Page 23 of 24 FirstFirst ... 456789101112131415161718192021222324 LastLast
Results 331 to 345 of 347

Thread: Random Technology Thread

  1. #331
    guyjin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Province
    The land between two rivers
    Oratio
    7,986

    Ignore User
    I don't 100% agree with this (especially the self-checkout thing; eesh) but think it's worth a read.

    http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/04/r...=sharebutton-b

    Over the last few months, Select All has interviewed more than a dozen prominent technology figures about what has gone wrong with the contemporary internet for a project called “The Internet Apologizes.” We’re now publishing lengthier transcripts of each individual interview. This interview features Richard Stallman, an activist and legendary programmer who developed the foundational and widely used software Emacs and GNU. He is a recipient of the MacArthur “genius” grant and is currently president of the Free Software Foundation.

    You can find other interviews from this series here.

    Thank you so much for agreeing to a call. I apologize that I’m calling late, I’ve just had a jam-packed morning.
    Please. Stop apologizing. It doesn’t matter when you call me if I can talk to you. I never cared about that. In other words, you’re being excessively polite. Catering to an imaginary desire that I never had in my life. I’m happy if people call me at any time if the conversation is a useful one.

    Of course sometimes I can’t talk or they can’t reach me, which is unfortunate. But it’s not gonna make me unhappy.

    All right then. Let’s start it this way and get right into it. I’m interested in how you think that the major digital platforms in particular, and Silicon Valley more broadly, sort of … went off the rails. I’m thinking of the toxic nature of many of these communities and platforms online — issues with data privacy, the ability to be abused for electioneering or other purposes, and so on.
    You’re talking about very — about specific manifestations, and in some cases in ways that presuppose a weak solution.

    What is data privacy? The term implies that if a company collects data about you, it should somehow protect that data. But I don’t think that’s the issue. I think the problem is that it collects data about you period. We shouldn’t let them do that.

    I won’t let them collect data about me. I refuse to use the ones that would know who I am. There are unfortunately some areas where I can’t avoid that. I can’t avoid even for a domestic flight giving the information of who I am. That’s wrong. You shouldn’t have to identify yourself if you’re not crossing a border and having your passport checked.

    With prescriptions, pharmacies sell the information about who gets what sort of prescription. There are companies that find this out about people. But they don’t get much of a chance to show me ads because I don’t use any sites in a way that lets them know who I am and show ads accordingly.

    So I think the problem is fundamental. Companies are collecting data about people. We shouldn’t let them do that. The data that is collected will be abused. That’s not an absolute certainty, but it’s a practical, extreme likelihood, which is enough to make collection a problem.

    A database about people can be misused in four ways. First, the organization that collects the data can misuse the data. Second, rogue employees can misuse the data. Third, unrelated parties can steal the data and misuse it. That happens frequently, too. And fourth, the state can collect the data and do really horrible things with it, like put people in prison camps. Which is what happened famously in World War II in the United States. And the data can also enable, as it did in World War II, Nazis to find Jews to kill.

    In China, for example, any data can be misused horribly. But in the U.S. also, you’re looking at a CIA torturer being nominated to head the CIA, and we can’t assume that she will be rejected. So when you put this together with the state spying that Snowden told us about, and with the Patriot Act that allows the FBI to take almost any database of personal data without even talking to a court. And what you see is, for companies to have data about you is dangerous.

    And I’m not interested in discussing the privacy policies that these companies have. First of all, privacy policies are written so that they appear to promise you some sort of respect for privacy, while in fact having such loopholes that the company can do anything at all. But second, the privacy policy of the company doesn’t do anything to stop the FBI from taking all that data every week. Anytime anybody starts collecting some data, if the FBI thinks it’s interesting, it will grab that data.

    And we also know that the FBI and other such agencies are inclined to label protesters as terrorists. So that way they can use laws that were ostensibly adopted to protect us from terrorists to threaten a much larger number of us than any terrorist could.

