Just curious... But why do you expect a country boy (or girl) from Iowa to care about someone on the other side of the planet?
Because I expect them not to be assholes. I expect people with a basic education to have learned a little empathy, to have read some books in which they walked in another person's shoes and saw through another person's eyes, and learned to understand that other people are real, and that everyone is better off when we have a little consideration for one another -- even for people we'll never meet. I also expect an Iowa country boy (or girl) to understand that their children or grandchildren may very well meet those people from the other side of the world, and that the meeting will go better if the Iowans haven't spend the last three generations screwing up the lives of the people they're meeting.
Or is basic human decency and a measure of foresight somehow absent in Iowans? I've certainly never noticed that on my visits to Iowa, nor in the Iowans I've met elsewhere.
How about antibiotics then? We were using them to good effect for thousands of years before germ theory existed.
Why not just go for fire? We used it for a very long time before we understood exothermic oxidation reactions, or how heat causes chemical and structural changes in food.
So, you are privvy to the OEM agreements between Google and the handset-mfgs?
I regularly talk to the people who negotiate them. Could I actually read them? I expect so, though I have no interest in it, and definitely couldn't talk about the contents if I did.
And Apple did not "strong-arm" anyone. They negotiated intelligently, and with the END-USER in mind. Hence, no Crapware on iPhones, WORLDWIDE, REGARDLESS OF CARRIER.
Apple negotiated very effectively, yes, and I should probably have chosen a milder verb.
Google COULD have had that, too; and COULD have it come "Renegotiation" time; but CHOOSES NOT TO.
At this point we're just saying "Nuh uh!", "Uh huh!", and you can't back up your argument because you don't have the information for it, and I can't back up my argument because I'm constrained by confidentiality requirements. So I'll just stop responding here.
Before I leave, though, I will point out one other concern that might make Google choose not to push the OEMs (and maybe carriers) even if it could: the anti-trust issues being raised in Europe. An advantage of Apple's small and declining market share is that it doesn't have to be concerned about that sort of thing.
so yes, you'll be sweeping your hand with muzzle part of the time.
Nonsense. It's not hard to put a ramrod down a barrel without putting your hand in front of the muzzle. In fact the most natural way to do it does not require putting any body part directly in front of the muzzle. Close, but not quite, and the ramrod itself keeps your fingers out of the line of fire. The only part of the procedure that really unavoidably places your body part in the path of a bullet is when you're using a ball starter.
I used to be range officer at NRA gun club as long as we're waving our NRA dicks around.
I wasn't waving anything, just establishing that I do know something about muzzleloaders and especially about muzzleloader safety, since safety is the primary goal of all NRA courses.
The jet engine isn't a good example. We needed more elaborate theories about compressible fluid flows -- and the computers needed to model them -- to get what we now call a "real" understanding of how jets work. But even without that, the basic physics of what goes on in a jet engine was very well understood before we started building them.
Not really. The article sucked... I think they were trying to sell something. It was so garbled I couldn't tell for sure.
Seemed very readable to me. The key point, though, is that existing physics does not provide an explanation for the observed thrust. The proposed explanation is based on new idea called Unruh radiation, which is theorized to be the mechanism behind inertia. Another/. poster mentioned that the theory may also address the questions of dark matter and dark energy, providing a cosmological theory that doesn't require them. I haven't followed that thread at all, but it may be that even if the observed thrust effect can't be scaled up enough to make a practical thruster, it may provide an experimental means to validate the theory, enabling us to simplify and improve our understanding of the structure and content of the universe. New physics is very exciting. And new physics also tends to create possibilities for manipulating the universe in new ways.
Reading the article, it would seem that the system cannot be "scaled up" -- at least in terms of the acceleration produced.
The article did say that adding a dielectric should increase thrust, if the theory is correct. It didn't say how much, though. On the other hand, perhaps experimental testing will allow refinement of the theory which generates other ideas for improvements. Or maybe it will never be practical as a thruster... but new physics is almost certain to lead to something useful.
The only issue is that the amount of force produce is tiny for the amount of energy put in, so it will have to get many orders of magnitude more efficient to be of practical use.
Yes, the theory predicts that adding a dielectric will make it more efficient, but TFA doesn't say how much. It may be that even with all of the refinements that can be implemented it will never actually be useful. It will certainly be interesting to watch.
