LEA causes real injury and death. Preparing for the next apocalypse is in and of itself mostly harmless.
Yes, let's disarm the police and see how badly order falls in these neighborhoods.
The more you find yourself having to rely on force, rise of police agencies indistinguishable from military and associated panopticon bullshit that would make NSA proud the more you are losing. The focus should be on winning not losing.
I have a nasty habit of blaming the media. Full of tired, utterly lazy and stupid talking heads who increasingly only cares about itself.. willing to accept no responsibility for the aggregate effect of deliberate intentional selection of train wreck narratives propagated 24x7.
Media promotion of FUD and strife is doing real damage poisoning the minds of voters into seeking out counterproductive policy decisions and dividing rather than uniting tribes.
This is done ALL THE TIME by too many entities to even count.
Well then as long as other people are doing it too then it must be ok.
The only time this is potentially bad is when it is done in self interest.
Was this intended to be a tautology? What does any company do that can't be viewed from the prism of self interest? Charitable contributions = PR + Tax benefit. Giving shit away = Free advertising + support + advertising revenue.
This is clearly not the case here.
Clearly.
In this case, the encryption is not about asserting identity,
Well then its worthless.
In this case, the encryption is not about asserting identity, it is about encrypting the data stream from point-to-point.
If you don't know who you are talking to why does it matter that the data stream is encrypted in the first place? What when the other "point" is the front page of the New York times or some random haxor at your friendly neighborhood Starbucks WiFi?
This solves a lot of issues that currently plague the Internet as a whole while
A lot of issues that currently plague... What are you talking about?
I believe this is a move in the right direction and can only help people be more secure, not less.
No question you believe it. But why? Because it solves a lot of unspecified issues?
Universal encryption is much better for us consumers than the current situation.
What current situation? Care to clarify? Most of current day total 0wnage of Internet users has nothing to do with insecure transports and will continue totally unimpeded long after all the transports are "encrypted".
The core problem here the larger you make trust anchors the more incentive exists for adversaries to co-opt them. People look at proliferation of PKI as a positive thing... I don't... I see it as disaster waiting to happen like overprescribing anti-biotics and getting doubly fucked over when it becomes useless.
Global trust anchors play an important role but we need to take responsibility for trust ourselves and diversify as quickly as possible away from them as more localized sources are established...otherwise we will continue to live in our fantasy world where centralized content and security is swell as it represents our best interests. It isn't and won't.
But the government refuses to mandate it, because the government doesn't represent us.
In the US we have a representational democracy. Technology companies are not democracies. I can't write my Mozilla or Google representative or senator to complain... in fact there is often little to no governance structure of any kind. The only means of influence most users have is the ear of their sales rep and associated threat of jumping ship. In this case Firefox is free and site operators don't have any practical say.
It isn't always wrong to use force.
I was not arguing for pacifism only the folly of assuming ends justify means.
It depends on what you use if for and what the consequences of not using it are. In this case, using force is clearly the right thing to do.
So what are the consequences? Why is it clearly the right thing to do? Can you even articulate the problem?
Except this isn't the case. The G3 uses the same technique (only buttons for power/volume on the back, no buttons on the front). For games and apps where you want the extra real estate, go into Settings->Display->Home touch buttons. Then click on 'Hide Home touch buttons'. A list of all your apps will appear, just tick away.
Then when you're in an app you've done this with the bottom buttons will vanish but will re-appear when you slide your finger from the bottom/side of the screen where they normally are. For me, it's intuitive.
I was referring to older models and apologize for "any buttons" what I really meant was the front buttons for navigating the UI not literally a total lack of any physical buttons.
It is true that anyone can adapt to anything and be happy with it yet my point is the change is not for the better... it doesn't accomplish anything other than requiring people to go through unnecessary hoops. It is a step backwards not forwards.
Not sure if you've been watching the news, but China has been using Baidu effectively as a botnet because they are able to intercept and modify javascript sent via HTTP.
Now that you mention it I vaguely remember hearing something about CNNIC and that CAs have effectively become key escrow for governments around the world.
That's what this is plain and simple. They are leveraging their power to affect unrelated change by force.
