And that's different from a normal credit card how?
These things are even more flexible and durable than credit cards. There is no reason to expect these cards will be more susceptible to demagnetization than the magnetic strip of any other card.
The electronics are in the plastic, it makes them pretty darn durable.
Punch your PIN, punch a challenge phrase, give the vendor the response, and that will do a lot to minimize credit card fraud.
Not really, most card theft these days happens in mass thefts of data, not individual credit card thefts.
Economics is not a zero sum game. Dig something valuable out of the ground and you've just "created" new money by adding something valuable that wasn't there before. (This applies to anything valuable, digging stuff up just makes the point clearer)
However, your point stands in the sense that if people have to start paying for something that used to be free and does not increase revenue in any way, then the money for that item must come from somewhere else. $1000 more spent here means $1000 less spent somewhere else.
Unless, of course, it isn't compatible with Google's services.
Then "non-compatible" is perfectly accurate and not disturbing in any way.
Franky, I'd be pretty damn pissed if an app I downloaded didn't work because the manufacturer replaced Google's location service with one that was not compatible with Google's API.
It sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
The question is whether or not Skyhook was compatible but rejected anyway. Frankly, I doubt it. They've been getting kicked out of the market by everyone (by that I mean the manufacturers), and now they're just being sore losers. That's my opinion anyway.
Actually they'd still be able to use the Android name, no problem with that.
They wouldn't be able to use the Market though, because they can't guarantee that all applications will work with your non-standard configuration. Since your apps may not be compatible, they don't want you to have access to their market because it would likely end up tarnishing Google's reputation, not the assholes who designed an incompatible system.
That's what I believe is going on here, it's about access to Google's services, not access to the Android brand or Android itself. If you want to use Google's services, Google has some requirements you must meet. Those requirements are for the manufacturer, because that is who Google allows to use their services. If Skyhook wants to compete, they need to be 100% compatible with the Google function they are replacing. If they aren't, the manufacturer is going to have to use services rather than Google's.
The only question here is whether or not Skyhook was 100% compatible but Google rejected manufacturers because of their service anyway (i.e. the only reason it was reject was because it competes with Google). I don't buy it at first blush, because manufacturers have replaced other components of Android while retaining Google services, but we'll see.
The position doesn't make any logical sense though. Google has no problem with companies replacing Google functions, even significantly, as long as they are compatible. HTC does this on all their phones (and really delays Android updates, it kinda sucks in that way), and the alterations are significant. But they are compatible with everything else that is Android. Hell some phones have replaced Google Search with Bing, you would think if anything put Google into a hissy fit it would be that. Yet those phones all tie in to Google services - everything except search.
Based on Google's record on these kinds of things, my money is on Skyhook's services not being 100% compatible with Google's API, and since many applications rely on location services, Google put their foot down and said "no" unless it is fully compatible.
That's more than likely what is the case. It doesn't make sense that Google would be adamant about location and not search (which has been replaced with Bing on a handful of phones) unless there was a technical reason for location but not for search.
If so, Skyhook is basically saying "How is replacing a function that breaks all kinds of applications that may rely on that function in any way not compatible?"
I remember hearing about a nutrition paper that was rejected from a medical journal for a reason along the lines of "That can't possibly be true." So the guy updated the paper with an explanation of the basic bodily functions involved and how they work, which shows exactly why it could happen, and still rejected. He submitted it to a different paper where they basically said "This looks sound, we'll publish on the condition that you remove the explanation. Any doctor would know this already." The paper didn't fit in with the first reviewer's beliefs on nutrition, so he rejected it outright. A journal that was less biased on the subject approved it.
Now imagine that your research goes against the beliefs of all the referees. How do you get published then?
That same guy figured out how to get all his papers accepted without fail: simply load it down with so much math that the referee won't want to take the time to check your work. Since they can't find anything wrong with it because they didn't do the math, it's an automatic pass almost every time (except for cases like the above).
As incompetence grows, the likelihood that it will be open sourced increases.
If you were going to make a cause-effect case it would have to be that incompetence caused the openness, not the other way around. Opening your source masks your incompetence, so it's definitely a strategy in use today.
I don't see why people are harping on the guy, he's absolutely right. People just misunderstand what he is saying, that's all.
