It would be nice to be told what the differences are between 10.0 and 10.1. I just upgraded last night. The camera seems slightly different, and the lockscreen is slightly different too. Really the biggest change I'm seeing so far is that I need to update gapps.
This doesn't seem to be the summary's fault. Wikipedia essentially only says it's based on android 4.2.
There's an important part of the summary that is probably causing the confusion.
Carriers lose money with phone subsidies for high-end smartphones (particularly Apple's iPhone). If they do away with the subsidy, you will have to pay full retail price for phones, but your monthly bill will be lower.
I'm guessing that's not going to happen, what's actually going to happen is that they'll eliminate the subsidy for phones, so you have to buy your own, and make everyone pay the subsidized rates.
I don't know the details, I just know that prices don't really go down in the duopoly.
I was about to disagree with you, then I realized the game I've probably put the most hours into is Ingress on my way to and from work. And that's nothing but blue and green shiny things with the GPS.
No, we're not opposed to Orwellian things because they're Orwellian, we're opposed to them because they'll suck for us and they won't do anything good for us. It's a bad deal. I don't oppose government cameras all over the place because there was a book written about it and bad things happened to the characters in it. That's idiotic. I oppose government cameras all over the place because the government has no business watching me, marketers will use the information to pester me more directly, people who are not "supposed" to get the information will get it and use it against me and my loved ones (identity theft or simple mugging, not blackmail here), they'd be a massive waste of taxpayer money which could instead be staying with the taxpayers or going instead to something useful like scientific research or fixing potholes, and most importantly because the next steps would be even more intrusive. RFID implants or retinal scans everytime you leave the house, which will have all the same problems only multiplied.
So, no. Simply because it's "orwellian" is not an answer to bobaferret's question.
I'd argue that the horse that ran out was never the real issue, control over the barn doors is the real motive.
...although that comparison doesn't really illustrate much. So I'll say it plainly. I think the government is more concerned about preventing future, more effective guns from being distributed in such a way, setting a precedent.
I wonder how many of those damn hippies have a sliced banana in their granola in the morning.
(Sigh)... Why is it always the hippies who take the blame for any San Francisco craziness? The closest things to hippies in SF are the drug addicts on the streets. They're not in control of politics, they're not even in control of themselves. SF and many californians are more concerned about the environment than a lot of other places, but that's not who is pushing for it.
TFA quotes Ellen Marks as a proponent of the bill. Googling her name and cell phones gets you to an op ed piece, and her bio reads
Ellen Marks is a member of Temple Sinai in Oakland, California; a past president of Women of Temple Sinai and of the Sisterhood of Temple Israel in Stockton, California; co-founder with her son Zack of the California Brain Tumor Association; and lead author of the Cell Phone and Brain Cancer Legislative Briefing Book, which has been translated into eight languages, including Hebrew. She is also director of Government and Public Affairs for the Environmental Health Trust.
Citations needed. Also, the question you should be asking is "is there any evidence it's NOT safe." A modified ames test would be easy to do and would be a fast indication if DNA damage is occurring. People have been using cell phones for longer than 2 years, there should be correlative studies showing a link.
If neither of those things has been shown, then you can always say "But you didn't do THIS TEST!!! CONSPIRACY!!!" and people will. If they do a two year test, it will be three years. Or ten.
Furthermore, what would a label do? The public in California is already used to seeing everything labeled as cancer causing due to similar legislation. All it's done is gotten them to ignore warnings and made some greedy lawyers rich off of suing in response to those signs. If you want a sinister conspiracy, just ask yourself who would benefit from these warning labels. Answer: ambulance-chasers and no one else.
How far out of position? Like a foot to the left, or riding the nuke like a cowboy, firing the shotgun into the air and yelling "WOOOOO!!!!" Because one is forgivable, the other is I assume standard practice.
Playing devil's advocate: there are a lot more of us (us here being everyone North Korea has threatened) than there are North Koreans. And North Korea is already killing North Korea. They're just doing it very slowly and painfully. If I'm ever put into a North Korean hard labor camp, I'd probably quickly be praying someone would nuke North Korea even if I'm in it at that moment.
