I'm being serious. What benefit will you get from having source code for a graphics CPU on an Android tablet?
The only reason you need the drivers at all is to build a custom rom for the system, which I doubt Google is particularly eager to support. Not saying they want to stop you, I'm sure the system won't have a locked bootloader or anything stupid like that, but they don't have to waste time/money helping you either. Besides, you don't need the source for that, you just need a binary driver. Granted, last I checked nVidia hadn't released those for ICS, either...
Anyway, the type of "developer" you're thinking of is not the one Google is worried about. They want people making apps for the Play Store, not custom rom images.
Finally... Maybe, just maybe, they went with the nVidia chip because of the price/performance ratio?
Eventually this policy is going to cost Nvidia in the pocket book, and they will either come around or sink into nothingness.
And yet, our new deployment of thirty Linux-based image generators I just setup all have GeForce cards in them... Do we live in the same world?
nVidia cards, with nVidia's binary blob driver, are the only way I can get any work done in Linux. That doesn't seem to be changing anytime soon, either.
I wish it would. My home PC has a Radeon card... But the support under Linux just isn't there.
I'm going to third this opinion. I make my living writing and maintaining Linux-based 3D simulators for the FAA. We use only nVidia cards, and only the proprietary driver, as we just can't get the performance out of nouveau or ATI's joke of a driver.
Hell, I remember at my last job when we got our first 8800GTX, and the Windows driver was completely borked (couldn't disable vsync, control FSAA, anything), but the six month old Linux driver we were using gave us 150fps on a dual-channel setup to drive the HMD, right out of the box without any tweaking. nVidia's on the right track, their universal Linux driver is pretty much always fast and rock-solid.
That being said, I have a Radeon on my home PC (Windows box used for gaming), so I'm not using nVidia at work by choice. We don't have the luxury of choice.
There is a reason why the all of the top high-end apps, like FAA certified EFBs are exclusively on iOS. Would you really want your airline pilot navigating through IFR conditions using some cheap-ass Android tablet running god-knows-what version of the OS, where the chart isn't scaled correctly because the screen has a weird aspect ratio? Do you/really/ want to take that chance?
Hi. I work with the FAA, two of my most recent projects were EFB related, in fact.
If a pilot is looking at his iOS based "FAA certified" EFB in IMC, he shouldn't be a pilot. They're not certified for use in flight, and have to be stowed (and turned off) before takeoff.
Think they have enough time at orbital speeds to visually determine who has the right of way and act on it?
Oh I thought the same thing when I first read the wikipedia article years ago. But if there's one thing I've learned in four years of working with the FAA, rules often aren't based on reality, much less sense...
There's a lot of emerging evidence that young adults who watched a lot of porn have problems with intimate relationships.
Except that the link you gave cites no other evidence than "I said so."
If there's a lot of emerging evidence, someone would be able to point to some sort of peer reviewed studies saying as much. They shouldn't have to fall back on the words of someone who makes a living treating "porn addiction".
I read your post and immediately thought "How did he link to the Wikipedia article and not see where it mentions piloted spacecraft?" only to find out someone deleted all references to spacecraft in January with no explanation.
My understanding is that manned, piloted spacecraft are supposed to have nav lights on them. The Shuttle didn't have them because the FAA gave them a waiver and special airspace.
Digging through that PDF, all I see are discussions about trying to cooperate with Sun to use Java, and it not working out. Which backs up Google's explanation of WHY they didn't go with J2ME.
So, again, got a link to e-mails where someone at Google says "What we're about to do is illegal."?
Actually they are trying to use the email to show that Google were knowingly breaching the license, not that google knew ahead of time that they were in the wrong.
I don't think I understand the subtle difference in what I said and what you said... So let me try to be clear by pretending to know what I'm talking about for a second: Oracle is trying to use the e-mail to show evidence of WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT.
And it could be evidence of that, except: 1) it was written after Oracle started threatening, 2) it was written AFTER Sun's CEO publicly congratulated Google on releasing Android and promised Sun would support the Android platform 3) it was written by someone in Google not working on Android 4) it was saved as a draft but not sent.
Oracle are dicks, but that is only a mild improvement on the twats that are google.
