Unlike its competitors, Google allows you to unbundle all of the google-centric services from your phone and use whatever cloud APIs or App stores you want. In what way could they possibly be more open?
. You need to have a sufficiently large market share that your actions distort the market to be considered a problem
I think we all get THAT, but Google is more open in just about every category than their competitors. Im failing to see how accusing them of using "closed-ness" makes sense when theyre more open than ANY of their competitors and are directly providing the groundwork for at least one of their competitors (Samsung) through that openness.
Im not sure if everyone here is trolling or what, but this is absurd. Of the 3 major OS vendors out there, lets do a comparison.
App stores:
* iPhone, WinPhone, dumbphones: proprietary app store, no alternative way to load apps
* Android: Use any app store you want. Side load through a bootloader, or USB, or via downloading the apk directly.
OS:
* iPhone, WinPhone, dumbphones: Closed source and generally protected from modification by copyright (and possibly DMCA)
* Android: About 3 zillion open source mods exist to the AOSP ROM, which is widely used by the recent spate of high-end chinese phones by Oppo, One-plus, Xiaomi, etc
User control:
* iPhone: Generally stuck with stock keyboard (replacement keyboards are extremely limited and cannot be used to type passwords), launcher, browser
* Android: You can replace the launcher, the keyboard, the browser. Your replacement browser doesnt have to use Webkit, or blink, or anything.
Location:
* (iPhone?) WinPhone: you do not appear to be able to rely just on the GPS for location. From what I'm reading, you have to rely on Wifi-based location services, or a combination of that and GPS
* Android: If you really want, you can rely just on the GPS for location and skip the lookup to Google's SSID database.
Can someone explain how any of the complaints given here do not apply threefold to any of Google's competitors?
Google provides a map service. You dont have to have it installed AFAIK, and the app vendor does not need to use Google's API-- they could use Bing maps or another one, which some apps do.
Your complaint is about an API choice made by a dev, to choose the easiest and best mapping API out there (AFAIK-- others have always seemed worse to me but maybe Im wrong). That is not a google choice.
The same is true for a lot of other banks. Google has intentionally made sure that they control the app distribution channel,
* WinPhone: Apps MUST be downloaded from the Microsoft Store
* iPhone: Apps MUST be downloaded from the App Store
* Android / AOSP: Alternative stores are explicitly allowed, though off by default. Apps may be sideloaded through a bootloader, through USB, through the official play store, or through third party app stores like Amazon's or F-Droid.
The point is that Google tries their hardest to make all apps depend on Google's "services"
Utter bull. Go get any of the plethora of AOSP-based ROMs, and you can use any app you want.
Of course, MOST free apps get revenue from ads; and ads generally are going to rely on a cloud service, and that has to be provided by an ad provider-- hence play services. EVERYONE does this, though, Google isnt alone here.
Thats because its a cloud service intimately tied to your Google account. If you dont want that, you should probably use another app designed differently.
It seems quite strange ti criticize Google for making an app that utilizes the Google ecosystem, rather than an app which directly competes with it. Perhaps we should criticize Microsoft for selling Microsoft Exchange as a service for Microsoft Windows, rather than implementing it directly on Red Hat.
To me, that's contrary to the constitutional separation of church and state
Im convinced that no one actually knows what this means. It refers to the ban on the government formally instituting a state religion; it doesnt mean they cannot recognize the existence of religions or recognize them as tax exempt or that politicians have to be atheists.
MS is still evil. Not long time ago we had a story here on Slashdot on locked [slashdot.org] Windows 10 computers where you can not change the OS anymore.
As I recall, Microsoft no longer requires anything one way or the other for machines badged "runs windows" regarding changing OS. Its up to the OEM to determine whether they will allow that.
In fact, this somewhat mirrors RedHat's stance, doesnt it? Does RedHat REQUIRE OEMs sell servers that allow an OS change? How is that even their business?
Intel provides more support and documentation for their hardware than anyone else of consequence. Their graphics drivers are very widely considered the best for linux, and they contribute a huge amount to kernel dev.
If Intel hardware isnt working right, there are serious problems.
