I always liked Julia Sweeney's (she played "Pat" on SNL among other things) take.
"I don't live my life under the assumption that there's a God, so I guess that makes me an atheist. A-theist. Non-theist.
But I like the word 'naturalist' more. Atheist defines me on religious terms. I believe in a wholly natural universe, that makes religious people, in my mind, a-naturalists."
I did the same (except not making it present as a Windows box. =P)
Just a simple perl script that parses for patterns I can specify and performs actions based on the thresholds I set in each recipe.
I've got it so X failures in Y hours might lock you out for a time, but then re-allow. Z failures in Y hours will result in a permanent ban, etc.
It's not as full featured as a full adaptive firewall, but it lets me watch what I want to watch. Both user logins as wells as specific 404s from apache, etc.
Bad analogy on my part. No, I don't consider me his boss.
I was trying to give an example of someone on the delivery end of an established expectation. The employer->employee one is simply the most common to go to for an example.
I consider myself in the group he has made commitments to that he has failed (many times) to meet his stated delivery expectation.
That is the crux of my frustration towards him, and I don't think that frustration is (as Neil said in that article) is in any way because he works for me, or that he's "my bitch." Just that he over promises and under-delivers.
In the end I'm sure I'll buy the book, read it and based on his past works quite enjoy it. Doesn't mean I don't feel annoyance at him as a person for the way he sets that expectation and then when he fails to meet it.
As I said in the message you replied to (yet didn't quote) had he not set an expectation (let alone continued to set it and not meet it a hand-full of times over the years) I wouldn't feel any frustration towards him over this. I don't care if a book takes as long as it takes; my frustration is entirely in how he handled the expectation of it's completion.
While I normally love Neil, in response to that particular piece he can kiss my lily white ass.
There's a vast difference between someone "out there typing what you want to read right now" (Neil's assertion) and thinking that it's a disappointment that someone is failing to meet the delivery expectations they themselves have set.
If at work I were to promise my boss that I could complete a project in six months, then turn around and have it take 24 times as long? I wouldn't have had a job after twice as long as my estimate. And my boss certainly wouldn't accept being told "Get on with your life."
My problem with Martin has never been that it has taken time to write the books, which is what Neil's posit is. If he had said from the beginning that it would be out when it's complete I wouldn't have had a problem.
But it was he himself who set the expectations and failed to deliver. "It's half written, six months." "Next fall." "Next fall." etc.
Gingerbread is mostly FroYo with a few UI tweaks and some general performance tuning. Battery life on a nightly test build of CM7 is better than stable FroYo was.
The new additions to the Android codebase that came in with it (NFC, etc) aren't of use to most devices, but the rest of the changes are worth it.
Ice Cream Sandwich will be a fun one to see when that comes out.
It's been out for the Nexus One for about a week. The summary clearly says the Nexus S. Which has had Gingerbread since it launched in December.
And as I noted in my reply to my own post up there, I've been running Gingerbread on my first-gen Droid thanks to 3rd party ROM makers for about a month. So even if it's Gingerbread only, it's still not news.
However a Gingerbread leak for the i9000 Galaxy S phones has shown up, so hopefully they're working faster on that than they did getting you guys FroYo.
Oh, and I've had Gingerbread (2.3.2 currently) on my first gen Droid for about a month now thanks to the folks at CyanogenMod. So even if this were a piece about the OS alone it's still horribly old news.
Eric Schmidt has said that since Android is open carriers/manufacturers aren't going to be prevented when it comes to customizing the builds they use.
However a rumored goal for Gingerbread was to give it some of the shared UI tweaks that things like HTC Sense and MotoBlur have added to/reduce/ the customizations carriers will do by making them irrelevant. But that's far and away a whole other thing than expressly forbidding it.
As for updates coming simultaneous? Don't hold your breath. Besides the fact that carriers and manufacturers will still put their own builds together there really is more to it than just customizations.
Take the original Moto Droid for instance. It's a Google Experience phone, has no Moto Blur or other "enhancements" of which you refer and still it took months for FroYo to be deployed to it compared to the Nexus.
