I'm inclined to disbelieve the story because of this. Developers use Nexuses (Nexi?) as a reference platform, and manufacturers know that if their device doesn't run something a Nexus does, then the fault lies with them.
Completely eradicating Nexus and the concept of a base platform (contrary to myth, the Nexus doesn't run "Stock Android", but "Stock Android with Google's recommended extensions") would make many of the issues Google has been trying to fix a major headache again.
It's possible that Google intends to release the G branded phones in parallel to the Nexus devices, or that the G branded phones will be reference platforms after all. But the story as written seems improbable.
I think you're missing the wood for the trees here. The argument isn't "Who's the most evilist?", or "Should we ban guns?", it's"Is ISIL even in the ballpark on a list of the biggest threat to (American) lives?" Suicides, etc, absolutely do factor into that.
ISXYZ is a terrible organization, and needs to be stopped, but in the same way as Ted Bundy needed to be stopped. The entire country was not shut down to catch Bundy, and nobody felt the need to hamper channels of discussion and political discourse in order to ensure one serial killer was brought to justice.
Both Sun and Microsoft have made it clear they'd be happy with Google adopting their managed code technologies, and that Google can use them for free. The difference is that Microsoft isn't likely to be bought by Oracle.
I've been debugging and rewriting a lot of legacy C# code recently, and I have to say that it's a breath of fresh air. I used to advocate Java, before Oracle went crazy, but after using C# I never want to touch that bureaucratic pile of over engineered crap and its litigious nutcase "owner" again.
Google: please, please, consider switching. You could even piss Oracle off by porting over the official JVM to Android, writing a Dalvik to Java byte code convertor, and letting legacy Java Android apps run at 10% of the speed they're supposed to, just to simultaneously encourage developers to move to C# and to end the lawsuit with Oracle completely unable to do anything about it.
Binge-on isn't a data cap, it's a bandwidth limiter.
If you think that 10+ phones using DASH, RTSP, etc, to try to stream an HD video (5Mbps+) out of a single 50Mbps LTE tower, isn't going to cause severe problems for everyone else using that tower, then you have a strange understanding of network protocols and video protocols in particular.
I'd also like to know where the "money making ploy" is in a system that gives you unlimited video for free if you're willing to stream it at lower, DVD-quality, bitrates.
The daypass thing is mildly more confusing, but I suspect part of the logic is to encourage use of the Binge-On technology, without which towers are likely to get clogged pretty quickly. I also suspect that the soft limit of 27G a month will be torn through pretty quickly by anyone making heavy use of HD video. Go over the 27G and you're "deprioritized" - you'll get full service during quiet times, but you'll be throttled when everyone else is trying to use the network (which is fair, but you probably don't want it to happen to you!)
The big improvement is that Tethering is now an acceptable half-megabit/s, rather than 2G speeds. That makes "Unlimited tethering" actually useful again.
The big question for me is how to encourage video streaming companies to sign up to Binge-On if there's no incentive. In theory, they can just transmit 1080p over HTTPS (protocols like DASH are HTTPS friendly) and T-Mobile will never know.
With the original implementation, the advantage was that your viewers could watch your services without worrying about it coming out of their data. But if data is unlimited...
The only actual way to reduce teen pregnancy is to encourage them to stop fucking so much
You have figures for all the other methods. What are the figures for "encouraging them to stop fucking so much"?
The birth control available to them _does not work_.
The figures quoted say otherwise. True, the worst contraceptive you mention is successful with 72% of users across a year never having a problem, however the pill is successful for 91% of users (over a year), and the CDC includes reversible birth control measures that are more than 99% effective in the chart you mention.
It's also worth mentioning that the failures aren't necessarily a function of the devices themselves so much as user error. Condoms usually "fail" not because they break or anything else obvious, but because people who rely upon them frequently decide to chance not using them. Almost all versions of the pill can be rendered useless if combined with certain drugs - notably many antibiotics - and are more than 99% effective if used properly.