Regarding the latin, I had understood you were contradicting me saying "Veni Vidi Vici" was pronounced with a "w" (english) and a hard "k". If you're agreeing with that then we're agreed, in any case Im basing it on the links I provided.
No, it is not. hint: read wikipedia what kerberos is. And: it has nothing to do with windows at all.
Windows' primary selling point is its integration with Active Directory. The primary components of Active Directory are LDAP, Kerberos, and DNS.
It is an add on to the TCP/IP protocol stack, where every single "package" of network data is encrypted/authenticated with a new key from a kerberos authority.
Id argue that its not part of the TCP/IP "stack", as its "application layer" but in any case I dont disagree with THAT.
So it has nothing to do with a session or what ever, has nothing to do with log on (active directory) or what ever
Active directory is the most widespread use of Kerberos. It is used to secure traffic to / from the domain controller, establish logon credentials, authenticate CIFS traffic, and so forth. Obviously Windows does not have a monopoly on it, but in an enterprise environment (or even small business), when you refer to something supporting kerberos, its usually because you're integrating with Active directory.
Im not sure we're disagreeing, really, but you're saying "im wrong" when windows logon is a strong example of what you said (encrypting / authenticating data-- that is how Windows logon sessions authenticate to a domain).
Those examples of graphemes arent mine, theyre direct from that wikipedia link at the bottom of my post which I suggest you check out. My statements are backed by several sources in my post, and they all agree: for classical (NOT church) latin, "v" is pronounced as a "w". If you want to argue, argue with my sources-- not me. Alternatively, show alternate sources that support your stance.
Im also not clear what you think kerberos is, but is most certainly used in authentication to generate a session token, and is core to the Windows Active Directory protocol. Again: Dont argue with me, argue with my source: Kerberos is a network authentication protocol. It is designed to provide strong authentication for client/server applications by using secret-key cryptography.
But perhaps you can provide sources, if you wish to contradict either the classical latin or the kerberos statements; so far you've said Im wrong but not provided any support for that claim.
Just to clarify; Kerberos is a network specification related to authentication and commonly used with Windows; its name is an obvious reference to the greek / roman mythology. I simply used it because its pronounciation is well known (at least to IT guys), and is almost exactly how cerberus is pronounced (at least, as I recall my latin teacher pronouncing it all those years ago).
Anyway, Vici... the C is is spoken like the ch in chasm, or in the word 'witch'.
That is in Italian. Classical latin does not use "c" for soft "tch" sounds; so an Italian would indeed say "vitchi", but Caesar would have said "Wiki". So "AFFICIÓ" would be pronounced "AFIKIO", not "AFITCHIO" (/af.fi.ki.o/).
I am seeing claims that there is an Ecclesiastical Latin (presumably used in the church) which WOULD have the pronounciations you say-- but that is not Classical Latin.
In fact, wikipedia seems to corroborate this: "Veni, vidi, vici" (Classical Latin: [weni widi wiki]; Ecclesiastical Latin: [vni vidi viti]; "
It sounds like you studied "Ecclesiastical Latin", which I was not aware was a thing until just now. But as I said, in Classical Latin there is no "v" sound; "video" is always "wideo", and C is always hard:
grapheme . ..English examples c, k . . . . . . ..Always hard as k in sky, never soft as in Caesar, cello, or social u . . . . . . . . . Sometimes at the beginning of a syllable, or after g and s, as w in wine, never as v in vine
Ah I did not know that. Interesting to hear-- I had always heard it explained as a faulty double-shift due to over-zealous application of a common rule. I was not aware that "V" was pronounced as a "w" in german at times-- but then I've only done a very introductory study of the language.
In latin the V is 95% pronounced as a W (they had no letter W)
Yes, which is quite funny when you consider that when Julius Caesar said "vini vidi vici", it was not proclaimed in a loud manly voice as "VANEY VIDI VICHI", but rather "waney widi wiki" (as V is "w" and c is "k"-- ie, cerberus -->kerberos).
Other than you saw some other moron on the Internet say 'China Did It'... can you provide some actual proof to back up your claims.
50 cent army on the prowl!
