Sprint is phasing in LTE, the 4G iteration of GSM. T-Mobile is operating all three GSM versions at the moment, including LTE.
.
Just drawing random lines while I wait for this post to go through
_
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 2 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.
Reply to: Re:Google should just buy Sprint and T-Mo
I'm actually wondering whether this is about downranking sites that have no stripped down "mobile" equivalent, or whether it's about downranking sites that don't use responsive CSS/HTML. The latter makes more sense and it doesn't leave mobile users forced to use crappy websites with most of the functionality (and often content) missing.
The former makes no sense in any world, and it would be terrible for Google to go there.
I think you've just illustrated why it is, in some ways, a "product" - you've latched onto one possible hole (bugs) rather than seeing the whole picture (security models, personal interaction, etc.)
Bugs are a problem, but a well written bug free system with a poor security model is always going to be an issue. Java has bugs. The Commodore Amiga operating system had (by the time it matured) relatively few but it did have a security model (that it relied upon) that was overly permissive. Given the choice between basing my new secure system on Java, or running it a code audited AmigaOS based appliance, I'd pick the former in a heartbeat (no offense).
And we haven't addressed yet the notion that user requirements also need to be lead to secure outcomes.
It's news because it wasn't known before and it tells us a lot about Google that we've only had hints on before. It's also an interesting recap on the early days of Tesla. Tesla wouldn't be the first company that released (despite their best efforts, I'm not blaming them) overpriced underspec'd crap at the beginning that could have severely dented their future business, but it's often hard to remember that.
Remember the original iPhone? EDGE only? Required special SIM cards? Barely supported text messaging, and didn't support MMS messages at all? Didn't run third party apps at all? You don't? Nobody does? It's true!
Yet the iPhone survived all that and nobody remembers how awful the first version was. Turns out Tesla's original sedans were a similar story. I didn't know that. I thought they were always cutting edge.
No that's what the summary says, but is not what Chrome is actually doing.
Spoiler for those not reading TFA: Chrome did do what the summary suggests in current/earlier versions (as do IE and Firefox), but will instead change "http" to "https" behind the scenes in future for internal links on a page fetched using HTTPS.
Is this a good idea? In my view, I'm going to be bold here and answer with a firm, unambigious, "perhaps"...
This sounds like the kind of reaction our glorious overlords were having to people landing on the Capitol lawn on September 10th, 2001.
A little miffed, patronizing, an official "We have our eye on you", but not guns drawn, no disappearances into Cuban prison camps, no insane over-reactions.
How bad is your eyesight that you hold your phone 5 inches from your face?
TV at 8' is more or less reasonable to do, that's often close to the best use of space you have depending on the dimensions of your living room, but a phone 5" from your eyeball? There's never any call for that.
Why exactly are you posting stuff to Slashdot demanding awareness of Russia and China when you could be out helping feed the starving? Have you given all your money to Oxfam? No? Why not? You think wasting your time on Slashdot moaning about how someone's political concerns are slightly less important in your perception than some other political concerns, is more important than people getting food on their plates?
I expect an apology and an immediate commitment to help feeding the hungry.
They can force manufacturers to use unlocked bootloaders if they want the official Google version. Microsoft (ironically they're changing this for Windows 10) requires manufacturers use unlocked firmware implementations for machines running the Intel version of Windows on UEFI machines.
There's no reason whatsoever why Google can't make the same thing a requirement beyond being scared manufacturers wouldn't go for it and would prefer shipping a version of Android with no Google services over shipping a device with a bootloader that's open.
1. Enabling FTP on their NAS boxes.
2. Enabling anonymous access on this FTP service
3. Allowing their Firewall/Router to let incoming FTP connections directly to the NAS box.
I mean, the authors suggest those enabling FTP do not realize the implications, but how can you do ALL THREE and not realize the implications? Any one of those, particularly disabling anonymous access, would foil random search engines (and lazy hackers) trying to get at your files. But to do all three at once?
Reason wildly swings between presumably corporate funded crackpottery and principled stand. Their expose of the Ron Paul Newsletter for example was highly respectable.
I just wish they'd stop trying to promote ideological arguments with faux reasoning. If you ultimately just don't want the state requiring ISPs provide something predictable when they claim to be selling internet access, then just say so. If there's a logical reason, mention it. There probably are some somewhere. But "Payola is good!" as a justification (it probably isn't, and it's not a comparable situation) is ridiculous.
Right on all counts. The question is not really why, it's what can we do about it? Boycotts or fixing our own devices are unlikely to work, given the problem is as much other people being fooled, and the externalities implied by that.
Because us losing our values and ceasing to be a Democratic Republic under the rule of law is exactly what people like him are trying to get us to do when they bomb us.
