I feel like I'm using it constantly. I even find myself creating appointments more often for what I know is coming up just so I can get those departure reminders. I've uninstalled the Flixter app because it seems to show me movie recommendations every time I'm about to lookup showtimes. I almost never open a package tracking or travel reservation email any more. It just seems to save me time.
There was a study about butterflies migration and everyone just took it as fact that it was due to climate change. When another study came out proving that it was wrong (with more science), the original study was never withdrawn and is still used to this day as an example of climate change.
It's not even a debate that CO2 is causing warming. It's that CO2 isn't causing it at anything near a catastrophic rate.
It's used by the likes of Al Gore to make billions from things like carbon credits and the politicians to attack their political opponents. It's not the first time the scientific community was used as pawns in someone else's game.
So much of the data is either: changed, doctored, or even hidden (climate gate brought out many issues with some of the leading climate scientists and showed that much of the data isn't actually being peer reviewed. I thought this would bring about a discussion about real science...but it was covered up and scoffed at by the scientific community because it made them look bad.
We are spending so much money on global climate change, while ignoring many other pollutants that might actually save some of the environmental disasters that we have created(which cost much less to fix).
You don't have to be a climate scientist to see bullshit science. I was part of the academic world for many years and it's unbelievable how much politics plays into the research that is published. It's why I left it forever.
This post will probably be modded down. Mostly because when something against the narrative is posted here on HN, it's not even discussed. The person who posted it is bullied into submission or silenced because you not only can't see something you disagree with, you can't bear to have someone else see it either.
I see it as the tactics of the intellectually inferior. Those insecure people that can't have ideas discussed freely and without prejudice because it goes against their core beliefs.
Even the name 'climate skeptic' is a pejorative used to make the other person look like they are an idiot that knows nothing about the climate or science. This has no place in science. Science should not be about personal and ad hominem attacks.
That's the funny thing: I'm demanding more science and the climate change zealots are basically saying that the science is 'settled'. The science is never 'settled'. When it is, it's called religion.
I'm sick and tired of politics ruling over science and you should be too.
It's fairly clear in the article that the parolees were not working on the grow side.
"One investigator said Mondella’s employees were likely unaware of the doings in that stealth basement. These employees include parolees that Mondella was known to hire from the nearby housing project, giving them a chance to not let a crime define their lives."
Softcard was shutting down anyways. They really never recovered from heavily investing in branding a product named ISIS and then having to change their name after that budget had been spent. On top of that, the early adopters that would have spread the word of the product were annoyed that the phone carriers were actively blocking Google Wallet installations in order to push ISIS adoption in the beginning. Google Wallet had to change business models and use a reloadable card because the carriers prevented Google from using the secure element on NFC to store the user's actual credit card on their own device. After Softcard began to fold, Google just bought what was left.
Nobody cared about Google Wallet. It was never more than a tech industry niche item (aside from being an account for Play Store purchases), and phone carriers only blocked it because Google was trying to create a monopoly.
If you understand the history behind the secure element, you'd realize that it was those phone carriers which forced Google to adopt HCE, which allows payment options. Google's plan was to be the sole payment provider across the entire industry.
You're off in bizarro land here. The brave carriers blocking evil Google's payment monopoly by allowing only ISIS payments on their phone? I know you're trolling the rest of this thread, but seriously?
That article is not even a source for what you're claiming! It just says Verizon wasn't illegally acting when it blocked Google Wallet on its phones.
Read the article, magicalist. Particularly the bottom few paragraphs. Google mandated exclusive use of the Secure Element for the payment system on Android. This would have prevented carriers from offering a competing payment service.
In short, carriers were not being greedy by blocking Wallet. Google was being greedy by designing Wallet. Carriers, if anything, saved us from a Google Wallet monopoly. Now anyone can make an app that uses NFC.
> Google mandated exclusive use of the Secure Element for the payment system on Android
The article's only claim in that area is that the Secure Element can only contain the credentials for one credit card (which wouldn't incidentally, lock developers out of using NFC). I'm not sure if that's right, but even assuming that, it appears to be a function of the hardware, not some evil plan to monopolize the phone.
The carriers only saved us in the sense that they forced Google to design around the Secure Element (which, notably, they could have also done themselves, another hole in your narrative...), giving a pure software solution and allowing Google Wallet to not ever be blocked on a hardware level.
> Google Wallet is doing something few apps do - asking for direct, exclusive access to a secure piece of hardware in the phone. Not only that, once Google takes over the secure element, it wants total control. Because of the security concerns (and related technical difficulties) involved in sharing a secure element, Wallet and only Wallet is able to utilize the internal secure element on a Wallet-enabled device. That means Google is directly managing every layer of the process.
No, that's exactly what I'm referring to. The article claims that the Secure Element can only be used by one set of credentials. If that's true, that's not locking out other people, that's just using the thing. Note also the "asking" part of that quote: Google Wallet wouldn't have used the Secure Element if you never used Google Wallet.
Meanwhile I'm still not sure how you're rationalizing the carriers as savior thing when they turned around and did exactly that dastardly thing (using the Secure Element) while also mandating that no one be able to decline the use of their payment system and use a different app. It was either ISIS or nothing.
Some proof? I live in South Africa, and last I checked I couldn't use Wallet. Was Google going to force Samsung to install Wallet on my phone? As far as I know, all the Google Apps that came with my phone are on someone else's phone in Australia or US.
Wallet is definitely still US-specific. As is Apple Pay, and was Softcard. I have no idea when and if any of these companies will ever expand NFC payments internationally, though some countries have local providers.