Of course it is - they're running a heavily modified version of AOSP, not Android. Even if Android and the Play store were free and open, Amazon wants you to buy shit from their own store, not Google's.
AT&T only. 1280x720 resolution. $649 or ridiculous contracts. No external sd support. Not real Android. No Google Play store or Google apps. Weakly specced. Nonstop monitoring and control by Amazon.
It's going to sell like fucking hotcakes, isn't it?
Plenty of OEMs paid money to license Android, plenty of OEMs signed their first born child away, plenty of OEMs now have to pay more money to separately license Google's apps, which used to come with Android (there was Slashdot article about this when it happened), major OEMs pay extra on top of all other agreements in order to be able to launch a flagship product with the latest version of Android, OEMs have to pay extra again if they want access to the latest builds - whoever pays more gets access the earliest. This is all known shit, and while there may be smaller OEMs that don't pay in cash they by agreeing to lock themselves and their users into Android and Google. You can link to your fanboy site all you want, but it is KNOWN that Android comes at a cost, both in terms of $$$ and being tied down. Google's now even selling their apps separately for an additional cost + additional restrictions.
Amazon does not use Android. They use a heavily modified version of AOSP. Most consumers do not want AOSP. AOSP is always behind Android in terms of features, security fixes, and the constant willy-nilly UI changes.
If you really want an open phone you'd be using Firefox's phone OS, or one of the open Linux based ROMs that only work on a handful of devices.
But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your crusade.
Android is closed source and costs money to license, and you have to agree to forcing Google's shit by default (like the Play store). AOSP is free and open source. No consumer wants a phone running AOSP.
Any self respecting bassmint dweller would not have used their home network to do this.
Basement dwellers don't leave the basement. Basement dwellers are self-loathing, not self-respecting. Basement dwellers use their own network to connect to proxies, which just makes it more of a pain in the ass to trace back. Extreme basement dwellers will use other means of accessing a separate network - a cantenna pointed at a neighbors house, a spliced line, whatever. This just means the cops track down the victim, figure out they're not computer literate, and ask "Any people who could have done this?" and learn about the freak in the neighbor's basement.
Hackers don't get caught because law enforcement doesn't care. When the cops, the government, or a corporation cares, hackers get caught or disappeared.
If you're implying the use of steganography, then you're a moron.
He probably is a tinfoil hat conspiracy loon, however, there is a grain of truth to what he is saying. Digital camera sensors can have a unique fingerprint. Dead pixels, model specific JPG quantization tables, sensor size, all these things can help a digital forensic analyst match a camera to the photos it's taken. The same is harder to prove with an analog camera.
The be able to do anything with that sort of information you'd need to know it was there and know how to find it, and it would have to be resilient to compression, cropping, resizing, all sorts of filters, converting from RAW to JPEG, etc. etc., and still not be visible to the end user.
Consider how iphones put date/location info on pictures. They could also be doing it in a secret way. The only way to be sure your camera isn't "telling on you" by secretly tagging/watermarking your photo with personally identifiable information is to start with a filmy and process it yourself. Therefore, the darkroom is actually a way of maintaining privacy... who knew...?:-)
Or you could just take the pictures your digital camera gives you and rip out the meta data. If you're implying the use of steganography, then you're a moron.
Why is there no mention of Display Port? Current 4K LCD all accept this, and with the right GPU, you can most certainly drive at 60Hz, full resolution.
This is more about HDMI being a broken standard to me. I just don't like DisplayPort because it's sort of Apple's thing.
DisplayPort is AMD's thing, through VESA. It's not Apple's thing.
Frame rate is for gamers. Programmers need pixels.
That's why TFA is missing the right angle. 4K is great for programming
1 - You can see more lines of code
2 - it doesn't require silly refresh rates) 4K for gaming is silly. It doesn't meet the basic requirements
1 - your card can't drive it
2 - the framerate is low)
Arguing that 4K is bad because it's no good for gamers is like arguing mobile phones are bad because you can't program on one effectively.