It is simply stunningly illogical for China to behave this way against such petty targets. It makes absolutely NO sense for them to flaunt their ability and willingness to do so as the simple course of action the entire reset of the world would take is a simple matter of NULL routing China and going on about their daily business, your 'war' would be over before anyone really cared.
Its not like this fits with the MO of China, right?
Its not like they negotiated with Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google to expose dissidents on those blogging platforms a decade ago. Not like they coordinated with Skype to capture phone conversations via their well-documented TOM platform. Not like they used state-sponsored hackers to infiltrate Google, like they commonly attempt to do corporate espionage. Not like they engaged in a well-documented and highly-visible war with Google when Google retaliated by ending their cooperation. Not like they cooperated with the recent hacks on Sony (where do you think North Korea gets its internet uplink from?) Not like the recent github attacks were traced back to Baidu, a search engine with ties to the CPC
You'd have to have your head in the sand not to see this as an extension of their "control all speech" policy, and either be ignorant or a member of the wng píng yuán to defend them.
If you know about the v to b and t to z "soundshifts"
Fun fact about those soundshifts. Any first year student of German is aware of the W->V and V->F sound shift when going from English to German. What you may NOT know is that there is a software glitch in the brains of all beginner and intermediate Germans students of the English language. The glitch is such that it makes them (most of the time) pronounce the word "vegetable" as "wedgetable"; if they were applying the rules correctly, they would know that they letter they normally pronounce as "f" is instead pronounced "v". Instead, they do a mental double-shift or perhaps a backwards conversion, and go from "v" to "w".
Try it; any time you suspect someone may be an undercover German learning english, get them to pronounce "vegetable".
You're both right, but you managed to shift the goalposts with an incredibly misleading statement.
What is true is that the population of women, on average, makes 80% of what the population of men makes. The reason this is INCREDIBLY misleading is it does not look at "pay for equal work"; it utterly disregards what industries men and women respectively tend to be in and just assumes that all women are in the same industries as all men and thus that 80% figure is indicating sexism.
This 80% number is so notorious that it has been widely slammed, by such publications as Politifact, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and Slate. That is, its SUCH a misleading statement that it is derided by publications ranging from neutral to liberal to conservative.
Indeed, The Washington Post notes, June O’Neill, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office who has been a critic of the 77-cent statistic, has noted that the wage gap is affected by a number of factors, including that the average woman has less work experience than the average man and that more of the weeks worked by women are part-time rather than full-time. Women also tend to leave the work force for periods in order to raise children, seek jobs that may have more flexible hours but lower pay and choose careers that tend to have lower pay.
Indeed, BLS data show that women who do not get married have virtually no wage gap; they earn 96 cents for every dollar a man makes.
They [economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ] noted that women may prefer to accept jobs with lower wages but greater benefits (more flexible parental leave) so excluding such fringe benefits from the calculations will exaggerate the wage disparity.
So yes: Technically, 77 cents on the dollar. That is, if you're attempting to push a political agenda by boiling down a really complex comparison to an inflated and highly controversial figure.
That's simple an unacceptable thing for a business to do precisely because of the notion of "protected class[es]".
Protected classes are quite narrow, and lifestyle choices do not fall within them. In any case it is a businesses right to object to doing business with another (or "deprive them") based on a moral objection. Isnt that literally what SalesForce, the NCAA, and so on are doing in response to this issue?
I dont know, that smells of rank hypocrisy to me. "WE can refuse to do business with you over moral objections, but YOU cant because you have a different opinion!"
Off topic, but this has nothing to do with the catholic church; neither I nor CS Lewis are/were catholic.
In any case, and for the final time, the right of a business to choose to refuse service is a time honored right (with the exception of cases involving "protected groups"). Ill leave you a few links to get you started; argue with them, not me.
Slashdot Mirror
Unlike its competitors, Google allows you to unbundle all of the google-centric services from your phone and use whatever cloud APIs or App stores you want. In what way could they possibly be more open?
. You need to have a sufficiently large market share that your actions distort the market to be considered a problem
I think we all get THAT, but Google is more open in just about every category than their competitors. Im failing to see how accusing them of using "closed-ness" makes sense when theyre more open than ANY of their competitors and are directly providing the groundwork for at least one of their competitors (Samsung) through that openness.
