The openness of Android is a big part of why Android has better marketshare than iOS, so maybe they shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.
What are you basing that on? I would assume that the reason Android has a bigger marketshare than iPhone OS is because it's licensed to many, many manufacturers, whereas iPhone OS is only available on Apple products.
He was questioning Android's 'openness' being the cause of Androids market share by replying that it was because it was licensed to so many companies. If his point was as you say, then it was a semantically convoluted point.
I never said car exhaust was worse than cigarettes although I do believe it, and I would rather sit in a smoking lounge than a garage with a car running. The point is somebody else's actions are hurting my health. If you take that seriously I'll take your second hand argument seriously.
That is the only study I've been able to find comparing cigarettes to car exhaust. It did not include all particulate matter (only fine particulates), only used an eco-diesel (at idle) and did not evaluate the health detriments of any of the particles in either cigarettes or car exhaust. The entire point of the study was to show that cigarettes were worse than exhaust. I'm unsure whether CO or CO2 are even counted as particulate matter even though they probably cause the most immediate harm.
BTW I don't smoke but I do work at an auto auction and I can assure you the two or three cars that are in the bay at any given time greatly overwhelm the 20 or 30 cigarettes that are being smoked in the bay at any given time.
Cigarettes are bad for you and second hand smoke is bad for you but we should stop making them the worse things ever made. It really hurts the entire anti-smoking campaign when these kinds of 'facts' are trotted out. I'm sure I could show you a study claiming pot is just as bad as crack but it would be a ridiculous statement.
Are you too busy to charge it more than once every two months? I don't think the comment was deriding people who read less than 30 minutes a day, only pointing out that 30 minutes a day between 2 month charges isn't really a meaningful schedule to anyone.
I think two specs would work perfectly. One for continuous use and one for continuous standby. Then the consumer (intelligent fellow that he is:) ) can determine the best mix. Of course if their batteries were standardized and interchangeable it could be worse (from a bad marketing perspective). They would then just say it last twice as long. Twice as long as what, no one would know.
It doesn't make sense to spec the battery life on continuous use because no one does that. 30 minutes per day is far more accurate than continuous use.
We spec light bulbs that way even though the frequency they are turned on and off has a huge affect on their lifespan. Tires are measured in total miles. One tire manufacture doesn't claim to last twice as long and then put in the fine print that it assumes you will only stop and accelerate some number of times that makes their tires suddenly last longer.
Spec continuous use and then let usage patterns derive from that. Don't start at usage patterns or you wind up in the marketing mess we're talking about.
The contested part, as best I've been able to determine, is to what degree any of the antibiotic resistant strains is retained in beef flesh
That's not really contested. Scientist know you can cook food to kill organisms. Most should even be able to tell you why. The problem is how much of the antibiotic properties are retained in an environment where cattle (or other livestock), fed with antibiotic feed, poop and pee. In other words it doesn't matter if the strains in your meat are cooked if the 'environment' is constantly exposed to antibiotics then so are the bacteria that cause infection. Thus, when you get an infection from one of those bacteria, that's been waiting for a cut in your skin, it's already been exposed to the antibiotic. This is known to cause resistance.
The idea that there is any debate over properly cooked food being a vector for resistant bacteria is a straw man.
You may be right that there is not a 'real' gain to desktop space with 3d vs say 2d multiple workspace solutions but I do prefer the desktop cube (or cylinder etc.) I generally keep my applications windowed so some part of the desktop is usually visible. I like being able to 'grab' the cube with the middle button and move it around to get to other desktops. I like being able to roll the wheel to flip through them.
I agree that sometimes pseudo-3D can be useful like say flipping through album covers or something
I know not everyone runs a lot of applications at once but if I'm running a dozen or so then flipping through them can be handy. Anyway, I don't know if anyone is forced to use 3d on the desktop right now so it's not much of a problem if you don't like it.
That's the problem. Free will can not be the result of a cause or it is not free.
I don't think you have to believe in a soul to believe in free will.
No, you just have to call it something else.
it could very well be caused by a particle just as the Higgs particle could cause matter.
A particle that is the source of uncaused will? I'm not sure what that means. Just because quantum mechanics seems mysterious and consciousness seems mysterious does not mean one is the result of the other. It really just mean that we lack an understanding of the fundamentals of either.