Are you kidding me? Staring at 30 Hz console output is maddening, and plenty of GPUs can handle 4K @ 60 fps for modern games. I'm sorry if you're trying to run Ubisoft's latest gimped turd, but that's an issue with the game, not a modern flagship GPU. Beyond that plenty of monitors can handle 4K 60 Hz. I have no idea why the fuck this shit got front paged. HDMI 2.0. WELCOME TO THE PRESENT. DisplayPort 1.2. WELCOME TO THE YEAR 2010.
You're wrong. You're following various "style guides". They are not authorities on the language, nor do their recommendations improve it in any objective way. Moving punctuation to the inside of a quotation is absurd - quotations are exact references and altering them defeats their entire purpose. Alternating between single and double quotation marks is altering the quotation, so it should not be done. It also does nothing to remove ambiguity, it just buries it one level deeper (or makes it worse in some cases). Not only can there be multiple levels of quotation, rendering your tactic pointless, the quotation itself can contain those symbols, causing your tactic to be harmful. Additionally, in most text the single quotation mark is visually similar, or even identical, to the apostrophe. If you actually want to remove ambiguity you have to use an escape character. English does not specify an escape character. When spoken, it becomes unwieldy after "he said she said" or the speaker's attempt to change introduce a third level of inflection to indicate different levels of quotation.
You're wrong about "that" versus "which". The word "which" is used when referring to a specific member of an established set. The word "that" would refer to the set. The language is a member of the set of archaic languages. The sentence "There are balls in the large boxes that have rough edges which are green." unambiguously means the balls are green, the boxes are large, and the boxes have rough edges. The sentence "There are balls in the large boxes that have rough edges that are green." means the boxes are large, the boxes have rough edges, and the rough edges are green. The phrase "that which is" should clue you in to how it works.
And you're wrong about whatever the fuck you're babbling about with regards to spoken. A language can be both spoken and written. You could dance it if you wanted to. It doesn't change the language when you're using the same grammar, syntax, and lexemes.
There's nothing more pathetic than someone trying and failing to police the grammar police. You may as well try to perform a citizen's arrest on a cop for speeding when chasing a criminal. Try harder next time, retard.
When will they never catch you? Are you referring to a period of time which you experience repeatedly, such that "they" will never catch you during that time? Are you traveling back to 1987 and committing crimes? Are you referring to your toilet in a hardened bunker and the fact that they'll never catch you when you're defecating? Or did you mean to type "They'll never catch me, then."?
I speak a secret language called "Syntactically Correct American English", an archaic language no one understands any more.
Ignoring the jokes about it being a secret language (your post renders it a formerly-secret language) and no one understanding it (clearly a few do, though you do not), you committed a few errors in that sentence as well. You should have typed "I speak a secret language called "Syntactically-Correct American English", an archaic language which no one understands any longer.".
I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that everything in this post is syntactically correct, and that the language itself is not unambiguous.
If you're finding politics and ideology in evidence based statement like either of those studies, it's not because the scientists put it there, you did that yourself while you were looking for reasons to reject the findings.
Studies are funded by entities with biases, thus the studies have desired outcomes. The institutions that get the grants are the ones who can get the desired outcomes. It's not just the social "sciences" and hot "issues" like climate change. Even the hard sciences fall victim to this. It doesn't matter if you're trotting out an insignificant cock and bull story about why some species died or if you're hiding how many people your experimental drug killed. Science is subject to the same power dynamics as everything else in society. People want power and will do dirty things to get it. Power in our society is related to money, political status, celebrity, and, as always, sex.
I have no idea why you responded to me with any of the other stuff in your post. I said nothing about organic foods. I said nothing about any specific study - I'm merely pointing out that science isn't some sacred cow immune to bias, influence, and impropriety. The vast majority of research is improperly influenced to various degrees. Research the media reports on is improperly influenced to higher degrees than research the media ignores. This is a simple result of the media reporting on what's interesting to viewers - controversial or divisive topics get trotted out, benign topics get ignored.
