SpaghettiCarbonara

So this is going to be a bit of a rant. If you're one of those people that rush to reply to something with a one line reply, move on.
 
 
When I first joined this forum, I joined with the impression that it was a place full of smart people who knew what they were talking about and took the time to explain stuff and help guys like me (complete noobs) out. That's exactly what I got. The first few topics I posted had some really good replies IIRC, I was really impressed with this forum and I was recommending it to anyone with computer-related problems, after trying to help them out myself, of course.
 
However, over time, I noticed more and more people were not reading what I had said and really seemed like they were just rushing to get an answer in. I started seeing responses that didn't make sense, responses that weren't even relevant to what I had asked and really short, one line replies.
 
For example, here's my first post and here's my most recent post.
 
As you can see on my first post, the very first reply was not something I would consider "half-assed". It was a simple question, so it's a simple answer. The amount of effort that guy went to to actually answer my question is a lot more than he could have. He could have just said "No." or something similar, but he went and got a picture to illustrate his point.
 
My most recent post, however, is not like that at all. It's a question that required in-depth answers and I didn't get that. I got off-topic answers, short answers and just general comments. I got one good, detailed reply and a reply with a lot of effort put into it, but it was off-topic.
 
Now you could argue that those are two very different questions and I agree. One is a simple question, the other is a more complicated and specific one. It's about the level of effort that goes into the responses compared to the nature of the question for me.
 
I'll admit that my posts are bad examples but I used them because I could easily find them as opposed to random bits and pieces of bad responses all over the forum.
 
It's getting really bad guys, I see this all over the place and waaay too much. If you can't be bothered reading the post, don't respond to it.
 
Edit for clarification:
 
Because people obviously didn't read what I was saying, I'm complaining about people rushing to answer something just to get their post count up without even reading OP's post or giving much thought to it.
I know my examples are bad, I used them because they were easy to get to. I know full-well that most of the responses in my posts were good.
 
Thank you to the people that took the time to read this and understand what I'm saying. You don't know how much better you make my experience on this forum (a lot better).

If you don't think privacy is an issue, please close this tab.

I'm thinking of getting a new phone (finally sick of WP8.1 after 3 years, never needed to switch but the shit app store got to me) and I can't afford an iPhone. I've heard Android is really bad for privacy, but is it just a matter of flicking a few switches in the settings and being vigilant?

No worries, There are two suggestions for you:-
 
1) If you want/need a warranty, go with something like you have already looked at, ie the Samsung j5. Or get a recommendation from a friend that has a decent Android phone.
2) If you're not too worried about warranty, you can get better specced hardware generally by buying one direct from China, have a look at  http://www.dx.com/
http://gearbest.com/
 
I would suggest deciding on what matters to you most, phone size/battery capacity/4G/3G/screen resolution/camera resolution/video camera resolution/OS version/easily rooted etc
 
 

Yes, it does.
 
'Open source' literally means that the source (i.e. original, raw, before compilation) code of the program is open to anyone, i.e. anyone can see it, use it (although copyright may protect it from monetisation attempts) and build on it. When AMD make their programs open source, they're saying to other developers "hey, come have a look at the guts of our program, do whatever you want with it!"

This means that if Nvidia's hardware doesn't perform as well on WD2 (assuming AMD's WD2 stuff is open source, also assuming they have any software for the game at all), it's their own damn fault. If their hardware runs poorly in this game because of AMD's open source software, it means either Nvidia were lazy or are trying to make AMD look bad. AMD would have given them the bloody blueprints of the software, so it is out of AMD's hands.
 
I would've thought this is common knowledge. If you're trying to mislead people, shame on you.

damn, what a negative discussion... About a simple news item. And we are talking about lots of irrelevant stuff like Linux or openGL performance.

Yes, it does.
 
'Open source' literally means that the source (i.e. original, raw, before compilation) code of the program is open to anyone, i.e. anyone can see it, use it (although copyright may protect it from monetisation attempts) and build on it. When AMD make their programs open source, they're saying to other developers "hey, come have a look at the guts of our program, do whatever you want with it!"