The ECODE tag does most of the work, but unfortunately Slashcode still strips the indenting (hence the periods before each line, which is a shame otherwise you'd be able to cut and paste it if someone were using it for real code.)
. if(d.signed()) { . . d.load(); . . d.init(context); . } else { . .// alert("Driver not signed, device inserted in " + context.description + " cannot be used at this time"); -- 02/03/16 ska - not Microsofty enough
. .// Events.WriteEvent("usbsubsystem", "Driver unsigned, not loaded 0x80039193"); -- 02/10/16 jrh - good, those idiots will probably search for that number, sucks to be them when there's nothing on our website about it, hahahaha! -- 02/11/16 ska - not good enough, try again
. . System.BSOD();// Crash, because clearly there's no better way to handle this problem . } }
No, it started well after humans started adding significantly to the amount of CO2. But it wouldn't have been a surprise if it had started before the industrial revolution began, because humans were already pumping out huge amounts of CO2 for things like steel making. It's just that process accelerated 200-250 years ago as demand for steel increased and as we started using heat energy for machines.
Bankruptcy was an absurd punishment over a celebrity sex tape.
This was never about a sex tape. It was about Thiel being pissed about an expose of homophobia within silicon valley in which he was outed. The original article Gawker published about him was actually, ironically enough, relatively good journalism, about a matter of legitimate public interest, only partially spoiled by Gawker's carelessness.
You may want billionaires to dictate who can and who can't write the news. Me? I'd rather not live in a thielocracy.
Everything you've just said is why it'll blow up in their faces, and Facebook will start the uncomfortable process of announcing year on year losses of users.
They're essentially duplicating Twitter's mistakes, and not recognizing they were mistakes. Some years ago, Twitter decided to keep tweaking their service. @ replies were hidden. Trending Topics was no longer annotated. Then oodles of JS was added to their service, making it clumsy and unreliable.
Then came the real killers, images and previews. We went, overnight, from a service where everyone saw 15-20 tweets on their screens, enough to follow a conversation, to a situation where most can only see 3-5. Remember, we're talking about 140 characters of actual content per tweet here. The 3-5 was because lots of tweets would now include the headline of the article they're linking to (which would typically ALSO be in the tweet message itself), and because tweets would now frequently have images attached and have a honking great big preview there.
The people who liked Twitter suddenly found that the giant conversation part of it no longer existed. They started to bleed off. The people who used Twitter to follow celebrities continued to use it, but had no great incentive to stay.
More recently, we've seen bizarre attempts to implement message threading that were worse than the clumsy hacks we'd seen before, and even randomizing - sorry, algorithmically reorganizing the timelines.
And so Twitter started to suffer serious churn. Because it added features that nobody had asked for, nobody wants, and that harm the service for end users.
Who is asking for autoplaying videos? Who is asking for autoplaying SOUND attached to those videos? Who is asking for messages to be sorted into a semi-random order? Who asked for videos in the first place?
Nobody. People will leave Facebook. Not immediately. But give it two years, and you'll start to see the first signs their membership is over the peak, and beginning the descent to has-been website status.
The article is about the kernel, not the distros, which vary wildly. (This is also why it's a shame GNU/Linux, as a term, didn't catch on, leaving aside Stallman's feelings. Everyone hears "Linux" and automatically assumes someone is talking about the entire operating system, when it's also the name of the kernel. See also Java, which has similar problems.)
No it's like taxing car owners to subsidize other car owners.
Uber and Lyft are taxi companies. They're not high tech replacements, they're not a radical new business model, they're the same effing thing, albeit with management that has decided, for some reason, that their services should be exempt from the same regulatory structure as pre-existing taxis because Ayn Rand.
In that respect, it's like taxing car owners who refuse to get licenses to subsidize licensed car owners.
Is that stupid? Well yes. But not because one is subsidizing another. It's stupid because both should be licensed.
