Yay! More taxes that the government is going to take and waste through ego, corruption, and bureaucracy!
This isn't a NEW tax. You are already required to pay state and local taxes on goods bought online and always have been. People have largely gotten away with not paying use tax in the past, but now that so much purchasing is being done online states are starting to feel the burden of that missing income. They are now simply trying to enforce tax payments that you already should have been paying.
Personally, I'm against online sales taxes. When you buy something online, you are already paying a "tax" of sorts and that is your _time_. That is a tax or cost to online purchases as it takes up to five days for your products to arrive.
A tax is designed to provide income to support the government. What you are describing is NOT a tax.
Hell, if I was testing an electric car, I'd do exactly the same thing. I'd crank up the air conditioning (Central Florida, it's hot here year round!) and blast the radio with extra bass. I'd see how well it handles keeping up with traffic in the fast lane. I'd want to know how much charge it'll manage when I don't have the time to wait for it to fill up completely. I'd probably forget to charge it and end up stuck somewhere, just to see how much wiggle room you've really got when it tells you you're dangerously low on charge.
That's fine, you are trying to find the limit of the car. What's NOT fine is doing all that and then slamming the car in a review when it fails to live up to the original mileage estimates. If the car says it only has enough power to go 32 miles you have no right to complain when it leaves you sitting when you try to drive 60 miles. Especially if you have such a poor grasp of physics to think that alternatively accelerating and braking will somehow extend your range.
Anything with very small parts and lots of glue/epoxy is tough to repair, not just this thing.
I don't think anyone is arguing that. It seems to me that they are implying that all the extra glue and screws were intentionally added to MAKE is hard to repair..
They acknowledge that bootloader must be unlocked for this to work though. That's really going to limit the utility of their procedure. Non-Nexus bootloaders are generally locked and encrypted, and the ADB whitelist feature of 4.2.2 should make stock Nexus devices a tough target.
Even Nexus devices ship with locked bootloaders by default. They can be unlocked by a simple ADB command, but this erases everything on the device.
Wow, you're retarded. The inefficiency isn't in breaking, it's in accelerating from a standstill.
There is inefficiency in regenerative breaking too. If you used X energy to get up to speed you can never recapture X energy during breaking, you will only ever get back less energy. Some of the energy will escape as noise, heat, and other forms.
Cyberspace exists in the same way that stories in books exist; as information stored in the real world on some physical medium. We can imagine a new world based on that information, but that never removes it from existing as "simple" information in the physical world. Trying to govern it as anything other than what it is will just end up relying on metaphors that break down and cause problems.
So we should include phones and game consoles as well. Got it.
If they're capable of solving Turing complete problems, they absolutely they are. By definition.
An XBox is a PC which has been wrapped in a box and sold in retail stores, but it's an example of a computer for sure. It's essentially an Intel processor and a desktop PC.
And modern phones, which can be arbitrarily programmed and aren't just hard wired to be phones? Guess what, a smart phone is essentially a computer in a little tiny case.
Walk into any CS department anywhere in the world, and argue to a professor that a smart phone or a tablet isn't a computer -- they'll either laugh at you, or educate you.
Mainframes and university supercomputer clusters are also Turing complete. Are those PCs?
Yes, and the folks on slashdot are really big on opt-out instead of opt-in.....oh wait.. no they fucking arent. The folks on slashdot fucking hate opt-out, and rightly fucking so.
Posting your content on a publicly accessible URL IS opt-in.
Right when there's new DMCA rules that don't allow you to jailbreak your phone. Yet, if a carrier refuses to patch their phones, one can't legally load a new firmware on it, right?
Wrong. These are 2 separate issues. The new rules only apply to carrier unlocking, not to jail-breaking, rooting, or custom firmware.
Either choice is acceptable. The owner (google) of the library (play store) is perfectly free to choose whichever option they want. I've read the terms of service (https://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html) and they allow for removing apps that "encourage or induce infringement of intellectual property rights", not just because of outright infringement. What exactly constitutes "encouragement" isn't spelled out, but leaves a lot of leeway for interpretation on Google's part.
Yes, it's the same as the photocopier in the library... it can be used to facilitate breaking copyright laws... should the librarian be jailed or the photocopier maker be shut down for this ability?
