Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Yes, worse (Score 1) 178

by hairyfeet (#48184067) Attached to: If You're Connected, Apple Collects Your Data

I would only add there is a legitimate REASON for it in an ALPHA BUILD, its so that MSFT can find out which ones of the literally tens of millions of software programs that run on Windows need shims,compatibility modes, or be outright blocked for being incompatible. there is no way in hell even a company the size of MSFT can test THAT many programs so they let us try it before it comes out (which benefits guys like me who can see if our customers would be able to use it) and in return you do just as I've done and let 'em find out which programs don't work and give 'em feedback. They tell you exactly what they are doing ahead of time and again it costs you NOTHING to install this OS and try it on as many boxes as you want.

With Apple the cheapest unit is...what $600 for the Mini? And most have Macbooks which start at like a grand...and they are gonna datamine your ass on TOP of the insane amount of profit margin they are making on their hardware? really? There is greedy and there is fucking greedy piggies, it sounds like we have a case of the latter here folks. I wish this surprised me but sadly it don't, I have customers that were hardcore Macbook users and I've seen Applecare go from "If we built it we service it" to "Oh that an older model we don't fix those...wanna buy a new one?" so this really doesn't surprise me, should have known with Cook starting out in supply that quality would go down while monetizing would go up.

Comment: Re:That's absurd, aim your hate cannon elsewhere. (Score 1) 179

by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (#48183517) Attached to: If You're Connected, Apple Collects Your Data

People love to hate Apple. It's a thing. Also, is there any evidence this data is not anonymised by Apple?

'Anonymised' is mostly a weasel word. It isn't always impossible; but the more interesting the dataset is, the more likely it is that there's a clever re-identification attack with good odds of success. If you are serious about preventing those, you tend to have to nuke the data so hard that they aren't of much interest anymore.

Unless robustly demonstrated to the contrary, it's an essentially worthless claim.

Comment: Re:Trolls are the lowest form of life. . . (Score 1) 214

by hey! (#48183297) Attached to: In UK, Internet Trolls Could Face Two Years In Jail

Well, every generalization has its corner cases that require careful thought. So while I agree that trolling per se shouldn't be outlawed, there may be certain uses of trolling that should be criminalized.

Take the libelous component of cyberstalking. At the very least this could be an aggravating factor in impersonation. Also, the law already recognizes libel as wrong, but it requires the harmed person take civil action. The Internet exposes more people than ever to reputation harm, but not all those people have the money to hire a lawyer. Social media have created a whole new vista for defamation, much of which is *practically* immune from any consequences.

So I do not in principle object to a law that criminalizes *some* forms of defamation, particularly against people who are not protected by the current laws. But I'd have to look at the the specific proposed law carefully. Just because people *claim* a new law would do something doesn't mean it does, or that's all it does.

Comment: Re:Ahhhh.... (Score 1) 214

by flyneye (#48183295) Attached to: In UK, Internet Trolls Could Face Two Years In Jail

Yeah, whatever. Chris Grayling needs to brush the goo out of his teeth before appearing in a news article looking like an inbred version of James Spader yodeling behavior modification for the world, into the tiny microphone between his legs. He just needs to stick his head right back up his ass , and not come out 'till his teeth are properly brushed.
            I'll troll queenie till he cries, what's he gonna do, write a strong letter of protest?

Comment: My stubby telomeres (Score 1) 243

by PopeRatzo (#48182751) Attached to: Soda Pop Damages Your Cells' Telomeres

participants who drank pop daily had shorter telomeres

I didn't know I had telomeres until about five minutes ago.

And wait a minute, when they say, "pop", are they talking about any carbonated beverage? Is the problem the carbonation or the crap they put in pop to make it sweet and neon-colored and buzz-causing and impervious to going bad for 500 years?

