So why is it exactly that you think Mono is such a bad example? Seems to me that if you cut away all of the FUD thrown at Mono, Miguel was right all along: The CLI and C# is absolutely open and safe from MS patent litigation.
But JVM and the Java language are absolutely open and safe from Oracle patent litigation! This isn't about conforming to an existing spec, or even that Google are implementing the Java language.
The way in here for Oracle is that Google are not implementing the JVM but a similar, incompatible, system that infringes upon JVM patents. If Google had gone for C# over Dalvik, there'd be no protection against patent lawsuits from Oracle either. Yeah, I said Oracle - Microsoft signed a license agreement with (what was then) Sun that licenses specific Java patents for use with.NET. It's not even clear that the license protects non-Microsoft implementations, so it's even possible that a hypothetical (and utterly pointless) replacement of Dalvik with Mono would also fall foul of the same patent concerns.
In this context, Miguel's comment is about as silly as it gets. First of all, the Oracle lawsuit, being against a third party non-Java VM implementation, actually raises questions about Mono's safety rather than reaffirming it. Second, it ignores the reason Google rolled their own VM in the first place, instead proposing that there was some obscure reason why the JVM wasn't suitable but somehow the CLI would have been. And finally it proposes that Microsoft is not going around threatening Android phone makers with patent suits, when they are already doing so!
I think Miguel is unfairly demonized on Slashdot, but in this instance I think his comments weren't thought through.
Actually, no. Voice over IP over cellular data is an incredibly inefficient way to send voice
Nonetheless, the mobile operators are moving in that direction. LTE's voice service is supposed, ultimately, to be 100% VoIP, and the 3GPP set the process in motion with IMS.
Voice over a variable bandwidth packet data system is certainly not the most efficient way to deliver a signal requiring a fairly constant QoS, but the increase in available spectrum and improvements in how we use it mean we're rapidly approaching the point it just plain doesn't matter, especially in a context where it seems likely that voice usage may even start to decrease as other methods of mobile communication take over and become more viable.
Alas, no. The patent license allows you to redistribute the Oracle version of Java, and even a modified version of the same. What it doesn't do is permit, in countries that recognize the patents, you to distribute a version that doesn't conform to the Java specification.
It would certainly help invalidate Oracle's position (ie put them in the awkward position of having to withdraw their position, or else see no further distribution of Java by anyone at all) if the part of the GPL you quote made it illegal to redistribute Java, but that's not the case.
On the other hand, Britain's chocolate is excellent, it has nicer bread than the US (well, when bought fresh), good beer is also widely available and on tap in most pubs, the public transport system is usable in all but the most rural areas, and there are less rattlesnakes.
UK has no civil wars, and violence in general has halved since private ownership of handguns were banned.
Are you under the impression I was suggesting gun ownership causes civil war? Because I'm failing to read the above in any way that makes sense as a retort to what I wrote. Read it again:
I said that the fact countries with guns are more violent is not surprising, because countries with guns would include virtually all of those in a state of war.
Britain is unquestionably less violent than Sierra Leone or Somalia. This is not a function of the residents of the latter two having guns and residents of the former not, it's a function of the fact that the latter have governments that have collapsed. The fact the governments have collapsed is responsible both for the violence, and for the increase in gun ownership. Likewise, you would expect violence to be lower in a country where you can be arrested for assault by a mostly functional police force, which is the case in (most of) the United Kingdom.
However, comparing like with like, Britain to a handgun-friendly functional democracy like, say, the United States, doesn't appear to show Britain in any position of peaceful superiority. Comparing the statistics is certainly difficult, given the different nature of violent crimes in both countries making a direct link difficult, as is the extra uncertainty brought about by the fact that most of the largest US cities have gun control laws to some degree or another, but certainly both countries are in the same ball park as far as violent crime is concerned. Murder rates, in both countries, are barely on the radar. The US somehow manages to avoid, for the most part, Britain's painful history of hooliganism, where enthusiasts of certain sports, and Nazis, give each other "Chelsea Grins".
Really, whether you're a gun-toting NRA member who's worried that Obama is going to grab your guns (or even more unbelievably, Nancy Pelosi, who you guys always demonize but is actually against additional gun control laws), or someone who thinks that people who shoot innocent sheets of paper with circles on them are sick, sick, bastards, who need to be locked up, you need to knock it off with the abuse of statistics - or even the use of it, until you learn to actually understand them. Causation != correlation.
