This phone is old. If Google had to support the latest android on all their phones, it would hinder development for the benefit of relatively few people.
I don't think it's reasonable to be forced to support phones indefinitely. A Galaxy nexus phone (if any still exist), is probably a land line by now, requiring it to be plugged in to be used because it's battery won't hold a charge anymore.
There has been 3 nexus phones released since the galaxy nexus. If you have a galaxy nexus, it's time for you to get a new phone anyway.
Google already updated their code. If the carriers don't care about spending any effort updating their phones to the latest android, why would they bother updating their phones with patches?
Debian squeeze 6.0 is no longer supported. That came out in 2011 (i.e. it was only supported for 3 years). If you bought your debian machine from some hardware vendor that refuses to come out with driver updates for debian versions past squeeze, you'd be in the same position.
The android hardware vendors are even worse. They lock the bootloader of their phones too. So don;t buy your phones from those vendors.
T-mobile has contract free plans where you bring your own (unlocked phone), and are not forced to pay for a phone subsidy. I don't know if the phones they sell are locked, because I never had to buy one.
So if a company sell's computers with windows XP in January 2014, is it Microsoft's fault that those customers only had windows XP support for less than a year?
They get a pass because they aren't selling the Android OS. They are not asking you to buy a new product. They are providing upgrades to the OS (including patches) for free. If you don't want to be at the mercy of a hardware vendor that doesn't support the new android versions, then don't buy a phone from one of those vendors.
Google can't force them to support the new android versions. Only savvy customers can.
No. Google allows you more options. You can buy a phone directly from Google (and have them be the only company bearing responsibility), or you can buy a phone from anyone else making android products. The availability of more options should not be confused with being forced to exercise those options.
This is a bad example. You don't get all your drivers from the OS vendor. Google publishes the OS images to the public. The problem is that you can't use them if your hardware vendor has not yet made their drivers compatible with the new version of the OS.
Microsoft doesn't package every driver from every hardware vendor with it's OS. IF your hardware vendor doesn't provide a driver for Windows then that's not Microsoft's fault.
Furthermore, if you really want updates ASAP, you can get a Nexus phone and be the first to receive them directly from Google.
Except that google isn't charging for their new software. They aren't abandoning android. They are actively improving it and not charging people to upgrade to the new version. This is totally different from microsoft refusing to fix XP bugs, given that upgrading is purchasing a new product.
The study that claimed this is probably a hoax. That doesn't mean that people who watch fox news aren't dumb. It sure seems like they should be. But it's pretty hard to do a rigorous scientific study about something like this, especially one that attempts to prove a causal link. The amount of effort it would take would probably be better spent on trying to cure cancer or something.
To prove a causal link between Watching Fox and intelligence, you'd have to have a huge random sample of people (not just normal fox news watchers), and force half of them them to watch fox news.
Then you'd try to see if there was any significant difference in IQ based on watching a TV show. Now keep in mind this group of people would also contain doctors and engineers, and people who were already dumb to begin with, etc. I don;t think you'd be able to see any difference.
I think it's just that dumb people watch dumb things, and while it may actually make some people dumber, it probably also makes some people a little smarter (e.g. like if a smart person were forced to watch it like Jon Stewart). But in the vast majority of people it probably doesn't have any effect on their IQ (i.e. smart people stay smart, and dumb people stay dumb). To prove any kind of a significant result would be pretty amazing and still a giant waste of time.
It took 50 years to prove a causal link between smoking and lung cancer.
Well the "buried" service line actually has to come out of the ground to go into your house. When I changed internet service providers (from DSL to cable), I saw the service guy locate 2 wires coming out of the ground running up the side of my house to an unlocked box. He opened the box and disconnected one of the wires and connected the other.
It occurred to me that I had seen these "buried" wires and boxes on the side of every house I ever lived in, and it never occurred to me to find out what they were. Once I saw someone else tinkering in there, I now know how to sever anyone's internet lines.