    This is effectively a core practice of all of Silicon Valley, right? It sounds like you also think that this is something that extends well beyond privacy. It’s the foundation for how these companies act.
    Yes. Although I’d rather not refer to companies that collect personal data with the name Silicon Valley because there are other companies there that do other things that relate to digital technology, and maybe they’re making some chips that are not harmful at all. So I’d rather not talk about Silicon Valley, also because they may be located somewhere else.

    So how about we use the New York Times’ phrase? They use “the Frightful Five” to refer to sort of the emergent tech, digital monopolies or duopolies.
    Well, first of all, whether they’re monopolies is a secondary issue, as I see it, and the danger is not limited to them. For instance, the FBI was — I suppose still is — collecting data about every long distance call from some of those long distance companies. Perhaps all. But those are not monopolies. There aren’t very many of them; it’s an oligopoly, and that’s dangerous too. But in any case, they’re not among the five companies you’re thinking of. And as I see it any store that wants to know who you are is doing the same thing and it’s just as bad regardless of the size of the store.

    I never tell stores who I am. I never let them know. I pay cash and only cash for that reason. I don’t care whether it’s a local store or Amazon — no one has a right to keep track of what I buy. The local store, I might do business with, I wouldn’t give it any way to know my identity. I would pay cash. With Amazon, I can’t pay cash, so I don’t buy from there.

    Understood.
    The Frightful Five — I think in France they’re called GAFAM — may have special power to cause harm. Certainly Facebook does. But each one is different and they’re doing things that other companies are also doing, and it’s just as bad when other companies do it. So I think it’s a mistake to focus on the especially large companies, and instead we should look at the things they are doing that are the basis for being harmful. And then we should stop anyone from doing that.

    It sounds like you feel that collection of user data is the root problem with these companies.
    It’s an injustice. It is disrespect for human rights, and it’s not only when a company does it. There are, on streets nowadays in some cities, lots of cameras that can be pointed by officials in any direction they like, and I believe they’re trying to recognize people’s faces automatically. Well, this is monstrous. This is far worse than Google or Facebook.

    And it doesn’t — it’s not done by a company. It’s done by the city of New York. Or some other city doing the same thing, who knows? The point is, tracking people is dangerous. And especially tracking who communicates with whom. And who goes where. Once the state can find that out, human rights are basically dead because protests will be crushed. Look at what various so-called law-enforcement agencies did to try to crush the pipeline protests not long ago, or the laws various states are adopting or thinking of adopting making it a grave crime to protest, and imprisoning protesters for a long time. Or cutting off journalists to cover them, as was done during the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, when they declared a no-fly zone so journalists’ drones couldn’t be there to watch what the thugs were doing to the protesters.

    So, I see this as fundamentally dangerous to a point that makes the issues of, say, advertising pale by comparison. Sure, I don’t want companies to be able to find out all about us for the sake of advertising, although for the specific case of Facebook, there could be a remedy to stop it from being so harmful. For instance, political ads on Facebook might be less harmful if every company that buys political ads is required to post the full list of all the ads that it has bought in the past six months in one place. So people can see what they all are.

    Why do you think these companies feel justified in collecting that data?
    Oh, well, I think you can trace it to the general plutocratic neoliberal ideology that has controlled the U.S. for more than two decades. A study established that since 1998 or so, the public opinion in general has no influence on political decisions. They’re controlled by the desires of the rich and of special interests connected with whatever issue it is.

    So the companies that wanted to collect data about people could take advantage of this general misguided ideology to get away with whatever they might have wanted to do. Which happened to be collecting data about people. But I think they shouldn’t be allowed to collect data about people.

    We need a law. Fuck them — there’s no reason we should let them exist if the price is knowing everything about us. Let them disappear. They’re not important — our human rights are important. No company is so important that its existence justifies setting up a police state. And a police state is what we’re heading toward.

    Most non-free software has malicious functionalities. And they include spying on people, restricting people — that’s called digital restrictions management, back doors, censorship. Empirically, basically, if a program is not free software, it probably has one of these malicious functionalities. So imagine a driverless car, controlled of course by software, and it will probably be proprietary software, meaning not-free software, not controlled by the users but rather by the company that makes the car, or some other company.