That's probably true, given the high numbers of guns in countries whose governments have collapsed, that are in the middle of civil wars, etc. Which means such a stat is, by itself, meaningless as the cause of high gun ownership will, in many cases, also be the cause of the lack of safety.
If there's one thing I've learned from the gun control arguments, it's that people who have strong opinions on gun control, for or against, are absolutely abysmal analysts of statistics.
There's a difference between being concerned about the politics and sanity of something, and actually being against a project and suing to shut it down.
Schwartz welcomed Android, he saw it as a positive development. Sun may have contributed to the discussion on whether certain design decisions were in the best interests of Java, but it would be unfair to link Oracle's decision to sue Google with Sun's technical grievances, just as it would to link, Germany's invasion of France during WW-I* with the previous Kaiser's dislike of French food.
* World War One Gentlemen. There's no Godwin violation here.
There's a zillion options, I personally use the T-Mobile myTouch 3G Slide. It costs around $450 (officially, $350 if you hunt around) unsubsidized.
To that, you probably want it unlocked, in which case you'll have to subscribe T-Mobile for three months (~$75pm, so $215) and ask them to unlock it after that.
The Slide has 2.1, with a 2.2 update "RSN". If you can't wait, there are instructions for loading the Cyanogen variant on the Internet, I believe (I haven't tried it.) You can get a start on rooting the box from T-Mobile's Operating System and Software Development forum (yeah, that's TMo's own forums.)
Just to re-iterate, this is the phone I, and my wife, use. I am not on a contract, I can cancel at any time without penalties, I bought both phones without signing a contract, and because I bought it outright, my plan costs around $20pm less than it would cost if I had bought it subsidized. I'm not going to especially recommend the Slide over any other Android phone T-Mobile offers, the Samsung Vibrant has apparently got a lot of good press, and, well, go to T-Mobile's site and browse the Android phones and you'll see the choices.
Well, sure, phones do sell out or cease being made or just stop being sold. You made the comment that your concern was being tied to a multi-thousand dollar contract if you buy one, but it sounds to me that the issue is that you can't buy it, not that you can but you need to agree to a contract whose objectionable aspect is the price to have it.
So in order to buy an Android phone without a contract, you have to plan to develop software for sale on Android Market.
...or buy it from T-Mobile. You can buy unsubsidized, contract-free, phones from T-Mobile (the great thing is if you do buy the phone unsubsidized, the plans are cheaper now too.)
Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Slashdot
Search
News for nerds, stuff that matters
* squiggleslash
* Help & Preferences
* Subscription
* Firehose
* Journal
* Tags
* Bookmarks
* Logout
* Customize
Sections
* Main
*
Apple
* AskSlashdot
* Book Reviews
* Developers
* Games
* Hardware
* IT
* Index
* Interviews
* Linux
* Mobile
* Politics
* Science
* Technology
* YRO
Site Info
* FAQ
* Bugs
* Code
Stories
* Old Stories
* Old Polls
* Hall of Fame
* Submit Story
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 4 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: Nexus One is sold out
*
Nexus One is sold out (Score:4)
by tepples (727027) writes: FriendFriend of a Friend on 2010-08-09 11:26 (#33189422) Homepage
Nexus One
In this page, Google wrote:
The Nexus One is no longer available for purchase directly from Google. For more information on how to purchase the Nexus One, check out our help center.
In this page, Google wrote:
The Nexus One is no longer available for direct purchase from Google, but is available through Brightstar for sale to registered developers. Please note that Brightstar's Nexus One purchase page is only accessible to registered developers.
So in order to buy an Android phone without a contract, you have to plan to develop software for sale on Android Market. Not everybody who wants a counterpart to iPod Touch that runs Android is interested in developing software for sale on Android Market.
Reply to This
Post Comment
Preview Comment
*
Re:Nexus One is sold out (Score:?)
by squiggleslash (241428) writes: on 2010-08-10 22:53 Homepage Journal
So in order to buy an Android phone without a contract, you have to plan to develop software for sale on Android Market....or buy it from T-Mobile. You can buy unsubsidized, contract-free, phones from T-Mobile (the great thing is if you do buy the phone unsubsidized, the plans are cheaper now too.)
--
My moved journal [livejournal.com]
Edit Comment
Name
squiggleslash [ Log Out ]
URL
http://squiggleslash.livejournal.com/
Subject
Comment
So in order to buy an Android phone without a contract, you have to plan to develop software for sale on Android Market.