Doesn't matter what you think about the cause.. ends still don't justify means.
Security (ignoring for a moment endless stream of browser vulnerabilities placing users in harms way) is orthogonal to browser features for the simple and obvious reason organized criminals and stalkers (e.g. multi-billion dollar market intelligence firms) can obtain certificates just as easily as you or I. Just because a site is secure does NOT mean users have any reason to trust it... all cross domain policy needs to be able to withstand this reality.
One thing I find particularly senseless and counterproductive is removal of *all* physical buttons.
The older LG G models had a physical center button and capacitive left and right buttons positioned in the same area of the now useless LG logo at the bottom of the screen of the G4. This new arrangement senselessly wastes display real-estate by taking up screen space which now needs to be dedicated to display of virtual buttons.
Worse than this center button illuminated for notifications.. you were able to set any colors for different types of events and set it to flash so you could just look over and instantly know if there were any missed messages, tasks or calls without powering on the screen in addition to advantage of physical button for answering calls and working task manager.
Microsoft is killing themselves. Lowering the cost of porting applications is no substitute for generating organic demand for a platform people see value in using.
MS has a technologically sound platform yet their desperate attempts at "Apple emulation" is costing them dearly in terms of hackers and developers in a position to want to write software for WP.
The platform is openly hostile to customization and demonstrates no respect for privacy or rights of its users.
In addition to failing to offer basic features available in other platforms including insanely enough even features present in previous generations of "Windows Mobile".
Until this changes good luck getting anyone to care about using the platform much less develop software for it.
FedEx/UPS are bonded, insured, and reliable, and have global logistics chains
Uber is some guy with his mom's car, no commercial license, possibly improper insurance, and quite likely operating as an illegal commercial vehicle in many places.
I just don't see that happening.
Uber's magical thinking that laws don't apply to them tell me they're not what I'd call trustworthy.
This sounds like just an EBay style market for last mile delivery... I think if structured properly it could work with feedback, policing and policy structures in place to reinforce good behavior and quickly weed out bad actors. You can use tamper evident seals/photograph/signoff procedures to keep drivers on the hook legally.
EBay has buyer protection schemes which work for all buyers regardless of seller. Uber could do the same and essentially offer insurance itself for the service as well as requiring their drivers to be properly insured.
While mom's car has no prayer of matching the global throughput of FedEx... For rapid one-off deliveries those physical economies of scale are quite worthless anyway. The big guys hate covering the last mile as it is.
Cue the pseudoscience nutcases who'll cite this as "proof" that fluoridated water is toxic to our chakras or something.
What is the difference between a crackpot spouting nonsense and a skeptic spouting ad hominem nonsense? Neither activity appears to communicate any useful information of any kind.
The problem as I see it stems from well deserved suspicion and lack of trust in government institutions. People see the revolving doors and power of money (Ag lobby especially) and influence... they simply don't trust authorities for historically defensible reasons.
Even if you take the question of safety off the table and simply grant for the sake of argument aspartame is perfectly safe... industry and government still seem quite deserving of every last bit of public rejection.
Every phone seems to have this same issue, but it is not the phones fault. It's the fault of what the owner installs on it. My wifes galaxy mega was great at first, but now that she has all these stupid games installed it is buggy and needs to be restarted regularly.
Blaming applications for screwing up the system is not an acceptable answer in my book. The OS should be capable of gracefully withstanding abuse from user land without freaking out. If it can't it deserves to be called out for its failure.
You're at two events events (leaving one place and appearing at another) separated by what in relativity is called a space-like interval - and by definition there are observers that 'see' them happen at the same time, others that 'see' one happen first, and others that 'see' the other happen first.
Events can appear at same time or not regardless of whether they occurred at the same time or not however there is never an observable ordering disagreement.
My best guess as to what you're trying to say is that because you don't end up in your own past light-cone (i.e. the events don't have an inverted time-like separation) there are no paradoxes, no violations of causality, etc. Which is true if this kind of trav... er... 'changing position' is one-off, or fairly strictly limited in certain ways.