Oh, but there's some good reason why Lyft and Uber have decided they don't like the current licensing system? Fine. Then look into it, and if it's really good, then implement reforms. The other 90% of the regulatory environment though, from quotas in cities with overcrowded streets to stop them from being even more clogged with taxis than they were already, to requiring insurance and ensuring basic accountability, that needs to stay.
This is a stupid decision, but it has nothing to do with subsidies. It has to do with the fact it doesn't address the underlying problems: Uber's lawlessness, and overregulation of the existing taxi market. Instead it buys into the fiction that a car ordered over the Internet is not a taxi. It is a taxi. Stop lying.
You didn't read TFA. Earth - the planet as a whole - doesn't have a "Summer" and a "Winter", those are local (specifically Northern vs Southern hemisphere) phenomena. Australians are not enjoiying the same season as Europeans, for example.
TFA is about the average temperature of the entire Earth. It being "summer" where you are doesn't come in to it.
Nobody's enthusiastic about X. We're not not happy about a replacement that lacks the features of X that we loved and in many cases relied upon.
And no, I don't want to hear that only "1% of users use the XSERVER variable" or that the underlying implementation wasn't very good.
Hardly anyone uses GNU/Linux, but we'd never accept that as an argument for abolishing the operating system and requiring Windows.
As for the latter - it doesn't matter if it's not perfect, it works damn it. I can manage a remote instance of LibreOffice as an app integrated on my desktop. I do this.
We'll be happy with Wayland when it's as good as, or better than, X11. Not when the underlying code is temporarily easier to understand (you think it'll stay that way?), but when its feature complete, by our standards, not by the developers.
Okay, so you don't value your freedom and you are happy being manipulated. The carrot side usually tastes okay.
No, he didn't say anything like that.
If freedom isn't important to you, then perhaps you should think a bit about the stick? Oh wait. Maybe you're perfect and you've never made any embarrassing little mistakes?
Just read an interesting book called Our Final Invention about the nastiest stick, ASI with no use for us. Don't get me wrong. If the google does it first, I'm going to surrender ASAP. No sense in fighting the inevitable. Maybe the ASI will feel like keeping a few of us around in some sort of zoo?
If you think there's a stick, you'd find it better contribute to the discussion to describe it, rather than demand people read a book before continuing discussion here.
The truth is Google really doesn't have one. It makes its money mostly by using the information it has about you to display relevant ads. That information about you is private, and contrary to myth it's not exactly comprehensive - it isn't a full browsing history, or anything like that, just some quick generalizations based upon some key sites.
This is not bad. This is fine. It doesn't harm anyone's freedom in the slightest.
Yes, Google has the potential to be evil. They could, technically, start recording a log of most of the sites you've been to. They could sell browsing histories linked to personal information to third parties.
But so could Mozilla. Mozilla could do more than Google ever could dream of doing. Is Mozilla evil because it could be evil if it wanted to be? Is Mozilla restricting my freedom by being capable of recording my history and bookmarks and purchases and credit card numbers and selling it to third parties?
You know who can do more than even Mozilla can dream of doing? Microsoft. You know, the company that started the original "Google sells your details to advertisers" smear. They can abuse all of the information Mozilla could, for all of the browsers on your system. Plus they can let people know what the files on your PC are.
Why pick on Google? Because Microsoft and now Oracle have run smear campaigns against it?
Yes, Google's done some shitty things lately. Their search engine has become crappier. "Default" Android has become less open source. Their apps have become too AI infested and usually don't do what you want them to. Google+ was an unmitigated disaster. And yet none of these things were evil, just horrible, like fish flavored popsicle sticks, or Hollywood deciding to reboot The Godfather.
Don't confuse horribleness with evil. Just because Google's products aren't as good as they were doesn't mean they're also selling the names of the porn sites you subscribe to to your mother in law.
There's a combination of technologies being used. Packet inspection is the big one. Yes, you can bypass it by using HTTPS.
