Sales of Android phones are similarly dominated by a few popular models. Samsung Galaxy S and HTC Wildfire have large sales last year (30 million and 21 million respectively). Contrast with total iPhone sales in 2010 of 40 million.
Good choices. Terminator is a nice terminal multiplexor as well. I use it fullscreened for layout with screen inside one window. Also dvdrip and k3b are useful, if you still use cd media. Still on xfce but awesome sounds interesting.
"Historically, selective enforcement is recognized as a sign of tyranny, and an abuse of power, because it violates rule of law, allowing men to apply justice only when they choose." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement
You could for example start by separating software installation from software availability, i.e. copy files to/packages/foobar-2.0/bin/foobar instead of right into/usr/bin/foobar. And then just place a symlink/start-script in/usr/bin/ to make the software available.
Yes, the Stow package manager works a bit like this. There are downsides to the approach though, which is presumably why no one has released a full distribution based on this concept. As the number of library versions shared between applications decreases, the memory cost approaches that of static linking. You also have the problem of version management and complex relationships (e.g. multiple applications embed Python, but depend on different versioned libraries).
It is also a company that has had an Research wing for the past 91 years: BT Research. And even before that, their (Post Office) engineers conducted research into fundamental technology advances during the 19th century.
BT may still be considered a patent troll (depending on your point of view) but understand that they are very different from the usual trolls - this is a company that has historically sold products developed from its own research, and which has a history of conducting research into communications technology that spans the better part of a century.
Before it became BT, the research wing was part of the Post Office. They carried out research with Marconi in developing fundamental wireless communications technology in the 1890s. One of their researchers went on to develop Colossus, which was arguably the world's first programmable computer, and pivotal in the war effort. In the 1940s and 50s they developed designs for the first all-electric telephone exchanges.
who lived a life of luxury as his country struggled in abject poverty.
If that is the definition of "asshole", then there are a lot of assholes in the world: pretty much every country where there is a large inequality in wealth distribution is going to have people at the top who can afford to live the high life, while others struggle to get by. I'm not saying that it is an incorrect view, just pointing out that it is not unique to N. Korea. After all, the perception of moral unjustness in this sense dates back to Jesus and beyond ("go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven").
/etc/apt/sources.list has supported multiple repositories forever. Commonly used alternative external repositories include medibuntu (codecs etc.) and skype. If you really want to set up an external repository for the Sun JDK, nobody is stopping you (apart from Oracle). The only viable alternative to the repository system is to either 1) package all the dependencies with each app, or 2) pull source code from external sites and resolve dependencies at compile time. Solution 1) has obvious problems of duplicating resources. Solution 2) is the Gentoo way, which is fine for some, but it inevitably leads to multiple systems with different dependencies, and different compile time options, which can make some bugs difficult to reproduce.
All of the appliance source is available at GSA mirror, including the kernel source. I would presume that the appliance doesn't run exactly the same kernel as the Google internal cluster.
Your argument isn't new, and has been dubunked by respected kernel engineers. See Greg Kroah-Hartman's OLS 2006 keynote and stable_api_nonsense.txt. At best, allowing old drivers to load might provide compatibility for a few minor revisions of the kernel. It's a short step from that to proposing a regular (annual?) ABI update, and then you have drivers that might work for, say, 12 months, but are always ultimately going to break. (I say *might* because who is going to test these old drivers on new kernels? Even with hypothetical ABI compatibility, the reality is that changes in kernel behavior, scheduling, etc. can break a driver). The only way to ensure that a driver gets updated is to have the source. Even with Windows there is no complete compatibility, Microsoft releases a new baseline kernel every couple of years, and your old drivers will not work any more. It is common for companies to not update their old drivers for new Windows releases, which isn't really that useful when you have deployed systems still using that hardware.
The problem with GPLv3 is that I can't use it in an application I develop unless I release any changes/mods I make to the source code.
"The problem with proprietary software is that I can't use it in an application I develop unless I agree to a contract that benefits the copyright holder."
Does that sound unreasonable? If you think that the restrictions on GPL licensed source are unreasonable, then you must conclude that proprietary software is even more unreasonable?
Your argument is only correct because you have restricted it to a certain class of downstream users - those that modify GPL projects for their own internal use and never sell their software or systems to a third party. The argument does not hold for the (presumable majority) of downstream users/developers, who take software and incorporate it into some larger software or system which they then sell to their own customers.
Consider the Android Linux kernel. Google must release it to the world because it is GPL. If your speculation is correct, then they would not do this if they could keep it private and gain competitive advantage. Hence, the kernel being GPL has led directly to the Android-modified kernel source being made available to everyone else, which is a win for everyone else.