If I appear back on "earth" from "earth2" and announce discovery of a supernova 100 years before that information reaches earth such information at no point traveled superluminally. It went with me thru my shortcut slower than light. Any observer astute enough to know this would not see a problem. Those who see problems are naively drawing out a diagram and concluding a problem because they know only points in space and time without knowing or considering the history of what actually took place.
A much different example of this are twins in rocket ships starting off together yet each going away on separate space adventures. Later they turn around and meet back up in the same place they started. Clocks in each spaceship will read differently based on which spacecraft actually does acceleration and has experienced associated inertia acting upon it. You need the full inertial histories of both crafts to calculate what those time difference would be. In the same way an outside observer needs the full path history that information actually propagated to know whether FTL propagation has actually occurred.
If one of the spacecraft were to go through a wormhole their inertial history would not be changed as a result and neither would their clock or energy not in their frame or relative to their twins frame or anyone else's as a consequence of traveling through the wormhole.. not when their inside of it nor when they emerge on the other end of it.
I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. "Magic" or not, you'd be travelling outside of your future light cone
There is no traveling. One moment here the next 100 light years away without propagation through 100 light years worth of space to get there.
and that's exactly the problem - to you and people on Earth it would appear instantaneous, but for some observers you would be traveling backward in time.
You use the word "traveling" which is not occurring. Superluminal "traveling" = backwards time travel. If you don't propagate information superluminally there is no backwards travel.
On other words, "instant" travel is nonsense because spatially separated things can't happen "at the same time" for all observers. Relativity of simultaneity and all that.
Yes instant travel is nonsense. Instantly appearing out of thin air without traveling through intervening space is what I'm talking about.
The distinction is important because when traveling through a shortcut consisting of region of negative density (wormhole) you are not traveling 100 light years you might be traveling only a mile as agreeable to all relatively stationary observers to the shortcut. It might be hard or impossible to actually see you moving only a mile... many may be tricked into thinking you went 100 light years... but that didn't actually happen.
Lets say there are two points in space and two ways to get there.
Normal distance between Point A and Point B is 100 light years.
Shortcut distance between the very same Point A and Point B is 1 mile.
If you were to travel through 100 light years of space in 4 minutes to get to Point B.. that would be crazy and all the superluminal time reversals in all applicable reference frames are legitimate.
If however you were to travel to Point B from Point A traveling through just a mile worth of space at a comfortable 15mph.. nobody sees a time reversal in any frame of reference.
How you got from point A to point B made all the difference in the world.
There are many variations of this. One I *think* works (but I don't have the skill to check) is that the universe is "sort of" like a simulation, where only macroscopic items have a defined state
Favorite simulation analogy paints entanglement as the consistency contract of some sort of transactional memory controller.
People are forbidden from seeing sausage being compiled because conveyance of this knowledge violates the consistency contract leading to undefinable behavior and is frankly gross. "Dirty read" = NMI = BSOD = Matrix Reloaded.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference between Aero and accessibility is that Aero added nothing in terms of functionality. It was useless, distracting eye-candy.
The only difference appears to be refusal or inability to understand that ones own opinions and value judgments are not universally shared by all.
The following is true for me "Accessibility adds nothing in terms of functionality. It is useless. Its various secret gestures invoked accidently have in fact wasted my time and distracted me."
The only difference I would never cheer for the removal of a feature that can easily be toggled from a sanely structured stack of options because I respect the needs and choices of people who have different opinions and value judgments from myself.
Bringing Aero back to Windows is one of the top ranked requests on Uservoice.
Tell that to Henry Ford. The KISS system has a lot going for it, and that includes removing useless eye candy bloat that makes the screen appear more cluttered.
The world is bigger than just your opinion. Knobs hidden away in a control panel many are likely to only ever see once are not hurting anyone. Only those who like "eye candy bloat" are being harmed.
I could just as easily assert the accessibility menu should go because KISS... less clutter less options is a good thing...because...ugh... Henry Ford.
And getting rid of Aero (which was a waste of cpu and made it harder for those with low vision to use Vista/Win7, as well as adding to the feel of desktop clutter) is great.
This is nonsense.
You have always had a choice. You could elect to turn off Aero and select larger fonts and high contrast themes.
People who prefer Aero in 8.1 have no choice...they can't turn it back on because it doesn't exist.