I don't see where you've proved your point. Except for XBMC, which I haven't used, I'd take the Windows product over Linux any day. Apache is especially bad, it's old and tired, just let it die already.
For example, I've noticed a common theme lately for old, entrenched products. If they start to fall behind and their market share starts to dip too low, they open source their code. This generates lots of good press and a whole new army of free worker bees improving your product. The down side, of course, is you lose complete control, but if you've been screwing it up this whole time that might not be a bad thing.
Probably the biggest example of this is Mozilla, which came as a direct result of the disaster that was Netscape's "upgrade" (they took a fantastic product and killed it with incompetence).
So he's not necessarily saying open source = incompetent, what he is saying is that often the reason companies open source their code is as a way to mask their own incompetence (i.e. not the open source community's incompetence).
Or at the very least a rogue driver of some sort (doesn't have to be attached to any hardware).
Vista was pretty rough on vendors, and broke a lot of drivers that used to work, which is not cool in my mind. 7 is much, much better about this, and I've never experienced a problem in windows like the one I had trying to get audio to work in two separate media packages that decided they each wanted to use their own scheme. Ugh. I'll take a bluescreen once every six months over that any day.
We had those glasses when I was in high-school, and that was over 10 years ago, and I know they weren't new then.
The OP seems to think we should have cars that do their own body work or some shit like that, but doesn't consider the other features of such metals which make them useless in that type of application - things like the super-elasticity you mentioned makes them worthless for structural purposes of any kind. They are also damned expensive to make compared to things like hardened steel.
There is a place for them, but they'll never be ubiquitous. They just don't have the proper physical properties to be used anywhere and everywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn, you're an asshole.
Yeah, I was actually talking about the editors rejecting it without sending it off for review.
My bad.
And that's different from a normal credit card how?
These things are even more flexible and durable than credit cards. There is no reason to expect these cards will be more susceptible to demagnetization than the magnetic strip of any other card.
The electronics are in the plastic, it makes them pretty darn durable.
Punch your PIN, punch a challenge phrase, give the vendor the response, and that will do a lot to minimize credit card fraud.
Not really, most card theft these days happens in mass thefts of data, not individual credit card thefts.
Economics is not a zero sum game. Dig something valuable out of the ground and you've just "created" new money by adding something valuable that wasn't there before. (This applies to anything valuable, digging stuff up just makes the point clearer)
However, your point stands in the sense that if people have to start paying for something that used to be free and does not increase revenue in any way, then the money for that item must come from somewhere else. $1000 more spent here means $1000 less spent somewhere else.
Why would you set up your own Diaspora server using a Developer's Release?
Could be a masochist.
They only get fried if it's true.
Nope, just you.
Unless, of course, it isn't compatible with Google's services.
Then "non-compatible" is perfectly accurate and not disturbing in any way.
Franky, I'd be pretty damn pissed if an app I downloaded didn't work because the manufacturer replaced Google's location service with one that was not compatible with Google's API.
It sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
The question is whether or not Skyhook was compatible but rejected anyway. Frankly, I doubt it. They've been getting kicked out of the market by everyone (by that I mean the manufacturers), and now they're just being sore losers. That's my opinion anyway.
Actually they'd still be able to use the Android name, no problem with that.
They wouldn't be able to use the Market though, because they can't guarantee that all applications will work with your non-standard configuration. Since your apps may not be compatible, they don't want you to have access to their market because it would likely end up tarnishing Google's reputation, not the assholes who designed an incompatible system.
That's what I believe is going on here, it's about access to Google's services, not access to the Android brand or Android itself. If you want to use Google's services, Google has some requirements you must meet. Those requirements are for the manufacturer, because that is who Google allows to use their services. If Skyhook wants to compete, they need to be 100% compatible with the Google function they are replacing. If they aren't, the manufacturer is going to have to use services rather than Google's.
The only question here is whether or not Skyhook was 100% compatible but Google rejected manufacturers because of their service anyway (i.e. the only reason it was reject was because it competes with Google). I don't buy it at first blush, because manufacturers have replaced other components of Android while retaining Google services, but we'll see.