Even if some mysterious particle could be the source of consciousness, NO natural process can be the cause of free will. Natural processes by definition are the result of cause and effect unlike 'super' natural processes that by definition do not depend on cause. Therefore, either will is determined and based on natural cause and effect or it is free and based on 'super' natural non linked effects. Also by definition there is no way to prove the 'super' natural as it is not repeatable. Quantum physics to some extent is repeatable even if we do not understand the underlying mechanics of why 60% of something goes one way and 40% goes the other or why things can 'appear' to be in two states at once.
BTW in regards to the use of math (from a prior post of yorus), math works just fine with the planets and suns orbiting around the earth. Math doesn't prove anything anymore than correct English proves a statement is true. I personally take the view that nothing can be proven and that there are no facts. There are merely observations. Theories are developed to explain and predict observations. This view depends on cause and effect to make predictions. Any theory (or hypothesis really) that maintains that any part is unpredictable is outside of this view of science.
All poo relies on electrons. You cannot have poo without electrons. So this would be one place to look.
But basically, if you don't have quantum poo you can't have poo on higher scales. So on some level these particles have diarrhea even if it's through us. This doesn't answer whether or not there is IBS, but the math is clear that if there is poo on the large scale it will also have to exist on the quantum scale. It's also proven mathematically that if IBS exists on the large scale that it also has to exist somewhere somehow on the quantum scale.
Analysis of shopping patterns might lead to better service, like, maybe, *maybe* they won't run out of tonic water so often in the summer. Maybe.
I don't even think *maybe* since they can already tell how much tonic water they go through without having to know the names of the people who bought it. They don't need your name to tell that you bought hot dogs, mustard and buns for this weekend since they can track each check out. This allows them all the purchasing relationships they need. Even without buying things at the same time there will still be a relationship of x amount of toothpaste = y amount of toothbrushes over a given time. Less obvious relationships can also be established. They can look at last year's purchases and see relationships between condoms, ky and candles without having to know that Bob is getting lucky tonight. They don't need your name for anything except to know your name:)
BTW I give them phone numbers of random people in my phone until one of them works. It seems women sign up more for loyalty cards. I guess there's a shopping/loyalty/women tangent there I'll have to take up another day.;)
No one except the owner is indispensable. It will completely depend on the relationship he has with them. If he's considered a "friend" or "good guy" he might be able to talk his way into something. If he's considered an asset then it's like the copier asking for a raise. A lot of people deride that this is the case or they deride that somebody thinks it's the case but I just think it's human nature and understandable.
Malware, GPL violations, rooted phones being blocked, Google not releasing the source code for new versions, people pirating apps so developing apps is useless, hardware fragmentation, phones saving location data and leaking all of your stuff to Google.
Malware - I would assume a more open environment would give way to more malware than a walled garden for apps. If you're going to allow people to install what they want you will have malware (how many instances are design flaws and how many are end user approved I don't know). That's a pro vs con that is certainly worth considering but would ultimately come down to personal preference/needs.
GPL violations - I don't think this one is necessarily fair since for market share there aren't any alternatives that have/use the GPL to violate. One could argue it's a problem within the Android market but as pro vs con compared to other phones there's nothing that makes it a con. Certainly those involved with the code that's being used under violation should register their complaints and take legal action if necessary.
rooted phones being blocked - Android's not alone here. But Google's 'honesty' is amusing. Again, I'm not saying it's not a problem. Merely pointing out that compared to other options it's not much different.
Google not releasing the source code for new versions - Again a problem that only applies to Google because they're the only one (and those mentioned in TFA) that's expected to.
people pirating apps so developing apps is useless - Similar to the malware problem except affecting developers more where malware affects end-users. So open vs controlled and the pros and cons that come with it. Personal preference and I could go either way.
hardware fragmentation - Good and bad as with most things. Hardware fragmentation to one person is bleeding edge to another (I recognize the merits of that statement depend on a market where market fragmentation is due to technological advance vs technological control).
phones saving location data and leaking all of your stuff to Google - I don't know that I'd use the word leaking but the end result is the same.I will acknowledge that accepting any Google product probably means you should weigh the value of your privacy against it.