Lack of choice is not a feature.
I want my phone software to be as lightweight/minimalistic as possible so my phone's battery can last, for example. A desktop doesn't have to care about that at all.
I'm just the opposite. I've always wanted a mobile handset to have a full operating system only with a different or scalable front end/shell. There is no longer a capability gap/excuse not to go there.
I don't buy battery life arguments and see little reason desktop apps would not also benefit from efforts to beat down unnecessary CPU usage including user knobs to freeze unused background tasks/windows.
Most handsets are currently being drained by constant communication with vendor motherships and assorted ad/spy networks which do users little to no good.
I'm tired of all the mobile ecosystem BS sooner it goes away the better. "app stores", walled gardens, no user OS choice, vendors abandoning hardware second of release, insane practice of building operating system images specifically for each and every device, allowing carriers to nerf software, unavoidable vendor "cloud" shit and generally crummy and incomplete APIs and capabilities.
Just make the best phone software, or PC software, you can, don't half-ass both.
I agree what would really suck is something like typical poorly implemented "responsive design" meme infecting the application space and everyone ending up with apps that look and act like shit on both mobile and desktop spaces.
When we are not actively broadcasting our location to third parties as an inherent part of the service? Privacy isn't possible when your phone is broadcasting constantly where it is.
This is really a political issue not a technological one. Just because something is possible does not mean doing it is permissible.
To put it another way just because the walls of your house are probably not thick enough to attenuate high energy x-ray backscatter or a laser based listening devices does not mean LEAs get to drive around and do whatever the fuck they want without first having to make a legal showing.
While I tend to favor technological solutions which deny capability sometimes it is better for everyone if sanity wins out.
Any more than privacy on the internet is possible, since everything you do, by the nature of the internet, passes through multiple parties' anonymous hands.
Privacy on the Internet is very possible because people have full control over packets and are easily able to construct overlay networks to mask even network identities of communicating peers.
When do we have an expectation of privacy anymore?
When enough people stand up and demand it.
The problem is garbage collection runs twice a week in NYC... people are obligated to produce enough waste to keep their cans full.
In all seriousness it isn't fair to compare NYC with Tokyo without compensation for Tokyo being a *much* warmer climate than NYC. I'm not arguing overall point just comparisons need to be apples to apples.
There's only one: you have very little RAM. Then you may well need to use some swap to get a modern browser running well enough to hit newegg or eBay and buy some RAM.
No, not using swap means less memory for applications, buffers and caching of persistent storage. This means degraded performance.
No. Swap causes graceless degradation. It's not so bad if you have SSD or hybrid disk, because it can handle seeking all over hell when it happens. But it's better to just let the OOM killer murder the out-of-control application. Save early, save often.
Let some algorithm determine what is "important".. Sounds like a (misguided) plan.
Swap was awesome back when RAM was expensive.
The equation has not changed.
Now swap is just stupid, unless you know you have a specific use case where it won't unacceptably degrade performance.
On this machine the presence of swap file currently means 6 GB of useless garbage is not loaded into main memory. 6 GB which can now be put to work to improve system performance.
No hardware or software requirements?
Perhaps this is more your speed:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Wyse-W...
As Heinlein famously put it in his The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (and he was just echoing the sentiment), There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch -- or in this case, a free app.
If they're not charging you, then you (or your time, your attention, or your information) are the product they're charging somebody else for. Or as Heinlein would have put it, even at a charitable soup kitchen you're going to have to listen to a sermon.
I don't think cost explains or excuses this phenomenon. There is always a motive for doing anything but traditionally much of it was side projects, hobbies, getting famous, filling resumes, PR and making money off pay version upgrades... the primary goal was never making money by fucking people over until the rise of the app store.
There must be countless hundreds of unique pieces of "free" software I use all the time on my desktop.. none of it is engaged in this bullshit.
The culprit in my view are perverted market pressures brought about by existence of app stores.
There is no useful quality filter.. You don't go to Walmart and walk out with a "free" or $3 PS4 title. When everything is free people who want to publish real software get fucked over by everyone expecting free or $1.50 while their product appears as just another piece of flotsam in a vast ocean of mostly useless crap.