Are you trying to say Oracle is less evil than Google? Are you at all familiar with Oracle?
Honestly even if Google is in the wrong here (which I strongly disagree with), I think it's vitally important Oracle lose this case, as the legal theory they are trying to push (that public APIs are subject to copyright and licensing) is absolute INSANITY and would be the death knell to a large percentage of the software industry.
Though it would make developing on proprietary systems significantly more painful than Free/Open systems like Linux, so that would make some people around here very happy...
No matter what he meant, it shouldn't matter. Oracle is trying to use the e-mail to prove "Google knew ahead of time they were in the wrong!" when in fact this e-mail was written AFTER Oracle bought Sun and was murmuring about lawsuits. It's also an unsent draft of an e-mail written by a Google employee who wasn't working on Android! Wow!
I guess if I want to screw over my company in the future, I know how to do it now... Incriminating e-mail drafts!
Except that a customer like me won't see any difference on his bill for buying the phone, as (barring unemployment or death) I will have a wireless plan for the next two years anyway, whether I keep my MB300 or not.
That's your mistake right there. First, your mis-characterization of Stallman's attitude does not reflect the spirit, and the very practical effect, of the GPL, at all.
I never mentioned the GPL in my post. I said his ideology. The GPL is a (very good) product of Stallman's ideology, but his ideology is much larger than the GPL. And it very much is an ideology that refuses to compromise and refuses to work with others who do not agree with the ideology. There's nothing wrong with that, it just prevents a person from successfully leading a project like Linux.
And second, Stallman's role and influence is not one of a leader of project like Linux.
And that's what I said, as well, but when the GP said:
... but his ideology would have prevented the operating system's success and effected the ecosystem that grew around Linux.
I assume that's also what they meant, that Stallman could create the GPL and champion the cause of free software, but he could not successfully be in charge of Linux. And you said they were wrong, which led to me saying you were wrong... So who exactly is wrong here?:)
You say one thing and its opposite in the same sentence.
He says the truth. Stallman's "You're either with us, or against us." ideology would be completely toxic in a leader of a project like Linux.
Linus didn't set out to spread a philosophy, he set out to make something useful. He found a particular philosophy useful in the creation of this thing. Stallman is out to spread a religion.
Note that I say this with no intention to imply anything Stallman says or believes is wrong.
They're literally giving the phones away until April 20th. $100 rebate due to a memory management defect if you buy by the 20th... The phone is $100 w/ contract. Or, it's $50 w/ contract on Amazon, meaning they're willing to pay people to buy them.
I don't see how paying people to use your product isn't the most extreme form of advertising possible. Maybe the problem isn't the advertising? Maybe the problem is no one wants a Windows phone?
Okay, fair enough, you never specifically used the name BP in your comment, so I may have mischaracterized your comment as supporting the GP's "BP are the only guys responsible!!!" message.
Or you could just post a "no cellphones" sign and enforce it, instead of being a ginormous self-centered asshole and possibly interfering with legitimate (and possibly emergency) communications.
And if you actually research it further, you'll find that the only charges he is actually facing is "Resisting arrest". He wasn't cited for failure to disperse.
Funnily enough, he was actually asking the police if he could go to his car when one of the commanders started shouting "Arrestee! Arrestee!" and had him arrested. So apparently asking police to allow you to leave an area they have ordered you to leave is "disobeying a lawful order to disperse"... Much like being tackled from behind is "Assaulting a police officer" and lying unconscious on the ground due to a diabetic coma while cops kick you is "Resisting arrest."
But if you had bothered to spend about 12 seconds doing a google search, you would have learned that you can actually take your AT&T iPhones to Straight Talk (its not marketed as such but it does work) and get fully unlimited service for $45 a month.
AFTER you jailbreak the iPhone (and void the warranty) and buy a $200 handset from Straight Talk, and get lucky enough to not get a locked SIM... Then I'd save $20/mo on my current bill for five lines.
Or in Europe, where I'd just go down to a local convenience store, buy a SIM, and pop it in my phone. Tada! New carrier.
