Strangle the Google Nexus 10 is 2560 x 1600 and its made by Samsung.
That should be "Strangely".
That's an odd typo. I thought "strangely" and typed "strangle". I'm in a good mood and the Nexus 10 is my favorite Android tablet, I mean it no harm.:-)
Look at the Samsung tablets, 7 inch tablets are 1024 x 600 pixel, larger tablets are 1280 x 800. Serious, a 10 inch tablet with 1280 x 800. No, Samsung is not competitive at all today.
Strangle the Google Nexus 10 is 2560 x 1600 and its made by Samsung.
That's like saying advertising doesn't matter because you could have made a different advert.
No, its not that they could have made a different object, its that they could have used a different printer to make that same object. Again, what is the competitive advantage of showing an object that both your printer and your competitors' printers can make? There is equivalence in this situation, not an advantage. So one could argue that the item is displayed to demonstrate what 3D printers in general can do. That may be outside the scope of the specific CC definition of commercial use.
Which part of "free for non-commercial use" is giving you trouble?
The part where CC **defines** commercial use in a very specific manner: "in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation." Note the use of "primarily", this indicates that tangential advantages do not count for this definition of commercial advantage.
Maybe, maybe not. They were not selling the items. The items were on public display and there was no charge for viewing. The items were merely made by the printer they were selling. The CC license defines commercial use as "in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation." One could argue there is no commercial advantage since other 3D printers could create the same items, that the items merely familiarizes the viewer with what is possible with 3D printing in general. One could also argue that there is no monetary compensation for viewing the items and they are not being sold. I think there is ample room for misunderstanding the license, I'm just not sure which side is misunderstanding it.
Perhaps they are jerks.
Doubtful, they seem to be willing to keep things friendly. From the article: "Nahmais [IP owner] also posted an email exchange he said he had with Dan Yalon, executive vice president for business development and strategic marketing for Stratasys, in which Yalon says the company will be sure to ask for permission and give attribution in the future. In the email Yalon also agreed to donate a sum of money to a charity to make up for it, although Nahmias, via Twitter, said he's not sure if Stratasys has done so."
The positions of the merchant ships sunk were generally known, at least after the war. Family and friends could learn of the "burial site". For those sites sufficiently close to a coast it was not unheard of for someone to go out there in a boat and lay a wreath or some flowers on the water. Or have the wreath/flowers air dropped on the site.
The families of those listed as "overdue, presumed lost" did not have this minor comfort. Given the extreme close proximity to shore of these newly discovered subs there will probably be grandchildren and grand-nephews/nieces born decades after the family member was lost paying their respects. Its not just for those who knew the lost sailor.
Untrue. You can enlist and if you pass the various screenings they may give you a scholarship and time off to attend a regular 4 year college. A classmate did this in return for some number of years of service as an officer upon graduation.
for a pilot you have to be an officer which means college first, more specifically the naval or air force academy which only take the top 5% or so. and you have to get a nomination from your congressperson. its like a 2 year process to apply in high school
Untrue. Officer Candidate School (OCS) only requires a 4 year degree from an accredited college. You can also attend OCS while you are still a student during summer breaks to save some time.
You don't have to go to a military academy to become an officer or a pilot in the U.S. You can go to any accredited university and get a four year degree and then go to Officer Candidate School (OSC). You may be able to go to OCS during summer breaks and become a commissioned officer upon graduation.
I think every fighter produced starting with the F-4 Phantom II was criticized as having some fatal flaw, and most ended up being liked by their pilots.
I think that goes back pretty much to the Wright brothers. Many fighters were flawed on their initial delivery. Even the P-51 Mustang was mediocre at high altitude until it got into the hands of military pilots and ground crews. In particular the British pilots/crews who replaced the Allison engine with the Rolls Royce Merlin engine.
nobody flies fighter jets in the Air Force and then goes on to fly for regional carriers for $25k a year.
Flying an F-16 is not very good preparation for flying a 737. What the airlines really want is C-17 or C-130 pilots, with plenty of multi-engine experience.
Those with experience in the small single seat aircraft are also desired. Much of what the pilot learned is applicable. He or she is still far far ahead of someone coming from a civilian flight background. Retraining the former fighter pilot for a large multiengine aircraft yields the airline a far more capable pilot.