I mean, "Evidently NOT people who work on nuclear weapons." It would have been right, but my browser (IE 6) messed up posting. I'm embarrassed. Fortunately, it sounds like I won't have to live with my shame for very long.
Yeah, it's almost as if we were open to a compromise between ourselves the customers and the producers of videogames. Wait, that's a symptom of someone who is being reasonable! Shit! Something is seriously wrong with slashdot!
I agree, it applies to pretty much everyone who identifies with a profession. They see the rules they have in place, or at least a process to regulate whatever problem arose, and see no need for other oversight, as that's just (in their opinion) going to make life difficult for them, the innocent ones, and do nothing to stop the ones who are guilty who already avoided the process.
For example, me, scientist. When I hear about scientific misconduct, I grit my teeth when I see suggestions for changes in oversight. We have peer review which is experts reviewing their peers. It's not 100% effective. Obviously. Obviously no system is going to be 100% effective at catching greed or misconduct. From my perspective, peer review is the best way to catch misconduct though. And we already do it. I can't think of a better system, so any change is probably going to be for the worse, both for science and for me. Witness Lamar Smith and the terrible cabal of assholes (I'm guessing the Koch bros) who are attempting to control scientific funding to attempt to silence studies they don't like. If there were a big scientific misconduct case in the news right now, that would be the best shot at such people getting control of science: they'd argue changes needed to be made to scientific oversight, that the system wasn't working and they could do it better.
Even if there weren't a conspiracy to neuter science, changes imposed on us from non-scientists are unlikely to be any good from my perspective (and probably from any perspective.) I'm biased of course, but I don't think I'm wrong. Other professions obviously feel the same way, and they might not be wrong either. The financial sector, for example, we have good reason to distrust everything they say, but they might be accurate that ending too-big-to-fail in the ways that are being discussed could cause major economic problems. I certainly know less about the economy than most of them do.
Bottom line, it's not simple to make positive changes to fix professional misconduct. There are good reasons to not trust insiders: they are biased in favor of nothing changing. And there are good reasons to not trust outsiders: they are generally less informed than insiders and might mess things up.
It sounds like he's simply enforcing the numerous laws these guys broke. Good on him, but it sounds like he's doing the full extent of his job. I can't see the use in having a judge that wouldn't do this. So "Everywhere needs more judges like this," seems wrong, I'd suggest "Everywhere needs ONLY judges like this."
Agriculture: Every new technique or discovery by Monsanto or another research company
GMO yes, but that's biotech, which is my point.
Computer science: All algorithms that end up in software patents, regardless of any merit. Law: Any legislation favoring public welfare over personal freedom
Political science: Anything supporting confidential diplomacy
Cryptoanalysis: Anything compromising confidential discussions
The opposition to those is not based fear of a sci-fi nightmare. Though I would watch the hell out of a dystopian future where there is nothing but lawyers suing each other, with the winners eating the losers. Kind of like highlander, only with briefcases instead of swords.
I digress. What I object to is not people having knee-jerk reactions in general, since everyone has some of those. I'm objecting to the fear slashdot has for biotech.
Military science: Everything that goes boom
I disagree with you, I never see that. Military toys are quite fascinating to nerds obviously.
I think you are overestimating the intelligence of a very profitable demographic for the tablet market, while Gates may be more right on.
There are people who buy tablets as their PCs and only then realize why keyboards are still a thing. Hell, I've heard of a whole school that decided to get all the teachers computers, then decided to get them ipads. This was not an unpopular idea until shortly after it was actually implemented.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be nice to be told what the differences are between 10.0 and 10.1. I just upgraded last night. The camera seems slightly different, and the lockscreen is slightly different too. Really the biggest change I'm seeing so far is that I need to update gapps.
This doesn't seem to be the summary's fault. Wikipedia essentially only says it's based on android 4.2.
Cyanogenmod isn't the only custom rom out there though. Looks like there are a few jellybean-based roms out there for you.
Carriers lose money with phone subsidies for high-end smartphones (particularly Apple's iPhone). If they do away with the subsidy, you will have to pay full retail price for phones, but your monthly bill will be lower.