However, they're also doing it by host, but only with the consent of the host owner. The reason the host owner gives consent is because if they do, then their content will be both throttled, but also made free, to users who don't have unlimited plans.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm inclined to disbelieve the story because of this. Developers use Nexuses (Nexi?) as a reference platform, and manufacturers know that if their device doesn't run something a Nexus does, then the fault lies with them.
Completely eradicating Nexus and the concept of a base platform (contrary to myth, the Nexus doesn't run "Stock Android", but "Stock Android with Google's recommended extensions") would make many of the issues Google has been trying to fix a major headache again.
It's possible that Google intends to release the G branded phones in parallel to the Nexus devices, or that the G branded phones will be reference platforms after all. But the story as written seems improbable.
I think you're missing the wood for the trees here. The argument isn't "Who's the most evilist?", or "Should we ban guns?", it's"Is ISIL even in the ballpark on a list of the biggest threat to (American) lives?" Suicides, etc, absolutely do factor into that.
ISXYZ is a terrible organization, and needs to be stopped, but in the same way as Ted Bundy needed to be stopped. The entire country was not shut down to catch Bundy, and nobody felt the need to hamper channels of discussion and political discourse in order to ensure one serial killer was brought to justice.
Both Sun and Microsoft have made it clear they'd be happy with Google adopting their managed code technologies, and that Google can use them for free. The difference is that Microsoft isn't likely to be bought by Oracle.
In theory it is.
In practice, Oracle will sue you if you modify it. So far they've lost, but...
I've been debugging and rewriting a lot of legacy C# code recently, and I have to say that it's a breath of fresh air. I used to advocate Java, before Oracle went crazy, but after using C# I never want to touch that bureaucratic pile of over engineered crap and its litigious nutcase "owner" again.
Google: please, please, consider switching. You could even piss Oracle off by porting over the official JVM to Android, writing a Dalvik to Java byte code convertor, and letting legacy Java Android apps run at 10% of the speed they're supposed to, just to simultaneously encourage developers to move to C# and to end the lawsuit with Oracle completely unable to do anything about it.
Binge-on isn't a data cap, it's a bandwidth limiter.
If you think that 10+ phones using DASH, RTSP, etc, to try to stream an HD video (5Mbps+) out of a single 50Mbps LTE tower, isn't going to cause severe problems for everyone else using that tower, then you have a strange understanding of network protocols and video protocols in particular.
I'd also like to know where the "money making ploy" is in a system that gives you unlimited video for free if you're willing to stream it at lower, DVD-quality, bitrates.
The daypass thing is mildly more confusing, but I suspect part of the logic is to encourage use of the Binge-On technology, without which towers are likely to get clogged pretty quickly. I also suspect that the soft limit of 27G a month will be torn through pretty quickly by anyone making heavy use of HD video. Go over the 27G and you're "deprioritized" - you'll get full service during quiet times, but you'll be throttled when everyone else is trying to use the network (which is fair, but you probably don't want it to happen to you!)
The big improvement is that Tethering is now an acceptable half-megabit/s, rather than 2G speeds. That makes "Unlimited tethering" actually useful again.
The big question for me is how to encourage video streaming companies to sign up to Binge-On if there's no incentive. In theory, they can just transmit 1080p over HTTPS (protocols like DASH are HTTPS friendly) and T-Mobile will never know.
With the original implementation, the advantage was that your viewers could watch your services without worrying about it coming out of their data. But if data is unlimited...
Surely they can just wait until he dies, and then saw his body in half and count the rings?
You have figures for all the other methods. What are the figures for "encouraging them to stop fucking so much"?
The figures quoted say otherwise. True, the worst contraceptive you mention is successful with 72% of users across a year never having a problem, however the pill is successful for 91% of users (over a year), and the CDC includes reversible birth control measures that are more than 99% effective in the chart you mention.