A creationist is a person who believes in creationism. That is all the word creationist means. Much like Capitalist/Capitalism, Deist/Deism, Marxist/Marxism, Racist/Racism, etc.
This definition you've made up? I don't know what word it's for, but it's not creationist. I think a closer word to what you MIGHT be looking for is fundamentalist, but that's generic for anyone practicing fundamentalism, which probably don't have enough of an anti-Christian bent for your tastes.
Slashdot Mirror
kill him?
Yes, because it doesn't matter how bad he is on other issues, as long as he fucks over those rich people...
Who don't pay income taxes...
I'm being serious. What benefit will you get from having source code for a graphics CPU on an Android tablet?
The only reason you need the drivers at all is to build a custom rom for the system, which I doubt Google is particularly eager to support. Not saying they want to stop you, I'm sure the system won't have a locked bootloader or anything stupid like that, but they don't have to waste time/money helping you either. Besides, you don't need the source for that, you just need a binary driver. Granted, last I checked nVidia hadn't released those for ICS, either...
Anyway, the type of "developer" you're thinking of is not the one Google is worried about. They want people making apps for the Play Store, not custom rom images.
Finally... Maybe, just maybe, they went with the nVidia chip because of the price/performance ratio?
And yet, our new deployment of thirty Linux-based image generators I just setup all have GeForce cards in them... Do we live in the same world?
nVidia cards, with nVidia's binary blob driver, are the only way I can get any work done in Linux. That doesn't seem to be changing anytime soon, either.
I wish it would. My home PC has a Radeon card... But the support under Linux just isn't there.
I'm going to third this opinion. I make my living writing and maintaining Linux-based 3D simulators for the FAA. We use only nVidia cards, and only the proprietary driver, as we just can't get the performance out of nouveau or ATI's joke of a driver.
Hell, I remember at my last job when we got our first 8800GTX, and the Windows driver was completely borked (couldn't disable vsync, control FSAA, anything), but the six month old Linux driver we were using gave us 150fps on a dual-channel setup to drive the HMD, right out of the box without any tweaking. nVidia's on the right track, their universal Linux driver is pretty much always fast and rock-solid.
That being said, I have a Radeon on my home PC (Windows box used for gaming), so I'm not using nVidia at work by choice. We don't have the luxury of choice.
Hi. I work with the FAA, two of my most recent projects were EFB related, in fact.
If a pilot is looking at his iOS based "FAA certified" EFB in IMC, he shouldn't be a pilot. They're not certified for use in flight, and have to be stowed (and turned off) before takeoff.
Nice straw man, though.
Oh I thought the same thing when I first read the wikipedia article years ago. But if there's one thing I've learned in four years of working with the FAA, rules often aren't based on reality, much less sense...
Except that the link you gave cites no other evidence than "I said so."
If there's a lot of emerging evidence, someone would be able to point to some sort of peer reviewed studies saying as much. They shouldn't have to fall back on the words of someone who makes a living treating "porn addiction".
I read your post and immediately thought "How did he link to the Wikipedia article and not see where it mentions piloted spacecraft?" only to find out someone deleted all references to spacecraft in January with no explanation.
You can see the previous version here.
My understanding is that manned, piloted spacecraft are supposed to have nav lights on them. The Shuttle didn't have them because the FAA gave them a waiver and special airspace.
Digging through that PDF, all I see are discussions about trying to cooperate with Sun to use Java, and it not working out. Which backs up Google's explanation of WHY they didn't go with J2ME.
So, again, got a link to e-mails where someone at Google says "What we're about to do is illegal."?
Haven't seen those e-mails... Got a link?
I don't think I understand the subtle difference in what I said and what you said... So let me try to be clear by pretending to know what I'm talking about for a second: Oracle is trying to use the e-mail to show evidence of WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT.
And it could be evidence of that, except: 1) it was written after Oracle started threatening, 2) it was written AFTER Sun's CEO publicly congratulated Google on releasing Android and promised Sun would support the Android platform 3) it was written by someone in Google not working on Android 4) it was saved as a draft but not sent.
Are you trying to say Oracle is less evil than Google? Are you at all familiar with Oracle?