That is exactly what the Christian theologians in the Church did. All of their arguments were derived from the Bible. There are many such religious findings through history. If you want one example, consider capital punishment for homosexuality, which was brought into Canon law and derived directly from Leviticus 20:13 ("If a man lie with mankind as he lieth with awoman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them"). Most Christians of modern times would disagree with this interpretation, but for centuries it was an accepted Christian point of view. Everything is subject to interpretation.
None of which were consistent with the actual content of Christianity.
That is your personal opinion. On the opposite side, we have centuries of respected Christian theologians, who argued that these actions were not only consistent with Christianity, but actually encouraged by it. And we also have the Catholic Church, who incorporated the theologian's findings into Canon law, thus giving them a legal basis.
The inconvenient truth of Germany in the 1930s is that the majority of Germans in that era were both Christian *and* supported the Nazi Party. They saw no contradiction in this. Any attempt to explain away the rise of the Nazi Party during that period as being "un-Christian" has to explain that fact; why did a nation of 85 million Christians overwhelmingly support the rise of the Nazi Party? If National Socialism were so obviously against their religion, why did German Christians of that era support National Socialism?
Religion in Nazi Germany: "The German census of May 1939 indicates that 54 percent of Germans considered themselves Protestant and 40 percent considered themselves Catholic, with only 3.5 percent claiming to be neo-pagan "believers in God," and 1.5 percent unbelievers. This census came more than six years into the Hitler era."
That wasn't Polish foreign policy. The Polish government actually proposed preemptive strikes against Germany, but couldn't convince France or Britain to join in. See History of Poland: International relations.
Because clearly 25% of these drunks aren't so impaired to the point where they are driving dangerously
It all depends on how you define "dangerous". Wikipedia article: "Drivers with a BAC of 0.10% are 6 to 12 times more likely to get into a fatal crash or injury than drivers with no alcohol". So, if you define an order of magnitude increase in crash probability as "dangerous", then yes, it is dangerous.
I heard a sheriff on the radio say that 25% of the people driving on a holiday are drunk.
Anecdotal evidence. It is also possible that this sheriff is wrong, has a biased perception (e.g. maybe he works the nightshift and frequently pulls over drunks), misspoke, or was not accurately quoted. Consider finding a better source.
You seem to have either a short or selective memory. Prior to the iPhone, the standard practice for cell phones were for handset makers to make phones for carriers with their carrier branding on the case and carrier specific apps permanently installed on the phone.
It was "standard practice" for some carriers, with some phones. It was never standard practice for all carriers on all phones. I don't recall Nokia selling many (any?) models with carrier specific apps. Maybe there were some, but Nokia sold over a billion phones, and the vast majority had no carrier apps.
iPhone outsells every other phone by an order of magnitude
I am no fan of Nokia's recent moves, but to claim that their phones don't sell is simply inaccurate. Nokia sold more 5230 phones in one year alone last year (2010) than Apple has sold iPhones in the whole five years from 2007-2011. Nokia has also produced the best selling phone for many of the years on record. List of best-selling mobile phones:
Year Manufacturer Model Units sold
1990 NEC P3 15 million
1996 Motorola StarTAC 60 million
1998 Nokia 6120 15 million
1999 Nokia 3210 150 million
2000 Nokia 3310 126 million
2002 Nokia/Nokia/Nokia/Siemens 3510/6100/6610/A50 15 million
2003 Nokia 1100 250 million
2004 Nokia 2600/2610/2626/2630 135 million
2005 Nokia 1110 150 million
2006 Nokia 1600/1650/1661 130 million
2007 Nokia 1200 150 million
2008 Nokia 1680 Classic 35 million
2009 Apple iPhone 3GS 35 million
2010 Nokia 5230 150 Million
If the sales comparison is restricted to smartphones and recent year, then both Samsung Galaxy S and HTC Desire have large sales (30 million and 21 million respectively). Total iPhone sales in 2010 was 40 million, so neither HTC nor Samsung is being outsold by "an order of magnitude".
Are you sure? The standalone 64-bit Chrome Linux Ubuntu/Debian.deb is only 24MB. The archive unpacks to 92MB with a 61MB chrome binary. I would be surprised if the OS/X version were so bloated that it was almost 300% bigger.
I am discounting scientific studies which are making postulations which do not bear out with reality.
