There is no such contractual agreement. There was talk about manufacturers giving updates for 18 months "as long as hardware would allow" but nothing legally enforceable. If Google tried to enforce such a contract the manufacturers would laugh and fork Android like Amazon has done effectively killing Android as it now exists. These manufacturers aren't in this to make vanilla Android handsets. Without being able to differentiate through customization they won't stick around.
2.2 to 2.3 is far more than a "minor revision". It is a new major version considering all the system changes, UI changes, API additions and updates, etc.
Owning 30% of the market while only selling two generation models at any one time is hardly a failure for Apple. Considering that there are dozens upon dozens of different Android models it's only natural they'd have more market share.
What law is being violated if this isn't using the DMCA? Since when does Google have any legal obligation to host your videos? They can remove any video they want for any reason they want.
Sue for what? It wasn't a DMCA takedown and Google has no legal obligation to host your videos. The agreement is vile but what statute are they violating?
Maybe the best example is something that hasn't happened in the Linux world, though: a widely used high-level language. The GNOME people in particular won't commit to anything but plain C, with their painful object model on top of it.
And there's a reason for that. Far better compatibility with the vast majority of.languages.
You do realize that's shared between thousands of people? Your slice would probably be 10mbps or so which isn't really all that impressive, especially in countries like Sweden.
It actually does talk about this. Clicking on that info icon, the circle with an i in it, right next to the DRM-free statement pops up a dialog that has this statement in it:
Your download page also includes multiplayer keys for Multiwinia and DEFCON, for online access.
It's your own fault for not finding this out before you buy, dumb dumb.
So a disingenuous comparison! Why use the 2860qm to compare to the 815/ when when you could compare to the cheaper i7-2600 which is only $30 more and has 30w less tdp while still outperforming the bulldozer. Or why not compare that 1100t to the i5-2500 which is way more performant, again 30w lower tdp and only $35 more. Oh right, because that doesn't create as insane a price gap.
Slashdot Mirror
[neckbeard mode]
The term is "cracked" not "hacked". When will those stupid lusers ever learn the difference?
[neckbeard mode]
There is no such contractual agreement. There was talk about manufacturers giving updates for 18 months "as long as hardware would allow" but nothing legally enforceable. If Google tried to enforce such a contract the manufacturers would laugh and fork Android like Amazon has done effectively killing Android as it now exists. These manufacturers aren't in this to make vanilla Android handsets. Without being able to differentiate through customization they won't stick around.
Or it will drive them to fork Android like Amazon did.
And they will do this how without driving away the manufacturers or causing the manufacturers to fork the code and leave Google hanging?
Because Samsung's goal is to get you to buy a new phone.
(can you imagine gaming on a PC that's half a decade old, or more?)
What's so hard to imagine? Tons of people do it just fine.
And your evidence that they ever used it is where? Oh right, you don't have any.
The point has to do with broken promises of OS updates not hardware variation.
2.2 to 2.3 is far more than a "minor revision". It is a new major version considering all the system changes, UI changes, API additions and updates, etc.
Owning 30% of the market while only selling two generation models at any one time is hardly a failure for Apple. Considering that there are dozens upon dozens of different Android models it's only natural they'd have more market share.
Except that Apple pushes upgrades to both the current gen and at minimum the one generation previous devices as well.
What law is being violated if this isn't using the DMCA? Since when does Google have any legal obligation to host your videos? They can remove any video they want for any reason they want.
Sue for what? It wasn't a DMCA takedown and Google has no legal obligation to host your videos. The agreement is vile but what statute are they violating?
How is wanting hydrogen cars anti-environmental when they are far greener than these battery cars both to make and refuel?
Maybe the best example is something that hasn't happened in the Linux world, though: a widely used high-level language. The GNOME people in particular won't commit to anything but plain C, with their painful object model on top of it.
And there's a reason for that. Far better compatibility with the vast majority of.languages.
That's funny cause I don't remember Goggle, HTC, etc. telling anyone about this on Android phones. Oh, I forgot. Apple baaaaaad!
Because we all know it's impossible to hide such things like trojans in foss without anyone noticing for months on end, right? Oh wait...
Then stop feeding them and just ignore the post? You whinging about it only eggs them on.
You do realize that's shared between thousands of people? Your slice would probably be 10mbps or so which isn't really all that impressive, especially in countries like Sweden.
I'm sorry but EVERYONE has the right to life, regardless of the cost.
Ok. We'll just send all the bills to you, right?
It actually does talk about this. Clicking on that info icon, the circle with an i in it, right next to the DRM-free statement pops up a dialog that has this statement in it:
Your download page also includes multiplayer keys for Multiwinia and DEFCON, for online access.
It's your own fault for not finding this out before you buy, dumb dumb.
Why would you need a legal team? USPTO offers an online search for trademarks.
I would think they aren't related since QuickTime (QT) is an Apple product. Oh you meant Qt the C++ framework.
Correction the i5-2500 is only $20 more. The i5-2500k which is even faster is the one that's $35 more than the 1100t.
So a disingenuous comparison! Why use the 2860qm to compare to the 815/ when when you could compare to the cheaper i7-2600 which is only $30 more and has 30w less tdp while still outperforming the bulldozer. Or why not compare that 1100t to the i5-2500 which is way more performant, again 30w lower tdp and only $35 more. Oh right, because that doesn't create as insane a price gap.