This is a problem, as it goes contrary to the J2ME licensing. Google is using the Java.* hierarchy despite terms against that.
No they're not, and this is what the bulk of people don't get with this lawsuit.
Google is not using a JVM. Not J2ME, not J2SE, and certainly not J2EE.
The java programming language is strictly syntax that results in code. In the case of the Android development process the output is incapable of running on any JVM. It simply isn't Java Bytecode.
The only terms that Oracle can put forth are terms for use of the JVM. Since Dalvik isn't a JVM, and isn't provided by Oracle, Google is in violation of no terms of an agreement with Oracle.
That said, the lawsuit (as others have stated in thread) is Oracle is claiming that the Dalvik VM implements technologies covered by patents held by Oracle. That's it. This is simply a patent case, not a suit over violation of terms.
Slashdot Mirror
I always liked Julia Sweeney's (she played "Pat" on SNL among other things) take.
"I don't live my life under the assumption that there's a God, so I guess that makes me an atheist. A-theist. Non-theist.
But I like the word 'naturalist' more. Atheist defines me on religious terms. I believe in a wholly natural universe, that makes religious people, in my mind, a-naturalists."
It's easier for the dealers to just follow the spirit of the law and have a stronger position in case some of the goods were indeed stolen.
Ah, the "if you haven't done anything wrong what are you trying to hide" defense.
Beep... Beep... Beep... Beep...
People like rushing to snap judgements; the more outrageous the better.
Along with AT&T and T-Mobile (especially if they merge. =P)
As an existing unlimited data plan subscriber I don't have to worry about the tiers. For a while at least.
I did the same (except not making it present as a Windows box. =P)
Just a simple perl script that parses for patterns I can specify and performs actions based on the thresholds I set in each recipe.
I've got it so X failures in Y hours might lock you out for a time, but then re-allow. Z failures in Y hours will result in a permanent ban, etc.
It's not as full featured as a full adaptive firewall, but it lets me watch what I want to watch. Both user logins as wells as specific 404s from apache, etc.
... when they do the phone setup. Thus freeing you from ever having to see it.
So you conclude that because some headers are not subject to copyright, no headers are subject to copyright?
The phone book contains no copyrightable information. Does that mean no book is subjec to copyright?
Your analogy isn't quite right. Headers are headers, but not all books are phone books.
Correct would be like "AT&T's phone book contains no copyrightable information, so one could assume that Verizon's doesn't either."
Bad analogy on my part. No, I don't consider me his boss.
I was trying to give an example of someone on the delivery end of an established expectation. The employer->employee one is simply the most common to go to for an example.
I consider myself in the group he has made commitments to that he has failed (many times) to meet his stated delivery expectation.
That is the crux of my frustration towards him, and I don't think that frustration is (as Neil said in that article) is in any way because he works for me, or that he's "my bitch." Just that he over promises and under-delivers.
In the end I'm sure I'll buy the book, read it and based on his past works quite enjoy it. Doesn't mean I don't feel annoyance at him as a person for the way he sets that expectation and then when he fails to meet it.
As I said in the message you replied to (yet didn't quote) had he not set an expectation (let alone continued to set it and not meet it a hand-full of times over the years) I wouldn't feel any frustration towards him over this. I don't care if a book takes as long as it takes; my frustration is entirely in how he handled the expectation of it's completion.
While I normally love Neil, in response to that particular piece he can kiss my lily white ass.
There's a vast difference between someone "out there typing what you want to read right now" (Neil's assertion) and thinking that it's a disappointment that someone is failing to meet the delivery expectations they themselves have set.
If at work I were to promise my boss that I could complete a project in six months, then turn around and have it take 24 times as long? I wouldn't have had a job after twice as long as my estimate. And my boss certainly wouldn't accept being told "Get on with your life."
My problem with Martin has never been that it has taken time to write the books, which is what Neil's posit is. If he had said from the beginning that it would be out when it's complete I wouldn't have had a problem.