If you have multiple emitters into the chamber, angled toward a reflector, each emitter has a vector of momentum parallel to the axis of the motor, and another perpendicular to it. If the emitters are spaced properly, the perpendicular vectors will cancel, and the parallel components, summed, will be less than the momentum of the photons leaving the chamber through the "nozzle", giving a net forward thrust.
That's not what's theorized is happening here. I could try to summarize, but you'd be better off reading the article.
I can't disagree. For now I'm holding out for the Pyra.
Interesting... I hadn't heard of that one. Looks like a cool toy, though not something I would get much use out of. Personally, I have no issue with the privacy around standard Android devices, but I suppose I do have an advantage of having greater visibility into the issues than most, and I find that visibility reassuring. Clearly your mileage does vary.
I can't remember off the top of my head why I haven't considered the Blackphone. Probably just that I hadn't heard anything more of it since before it was released. I'll have to give it another look.
I haven't really looked into it much either. It may suck.
The other option is to get an unlockable device and customize it to fit your requirements, but that requires quite a bit of effort and skill, and probably requires you to give up some amount of utility, depending on what you like to do. There's also the problem that even the most open of devices have binary-only firmware at their core. This is the case even for Nexus devices, and even for Google Android engineers. There are big chunks of code that we have zero visibility into.
I was honestly expecting to find an explanation of some subtle source of experimental error that covered it, not a possible theory explaining why it (maybe) works. I'm really looking forward to experimental testing of the improvements predicted by the theory. Who knows? With a decent explanatory theory, it might even be possible to turn it into a practical thruster. That would be awesome.
The wide variety of Android devices available means there are Android phones for every niche.
Well, as someone who would like a useful and flexible device that provides privacy instead of privacy policies, I wouldn't say it's covered every niche yet.
Blackphone?
On the other hand, it is and will always be true that some niches are too small to generate commercial interest. Yours may be one such, depending on your definitions of "useful", "flexible" and "privacy".
In particular the horrible way the Cherokee in Georgia were ripped from their land and sent on the Trail of Tears where so many perished.
Oh, and don't forget that Jackson did that in spite of a specific ruling by the Supreme Court that he could not do it. He simply ignored the nation's highest court. Not even Bush had balls that big. And I don't say that in a positive way.
IMO, replacing Jackson is great news. That they chose Tubman is good, but I'd have taken Captain Kangaroo.
Personally, I'm willing to accept the idea that there is a greater level of criminality among Black populations but that it's a complex mix of sociological problems and economic distress that drives it, not race or racism. I think the criminal justice system is hard on anybody who isn't able to afford expensive legal representation.
That, plus systemic bias in the law enforcement and criminal justice systems, and the fact that said systemic and institutional bias has been in place for a century (and was really, really bad during the early 20th century. Hell, in many ways it was actually worse than outright slavery -- read "Slavery by another name") has led predictably and almost inevitably to a culture that distrusts and disdains the system. The only thing that should surprise anyone about the emergence of "thug culture" is that it took so long. And of course, the systemic bias and thug culture form a vicious, mutually-reinforcing cycle.
None of these factors alone is enough to fully explain the situation, but taken all together we should be surprised that it's not dramatically worse. Arguably, it's a testament to human resilience and the positive aspects of black culture that it isn't worse.
So your argument is that Google had to choose between an open source license or having a say, and opted for open source?
Yes, that is completely true.
If you think that there aren't "Additional Terms" in those "OEM" License Agreements between Google and the phone manufacturers, over and above the standard Android License that you or I would be bound by, you are as ignorant as goat piss.
There are no additional license agreements on Android. None. There is an additional license agreement, called the "Mobile Application Distribution Agreement", or MADA, which OEMs who wish to use Google's proprietary, closed source apps and services on top of Android must sign. That agreement is what I referenced in my first post in this thread, which is renegotiatied periodically and gives Google some limited leverage with the OEMs. That didn't exist at all back when Apple was strong-arming the carriers.
