If Samsung threatened to drop android they'd be the new Nokia. There is a reason they they stick around and abide by google. They know they have something to lose if they make too big of a power grab.
The only way I can see this happening is for them to develop their own offering, sell the two for a while, and when (or if) their option reaches a big market share they'll switch.
But you won't be getting rid of the google made applications anytime soon on samsung phones.
Acer tried to do that with Alibaba (a forked version of android with their own appstore, etc) in China and google threatened to put them off the "open handset alliance" (that would stop them from getting new Android versions before they were released into the wild).
So, no, they can't do whatever they wanted. If they could, Samsung would have ditched google a long time ago, I'm quite sure of it.
Again, people fail to understand that, just because YOU can, not everyone does. A normal user (those that make or break a platform) cannot and SHOULD NOT be expected to install anything anywhere. Geeks will always consume technology, the success of a product like this is dependent on the masses, not in the tech minority.
"people have put linux on it" is NOT a valid argument. I was also able to "fix" my old HTC Desire (yes, corny European name for a Nexus One) with custom roms (making it live well beyond its years), but a female friend of mine simply got rid of it and said "I'll NEVER buy HTC again". And then got an iPhone.
1) Is the average consumer tech savy enough to install linux? Just because you and I are, not everyone is. You have to understand that the success will be valued by how the masses adopt it, not how the tech geeks do.
2) I'd explain to you the meaning of a logical fallacy, but not in the mood. But google it and see why that argument holds very little value evaluating the success of a platform.
Chromebooks depend on a google service to keep running. Take the service out and it'll fail, very much like many RSS apps that consumed man-hours to develop and are now useless, since they based their efforts solely on using reader content in a seamless way.
The lesson is, you can't trust google to support your chromebook forever, if it fails they don't seem to have any problem shutting the platform down.
No, but chromebooks depend on googles' cloud. Take that out and, unless you're a geek and are able to use it for something else (linux and whatnot), you'll have a useless computer.
And then when it fails to bring money it gets discontinued. And you have a very expensive paperweight... Google Reader was an eye opener. Depending on a third party for core functionality is something I'll be avoiding from now one, since you never know...
Spread through the thousands of articles they have the cost would be minimal. And there are other solutions like colaborative efforts between universities where one would take care of their own stuff. Planetlab is a good example on how this is possible.
And if they sell 100 articles / month you have all the costs and proffits covered. But they get way more than that since unviersities pay them for access, etc.
It costs them nothing. Everyone that does actual work does not get payed for it by the publication.
Only the magazines and websites get any kind of money for them, and hosting a 3mb pdf will never cost 30$ per copy, no matter how much they say it does. It's taking advantage of a system that was established when only print would do and actually printing and delivery would cost lots of money.
Right now, it's ridiculous and it will die sooner or later if someone comes forth with a good alternative (no matter how good nature is).
And the argument that no money makes things unbiased is complete bulshit. In that case, judges should not be payed either.
1- Headsets 2- Building a userbase and tying it to your ecosystem (and your app/movie/whatever) store. 3- Ad network for your now ubiquitous smartphone ecosystem.
If you only plan to offer what the others already do, then you'll die a very painful death.
The problem with ubuntu (and any new mobile OS in the past few years) is that they do not innovate, they simply copy and add a few gimmicks.
Developer tools need to be available WAY before the launch. They need to be free. Pay developers for startup apps. Make an office suit, a few games, etc. and make them freely available for everyone. Make them run android binaries (last I've heard, the dalvik code is open source). See those cloud services others charge for? Make them free.
Let your hardware partners go crazy. Don't impose guidelines, just make sure all binaries will run. The rest, leave it to them so they are not all clones of one another (like windows phones).
Be ready to spend a few millions without return of investment.
And above all, don't try to keep your competition out, invite them in. Google develops for iOS and with that they give out a good company image to iOS users. Maybe those that love the new Maps app will want to get it on android without the limitations. Having a full set of google services would be a plus.
What's so wrong about that? Google should be able to get something in return for providing turn by turn navigation and all the premium features they include on their maps.
I obviously am. I'm trying to make America a more equal place. The reason why the higher income people should pay more taxes is exactly that reason, a way to level the field. The thing is, they are very good at dodging taxes. And say they pay 13% and feel proud about it...