But it was he himself who set the expectations and failed to deliver. "It's half written, six months." "Next fall." "Next fall." etc.
My two bits..
It runs wonderfully.
Gingerbread is mostly FroYo with a few UI tweaks and some general performance tuning. Battery life on a nightly test build of CM7 is better than stable FroYo was.
The new additions to the Android codebase that came in with it (NFC, etc) aren't of use to most devices, but the rest of the changes are worth it.
Ice Cream Sandwich will be a fun one to see when that comes out.
They have. In fact, they both got 2.3.3 at the same time:
http://twitter.com/#!/googlenexus/status/40221838743179264
I'm pretty sure a USB controller has more firepower than my first computer did.
Even if you limit me to my first IBM compatible my Droid still blows that out of the water, both in terms of firepower /and/ functionality.
No, it hasn't.
It's been out for the Nexus One for about a week. The summary clearly says the Nexus S. Which has had Gingerbread since it launched in December.
And as I noted in my reply to my own post up there, I've been running Gingerbread on my first-gen Droid thanks to 3rd party ROM makers for about a month. So even if it's Gingerbread only, it's still not news.
However a Gingerbread leak for the i9000 Galaxy S phones has shown up, so hopefully they're working faster on that than they did getting you guys FroYo.
Oh, and I've had Gingerbread (2.3.2 currently) on my first gen Droid for about a month now thanks to the folks at CyanogenMod. So even if this were a piece about the OS alone it's still horribly old news.
The phone has been out for almost three months now.
Way to be current.
Late reply, but just to clarify as I might not have been clear with my wording.
The A and B were not releases, but code-names used internally.
The C-Cupcake release was the first Google release which had the treat themed codename.
So the 1.0 and 1.1 releases were outliers in this trend of codenames.
The response from Rubin about the rumored requirements for Gingerbread was, "Don't believe everything you hear."
A and B pre-date Google's purchase of Android, Inc.
A was Android
B was Bender (Futurama)
Cupcake was the first release under Google which started the naming after treats instead of robots.
Uh, no. Just no.
Eric Schmidt has said that since Android is open carriers/manufacturers aren't going to be prevented when it comes to customizing the builds they use.
However a rumored goal for Gingerbread was to give it some of the shared UI tweaks that things like HTC Sense and MotoBlur have added to /reduce/ the customizations carriers will do by making them irrelevant. But that's far and away a whole other thing than expressly forbidding it.
As for updates coming simultaneous? Don't hold your breath. Besides the fact that carriers and manufacturers will still put their own builds together there really is more to it than just customizations.
Take the original Moto Droid for instance. It's a Google Experience phone, has no Moto Blur or other "enhancements" of which you refer and still it took months for FroYo to be deployed to it compared to the Nexus.
So you left Verizon before they had any Android phones for the behavior that they don't practice when it comes to said Android phones?
It's okay, I left Ford because of the exploding gas tanks they put in their pintos. Customer satisfaction must count for something.
This is a problem, as it goes contrary to the J2ME licensing. Google is using the Java.* hierarchy despite terms against that.
No they're not, and this is what the bulk of people don't get with this lawsuit.
Google is not using a JVM. Not J2ME, not J2SE, and certainly not J2EE.
The java programming language is strictly syntax that results in code. In the case of the Android development process the output is incapable of running on any JVM. It simply isn't Java Bytecode .
The only terms that Oracle can put forth are terms for use of the JVM. Since Dalvik isn't a JVM, and isn't provided by Oracle, Google is in violation of no terms of an agreement with Oracle.
That said, the lawsuit (as others have stated in thread) is Oracle is claiming that the Dalvik VM implements technologies covered by patents held by Oracle. That's it. This is simply a patent case, not a suit over violation of terms.
Don't be so sure. IIRC, verizon is using the sim-less variant of LTE.
Engadget and others posted pictures of Verizon branded 4G LTE SIM cards.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/19/verizons-4g-lte-sim-in-the-wild/