Couple this with undeserved global exposure all apps automatically get regardless of whether they deserve it or not and feedback loops that make profiting from advertising and spying networks easy for app vendors and you get the current cesspool of mediocrity and hostility.
Was Mr. Gray really a victim or part of the greater problem? He was in fact a habitual
Judging others is a surprisingly worthless enterprise.
criminal with past of selling drugs like heroin.
One of the underlying problems governments face is they refuse to understand use of force to preserve "freedom for all" only works against outliers.
Illicit drug trade is one of the worlds largest enterprises. Millions of people use illicit drugs in the USA. Governments everywhere are squandering their legitimacy to create artificial scarcity fueling a self-destructive feedback loop. As a result entire countries have or are on the verge of loosing their monopoly on the use of force.
Oh and by the way capitalism, technology and global labor markets are not free. If winners (those who have means) are not serious about helping losers don't expect resulting society to not suck.
have military doing crowd control exercises and practicing for martial law and yet we protest over the death of a drug dealer?
We can all walk and chew gum at the same time. Unprofessional behavior of LEA causes real injury and death. Preparing for the next apocalypse is in and of itself mostly harmless.
Yes, let's disarm the police and see how badly order falls in these neighborhoods.
The more you find yourself having to rely on force, rise of police agencies indistinguishable from military and associated panopticon bullshit that would make NSA proud the more you are losing. The focus should be on winning not losing.
I have a nasty habit of blaming the media. Full of tired, utterly lazy and stupid talking heads who increasingly only cares about itself.. willing to accept no responsibility for the aggregate effect of deliberate intentional selection of train wreck narratives propagated 24x7.
Media promotion of FUD and strife is doing real damage poisoning the minds of voters into seeking out counterproductive policy decisions and dividing rather than uniting tribes.
This is done ALL THE TIME by too many entities to even count.
Well then as long as other people are doing it too then it must be ok.
The only time this is potentially bad is when it is done in self interest.
Was this intended to be a tautology? What does any company do that can't be viewed from the prism of self interest? Charitable contributions = PR + Tax benefit. Giving shit away = Free advertising + support + advertising revenue.
This is clearly not the case here.
Clearly.
In this case, the encryption is not about asserting identity,
Well then its worthless.
In this case, the encryption is not about asserting identity, it is about encrypting the data stream from point-to-point.
If you don't know who you are talking to why does it matter that the data stream is encrypted in the first place? What when the other "point" is the front page of the New York times or some random haxor at your friendly neighborhood Starbucks WiFi?
This solves a lot of issues that currently plague the Internet as a whole while
A lot of issues that currently plague... What are you talking about?
I believe this is a move in the right direction and can only help people be more secure, not less.
No question you believe it. But why? Because it solves a lot of unspecified issues?
Universal encryption is much better for us consumers than the current situation.
What current situation? Care to clarify? Most of current day total 0wnage of Internet users has nothing to do with insecure transports and will continue totally unimpeded long after all the transports are "encrypted".
The core problem here the larger you make trust anchors the more incentive exists for adversaries to co-opt them. People look at proliferation of PKI as a positive thing... I don't... I see it as disaster waiting to happen like overprescribing anti-biotics and getting doubly fucked over when it becomes useless.
Global trust anchors play an important role but we need to take responsibility for trust ourselves and diversify as quickly as possible away from them as more localized sources are established...otherwise we will continue to live in our fantasy world where centralized content and security is swell as it represents our best interests. It isn't and won't.
But the government refuses to mandate it, because the government doesn't represent us.
In the US we have a representational democracy. Technology companies are not democracies. I can't write my Mozilla or Google representative or senator to complain... in fact there is often little to no governance structure of any kind. The only means of influence most users have is the ear of their sales rep and associated threat of jumping ship. In this case Firefox is free and site operators don't have any practical say.
It isn't always wrong to use force.
I was not arguing for pacifism only the folly of assuming ends justify means.
It depends on what you use if for and what the consequences of not using it are. In this case, using force is clearly the right thing to do.
So what are the consequences? Why is it clearly the right thing to do? Can you even articulate the problem?