Theyre abusing Open Source in the same way that Red Hat is abusing Open Source: They dare to have a business model involving open source.
Im not sure if everyone here is trolling or what, but this is absurd. Of the 3 major OS vendors out there, lets do a comparison.
App stores:
* iPhone, WinPhone, dumbphones: proprietary app store, no alternative way to load apps
* Android: Use any app store you want. Side load through a bootloader, or USB, or via downloading the apk directly.
OS:
* iPhone, WinPhone, dumbphones: Closed source and generally protected from modification by copyright (and possibly DMCA)
* Android: About 3 zillion open source mods exist to the AOSP ROM, which is widely used by the recent spate of high-end chinese phones by Oppo, One-plus, Xiaomi, etc
User control:
* iPhone: Generally stuck with stock keyboard (replacement keyboards are extremely limited and cannot be used to type passwords), launcher, browser
* Android: You can replace the launcher, the keyboard, the browser. Your replacement browser doesnt have to use Webkit, or blink, or anything.
Location:
* (iPhone?) WinPhone: you do not appear to be able to rely just on the GPS for location. From what I'm reading, you have to rely on Wifi-based location services, or a combination of that and GPS
* Android: If you really want, you can rely just on the GPS for location and skip the lookup to Google's SSID database.
Can someone explain how any of the complaints given here do not apply threefold to any of Google's competitors?
Google provides a map service. You dont have to have it installed AFAIK, and the app vendor does not need to use Google's API-- they could use Bing maps or another one, which some apps do.
Your complaint is about an API choice made by a dev, to choose the easiest and best mapping API out there (AFAIK-- others have always seemed worse to me but maybe Im wrong). That is not a google choice.
The same is true for a lot of other banks. Google has intentionally made sure that they control the app distribution channel,
* WinPhone: Apps MUST be downloaded from the Microsoft Store
* iPhone: Apps MUST be downloaded from the App Store
* Android / AOSP: Alternative stores are explicitly allowed, though off by default. Apps may be sideloaded through a bootloader, through USB, through the official play store, or through third party app stores like Amazon's or F-Droid.
How, exactly, is Google the bad guy here?
The point is that Google tries their hardest to make all apps depend on Google's "services"
Utter bull. Go get any of the plethora of AOSP-based ROMs, and you can use any app you want.
Of course, MOST free apps get revenue from ads; and ads generally are going to rely on a cloud service, and that has to be provided by an ad provider-- hence play services. EVERYONE does this, though, Google isnt alone here.
Thats because its a cloud service intimately tied to your Google account. If you dont want that, you should probably use another app designed differently.
It seems quite strange ti criticize Google for making an app that utilizes the Google ecosystem, rather than an app which directly competes with it. Perhaps we should criticize Microsoft for selling Microsoft Exchange as a service for Microsoft Windows, rather than implementing it directly on Red Hat.
To me, that's contrary to the constitutional separation of church and state
Im convinced that no one actually knows what this means. It refers to the ban on the government formally instituting a state religion; it doesnt mean they cannot recognize the existence of religions or recognize them as tax exempt or that politicians have to be atheists.
MS is still evil. Not long time ago we had a story here on Slashdot on locked [slashdot.org] Windows 10 computers where you can not change the OS anymore.
As I recall, Microsoft no longer requires anything one way or the other for machines badged "runs windows" regarding changing OS. Its up to the OEM to determine whether they will allow that.
In fact, this somewhat mirrors RedHat's stance, doesnt it? Does RedHat REQUIRE OEMs sell servers that allow an OS change? How is that even their business?
>having no idea what you're talking about
>throwing out NSA and MITM like theyre relevant here
Intel provides more support and documentation for their hardware than anyone else of consequence. Their graphics drivers are very widely considered the best for linux, and they contribute a huge amount to kernel dev.
If Intel hardware isnt working right, there are serious problems.
Poe's law strikes again! I truly have no idea if you're trolling or actually being serious.
You do realize IE, GDI+, and command interpreter vulnerabilities are not Windows vulnerabilities, right?