No, but in a library where there is hard evidence of 99% of people using the photocopier to make illegal copies of books it might be smart to remove the photocopier from public access.
It seems he's saying that the Earth is almost too close to the Sun to sustain life, so I have to ask... are we talking about the same Earth here? You know, the one that's had dozens of ice ages?
There is more to being habital than simply being in the habital zone.
Android really needs a system where security updates can be delivered outside of entire OS updates. Carries could enjoy their OS lock-in while users still manage to get security.
No... if you trust web servers with access to everything, and the web server has a hole, you lose.
If you trust cat, more, less, or any other tool with access to everything, and it has a hole, you lose.
Only the kernel of the OS should be trusted, nothing more. Everything else should be run with only the capabilities it requires to do a specific task at run time, and the operating system shouldn't let it do anything else. The OS should NEVER trust an application.
After all, you don't had your wallet to the clerk at a gas station, and ask them to take what you owe them out of it, do you? You don't need to trust them with your wallet, so you don't. Why do you need to trust all these applications? Because the design of the OS is from a bygone era of simpler days, when you could trust code.
Go read up on capability based security, the confused deputy problem, and the principle of least privilege. If you're careful, you may change your mind.
That isn't going to protect you from everything. You still have to code proactively with security in mind. If I have a website that needs to access a database it may be perfectly locked down so that the program can only touch that database. That doesn't prevent a hacker from finding a bug in my program and exploiting it to get a copy of that database. I'm not talking about things like buffer overflows or other system exploits, I'm talking about simple logic errors. There is nothing the OS can do to protect against things like that.
Actually, file sharing is not in of itself a crime - file sharing is simply a transfer of date, what is being trnasferred could constitute a crime.
"File sharing" is just a convenient shorthand for copyright infringement, It's not the actual name of the crime. The same way that people talk about "possesion" being illegal when they are really talking about possession of illegal drugs.
This has nothing to do with First Sale; it doesn't affect your ability to sell the phone. In-fact, there are specific exception in place for used phones. It even opens a huge loop-hole for unlocking. As used phones are exempt from this decisions all you need to do it "sell" your phone to the person unlocking it for say $1, let them unlock it, and then "buy" it back for $1.
This change removes the exemption for buying a new phone under contract (and thus, at a discount) and then unlocking it.
Let's run some numbers here...
If a new phone, let's call it a J-Phone just as an example, costs $650 at full price, and I can enter into a three year contract to get it for $100 plus $80 a month, that's a discount?
$100 + (3 * 12) * $80 = $2980.
That's a discount of -$2330, or roughly $65 a month for service, interest, and miscellaneous fees, and even if you unlock your J-phone and take it to another carrier, you're still paying for it until the three year contract is up.
Who exactly is getting ripped off by this?
The $80 a month isn't part of the cost of the phone. That's the cost of the cell connection and other usage fees. You can't count it in to the cost of the phone as you would have to pay that exact same amount of money if you brought your own phone or were outside the contract period.
What is unconstitutional about a state providing state tax incentives for its residents to invest in companies within that state? There is no interstate commerce going on there. I know the federal government thinks absolutely everything is interstate commerce, but it doesn't make it true. It's allowing the federal government to regulate the tax policy of a state.
How is someone from out-of-state investing in an in-state business NOT interstate commerce?
"North Korea is not believed to have the technology to deliver a nuclear warhead capable of hitting the continental United States, although its December launch showed it had the capacity to deliver a rocket that could travel 10,000 km (6,200 miles), potentially putting San Francisco in range."
And Portland and Seatle are closer than San Francisco. And all in the continental US, last I checked. And I know-- warhead + rocket, but last I checked, belief was unclear on their ability to pair a warhead various rockets, but they could likely come within 30 miles of Portland. Or Portlandia.
Just because it's in range doesn't mean they have a guidance system that will actually get it here, or that it won't explode 10m off the launch pad.
Slashdot Mirror
Using someone else's username and password is NOT hacking.
Yay! More taxes that the government is going to take and waste through ego, corruption, and bureaucracy!
This isn't a NEW tax. You are already required to pay state and local taxes on goods bought online and always have been. People have largely gotten away with not paying use tax in the past, but now that so much purchasing is being done online states are starting to feel the burden of that missing income. They are now simply trying to enforce tax payments that you already should have been paying.