I'm guessing that's not going to happen, what's actually going to happen is that they'll eliminate the subsidy for phones, so you have to buy your own, and make everyone pay the subsidized rates.
I don't know the details, I just know that prices don't really go down in the duopoly.
I was about to disagree with you, then I realized the game I've probably put the most hours into is Ingress on my way to and from work. And that's nothing but blue and green shiny things with the GPS.
No, we're not opposed to Orwellian things because they're Orwellian, we're opposed to them because they'll suck for us and they won't do anything good for us. It's a bad deal. I don't oppose government cameras all over the place because there was a book written about it and bad things happened to the characters in it. That's idiotic. I oppose government cameras all over the place because the government has no business watching me, marketers will use the information to pester me more directly, people who are not "supposed" to get the information will get it and use it against me and my loved ones (identity theft or simple mugging, not blackmail here), they'd be a massive waste of taxpayer money which could instead be staying with the taxpayers or going instead to something useful like scientific research or fixing potholes, and most importantly because the next steps would be even more intrusive. RFID implants or retinal scans everytime you leave the house, which will have all the same problems only multiplied.
So, no. Simply because it's "orwellian" is not an answer to bobaferret's question.
I'd argue that the horse that ran out was never the real issue, control over the barn doors is the real motive.
...although that comparison doesn't really illustrate much. So I'll say it plainly. I think the government is more concerned about preventing future, more effective guns from being distributed in such a way, setting a precedent.
Such as?
How else would you extract top dollar from both sides?
Lobbyists, bribery, paranoia, and threat construction. None of which require you to offer defensive systems against your own "defensive systems."
I'd settle for a video of this thing destroying a shark which has been launched into the air.
I wonder how many of those damn hippies have a sliced banana in their granola in the morning.
(Sigh)... Why is it always the hippies who take the blame for any San Francisco craziness? The closest things to hippies in SF are the drug addicts on the streets. They're not in control of politics, they're not even in control of themselves. SF and many californians are more concerned about the environment than a lot of other places, but that's not who is pushing for it.
TFA quotes Ellen Marks as a proponent of the bill. Googling her name and cell phones gets you to an op ed piece, and her bio reads
Ellen Marks is a member of Temple Sinai in Oakland, California; a past president of Women of Temple Sinai and of the Sisterhood of Temple Israel in Stockton, California; co-founder with her son Zack of the California Brain Tumor Association; and lead author of the Cell Phone and Brain Cancer Legislative Briefing Book, which has been translated into eight languages, including Hebrew. She is also director of Government and Public Affairs for the Environmental Health Trust.
http://reformjudaismmag.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=2885
Not exactly a stereotypical dirty hippie or treehugger.
The article also mentions "powerwatch" as being behind the campaign, which is a group based in the UK to oppose cell phones.
These aren't California hippies, these are conspiracy-theorist idiots. Get it right. This isn't environmentalism, this is stupidity.
Citations needed. Also, the question you should be asking is "is there any evidence it's NOT safe." A modified ames test would be easy to do and would be a fast indication if DNA damage is occurring. People have been using cell phones for longer than 2 years, there should be correlative studies showing a link.
If neither of those things has been shown, then you can always say "But you didn't do THIS TEST!!! CONSPIRACY!!!" and people will. If they do a two year test, it will be three years. Or ten.
Furthermore, what would a label do? The public in California is already used to seeing everything labeled as cancer causing due to similar legislation. All it's done is gotten them to ignore warnings and made some greedy lawyers rich off of suing in response to those signs. If you want a sinister conspiracy, just ask yourself who would benefit from these warning labels. Answer: ambulance-chasers and no one else.
No, ability to handle a hot dog without it being crushed!
...
I mean, it's important to my job. Of encased meats specialist.
Also masturbating.
How far out of position? Like a foot to the left, or riding the nuke like a cowboy, firing the shotgun into the air and yelling "WOOOOO!!!!" Because one is forgivable, the other is I assume standard practice.
Playing devil's advocate: there are a lot more of us (us here being everyone North Korea has threatened) than there are North Koreans. And North Korea is already killing North Korea. They're just doing it very slowly and painfully. If I'm ever put into a North Korean hard labor camp, I'd probably quickly be praying someone would nuke North Korea even if I'm in it at that moment.