Oh, whats that, a double standard is used?
Regarding the latin, I had understood you were contradicting me saying "Veni Vidi Vici" was pronounced with a "w" (english) and a hard "k". If you're agreeing with that then we're agreed, in any case Im basing it on the links I provided.
No, it is not. hint: read wikipedia what kerberos is. And: it has nothing to do with windows at all.
Windows' primary selling point is its integration with Active Directory. The primary components of Active Directory are LDAP, Kerberos, and DNS.
It is an add on to the TCP/IP protocol stack, where every single "package" of network data is encrypted/authenticated with a new key from a kerberos authority.
Id argue that its not part of the TCP/IP "stack", as its "application layer" but in any case I dont disagree with THAT.
So it has nothing to do with a session or what ever, has nothing to do with log on (active directory) or what ever
Active directory is the most widespread use of Kerberos. It is used to secure traffic to / from the domain controller, establish logon credentials, authenticate CIFS traffic, and so forth. Obviously Windows does not have a monopoly on it, but in an enterprise environment (or even small business), when you refer to something supporting kerberos, its usually because you're integrating with Active directory.
Thats why if you look up what Intel says regarding kerberos, their second page starts talking about Windows AD.
Im not sure we're disagreeing, really, but you're saying "im wrong" when windows logon is a strong example of what you said (encrypting / authenticating data-- that is how Windows logon sessions authenticate to a domain).
Those examples of graphemes arent mine, theyre direct from that wikipedia link at the bottom of my post which I suggest you check out. My statements are backed by several sources in my post, and they all agree: for classical (NOT church) latin, "v" is pronounced as a "w". If you want to argue, argue with my sources-- not me. Alternatively, show alternate sources that support your stance.
Im also not clear what you think kerberos is, but is most certainly used in authentication to generate a session token, and is core to the Windows Active Directory protocol. Again: Dont argue with me, argue with my source:
Kerberos is a network authentication protocol. It is designed to provide strong authentication for client/server applications by using secret-key cryptography.
But perhaps you can provide sources, if you wish to contradict either the classical latin or the kerberos statements; so far you've said Im wrong but not provided any support for that claim.
Just to clarify; Kerberos is a network specification related to authentication and commonly used with Windows; its name is an obvious reference to the greek / roman mythology. I simply used it because its pronounciation is well known (at least to IT guys), and is almost exactly how cerberus is pronounced (at least, as I recall my latin teacher pronouncing it all those years ago).
Anyway, Vici ... the C is is spoken like the ch in chasm, or in the word 'witch'.
That is in Italian. Classical latin does not use "c" for soft "tch" sounds; so an Italian would indeed say "vitchi", but Caesar would have said "Wiki". So "AFFICIÓ" would be pronounced "AFIKIO", not "AFITCHIO" (/af.fi.ki.o/).
I am seeing claims that there is an Ecclesiastical Latin (presumably used in the church) which WOULD have the pronounciations you say-- but that is not Classical Latin.
In fact, wikipedia seems to corroborate this:
"Veni, vidi, vici" (Classical Latin: [weni widi wiki]; Ecclesiastical Latin: [vni vidi viti]; "
It sounds like you studied "Ecclesiastical Latin", which I was not aware was a thing until just now. But as I said, in Classical Latin there is no "v" sound; "video" is always "wideo", and C is always hard:
grapheme . . .English examples .Always hard as k in sky, never soft as in Caesar, cello, or social
c, k . . . . . . .
u . . . . . . . . . Sometimes at the beginning of a syllable, or after g and s, as w in wine, never as v in vine
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
http://www.orbilat.com/Languag...
Ah I did not know that. Interesting to hear-- I had always heard it explained as a faulty double-shift due to over-zealous application of a common rule. I was not aware that "V" was pronounced as a "w" in german at times-- but then I've only done a very introductory study of the language.
In latin the V is 95% pronounced as a W (they had no letter W)
Yes, which is quite funny when you consider that when Julius Caesar said "vini vidi vici", it was not proclaimed in a loud manly voice as "VANEY VIDI VICHI", but rather "waney widi wiki" (as V is "w" and c is "k"-- ie, cerberus -->kerberos).