What's the deal with the spate of ideologically-driven "scientific" studies appearing in the last couple of years? The first really blatant one I am aware of was the "organic food isn't more nutritious" study, which completely deflected from the point of organic food altogether. It was obviously a piece designed to confuse lay people into thinking organic food didn't have additional health benefits over conventionally-grown food. Now we see this piece, claiming that a species genetically equipped to survive huge fluctuations in population over millions of years was really just going to go extinct anyway and we just happened to be there to see it. These people should be blacklisted from scientific journals. They're not academically honest in the slightest.
The majority of the scientific studies the media reports on are barely scientific, involve little study, and are mainly geared toward pushing ideology. It has been this way for decades.
If you weren't trolling you wouldn't have asserted that he was wasting his life, and you wouldn't have called video games pointless. Video games most certainly have a point, as much as any entertainment product. As for wasting his life, he owns a restaurant chain and is slinging hot sauce. What are you doing with your life, other than trolling?
I do lots of things with my life, including trolling and wasting my time on pointless video games. However I'm not trolling now - I am legitimately interested in how much he considers this time to be a waste, particularly when those hours are tallied up. Maybe you're still in your teens, but as you get older you'll become increasingly aware that the sand is quickly draining from your hourglass.
I wonder what happens if someone with more than enough CPU power to get 99% of the mining jumps in one night. What kind of Damage could they do in a short interval before people notice? What if their goals were not to steal bitcoins but rather to snatch all the coins from, say, Kim Jong Un, or Al Queda. E.g. for example the NSA or Samsung or Saudi arabia. They would not care about the loss of value in their stolen coins, the point is to deprive an adversaries use of them.
Does the Amazon or Azure networks have enough rentable time to pull this off?
The block chain is public, and it can be forked (and has been). Legitimate miners can simply decide to ignore the blocks mined (or faked) by the 99% enemy. But as Bitcoin grows it becomes harder to organize such a fork, and every transaction processed after the attack and before the fork leaves someone holding the bag. If the attacker's goal is to scare people away from Bitcoin they could have some success by doing this repeatedly, but they'd be better off manipulating the difficulty and trying to stay hidden. Mine until the difficulty ramps way up, sell, then stop. Wait for the difficulty to crash back down and then start mining again. You can shake confidence AND profit. If you merely want to scare everyone away from Bitcoin by mining and holding or by faking blocks then you're going to end up holding Bitcoins no one wants. You still scare people away from Bitcoin but you passed up on tons of cash along the way.
Amazon, Azure, etc. COMBINED do not have the power to do this. This requires custom hardware, and LOTS of it. It's likely that only a major government could do it.
They can say whatever the fuck they want, but the gram is the base unit of mass. A kilogram isn't a unit, it's a measure equal to exactly 1000 mass units (grams). The SI is full of arbitrary, ambiguous, retarded shit like this. I have no idea why people view it as some sort of authority on anything.
The 0.267m device weighs just 0.467kg and measures a mere 0.0066m in thickness.
Happy now?
Fuck no, I'm not happy..267 meters, 467 grams, and.0066 meters. Mass should be measured in grams by default. If you want kilograms to be the default because of your arbitrary preference, then shift everything by 1000. There's no reason other than "durr, I'm familiar with a kilogram" to have the default measure of mass be 1000 times the base unit.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it is - they're running a heavily modified version of AOSP, not Android.
Even if Android and the Play store were free and open, Amazon wants you to buy shit from their own store, not Google's.
This thing should fail and fail hard.
AT&T only.
1280x720 resolution.
$649 or ridiculous contracts.
No external sd support.
Not real Android.
No Google Play store or Google apps.
Weakly specced.
Nonstop monitoring and control by Amazon.
It's going to sell like fucking hotcakes, isn't it?