This means that if Nvidia's hardware doesn't perform as well on WD2 (assuming AMD's WD2 stuff is open source, also assuming they have any software for the game at all), it's their own damn fault. If their hardware runs poorly in this game because of AMD's open source software, it means either Nvidia were lazy or are trying to make AMD look bad. AMD would have given them the bloody blueprints of the software, so it is out of AMD's hands.
 
I would've thought this is common knowledge. If you're trying to mislead people, shame on you.

Yes, it does.
 
'Open source' literally means that the source (i.e. original, raw, before compilation) code of the program is open to anyone, i.e. anyone can see it, use it (although copyright may protect it from monetisation attempts) and build on it. When AMD make their programs open source, they're saying to other developers "hey, come have a look at the guts of our program, do whatever you want with it!"

This means that if Nvidia's hardware doesn't perform as well on WD2 (assuming AMD's WD2 stuff is open source, also assuming they have any software for the game at all), it's their own damn fault. If their hardware runs poorly in this game because of AMD's open source software, it means either Nvidia were lazy or are trying to make AMD look bad. AMD would have given them the bloody blueprints of the software, so it is out of AMD's hands.
 
I would've thought this is common knowledge. If you're trying to mislead people, shame on you.

Yes, it does.
 
'Open source' literally means that the source (i.e. original, raw, before compilation) code of the program is open to anyone, i.e. anyone can see it, use it (although copyright may protect it from monetisation attempts) and build on it. When AMD make their programs open source, they're saying to other developers "hey, come have a look at the guts of our program, do whatever you want with it!"

This means that if Nvidia's hardware doesn't perform as well on WD2 (assuming AMD's WD2 stuff is open source, also assuming they have any software for the game at all), it's their own damn fault. If their hardware runs poorly in this game because of AMD's open source software, it means either Nvidia were lazy or are trying to make AMD look bad. AMD would have given them the bloody blueprints of the software, so it is out of AMD's hands.
 
I would've thought this is common knowledge. If you're trying to mislead people, shame on you.

Yes, it does.
 
'Open source' literally means that the source (i.e. original, raw, before compilation) code of the program is open to anyone, i.e. anyone can see it, use it (although copyright may protect it from monetisation attempts) and build on it. When AMD make their programs open source, they're saying to other developers "hey, come have a look at the guts of our program, do whatever you want with it!"

This means that if Nvidia's hardware doesn't perform as well on WD2 (assuming AMD's WD2 stuff is open source, also assuming they have any software for the game at all), it's their own damn fault. If their hardware runs poorly in this game because of AMD's open source software, it means either Nvidia were lazy or are trying to make AMD look bad. AMD would have given them the bloody blueprints of the software, so it is out of AMD's hands.
 
I would've thought this is common knowledge. If you're trying to mislead people, shame on you.

Yes, it does.
 
'Open source' literally means that the source (i.e. original, raw, before compilation) code of the program is open to anyone, i.e. anyone can see it, use it (although copyright may protect it from monetisation attempts) and build on it. When AMD make their programs open source, they're saying to other developers "hey, come have a look at the guts of our program, do whatever you want with it!"

This means that if Nvidia's hardware doesn't perform as well on WD2 (assuming AMD's WD2 stuff is open source, also assuming they have any software for the game at all), it's their own damn fault. If their hardware runs poorly in this game because of AMD's open source software, it means either Nvidia were lazy or are trying to make AMD look bad. AMD would have given them the bloody blueprints of the software, so it is out of AMD's hands.
 
I would've thought this is common knowledge. If you're trying to mislead people, shame on you.

i hate hilary with a passion #bernie2016

Twitter is a breeding ground for SJW's, third-wave feminists and cucks. It's not surprising they censor/shadowban etc.
 

Based Milo ftw.
 
 
 

Two weeks ago, I posted Milo Yiannopoulos' article about Twitter's alleged blacklisting and shadowbanning of conservatives they didn't like on their platform. A lot of people who are against censorship (me included) say that censorship is never exclusive to any one group. If it's used against one group, it will be used against many. You've heard it before, now it's happening... Fine, it's allegedly happening.
 