I have some sad news for you about "muzzle loaders", Mr. Smokeless Powder Cartridge Breachloader
Bah. I own several muzzleloading rifles (percussion cap and modern inline; no flintlocks, much less matchlocks) and shoot them regularly. I also occasionally shoot cap and ball revolvers, and I'm an NRA-certified muzzleloading course instructor. The safety rules don't change significantly for muzzleloaders, though procedures are different (e.g. checking if a muzzeloading rifle is loaded done with the ramrod and with trying to see light through the nipple, and possibly even dropping the hammer on a cap or three to be sure you see air movement out the muzzle -- one of the many reasons inlines are better, if inauthentic).
Tesla has issued a press release stating they have open sourced their patents. But open source isn't (so far as I am aware) a legal term of art, especially with regards to patent law. Nor is a press release a legal release. (Though it may establish intent.)
Specifically, such a press release establishes promissory estoppel. If you make a promise that you would reasonably expect would induce others to take some action, you cannot later retract that promise, even if the promise wasn't committed in any sort of formal contract.
And firearms instructors like me will cringe at the way she has the muzzle covered with her hand and pointed at her face. Don't do that.
I suspect there's a long history of portraits available to you for good "don't" illustrations.
Oh, definitely.
You could probably teach your whole class off of this one (although they were at least all pointed in the general vicinity of the ground).
Actually, they're doing pretty well. All of the guns are pointed in safe directions and they all have their fingers off the triggers. I don't think I'd take a family Christmas photo like that, but it looks like they're all following the safety rules.
I thought it was sort of weird how someone with a Google+ tag would accuse Google of deliberately sending users to malicious sites
Heh, and a Google employee as well (aside: I started using the G+ login to slashdot a while ago when slashdot was temporarily broken and for some reason wouldn't accept my old login. Clicking the "log in with G+" button was super easy, so I did it. I have a much longer posting history, and much lower UID, as "swillden").
Slashdot Mirror
It must suck to live in your head.
Reading comprehension is not your forte, apparently. I'm sorry I wasted so much time typing an explanation. I certainly won't bother again.
Just curious... But why do you expect a country boy (or girl) from Iowa to care about someone on the other side of the planet?
Because I expect them not to be assholes. I expect people with a basic education to have learned a little empathy, to have read some books in which they walked in another person's shoes and saw through another person's eyes, and learned to understand that other people are real, and that everyone is better off when we have a little consideration for one another -- even for people we'll never meet. I also expect an Iowa country boy (or girl) to understand that their children or grandchildren may very well meet those people from the other side of the world, and that the meeting will go better if the Iowans haven't spend the last three generations screwing up the lives of the people they're meeting.
Or is basic human decency and a measure of foresight somehow absent in Iowans? I've certainly never noticed that on my visits to Iowa, nor in the Iowans I've met elsewhere.
How about antibiotics then? We were using them to good effect for thousands of years before germ theory existed.
Why not just go for fire? We used it for a very long time before we understood exothermic oxidation reactions, or how heat causes chemical and structural changes in food.
So, you are privvy to the OEM agreements between Google and the handset-mfgs?
I regularly talk to the people who negotiate them. Could I actually read them? I expect so, though I have no interest in it, and definitely couldn't talk about the contents if I did.
And Apple did not "strong-arm" anyone. They negotiated intelligently, and with the END-USER in mind. Hence, no Crapware on iPhones, WORLDWIDE, REGARDLESS OF CARRIER.
Apple negotiated very effectively, yes, and I should probably have chosen a milder verb.
Google COULD have had that, too; and COULD have it come "Renegotiation" time; but CHOOSES NOT TO.
At this point we're just saying "Nuh uh!", "Uh huh!", and you can't back up your argument because you don't have the information for it, and I can't back up my argument because I'm constrained by confidentiality requirements. So I'll just stop responding here.
Before I leave, though, I will point out one other concern that might make Google choose not to push the OEMs (and maybe carriers) even if it could: the anti-trust issues being raised in Europe. An advantage of Apple's small and declining market share is that it doesn't have to be concerned about that sort of thing.
so yes, you'll be sweeping your hand with muzzle part of the time.
Nonsense. It's not hard to put a ramrod down a barrel without putting your hand in front of the muzzle. In fact the most natural way to do it does not require putting any body part directly in front of the muzzle. Close, but not quite, and the ramrod itself keeps your fingers out of the line of fire. The only part of the procedure that really unavoidably places your body part in the path of a bullet is when you're using a ball starter.