I think anyone who witnessed internet being installed (even dumb people) would probably have to make the connection that everyone else's house probably works the same way, as long as they were not literally retarded.
This does bring up an interesting memory for me. I actually had my internet go out one day, and I checked the box and found that a cable had broken, and I just re-stripped the wires and reconnected them. It wasn't "severed", it was just broken probably due to metal fatigue. So I can say that "it just broke" is certainly a possibility from 1st hand experience.
I reject the whole left vs right dichotomy. It reduces every position and person to 1 political dimension. There is no such thing as right wing ideology or left wing ideology. It's just the sides of the building that people sit on. Both parties are basically like shitty weather-vanes (i.e. they don't have ideologies beyond getting elected).
Most people think they are free thinkers and independent. Voting republican is a large spectrum. So saying you voted for two unnamed republicans really doesn't mean anything.
I said I voted for twice as many republicans as democrats (i.e. I am more likely to be confused as a right winger than a left winger, for those wishing to confuse me as one of those two things)
I actually *am* a free thinker and independent voter. I don't vote for lessers of X evils. I always vote my conscience regardless of party. I actually wish we could change our election system to one which does not foster the political party as a winning strategy. Our 2 party system is a direct result of our 1st past the post election system.
"I think you might be overestimating the minimum intelligence of right wingers" does not mean the inverse is true.
What *is* the inverse of that statement in your mind?
"I don't think you might be underestimating the minimum intelligence of right wingers"?
"I don't think you might be overestimating the maximum intelligence of right wingers"?
"I don't think you might be underestimating the minimum intelligence of left wingers"?
That statement doesn't really follow the "if p then q" format, so it doesn't really have an obvious inverse, so I have no idea what you are talking about.
Again, I didn't think suggesting that the dumbest right winger was dumb would be so controversial, but here we are...
Also I don't see the relevance of which party had the closer ties to the KKK in the distant past. The Russians were our allies in WW2. The republicans used to not be so retarded. Things change.
I don't think it takes a whole lot of brain cells to google a person and figure out what their address is, especially if they have not made any attempt to keep this information secret. I would actually probably give most of this credit to google for allowing stupid people the ability to do things that only smart people used to be able to do.
I'm sure kids in elementary school can figure out how to do this. Where real intelligence one might expect of a mature adult might come into play, is the judgement of whether to use this information to do anything anti-social.
People who do things like cut lines as a 'warning' tend to do something to ensure that it's seen as a warning. Like leave a note.
I don't think it was necessarily meant to be a warning. I think it could just be a case of vandalism. Or it could just be a very poorly executed warning, which fits quite nicely into the narrative of the right wing idiot. Or the blogger just cut his own cable for attention.
And you of course assume that if I suggest that the *minimum* intelligence of a right winger is low, it must mean I am a left winger and therefore think left wingers are smarter.
FYI I'm neither a left nor right winger. I am a free thinker and an independent voter. I have actually voted for twice as many republicans as democrats (2 republicans vs 1 democrat).
I'm not sure why the idea that the dumbest right winger would in fact be dumb is even controversial. The dumbest left winger is no doubt dumb as well, but I don't see why this even needs to be explicitly stated. It should be obvious.
Yeah but any noise will do. The sound doesn't have to be engine noises. It can be a recording of a baby screaming "VROOM!!!!", or a recorded message like "I need a vehicle with a very loud engine to reassure myself I'm not gay".
You mean there is no point in engaging in a discussion about the economics of incentives? You'd rather only participate in discussions where you are regarded as the wise old sage imparting invaluable advice to the naive youngsters so they don't fall into all the traps that you were too clever to fall into?
Slashdot Mirror
This phone is old. If Google had to support the latest android on all their phones, it would hinder development for the benefit of relatively few people.
I don't think it's reasonable to be forced to support phones indefinitely. A Galaxy nexus phone (if any still exist), is probably a land line by now, requiring it to be plugged in to be used because it's battery won't hold a charge anymore.
