How would you do a traffic study on a network that is encrypted or otherwise as private as it is?
Well I imagine you run an exit node and see what comes through it. Exit nodes are unencrypted (necessarily) so it should be fairly easy to do.
As long as the top level politicians are disciples of the cult of Politically Correctness the real problem, the problem with the Islamic barbarism will still remain.
That is true. Admitting that there is a problem with islam would be a very big step towards improvement. But since this is categorically denied, it is not possible to find a solution.
BTW, the vast majority of the victims of radical islam are themselves muslims. Maybe it is time for muslims to stand up and say, no, peeps, contrary to what political correctness suggest, we actually do have a problem in our religion, and here in the west it is actually possible to do something about it.
The point, rather obviously, is not to exterminate muslims, but to make the fringes of islam less barbaric.
But there's a problem also with assuming that there's a systemic problem with a whole belief system like that. Even if it were true (which I don't think it is, and doesn't seem to be from the muslims that I know) if you start saying there's a problem with this group you single them out for discrimination which is exactly the sort of response that the extreme fringes want you to do.
Depends if someone makes a suggestion that answers...
Yeah cause wanting a laptop means you can infer developer ability. Wait, I can play this game too: I question *your* competence as a developer because you've just made a load of assumptions on a person based on virtually no evidence.
There's a bunch of reasons he could want a laptop, perhaps he works from different sites often?
I'm beginning to think that Android has a real fragmentation problem.
I don't know if you're deliberately taking the piss... you do know people have been saying this for years?
Still, no matter how much it is said it remains to be proved that this is an actual problem rather than an imagined one.
It would be best if Google focuses on offering a top-notch Android experience and - at the same time - alow for Geeks to fiddle with their devices, root them and such.
If Google implements a fixed release cylce and does end-user marketing whilst catering to the geek crows (opinion leaders) at the same time, then they can leapfrog the vendors messing with their own versions of android and allow for more seamless updates. In fact, I think they should offer customisation services for every vendor who want's their own visuals in the launcher and specifically support vendors who stick as close as possible to the mint Android experience.
So this is pretty much what they do do. That freedom to allow 'geeks' to fiddle with their devices is the same freedom the vendors use to customise (and occasionally improve) the experience.
Whatever they do, they have to put some effort into curbing fragmentation, because that's the number 1 thing that bugs Androids attractiveness.
(a) nothing you have suggested helps, you lose the ability to amend the system then you lose the freedom of the system.
(b) perhaps for you, but I doubt most people buying phones are that bothered about upgrades. The missteps that Apple and Google have made in upgrades recently have actually made people not want upgrades. ie, I like the device I bought, please don't change it.
Likewise, if Apple sticks to they minimised choices and manageble line of systems and devices, they'll continue to have the edge in that department and maintain their market, no matter how powerful Google gets in the low- and midrange global markets.
My 2 cents.
The idea that Apple owns the high-end and Android is only mid and low end is hopelessly out-of-date. Perhaps in the US, but the rest of the world Android sits at around 80% share and that is not just mid and low end devices.
What would using Lollipop do for me that whatever version of Android I'm currently using not? Is there a major benefit?
...this being the exact point of the article...
Because it is illegal not to accept it.
Only if you have someone else in your debt. If there's no debt (ie buying an object in a shop) then they can accept or decline whatever form of payment they want. (in the UK atleast)
I think it depends *where* you insure. Like insuring consumer deposits is a good idea because you personally losing all your money to a collapsing bank is catastrophic for you, and it's not like banks would act irresponsibly because they know their *customers* were safe, like they care about their customers. Insuring the entire organisation, which is what we effectively got with TooBigToFail, does make them irresponsible yes because then the existence of the bank itself that employs the people that might act recklessly, is at risk.
With the massive caveat that real money banks are backed and insured at the state-level (atleast in Europe, where most governments guarantee a certain amount of savings), while who the hell knows how well these websites are capitalised and secured.
So who still thinks Bitcoin is a usable practical idea?
I read somewhere that if the games industry had developed with the same protectionism as films then we wouldn't be able to buy games to play at home before they had had a 6 month exclusivity in the arcades...
People still want to see films, but forcing all films through the cinema is just backwards. The infrastructure currrently exists to release all films for home rental immediately! Big films that benefit from it will still play in cinema, but we simply don't need to push every single film through a centralised viewing venue anymore. Cinemas will still exist but they will be fewer, and for special occasions rather than the only route.
Fuck you. You can't tell me what I can think or say.
So, what you're saying is... his right to tell you things is trumped by your wish to not hear things? Freedom of speech does not mean what you think it means...
No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.