I think your thoughts are personally valid and valid for many but I wanted to add why others would still see Android as the 'best' choice if not the ideal one.
3) I'm pretty sure device manufacturers are doing more robust consumer research than PC Pro.
Maybe but haven't most LCD manufactures been fined over the past few years for price fixing? If they are colluding they don't need to do robust consumer research they just need to decide how many consumers each one gets. On a tangent have you ever looked up price fixing on Google News? It's sad really.
The immediate response that comes to mind is Apple 'crippled' iOS so why would a locked down Mac not work? Once Photoshop and some audio/video software is signed on would most people even notice? The average user spends most of their time on the web anyway.
That's why there are two OS's in the first place! Tech "writers" need to figure this out.
There are many reasons for having two OS's. (for instance at one point MS offered two fundamentally different lines of Windows before merging them). I personally don't think having a controlled software channel is the reason here. From Apple's standpoint doesn't iOS seem to be much more successful than Mac OS? Why wouldn't they be motivated to make MacOS more like iOS?
We have more creative output and more access to it now than ever before, and every trend is upward
I'm not arguing that copyright incentive is zero I just want to point out that this has generally been true for most points in history. Technology tends to improve output and access much more drastically than laws concerning the exchange of information.
I posted my comment at lunch., based solely off the summary and the post I was replying to.
I merely pointed out that the summary referred to commercial by quoting the use of the word company in the summary's first line. I replied to someone stating that the summary made no such reference. So I'm not sure where you got anything else. I made no statement as to the abuse of those terms applied to individuals or transactions between friends/family/etc.
Slashdot Mirror
The people that care about openness are an insignificant share of the market
The consumers that care about openness are an insignificant share of the market
Android is ahead because of increased hardware choice and cheaper handsets. That's it.
And that's because it's open and a significant number of manufacturers care about licensing costs.
The openness of Android is a big part of why Android has better marketshare than iOS, so maybe they shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.
What are you basing that on? I would assume that the reason Android has a bigger marketshare than iPhone OS is because it's licensed to many, many manufacturers, whereas iPhone OS is only available on Apple products.
He was questioning Android's 'openness' being the cause of Androids market share by replying that it was because it was licensed to so many companies. If his point was as you say, then it was a semantically convoluted point.
I never said car exhaust was worse than cigarettes although I do believe it, and I would rather sit in a smoking lounge than a garage with a car running. The point is somebody else's actions are hurting my health. If you take that seriously I'll take your second hand argument seriously. That is the only study I've been able to find comparing cigarettes to car exhaust. It did not include all particulate matter (only fine particulates), only used an eco-diesel (at idle) and did not evaluate the health detriments of any of the particles in either cigarettes or car exhaust. The entire point of the study was to show that cigarettes were worse than exhaust. I'm unsure whether CO or CO2 are even counted as particulate matter even though they probably cause the most immediate harm. BTW I don't smoke but I do work at an auto auction and I can assure you the two or three cars that are in the bay at any given time greatly overwhelm the 20 or 30 cigarettes that are being smoked in the bay at any given time. Cigarettes are bad for you and second hand smoke is bad for you but we should stop making them the worse things ever made. It really hurts the entire anti-smoking campaign when these kinds of 'facts' are trotted out. I'm sure I could show you a study claiming pot is just as bad as crack but it would be a ridiculous statement.
You're citing a show that does experiments with (almost always) known outcomes as your evidence of conducting beneficial research.
Over a hundred years ago many people might have found research about the Brocken spectre that forms around people in a fog useless.
I don't care if you're weak-willed. That doesn't give you an excuse to ruin my health too.
I really dislike this argument. It's just asinine. Tell you what, you stop driving and ruining my health and I'll start to take you seriously.
Are you too busy to charge it more than once every two months? I don't think the comment was deriding people who read less than 30 minutes a day, only pointing out that 30 minutes a day between 2 month charges isn't really a meaningful schedule to anyone.
I think two specs would work perfectly. One for continuous use and one for continuous standby. Then the consumer (intelligent fellow that he is :) ) can determine the best mix. Of course if their batteries were standardized and interchangeable it could be worse (from a bad marketing perspective). They would then just say it last twice as long. Twice as long as what, no one would know.