They're also college students. I'm absolutely sure the DRM will last when they start charging for it.
If every consumer were Ralph Nader, then George W Bush would be king for life.
(I kid, I kid, please don't get butthurt, nader supporters)
I mean, "Evidently NOT people who work on nuclear weapons." It would have been right, but my browser (IE 6) messed up posting. I'm embarrassed. Fortunately, it sounds like I won't have to live with my shame for very long.
Evidently people who work on nuclear weapons... so...
Isn't that a lot more expensive than the evidently vaporware USB sequencing was supposed to be?
Yeah, it's almost as if we were open to a compromise between ourselves the customers and the producers of videogames. Wait, that's a symptom of someone who is being reasonable! Shit! Something is seriously wrong with slashdot!
I agree, it applies to pretty much everyone who identifies with a profession. They see the rules they have in place, or at least a process to regulate whatever problem arose, and see no need for other oversight, as that's just (in their opinion) going to make life difficult for them, the innocent ones, and do nothing to stop the ones who are guilty who already avoided the process.
For example, me, scientist. When I hear about scientific misconduct, I grit my teeth when I see suggestions for changes in oversight. We have peer review which is experts reviewing their peers. It's not 100% effective. Obviously. Obviously no system is going to be 100% effective at catching greed or misconduct. From my perspective, peer review is the best way to catch misconduct though. And we already do it. I can't think of a better system, so any change is probably going to be for the worse, both for science and for me. Witness Lamar Smith and the terrible cabal of assholes (I'm guessing the Koch bros) who are attempting to control scientific funding to attempt to silence studies they don't like. If there were a big scientific misconduct case in the news right now, that would be the best shot at such people getting control of science: they'd argue changes needed to be made to scientific oversight, that the system wasn't working and they could do it better.
Even if there weren't a conspiracy to neuter science, changes imposed on us from non-scientists are unlikely to be any good from my perspective (and probably from any perspective.) I'm biased of course, but I don't think I'm wrong. Other professions obviously feel the same way, and they might not be wrong either. The financial sector, for example, we have good reason to distrust everything they say, but they might be accurate that ending too-big-to-fail in the ways that are being discussed could cause major economic problems. I certainly know less about the economy than most of them do.
Bottom line, it's not simple to make positive changes to fix professional misconduct. There are good reasons to not trust insiders: they are biased in favor of nothing changing. And there are good reasons to not trust outsiders: they are generally less informed than insiders and might mess things up.
It sounds like he's simply enforcing the numerous laws these guys broke. Good on him, but it sounds like he's doing the full extent of his job. I can't see the use in having a judge that wouldn't do this. So "Everywhere needs more judges like this," seems wrong, I'd suggest "Everywhere needs ONLY judges like this."
Agriculture: Every new technique or discovery by Monsanto or another research company
GMO yes, but that's biotech, which is my point.
Computer science: All algorithms that end up in software patents, regardless of any merit. Law: Any legislation favoring public welfare over personal freedom Political science: Anything supporting confidential diplomacy Cryptoanalysis: Anything compromising confidential discussions
The opposition to those is not based fear of a sci-fi nightmare. Though I would watch the hell out of a dystopian future where there is nothing but lawyers suing each other, with the winners eating the losers. Kind of like highlander, only with briefcases instead of swords.
I digress. What I object to is not people having knee-jerk reactions in general, since everyone has some of those. I'm objecting to the fear slashdot has for biotech.
Military science: Everything that goes boom
I disagree with you, I never see that. Military toys are quite fascinating to nerds obviously.
I think you are overestimating the intelligence of a very profitable demographic for the tablet market, while Gates may be more right on.
There are people who buy tablets as their PCs and only then realize why keyboards are still a thing. Hell, I've heard of a whole school that decided to get all the teachers computers, then decided to get them ipads. This was not an unpopular idea until shortly after it was actually implemented.
Guy comes into an ER unconscious, the doctors get a towel.
I... uh... I tried. I'm sorry I disappointed you.