...or buy it from T-Mobile. You can buy unsubsidized, contract-free, phones from T-Mobile (the great thing is if you do buy the phone unsubsidized, the plans are cheaper now too.)
Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs!
No Karma Bonus No Subscriber Bonus Post Anonymously
Allowed HTML
URLs
http://example.com/ will auto-link a URL
Important Stuff
* Please try to keep posts on topic.
* Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
* Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
* Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
* Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropr
Sometimes the defaults are better than what you manually configure. For example, the rest of us would certainly appreciate it if you post with the default font, rather than monospaced font ("code") you decided to post with instead.
You both seem to be taking this to extremes. There's no good reason to have people come in every single day when they're working on a project. But that doesn't mean that it's sane to have no personal contact either.
I know I get very little done being in the office all of the time, and generally if I work from home for a few days I usually get a hell of a lot done. That doesn't mean I think it'd help anyone for me to just work at home all the time, as I can't see how staying out of the loop would help anyone.
We need employers to be more flexible (which actually probably requires insurance reform, funnily enough.) If someone doesn't need to be on-site all of the time, let them work from home, but not to the detriment of team working. Yes, this will cut down on congestion, and oil dependence, and our balance of payments. We should do it.
The Internet's early beginnings were in the networks of the 1970s, but as a network resembling what we have today you'd have to go forward to the 1980s. There were a number of "free market" networks that also sprung up, or became popular, during the 1980s, including most successfully AOL and Compuserve. By the mid-1990s, the Internet was still immature enough for Microsoft to believe it had a chance of promoting its own alternative, the original version of MSN (which used Microsoft networking technologies, not TCP/IP, in its original incarnation as a Windows 95 thing.)
When the Internet did take off, the backbones and computer servers relied upon by the majority of users were outside of direct government control, with only academic sites, in practice, being government subsidized.
The Internet did not become popular because it was the only thing capable of doing what it was doing due to the government providing it with a big collection of servers, it was popular because it was a neutral, open, network, and the alternatives were closed and locked down.
While it's possible for the free market to introduce open, standardized, networks, the reality is that most of the time such standards only achieve success through government support. The Internet is an unqualified success, successful in large part because the government could provide the neutrality required to ensure it would work for everyone. And right now, the "free market" continues to be at the mercy of a handful of parasites who, on getting into the right positions, are willing to lock down and de-neutralize the network, putting short-sighted control goals ahead of the long term welfare of our network. You couldn't have picked a worse example of "governments stepping in causing failures" if you tried.
Why would you hear about a successful IT project from the government?
Government IT projects are exactly the same as any corporation's, they're internal projects you'd never use unless you actually worked for the government. On occasion they'll put out a public website for entering data, but even then it'd be the website, not the underlying infrastructure, you'd actually be exposed to.
If it's successful, it works, there's nothing to proclaim, and so you don't hear about it. If it fails, people complain.
Governments across the world have many, many, successful IT projects, just like companies like Proctor and Gamble, Coca Cola, and Time Warner. You don't hear about them, because you don't use them.
If by "doctors" you mean "journalists", I doubt it, as the GP wasn't talking about journalists. If you really meant "doctors" I suggest going back to that particular controversy and rereading what was actually said, by whom.
And a small, highly competent IT department will tailor its systems precisely for business needs, saving money and time over the one-size-fits-all Google approach.
Codswallop.
A small, highly competent, IT department will make the best use of the resources available. The fact it's small means it's not going to have time to "tailor its systems" for anything. So it's safe to say it'll do the same thing every business's IT department does: it'll buy a one-size-fits-all solution from Microsoft, IBM, or it'll spend some time learning how to put together the same capabilities from open source components such as Dovecot, Evolution or Thunderbird, and the various other free components that do roughly the same thing.
Sooner or later, you find things that every business needs. They need an email system, a system of published calendars, and some central document repository. What do they need out of the email system? Pretty much everything that Exchange, Notes, Evolution/IMAP, and Google Apps/GMail does. What do they need out of the system of shared public calendars? Pretty much everything that Exchange, Notes, Evolution/IMAP, and Google Apps/GMail does. What do they need out of a central document repository? Pretty much everything that Sharepoint, Notes, a combination of MediaWiki+Apache+NFS shares, and Google Apps/Documents does.