It's also worth mentioning that the failures aren't necessarily a function of the devices themselves so much as user error. Condoms usually "fail" not because they break or anything else obvious, but because people who rely upon them frequently decide to chance not using them. Almost all versions of the pill can be rendered useless if combined with certain drugs - notably many antibiotics - and are more than 99% effective if used properly.
The ECODE tag does most of the work, but unfortunately Slashcode still strips the indenting (hence the periods before each line, which is a shame otherwise you'd be able to cut and paste it if someone were using it for real code.)
So you're saying there's code in there along the lines of:
No, it started well after humans started adding significantly to the amount of CO2. But it wouldn't have been a surprise if it had started before the industrial revolution began, because humans were already pumping out huge amounts of CO2 for things like steel making. It's just that process accelerated 200-250 years ago as demand for steel increased and as we started using heat energy for machines.
No, because you have almost the same device, but it no longer comes with a headphone jack.
You're confusing Apple with Amazon. They both begin with the letter 'A' so it's an easy mistake to make, I know.
Bankruptcy was an absurd punishment over a celebrity sex tape.
This was never about a sex tape. It was about Thiel being pissed about an expose of homophobia within silicon valley in which he was outed. The original article Gawker published about him was actually, ironically enough, relatively good journalism, about a matter of legitimate public interest, only partially spoiled by Gawker's carelessness.
You may want billionaires to dictate who can and who can't write the news. Me? I'd rather not live in a thielocracy.
Everything you've just said is why it'll blow up in their faces, and Facebook will start the uncomfortable process of announcing year on year losses of users.
They're essentially duplicating Twitter's mistakes, and not recognizing they were mistakes. Some years ago, Twitter decided to keep tweaking their service. @ replies were hidden. Trending Topics was no longer annotated. Then oodles of JS was added to their service, making it clumsy and unreliable.
Then came the real killers, images and previews. We went, overnight, from a service where everyone saw 15-20 tweets on their screens, enough to follow a conversation, to a situation where most can only see 3-5. Remember, we're talking about 140 characters of actual content per tweet here. The 3-5 was because lots of tweets would now include the headline of the article they're linking to (which would typically ALSO be in the tweet message itself), and because tweets would now frequently have images attached and have a honking great big preview there.
The people who liked Twitter suddenly found that the giant conversation part of it no longer existed. They started to bleed off. The people who used Twitter to follow celebrities continued to use it, but had no great incentive to stay.
More recently, we've seen bizarre attempts to implement message threading that were worse than the clumsy hacks we'd seen before, and even randomizing - sorry, algorithmically reorganizing the timelines.
And so Twitter started to suffer serious churn. Because it added features that nobody had asked for, nobody wants, and that harm the service for end users.
Who is asking for autoplaying videos? Who is asking for autoplaying SOUND attached to those videos? Who is asking for messages to be sorted into a semi-random order? Who asked for videos in the first place?
Nobody. People will leave Facebook. Not immediately. But give it two years, and you'll start to see the first signs their membership is over the peak, and beginning the descent to has-been website status.
The article is about the kernel, not the distros, which vary wildly. (This is also why it's a shame GNU/Linux, as a term, didn't catch on, leaving aside Stallman's feelings. Everyone hears "Linux" and automatically assumes someone is talking about the entire operating system, when it's also the name of the kernel. See also Java, which has similar problems.)
It's waaay easier to change the logo than fix the memory leaks ;-)
No it's like taxing car owners to subsidize other car owners.
Uber and Lyft are taxi companies. They're not high tech replacements, they're not a radical new business model, they're the same effing thing, albeit with management that has decided, for some reason, that their services should be exempt from the same regulatory structure as pre-existing taxis because Ayn Rand.
In that respect, it's like taxing car owners who refuse to get licenses to subsidize licensed car owners.
Is that stupid? Well yes. But not because one is subsidizing another. It's stupid because both should be licensed.