No, you just misunderstand the conclusions of the studies, and therefore believe that the studies contradict your perception of reality. You made a specific claim, that the studies showing "drivers are as impaired by using a cell phone as they are drunk" were junk, based on two assumptions: 1) drunk drivers are highly likely to be involved in an accident and 2) you have seen many people talking on cell phones but do not observe the high accident rate that you would expect. This is flawed logic; you do not consider the study was based on alcohol consumption at the baseline legal limit of 0.08% BAC. At this rate, crashes occur at a rate "only" about ten times that of completely sober drivers (wikipedia). At this rate, you would certainly not expect that "we should all be dead".
That a quantity of air with a minimal dose of a toxin poses more risk than a quantity of air that has a high level of said toxin + that same second hand dose.
I am not aware of any study that has ever claimed that passive smoking is more dangerous than smoking *to the smoker*. Perhaps you are confusing the issue with claims that second hand smoke can be more dangerous to some individuals than to the smoker, which can be true. For example, a baby in a confined unventilated environment may well experience more lung-damage from secondary smoke than the adult who is smoking, due to having smaller lungs, still developing tissue, etc.
Isn't that what all the people who support driving whilst distracted are actually arguing for, though? The general argument is "Why prohibit everyone from texting whilst driving? Why not just fine/imprison the people who cause a crash or fatality?" An average person makes something like $2 million income over the course of their adult life. If someone is texting whilst driving, and they cause a crash that kills you, shouldn't they have to compensate your family to a similar tune? And since very few people can cough up $2 million, then shouldn't they then go to jail for some reasonably lengthy period? After all, they caused a crash, you were killed, and your family now has no income source, they can't pay the mortgage, can't pay for food etc. The only reason you are dead and your family is in such dire straits is because of one person's actions, which basically amounts to manslaughter, or negligent homicide. Shouldn't the one responsible pay a high price for this?
based on the giant multitude we have talking on cell phones, and the occurrence of accidents amongst drunk drivers
The problem with your logic is that these two things are not the same. You are extrapolating from your personally perceived accident rate for what you consider to be a "drunk driver", and ignoring the actual conditions of the study.
The other problem with your logic is obviously that you are discounting scientific studies based on your personal opinion. That is not the way that science is done. If you believe that the published science is wrong, then all you have to do is repeat the experiments and submit the results to a journal for publication. Waving your hands in the air and screaming "I just don't believe it's true!" isn't a valid scientific approach.
Slashdot Mirror
Sales of Android phones are similarly dominated by a few popular models. Samsung Galaxy S and HTC Wildfire have large sales last year (30 million and 21 million respectively). Contrast with total iPhone sales in 2010 of 40 million.
Good choices. Terminator is a nice terminal multiplexor as well. I use it fullscreened for layout with screen inside one window. Also dvdrip and k3b are useful, if you still use cd media. Still on xfce but awesome sounds interesting.
"Historically, selective enforcement is recognized as a sign of tyranny, and an abuse of power, because it violates rule of law, allowing men to apply justice only when they choose." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement
Actually they did jail someone! http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26nocera.html?pagewanted=all
You could for example start by separating software installation from software availability, i.e. copy files to /packages/foobar-2.0/bin/foobar instead of right into /usr/bin/foobar. And then just place a symlink/start-script in /usr/bin/ to make the software available.
Yes, the Stow package manager works a bit like this. There are downsides to the approach though, which is presumably why no one has released a full distribution based on this concept. As the number of library versions shared between applications decreases, the memory cost approaches that of static linking. You also have the problem of version management and complex relationships (e.g. multiple applications embed Python, but depend on different versioned libraries).
It is also a company that has had an Research wing for the past 91 years: BT Research. And even before that, their (Post Office) engineers conducted research into fundamental technology advances during the 19th century.
BT may still be considered a patent troll (depending on your point of view) but understand that they are very different from the usual trolls - this is a company that has historically sold products developed from its own research, and which has a history of conducting research into communications technology that spans the better part of a century.
Before it became BT, the research wing was part of the Post Office. They carried out research with Marconi in developing fundamental wireless communications technology in the 1890s. One of their researchers went on to develop Colossus, which was arguably the world's first programmable computer, and pivotal in the war effort. In the 1940s and 50s they developed designs for the first all-electric telephone exchanges.
So no, not a typical patent troll.
who lived a life of luxury as his country struggled in abject poverty.
If that is the definition of "asshole", then there are a lot of assholes in the world: pretty much every country where there is a large inequality in wealth distribution is going to have people at the top who can afford to live the high life, while others struggle to get by. I'm not saying that it is an incorrect view, just pointing out that it is not unique to N. Korea. After all, the perception of moral unjustness in this sense dates back to Jesus and beyond ("go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven").