These are "one size fits all" products for a reason, their one size fits all. Every business needs them just as every business needs one-size-fits-all personal computers, and every business needs one-size-fits-all phone systems, and every business needs one-size-fits-all lights. Insofar as there are differences between the different needs of, say, a contractor and a giant megacorp, that's where licensing and additional services come in.
Hard to see what a "highly competent" IT department would do differently. Design an entirely new email system that's unlike all the others? Great if they have time, I challenge you to find a small IT department capable of doing any such thing, and I challenge you to find one that would design anything that's neither worse than what everyone else does for the intended users, nor itself a one-size-fits-all system that would work for everyone.
With respect, we're still waiting for the tablet with decent battery life. The Kindle comes close, but it's too specialized to be considered a tablet.
Stories Slash Boxes Comments Slashdot Search News for nerds, stuff that matters * squiggleslash * Help & Preferences Subscription Firehose Journal * Tags * Bookmarks * Logout * Customize Sections * Main * AskSlashdot * Book Reviews * Developers * Games * Hardware * IT * Index * Interviews * Linux * Mobile * Politics * Science * Technology * YROSite Info * FAQ * Bugs * CodeStories * Old Stories * Old Polls * Hall of Fame * Submit StorySlow 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 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a commentChances 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:The iPad is not that bad * Re:The iPad is not that bad (Score:1) by Anonymous Coward writes: on 2010-07-27 11:59 (#33046190) About 6 years ago it had everything the iPad had and more. Like capacitive multi-touch? 3G? Decent battery life? Well, at least it was thicker and heavier and cost $1500 more. Reply to ThisPost CommentPreview Comment * Re:The iPad is not that bad (Score:?) by squiggleslash (241428) writes: on 2010-07-27 13:36 Homepage Journal With respect, we're still waiting for the tablet with decent battery life. The Kindle comes close, but it's too specialized to be considered a tablet. -- My moved journal [livejournal.com]Edit CommentNamesquiggleslash [ Log Out ]URLhttp://squiggleslash.livejournal.com/SubjectComment<P> With respect, we're still waiting for the tablet with decent battery life. The Kindle comes close, but it's too specialized to be considered a tablet. <P>Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs!No Karma Bonus No Subscriber Bonus Post AnonymouslyAllowed HTML<b> <i> <p> <br> <a> <ol> <ul> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <em> <strong> <tt> <blockquote> <div> <ecode> <quote>URLs<URL:http://example.com/> will auto-link a URLImportant Stuff * Please try to keep posts on topic. * Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. * Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. * Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. * Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)If you are having a problem with accounts or comment posting, please yell for help.SearchMESSAGE ACKNOWLEDGED -- The Pershing II missiles have been launched.All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc. * home * submit story * help & account * advertise * terms of service * privacy
(Geez guys, I even put a sarcastic smiley at the end)
On a separate, more serious, note, just be happy that in the longer term, this issue will disappear anyway. Mobile CPUs are getting more powerful, flash drives are getting bigger and costing less. Algorithms concerning soon-to-be public-domain standards like MPEG-1 are getting better and better. Realistically, in five years you can have a hard drive full of high quality 1080p MPEG-1 movies, knowing you can copy them as-is to your portable device, and there'll be the storage space to store them, and enough CPU power to comfortably decode them without sucking batteries.
Just a shame we're in this temporary transition time when we have to use hardware decoding to save batteries, and have to use patent encumbered standards to ensure we have enough space to store content, and have to pre-scale content to fit the destination device to save both.
Slashdot Mirror
But JVM and the Java language are absolutely open and safe from Oracle patent litigation! This isn't about conforming to an existing spec, or even that Google are implementing the Java language.
The way in here for Oracle is that Google are not implementing the JVM but a similar, incompatible, system that infringes upon JVM patents. If Google had gone for C# over Dalvik, there'd be no protection against patent lawsuits from Oracle either. Yeah, I said Oracle - Microsoft signed a license agreement with (what was then) Sun that licenses specific Java patents for use with .NET. It's not even clear that the license protects non-Microsoft implementations, so it's even possible that a hypothetical (and utterly pointless) replacement of Dalvik with Mono would also fall foul of the same patent concerns.
Incidentally, Microsoft has actually been quietly licensing patents to Android phone makers (while avoiding going after Google directly) although I believe these are mostly user interface patents.