Personally, I'm against online sales taxes. When you buy something online, you are already paying a "tax" of sorts and that is your _time_. That is a tax or cost to online purchases as it takes up to five days for your products to arrive.
A tax is designed to provide income to support the government. What you are describing is NOT a tax.
Hell, if I was testing an electric car, I'd do exactly the same thing. I'd crank up the air conditioning (Central Florida, it's hot here year round!) and blast the radio with extra bass. I'd see how well it handles keeping up with traffic in the fast lane. I'd want to know how much charge it'll manage when I don't have the time to wait for it to fill up completely. I'd probably forget to charge it and end up stuck somewhere, just to see how much wiggle room you've really got when it tells you you're dangerously low on charge.
That's fine, you are trying to find the limit of the car. What's NOT fine is doing all that and then slamming the car in a review when it fails to live up to the original mileage estimates. If the car says it only has enough power to go 32 miles you have no right to complain when it leaves you sitting when you try to drive 60 miles. Especially if you have such a poor grasp of physics to think that alternatively accelerating and braking will somehow extend your range.
Anything with very small parts and lots of glue/epoxy is tough to repair, not just this thing.
I don't think anyone is arguing that. It seems to me that they are implying that all the extra glue and screws were intentionally added to MAKE is hard to repair..
Let me get this straight: I can't drive 65 or turn up the heat without having to worry about getting stranded?
What kind of car do you drive now where you are able to use more energy than you put in to it?
They acknowledge that bootloader must be unlocked for this to work though. That's really going to limit the utility of their procedure. Non-Nexus bootloaders are generally locked and encrypted, and the ADB whitelist feature of 4.2.2 should make stock Nexus devices a tough target.
Even Nexus devices ship with locked bootloaders by default. They can be unlocked by a simple ADB command, but this erases everything on the device.
Wow, you're retarded. The inefficiency isn't in breaking, it's in accelerating from a standstill.
There is inefficiency in regenerative breaking too. If you used X energy to get up to speed you can never recapture X energy during breaking, you will only ever get back less energy. Some of the energy will escape as noise, heat, and other forms.
Cyberspace exists in the same way that stories in books exist; as information stored in the real world on some physical medium. We can imagine a new world based on that information, but that never removes it from existing as "simple" information in the physical world. Trying to govern it as anything other than what it is will just end up relying on metaphors that break down and cause problems.
In order to get a motherboard certified it is required that the user be able to enter their own keys.
Except on ARM devices certified for Win8. At which time they are the single gatekeeper.
Fuck Microsoft.
--
BMO
Maybe if this story was about ARM you would have a point.
... why Microsoft is the gatekeeper for what OS's are allowed to boot on the computers I buy.
They are A gatekeeper, not THE gatekeeper. In order to get a motherboard certified it is required that the user be able to enter their own keys.
If they're capable of solving Turing complete problems, they absolutely they are. By definition.
An XBox is a PC which has been wrapped in a box and sold in retail stores, but it's an example of a computer for sure. It's essentially an Intel processor and a desktop PC.
And modern phones, which can be arbitrarily programmed and aren't just hard wired to be phones? Guess what, a smart phone is essentially a computer in a little tiny case.
Walk into any CS department anywhere in the world, and argue to a professor that a smart phone or a tablet isn't a computer -- they'll either laugh at you, or educate you.
Mainframes and university supercomputer clusters are also Turing complete. Are those PCs?
That works fine until the CEO misses an email from a prospective client.
Yes, and the folks on slashdot are really big on opt-out instead of opt-in... ..oh wait.. no they fucking arent. The folks on slashdot fucking hate opt-out, and rightly fucking so.
Posting your content on a publicly accessible URL IS opt-in.
Right when there's new DMCA rules that don't allow you to jailbreak your phone. Yet, if a carrier refuses to patch their phones, one can't legally load a new firmware on it, right?
Wrong. These are 2 separate issues. The new rules only apply to carrier unlocking, not to jail-breaking, rooting, or custom firmware.