    Well imagine if that has a back door, which enables somebody to send a command saying, “Ignore what the passenger said, and go there.” Imagine what that would do. You can be quite sure that China will use that functionality to drive people toward the places they’re going to be disappeared or punished. But can you be sure that the U.S. won’t?

    You could argue that in China, they’ve just centralized integrated data collection and they’re integrating it with streams of data from a variety of different sources, both government-controlled and not. Whereas in the U.S., it seems like these platforms sort of compete with one another to offer different services like this — it’s not centralized.
    Remember all the data is available to the FBI at any time. And remember how easy it is to pressure companies to send the remote-control command or to get from them all the secrets that are needed. Remember Lavabit. Lavabit was ordered to tell the state enough to spy on all its users 100 percent. And the only way that Ladar Levison could avoid that was to shut down the company instantly. And he could do that; he could consider doing that because he just owned it. Now imagine that it’s a public corporation with stockholders, and imagine that the insane ideology that its primary responsibility is to make money for the stockholders, which, by the way, is still not accepted in some European countries. And I read that this idea didn’t get started until the 1980s; before that, even in the U.S., it was accepted that a corporation had other obligations.

    So we shouldn’t accept that premise. But the fact is, they do accept that premise and they wouldn’t even dream of shutting down the company just because it had been corrupted 100 percent — lock, stock, and barrel — into spying on all its users.

    Apple just faced that situation in China and Apple surrendered.

    As somebody who’s had your set of experiences and expertise, I’m curious: Do you feel like you’ve had any experiences that lend particular insight into how these companies work?
    They’re corporations. Corporations have been compared to psychopaths.

    But do you think there’s any particular set of cultural attitudes, or ideology, that has affected this particular variety —
    Yes, neoliberalism.

    A certain flavor of neoliberalism?
    No, I don’t think it is. Neoliberalism in general. The idea that greed is good and justifies doing to people whatever profit requires, that’s all that’s needed. Of course, depending on what business the company is in, there’ll be different nasty things it could conceivably do.

    The nasty things that, say, Apple can do are not the same as the nasty things that Facebook can do, and not the same nasty things Monsanto can do, or the same as the nasty things Kinder Morgan can do. And each one finds itself in certain circumstances based on its line of business, which will suggest certain ways of making more money by screwing people over.

    But, and it would be good to make it clear that corporations have other duties that are just as important as making money for their shareholders. But we also need specific laws. For instance, there was a coal company that a few years ago arranged to steal its employees’ pensions by splitting into two companies and programming the one with pension obligations to go bankrupt. Now, I think we need a law requiring pensions to be handled through independent funds so that a company can’t just disappear and leave its 20-year employees with no pension.

    So the remedies depend on the area. That’s one remedy that deals with stealing employees’ pensions. Lots of employees’ wages are being stolen frequently, especially low-paid employees. Happens a lot in fast-food establishments. I’m not sure how to prevent that. But that’s another very big area where companies screw people over.

    Companies that have websites or apps tend to screw people over by collecting data about them. I think we need a law that requires every system to be designed in a way that achieves its basic goal with the least-possible collection of data.

    And secondary features, conveniences and so on, should not be allowed to justify making the primary goal require collection of data. Let’s say you want to ride in a car and pay for the ride. That doesn’t fundamentally require knowing who you are. So services which do that must be required by law to give you the option of paying cash, or using some other anonymous-payment system, without being identified. They should also have ways you can call for a ride without identifying yourself, without having to use a cell phone. Companies that won’t go along with this — well, they’re welcome to go out of business. Good riddance.