If it turned out that the maximum sentence for killing three people and injuring hundreds of others was a heavy fine and six months of community service, I'd be in favor of him being sentenced to that. Of course, I'd also want the law changed, but...
As it is, he'll likely die in prison, he's not going to be let off if we stick to our values.
FWIW I don't have a problem paying for content. That said, I would imagine most people who do as you're suggesting also use a DVR for watching those TV channels that are 25%+ ads, making those ads very avoidable.
Can we just redefine the definition of the International Astronomer's Union to "A bunch of jerks who spoil it for everyone", and go back to calling planets planets?
Moreover the OP missed (as did most of the readers here) a too-subtle point made in the summary: it's not about who's better at negotiating, it's about the fact that culturally we (usually) are comfortable about men being pushy about their salary, while women tend to be treated negatively if they do the same thing. It's likely not a conscious decision on the part of those they try to negotiate with, more an unconscious reaction to a difference in expectations, but ill intentioned or otherwise it does actually happen.
I know women I work with who are considered "difficult" by all the (male) colleagues around me, simply because they do actually try to get ahead. For the example I'm thinking of, there's literally nothing she does that isn't done by far less qualified male colleagues who end up in more senior positions. But nobody wants to work with her, because she's "pushy".
We're rewarding people of one gender when they negotiate a salary. We're punishing people of the other when they negotiate a salary. Surely even Slashdot's current infestation of MRAs must see the problem with that.
Unlikely. Virtually all mainstream 8 bit CPUs of the time had BCD support in some shape or form, including the 8080 and its compatible rival the Z80 series. The vast majority of microcomputers in the late 1970s were 6502, 6800, 8080, or Z80 based.
Visicalc probably started on the Apple II because that's the computer the authors had at the time.
The Spectrum did though for a different reason (despite numerous explanations, I'm not actually convinced the Apple II did it for any reason other than saving TTL chips.)
The Apple II's original video system was essentially a grid of characters. The Spectrum's was a grid of two-colour pixels followed by a lower resolution grid of palette selection information. The intention for the Spectrum implementation was to make it easier for programmers to draw characters (setting the associated colours at the same time) in a 256x192 grid by allowing the same operation to be performed 9 times (8 pixel lines, plus one palette) with a different offset each time.
So while Woz was trying to save TTL chips, or something about memory refreshes that might be correct but as explained to me thus far I don't quite get it, the designers at Sinclair were trying to help programmers be a little more efficient. Slightly similar solutions, but for completely different reasons, and with very different consequences.
But as long as the police departments treat it as a non-crime by not investigating it's only going to get worse. The for profit policing that the war on drugs had created discourages the police from pursuing real crime that's not tied to drugs.
I seriously doubt any police department in the country that's been targetted by one of these pranks considers it a non-crime or refuses to investigate. The lack of convictions is likely because investigating this is hard and the almost certain cross jurisdictional nature of determining who made a telephone call adds heavy layers of bureaucracy that makes the process slow and nearly impossible.
The first armed man put down the telephone. His accomplace briefly averted his eyes from us to glance at him, asking "Did they buy it?"
"Sure thing. The police think it's just another night at the library, that the call they got was a hoax. Totally bought the line I was the night watchman. They have no idea about the hostages."
"Good", said the first. "What now?"
"Now", the first armed man replied, "We dial 911, and tell them we have hostages and list our demands..."
She's not even demanding her supporters be flawless. She's saying that Cook shouldn't speak out on an issue that he has strong views on because of a completely unrelated situation elsewhere.
(BTW I don't necessarily agree with my fellow liberal's interpretation of the Indiana law, though I admit I'm no lawyer and there may be something huge I'm missing, but Cook has every right to say what he believes about something happening in his own damned country, and those who demand he remain silent should go boil their heads.)
In fairness, with one exception, those different words have completely different meanings, resulting in a substantially different patent claim.
In fact, having read it now, I'm even more confused. Why did the EFF bring it up ("Hey look, these patents have that a large amount of text in common but ultimately patent different things were treated differently!"), and why does the USPTO think it's a protest? Neither makes any sense.
Same here, kinda. I ended up sticking with the flip phone because I just found the issues I had with using Android devices as telephones bad enough for me to stick with it, but yeah, there's a lot of basic stuff you miss, that you kinda wonder why no efforts have been to update flip phones to have at least some of the functionality of their power-sucking overloaded not-quite-optimal-for-phone-calls-UI-encumbered cousins.
Would it really be a problem adding Wifi support, with things like the ability to sync contacts and other PIM stuff add that much to the costs of devices?
Many things you mention are better done by a dedicated tablet device, but it's a shame that I have to make the choice between a shitty phone that's integrated with the rest of the world, and a good useful phone that I have to manually copy phone numbers to and from or else find awkward Bluetooth applications that never quite work correctly to update.