/etc/apt/sources.list has supported multiple repositories forever. Commonly used alternative external repositories include medibuntu (codecs etc.) and skype. If you really want to set up an external repository for the Sun JDK, nobody is stopping you (apart from Oracle). The only viable alternative to the repository system is to either 1) package all the dependencies with each app, or 2) pull source code from external sites and resolve dependencies at compile time. Solution 1) has obvious problems of duplicating resources. Solution 2) is the Gentoo way, which is fine for some, but it inevitably leads to multiple systems with different dependencies, and different compile time options, which can make some bugs difficult to reproduce.
All of the appliance source is available at GSA mirror, including the kernel source. I would presume that the appliance doesn't run exactly the same kernel as the Google internal cluster.
Your argument isn't new, and has been dubunked by respected kernel engineers. See Greg Kroah-Hartman's OLS 2006 keynote and stable_api_nonsense.txt. At best, allowing old drivers to load might provide compatibility for a few minor revisions of the kernel. It's a short step from that to proposing a regular (annual?) ABI update, and then you have drivers that might work for, say, 12 months, but are always ultimately going to break. (I say *might* because who is going to test these old drivers on new kernels? Even with hypothetical ABI compatibility, the reality is that changes in kernel behavior, scheduling, etc. can break a driver). The only way to ensure that a driver gets updated is to have the source. Even with Windows there is no complete compatibility, Microsoft releases a new baseline kernel every couple of years, and your old drivers will not work any more. It is common for companies to not update their old drivers for new Windows releases, which isn't really that useful when you have deployed systems still using that hardware.
The problem with GPLv3 is that I can't use it in an application I develop unless I release any changes/mods I make to the source code.
"The problem with proprietary software is that I can't use it in an application I develop unless I agree to a contract that benefits the copyright holder."
Does that sound unreasonable? If you think that the restrictions on GPL licensed source are unreasonable, then you must conclude that proprietary software is even more unreasonable?
Your argument is only correct because you have restricted it to a certain class of downstream users - those that modify GPL projects for their own internal use and never sell their software or systems to a third party. The argument does not hold for the (presumable majority) of downstream users/developers, who take software and incorporate it into some larger software or system which they then sell to their own customers.
Consider the Android Linux kernel. Google must release it to the world because it is GPL. If your speculation is correct, then they would not do this if they could keep it private and gain competitive advantage. Hence, the kernel being GPL has led directly to the Android-modified kernel source being made available to everyone else, which is a win for everyone else.
That is exactly what the Christian theologians in the Church did. All of their arguments were derived from the Bible. There are many such religious findings through history. If you want one example, consider capital punishment for homosexuality, which was brought into Canon law and derived directly from Leviticus 20:13 ("If a man lie with mankind as he lieth with awoman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them"). Most Christians of modern times would disagree with this interpretation, but for centuries it was an accepted Christian point of view. Everything is subject to interpretation.
None of which were consistent with the actual content of Christianity.
That is your personal opinion. On the opposite side, we have centuries of respected Christian theologians, who argued that these actions were not only consistent with Christianity, but actually encouraged by it. And we also have the Catholic Church, who incorporated the theologian's findings into Canon law, thus giving them a legal basis.
The inconvenient truth of Germany in the 1930s is that the majority of Germans in that era were both Christian *and* supported the Nazi Party. They saw no contradiction in this. Any attempt to explain away the rise of the Nazi Party during that period as being "un-Christian" has to explain that fact; why did a nation of 85 million Christians overwhelmingly support the rise of the Nazi Party? If National Socialism were so obviously against their religion, why did German Christians of that era support National Socialism?
Religion in Nazi Germany: "The German census of May 1939 indicates that 54 percent of Germans considered themselves Protestant and 40 percent considered themselves Catholic, with only 3.5 percent claiming to be neo-pagan "believers in God," and 1.5 percent unbelievers. This census came more than six years into the Hitler era."
That wasn't Polish foreign policy. The Polish government actually proposed preemptive strikes against Germany, but couldn't convince France or Britain to join in. See History of Poland: International relations.
Because clearly 25% of these drunks aren't so impaired to the point where they are driving dangerously
It all depends on how you define "dangerous". Wikipedia article: "Drivers with a BAC of 0.10% are 6 to 12 times more likely to get into a fatal crash or injury than drivers with no alcohol". So, if you define an order of magnitude increase in crash probability as "dangerous", then yes, it is dangerous.
I heard a sheriff on the radio say that 25% of the people driving on a holiday are drunk.
Anecdotal evidence. It is also possible that this sheriff is wrong, has a biased perception (e.g. maybe he works the nightshift and frequently pulls over drunks), misspoke, or was not accurately quoted. Consider finding a better source.