    When interviewing people for this, I’ve found that there are some people who think there are some simple fixes and others who think that these companies are never going to change, so they need to die. I’m curious what you think should be done, and what you think will actually happen.
    Well, in terms of what should be done, I think we should go back to selling things in physical stores where you can walk in and pay cash. And if you want a product that they stock somewhere but isn’t in that store, well you should be able to put down a deposit and have them order something and come back and get it later. And they don’t need to know who you are to do that. They can give you a receipt that will prove you paid the deposit so you can come back and collect it later.

    And by the way, we shouldn’t allow stores to do anything to try to track the movements of customers. This bizarre practice is again the result of the ideological assumption that companies should be allowed to do anything they like unless the people have managed to make a law against it. I think, in general, identifying or tracking people should not be allowed, unless there’s some specific and extremely strong justification offered.

    And this requirement should apply to systems, no matter what organization runs them, including systems run by cities, states, and the U.S. government. They shouldn’t be allowed to collect data except in specific ways that have been approved, and that approval should require justifying that the danger to privacy can be permitted. And the reason is that we need democracy, more than almost anything else. And the sickness of democracy in the U.S., which is thoroughly established, and which was recognized by the supporters of Sanders as well as the supporters of the troll, is a problem we need to solve. Not exacerbate. So we must make sure that the state can’t identify people, but the only way to do that is to make sure that companies can’t identify people either most of the time.

    In addition, we’re facing the threat of massive unemployment due to some kind of digital technology. One of these areas of unemployment of course is driverless vehicles. There are also the self-checkout machines in some supermarkets and drugstores. When I go in and out of those stores, I shout to the people by those machines, If you use these machines, you’re putting other people out of work. When I recognized that, I decided I wouldn’t use them. I’d always go to the human sales agent and help them stay employed.

    I think we could allow driverless vehicles and self-checkout once we have a system like a universal basic income.

    It sounds like the problem you’re describing isn’t these companies; the problem is capitalism.
    Well, it’s neoliberal capitalism. It’s unrestrained capitalism. In other words, it’s plutocracy. When these companies control our laws by buying politicians, then we’re not really going to have democracy and the laws will leave us at the mercy of the companies that regard us as prey.

    But that doesn’t mean we have to eliminate capitalism. We have to eliminate plutocracy. If we have capitalism and democracy, we have more or less what was invented in Athens. That’s what we had in 1970. If you look at Chomsky’s video Requiem for the American Dream, it describes the campaign that was started in the ’70s to recover control for business so people couldn’t demand and get things like the Endangered Species Act or the Americans With Disabilities Act or the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act or have high enough taxes on the rich or on businesses so that we could run the country. And everything doesn’t fall apart.

    It would be nice to see some of these big companies bring back some of the gigantic profits that they’ve collected over the years and use them to fund beneficial things for the public.
    Well, yeah, they should pay more taxes so that we can do the things that we need to do. But because the operations of those companies are directly harmful in themselves, just making them pay taxes is not enough. We’ve got to make them stop doing things in ways that are harmful, but not just those big companies, also smaller companies.

    Guber is one of the companies I detest the most. I called it Guber because it pays drivers peanuts. But the worst thing it does to the public is make people run non-free software, which is specifically an app, and that is non-free, meaning the users don’t control it and it turns out it’s malware. People found it was tracking people’s movements before and after the ride.

    But the fundamental thing it does wrong is the fact that you have to run that non-free program to get a ride, and you have to identify yourself. And then you can’t pay cash. These are things that a transport company shouldn’t be allowed to do. The law should say, “First, respect people’s privacy. And if you can make money doing so while respecting people’s privacy, okay. Of course, we’ll make you pay a decent amount of taxes, but that’s a separate issue.”

    I have web pages about many of these companies saying why you shouldn’t use them. If you look at Stallman.org, pretty near the top, on the front page, you’ll see this list.

    And it’s on your website?
    Yes. Stallman.org.

 

  • #332
    can't be bothered Eldorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Province
    US
    Oratio
    5,346

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Eldorian View Post
    Bought a vertical mouse for 12 bucks, figured I'd give it a shot.
    I've had to return it; it broke. POS. On the bright side, amazon now will send the UPS guy to your door to pick up your returns.