In this context, Miguel's comment is about as silly as it gets. First of all, the Oracle lawsuit, being against a third party non-Java VM implementation, actually raises questions about Mono's safety rather than reaffirming it. Second, it ignores the reason Google rolled their own VM in the first place, instead proposing that there was some obscure reason why the JVM wasn't suitable but somehow the CLI would have been. And finally it proposes that Microsoft is not going around threatening Android phone makers with patent suits, when they are already doing so!
I think Miguel is unfairly demonized on Slashdot, but in this instance I think his comments weren't thought through.
No, just the times they're going to drink before they leave.
Nonetheless, the mobile operators are moving in that direction. LTE's voice service is supposed, ultimately, to be 100% VoIP, and the 3GPP set the process in motion with IMS.
Voice over a variable bandwidth packet data system is certainly not the most efficient way to deliver a signal requiring a fairly constant QoS, but the increase in available spectrum and improvements in how we use it mean we're rapidly approaching the point it just plain doesn't matter, especially in a context where it seems likely that voice usage may even start to decrease as other methods of mobile communication take over and become more viable.
No idea, but (a) that isn't what this is about, and (b) GSM-FR audio codecs have been distributed with free and proprietary audio packages for years.
Alas, no. The patent license allows you to redistribute the Oracle version of Java, and even a modified version of the same. What it doesn't do is permit, in countries that recognize the patents, you to distribute a version that doesn't conform to the Java specification.
It would certainly help invalidate Oracle's position (ie put them in the awkward position of having to withdraw their position, or else see no further distribution of Java by anyone at all) if the part of the GPL you quote made it illegal to redistribute Java, but that's not the case.
On the other hand, Britain's chocolate is excellent, it has nicer bread than the US (well, when bought fresh), good beer is also widely available and on tap in most pubs, the public transport system is usable in all but the most rural areas, and there are less rattlesnakes.
Are you under the impression I was suggesting gun ownership causes civil war? Because I'm failing to read the above in any way that makes sense as a retort to what I wrote. Read it again:
I said that the fact countries with guns are more violent is not surprising, because countries with guns would include virtually all of those in a state of war.
Britain is unquestionably less violent than Sierra Leone or Somalia. This is not a function of the residents of the latter two having guns and residents of the former not, it's a function of the fact that the latter have governments that have collapsed. The fact the governments have collapsed is responsible both for the violence, and for the increase in gun ownership. Likewise, you would expect violence to be lower in a country where you can be arrested for assault by a mostly functional police force, which is the case in (most of) the United Kingdom.
However, comparing like with like, Britain to a handgun-friendly functional democracy like, say, the United States, doesn't appear to show Britain in any position of peaceful superiority. Comparing the statistics is certainly difficult, given the different nature of violent crimes in both countries making a direct link difficult, as is the extra uncertainty brought about by the fact that most of the largest US cities have gun control laws to some degree or another, but certainly both countries are in the same ball park as far as violent crime is concerned. Murder rates, in both countries, are barely on the radar. The US somehow manages to avoid, for the most part, Britain's painful history of hooliganism, where enthusiasts of certain sports, and Nazis, give each other "Chelsea Grins".
Really, whether you're a gun-toting NRA member who's worried that Obama is going to grab your guns (or even more unbelievably, Nancy Pelosi, who you guys always demonize but is actually against additional gun control laws), or someone who thinks that people who shoot innocent sheets of paper with circles on them are sick, sick, bastards, who need to be locked up, you need to knock it off with the abuse of statistics - or even the use of it, until you learn to actually understand them. Causation != correlation.
That's probably true, given the high numbers of guns in countries whose governments have collapsed, that are in the middle of civil wars, etc. Which means such a stat is, by itself, meaningless as the cause of high gun ownership will, in many cases, also be the cause of the lack of safety.
If there's one thing I've learned from the gun control arguments, it's that people who have strong opinions on gun control, for or against, are absolutely abysmal analysts of statistics.
There's a difference between being concerned about the politics and sanity of something, and actually being against a project and suing to shut it down.
Schwartz welcomed Android, he saw it as a positive development. Sun may have contributed to the discussion on whether certain design decisions were in the best interests of Java, but it would be unfair to link Oracle's decision to sue Google with Sun's technical grievances, just as it would to link, Germany's invasion of France during WW-I* with the previous Kaiser's dislike of French food.
* World War One Gentlemen. There's no Godwin violation here.
Correct. I have no idea where Ratzo got "Corporate networks" from.