Plenty of OEMs paid money to license Android, plenty of OEMs signed their first born child away, plenty of OEMs now have to pay more money to separately license Google's apps, which used to come with Android (there was Slashdot article about this when it happened), major OEMs pay extra on top of all other agreements in order to be able to launch a flagship product with the latest version of Android, OEMs have to pay extra again if they want access to the latest builds - whoever pays more gets access the earliest.
This is all known shit, and while there may be smaller OEMs that don't pay in cash they by agreeing to lock themselves and their users into Android and Google.
You can link to your fanboy site all you want, but it is KNOWN that Android comes at a cost, both in terms of $$$ and being tied down. Google's now even selling their apps separately for an additional cost + additional restrictions.
Amazon does not use Android. They use a heavily modified version of AOSP. Most consumers do not want AOSP. AOSP is always behind Android in terms of features, security fixes, and the constant willy-nilly UI changes.
If you really want an open phone you'd be using Firefox's phone OS, or one of the open Linux based ROMs that only work on a handful of devices.
But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your crusade.
Their names are Kang and Kodos.
Also, given that the core of Android is FOSS
Android is closed source and costs money to license, and you have to agree to forcing Google's shit by default (like the Play store).
AOSP is free and open source. No consumer wants a phone running AOSP.
Any self respecting bassmint dweller would not have used their home network to do this.
Basement dwellers don't leave the basement.
Basement dwellers are self-loathing, not self-respecting.
Basement dwellers use their own network to connect to proxies, which just makes it more of a pain in the ass to trace back.
Extreme basement dwellers will use other means of accessing a separate network - a cantenna pointed at a neighbors house, a spliced line, whatever. This just means the cops track down the victim, figure out they're not computer literate, and ask "Any people who could have done this?" and learn about the freak in the neighbor's basement.
Hackers don't get caught because law enforcement doesn't care.
When the cops, the government, or a corporation cares, hackers get caught or disappeared.
would you mind going into ebay.com & deleting my account?
Ebay refuses to close it.
Move to Europe and sue them under your new right to be forgotten.
If you're implying the use of steganography, then you're a moron.
He probably is a tinfoil hat conspiracy loon, however, there is a grain of truth to what he is saying. Digital camera sensors can have a unique fingerprint. Dead pixels, model specific JPG quantization tables, sensor size, all these things can help a digital forensic analyst match a camera to the photos it's taken. The same is harder to prove with an analog camera.
The be able to do anything with that sort of information you'd need to know it was there and know how to find it, and it would have to be resilient to compression, cropping, resizing, all sorts of filters, converting from RAW to JPEG, etc. etc., and still not be visible to the end user.
Consider how iphones put date/location info on pictures. They could also be doing it in a secret way. The only way to be sure your camera isn't "telling on you" by secretly tagging/watermarking your photo with personally identifiable information is to start with a filmy and process it yourself. Therefore, the darkroom is actually a way of maintaining privacy... who knew...? :-)
Or you could just take the pictures your digital camera gives you and rip out the meta data.
If you're implying the use of steganography, then you're a moron.
To be fair, a teletype would solve 80% of what I need, with a video-capable tablet providing the rest...
To be fair, a non-tele blow job would solve 98% of what I need.
Why is there no mention of Display Port? Current 4K LCD all accept this, and with the right GPU, you can most certainly drive at 60Hz, full resolution.
This is more about HDMI being a broken standard to me. I just don't like DisplayPort because it's sort of Apple's thing.
DisplayPort is AMD's thing, through VESA. It's not Apple's thing.
Frame rate is for gamers. Programmers need pixels.
That's why TFA is missing the right angle.
4K is great for programming
1 - You can see more lines of code
2 - it doesn't require silly refresh rates)
4K for gaming is silly. It doesn't meet the basic requirements
1 - your card can't drive it
2 - the framerate is low)
Arguing that 4K is bad because it's no good for gamers is like arguing mobile phones are bad because you can't program on one effectively.