You seem to have either a short or selective memory. Prior to the iPhone, the standard practice for cell phones were for handset makers to make phones for carriers with their carrier branding on the case and carrier specific apps permanently installed on the phone.
It was "standard practice" for some carriers, with some phones. It was never standard practice for all carriers on all phones. I don't recall Nokia selling many (any?) models with carrier specific apps. Maybe there were some, but Nokia sold over a billion phones, and the vast majority had no carrier apps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_mobile_phones#Best-selling_by_year
Yes, dumb phones are still popular. Nokia sold 150 million 5230 handsets last year. That is more than every iPhone ever sold.
s/HTC Desire/HTC WildFire
iPhone outsells every other phone by an order of magnitude
I am no fan of Nokia's recent moves, but to claim that their phones don't sell is simply inaccurate. Nokia sold more 5230 phones in one year alone last year (2010) than Apple has sold iPhones in the whole five years from 2007-2011. Nokia has also produced the best selling phone for many of the years on record. List of best-selling mobile phones:
Year Manufacturer Model Units sold
1990 NEC P3 15 million
1996 Motorola StarTAC 60 million
1998 Nokia 6120 15 million
1999 Nokia 3210 150 million
2000 Nokia 3310 126 million
2002 Nokia/Nokia/Nokia/Siemens 3510/6100/6610/A50 15 million
2003 Nokia 1100 250 million
2004 Nokia 2600/2610/2626/2630 135 million
2005 Nokia 1110 150 million
2006 Nokia 1600/1650/1661 130 million
2007 Nokia 1200 150 million
2008 Nokia 1680 Classic 35 million
2009 Apple iPhone 3GS 35 million
2010 Nokia 5230 150 Million
If the sales comparison is restricted to smartphones and recent year, then both Samsung Galaxy S and HTC Desire have large sales (30 million and 21 million respectively). Total iPhone sales in 2010 was 40 million, so neither HTC nor Samsung is being outsold by "an order of magnitude".
Are you sure? The standalone 64-bit Chrome Linux Ubuntu/Debian .deb is only 24MB. The archive unpacks to 92MB with a 61MB chrome binary. I would be surprised if the OS/X version were so bloated that it was almost 300% bigger.
I am discounting scientific studies which are making postulations which do not bear out with reality.
No, you just misunderstand the conclusions of the studies, and therefore believe that the studies contradict your perception of reality. You made a specific claim, that the studies showing "drivers are as impaired by using a cell phone as they are drunk" were junk, based on two assumptions: 1) drunk drivers are highly likely to be involved in an accident and 2) you have seen many people talking on cell phones but do not observe the high accident rate that you would expect. This is flawed logic; you do not consider the study was based on alcohol consumption at the baseline legal limit of 0.08% BAC. At this rate, crashes occur at a rate "only" about ten times that of completely sober drivers (wikipedia). At this rate, you would certainly not expect that "we should all be dead".
That a quantity of air with a minimal dose of a toxin poses more risk than a quantity of air that has a high level of said toxin + that same second hand dose.
I am not aware of any study that has ever claimed that passive smoking is more dangerous than smoking *to the smoker*. Perhaps you are confusing the issue with claims that second hand smoke can be more dangerous to some individuals than to the smoker, which can be true. For example, a baby in a confined unventilated environment may well experience more lung-damage from secondary smoke than the adult who is smoking, due to having smaller lungs, still developing tissue, etc.
Isn't that what all the people who support driving whilst distracted are actually arguing for, though? The general argument is "Why prohibit everyone from texting whilst driving? Why not just fine/imprison the people who cause a crash or fatality?" An average person makes something like $2 million income over the course of their adult life. If someone is texting whilst driving, and they cause a crash that kills you, shouldn't they have to compensate your family to a similar tune? And since very few people can cough up $2 million, then shouldn't they then go to jail for some reasonably lengthy period? After all, they caused a crash, you were killed, and your family now has no income source, they can't pay the mortgage, can't pay for food etc. The only reason you are dead and your family is in such dire straits is because of one person's actions, which basically amounts to manslaughter, or negligent homicide. Shouldn't the one responsible pay a high price for this?
based on the giant multitude we have talking on cell phones, and the occurrence of accidents amongst drunk drivers
The problem with your logic is that these two things are not the same. You are extrapolating from your personally perceived accident rate for what you consider to be a "drunk driver", and ignoring the actual conditions of the study.
The other problem with your logic is obviously that you are discounting scientific studies based on your personal opinion. That is not the way that science is done. If you believe that the published science is wrong, then all you have to do is repeat the experiments and submit the results to a journal for publication. Waving your hands in the air and screaming "I just don't believe it's true!" isn't a valid scientific approach.