I used to be range officer at NRA gun club as long as we're waving our NRA dicks around.
I wasn't waving anything, just establishing that I do know something about muzzleloaders and especially about muzzleloader safety, since safety is the primary goal of all NRA courses.
The jet engine isn't a good example. We needed more elaborate theories about compressible fluid flows -- and the computers needed to model them -- to get what we now call a "real" understanding of how jets work. But even without that, the basic physics of what goes on in a jet engine was very well understood before we started building them.
you'd be better off reading the article.
Not really. The article sucked... I think they were trying to sell something. It was so garbled I couldn't tell for sure.
Seemed very readable to me. The key point, though, is that existing physics does not provide an explanation for the observed thrust. The proposed explanation is based on new idea called Unruh radiation, which is theorized to be the mechanism behind inertia. Another /. poster mentioned that the theory may also address the questions of dark matter and dark energy, providing a cosmological theory that doesn't require them. I haven't followed that thread at all, but it may be that even if the observed thrust effect can't be scaled up enough to make a practical thruster, it may provide an experimental means to validate the theory, enabling us to simplify and improve our understanding of the structure and content of the universe. New physics is very exciting. And new physics also tends to create possibilities for manipulating the universe in new ways.
Reading the article, it would seem that the system cannot be "scaled up" -- at least in terms of the acceleration produced.
The article did say that adding a dielectric should increase thrust, if the theory is correct. It didn't say how much, though. On the other hand, perhaps experimental testing will allow refinement of the theory which generates other ideas for improvements. Or maybe it will never be practical as a thruster... but new physics is almost certain to lead to something useful.
The only issue is that the amount of force produce is tiny for the amount of energy put in, so it will have to get many orders of magnitude more efficient to be of practical use.
Yes, the theory predicts that adding a dielectric will make it more efficient, but TFA doesn't say how much. It may be that even with all of the refinements that can be implemented it will never actually be useful. It will certainly be interesting to watch.
If you have multiple emitters into the chamber, angled toward a reflector, each emitter has a vector of momentum parallel to the axis of the motor, and another perpendicular to it. If the emitters are spaced properly, the perpendicular vectors will cancel, and the parallel components, summed, will be less than the momentum of the photons leaving the chamber through the "nozzle", giving a net forward thrust.
That's not what's theorized is happening here. I could try to summarize, but you'd be better off reading the article.
I can't disagree. For now I'm holding out for the Pyra.
Interesting... I hadn't heard of that one. Looks like a cool toy, though not something I would get much use out of. Personally, I have no issue with the privacy around standard Android devices, but I suppose I do have an advantage of having greater visibility into the issues than most, and I find that visibility reassuring. Clearly your mileage does vary.
I can't remember off the top of my head why I haven't considered the Blackphone. Probably just that I hadn't heard anything more of it since before it was released. I'll have to give it another look.
I haven't really looked into it much either. It may suck.
The other option is to get an unlockable device and customize it to fit your requirements, but that requires quite a bit of effort and skill, and probably requires you to give up some amount of utility, depending on what you like to do. There's also the problem that even the most open of devices have binary-only firmware at their core. This is the case even for Nexus devices, and even for Google Android engineers. There are big chunks of code that we have zero visibility into.
I was honestly expecting to find an explanation of some subtle source of experimental error that covered it, not a possible theory explaining why it (maybe) works. I'm really looking forward to experimental testing of the improvements predicted by the theory. Who knows? With a decent explanatory theory, it might even be possible to turn it into a practical thruster. That would be awesome.
The wide variety of Android devices available means there are Android phones for every niche.
Well, as someone who would like a useful and flexible device that provides privacy instead of privacy policies, I wouldn't say it's covered every niche yet.
Blackphone?
On the other hand, it is and will always be true that some niches are too small to generate commercial interest. Yours may be one such, depending on your definitions of "useful", "flexible" and "privacy".
In particular the horrible way the Cherokee in Georgia were ripped from their land and sent on the Trail of Tears where so many perished.
Oh, and don't forget that Jackson did that in spite of a specific ruling by the Supreme Court that he could not do it. He simply ignored the nation's highest court. Not even Bush had balls that big. And I don't say that in a positive way.
IMO, replacing Jackson is great news. That they chose Tubman is good, but I'd have taken Captain Kangaroo.