Are you kidding me? Staring at 30 Hz console output is maddening, and plenty of GPUs can handle 4K @ 60 fps for modern games. I'm sorry if you're trying to run Ubisoft's latest gimped turd, but that's an issue with the game, not a modern flagship GPU. Beyond that plenty of monitors can handle 4K 60 Hz. I have no idea why the fuck this shit got front paged. HDMI 2.0. WELCOME TO THE PRESENT. DisplayPort 1.2. WELCOME TO THE YEAR 2010.
You're wrong. You're following various "style guides". They are not authorities on the language, nor do their recommendations improve it in any objective way. Moving punctuation to the inside of a quotation is absurd - quotations are exact references and altering them defeats their entire purpose. Alternating between single and double quotation marks is altering the quotation, so it should not be done. It also does nothing to remove ambiguity, it just buries it one level deeper (or makes it worse in some cases). Not only can there be multiple levels of quotation, rendering your tactic pointless, the quotation itself can contain those symbols, causing your tactic to be harmful. Additionally, in most text the single quotation mark is visually similar, or even identical, to the apostrophe. If you actually want to remove ambiguity you have to use an escape character. English does not specify an escape character. When spoken, it becomes unwieldy after "he said she said" or the speaker's attempt to change introduce a third level of inflection to indicate different levels of quotation.
You're wrong about "that" versus "which". The word "which" is used when referring to a specific member of an established set. The word "that" would refer to the set. The language is a member of the set of archaic languages. The sentence "There are balls in the large boxes that have rough edges which are green." unambiguously means the balls are green, the boxes are large, and the boxes have rough edges. The sentence "There are balls in the large boxes that have rough edges that are green." means the boxes are large, the boxes have rough edges, and the rough edges are green. The phrase "that which is" should clue you in to how it works.
And you're wrong about whatever the fuck you're babbling about with regards to spoken. A language can be both spoken and written. You could dance it if you wanted to. It doesn't change the language when you're using the same grammar, syntax, and lexemes.
There's nothing more pathetic than someone trying and failing to police the grammar police. You may as well try to perform a citizen's arrest on a cop for speeding when chasing a criminal. Try harder next time, retard.
They'll never catch me then.
When will they never catch you? Are you referring to a period of time which you experience repeatedly, such that "they" will never catch you during that time? Are you traveling back to 1987 and committing crimes? Are you referring to your toilet in a hardened bunker and the fact that they'll never catch you when you're defecating? Or did you mean to type "They'll never catch me, then."?
I speak a secret language called "Syntactically Correct American English", an archaic language no one understands any more.
Ignoring the jokes about it being a secret language (your post renders it a formerly-secret language) and no one understanding it (clearly a few do, though you do not), you committed a few errors in that sentence as well. You should have typed "I speak a secret language called "Syntactically-Correct American English", an archaic language which no one understands any longer.".
I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that everything in this post is syntactically correct, and that the language itself is not unambiguous.
If you're finding politics and ideology in evidence based statement like either of those studies, it's not because the scientists put it there, you did that yourself while you were looking for reasons to reject the findings.
Studies are funded by entities with biases, thus the studies have desired outcomes. The institutions that get the grants are the ones who can get the desired outcomes. It's not just the social "sciences" and hot "issues" like climate change. Even the hard sciences fall victim to this. It doesn't matter if you're trotting out an insignificant cock and bull story about why some species died or if you're hiding how many people your experimental drug killed.
Science is subject to the same power dynamics as everything else in society. People want power and will do dirty things to get it. Power in our society is related to money, political status, celebrity, and, as always, sex.
I have no idea why you responded to me with any of the other stuff in your post. I said nothing about organic foods. I said nothing about any specific study - I'm merely pointing out that science isn't some sacred cow immune to bias, influence, and impropriety. The vast majority of research is improperly influenced to various degrees. Research the media reports on is improperly influenced to higher degrees than research the media ignores. This is a simple result of the media reporting on what's interesting to viewers - controversial or divisive topics get trotted out, benign topics get ignored.