Either choice is acceptable. The owner (google) of the library (play store) is perfectly free to choose whichever option they want. I've read the terms of service (https://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html) and they allow for removing apps that "encourage or induce infringement of intellectual property rights", not just because of outright infringement. What exactly constitutes "encouragement" isn't spelled out, but leaves a lot of leeway for interpretation on Google's part.
Yes, it's the same as the photocopier in the library... it can be used to facilitate breaking copyright laws... should the librarian be jailed or the photocopier maker be shut down for this ability?
No, but in a library where there is hard evidence of 99% of people using the photocopier to make illegal copies of books it might be smart to remove the photocopier from public access.
It seems he's saying that the Earth is almost too close to the Sun to sustain life, so I have to ask... are we talking about the same Earth here? You know, the one that's had dozens of ice ages?
There is more to being habital than simply being in the habital zone.
Android really needs a system where security updates can be delivered outside of entire OS updates. Carries could enjoy their OS lock-in while users still manage to get security.
No... if you trust web servers with access to everything, and the web server has a hole, you lose.
If you trust cat, more, less, or any other tool with access to everything, and it has a hole, you lose.
Only the kernel of the OS should be trusted, nothing more. Everything else should be run with only the capabilities it requires to do a specific task at run time, and the operating system shouldn't let it do anything else. The OS should NEVER trust an application.
After all, you don't had your wallet to the clerk at a gas station, and ask them to take what you owe them out of it, do you? You don't need to trust them with your wallet, so you don't. Why do you need to trust all these applications? Because the design of the OS is from a bygone era of simpler days, when you could trust code.
Go read up on capability based security, the confused deputy problem, and the principle of least privilege. If you're careful, you may change your mind.
That isn't going to protect you from everything. You still have to code proactively with security in mind. If I have a website that needs to access a database it may be perfectly locked down so that the program can only touch that database. That doesn't prevent a hacker from finding a bug in my program and exploiting it to get a copy of that database. I'm not talking about things like buffer overflows or other system exploits, I'm talking about simple logic errors. There is nothing the OS can do to protect against things like that.
Actually, file sharing is not in of itself a crime - file sharing is simply a transfer of date, what is being trnasferred could constitute a crime.
"File sharing" is just a convenient shorthand for copyright infringement, It's not the actual name of the crime. The same way that people talk about "possesion" being illegal when they are really talking about possession of illegal drugs.
This has nothing to do with First Sale; it doesn't affect your ability to sell the phone. In-fact, there are specific exception in place for used phones. It even opens a huge loop-hole for unlocking. As used phones are exempt from this decisions all you need to do it "sell" your phone to the person unlocking it for say $1, let them unlock it, and then "buy" it back for $1.
This change removes the exemption for buying a new phone under contract (and thus, at a discount) and then unlocking it.
Let's run some numbers here...
If a new phone, let's call it a J-Phone just as an example, costs $650 at full price, and I can enter into a three year contract to get it for $100 plus $80 a month, that's a discount?
$100 + (3 * 12) * $80 = $2980.
That's a discount of -$2330, or roughly $65 a month for service, interest, and miscellaneous fees, and even if you unlock your J-phone and take it to another carrier, you're still paying for it until the three year contract is up.
Who exactly is getting ripped off by this?
The $80 a month isn't part of the cost of the phone. That's the cost of the cell connection and other usage fees. You can't count it in to the cost of the phone as you would have to pay that exact same amount of money if you brought your own phone or were outside the contract period.
What is unconstitutional about a state providing state tax incentives for its residents to invest in companies within that state? There is no interstate commerce going on there. I know the federal government thinks absolutely everything is interstate commerce, but it doesn't make it true. It's allowing the federal government to regulate the tax policy of a state.
How is someone from out-of-state investing in an in-state business NOT interstate commerce?
"North Korea is not believed to have the technology to deliver a nuclear warhead capable of hitting the continental United States, although its December launch showed it had the capacity to deliver a rocket that could travel 10,000 km (6,200 miles), potentially putting San Francisco in range."
And Portland and Seatle are closer than San Francisco. And all in the continental US, last I checked. And I know-- warhead + rocket, but last I checked, belief was unclear on their ability to pair a warhead various rockets, but they could likely come within 30 miles of Portland. Or Portlandia.
Just because it's in range doesn't mean they have a guidance system that will actually get it here, or that it won't explode 10m off the launch pad.