I need to know, because I've become enamored of my Sodastream machine, which turns water into fizzy water. I can't drink pop because I play the chromatic harmonica and any kind of drink with sugar or caramel color will foul up the reeds and valves. But fizzy water is perfect because it's refreshing, and it wets my whistle (which is important for playing the chromatic harmonica) and allows me to belch "When the Saints Go Marching In". Seriously, I love those carbonated belches. I keep them on the down-low when I'm around others, but I've scared the hell out of the cat a few times with a belch that registers 6.4 on the richter scale. It doesn't startle the dog, but she does wag her tail as if to say, "nice rip, bro".

So, does this research mean that the fizzy water I drink (no added flavor, except occasionally I'll add a little spearmint or hibiscus tea) is going to give me stubby little telomeres? And does the length of my telomeres matter as long as they have sufficient girth? I need to know right away.

Comment: Well, that is not the only reason they go down (Score 4, Interesting) 243

by houghi (#48182307) Attached to: Soda Pop Damages Your Cells' Telomeres

My Great aunt, who donated her body to Science (Also in an Open Source way(1)) never drank any Cola, yet they were still way down when she died at the age of 115.

A search on van andel telomeres will give more detail. I have the study somewhere around here, but am not able to find it just now.

(1) Not only did she donated her body to science, she wanted the science to be used for people to learn AND have her name linked to it. To be honest, she thought she would end up on a shelf somewhere after they cut her up. She never thought it would result in so much results in research.

Also because of her, they now have proof that alzheimers is not a given with old age thus a solution is at least possible. There were no traces of Alzheimers found anywhere.

Comment: Re: The language in the old west (Score 1) 380

by BasilBrush (#48182211) Attached to: Torvalds: I Made Community-Building Mistakes With Linux

Pretty plain and easy for anyone to parse.

Except for by you it seems.

Oh, so now you are saying that experiments are valid only if there is zero context? No specific inputs? No theory to test against? That's not an experiment.

My point is that context matters. You picking a specific one in your "experiment" only demonstrates it. Pick a different context and there would be different results. That would also demonstrate my point. Between the two they prove my point.

Fact: Those are single words.

They are single word sentences in a context of name calling. If instead a woman had said to her partner "Mmmm... I like it when you lick my cunt." there would have been no insult, no offence, and no reason not to use the word cunt.

You're proving yourself to be a moron. But then you'd already given that impression with the whole avoiding swear words and substituting a punctuation for letters thing.

Comment: Re:The language in the old west (Score 1) 380

by BasilBrush (#48182137) Attached to: Torvalds: I Made Community-Building Mistakes With Linux

the real world IS the context

Absolute nonsense. The real world has a multiplicity of possible contexts. You presented one very specific one.

Either admit your hypothesis as originally formulated was weak, or flawed, or did not apply to the real world, or was simply wrong. Your explanations of how you're "still right", coupled with your continued insults at myself and anyone else who disagrees, are simply not going to cut it.

The fact that you don't see how you are wrong doesn't make you right. What I said from the start was 100% correct. I've explained why 3 times now. And another poster has done too.

coupled with your continued insults at myself

Note I'm being insulting without using swear words. Equally I could be non-insulting whilst using them. Another nice illustration of my point that it's not the individual words that matter but the meaning conveyed in a specific context.

Comment: Re:Or not (Score 1) 294

by BasilBrush (#48182091) Attached to: Apple Doesn't Design For Yesterday

"buttons" that are nothing but text... who was the dimwit that thought that was an "advance", I wonder?

Most clickable things on the web don't have boxes to make them look like physical buttons. No one has a problem with that. The only reason you think you need them in native apps is because you're used to them.

Apple gets rid of that blind, tasteless cluetard Ives

Are you determined to look like you haven't a clue yourself? Ives is probably the worlds foremost product designer, or certainly in the top 10. Who are you? What's your design claim to fame?

It's not just your Mac that's past it's sell-by date. It's your opinions. You're one of these people that will always be a reactionary against change. Not because it's bad but because you don't like the unfamiliar.

Never tell people how to do things. Tell them WHAT to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity. -- Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.

Working...