Honestly even if Google is in the wrong here (which I strongly disagree with), I think it's vitally important Oracle lose this case, as the legal theory they are trying to push (that public APIs are subject to copyright and licensing) is absolute INSANITY and would be the death knell to a large percentage of the software industry.
Though it would make developing on proprietary systems significantly more painful than Free/Open systems like Linux, so that would make some people around here very happy...
No matter what he meant, it shouldn't matter. Oracle is trying to use the e-mail to prove "Google knew ahead of time they were in the wrong!" when in fact this e-mail was written AFTER Oracle bought Sun and was murmuring about lawsuits. It's also an unsent draft of an e-mail written by a Google employee who wasn't working on Android! Wow!
I guess if I want to screw over my company in the future, I know how to do it now... Incriminating e-mail drafts!
Except that a customer like me won't see any difference on his bill for buying the phone, as (barring unemployment or death) I will have a wireless plan for the next two years anyway, whether I keep my MB300 or not.
Yes, and auto-loans don't provide you anything in addition to the car.
I'm going to have (and pay for) wireless service for the next two years, whether or not AT&T gives me a new phone.
I never mentioned the GPL in my post. I said his ideology. The GPL is a (very good) product of Stallman's ideology, but his ideology is much larger than the GPL. And it very much is an ideology that refuses to compromise and refuses to work with others who do not agree with the ideology. There's nothing wrong with that, it just prevents a person from successfully leading a project like Linux.
And that's what I said, as well, but when the GP said:
I assume that's also what they meant, that Stallman could create the GPL and champion the cause of free software, but he could not successfully be in charge of Linux. And you said they were wrong, which led to me saying you were wrong... So who exactly is wrong here? :)
He says the truth. Stallman's "You're either with us, or against us." ideology would be completely toxic in a leader of a project like Linux.
Linus didn't set out to spread a philosophy, he set out to make something useful. He found a particular philosophy useful in the creation of this thing. Stallman is out to spread a religion.
Note that I say this with no intention to imply anything Stallman says or believes is wrong.
They're literally giving the phones away until April 20th. $100 rebate due to a memory management defect if you buy by the 20th... The phone is $100 w/ contract. Or, it's $50 w/ contract on Amazon, meaning they're willing to pay people to buy them.
I don't see how paying people to use your product isn't the most extreme form of advertising possible. Maybe the problem isn't the advertising? Maybe the problem is no one wants a Windows phone?
Okay, fair enough, you never specifically used the name BP in your comment, so I may have mischaracterized your comment as supporting the GP's "BP are the only guys responsible!!!" message.
You say this, and yet you're one of the people who's completely excusing Transocean of their part in all this...
Then grow a pair and enforce them. Don't install a halon system on the bus to extinguish any cigarettes that might be burning.
Or you could just post a "no cellphones" sign and enforce it, instead of being a ginormous self-centered asshole and possibly interfering with legitimate (and possibly emergency) communications.
And if you actually research it further, you'll find that the only charges he is actually facing is "Resisting arrest". He wasn't cited for failure to disperse.
Funnily enough, he was actually asking the police if he could go to his car when one of the commanders started shouting "Arrestee! Arrestee!" and had him arrested. So apparently asking police to allow you to leave an area they have ordered you to leave is "disobeying a lawful order to disperse"... Much like being tackled from behind is "Assaulting a police officer" and lying unconscious on the ground due to a diabetic coma while cops kick you is "Resisting arrest."
AFTER you jailbreak the iPhone (and void the warranty) and buy a $200 handset from Straight Talk, and get lucky enough to not get a locked SIM... Then I'd save $20/mo on my current bill for five lines.
Or in Europe, where I'd just go down to a local convenience store, buy a SIM, and pop it in my phone. Tada! New carrier.
http://www.learnthat.org/pages/view/suffix.html
A creationist is a person who believes in creationism. That is all the word creationist means. Much like Capitalist/Capitalism, Deist/Deism, Marxist/Marxism, Racist/Racism, etc.
This definition you've made up? I don't know what word it's for, but it's not creationist. I think a closer word to what you MIGHT be looking for is fundamentalist, but that's generic for anyone practicing fundamentalism, which probably don't have enough of an anti-Christian bent for your tastes.