Except this isn't the case. The G3 uses the same technique (only buttons for power/volume on the back, no buttons on the front).
For games and apps where you want the extra real estate, go into Settings->Display->Home touch buttons.
Then click on 'Hide Home touch buttons'. A list of all your apps will appear, just tick away.
Then when you're in an app you've done this with the bottom buttons will vanish but will re-appear when you slide your finger from the bottom/side of the screen where they normally are. For me, it's intuitive.
I was referring to older models and apologize for "any buttons" what I really meant was the front buttons for navigating the UI not literally a total lack of any physical buttons.
It is true that anyone can adapt to anything and be happy with it yet my point is the change is not for the better... it doesn't accomplish anything other than requiring people to go through unnecessary hoops. It is a step backwards not forwards.
Not sure if you've been watching the news, but China has been using Baidu effectively as a botnet because they are able to intercept and modify javascript sent via HTTP.
Now that you mention it I vaguely remember hearing something about CNNIC and that CAs have effectively become key escrow for governments around the world.
That's what this is plain and simple. They are leveraging their power to affect unrelated change by force.
Doesn't matter what you think about the cause.. ends still don't justify means.
Security (ignoring for a moment endless stream of browser vulnerabilities placing users in harms way) is orthogonal to browser features for the simple and obvious reason organized criminals and stalkers (e.g. multi-billion dollar market intelligence firms) can obtain certificates just as easily as you or I. Just because a site is secure does NOT mean users have any reason to trust it... all cross domain policy needs to be able to withstand this reality.
Do not want.
One thing I find particularly senseless and counterproductive is removal of *all* physical buttons.
The older LG G models had a physical center button and capacitive left and right buttons positioned in the same area of the now useless LG logo at the bottom of the screen of the G4. This new arrangement senselessly wastes display real-estate by taking up screen space which now needs to be dedicated to display of virtual buttons.
Worse than this center button illuminated for notifications.. you were able to set any colors for different types of events and set it to flash so you could just look over and instantly know if there were any missed messages, tasks or calls without powering on the screen in addition to advantage of physical button for answering calls and working task manager.
Microsoft is killing themselves. Lowering the cost of porting applications is no substitute for generating organic demand for a platform people see value in using.
MS has a technologically sound platform yet their desperate attempts at "Apple emulation" is costing them dearly in terms of hackers and developers in a position to want to write software for WP.
The platform is openly hostile to customization and demonstrates no respect for privacy or rights of its users.
In addition to failing to offer basic features available in other platforms including insanely enough even features present in previous generations of "Windows Mobile".
Until this changes good luck getting anyone to care about using the platform much less develop software for it.
FedEx/UPS are bonded, insured, and reliable, and have global logistics chains
Uber is some guy with his mom's car, no commercial license, possibly improper insurance, and quite likely operating as an illegal commercial vehicle in many places.
I just don't see that happening.
Uber's magical thinking that laws don't apply to them tell me they're not what I'd call trustworthy.
This sounds like just an EBay style market for last mile delivery... I think if structured properly it could work with feedback, policing and policy structures in place to reinforce good behavior and quickly weed out bad actors. You can use tamper evident seals/photograph/signoff procedures to keep drivers on the hook legally.
EBay has buyer protection schemes which work for all buyers regardless of seller. Uber could do the same and essentially offer insurance itself for the service as well as requiring their drivers to be properly insured.
While mom's car has no prayer of matching the global throughput of FedEx... For rapid one-off deliveries those physical economies of scale are quite worthless anyway. The big guys hate covering the last mile as it is.
Cue the pseudoscience nutcases who'll cite this as "proof" that fluoridated water is toxic to our chakras or something.
What is the difference between a crackpot spouting nonsense and a skeptic spouting ad hominem nonsense? Neither activity appears to communicate any useful information of any kind.
There are two major reasons why people incorrectly think aspartame causes cancer:
Just because al gore gets on TV and spouts unsupported nonsense about climate change does not mean climate change isn't real.
Here is another link you might be interested in:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
The problem as I see it stems from well deserved suspicion and lack of trust in government institutions. People see the revolving doors and power of money (Ag lobby especially) and influence... they simply don't trust authorities for historically defensible reasons.
