Except that by now, American English is pretty much recognized as a language distinct from British English. Which one would see from Rosetta Stone, or from the fact that when you select a language from phone settings, American English and British English are 2 separate choices.
I'm sure the Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders would have liked their entries as well
That's also b'cos the US has never had any global ambitions: everything anyone wants - from the Grand Canyon to Death Valley to the Colorado Rockies to the Alaskan Slopes to the Malibu Beaches to the Florida Everglades to the Appalachian Mountains - they're all contained within the US. And then there's Vegas, if one wants any of the exotic wonders, such as the Eiffel. It's a part of the reason that the US was never a colonial power (except for a few islands that they seized after the Spanish-American War). As a results, Americans can be excused for not being interested in the world outside America/the Americas.
It's not that we don't know that there's a world outside the US: it's just that we're happy to leave that world to their people, and hope they leave us alone in return. However, the Europeans - after having their butts handed to them by the people they colonized and now in their own countries by Muslims - have yet to get that memo.
Maybe, but the Minix of the 80s/90s wasn't a microkernel. Amoeba was, but that wasn't what was being considered. Minix got the BSDL in version 3, which was also the first microkernel version of the OS. Since HURD was exclusively looking for microkernels, they should have considered Minix.
Why would it have been a poor man's alternative, when 386BSD's forks - FreeBSD and NetBSD were introduced and have made a whole lot of progress despite all the efforts being focused on Linux? Had Linus not chosen GPL, the FSF could have just forked NetBSD into a GPLed OS of their own, put in all their own tools and run w/ it. In fact, they could have made HURD successful had they picked Minix or Amoeba for the microkernel
Yeah, given RMS' hostility to the 'Open Source' movement, a whole bunch of them would not have touched HURD w/ a bargepole had Linux never existed. They'd probably have flocked to one of the BSD projects or Sun.
Actually, Stallman did throw in the towel and embrace Linux, but that was not my point. My point was that since HURD was a GNU project to create a microkernel based kernel, they should have explored what was out there. The best documented microkernel OSs were Amoeba and later Minix 3.x. So they should have explored using those kernels as their basis. As it is, those microkernels are BSDL licensed, so GNU could have forked it under GPL3, and built on that. Instead of trying unheard of microkernels like L4, Coyotos and Viengoos.
I do agree that their bomb making facilities can be bombed. I do disagree w/ your analogy - that it would be as simple as Israel's 1981 bombing of the Osirak reactor. Not only would it not be a single - or even several raids. Unlike 1981, when Israel could make a single attack w/o breaking into full scale war, that won't be possible here.
The only way the US can pull it off is if they do a nighttime bombing campaign on all the known sites - using ICBMs launched from anywhere - Diego Garcia, et al. Also, I doubt that it can be done w/o a declaration of war against Iran. In the past, the reason the wars have not gone well - mission creep. Like Operation Enduring Freedom would have been a success had it just been about ousting the Taliban. Engaging in nation building in Afghanistan is what turned this from a 3 month war to a 17 year war. Same w/ Iraq - when President Bush stood on the USS Missouri w/ the 'Mission Accomplished' banner, he happened to be right. If only he hadn't taken on the project of 'unleashing democracy' on the Arabs.
If the case can be made that an US attack on Iranian nuke sites will be just that, and not accompanied/followed by a whole scale invasion of Iran, that will be a lot easier to achieve.
In fact, Google could probably swap out the Linux kernel for the FreeBSD kernel or some other kernel, and Android developers and especially users would have no idea it had happened!
In fact, given how Google doesn't like the GPL and goes out of its way to remove GPL 3 components - which is why they've been removing GNU parts - why don't they just swap out Linux for either Minix 3.x or FreeBSD/NetBSD? Preferably Minix. That way, they'll have a minimal kernel, and they can pack all their services on top of it as a part of the subsystem.
kjella - 2 posts above - was the one who brought up the FSF.
But I don't fully agree w/ AC. Reason HURD failed was that they took forever, and are still not done! They kept experimenting w/ different microkernels - all except the one most openly documented - Minix - before returning to GNU Mach. Microkernels have advanced a whole lot in concept, and Minix illustrates the possibilities. Given all that, it's a disgrace that HURD is where it is.
