Comment Re:Excerpt from owners manual (Score 1) 338
...with remaining eye.
...with remaining eye.
My dad's car did this each time he started it during winter season.
My guess is that that behaviour only exists to add "ice warning" to the car's feature list without adding additional hardware (if temperature sensor is already factored in)
And one of the most annoying side effects is when you just shoveled your car out of the snow (or just spent 2 minutes scratching ice from the windshield - that's enough) and THEN hear that "Ding - it MIGHT be freezing".... "I KNOW THAT FOR SURE YOU %&!#ING %#*!"
Not all people have an "exterior temperature" reading on their car nor do they care to check. If some roads (like bridges) are more susceptible to freezing, or are insanely dangerous when freezing such as a specific stretch that has 10x the accidents of the average iced road, then it could help a little.
If it's only an exterior temperature indicator, it's almost useless. They light up as soon as the temperature is below 4 degrees, so I have a permanent ice warning from October to March. A calendar would serve the same purpose.
It's a shame that fuel costs are making it expensive for big trucks. Fortunately the free market can sort that out - trucking heavy things long distances will become more expensive, and maybe more efficient transport will become more competitive.
Hopefully local (heck, "domestic" would already be a good start!) production of everyday stuff will be competetive again.
Like China? A large nation who's rapidly expanding domestic flights and automobile usage at exponential rates???
No. Like the OTHER China that just a few days ago opened the worlds longest highspeed railroad line:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/04/3164610/china-worlds-longest-high-speed.html
So what exactly was your point again?
Now you see the flaw in railroads being a primary solution to public transportation. Next, you'll be in favor of horse back riding where all we have to do is shovel shit off the dirt roads.
No, I don't see the flaw yet. Please explain.
There's are specialized client for Android, don't know about iSomething.
PC and Linux use a webbased html5/Flash client. Works perfectly on a ChromeOS, and that's basically linux.
And I'd bet my last shirt that she would have done the same if she ended up in a HR position.
Just hope she lerned her lesson from that and spreads it.
Good point. I ignored that as I use a telephone if I need to make a POTS call. My "landline" is a VoIP router anyway, so I don't need skype as a VoIP provider.
OTOH, Skype doesn't have multi-party video conferences and that numerous plugins (from desktop sharing, GDocs/Youtube integration, games and not to forget the silly hats)
Besides that, I expect to GoogleVoice to merge with GTalk/Hangouts soon. Until then, POTs support should be covered by GVoice, at least for some countries.
I'm intrested in that number, too...
But if you get people to accept Win8RT instead of a full desktop app, ChromeOS should be on the safe side....
Yes, though Hangouts are a good replacement.
But it's not a lack of skype, it's a lack of each and every local app, but then again, that's part of the concept.
It was exactly the same when cellphones themselves were expensive gadgets. Their price dropped over the years and now they're pretty commonplace.
Read my complete post. I completly agree with you that optional permissions are lacking on Android.
I don't agree with you that it should be the users choice to break the core funcionality of an app. That would be contradictory to Apples "it just works" philosophy.
If a user is not technical enough to understand "This app requires access to your contacts" and "This app requires dialing phone numbers", they probably should donate their phone for their own good.
Ah, the old "blame the user" tactic of the fanboy.
No objection to that.
Well, these are mobile phones. And mobile phones are meant for ordinary people. If they're not suitable for ordinary people, then that's the fault of the hardware/software, not the user.
Cars are meant for ordinary people too. And that's why we don't let anyone drive but require driving licences. Not because we want to keep it some special privilege, but because it is potentially dangerous. And storing private data in a connected device is not without dangers, too. And with that, there are some responsibilities.
Like servicing your brakes. And if cars are for everyone, not everyone can do that. But the solution is not to do it, but to pay someone to do it. And in exactly the same way, someone has to check an apps data requests against the purpose of it. Either you can do it yourself, or you let someone else do it. Not doing it is a bad idea.
The fact is that there's a better way to do it, and iOS shows the way. Ask the user for permissions for a resource whilst the app is running, the first time the app wants access to that resource. That way the user can better assess the app, and whether it is a reasonable request.
No, definitly no. A user who can't assess OS privileges at install time can't do it at runtime either. We learned that from those personal firewalls that teached users to allow everything because something got blocked every few minutes.
It may come as a surprise to you, but even I think that overall safety is better on iOS. But that's not due to WHEN an app asks for privileges. It's the stricter checks before something goes into the store. It's as simple as with the brakes. You either check those permissions or you let apple do it. The costs here are a loss of flexibility and variety (alternate browser in iOS that is not merely a skin for the built in browser?)
Definitly reduces the malware risks, but not for me, thank you. But I know that this means more responsibility. That is no more elitist than any other kind of DIY.
If a user is not technical enough to understand "This app requires access to your contacts" and "This app requires dialing phone numbers", they probably should donate their phone for their own good.
That's odd, I would like to live in a world where even such people can make use of technology. The world I want to live it allows EVERYONE to benefit from technical advances, not a high-tech priesthood that snickers at the LUsers.
Well, let me rephrase it: In my ideal world, everyone would understand that "This app requires dialing phone numbers" means that this app might dial phone numbers - at your expense. That's not too difficult. OK, I would love to free users from the burden of permission checking, too. But you can't complety block phone or net access, when you WANT half of the apps to have phone or net access.
So how could anyone but the user decide if a required permission is neccessary for what the app is supposed to do? Evil-Flag anyone?
Or you would need a list of "sensible" permissions for each application and check the required permissions against that "sensible" permissions.
A big list of permissions that non-technical users hardly understand helps almost no-one. It allows a technical user to avoid some traps, but it screws over the large majority of users.
If a user is not technical enough to understand "This app requires access to your contacts" and "This app requires dialing phone numbers", they probably should donate their phone for their own good.
The more difficult thing is to judge if those permissions are reasonable for that app they want to install. But as they're the only one who know what for they're installing it, no one can take that burden from them.
Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes. -- Mickey Mouse