There's a zillion options, I personally use the T-Mobile myTouch 3G Slide. It costs around $450 (officially, $350 if you hunt around) unsubsidized.
To that, you probably want it unlocked, in which case you'll have to subscribe T-Mobile for three months (~$75pm, so $215) and ask them to unlock it after that.
The Slide has 2.1, with a 2.2 update "RSN". If you can't wait, there are instructions for loading the Cyanogen variant on the Internet, I believe (I haven't tried it.) You can get a start on rooting the box from T-Mobile's Operating System and Software Development forum (yeah, that's TMo's own forums.)
Just to re-iterate, this is the phone I, and my wife, use. I am not on a contract, I can cancel at any time without penalties, I bought both phones without signing a contract, and because I bought it outright, my plan costs around $20pm less than it would cost if I had bought it subsidized. I'm not going to especially recommend the Slide over any other Android phone T-Mobile offers, the Samsung Vibrant has apparently got a lot of good press, and, well, go to T-Mobile's site and browse the Android phones and you'll see the choices.
Well, sure, phones do sell out or cease being made or just stop being sold. You made the comment that your concern was being tied to a multi-thousand dollar contract if you buy one, but it sounds to me that the issue is that you can't buy it, not that you can but you need to agree to a contract whose objectionable aspect is the price to have it.
Stories Slash Boxes Comments Slashdot Search News for nerds, stuff that matters * squiggleslash * Help & Preferences * Subscription * Firehose * Journal * Tags * Bookmarks * Logout * Customize Sections * Main * Apple * AskSlashdot * Book Reviews * Developers * Games * Hardware * IT * Index * Interviews * Linux * Mobile * Politics * Science * Technology * YRO Site Info * FAQ * Bugs * Code Stories * Old Stories * Old Polls * Hall of Fame * Submit Story 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 4 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: Nexus One is sold out * Nexus One is sold out (Score:4) by tepples (727027) writes: FriendFriend of a Friend on 2010-08-09 11:26 (#33189422) Homepage Nexus One In this page, Google wrote: The Nexus One is no longer available for purchase directly from Google. For more information on how to purchase the Nexus One, check out our help center. In this page, Google wrote: The Nexus One is no longer available for direct purchase from Google, but is available through Brightstar for sale to registered developers. Please note that Brightstar's Nexus One purchase page is only accessible to registered developers. So in order to buy an Android phone without a contract, you have to plan to develop software for sale on Android Market. Not everybody who wants a counterpart to iPod Touch that runs Android is interested in developing software for sale on Android Market. Reply to This Post Comment Preview Comment * Re:Nexus One is sold out (Score:?) by squiggleslash (241428) writes: on 2010-08-10 22:53 Homepage Journal So in order to buy an Android phone without a contract, you have to plan to develop software for sale on Android Market. ...or buy it from T-Mobile. You can buy unsubsidized, contract-free, phones from T-Mobile (the great thing is if you do buy the phone unsubsidized, the plans are cheaper now too.)
--
My moved journal [livejournal.com]
Edit Comment
Name
squiggleslash [ Log Out ]
URL
http://squiggleslash.livejournal.com/
Subject
Comment
Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs! No Karma Bonus No Subscriber Bonus Post Anonymously Allowed HTML
URLs http://example.com/ will auto-link a URL Important Stuff * Please try to keep posts on topic. * Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. * Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. * Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. * Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropr
Runs fine under Ubuntu. You must be doing it wrong.
It wasn't an "answer", it was a criticism.
Sometimes the defaults are better than what you manually configure. For example, the rest of us would certainly appreciate it if you post with the default font, rather than monospaced font ("code") you decided to post with instead.
You both seem to be taking this to extremes. There's no good reason to have people come in every single day when they're working on a project. But that doesn't mean that it's sane to have no personal contact either.
I know I get very little done being in the office all of the time, and generally if I work from home for a few days I usually get a hell of a lot done. That doesn't mean I think it'd help anyone for me to just work at home all the time, as I can't see how staying out of the loop would help anyone.
We need employers to be more flexible (which actually probably requires insurance reform, funnily enough.) If someone doesn't need to be on-site all of the time, let them work from home, but not to the detriment of team working. Yes, this will cut down on congestion, and oil dependence, and our balance of payments. We should do it.