Personally, I'm willing to accept the idea that there is a greater level of criminality among Black populations but that it's a complex mix of sociological problems and economic distress that drives it, not race or racism. I think the criminal justice system is hard on anybody who isn't able to afford expensive legal representation.
That, plus systemic bias in the law enforcement and criminal justice systems, and the fact that said systemic and institutional bias has been in place for a century (and was really, really bad during the early 20th century. Hell, in many ways it was actually worse than outright slavery -- read "Slavery by another name") has led predictably and almost inevitably to a culture that distrusts and disdains the system. The only thing that should surprise anyone about the emergence of "thug culture" is that it took so long. And of course, the systemic bias and thug culture form a vicious, mutually-reinforcing cycle.
None of these factors alone is enough to fully explain the situation, but taken all together we should be surprised that it's not dramatically worse. Arguably, it's a testament to human resilience and the positive aspects of black culture that it isn't worse.
Yes, Apple's update model is better than the Android ecosystem's. I'll readily grant that.
Not true. Many updates are much smaller than the whole package.
Maybe, but most x-code updates that I get are 1GB+.
So is your argument that Apple is too technically incompetent to deliver single-binary replacements, much less binary patches? Not buying it.
Nexus S - introduced in Dec 2010, discontinued support in Nov 2012 - less than 2 years.
Indeed, you're right. 23 months, not 24. My mistake.
So your argument is that Google had to choose between an open source license or having a say, and opted for open source?
Yes, that is completely true.
If you think that there aren't "Additional Terms" in those "OEM" License Agreements between Google and the phone manufacturers, over and above the standard Android License that you or I would be bound by, you are as ignorant as goat piss.
There are no additional license agreements on Android. None. There is an additional license agreement, called the "Mobile Application Distribution Agreement", or MADA, which OEMs who wish to use Google's proprietary, closed source apps and services on top of Android must sign. That agreement is what I referenced in my first post in this thread, which is renegotiatied periodically and gives Google some limited leverage with the OEMs. That didn't exist at all back when Apple was strong-arming the carriers.
I have some sad news for you about "muzzle loaders", Mr. Smokeless Powder Cartridge Breachloader
Bah. I own several muzzleloading rifles (percussion cap and modern inline; no flintlocks, much less matchlocks) and shoot them regularly. I also occasionally shoot cap and ball revolvers, and I'm an NRA-certified muzzleloading course instructor. The safety rules don't change significantly for muzzleloaders, though procedures are different (e.g. checking if a muzzeloading rifle is loaded done with the ramrod and with trying to see light through the nipple, and possibly even dropping the hammer on a cap or three to be sure you see air movement out the muzzle -- one of the many reasons inlines are better, if inauthentic).
Tesla has issued a press release stating they have open sourced their patents. But open source isn't (so far as I am aware) a legal term of art, especially with regards to patent law. Nor is a press release a legal release. (Though it may establish intent.)
Specifically, such a press release establishes promissory estoppel. If you make a promise that you would reasonably expect would induce others to take some action, you cannot later retract that promise, even if the promise wasn't committed in any sort of formal contract.
And firearms instructors like me will cringe at the way she has the muzzle covered with her hand and pointed at her face. Don't do that.
I suspect there's a long history of portraits available to you for good "don't" illustrations.
Oh, definitely.
You could probably teach your whole class off of this one (although they were at least all pointed in the general vicinity of the ground).
Actually, they're doing pretty well. All of the guns are pointed in safe directions and they all have their fingers off the triggers. I don't think I'd take a family Christmas photo like that, but it looks like they're all following the safety rules.
which shows her holding a rifle.
And the supporters of SJW movement, which supports abolishing the 2nd amendment, will implode.
And firearms instructors like me will cringe at the way she has the muzzle covered with her hand and pointed at her face. Don't do that.
My fault for being terse.
I thought it was sort of weird how someone with a Google+ tag would accuse Google of deliberately sending users to malicious sites
Heh, and a Google employee as well (aside: I started using the G+ login to slashdot a while ago when slashdot was temporarily broken and for some reason wouldn't accept my old login. Clicking the "log in with G+" button was super easy, so I did it. I have a much longer posting history, and much lower UID, as "swillden").