What's the deal with the spate of ideologically-driven "scientific" studies appearing in the last couple of years? The first really blatant one I am aware of was the "organic food isn't more nutritious" study, which completely deflected from the point of organic food altogether. It was obviously a piece designed to confuse lay people into thinking organic food didn't have additional health benefits over conventionally-grown food. Now we see this piece, claiming that a species genetically equipped to survive huge fluctuations in population over millions of years was really just going to go extinct anyway and we just happened to be there to see it. These people should be blacklisted from scientific journals. They're not academically honest in the slightest.
The majority of the scientific studies the media reports on are barely scientific, involve little study, and are mainly geared toward pushing ideology.
It has been this way for decades.
I'm asking Billy Mitchell a question - I don't need to run it by you or other slashtards first to get your blessing.
Why would I not? Everyone trolls. Why would I hide it? Are you new to the internet?
If you weren't trolling you wouldn't have asserted that he was wasting his life, and you wouldn't have called video games pointless. Video games most certainly have a point, as much as any entertainment product. As for wasting his life, he owns a restaurant chain and is slinging hot sauce. What are you doing with your life, other than trolling?
I do lots of things with my life, including trolling and wasting my time on pointless video games. However I'm not trolling now - I am legitimately interested in how much he considers this time to be a waste, particularly when those hours are tallied up.
Maybe you're still in your teens, but as you get older you'll become increasingly aware that the sand is quickly draining from your hourglass.
I wonder what happens if someone with more than enough CPU power to get 99% of the mining jumps in one night. What kind of Damage could they do in a short interval before people notice? What if their goals were not to steal bitcoins but rather to snatch all the coins from, say, Kim Jong Un, or Al Queda. E.g. for example the NSA or Samsung or Saudi arabia. They would not care about the loss of value in their stolen coins, the point is to deprive an adversaries use of them.
Does the Amazon or Azure networks have enough rentable time to pull this off?
The block chain is public, and it can be forked (and has been). Legitimate miners can simply decide to ignore the blocks mined (or faked) by the 99% enemy. But as Bitcoin grows it becomes harder to organize such a fork, and every transaction processed after the attack and before the fork leaves someone holding the bag.
If the attacker's goal is to scare people away from Bitcoin they could have some success by doing this repeatedly, but they'd be better off manipulating the difficulty and trying to stay hidden. Mine until the difficulty ramps way up, sell, then stop. Wait for the difficulty to crash back down and then start mining again. You can shake confidence AND profit. If you merely want to scare everyone away from Bitcoin by mining and holding or by faking blocks then you're going to end up holding Bitcoins no one wants. You still scare people away from Bitcoin but you passed up on tons of cash along the way.
Amazon, Azure, etc. COMBINED do not have the power to do this. This requires custom hardware, and LOTS of it. It's likely that only a major government could do it.
Do you regret wasting your life on pointless video games?
How many hours do you estimate you've put into DK and other games?
I'm not even trolling. I really want to know.
If the FCC is seemingly so impotent to regulate the industry, just what the hell are you guys paying it to do?
Prevent breasts from being shown on TV.
Actually the unit of weight is newtons
A Newton is a measure of force, not weight.
They can say whatever the fuck they want, but the gram is the base unit of mass.
A kilogram isn't a unit, it's a measure equal to exactly 1000 mass units (grams).
The SI is full of arbitrary, ambiguous, retarded shit like this. I have no idea why people view it as some sort of authority on anything.
The 0.267m device weighs just 0.467kg and measures a mere 0.0066m in thickness.
Happy now?
Fuck no, I'm not happy. .267 meters, 467 grams, and .0066 meters.
Mass should be measured in grams by default. If you want kilograms to be the default because of your arbitrary preference, then shift everything by 1000.
There's no reason other than "durr, I'm familiar with a kilogram" to have the default measure of mass be 1000 times the base unit.