Slashdot Mirror
Sprint is phasing in LTE, the 4G iteration of GSM. T-Mobile is operating all three GSM versions at the moment, including LTE.
. Just drawing random lines while I wait for this post to go through _FWIW MetroPCS isn't an MVNO that uses T-Mobile, it is T-Mobile. T-Mo acquired them a year or two ago. It's just a brand now.
I'm actually wondering whether this is about downranking sites that have no stripped down "mobile" equivalent, or whether it's about downranking sites that don't use responsive CSS/HTML. The latter makes more sense and it doesn't leave mobile users forced to use crappy websites with most of the functionality (and often content) missing.
The former makes no sense in any world, and it would be terrible for Google to go there.
I think you've just illustrated why it is, in some ways, a "product" - you've latched onto one possible hole (bugs) rather than seeing the whole picture (security models, personal interaction, etc.)
Bugs are a problem, but a well written bug free system with a poor security model is always going to be an issue. Java has bugs. The Commodore Amiga operating system had (by the time it matured) relatively few but it did have a security model (that it relied upon) that was overly permissive. Given the choice between basing my new secure system on Java, or running it a code audited AmigaOS based appliance, I'd pick the former in a heartbeat (no offense).
And we haven't addressed yet the notion that user requirements also need to be lead to secure outcomes.
It's news because it wasn't known before and it tells us a lot about Google that we've only had hints on before. It's also an interesting recap on the early days of Tesla. Tesla wouldn't be the first company that released (despite their best efforts, I'm not blaming them) overpriced underspec'd crap at the beginning that could have severely dented their future business, but it's often hard to remember that.
Remember the original iPhone? EDGE only? Required special SIM cards? Barely supported text messaging, and didn't support MMS messages at all? Didn't run third party apps at all? You don't? Nobody does? It's true!
Yet the iPhone survived all that and nobody remembers how awful the first version was. Turns out Tesla's original sedans were a similar story. I didn't know that. I thought they were always cutting edge.
No that's what the summary says, but is not what Chrome is actually doing.
Spoiler for those not reading TFA: Chrome did do what the summary suggests in current/earlier versions (as do IE and Firefox), but will instead change "http" to "https" behind the scenes in future for internal links on a page fetched using HTTPS.
Is this a good idea? In my view, I'm going to be bold here and answer with a firm, unambigious, "perhaps"...
This sounds like the kind of reaction our glorious overlords were having to people landing on the Capitol lawn on September 10th, 2001.
A little miffed, patronizing, an official "We have our eye on you", but not guns drawn, no disappearances into Cuban prison camps, no insane over-reactions.
How bad is your eyesight that you hold your phone 5 inches from your face?
TV at 8' is more or less reasonable to do, that's often close to the best use of space you have depending on the dimensions of your living room, but a phone 5" from your eyeball? There's never any call for that.
vs
Either the President of Bolivia was forcibly grounded, possibly thanks to Assange spreading a rumor about Snowden, or he wasn't.
Why exactly are you posting stuff to Slashdot demanding awareness of Russia and China when you could be out helping feed the starving? Have you given all your money to Oxfam? No? Why not? You think wasting your time on Slashdot moaning about how someone's political concerns are slightly less important in your perception than some other political concerns, is more important than people getting food on their plates?
I expect an apology and an immediate commitment to help feeding the hungry.
They can force manufacturers to use unlocked bootloaders if they want the official Google version. Microsoft (ironically they're changing this for Windows 10) requires manufacturers use unlocked firmware implementations for machines running the Intel version of Windows on UEFI machines.
There's no reason whatsoever why Google can't make the same thing a requirement beyond being scared manufacturers wouldn't go for it and would prefer shipping a version of Android with no Google services over shipping a device with a bootloader that's open.
So there are lots of people out there who are:
1. Enabling FTP on their NAS boxes.
2. Enabling anonymous access on this FTP service
3. Allowing their Firewall/Router to let incoming FTP connections directly to the NAS box.
I mean, the authors suggest those enabling FTP do not realize the implications, but how can you do ALL THREE and not realize the implications? Any one of those, particularly disabling anonymous access, would foil random search engines (and lazy hackers) trying to get at your files. But to do all three at once?
Reason wildly swings between presumably corporate funded crackpottery and principled stand. Their expose of the Ron Paul Newsletter for example was highly respectable.
I just wish they'd stop trying to promote ideological arguments with faux reasoning. If you ultimately just don't want the state requiring ISPs provide something predictable when they claim to be selling internet access, then just say so. If there's a logical reason, mention it. There probably are some somewhere. But "Payola is good!" as a justification (it probably isn't, and it's not a comparable situation) is ridiculous.
Right on all counts. The question is not really why, it's what can we do about it? Boycotts or fixing our own devices are unlikely to work, given the problem is as much other people being fooled, and the externalities implied by that.
Because us losing our values and ceasing to be a Democratic Republic under the rule of law is exactly what people like him are trying to get us to do when they bomb us.
If it turned out that the maximum sentence for killing three people and injuring hundreds of others was a heavy fine and six months of community service, I'd be in favor of him being sentenced to that. Of course, I'd also want the law changed, but...
As it is, he'll likely die in prison, he's not going to be let off if we stick to our values.
FWIW I don't have a problem paying for content. That said, I would imagine most people who do as you're suggesting also use a DVR for watching those TV channels that are 25%+ ads, making those ads very avoidable.
Can we just redefine the definition of the International Astronomer's Union to "A bunch of jerks who spoil it for everyone", and go back to calling planets planets?
Moreover the OP missed (as did most of the readers here) a too-subtle point made in the summary: it's not about who's better at negotiating, it's about the fact that culturally we (usually) are comfortable about men being pushy about their salary, while women tend to be treated negatively if they do the same thing. It's likely not a conscious decision on the part of those they try to negotiate with, more an unconscious reaction to a difference in expectations, but ill intentioned or otherwise it does actually happen.
I know women I work with who are considered "difficult" by all the (male) colleagues around me, simply because they do actually try to get ahead. For the example I'm thinking of, there's literally nothing she does that isn't done by far less qualified male colleagues who end up in more senior positions. But nobody wants to work with her, because she's "pushy".
We're rewarding people of one gender when they negotiate a salary. We're punishing people of the other when they negotiate a salary. Surely even Slashdot's current infestation of MRAs must see the problem with that.
Unlikely. Virtually all mainstream 8 bit CPUs of the time had BCD support in some shape or form, including the 8080 and its compatible rival the Z80 series. The vast majority of microcomputers in the late 1970s were 6502, 6800, 8080, or Z80 based.
Visicalc probably started on the Apple II because that's the computer the authors had at the time.
The Spectrum did though for a different reason (despite numerous explanations, I'm not actually convinced the Apple II did it for any reason other than saving TTL chips.)
The Apple II's original video system was essentially a grid of characters. The Spectrum's was a grid of two-colour pixels followed by a lower resolution grid of palette selection information. The intention for the Spectrum implementation was to make it easier for programmers to draw characters (setting the associated colours at the same time) in a 256x192 grid by allowing the same operation to be performed 9 times (8 pixel lines, plus one palette) with a different offset each time.
So while Woz was trying to save TTL chips, or something about memory refreshes that might be correct but as explained to me thus far I don't quite get it, the designers at Sinclair were trying to help programmers be a little more efficient. Slightly similar solutions, but for completely different reasons, and with very different consequences.
I seriously doubt any police department in the country that's been targetted by one of these pranks considers it a non-crime or refuses to investigate. The lack of convictions is likely because investigating this is hard and the almost certain cross jurisdictional nature of determining who made a telephone call adds heavy layers of bureaucracy that makes the process slow and nearly impossible.
The first armed man put down the telephone. His accomplace briefly averted his eyes from us to glance at him, asking "Did they buy it?"
"Sure thing. The police think it's just another night at the library, that the call they got was a hoax. Totally bought the line I was the night watchman. They have no idea about the hostages."
"Good", said the first. "What now?"
"Now", the first armed man replied, "We dial 911, and tell them we have hostages and list our demands..."
She's not even demanding her supporters be flawless. She's saying that Cook shouldn't speak out on an issue that he has strong views on because of a completely unrelated situation elsewhere.
(BTW I don't necessarily agree with my fellow liberal's interpretation of the Indiana law, though I admit I'm no lawyer and there may be something huge I'm missing, but Cook has every right to say what he believes about something happening in his own damned country, and those who demand he remain silent should go boil their heads.)
In fairness, with one exception, those different words have completely different meanings, resulting in a substantially different patent claim.
In fact, having read it now, I'm even more confused. Why did the EFF bring it up ("Hey look, these patents have that a large amount of text in common but ultimately patent different things were treated differently!"), and why does the USPTO think it's a protest? Neither makes any sense.
Same here, kinda. I ended up sticking with the flip phone because I just found the issues I had with using Android devices as telephones bad enough for me to stick with it, but yeah, there's a lot of basic stuff you miss, that you kinda wonder why no efforts have been to update flip phones to have at least some of the functionality of their power-sucking overloaded not-quite-optimal-for-phone-calls-UI-encumbered cousins.
Would it really be a problem adding Wifi support, with things like the ability to sync contacts and other PIM stuff add that much to the costs of devices?
Many things you mention are better done by a dedicated tablet device, but it's a shame that I have to make the choice between a shitty phone that's integrated with the rest of the world, and a good useful phone that I have to manually copy phone numbers to and from or else find awkward Bluetooth applications that never quite work correctly to update.