There are studies that show that anything over a certain limit (I think something in the lines of over 70000 a year) money stops being a motivation to work harder and stars being a luxury. I do not agree that it should be more than they need, but more than they can conceivably spend on anything normal while others starve. I do consider computer normal, same as a good house or a good car, but a 20ft yatch is not normal and no one should have one for pleasure while people starve.
But hey, that's me. You truly think that the billions spent on taxes by the rich will create jobs? They might create jobs oversees where they invest, but very little of that stays in America. That, and new mansions, but very few jobs. Less jobs than a strong middle class can create (more people consuming, more production is needed, more jobs are created).
The problem with the kindle is that it is extremely easy to ruin by a backpack with books. I've had 2 die on me that way, so I'm guessing he needs a hard case more than that:\
Since you mention entropy, the entropy for the english language is around 1.1 bits per character (average), which is extremely low. Passphrase attacks, especially ones that use common english sentences (like song lyrics) are extremely weak by today's standards. Passphrases can be secure if they are long and/or random enough, but if you're gonna have to memorize a random sequence of words, why not memorize a damn password?
Your last sentence sums up my whole point:P. I was attacking the op's method, not passphrases. If your algorithm is secret and good enough, then they are extremely safe.
If you use passphrases of music lyrics or any sentence that makes sense, then you are particularly vulnerable. Not saying passphrases can't be safe (long ones, with enough words, can - especially randomized words), but the method he described (music lyrics) is extremely weak.
It obviously can, and there is nothing wrong with using mnemonics to remember a complicated (normal) password, but the lyrics to your favorite song (or any song you listen to) are not secure in any way or form.
That's obvious, but I was complaining about the way he gets his passwords, claiming that the fact that he ends up with 80+ characters is real security. It just isn't, the search space for phrases is smaller than all the arrangements of letters, symbols, etc, you can get with 10 characters,
Slashdot Mirror
If Samsung threatened to drop android they'd be the new Nokia. There is a reason they they stick around and abide by google. They know they have something to lose if they make too big of a power grab.
The only way I can see this happening is for them to develop their own offering, sell the two for a while, and when (or if) their option reaches a big market share they'll switch.
But you won't be getting rid of the google made applications anytime soon on samsung phones.
No, they can't.
Acer tried to do that with Alibaba (a forked version of android with their own appstore, etc) in China and google threatened to put them off the "open handset alliance" (that would stop them from getting new Android versions before they were released into the wild).
So, no, they can't do whatever they wanted. If they could, Samsung would have ditched google a long time ago, I'm quite sure of it.
Again, people fail to understand that, just because YOU can, not everyone does. A normal user (those that make or break a platform) cannot and SHOULD NOT be expected to install anything anywhere. Geeks will always consume technology, the success of a product like this is dependent on the masses, not in the tech minority.
"people have put linux on it" is NOT a valid argument. I was also able to "fix" my old HTC Desire (yes, corny European name for a Nexus One) with custom roms (making it live well beyond its years), but a female friend of mine simply got rid of it and said "I'll NEVER buy HTC again". And then got an iPhone.
1) Is the average consumer tech savy enough to install linux? Just because you and I are, not everyone is. You have to understand that the success will be valued by how the masses adopt it, not how the tech geeks do.
2) I'd explain to you the meaning of a logical fallacy, but not in the mood. But google it and see why that argument holds very little value evaluating the success of a platform.
Chromebooks depend on a google service to keep running. Take the service out and it'll fail, very much like many RSS apps that consumed man-hours to develop and are now useless, since they based their efforts solely on using reader content in a seamless way.
The lesson is, you can't trust google to support your chromebook forever, if it fails they don't seem to have any problem shutting the platform down.
No, but chromebooks depend on googles' cloud. Take that out and, unless you're a geek and are able to use it for something else (linux and whatnot), you'll have a useless computer.
And then when it fails to bring money it gets discontinued. And you have a very expensive paperweight... Google Reader was an eye opener. Depending on a third party for core functionality is something I'll be avoiding from now one, since you never know...
Those do not get payed so it doesn't count.
Spread through the thousands of articles they have the cost would be minimal. And there are other solutions like colaborative efforts between universities where one would take care of their own stuff. Planetlab is a good example on how this is possible.
And if they sell 100 articles / month you have all the costs and proffits covered. But they get way more than that since unviersities pay them for access, etc.
It costs them nothing. Everyone that does actual work does not get payed for it by the publication.