The reason sanctions worked in the case of South Africa is that they weren't a dictatorship: they did care about what happened at least to their White people, and also, they did care what European countries and the US/Canada/Australia/New Zealand thought about them.
Neither of these applies to Iran, Cuba or North Korea
Okay, Cuba is a great example of why sanctions are a moral policy. Only the US has (actually now had) sanctions against Cuba. Every other country in the world has normal trade relations w/ Cuba: much of its trade is w/ Europe. Despite all that, the Cuban people continue to live in abject poverty and oppression.
Those who make the argument that sanctions only hurt people, not the government can learn from this example. Even not having sanctions has hurt the Cuban people. At this stage though, it's just a case of waiting for Raul Castro to die out, and hope that the Communist Party implodes thereafter
The part that the White House opposed was denying the president the authority to lift those sanctions w/o Senate approval. They ought to have challenged it in court on constitutional grounds.
If the president is the commander in chief and can declare wars, an extension of that authority is that he can also end wars and declare peace. Imposing or lifting sanctions are extensions of that, since many countries often choose to diplomatically regard that as a de-facto declaration of war. In fact, in WWII, Japan pretty much resented US sanctions on it due to its occupation of China, which is what caused Pearl Harbor. So regardless of where one stands on Trump's views on Russia, it's dangerous to leave the question of sanctions in the hands of war mongers like McCain, Graham, Rubio et al
Except that Iran learnt that lesson and distributed it all over the country. Also, in many cases, they have underground facilities that could even be MOAB resistant. Not an easy thing to do.
I do agree w/ your underlying point though: Iran's nuclear program needs to be aborted, and also, Pakistan's one needs to be undone. Their program is centered in Chagai in Balochistan, near the borders w/ both Afghanistan & Iran. Since the US has now decided to hold Pakistan accountable - in sharp contrast to the Bush/Obama years, they should put together a contingency plan to destroy Pak's nuclear facilities should the need arise.
Of course this is bullying of those nations who have nuclear technology against those who don't...
What gives one country more of a right to develop nuclear technologies than any other? It's basically bullying and keeping smaller countries "in their place".
Look at existing countries which *do* have nuclear weapons such as pakistan. They're not stupid enough to actually use those weapons because they know the retaliation would immediately wipe them out, but simply having them gives them a much louder voice and stops other countries from pushing them around and making unreasonable demands against them.
Communist countries having nukes, while tragic, had one saving grace: since they were interested in self preservation, they never actually used those, as that would inevitably provoke a counter-attack. Even in North Korea's case, despite the sabre-rattling, they've not gone that far.
Islamic countries having nukes are different. Since they're capable of suicide attacks and indeed have eschatological ambitions, they are more likely to use it than not. Pakistan having nukes is bad enough, and so would be the case w/ Iran. Also, if Iran gets it, you can bet that the Saudis would give Pakistan all the money they want to get a portion of that arsenal. Everybody here who rants about the Saudis and their Islamic extremism will have that to chew on!
Because if history has shown us one thing, it's that unprovoked bombings in countries that pose no realistic threat to us achieves lasting success.
Israel's raids on Iraq's, and a few years ago, Syria's, attempts to build nukes did! Both countries switched their focus to chemical/biological weapons.
And both countries were run by rulers who were committed to wiping Israel off the map. Countries that fought wars against Israel in the past, so not sure what you mean by 'realistic threat'
You're not getting it. It's not non-Verizon: it's non-phone. In other words, it's a phone number associated w/ the tablet. So if I'm roaming, I can access the internet on the tablet, but not make calls, since it's data only, not voice.
Which is fine, since I'm not trying to make calls over the tablet. But if I'm getting texts via the cellular service, I should be able to get it on my tablet using the phone number associated w/ the tablet. I don't. Incidentally, same issue w/ iPads: iMessage on that only works if one has a separate iPhone linked to the same service
While Trump has spoken about the need for peace w/ Russia, as well as urging peace b/w Russia/Ukraine and Israel/Palis, he's never said that he wants peace w/ 'the Iranian people' (which is about as represented by their regime as Castro or Maduro represent the Cuban or Venezuelan people)
So this will prevent Iranians from having any use for iPhones, and shuts Apple out of that market. Although I wonder - why now? They could have done it all this while to protest Iran's persecution of LGBTQ people. Also, would Iran be able to use rooted Android phones w/o access to Google's Play store?