I just invented some tires that last twice as long as any other tires made today*
*Figure based on assumption that car will be driven straight with no stopping or turning.
It doesn't make sense to spec the battery life on continuous use because no one does that. 30 minutes per day is far more accurate than continuous use.
We spec light bulbs that way even though the frequency they are turned on and off has a huge affect on their lifespan. Tires are measured in total miles. One tire manufacture doesn't claim to last twice as long and then put in the fine print that it assumes you will only stop and accelerate some number of times that makes their tires suddenly last longer.
Spec continuous use and then let usage patterns derive from that. Don't start at usage patterns or you wind up in the marketing mess we're talking about.
Did you know the average human can lift their own body weight (on average about 150 lbs) but I can lift 15,000 lbs*
*My strength assumes lifting one pound at a time over a one year period.
By the way, that pic should be some kind of statistical goatse. It's disgusting.
I did but that first sentence (and fourth beer) altered my perception :) Fair enough that you appear to be saying the same thing.
The contested part, as best I've been able to determine, is to what degree any of the antibiotic resistant strains is retained in beef flesh
That's not really contested. Scientist know you can cook food to kill organisms. Most should even be able to tell you why. The problem is how much of the antibiotic properties are retained in an environment where cattle (or other livestock), fed with antibiotic feed, poop and pee. In other words it doesn't matter if the strains in your meat are cooked if the 'environment' is constantly exposed to antibiotics then so are the bacteria that cause infection. Thus, when you get an infection from one of those bacteria, that's been waiting for a cut in your skin, it's already been exposed to the antibiotic. This is known to cause resistance.
The idea that there is any debate over properly cooked food being a vector for resistant bacteria is a straw man.
I agree that sometimes pseudo-3D can be useful like say flipping through album covers or something
I know not everyone runs a lot of applications at once but if I'm running a dozen or so then flipping through them can be handy. Anyway, I don't know if anyone is forced to use 3d on the desktop right now so it's not much of a problem if you don't like it.
They could project it on a shape with more sides than a cube. They could even wrap windows around a sphere.
I like compiz.
self-censorship as a 'civic duty'
I'm speechless.
What features would convince me to pay money for this product?
um, it's open source. So try it if you want. Don't try it if you want.
quantum mechanism that causes free will
That's the problem. Free will can not be the result of a cause or it is not free.
I don't think you have to believe in a soul to believe in free will.
No, you just have to call it something else.
it could very well be caused by a particle just as the Higgs particle could cause matter.
A particle that is the source of uncaused will? I'm not sure what that means. Just because quantum mechanics seems mysterious and consciousness seems mysterious does not mean one is the result of the other. It really just mean that we lack an understanding of the fundamentals of either.
Even if some mysterious particle could be the source of consciousness, NO natural process can be the cause of free will. Natural processes by definition are the result of cause and effect unlike 'super' natural processes that by definition do not depend on cause. Therefore, either will is determined and based on natural cause and effect or it is free and based on 'super' natural non linked effects. Also by definition there is no way to prove the 'super' natural as it is not repeatable. Quantum physics to some extent is repeatable even if we do not understand the underlying mechanics of why 60% of something goes one way and 40% goes the other or why things can 'appear' to be in two states at once.
BTW in regards to the use of math (from a prior post of yorus), math works just fine with the planets and suns orbiting around the earth. Math doesn't prove anything anymore than correct English proves a statement is true. I personally take the view that nothing can be proven and that there are no facts. There are merely observations. Theories are developed to explain and predict observations. This view depends on cause and effect to make predictions. Any theory (or hypothesis really) that maintains that any part is unpredictable is outside of this view of science.
All poo relies on electrons. You cannot have poo without electrons. So this would be one place to look.
But basically, if you don't have quantum poo you can't have poo on higher scales. So on some level these particles have diarrhea even if it's through us. This doesn't answer whether or not there is IBS, but the math is clear that if there is poo on the large scale it will also have to exist on the quantum scale. It's also proven mathematically that if IBS exists on the large scale that it also has to exist somewhere somehow on the quantum scale.
See what I did there?
Analysis of shopping patterns might lead to better service, like, maybe, *maybe* they won't run out of tonic water so often in the summer. Maybe.