Other than you saw some other moron on the Internet say 'China Did It' ... can you provide some actual proof to back up your claims.
50 cent army on the prowl!
It is simply stunningly illogical for China to behave this way against such petty targets. It makes absolutely NO sense for them to flaunt their ability and willingness to do so as the simple course of action the entire reset of the world would take is a simple matter of NULL routing China and going on about their daily business, your 'war' would be over before anyone really cared.
Its not like this fits with the MO of China, right?
Its not like they negotiated with Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google to expose dissidents on those blogging platforms a decade ago.
Not like they coordinated with Skype to capture phone conversations via their well-documented TOM platform.
Not like they used state-sponsored hackers to infiltrate Google, like they commonly attempt to do corporate espionage.
Not like they engaged in a well-documented and highly-visible war with Google when Google retaliated by ending their cooperation.
Not like they cooperated with the recent hacks on Sony (where do you think North Korea gets its internet uplink from?)
Not like the recent github attacks were traced back to Baidu, a search engine with ties to the CPC
You'd have to have your head in the sand not to see this as an extension of their "control all speech" policy, and either be ignorant or a member of the wng píng yuán to defend them.
If you know about the v to b and t to z "soundshifts"
Fun fact about those soundshifts. Any first year student of German is aware of the W->V and V->F sound shift when going from English to German. What you may NOT know is that there is a software glitch in the brains of all beginner and intermediate Germans students of the English language. The glitch is such that it makes them (most of the time) pronounce the word "vegetable" as "wedgetable"; if they were applying the rules correctly, they would know that they letter they normally pronounce as "f" is instead pronounced "v". Instead, they do a mental double-shift or perhaps a backwards conversion, and go from "v" to "w".
Try it; any time you suspect someone may be an undercover German learning english, get them to pronounce "vegetable".
You're both right, but you managed to shift the goalposts with an incredibly misleading statement.
What is true is that the population of women, on average, makes 80% of what the population of men makes. The reason this is INCREDIBLY misleading is it does not look at "pay for equal work"; it utterly disregards what industries men and women respectively tend to be in and just assumes that all women are in the same industries as all men and thus that 80% figure is indicating sexism.
This 80% number is so notorious that it has been widely slammed, by such publications as Politifact, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and Slate. That is, its SUCH a misleading statement that it is derided by publications ranging from neutral to liberal to conservative.
Indeed, The Washington Post notes,
June O’Neill, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office who has been a critic of the 77-cent statistic, has noted that the wage gap is affected by a number of factors, including that the average woman has less work experience than the average man and that more of the weeks worked by women are part-time rather than full-time. Women also tend to leave the work force for periods in order to raise children, seek jobs that may have more flexible hours but lower pay and choose careers that tend to have lower pay.
Indeed, BLS data show that women who do not get married have virtually no wage gap; they earn 96 cents for every dollar a man makes.
They [economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ] noted that women may prefer to accept jobs with lower wages but greater benefits (more flexible parental leave) so excluding such fringe benefits from the calculations will exaggerate the wage disparity.
So yes: Technically, 77 cents on the dollar. That is, if you're attempting to push a political agenda by boiling down a really complex comparison to an inflated and highly controversial figure.
Please disregard, my reading comprehension is in the dumps today.
I feel like this thread started strong and has begun to swerve out into stereotype town.
Slashdot never disappoints.
That's simple an unacceptable thing for a business to do precisely because of the notion of "protected class[es]".
Protected classes are quite narrow, and lifestyle choices do not fall within them. In any case it is a businesses right to object to doing business with another (or "deprive them") based on a moral objection. Isnt that literally what SalesForce, the NCAA, and so on are doing in response to this issue?
I dont know, that smells of rank hypocrisy to me. "WE can refuse to do business with you over moral objections, but YOU cant because you have a different opinion!"
Off topic, but this has nothing to do with the catholic church; neither I nor CS Lewis are/were catholic.
In any case, and for the final time, the right of a business to choose to refuse service is a time honored right (with the exception of cases involving "protected groups"). Ill leave you a few links to get you started; argue with them, not me.
http://politics.stackexchange....
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-...