  • #333
    guyjin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Province
    The land between two rivers
    Oratio
    7,986

    Ignore User
    I recently had to replace a logitech lazer mouse, and briefly considered a vertical mouse, but decided it was gimmicky and got a trackball instead.

  • #334
    56% of an excuse nail bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Province
    Kekistan
    Oratio
    30,513

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by guyjin View Post
    I recently had to replace a logitech lazer mouse, and briefly considered a vertical mouse, but decided it was gimmicky and got a trackball instead.
    I finally got another trackball. I held off for so long after my last one died because Logitech had stopped making wired trackballs and I don't trust the wireless ones to hold a charge... but it's been six months of heavy use now and it's still going strong, so... mistrust unjustified.
    I wouldn't even censor you.

  • #335
    can't be bothered Eldorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Province
    US
    Oratio
    5,346

    Ignore User
    Well, I'm currently using a Razer Deathadder 3.5G, which is like a 2010 model. It still works pretty well. I was having some issues with the left click staying held down in Overwatch, but that seems to have abated. Only real issue is the finish is coming off the right mouse button. Oh, and one of the footpads fell off but I superglued it back on years ago.

    I'm thinking of spending real money (60ish bucks) on a Deathadder Elite, a 2018 model. I recall when I first bought this mouse how much better it was than every mouse I'd used previously, and I actually kind of like Razer's software.

    And laser mice are so last century. My old ass 3.5G is an infrared mouse, and my next mouse is definitely going to be optical. That cheap pos vertical mouse (whose use wasn't that bad, actually) was a laser mouse.

  • #336
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,161

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Eldorian View Post
    Well, I'm currently using a Razer Deathadder 3.5G, which is like a 2010 model. It still works pretty well. I was having some issues with the left click staying held down in Overwatch, but that seems to have abated. Only real issue is the finish is coming off the right mouse button. Oh, and one of the footpads fell off but I superglued it back on years ago.

    I'm thinking of spending real money (60ish bucks) on a Deathadder Elite, a 2018 model. I recall when I first bought this mouse how much better it was than every mouse I'd used previously, and I actually kind of like Razer's software.

    And laser mice are so last century. My old ass 3.5G is an infrared mouse, and my next mouse is definitely going to be optical. That cheap pos vertical mouse (whose use wasn't that bad, actually) was a laser mouse.
    Well... laser mice are optical mice, your old infrared mouse was optical (and may or may not be a laser mouse, I'd have to look it up), and your next mouse is most probably going to be a laser mouse at the price range/capability you're discussing. Pretty much, if your mouse is making light, it's optical. The only real difference is if it's using LEDs or LED lasers to do it's thing. Lasers are more precise.
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I think ovi's right.

  • #337
    can't be bothered Eldorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Province
    US
    Oratio
    5,346

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    Well... laser mice are optical mice, your old infrared mouse was optical (and may or may not be a laser mouse, I'd have to look it up), and your next mouse is most probably going to be a laser mouse at the price range/capability you're discussing. Pretty much, if your mouse is making light, it's optical. The only real difference is if it's using LEDs or LED lasers to do it's thing. Lasers are more precise.

    Yeah, laser mice use an optical sensor, but I think the newer, higher end mice use a diffuse light source and a higher end sensor, rather than a higher end emitter.

    Just looking it up, and lasers have fallen out of use because they are too accurate, picking up irregularities in the mousepad and causing jitter, which high end sensors and diffuse light don't get stuck on. There are some gaming mice that use lasers, but not FPS gaming mice. MMO and MOBA stuff. Advantage of lasers is they work on pretty much any surface.

    These terms, laser vs optical, are just what they're called in the marketing. Pretty sure my current mouse isn't laser either, just diffuse infrared. Trackball mice are often laser; the ball is uniform.

    Oh, another advantage newer gaming mice can have is mechanical switches, tho from the reviews I've read going to mechanical for your mouse isn't nearly as night and day as a mechanical keyboard vs membranes.