Oh, but there's some good reason why Lyft and Uber have decided they don't like the current licensing system? Fine. Then look into it, and if it's really good, then implement reforms. The other 90% of the regulatory environment though, from quotas in cities with overcrowded streets to stop them from being even more clogged with taxis than they were already, to requiring insurance and ensuring basic accountability, that needs to stay.
This is a stupid decision, but it has nothing to do with subsidies. It has to do with the fact it doesn't address the underlying problems: Uber's lawlessness, and overregulation of the existing taxi market. Instead it buys into the fiction that a car ordered over the Internet is not a taxi. It is a taxi. Stop lying.
You didn't read TFA. Earth - the planet as a whole - doesn't have a "Summer" and a "Winter", those are local (specifically Northern vs Southern hemisphere) phenomena. Australians are not enjoiying the same season as Europeans, for example.
TFA is about the average temperature of the entire Earth. It being "summer" where you are doesn't come in to it.
How does El Nino raise the average temperature of the entire Earth?
Nobody's enthusiastic about X. We're not not happy about a replacement that lacks the features of X that we loved and in many cases relied upon.
And no, I don't want to hear that only "1% of users use the XSERVER variable" or that the underlying implementation wasn't very good.
Hardly anyone uses GNU/Linux, but we'd never accept that as an argument for abolishing the operating system and requiring Windows.
As for the latter - it doesn't matter if it's not perfect, it works damn it. I can manage a remote instance of LibreOffice as an app integrated on my desktop. I do this.
We'll be happy with Wayland when it's as good as, or better than, X11. Not when the underlying code is temporarily easier to understand (you think it'll stay that way?), but when its feature complete, by our standards, not by the developers.
No, he didn't say anything like that. If freedom isn't important to you, then perhaps you should think a bit about the stick? Oh wait. Maybe you're perfect and you've never made any embarrassing little mistakes?
Just read an interesting book called Our Final Invention about the nastiest stick, ASI with no use for us. Don't get me wrong. If the google does it first, I'm going to surrender ASAP. No sense in fighting the inevitable. Maybe the ASI will feel like keeping a few of us around in some sort of zoo?
If you think there's a stick, you'd find it better contribute to the discussion to describe it, rather than demand people read a book before continuing discussion here.
The truth is Google really doesn't have one. It makes its money mostly by using the information it has about you to display relevant ads. That information about you is private, and contrary to myth it's not exactly comprehensive - it isn't a full browsing history, or anything like that, just some quick generalizations based upon some key sites.
This is not bad. This is fine. It doesn't harm anyone's freedom in the slightest.
Yes, Google has the potential to be evil. They could, technically, start recording a log of most of the sites you've been to. They could sell browsing histories linked to personal information to third parties.
But so could Mozilla. Mozilla could do more than Google ever could dream of doing. Is Mozilla evil because it could be evil if it wanted to be? Is Mozilla restricting my freedom by being capable of recording my history and bookmarks and purchases and credit card numbers and selling it to third parties?
You know who can do more than even Mozilla can dream of doing? Microsoft. You know, the company that started the original "Google sells your details to advertisers" smear. They can abuse all of the information Mozilla could, for all of the browsers on your system. Plus they can let people know what the files on your PC are.
Why pick on Google? Because Microsoft and now Oracle have run smear campaigns against it?
Yes, Google's done some shitty things lately. Their search engine has become crappier. "Default" Android has become less open source. Their apps have become too AI infested and usually don't do what you want them to. Google+ was an unmitigated disaster. And yet none of these things were evil, just horrible, like fish flavored popsicle sticks, or Hollywood deciding to reboot The Godfather.
Don't confuse horribleness with evil. Just because Google's products aren't as good as they were doesn't mean they're also selling the names of the porn sites you subscribe to to your mother in law.
There's a combination of technologies being used. Packet inspection is the big one. Yes, you can bypass it by using HTTPS.
However, they're also doing it by host, but only with the consent of the host owner. The reason the host owner gives consent is because if they do, then their content will be both throttled, but also made free, to users who don't have unlimited plans.