The position doesn't make any logical sense though. Google has no problem with companies replacing Google functions, even significantly, as long as they are compatible. HTC does this on all their phones (and really delays Android updates, it kinda sucks in that way), and the alterations are significant. But they are compatible with everything else that is Android. Hell some phones have replaced Google Search with Bing, you would think if anything put Google into a hissy fit it would be that. Yet those phones all tie in to Google services - everything except search.
Based on Google's record on these kinds of things, my money is on Skyhook's services not being 100% compatible with Google's API, and since many applications rely on location services, Google put their foot down and said "no" unless it is fully compatible.
That's more than likely what is the case. It doesn't make sense that Google would be adamant about location and not search (which has been replaced with Bing on a handful of phones) unless there was a technical reason for location but not for search.
If so, Skyhook is basically saying "How is replacing a function that breaks all kinds of applications that may rely on that function in any way not compatible?"
We're not talking about the reviewers, we're talking about the referees. The guys who let papers in the journal so that they can be reviewed.
If the paper never gets published, how will reviewers ever see it?
Basically, yeah.
It falls prey to human nature.
I remember hearing about a nutrition paper that was rejected from a medical journal for a reason along the lines of "That can't possibly be true." So the guy updated the paper with an explanation of the basic bodily functions involved and how they work, which shows exactly why it could happen, and still rejected. He submitted it to a different paper where they basically said "This looks sound, we'll publish on the condition that you remove the explanation. Any doctor would know this already." The paper didn't fit in with the first reviewer's beliefs on nutrition, so he rejected it outright. A journal that was less biased on the subject approved it.
Now imagine that your research goes against the beliefs of all the referees. How do you get published then?
That same guy figured out how to get all his papers accepted without fail: simply load it down with so much math that the referee won't want to take the time to check your work. Since they can't find anything wrong with it because they didn't do the math, it's an automatic pass almost every time (except for cases like the above).
See the wikipedia link in the summary. It 'splains it.
Aka "The police put out an APB on soandso".
It means all points bulletin, but the name of the game is APB, not all points bulletin.
It's cops and robbers man.
Correlation.
As incompetence grows, the likelihood that it will be open sourced increases.
If you were going to make a cause-effect case it would have to be that incompetence caused the openness, not the other way around. Opening your source masks your incompetence, so it's definitely a strategy in use today.
I don't see why people are harping on the guy, he's absolutely right. People just misunderstand what he is saying, that's all.
I don't see where you've proved your point. Except for XBMC, which I haven't used, I'd take the Windows product over Linux any day. Apache is especially bad, it's old and tired, just let it die already.
It sounds like he is being taken out of context.
For example, I've noticed a common theme lately for old, entrenched products. If they start to fall behind and their market share starts to dip too low, they open source their code. This generates lots of good press and a whole new army of free worker bees improving your product. The down side, of course, is you lose complete control, but if you've been screwing it up this whole time that might not be a bad thing.
Probably the biggest example of this is Mozilla, which came as a direct result of the disaster that was Netscape's "upgrade" (they took a fantastic product and killed it with incompetence).
So he's not necessarily saying open source = incompetent, what he is saying is that often the reason companies open source their code is as a way to mask their own incompetence (i.e. not the open source community's incompetence).
It seems plausible.
What does that mean in English?
Or at the very least a rogue driver of some sort (doesn't have to be attached to any hardware).
Vista was pretty rough on vendors, and broke a lot of drivers that used to work, which is not cool in my mind. 7 is much, much better about this, and I've never experienced a problem in windows like the one I had trying to get audio to work in two separate media packages that decided they each wanted to use their own scheme. Ugh. I'll take a bluescreen once every six months over that any day.
*WHOOOSH!*
We had those glasses when I was in high-school, and that was over 10 years ago, and I know they weren't new then.
The OP seems to think we should have cars that do their own body work or some shit like that, but doesn't consider the other features of such metals which make them useless in that type of application - things like the super-elasticity you mentioned makes them worthless for structural purposes of any kind. They are also damned expensive to make compared to things like hardened steel.
There is a place for them, but they'll never be ubiquitous. They just don't have the proper physical properties to be used anywhere and everywhere.
It's point to point transfer, like a network trunk.
It wouldn't even need to be that much, according to that wikipedia page pigeons have already been clocked at 75mph.