    Oh and my cheap POS mouse wasn't laser, just looked it up. It was red, diffuse. Still, broke in less than a month.

  • #338
    can't be bothered Eldorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Province
    US
    Oratio
    5,346

    Ignore User
    Oh, on my actual review of the vertical mouse form factor: it's not gimmicky. It was more comfortable to hold, but it had some drawbacks. Because the buttons don't click down, but instead to the side like, it was difficult to push buttons without moving the mouse slightly. This could ruin your aim. I could see using a vertical mouse for web browsing. But even then, if you're not capable of clicking the buttons with the same, low amount of force every time, you might miss some clicks because the mouse moves as you click. My hands can be kinda spazzy, so it wasn't for me.

    edit: and for that particular mouse, I found the middle mouse button very hard to push, the thumb buttons I could only reasonably hit one without changing my grip to reach the other, and the damn thing broke.

  • #339
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,161

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Eldorian View Post
    Yeah, laser mice use an optical sensor, but I think the newer, higher end mice use a diffuse light source and a higher end sensor, rather than a higher end emitter.

    Just looking it up, and lasers have fallen out of use because they are too accurate, picking up irregularities in the mousepad and causing jitter, which high end sensors and diffuse light don't get stuck on. There are some gaming mice that use lasers, but not FPS gaming mice. MMO and MOBA stuff. Advantage of lasers is they work on pretty much any surface.

    These terms, laser vs optical, are just what they're called in the marketing. Pretty sure my current mouse isn't laser either, just diffuse infrared. Trackball mice are often laser; the ball is uniform.

    Oh, another advantage newer gaming mice can have is mechanical switches, tho from the reviews I've read going to mechanical for your mouse isn't nearly as night and day as a mechanical keyboard vs membranes.

    Oh and my cheap POS mouse wasn't laser, just looked it up. It was red, diffuse. Still, broke in less than a month.
    That's... mostly wrong. Where to start... Okay, so, lasers have traditionally worked on fewer surfaces than standard illumination. This is because the way the laser refracts off of certain kinds of surfaces is more pronounced than with less coherent illumination. But the bit about too precise? Yeah, that takes a quick explanation of how optical mice work.

    So, optical mice work by taking an image of the surface below the sensor and storing it. Then, after a fraction of a second (this fraction is a major part of the sensitivity of a mouse) another image is taken, and compared to the first image. If the mouse is in motion, the images will differ and the software/hardware in the mouse determines how much and in what direction the images have shifted. This is the simple version of how the mouse detects movement. Illumination is added at an oblique angle because it sharpens the image of the surface by creating a shadow field. The kind of illumination makes a difference in that lasers create sharper lines in the field. So, the statement that lasers pick up irregularities in the mousepad is absolutely true, but that's because ALL optical mice pick up the irregularities -- it's how they work. Lasers fell out of favor for awhile not because they were too precise but because they were too expensive and because to get the most out of the difference in illumination you need a much higher resolution optical sensor running at a higher framerate to make it worthwhile and that had to catch up. However, for modern high end mice, lasers are the go to because they do provide a better image for tracking (even while they require avoiding certain kinds of surfaces, but that's changing).

    The two newest and cutting edge techs for mice out right now are BlueTrack and Darkfield, and both use lasers. BlueTrack, by Microsoft, uses a high end blue laser and advanced optical detection to skirt around the problems of surfaces that laser mice usually have and works on pretty much anything that isn't glass. Darkfield, by LOgitech, does work on glass, but only if there's enough dust on the glass. Best I can tell, they use more than one laser to get sharp relief on irregularities as small and infrequent as dust and a wide enough sensor to be able to gather data on a mostly clean, mostly smooth, transparent surface. I dunno if it's worth it, but there you go.

    So, all the mice these days are optical, but some are laser. Usually, the ones that bother to use the more expensive laser LEDs for illumination also can make use of that increased resolution in the resultant shadow field and so are higher-end, more precise mice. You can have a precise and good non-laser mouse, but the best ones use lasers.
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I think ovi's right.