Keep in mind that one of the things that makes USAF and USN pilots desirable is their extensive screening for and training to keep calm and work through the problem when something is going wrong.
Surviving submarine commanders, and Admiral Doenitz who commanded them, wrote memoirs. There are plenty of first-hand accounts of submarine warfare from participants. They are in dead-tree media but still available. Also very interesting are accounts of commerce raiders and Q-ships in both wars.
Its not U-boat history in general that is being referred to. It is the specific history of these boats, the specific story of these crewman. I once visited the submariner's memorial at Pearl Harbor. It lists the U.S. submarines that fought in the Pacific during WW2. A bunch of submarines were lost. Some of these were marked as "sunk", some of these were marked as "overdue, presumed lost". To many people there is something unfinished, something sadder, about "overdue, presumed lost". Moving a ship and crew from the "overdue, presumed lost" list to the "sunk" list, giving a location, is meaningful. Especially to family members.
"Archaeologists"...!?
I am Greek living in Greece and i feel insulted - and i am sure some very old people who were born during WW1 and are still alive are feeling the same as me.
Perhaps a person trained to dig through ancients ruins and reconstruct history is also the best qualified person to dig through modern ruins and reconstruct history. Perhaps archeological techniques and best practices developed over the centuries at ancient historical sites can be applied to modern historical sites as well. Are archaeologists somehow unfit to work at a modern historical site merely because that is not their traditional use?
World War I had nothing to do with countries being invaded and citizens being murdered.
The Kaiser's invaded France and Belgium and the atrocities committed against civilians are well documented. So for many French and Belgium volunteers the war was precisely about invasion and murder. You are not considering that the people who declare wars and the people who fight wars are entirely two different sets of people with entirely different motivations. Perhaps some of the Kaiser's troops were thinking about murdered princes and national honor but French troops were fighting on **French** soil, they had a very different set of motivations.
Yeah that personal knowledge is pretty important, as is the chain where one "generation" passes it on to the next. Not everything is in the blueprints or the manuals. That's the only reason 19 and 20 year old aviation mechanics in the US Air Force can keep a B-52 from the 1950s flying. Personal experience and tips passed on from a guy working on the B-52 since the 2000s, who received it from a guy who had worked on them in the 1990s,... in the 80s,... in the 70s,... in the 60s, who got it from a USAF aviation mechanic from the 50s who worked side by side with the Boeing engineers and technicians who designed and built the B-52.
While NASA does not have the benefit of such a chain of knowledge regarding the Saturn 5 the young engineers at NASA and subcontractors are sometimes able to bring in retired engineers from the 60s and 70s to pass on what they remember.
Why would he have to reverse engineer it? The designs are property of the United States citizenry.
And contrary to urban myth the designs were not destroyed or lost. However while we may have blueprints we no longer have the tooling, the machines and tools that make the Saturn 5 parts. Nor do we have the hands on expertise. That is the real reason we don't just crank out some more of these rockets.
I work for a large networking appliance company. We know these backdoors are a bad idea from a security standpoint. The problem is, customers demand them. They call up and want something fixed--or a customization or diagnosis or whatever--and many times the only way to resolve the issue is to access the box. Most times it's a configuration problem on their end, but often the quickest way to figure this out is to access the internal databases. On our appliances our backdoors are completely optional--if you disable it, support is completely unable to access the box, period (I know because I helped to write it). But you wouldn't believe how irate customers become when you tell them that you can't help them, even though they're the ones who _chose_ to disable the support access, and clicked through all the warnings.
This was my exact experience when working on telco infrastructure equipment years ago. We knew it was bad security but customers wanted it.
If working on such equipment today I would expect that we would incorporate a time-based one-time password that the customer would have to provide to our support person. Hardly perfect but a bit better than what seems to be common place today.
This just in: Guy with stake in product says nothing is wrong with product. Film at 11.
Thing is, he's not wrong. Most consumers won't notice.
Its more of a developer issue. The effect on consumers is secondary, ie an app they might want is not ported to Android or it is not available for the Android version they have.
5.0 crippled the first gen iPad, and the Kindle Fire is just a store front for Amazon that runs a bastardized version of Android.
You are mistaken. Only the cosmetic screen appearance of the operating system has changed. Underneath the Kindle Fire is a stock Android SDK 2.3 (api level 10) environment including 3.0 extensions via the support library (fragments, etc). Many Android apps and games run just fine if they are compatible with API level 10 and support library v4.
Actually it was $500. For the record this $500 device received six major OS upgrades (3.2 to 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.0 and 5.1), the $200 device received zero.
And in breaking news, a cheap device isn't supported as well as an expensive device. Full story at eleven.
So, does the lack of OS upgrades have any impact at all on its intended use for reading books downloaded from Amazon, listening to music downloaded from Amazon, or playing videos downloaded from Amazon?
You have left out the intended use of downloading apps and games from Amazon's app store. While the Kindle Fire customizes the appearance of Android it is still an Android device and Android apps generally run on it just fine. Being stuck at Android 2.3 limits the choice of apps and games, a developer of an app designed for Android 4 may pass on making the necessary compatibility changes.
It would seem appropriate to pick the Kindle Fire, the best selling Android tablet. Tablet v tablet, 1st gen v 1st gen, best seller v best seller, etc.
$200 vs $600, etc.
Actually it was $500. For the record this $500 device received six major OS upgrades (3.2 to 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.0 and 5.1), the $200 device received zero.
It would seem appropriate to pick the Kindle Fire, the best selling Android tablet. Tablet v tablet, 1st gen v 1st gen, best seller v best seller, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
MacBooks can't even drive 3 displays, and nobody would buy a Mac Pro right now.
I believe the 27" iMac with Thunderbolt supports two external displays. With the built-in that is three displays.
Get a Mac. Are you sure your toolset is Linux specific? Odds are your apps and tools run fine under Mac OS X. Some info from Apple:
http://movies.apple.com/media/us/osx/2012/docs//OSX_for_UNIX_Users_TB_July2011.pdf
If war is an extension of politics, and it is ...
War is the failure of politics not an extention of it.
Not if you are doing it right.
.... They conquer by strategy."
"Thus those skilled in war subdue the enemy's army without battle
Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
Strangle the Google Nexus 10 is 2560 x 1600 and its made by Samsung.
That should be "Strangely".
:-)
That's an odd typo. I thought "strangely" and typed "strangle". I'm in a good mood and the Nexus 10 is my favorite Android tablet, I mean it no harm.
Look at the Samsung tablets, 7 inch tablets are 1024 x 600 pixel, larger tablets are 1280 x 800. Serious, a 10 inch tablet with 1280 x 800. No, Samsung is not competitive at all today.
Strangle the Google Nexus 10 is 2560 x 1600 and its made by Samsung.
That's like saying advertising doesn't matter because you could have made a different advert.
No, its not that they could have made a different object, its that they could have used a different printer to make that same object. Again, what is the competitive advantage of showing an object that both your printer and your competitors' printers can make? There is equivalence in this situation, not an advantage. So one could argue that the item is displayed to demonstrate what 3D printers in general can do. That may be outside the scope of the specific CC definition of commercial use.
Which part of "free for non-commercial use" is giving you trouble?
The part where CC **defines** commercial use in a very specific manner: "in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation." Note the use of "primarily", this indicates that tangential advantages do not count for this definition of commercial advantage.
You don't think promotional or advertising use amounts to commercial advantage?
Why are they doing it then, for teh lulz?
How is there an advantage when other 3D printers can make the same items? It may simply be an example of what is possible with 3D printing.
Perhaps they misunderstand CC licenses.
Maybe, maybe not. They were not selling the items. The items were on public display and there was no charge for viewing. The items were merely made by the printer they were selling. The CC license defines commercial use as "in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation." One could argue there is no commercial advantage since other 3D printers could create the same items, that the items merely familiarizes the viewer with what is possible with 3D printing in general. One could also argue that there is no monetary compensation for viewing the items and they are not being sold. I think there is ample room for misunderstanding the license, I'm just not sure which side is misunderstanding it.
Perhaps they are jerks.
Doubtful, they seem to be willing to keep things friendly. From the article: "Nahmais [IP owner] also posted an email exchange he said he had with Dan Yalon, executive vice president for business development and strategic marketing for Stratasys, in which Yalon says the company will be sure to ask for permission and give attribution in the future. In the email Yalon also agreed to donate a sum of money to a charity to make up for it, although Nahmias, via Twitter, said he's not sure if Stratasys has done so."
The positions of the merchant ships sunk were generally known, at least after the war. Family and friends could learn of the "burial site". For those sites sufficiently close to a coast it was not unheard of for someone to go out there in a boat and lay a wreath or some flowers on the water. Or have the wreath/flowers air dropped on the site.
The families of those listed as "overdue, presumed lost" did not have this minor comfort. Given the extreme close proximity to shore of these newly discovered subs there will probably be grandchildren and grand-nephews/nieces born decades after the family member was lost paying their respects. Its not just for those who knew the lost sailor.
you can't enlist and be a pilot
Untrue. You can enlist and if you pass the various screenings they may give you a scholarship and time off to attend a regular 4 year college. A classmate did this in return for some number of years of service as an officer upon graduation.
for a pilot you have to be an officer which means college first, more specifically the naval or air force academy which only take the top 5% or so. and you have to get a nomination from your congressperson. its like a 2 year process to apply in high school
Untrue. Officer Candidate School (OCS) only requires a 4 year degree from an accredited college. You can also attend OCS while you are still a student during summer breaks to save some time.
You don't have to go to a military academy to become an officer or a pilot in the U.S. You can go to any accredited university and get a four year degree and then go to Officer Candidate School (OSC). You may be able to go to OCS during summer breaks and become a commissioned officer upon graduation.
I think every fighter produced starting with the F-4 Phantom II was criticized as having some fatal flaw, and most ended up being liked by their pilots.
I think that goes back pretty much to the Wright brothers. Many fighters were flawed on their initial delivery. Even the P-51 Mustang was mediocre at high altitude until it got into the hands of military pilots and ground crews. In particular the British pilots/crews who replaced the Allison engine with the Rolls Royce Merlin engine.
nobody flies fighter jets in the Air Force and then goes on to fly for regional carriers for $25k a year.
Flying an F-16 is not very good preparation for flying a 737. What the airlines really want is C-17 or C-130 pilots, with plenty of multi-engine experience.
Those with experience in the small single seat aircraft are also desired. Much of what the pilot learned is applicable. He or she is still far far ahead of someone coming from a civilian flight background. Retraining the former fighter pilot for a large multiengine aircraft yields the airline a far more capable pilot.
Keep in mind that one of the things that makes USAF and USN pilots desirable is their extensive screening for and training to keep calm and work through the problem when something is going wrong.
Surviving submarine commanders, and Admiral Doenitz who commanded them, wrote memoirs. There are plenty of first-hand accounts of submarine warfare from participants. They are in dead-tree media but still available. Also very interesting are accounts of commerce raiders and Q-ships in both wars.
Its not U-boat history in general that is being referred to. It is the specific history of these boats, the specific story of these crewman. I once visited the submariner's memorial at Pearl Harbor. It lists the U.S. submarines that fought in the Pacific during WW2. A bunch of submarines were lost. Some of these were marked as "sunk", some of these were marked as "overdue, presumed lost". To many people there is something unfinished, something sadder, about "overdue, presumed lost". Moving a ship and crew from the "overdue, presumed lost" list to the "sunk" list, giving a location, is meaningful. Especially to family members.
"Archaeologists"...!? I am Greek living in Greece and i feel insulted - and i am sure some very old people who were born during WW1 and are still alive are feeling the same as me.
Perhaps a person trained to dig through ancients ruins and reconstruct history is also the best qualified person to dig through modern ruins and reconstruct history. Perhaps archeological techniques and best practices developed over the centuries at ancient historical sites can be applied to modern historical sites as well. Are archaeologists somehow unfit to work at a modern historical site merely because that is not their traditional use?
World War I had nothing to do with countries being invaded and citizens being murdered.
The Kaiser's invaded France and Belgium and the atrocities committed against civilians are well documented. So for many French and Belgium volunteers the war was precisely about invasion and murder. You are not considering that the people who declare wars and the people who fight wars are entirely two different sets of people with entirely different motivations. Perhaps some of the Kaiser's troops were thinking about murdered princes and national honor but French troops were fighting on **French** soil, they had a very different set of motivations.
Yeah that personal knowledge is pretty important, as is the chain where one "generation" passes it on to the next. Not everything is in the blueprints or the manuals. That's the only reason 19 and 20 year old aviation mechanics in the US Air Force can keep a B-52 from the 1950s flying. Personal experience and tips passed on from a guy working on the B-52 since the 2000s, who received it from a guy who had worked on them in the 1990s, ... in the 80s, ... in the 70s, ... in the 60s, who got it from a USAF aviation mechanic from the 50s who worked side by side with the Boeing engineers and technicians who designed and built the B-52.
While NASA does not have the benefit of such a chain of knowledge regarding the Saturn 5 the young engineers at NASA and subcontractors are sometimes able to bring in retired engineers from the 60s and 70s to pass on what they remember.
Why would he have to reverse engineer it? The designs are property of the United States citizenry.
And contrary to urban myth the designs were not destroyed or lost. However while we may have blueprints we no longer have the tooling, the machines and tools that make the Saturn 5 parts. Nor do we have the hands on expertise. That is the real reason we don't just crank out some more of these rockets.
I work for a large networking appliance company. We know these backdoors are a bad idea from a security standpoint. The problem is, customers demand them. They call up and want something fixed--or a customization or diagnosis or whatever--and many times the only way to resolve the issue is to access the box. Most times it's a configuration problem on their end, but often the quickest way to figure this out is to access the internal databases. On our appliances our backdoors are completely optional--if you disable it, support is completely unable to access the box, period (I know because I helped to write it). But you wouldn't believe how irate customers become when you tell them that you can't help them, even though they're the ones who _chose_ to disable the support access, and clicked through all the warnings.
This was my exact experience when working on telco infrastructure equipment years ago. We knew it was bad security but customers wanted it.
If working on such equipment today I would expect that we would incorporate a time-based one-time password that the customer would have to provide to our support person. Hardly perfect but a bit better than what seems to be common place today.
This just in: Guy with stake in product says nothing is wrong with product. Film at 11.
Thing is, he's not wrong. Most consumers won't notice.
Its more of a developer issue. The effect on consumers is secondary, ie an app they might want is not ported to Android or it is not available for the Android version they have.
5.0 crippled the first gen iPad, and the Kindle Fire is just a store front for Amazon that runs a bastardized version of Android.
You are mistaken. Only the cosmetic screen appearance of the operating system has changed. Underneath the Kindle Fire is a stock Android SDK 2.3 (api level 10) environment including 3.0 extensions via the support library (fragments, etc). Many Android apps and games run just fine if they are compatible with API level 10 and support library v4.
Actually it was $500. For the record this $500 device received six major OS upgrades (3.2 to 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.0 and 5.1), the $200 device received zero.
And in breaking news, a cheap device isn't supported as well as an expensive device. Full story at eleven.
So, does the lack of OS upgrades have any impact at all on its intended use for reading books downloaded from Amazon, listening to music downloaded from Amazon, or playing videos downloaded from Amazon?
You have left out the intended use of downloading apps and games from Amazon's app store. While the Kindle Fire customizes the appearance of Android it is still an Android device and Android apps generally run on it just fine. Being stuck at Android 2.3 limits the choice of apps and games, a developer of an app designed for Android 4 may pass on making the necessary compatibility changes.
It would seem appropriate to pick the Kindle Fire, the best selling Android tablet. Tablet v tablet, 1st gen v 1st gen, best seller v best seller, etc.
$200 vs $600, etc.
Actually it was $500. For the record this $500 device received six major OS upgrades (3.2 to 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.0 and 5.1), the $200 device received zero.
My point being, the majority of Android users do have options, albeit not necessarily approved by the Corporate Overlords.
Yes and no. The majority of Android users do not have the necessary knowledge, expertise or confidence to exercise those options.
... if you're going to pick an android device ...
It would seem appropriate to pick the Kindle Fire, the best selling Android tablet. Tablet v tablet, 1st gen v 1st gen, best seller v best seller, etc.