There has been 3 nexus phones released since the galaxy nexus. If you have a galaxy nexus, it's time for you to get a new phone anyway.
Google made up the system, where customers are allowed to choose their hardware vendor (good or bad).
How did apple force the hardware vendors to send the patch to their customers? Because they *are* the hardware vendor.
Once you open up your code to 3rd parties, you can't control how it is used.
Google already updated their code. If the carriers don't care about spending any effort updating their phones to the latest android, why would they bother updating their phones with patches?
Debian squeeze 6.0 is no longer supported. That came out in 2011 (i.e. it was only supported for 3 years). If you bought your debian machine from some hardware vendor that refuses to come out with driver updates for debian versions past squeeze, you'd be in the same position.
The android hardware vendors are even worse. They lock the bootloader of their phones too. So don;t buy your phones from those vendors.
T-mobile has contract free plans where you bring your own (unlocked phone), and are not forced to pay for a phone subsidy. I don't know if the phones they sell are locked, because I never had to buy one.
So if a company sell's computers with windows XP in January 2014, is it Microsoft's fault that those customers only had windows XP support for less than a year?
They get a pass because they aren't selling the Android OS. They are not asking you to buy a new product. They are providing upgrades to the OS (including patches) for free. If you don't want to be at the mercy of a hardware vendor that doesn't support the new android versions, then don't buy a phone from one of those vendors.
Google can't force them to support the new android versions. Only savvy customers can.
Why did you buy your phone from your congressman?
Yeah, you should get a windows phone..... (snickering)
No. Google allows you more options. You can buy a phone directly from Google (and have them be the only company bearing responsibility), or you can buy a phone from anyone else making android products. The availability of more options should not be confused with being forced to exercise those options.
This is a bad example. You don't get all your drivers from the OS vendor. Google publishes the OS images to the public. The problem is that you can't use them if your hardware vendor has not yet made their drivers compatible with the new version of the OS.
Microsoft doesn't package every driver from every hardware vendor with it's OS. IF your hardware vendor doesn't provide a driver for Windows then that's not Microsoft's fault.
Furthermore, if you really want updates ASAP, you can get a Nexus phone and be the first to receive them directly from Google.
Except that google isn't charging for their new software. They aren't abandoning android. They are actively improving it and not charging people to upgrade to the new version. This is totally different from microsoft refusing to fix XP bugs, given that upgrading is purchasing a new product.
The new version of android *is* the patch.
The study that claimed this is probably a hoax. That doesn't mean that people who watch fox news aren't dumb. It sure seems like they should be. But it's pretty hard to do a rigorous scientific study about something like this, especially one that attempts to prove a causal link. The amount of effort it would take would probably be better spent on trying to cure cancer or something.
To prove a causal link between Watching Fox and intelligence, you'd have to have a huge random sample of people (not just normal fox news watchers), and force half of them them to watch fox news.
Then you'd try to see if there was any significant difference in IQ based on watching a TV show. Now keep in mind this group of people would also contain doctors and engineers, and people who were already dumb to begin with, etc. I don;t think you'd be able to see any difference.
I think it's just that dumb people watch dumb things, and while it may actually make some people dumber, it probably also makes some people a little smarter (e.g. like if a smart person were forced to watch it like Jon Stewart). But in the vast majority of people it probably doesn't have any effect on their IQ (i.e. smart people stay smart, and dumb people stay dumb). To prove any kind of a significant result would be pretty amazing and still a giant waste of time.
It took 50 years to prove a causal link between smoking and lung cancer.
Well the "buried" service line actually has to come out of the ground to go into your house. When I changed internet service providers (from DSL to cable), I saw the service guy locate 2 wires coming out of the ground running up the side of my house to an unlocked box. He opened the box and disconnected one of the wires and connected the other.
It occurred to me that I had seen these "buried" wires and boxes on the side of every house I ever lived in, and it never occurred to me to find out what they were. Once I saw someone else tinkering in there, I now know how to sever anyone's internet lines.