  • #340
    can't be bothered Eldorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Province
    US
    Oratio
    5,346

    Ignore User
    You don't read articles, reviews, or product descriptions, and operate on a 10 year old, flawed understanding of the technology. What hubris.

    Cutting edge BlueTrack and Darkfield? You mean shit from 10 years ago that Logitech doesn't even use in gaming? And Microsoft doesn't even make gaming mice... Darkfield is exclusively used in Logitech's "anywhere" branded mice.

  • #341
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,161

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Eldorian View Post
    You don't read articles, reviews, or product descriptions, and operate on a 10 year old, flawed understanding of the technology. What hubris.

    Cutting edge BlueTrack and Darkfield? You mean shit from 10 years ago that Logitech doesn't even use in gaming? And Microsoft doesn't even make gaming mice... Darkfield is exclusively used in Logitech's "anywhere" branded mice.
    You mean like this review, from 2017?

    https://www.pcmag.com/review/353948/...h-mx-master-2s

    Where it uses, gasp, Darkfield? What? A brand new high end gaming mouse advertising it uses Darkfield?

    Just because the tech came out almost 10 years ago doesn't mean is not still on the cutting edge. As that review shows, the improvement isn't a difference of underlying technology, but an improvement within. In this case, going from a 1600 dpi sensor to a 4k dpi sensor.

    But, you keep reading those reviews and product descriptions.
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I think ovi's right.

  • #342
    can't be bothered Eldorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Province
    US
    Oratio
    5,346

    Ignore User
    That's not a gaming mouse. Once again, you didn't read the reviews or product descriptions.

  • #343
    guyjin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Province
    The land between two rivers
    Oratio
    7,986

    Ignore User
    Did any of you ever use Eudora?

    https://globenewswire.com/news-relea...he-Public.html

    Mountain View, May 22, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Computer History Museum (CHM), the world's leading institution exploring the history of computing and its impact on the human experience, today announced the public release and long-term preservation of the Eudora source code, one of the early successful email clients, as part of its Center for Software History’s Historical Source Code. The release comes after a five-year negotiation with Qualcomm.

    The first version of Eudora was created in the 1980s by Steve Dorner who was working at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. It took Dorner over a year to create the first version of Eudora, which had 50,000 lines of C code and ran only on the Apple Macintosh.

    In 1991, Qualcomm licensed Eudora from the University of Illinois and distributed it free of charge. Qualcomm later released Eudora as a consumer product in 1993, and it quickly gained popularity. Available both for the IBM PC and the Apple Macintosh, in its heyday Eudora had tens of millions of users.

    After 15 years, in 2006, Qualcomm decided that Eudora was no longer consistent with their other major project lines, and they stopped development.

    “In my opinion it was the finest email client ever written, and it has yet to be surpassed. I still use it today, but, alas, the last version of Eudora was released in 2006,” said Len Shustek, chairman of the Museum’s Board of Trustees. “With thanks to Qualcomm, we are pleased to release the Eudora source code for its historical interest.”

    The discussion with Qualcomm for the release of the Eudora source code by the company’s museum took five years. Qualcomm has transferred ownership of the code, the Eudora trademarks, copyrights, and the Eudora domain names to the Computer History Museum. The transfer agreement allows CHM to publish the code under the very liberal BSD open source license, which means that anyone can use it for either personal or commercial purposes.

    For download options and more information about the release of this historic source code, please visit:http://www.computerhistory.org/_stat...t-source-code/

  • #344
    guyjin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Province
    The land between two rivers
    Oratio
    7,986

    Ignore User
    Something you want, or over the top?


  • #345
    guyjin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Province
    The land between two rivers
    Oratio
    7,986

    Ignore User
    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple...154205304.html

    Customers returning i9 macbook pros because the things get so hot they can't reach advertised speeds.

    two of the worst corps in tech causing each other problems, I love it

  • Page 23 of 24 FirstFirst ... 456789101112131415161718192021222324 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •