Dude, they barely squeezed in everything without the SD card slot. With it, they'd have had to increase the bezel size by 0.02um, and the thickness by 1.2x10^-100nm, reducing the Hipster Attraction Index by over 500%!
Not to misunderstand you, but it's not as if "Alternative" medicines founded in ignorance and general silliness don't often accidentally hit the nail on the head. My favorite on that score is Chiropractic manipulation. A history of well respected effectiveness at treating general pain, and it's considered useful as long as your practitioner doesn't actually believe in the pseudo-science behind it.
And the PS3 has a lot of revenue to make up for, given the disastrous launch where it was built as a way to market Blu-ray by getting subsidized players out there, rather than as a games console.
If you're on a road, then every road sign looks like a road sign. Off a road, however, an unfamiliar shape that looks like a shield is going to look like a shield. The only question is why "280" would be the heraldry.
email is email. It contains more than simply work related stuff, and rarely contains anything useful to someone trying to judge the quality of some work.
If I had to publish all my email from work for the past 20 years simply because someone wanted to prove I was a terrible programmer, it would be massively humiliating, and wouldn't prove jack shit about my programming ability, which would be more easily done by demanding to look at the code I write.
The FoIA request is about intimidating climate research scientists, not about trying to determine the truth behind the science. The science is already in the public domain. It's well described, people can repeat it, add to it, or theorize as to how it could be wrong and devise experiments to determine whether those theories hold.
What have we come to that posting a straightforward comment condemning hatred against one particular group, especially by people who are have no problems understanding the difference between extremists and non-extremists in "groups they like", gets modded Flamebait.
Demonizing people of a particular religion never works out well. It's a step towards a future no-one in their right mind should want to go towards. Unfortunately, I suspect those trying to mod the above down are well aware of that, and are looking forward to the slaughter of innocents that unfettered, unchallenged, hatred brings.
I'm going to make a guess that you're - if not making it up, then - intentionally building a narative you have every reason to know is suspect. That you've never actually met any imams, that you've probably based your opinion on the basis of a hysterical news report or two that has gone out of its way to quote an imam who's completely unrepresentative of US Muslims.
What's going on in Egypt and Libya is clearly unusual and hard to use as an example of anything concrete. Meanwhile neighboring "Christian" countries are executing people for being homosexuals using laws that were lobbied for by US "Christian" organizations, backed, bizarrely, by customers of a certain fast food chain who were outraged when it was suggested that support for such groups and views might be, well, wrong.
Right wing "Christians" are patting themselves on the back for not being like those ignorant savage Muslims in being violent over their reaction to a movie, when the considerably less offensive "Last Temptation of Christ" was, indeed, greeted with violence, including the firebombing of cinemas who were showing the movies (and by showing I mean they were showing the films at the precise point they were being firebombed.)
All this from the US far right, a group that believes in "personal responsibility", except when it comes to certain groups. That nice Muslim couple down the road? They're evil, because they're responsible for the behavior of some rioters in another country. That Catholic couple next door? They're probably not, although, my gosh, they are Catholic rather than members of a real Christian sect! The couple on the other side of the street who listen to the 700 Club all the time and donate money to anti-gay hate groups and see no problem with the bombing of the occasional abortion doctor? How can you disagree with them? They're not responsible for anyone else's actions!
I'm tired of it. Treat people as responsible for what they themselves do, not what others who share a label do. The vast majority of people, Christian, Muslim, or whatever, are good people. Remember that.
I'm pretty sure if Dell shipped machines with Windows, and other machines with a special version of Ubuntu that Can Run Windows Applications (ie Dell actually highlighted the point that this version of Ubuntu supposedly can run Windows apps), AND if Windows was an up and coming operating system, then yeah, I think Microsoft probably would pressurize Dell on that point.
However, let's back up a bit because there are a bunch of people saying "This is just like when Microsoft...". No, it isn't. Here's why.
Microsoft pressurized manufacturers irrespective of whether there was a Windows compatible API in the alternative operating systems. BeOS had no compatibility layer, I'm not even sure - today - that Wine is available, let alone anything else, and Microsoft did successfully pressurize its OEMs to not ship dual boot BeOS machines. Google has no problem with non-Android based OSes. HTC ships Windows phones, and is one of the leading Android partners, for example.
Microsoft required OEMs pay per CPU shipped, not per copy of Windows. Google doesn't charge its partners a cent.
Microsoft didn't form an open body of OEMs and software developers charged with steering Windows with a requirement that members of the body ship compatible versions of WIndows. Android is governed by such a body, and Acer is a member.
If an OEM crossed Microsoft and had to ship a PC with Windows without Microsoft's blessing, it hurt the OEM, adding typically $100-150 to the cost of the PC. If Google refuses to cooperate, it arguably hurts Google more than the OEM, who's free to ship Android devices with competing app stores, at no charge.
Let's stop pretending these events are even in the same ballpark. They're not. It surprises me that Google is doing this, but Google is well within its rights to do what it's done, both legally and morally.
I think the fact the countries concerned are on the brink of anarchy is what's preventing anyone from holding the rioters responsible. At this point YouTube is simply avoiding fanning the flames in those countries - they're not holding anyone responsible.
They're not pulling it from Egypt and Libya because of fear it might undermine the Google brand in those countries, they're pulling it because the movie is being used as a pretext to kill people.
This isn't about merely avoiding offense. This is about trying to avoid escalating an already terrible situation.
2. Google does not ban manufacturers from offering different operating systems. HTC is one of the major suppliers of Windows Phones and does some of the best Android phones in the business.
3. Google doesn't have a monopoly or anything close to it.
4. Yes, Microsoft offers support. What relevance is that? Google is alleged to have said it will not support a company that offers a phone with some wierd-ass Android clone on it. Android remains free. Microsoft refused to sell operating systems directly to manufacturers who, for example, offered a choice between BeOS and Windows on their PCs, forcing manufacturers to pay retail for Windows licenses if they persisted.
5. The "support" lost from Google is virtually immaterial. Between Amazon and Microsoft - who are by no means the only alternative, you can obtain a full suite of applications that will replace the Google apps, including a first class app and music store, a search system, and a maps/GPS system. You don't even need the permission of those two service providers to bundle that software with your Android phone.
So Google is unlikely to have done what they're alleged to have done, and if they had, no it's not comparable to what Microsoft did with Windows, not by a long shot.
And btw, when you offer a free operating system, available on an open source basis to anyone who wants it, with an entirely open framework of software, the range of things you can do without being considered "evil" goes up considerably...
AOSP is Android. It's a cleaned up release thereof. Saying it's not open source is like saying that Linux isn't open source because there's a draft of a version of kernel/drivers/blinkenlights.c on Linus's computer that isn't fully released and that he might not release.
Honeycomb, a specific version of Android, was not open source, that much is true. However, your facts are out of date - Google has made Honeycomb open source, and released the source at the same time as ICS (the buggers did, however, avoid offering the metadata that would enable us to know what versions of what actually went into final Honeycomb releases.)
The reason there's no CM8 is that Cyanogen's team doesn't want to work on it. They have the sources, but there's little point in producing a CM version of an obsolete version of an OS that even its creators didn't care for.
They never actually did it, and they never got into trouble for considering it either.
There was a beta of one version of Windows 3.x that put up a message along the lines of "This software is unreliable and unstable and will EAT YOUR BABY if you run it over DR-DOS" (well, words to that effect.) IIRC it was only in the beta, the version that was sold would run on everything.
I don't know what roads you're driving on, but it's more like inconveniencing and annoying 5% of the motoring public to accommodate the 95% that are idiots, in my experience.
(And yeah, I guess I'm in the 95%. But I wouldn't drive if I didn't have to. And when I've lived or been on places where driving was unnecessary, I haven't.)
You're quibbling, and you're using sophistry as part of that.
AOSP most certainly is a legitimate, full, version of Android. And AOSP is free. Amazon has no problem producing tablets based upon AOSP.
And even if you pretend the above is false, and post here saying so, you're missing the basic point. Being out of Google's good graces means jack-shit about whether you can distribute Android, or the cost of doing so. At worst, you'll have to ship yours a month or so after everyone else, so Jean-Baptiste Queru has time to clean up the sources and release the AOSP version. You also won't be able to ship some stuff that's not Android, but is useful. It's not required, and Amazon is producing some pretty good tablets without that software.
Other Google partners produce phones that don't run Android, and the idea that this has something to do with the new OS merely running arbitrary APKs is ridiculous.
Amazon seems to be doing pretty well selling their own tablets that have Android installed but no Google app stack. Very, very, well. As in second only to iPad in sales.
From my point of view, I want the Google apps, largely because I have a bunch of apps bought already, and when it became easy enough I installed Jellybean on my Kindle Fire as a result. But I'm the exception - generally people are happy as long as they can get apps, and Google has craploads of competitors in the app store* space.
This story doesn't ultimately make any sense whatsoever. Other Google partners produce phones that don't run Android, and the idea that this has something to do with the new OS merely running arbitrary APKs is ridiculous.
You do know Android is free, right? And yes, it makes a big difference if you're an OEM if you have to pay full price for Windows, or the rates paid by Dell et al ($200ish+ vs $50. Big difference.)
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, they barely squeezed in everything without the SD card slot. With it, they'd have had to increase the bezel size by 0.02um, and the thickness by 1.2x10^-100nm, reducing the Hipster Attraction Index by over 500%!
Next you'll be asking for an adequate battery!
No, Apple is evil if they fire first in an absurd patent war apparently aimed at deciding who will control what devices we're allowed to own.
Not to misunderstand you, but it's not as if "Alternative" medicines founded in ignorance and general silliness don't often accidentally hit the nail on the head. My favorite on that score is Chiropractic manipulation. A history of well respected effectiveness at treating general pain, and it's considered useful as long as your practitioner doesn't actually believe in the pseudo-science behind it.
I've never had it or acupuncture, but supposedly it too can be effective, although research is mixed and while slightly pro- than anti-, not exactly definitive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture#Effectiveness_research
And the PS3 has a lot of revenue to make up for, given the disastrous launch where it was built as a way to market Blu-ray by getting subsidized players out there, rather than as a games console.
If you're on a road, then every road sign looks like a road sign. Off a road, however, an unfamiliar shape that looks like a shield is going to look like a shield. The only question is why "280" would be the heraldry.
I think they should totally meta it and for the UK version show a man opening an umbrella.
(Explanation for non-Brits: http://www.proshieldsafetysigns.co.uk/signs/7555_Road_traffic_signs_Men_at_work_symbol.html)
No. No they don't. You're confusing patents with trademarks.
email is email. It contains more than simply work related stuff, and rarely contains anything useful to someone trying to judge the quality of some work.
If I had to publish all my email from work for the past 20 years simply because someone wanted to prove I was a terrible programmer, it would be massively humiliating, and wouldn't prove jack shit about my programming ability, which would be more easily done by demanding to look at the code I write.
The FoIA request is about intimidating climate research scientists, not about trying to determine the truth behind the science. The science is already in the public domain. It's well described, people can repeat it, add to it, or theorize as to how it could be wrong and devise experiments to determine whether those theories hold.
What have we come to that posting a straightforward comment condemning hatred against one particular group, especially by people who are have no problems understanding the difference between extremists and non-extremists in "groups they like", gets modded Flamebait.
Demonizing people of a particular religion never works out well. It's a step towards a future no-one in their right mind should want to go towards. Unfortunately, I suspect those trying to mod the above down are well aware of that, and are looking forward to the slaughter of innocents that unfettered, unchallenged, hatred brings.
The utter hypocracy in the above comment is mindblowing.
I'm going to make a guess that you're - if not making it up, then - intentionally building a narative you have every reason to know is suspect. That you've never actually met any imams, that you've probably based your opinion on the basis of a hysterical news report or two that has gone out of its way to quote an imam who's completely unrepresentative of US Muslims.
What's going on in Egypt and Libya is clearly unusual and hard to use as an example of anything concrete. Meanwhile neighboring "Christian" countries are executing people for being homosexuals using laws that were lobbied for by US "Christian" organizations, backed, bizarrely, by customers of a certain fast food chain who were outraged when it was suggested that support for such groups and views might be, well, wrong.
Right wing "Christians" are patting themselves on the back for not being like those ignorant savage Muslims in being violent over their reaction to a movie, when the considerably less offensive "Last Temptation of Christ" was, indeed, greeted with violence, including the firebombing of cinemas who were showing the movies (and by showing I mean they were showing the films at the precise point they were being firebombed.)
All this from the US far right, a group that believes in "personal responsibility", except when it comes to certain groups. That nice Muslim couple down the road? They're evil, because they're responsible for the behavior of some rioters in another country. That Catholic couple next door? They're probably not, although, my gosh, they are Catholic rather than members of a real Christian sect! The couple on the other side of the street who listen to the 700 Club all the time and donate money to anti-gay hate groups and see no problem with the bombing of the occasional abortion doctor? How can you disagree with them? They're not responsible for anyone else's actions!
I'm tired of it. Treat people as responsible for what they themselves do, not what others who share a label do. The vast majority of people, Christian, Muslim, or whatever, are good people. Remember that.
I'm pretty sure if Dell shipped machines with Windows, and other machines with a special version of Ubuntu that Can Run Windows Applications (ie Dell actually highlighted the point that this version of Ubuntu supposedly can run Windows apps), AND if Windows was an up and coming operating system, then yeah, I think Microsoft probably would pressurize Dell on that point.
However, let's back up a bit because there are a bunch of people saying "This is just like when Microsoft...". No, it isn't. Here's why.
Let's stop pretending these events are even in the same ballpark. They're not. It surprises me that Google is doing this, but Google is well within its rights to do what it's done, both legally and morally.
I think the fact the countries concerned are on the brink of anarchy is what's preventing anyone from holding the rioters responsible. At this point YouTube is simply avoiding fanning the flames in those countries - they're not holding anyone responsible.
They're not pulling it from Egypt and Libya because of fear it might undermine the Google brand in those countries, they're pulling it because the movie is being used as a pretext to kill people.
This isn't about merely avoiding offense. This is about trying to avoid escalating an already terrible situation.
My guess? They didn't want the decision to be Judge Koh's.
There's no double standard.
1. The story is hard to believe as is.
2. Google does not ban manufacturers from offering different operating systems. HTC is one of the major suppliers of Windows Phones and does some of the best Android phones in the business.
3. Google doesn't have a monopoly or anything close to it.
4. Yes, Microsoft offers support. What relevance is that? Google is alleged to have said it will not support a company that offers a phone with some wierd-ass Android clone on it. Android remains free. Microsoft refused to sell operating systems directly to manufacturers who, for example, offered a choice between BeOS and Windows on their PCs, forcing manufacturers to pay retail for Windows licenses if they persisted.
5. The "support" lost from Google is virtually immaterial. Between Amazon and Microsoft - who are by no means the only alternative, you can obtain a full suite of applications that will replace the Google apps, including a first class app and music store, a search system, and a maps/GPS system. You don't even need the permission of those two service providers to bundle that software with your Android phone.
So Google is unlikely to have done what they're alleged to have done, and if they had, no it's not comparable to what Microsoft did with Windows, not by a long shot.
And btw, when you offer a free operating system, available on an open source basis to anyone who wants it, with an entirely open framework of software, the range of things you can do without being considered "evil" goes up considerably...
AOSP is Android. It's a cleaned up release thereof. Saying it's not open source is like saying that Linux isn't open source because there's a draft of a version of kernel/drivers/blinkenlights.c on Linus's computer that isn't fully released and that he might not release.
Honeycomb, a specific version of Android, was not open source, that much is true. However, your facts are out of date - Google has made Honeycomb open source, and released the source at the same time as ICS (the buggers did, however, avoid offering the metadata that would enable us to know what versions of what actually went into final Honeycomb releases.)
The reason there's no CM8 is that Cyanogen's team doesn't want to work on it. They have the sources, but there's little point in producing a CM version of an obsolete version of an OS that even its creators didn't care for.
They never actually did it, and they never got into trouble for considering it either.
There was a beta of one version of Windows 3.x that put up a message along the lines of "This software is unreliable and unstable and will EAT YOUR BABY if you run it over DR-DOS" (well, words to that effect.) IIRC it was only in the beta, the version that was sold would run on everything.
I don't know what roads you're driving on, but it's more like inconveniencing and annoying 5% of the motoring public to accommodate the 95% that are idiots, in my experience.
(And yeah, I guess I'm in the 95%. But I wouldn't drive if I didn't have to. And when I've lived or been on places where driving was unnecessary, I haven't.)
You're quibbling, and you're using sophistry as part of that.
AOSP most certainly is a legitimate, full, version of Android. And AOSP is free. Amazon has no problem producing tablets based upon AOSP.
And even if you pretend the above is false, and post here saying so, you're missing the basic point. Being out of Google's good graces means jack-shit about whether you can distribute Android, or the cost of doing so. At worst, you'll have to ship yours a month or so after everyone else, so Jean-Baptiste Queru has time to clean up the sources and release the AOSP version. You also won't be able to ship some stuff that's not Android, but is useful. It's not required, and Amazon is producing some pretty good tablets without that software.
Again: Amazon sells the second most popular tablet in the world. It runs Android, and doesn't include any Google stuff.
Can we let this "Google's apps are critical" meme go, please?
Other Google partners produce phones that don't run Android, and the idea that this has something to do with the new OS merely running arbitrary APKs is ridiculous.
Amazon seems to be doing pretty well selling their own tablets that have Android installed but no Google app stack. Very, very, well. As in second only to iPad in sales.
From my point of view, I want the Google apps, largely because I have a bunch of apps bought already, and when it became easy enough I installed Jellybean on my Kindle Fire as a result. But I'm the exception - generally people are happy as long as they can get apps, and Google has craploads of competitors in the app store* space.
* Apple's trademark lawyers can fuck themselves.
It's probably neither.
This story doesn't ultimately make any sense whatsoever. Other Google partners produce phones that don't run Android, and the idea that this has something to do with the new OS merely running arbitrary APKs is ridiculous.
Special prices?
You do know Android is free, right? And yes, it makes a big difference if you're an OEM if you have to pay full price for Windows, or the rates paid by Dell et al ($200ish+ vs $50. Big difference.)