I think anyone who witnessed internet being installed (even dumb people) would probably have to make the connection that everyone else's house probably works the same way, as long as they were not literally retarded.
This does bring up an interesting memory for me. I actually had my internet go out one day, and I checked the box and found that a cable had broken, and I just re-stripped the wires and reconnected them. It wasn't "severed", it was just broken probably due to metal fatigue. So I can say that "it just broke" is certainly a possibility from 1st hand experience.
I reject the whole left vs right dichotomy. It reduces every position and person to 1 political dimension. There is no such thing as right wing ideology or left wing ideology. It's just the sides of the building that people sit on. Both parties are basically like shitty weather-vanes (i.e. they don't have ideologies beyond getting elected).
Most people think they are free thinkers and independent. Voting republican is a large spectrum. So saying you voted for two unnamed republicans really doesn't mean anything.
I said I voted for twice as many republicans as democrats (i.e. I am more likely to be confused as a right winger than a left winger, for those wishing to confuse me as one of those two things)
I actually *am* a free thinker and independent voter. I don't vote for lessers of X evils. I always vote my conscience regardless of party. I actually wish we could change our election system to one which does not foster the political party as a winning strategy. Our 2 party system is a direct result of our 1st past the post election system.
"I think you might be overestimating the minimum intelligence of right wingers" does not mean the inverse is true.
What *is* the inverse of that statement in your mind?
"I don't think you might be underestimating the minimum intelligence of right wingers"?
"I don't think you might be overestimating the maximum intelligence of right wingers"?
"I don't think you might be underestimating the minimum intelligence of left wingers"?
That statement doesn't really follow the "if p then q" format, so it doesn't really have an obvious inverse, so I have no idea what you are talking about.
Again, I didn't think suggesting that the dumbest right winger was dumb would be so controversial, but here we are...
Also I don't see the relevance of which party had the closer ties to the KKK in the distant past. The Russians were our allies in WW2. The republicans used to not be so retarded. Things change.
I don't think it takes a whole lot of brain cells to google a person and figure out what their address is, especially if they have not made any attempt to keep this information secret. I would actually probably give most of this credit to google for allowing stupid people the ability to do things that only smart people used to be able to do.
I'm sure kids in elementary school can figure out how to do this. Where real intelligence one might expect of a mature adult might come into play, is the judgement of whether to use this information to do anything anti-social.
People who do things like cut lines as a 'warning' tend to do something to ensure that it's seen as a warning. Like leave a note.
I don't think it was necessarily meant to be a warning. I think it could just be a case of vandalism. Or it could just be a very poorly executed warning, which fits quite nicely into the narrative of the right wing idiot. Or the blogger just cut his own cable for attention.
So by saying I think something is likely, I'm underestimating it?
And you of course assume that if I suggest that the *minimum* intelligence of a right winger is low, it must mean I am a left winger and therefore think left wingers are smarter.
FYI I'm neither a left nor right winger. I am a free thinker and an independent voter. I have actually voted for twice as many republicans as democrats (2 republicans vs 1 democrat).
I'm not sure why the idea that the dumbest right winger would in fact be dumb is even controversial. The dumbest left winger is no doubt dumb as well, but I don't see why this even needs to be explicitly stated. It should be obvious.
Yeah but any noise will do. The sound doesn't have to be engine noises. It can be a recording of a baby screaming "VROOM!!!!", or a recorded message like "I need a vehicle with a very loud engine to reassure myself I'm not gay".
I think you did it...
I think you might be overestimating the minimum intelligence of right wingers.
3. A right wing supporter of Scalise, who should (but still doesn't) know the result will be #1.
I think #1 and #3 are both pretty likely.
You mean there is no point in engaging in a discussion about the economics of incentives? You'd rather only participate in discussions where you are regarded as the wise old sage imparting invaluable advice to the naive youngsters so they don't fall into all the traps that you were too clever to fall into?