Only the magazines and websites get any kind of money for them, and hosting a 3mb pdf will never cost 30$ per copy, no matter how much they say it does. It's taking advantage of a system that was established when only print would do and actually printing and delivery would cost lots of money.
Right now, it's ridiculous and it will die sooner or later if someone comes forth with a good alternative (no matter how good nature is).
And the argument that no money makes things unbiased is complete bulshit. In that case, judges should not be payed either.
1- Headsets
2- Building a userbase and tying it to your ecosystem (and your app/movie/whatever) store.
3- Ad network for your now ubiquitous smartphone ecosystem.
If you only plan to offer what the others already do, then you'll die a very painful death.
The problem with ubuntu (and any new mobile OS in the past few years) is that they do not innovate, they simply copy and add a few gimmicks.
Developer tools need to be available WAY before the launch. They need to be free. Pay developers for startup apps. Make an office suit, a few games, etc. and make them freely available for everyone. Make them run android binaries (last I've heard, the dalvik code is open source). See those cloud services others charge for? Make them free.
Let your hardware partners go crazy. Don't impose guidelines, just make sure all binaries will run. The rest, leave it to them so they are not all clones of one another (like windows phones).
Be ready to spend a few millions without return of investment.
And above all, don't try to keep your competition out, invite them in. Google develops for iOS and with that they give out a good company image to iOS users. Maybe those that love the new Maps app will want to get it on android without the limitations. Having a full set of google services would be a plus.
The difference is, if an iPhone does that, there is nothing you can do, since it might be happening behind your back.
If you see your flashlight app uses the internet or GPS, you can skip it.
That study is irrelevant. Most of those apps don't know that because they need to, but because they are free and the averts do.
Do the same study on payed apps. For example, GPS location access is not present on any of the games I bought so far.
What's so wrong about that? Google should be able to get something in return for providing turn by turn navigation and all the premium features they include on their maps.
If you only want to pay taxes for things that you will benefit from, then there is nothing more to talk about. It's selfishness at it's prime.
Now you have a stable job and a home. If your life ever took a turn for the worst, I bet you would feel differently.
I obviously am. I'm trying to make America a more equal place. The reason why the higher income people should pay more taxes is exactly that reason, a way to level the field. The thing is, they are very good at dodging taxes. And say they pay 13% and feel proud about it...
I read that number in a book. I might be wrong since it was a long time ago. Still, the priciple applies.
There are studies that show that anything over a certain limit (I think something in the lines of over 70000 a year) money stops being a motivation to work harder and stars being a luxury. I do not agree that it should be more than they need, but more than they can conceivably spend on anything normal while others starve. I do consider computer normal, same as a good house or a good car, but a 20ft yatch is not normal and no one should have one for pleasure while people starve.
But hey, that's me. You truly think that the billions spent on taxes by the rich will create jobs? They might create jobs oversees where they invest, but very little of that stays in America. That, and new mansions, but very few jobs. Less jobs than a strong middle class can create (more people consuming, more production is needed, more jobs are created).
The problem with the kindle is that it is extremely easy to ruin by a backpack with books. I've had 2 die on me that way, so I'm guessing he needs a hard case more than that :\
Since you mention entropy, the entropy for the english language is around 1.1 bits per character (average), which is extremely low. Passphrase attacks, especially ones that use common english sentences (like song lyrics) are extremely weak by today's standards. Passphrases can be secure if they are long and/or random enough, but if you're gonna have to memorize a random sequence of words, why not memorize a damn password?
Your last sentence sums up my whole point :P. I was attacking the op's method, not passphrases. If your algorithm is secret and good enough, then they are extremely safe.
the wikipedia article kind of sums it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passphrase#Security
If you use passphrases of music lyrics or any sentence that makes sense, then you are particularly vulnerable. Not saying passphrases can't be safe (long ones, with enough words, can - especially randomized words), but the method he described (music lyrics) is extremely weak.
It obviously can, and there is nothing wrong with using mnemonics to remember a complicated (normal) password, but the lyrics to your favorite song (or any song you listen to) are not secure in any way or form.
That's obvious, but I was complaining about the way he gets his passwords, claiming that the fact that he ends up with 80+ characters is real security. It just isn't, the search space for phrases is smaller than all the arrangements of letters, symbols, etc, you can get with 10 characters,