The other question - has US fully put back the sanctions on Iran? Whatever it's done can't be adequate, since Europe & Russia are no longer a part of the sanctions regime
For iMessage, which is the original subject of this thread, you are right. There is no reason why an Android phone user should have to use that, when they can use Hangouts, or WhatsApp if both phones needed to use the same app.
However, there are a lot of cars that have iPod players but don't work w/ Android. While the newer ones do support both Apple Carplay and Android Auto, the older ones don't. As I mentioned in another post above, it makes sense to use an iPod player to control the music in the car while driving rather than struggle w/ a phone. In that particular case, one can justify having a bottom of the line iPod, if one's primary phone ain't an iPhone, or if one's iPhone storage is already full and has no room for songs.
It's not a case of an app that can't run on an Android phone. I got an iPod Nano for use in my car. The car navigation system includes an iPod player, which only works w/ iOS devices. I could play songs on the phone via bluetooth, but I can't control them much from the steering or on the dashboard screen aside from volume control or skipping songs. I'd have to start a playlist before a trip, and also, if I switch from phone to radio, the Android phone doesn't pause, it just assumes that it has a different speaker output.
The advantage of the iPod player is that one can on the screen see the list of songs and playlists, select them, and if one switches from song to, say a phonecall during driving, or to the radio, the iPod pauses and resumes the next time it is invoked. That said, I don't see tepples' point of tethering an iPod Touch to an Android phone: all the data that it needs, such as the music or games, should already be there on the storage.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how Millennials don't get accused of being Nazis as well. Have you seen their dance?
Except that by now, American English is pretty much recognized as a language distinct from British English. Which one would see from Rosetta Stone, or from the fact that when you select a language from phone settings, American English and British English are 2 separate choices.
I'm sure the Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders would have liked their entries as well
That's also b'cos the US has never had any global ambitions: everything anyone wants - from the Grand Canyon to Death Valley to the Colorado Rockies to the Alaskan Slopes to the Malibu Beaches to the Florida Everglades to the Appalachian Mountains - they're all contained within the US. And then there's Vegas, if one wants any of the exotic wonders, such as the Eiffel. It's a part of the reason that the US was never a colonial power (except for a few islands that they seized after the Spanish-American War). As a results, Americans can be excused for not being interested in the world outside America/the Americas.
It's not that we don't know that there's a world outside the US: it's just that we're happy to leave that world to their people, and hope they leave us alone in return. However, the Europeans - after having their butts handed to them by the people they colonized and now in their own countries by Muslims - have yet to get that memo.
Then why does China back US enemies across the globe - be it North Korea, Iran, even Syria (the last one to a lesser degree than the Russians)?
Maybe, but the Minix of the 80s/90s wasn't a microkernel. Amoeba was, but that wasn't what was being considered. Minix got the BSDL in version 3, which was also the first microkernel version of the OS. Since HURD was exclusively looking for microkernels, they should have considered Minix.
Don't have a TV, so watched it on the news on my laptop. Saved me the crowds and the expenses of driving to a place along the path of the eclipse
Why would it have been a poor man's alternative, when 386BSD's forks - FreeBSD and NetBSD were introduced and have made a whole lot of progress despite all the efforts being focused on Linux? Had Linus not chosen GPL, the FSF could have just forked NetBSD into a GPLed OS of their own, put in all their own tools and run w/ it. In fact, they could have made HURD successful had they picked Minix or Amoeba for the microkernel
Yeah, given RMS' hostility to the 'Open Source' movement, a whole bunch of them would not have touched HURD w/ a bargepole had Linux never existed. They'd probably have flocked to one of the BSD projects or Sun.
Actually, Stallman did throw in the towel and embrace Linux, but that was not my point. My point was that since HURD was a GNU project to create a microkernel based kernel, they should have explored what was out there. The best documented microkernel OSs were Amoeba and later Minix 3.x. So they should have explored using those kernels as their basis. As it is, those microkernels are BSDL licensed, so GNU could have forked it under GPL3, and built on that. Instead of trying unheard of microkernels like L4, Coyotos and Viengoos.
Will the result be a Unix-like OS, using, maybe, instead of Linux, one of the BSD's? Or is Google building this whole thing from scratch?
I do agree that their bomb making facilities can be bombed. I do disagree w/ your analogy - that it would be as simple as Israel's 1981 bombing of the Osirak reactor. Not only would it not be a single - or even several raids. Unlike 1981, when Israel could make a single attack w/o breaking into full scale war, that won't be possible here.
The only way the US can pull it off is if they do a nighttime bombing campaign on all the known sites - using ICBMs launched from anywhere - Diego Garcia, et al. Also, I doubt that it can be done w/o a declaration of war against Iran. In the past, the reason the wars have not gone well - mission creep. Like Operation Enduring Freedom would have been a success had it just been about ousting the Taliban. Engaging in nation building in Afghanistan is what turned this from a 3 month war to a 17 year war. Same w/ Iraq - when President Bush stood on the USS Missouri w/ the 'Mission Accomplished' banner, he happened to be right. If only he hadn't taken on the project of 'unleashing democracy' on the Arabs.
If the case can be made that an US attack on Iranian nuke sites will be just that, and not accompanied/followed by a whole scale invasion of Iran, that will be a lot easier to achieve.
In fact, Google could probably swap out the Linux kernel for the FreeBSD kernel or some other kernel, and Android developers and especially users would have no idea it had happened!
In fact, given how Google doesn't like the GPL and goes out of its way to remove GPL 3 components - which is why they've been removing GNU parts - why don't they just swap out Linux for either Minix 3.x or FreeBSD/NetBSD? Preferably Minix. That way, they'll have a minimal kernel, and they can pack all their services on top of it as a part of the subsystem.
That's irrelevant. Point is not having to starve to death. And avoid the fries, if one wants to avoid the fats.
kjella - 2 posts above - was the one who brought up the FSF.
But I don't fully agree w/ AC. Reason HURD failed was that they took forever, and are still not done! They kept experimenting w/ different microkernels - all except the one most openly documented - Minix - before returning to GNU Mach. Microkernels have advanced a whole lot in concept, and Minix illustrates the possibilities. Given all that, it's a disgrace that HURD is where it is.
True. OTOH, if one can live only on Burger King's meals, it's real enough for a big portion of their expenses.
The reason sanctions worked in the case of South Africa is that they weren't a dictatorship: they did care about what happened at least to their White people, and also, they did care what European countries and the US/Canada/Australia/New Zealand thought about them.
Neither of these applies to Iran, Cuba or North Korea
Okay, Cuba is a great example of why sanctions are a moral policy. Only the US has (actually now had) sanctions against Cuba. Every other country in the world has normal trade relations w/ Cuba: much of its trade is w/ Europe. Despite all that, the Cuban people continue to live in abject poverty and oppression.
Those who make the argument that sanctions only hurt people, not the government can learn from this example. Even not having sanctions has hurt the Cuban people. At this stage though, it's just a case of waiting for Raul Castro to die out, and hope that the Communist Party implodes thereafter
The part that the White House opposed was denying the president the authority to lift those sanctions w/o Senate approval. They ought to have challenged it in court on constitutional grounds.
If the president is the commander in chief and can declare wars, an extension of that authority is that he can also end wars and declare peace. Imposing or lifting sanctions are extensions of that, since many countries often choose to diplomatically regard that as a de-facto declaration of war. In fact, in WWII, Japan pretty much resented US sanctions on it due to its occupation of China, which is what caused Pearl Harbor. So regardless of where one stands on Trump's views on Russia, it's dangerous to leave the question of sanctions in the hands of war mongers like McCain, Graham, Rubio et al
Except that Iran learnt that lesson and distributed it all over the country. Also, in many cases, they have underground facilities that could even be MOAB resistant. Not an easy thing to do.
I do agree w/ your underlying point though: Iran's nuclear program needs to be aborted, and also, Pakistan's one needs to be undone. Their program is centered in Chagai in Balochistan, near the borders w/ both Afghanistan & Iran. Since the US has now decided to hold Pakistan accountable - in sharp contrast to the Bush/Obama years, they should put together a contingency plan to destroy Pak's nuclear facilities should the need arise.
Of course this is bullying of those nations who have nuclear technology against those who don't... What gives one country more of a right to develop nuclear technologies than any other? It's basically bullying and keeping smaller countries "in their place". Look at existing countries which *do* have nuclear weapons such as pakistan. They're not stupid enough to actually use those weapons because they know the retaliation would immediately wipe them out, but simply having them gives them a much louder voice and stops other countries from pushing them around and making unreasonable demands against them.
Communist countries having nukes, while tragic, had one saving grace: since they were interested in self preservation, they never actually used those, as that would inevitably provoke a counter-attack. Even in North Korea's case, despite the sabre-rattling, they've not gone that far.
Islamic countries having nukes are different. Since they're capable of suicide attacks and indeed have eschatological ambitions, they are more likely to use it than not. Pakistan having nukes is bad enough, and so would be the case w/ Iran. Also, if Iran gets it, you can bet that the Saudis would give Pakistan all the money they want to get a portion of that arsenal. Everybody here who rants about the Saudis and their Islamic extremism will have that to chew on!
Because if history has shown us one thing, it's that unprovoked bombings in countries that pose no realistic threat to us achieves lasting success.
Israel's raids on Iraq's, and a few years ago, Syria's, attempts to build nukes did! Both countries switched their focus to chemical/biological weapons.
And both countries were run by rulers who were committed to wiping Israel off the map. Countries that fought wars against Israel in the past, so not sure what you mean by 'realistic threat'
You're not getting it. It's not non-Verizon: it's non-phone. In other words, it's a phone number associated w/ the tablet. So if I'm roaming, I can access the internet on the tablet, but not make calls, since it's data only, not voice.
Which is fine, since I'm not trying to make calls over the tablet. But if I'm getting texts via the cellular service, I should be able to get it on my tablet using the phone number associated w/ the tablet. I don't. Incidentally, same issue w/ iPads: iMessage on that only works if one has a separate iPhone linked to the same service
While Trump has spoken about the need for peace w/ Russia, as well as urging peace b/w Russia/Ukraine and Israel/Palis, he's never said that he wants peace w/ 'the Iranian people' (which is about as represented by their regime as Castro or Maduro represent the Cuban or Venezuelan people)
So this will prevent Iranians from having any use for iPhones, and shuts Apple out of that market. Although I wonder - why now? They could have done it all this while to protest Iran's persecution of LGBTQ people. Also, would Iran be able to use rooted Android phones w/o access to Google's Play store?
The other question - has US fully put back the sanctions on Iran? Whatever it's done can't be adequate, since Europe & Russia are no longer a part of the sanctions regime
For iMessage, which is the original subject of this thread, you are right. There is no reason why an Android phone user should have to use that, when they can use Hangouts, or WhatsApp if both phones needed to use the same app.
However, there are a lot of cars that have iPod players but don't work w/ Android. While the newer ones do support both Apple Carplay and Android Auto, the older ones don't. As I mentioned in another post above, it makes sense to use an iPod player to control the music in the car while driving rather than struggle w/ a phone. In that particular case, one can justify having a bottom of the line iPod, if one's primary phone ain't an iPhone, or if one's iPhone storage is already full and has no room for songs.
It's not a case of an app that can't run on an Android phone. I got an iPod Nano for use in my car. The car navigation system includes an iPod player, which only works w/ iOS devices. I could play songs on the phone via bluetooth, but I can't control them much from the steering or on the dashboard screen aside from volume control or skipping songs. I'd have to start a playlist before a trip, and also, if I switch from phone to radio, the Android phone doesn't pause, it just assumes that it has a different speaker output.
The advantage of the iPod player is that one can on the screen see the list of songs and playlists, select them, and if one switches from song to, say a phonecall during driving, or to the radio, the iPod pauses and resumes the next time it is invoked. That said, I don't see tepples' point of tethering an iPod Touch to an Android phone: all the data that it needs, such as the music or games, should already be there on the storage.