Even if you take the question of safety off the table and simply grant for the sake of argument aspartame is perfectly safe... industry and government still seem quite deserving of every last bit of public rejection.
Every phone seems to have this same issue, but it is not the phones fault. It's the fault of what the owner installs on it. My wifes galaxy mega was great at first, but now that she has all these stupid games installed it is buggy and needs to be restarted regularly.
Blaming applications for screwing up the system is not an acceptable answer in my book. The OS should be capable of gracefully withstanding abuse from user land without freaking out. If it can't it deserves to be called out for its failure.
You're at two events events (leaving one place and appearing at another) separated by what in relativity is called a space-like interval - and by definition there are observers that 'see' them happen at the same time, others that 'see' one happen first, and others that 'see' the other happen first.
Events can appear at same time or not regardless of whether they occurred at the same time or not however there is never an observable ordering disagreement.
My best guess as to what you're trying to say is that because you don't end up in your own past light-cone (i.e. the events don't have an inverted time-like separation) there are no paradoxes, no violations of causality, etc. Which is true if this kind of trav ... er ... 'changing position' is one-off, or fairly strictly limited in certain ways.
If I appear back on "earth" from "earth2" and announce discovery of a supernova 100 years before that information reaches earth such information at no point traveled superluminally. It went with me thru my shortcut slower than light. Any observer astute enough to know this would not see a problem. Those who see problems are naively drawing out a diagram and concluding a problem because they know only points in space and time without knowing or considering the history of what actually took place.
A much different example of this are twins in rocket ships starting off together yet each going away on separate space adventures. Later they turn around and meet back up in the same place they started. Clocks in each spaceship will read differently based on which spacecraft actually does acceleration and has experienced associated inertia acting upon it. You need the full inertial histories of both crafts to calculate what those time difference would be. In the same way an outside observer needs the full path history that information actually propagated to know whether FTL propagation has actually occurred.
If one of the spacecraft were to go through a wormhole their inertial history would not be changed as a result and neither would their clock or energy not in their frame or relative to their twins frame or anyone else's as a consequence of traveling through the wormhole.. not when their inside of it nor when they emerge on the other end of it.
I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. "Magic" or not, you'd be travelling outside of your future light cone
There is no traveling. One moment here the next 100 light years away without propagation through 100 light years worth of space to get there.
and that's exactly the problem - to you and people on Earth it would appear instantaneous, but for some observers you would be traveling backward in time.
You use the word "traveling" which is not occurring. Superluminal "traveling" = backwards time travel. If you don't propagate information superluminally there is no backwards travel.
On other words, "instant" travel is nonsense because spatially separated things can't happen "at the same time" for all observers. Relativity of simultaneity and all that.
Yes instant travel is nonsense. Instantly appearing out of thin air without traveling through intervening space is what I'm talking about.
The distinction is important because when traveling through a shortcut consisting of region of negative density (wormhole) you are not traveling 100 light years you might be traveling only a mile as agreeable to all relatively stationary observers to the shortcut. It might be hard or impossible to actually see you moving only a mile... many may be tricked into thinking you went 100 light years... but that didn't actually happen.
Lets say there are two points in space and two ways to get there.
Normal distance between Point A and Point B is 100 light years.
Shortcut distance between the very same Point A and Point B is 1 mile.
If you were to travel through 100 light years of space in 4 minutes to get to Point B.. that would be crazy and all the superluminal time reversals in all applicable reference frames are legitimate.
If however you were to travel to Point B from Point A traveling through just a mile worth of space at a comfortable 15mph.. nobody sees a time reversal in any frame of reference.
How you got from point A to point B made all the difference in the world.
There are many variations of this. One I *think* works (but I don't have the skill to check) is that the universe is "sort of" like a simulation, where only macroscopic items have a defined state
Favorite simulation analogy paints entanglement as the consistency contract of some sort of transactional memory controller.
People are forbidden from seeing sausage being compiled because conveyance of this knowledge violates the consistency contract leading to undefinable behavior and is frankly gross. "Dirty read" = NMI = BSOD = Matrix Reloaded.