I don't even think *maybe* since they can already tell how much tonic water they go through without having to know the names of the people who bought it. They don't need your name to tell that you bought hot dogs, mustard and buns for this weekend since they can track each check out. This allows them all the purchasing relationships they need. Even without buying things at the same time there will still be a relationship of x amount of toothpaste = y amount of toothbrushes over a given time. Less obvious relationships can also be established. They can look at last year's purchases and see relationships between condoms, ky and candles without having to know that Bob is getting lucky tonight. They don't need your name for anything except to know your name :)
;)
BTW I give them phone numbers of random people in my phone until one of them works. It seems women sign up more for loyalty cards. I guess there's a shopping/loyalty/women tangent there I'll have to take up another day.
If you really are indispensable
No one except the owner is indispensable. It will completely depend on the relationship he has with them. If he's considered a "friend" or "good guy" he might be able to talk his way into something. If he's considered an asset then it's like the copier asking for a raise. A lot of people deride that this is the case or they deride that somebody thinks it's the case but I just think it's human nature and understandable.
Malware, GPL violations, rooted phones being blocked, Google not releasing the source code for new versions, people pirating apps so developing apps is useless, hardware fragmentation, phones saving location data and leaking all of your stuff to Google.
Malware - I would assume a more open environment would give way to more malware than a walled garden for apps. If you're going to allow people to install what they want you will have malware (how many instances are design flaws and how many are end user approved I don't know). That's a pro vs con that is certainly worth considering but would ultimately come down to personal preference/needs.
GPL violations - I don't think this one is necessarily fair since for market share there aren't any alternatives that have/use the GPL to violate. One could argue it's a problem within the Android market but as pro vs con compared to other phones there's nothing that makes it a con. Certainly those involved with the code that's being used under violation should register their complaints and take legal action if necessary.
rooted phones being blocked - Android's not alone here. But Google's 'honesty' is amusing. Again, I'm not saying it's not a problem. Merely pointing out that compared to other options it's not much different.
Google not releasing the source code for new versions - Again a problem that only applies to Google because they're the only one (and those mentioned in TFA) that's expected to.
people pirating apps so developing apps is useless - Similar to the malware problem except affecting developers more where malware affects end-users. So open vs controlled and the pros and cons that come with it. Personal preference and I could go either way.
hardware fragmentation - Good and bad as with most things. Hardware fragmentation to one person is bleeding edge to another (I recognize the merits of that statement depend on a market where market fragmentation is due to technological advance vs technological control).
phones saving location data and leaking all of your stuff to Google - I don't know that I'd use the word leaking but the end result is the same.I will acknowledge that accepting any Google product probably means you should weigh the value of your privacy against it.
I think your thoughts are personally valid and valid for many but I wanted to add why others would still see Android as the 'best' choice if not the ideal one.
3) I'm pretty sure device manufacturers are doing more robust consumer research than PC Pro.
Maybe but haven't most LCD manufactures been fined over the past few years for price fixing? If they are colluding they don't need to do robust consumer research they just need to decide how many consumers each one gets. On a tangent have you ever looked up price fixing on Google News? It's sad really.
Apple will not cripple Mac OS X.
The immediate response that comes to mind is Apple 'crippled' iOS so why would a locked down Mac not work? Once Photoshop and some audio/video software is signed on would most people even notice? The average user spends most of their time on the web anyway.
That's why there are two OS's in the first place! Tech "writers" need to figure this out.
There are many reasons for having two OS's. (for instance at one point MS offered two fundamentally different lines of Windows before merging them). I personally don't think having a controlled software channel is the reason here. From Apple's standpoint doesn't iOS seem to be much more successful than Mac OS? Why wouldn't they be motivated to make MacOS more like iOS?
We have more creative output and more access to it now than ever before, and every trend is upward
I'm not arguing that copyright incentive is zero I just want to point out that this has generally been true for most points in history. Technology tends to improve output and access much more drastically than laws concerning the exchange of information.
I posted my comment at lunch., based solely off the summary and the post I was replying to.
I merely pointed out that the summary referred to commercial by quoting the use of the word company in the summary's first line. I replied to someone stating that the summary made no such reference. So I'm not sure where you got anything else. I made no statement as to the abuse of those terms applied to individuals or transactions between friends/family/etc.