The Internet's early beginnings were in the networks of the 1970s, but as a network resembling what we have today you'd have to go forward to the 1980s. There were a number of "free market" networks that also sprung up, or became popular, during the 1980s, including most successfully AOL and Compuserve. By the mid-1990s, the Internet was still immature enough for Microsoft to believe it had a chance of promoting its own alternative, the original version of MSN (which used Microsoft networking technologies, not TCP/IP, in its original incarnation as a Windows 95 thing.)
When the Internet did take off, the backbones and computer servers relied upon by the majority of users were outside of direct government control, with only academic sites, in practice, being government subsidized.
The Internet did not become popular because it was the only thing capable of doing what it was doing due to the government providing it with a big collection of servers, it was popular because it was a neutral, open, network, and the alternatives were closed and locked down.
While it's possible for the free market to introduce open, standardized, networks, the reality is that most of the time such standards only achieve success through government support. The Internet is an unqualified success, successful in large part because the government could provide the neutrality required to ensure it would work for everyone. And right now, the "free market" continues to be at the mercy of a handful of parasites who, on getting into the right positions, are willing to lock down and de-neutralize the network, putting short-sighted control goals ahead of the long term welfare of our network. You couldn't have picked a worse example of "governments stepping in causing failures" if you tried.
Why would you hear about a successful IT project from the government?
Government IT projects are exactly the same as any corporation's, they're internal projects you'd never use unless you actually worked for the government. On occasion they'll put out a public website for entering data, but even then it'd be the website, not the underlying infrastructure, you'd actually be exposed to.
If it's successful, it works, there's nothing to proclaim, and so you don't hear about it. If it fails, people complain.
Governments across the world have many, many, successful IT projects, just like companies like Proctor and Gamble, Coca Cola, and Time Warner. You don't hear about them, because you don't use them.
If by "doctors" you mean "journalists", I doubt it, as the GP wasn't talking about journalists. If you really meant "doctors" I suggest going back to that particular controversy and rereading what was actually said, by whom.
Should they?
Codswallop.
A small, highly competent, IT department will make the best use of the resources available. The fact it's small means it's not going to have time to "tailor its systems" for anything. So it's safe to say it'll do the same thing every business's IT department does: it'll buy a one-size-fits-all solution from Microsoft, IBM, or it'll spend some time learning how to put together the same capabilities from open source components such as Dovecot, Evolution or Thunderbird, and the various other free components that do roughly the same thing.
Sooner or later, you find things that every business needs. They need an email system, a system of published calendars, and some central document repository. What do they need out of the email system? Pretty much everything that Exchange, Notes, Evolution/IMAP, and Google Apps/GMail does. What do they need out of the system of shared public calendars? Pretty much everything that Exchange, Notes, Evolution/IMAP, and Google Apps/GMail does. What do they need out of a central document repository? Pretty much everything that Sharepoint, Notes, a combination of MediaWiki+Apache+NFS shares, and Google Apps/Documents does.
These are "one size fits all" products for a reason, their one size fits all. Every business needs them just as every business needs one-size-fits-all personal computers, and every business needs one-size-fits-all phone systems, and every business needs one-size-fits-all lights. Insofar as there are differences between the different needs of, say, a contractor and a giant megacorp, that's where licensing and additional services come in.
Hard to see what a "highly competent" IT department would do differently. Design an entirely new email system that's unlike all the others? Great if they have time, I challenge you to find a small IT department capable of doing any such thing, and I challenge you to find one that would design anything that's neither worse than what everyone else does for the intended users, nor itself a one-size-fits-all system that would work for everyone.
With respect, we're still waiting for the tablet with decent battery life. The Kindle comes close, but it's too specialized to be considered a tablet.
And conversely I'm a selfish bastard and I don't own a single iPad! This study is TOTALLY flawed.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to write another article for Fox News.
Whoosh!
(Geez guys, I even put a sarcastic smiley at the end)
On a separate, more serious, note, just be happy that in the longer term, this issue will disappear anyway. Mobile CPUs are getting more powerful, flash drives are getting bigger and costing less. Algorithms concerning soon-to-be public-domain standards like MPEG-1 are getting better and better. Realistically, in five years you can have a hard drive full of high quality 1080p MPEG-1 movies, knowing you can copy them as-is to your portable device, and there'll be the storage space to store them, and enough CPU power to comfortably decode them without sucking batteries.
Just a shame we're in this temporary transition time when we have to use hardware decoding to save batteries, and have to use patent encumbered standards to ensure we have enough space to store content, and have to pre-scale content to fit the destination device to save both.