The extremely lovable and adorably posh Allum Bokhari (Technology and Politics correspondent for Breitbart Tech) reported earlier today on a new Twitter crappening. It seems as if Twitter is now censoring discussion about Hillary 'Shillary' Clinton by preventing the hashtags '#WhichHillary' and '#WhichHillaryCensored' from showing up as trending.
 
Bokhari writes:
 
Unlike the previous episode of The Twitter Crappenings, which relied on Milo's honesty as the evidence was an 'inside source', there seems to be visible evidence for this new installment. Bokhari continues:
 
While Twitter's apparent selectiveness with what trends may not be provable, it does seem like some users of the hashtags are having trouble with their accounts as well:
Don't worry, nothing to see here. It was just a mistake!
 
In closing, Bokhari writes:
Source
 
 
While there is some doubt with the whole 'trending algorithms' stuff, I don't think it's completely out of character for Twitter to do this.
 
I'm not sure there's anything else much to say about it. Twitter = crap. Any good classical libertarian programmers out there? You could make a buck. You could make a few million if you make the next Twitter with complete freedom of speech and expression. I know I'll use it.

What do you think - purge time yet? I know just the man for the job.
 

It makes me laugh, because voting for Hillary is the worse of two evils.
 
Honest moron (trump) > Corrupt ass Hillary.
 
 
@SpaghettiCarbonara Good post. Glad to see someone else who finds censorship completely egregious, no matter who is doing it.

i don't know this milo dude, but i'm now in love with in him #nohomo

Honestly I can't help feeling good about it. Every time an exploit is found, it's fixed and encryption becomes stronger. Maybe I'm wrong, but the more this happens, the better.

If the user wants to opt-out of that collection, they shouldn't collect anything indeed.

I assume you want us to just read ZDNet, am I right? The problem with that is that while both articles got details wrong, the Forbes article was making the point that
1) Customers should have the option to turn these things off if they so desire.
2) If Microsoft makes off buttons then they should actually turn things off, not keep sending the things.
Those are two very good points which I fully agree with, and the things he got wrong (although if you read the article carefully I would say he didn't get anything wrong) does not make those two things any less true.
 
Forbes is a tech site. They got very good articles from time to time. I'd say they are at least as good as The Verge or any other tech tabloid.
 
And what would Microsoft sue Forbes for? I don't see anything in there which could be called defamation. Stop trying to threaten people.
 
 
I am totally okay with them collecting things. The things lots of people, including me, are not happy about are:
1) There not being any option for users to opt out from it.
2) The fact that even if you opt out from some of the data collection from the settings, they are still on. For example even when I have disabled Cortana and web searches it still contacts Microsoft's servers whenever I type something in the search field.
3) Microsoft refuses to tell us details about what is being collected. They are as transparent as a brick wall, which is not a very good sign.

I realize Twitter can do what they want with their platform. But if they're going to shadow ban people for having a different point of view, they should inform their users of it. This is pretty gross in my opinion. 

Well, I think it's clear from Misanthrope's presence on the site that we don't have a shadowbanning policy in place to suppress people we don't agree with 
 
/jokes
 
Seriously though, anyone saying "it's just Twitter, bruh" needs to get their head in the game. There's so much potential for abuse here and it is disheartening for me to see this. Added to WAN Show discussion for this week. 

I'd definitely believe that. I know of many times in life just talking and joking around with friends that many of them wouldn't so google searches for certain things that would be likely to land them on certain lists (or at least we think that's true) even though there is zero bad intentions and it should be harmless info to look up.  The fear is real, even in free countries  (or should that be )

Oh I don't know... I enjoy using Twitter and don't want it to go bankrupt..?
 
Yeah I know, silly reason.
 
Edit: Furthermore, I want to hear other people's opinions, regardless of how offensive and hurtful they are - even to me personally.

Wouldn't a thing to "worry about" be the possibility that they don't go bankrupt even if these behaviours get even further out of hand?  What if they continue doing fine, and one of the worlds biggest public communication systems continues on in a heavily biased and censored state?