Polite society dictates that even though I can hear things not intended for my ears that I don't put them on the internet.
Those who have crucified Bradley Manning and who would like to do the same to Julian Assange are glad to hear you say that. They are winning the war for our minds, and you are complicit in their victory.
Those statements don't follow.
There are two ways to a polite society. The first is the Google way, which with Glass, means there are no secrets between anyone. Everyone will be polite to each other because they have to. Just like how if everyone had guns pointed at everyone else, they'd be pretty darned polite as well. Of course, this does restrict a lot of freedom since everything is known about everyone. You can't do anything someone somewhere might disapprove of, for example (be it play video games, smoke, cuss, visit adult places, etc).
The other is one where we have private lives that we keep private and use common etiquette to not be asshats to everyone (and enforced by a higher level - i.e., the law). This means overhearing something between two individuals conducting private business isn't acted on by third parties and the like. Unless there is significant public interest (this excludes sensational, but otherwise private dealings - e.g., Apple leaks aren't covered, but whistleblowing is)
Note, I said "private business". This excludes what Bradley Manning did because what he leaked was conversations between public officials. We don't call our government workers "public servants" for nothing. In which case the actions of public servants are well, of public interest.
One can note that this sort of government openness is of the first type of politeness which is fine because barring international treaty, there is no such thing as international law, so the only way to ensure otherwise unregulated government from creating havoc is complete openness.
My TV is less than half an inch thick, nobody is going to 'set' something on top of that.
What I need is a Set-Bottom box so large that I can put my TV on it.
How about a "set back box" that uses a lot of the deadspace behind a TV? the IR control signals can be either bounced off the back wall or a small little mirror/prism can distribute it behind the TV for all those boxes. You don't need to see most of them anyways.
There was an article on how Facebook did their software updates. First they compiled their PHP into C, then compiled that to produce a binary that's several gigabytes in size (with all the resources and stuff).
That binary is then sent to their datacenter via Bittorrent so it can replicate itself across all the servers efficiently. The final stage is to bring down the node, swap the binaries and bring it back up.
DRM means I get to watch Netflix, so I'm all for DRM in HTML5. If it's not embraced in some way by the standard, it will happen anyway, and be platform specific and even more annoying.
THEN LET IT BE. The HTML standard shouldn't suffer because of your lack of willpower.
Yes, and we'll return to the web of the mid 2000's where everyone assumed you have flash, because anyone who wanted to see the web had flash, and if you wanted to see the web, you needed flash.
In which case, the HTML was just to launch the flash player.
Same thing here - if everyone assumes their target market will watch Netflix, they'll make the assumption that whatever Netflix requires, they have on their PCs and thus be free to use it.
Face it - most people will have Silverlight installed, and the only reason they have it installed is Netflix. If web developers needed "rich" tools, they're going to assume you have Silverlight installed.
The only reason we broke from requiring flash on the web was one platform didn't ship with flash despite much protest.
At the very least it's very much open to a Man in the Middle attack. All you have to do is store exactly what the card present and code that into your own chip for use at any place that takes NFC read cards. More likely though it's just obfuscated because the terminal reading it still uses a dialup connection to phone the bank and transmits those details for processing. Which means it will remain "encrypted" for exactly however long it takes to reverse engineer one of those NFC readers.
No need to reverse engineer, man in the middle is here if you have a couple of Gnexes with 3G or WiFi connection between them and one has a modded Cyanogen kernel.
NFC Proxy. You can't read it and store later, but you can have your helper read an NFC card while you use your phone to pay for something. NFC Proxy basically captures the data sends it to the other phone which sends it to the card, then captures the card's response, sends it back, and your phone echoes the response to the terminal.
It's real-time only.
If you just want to capture cards to clone them, the other NFC readers work just fine capturing track 2 data that you can write back. You won't have CVV information though, and a lot of places require CVV as well.
i mean isn't that the only difficulty of assembling ikea furniture? reading the manual instead of just diving in and hoping you'll figure it out yourself?
Often times the dive-in approach is required at some stage -- even if you RTFM -- due to incompleteness or mistake laden documentation.
In other words: T M is to F'd to R.
Strange, the IKEA instructions tend to be fairly good. Perhaps because they have people actually testing them?
The only real time I just "dove in" was when there was very little provided other than a quick-start guide with the rest of the documentation on PDF somewhere. In which case reading the docs is more work than just diving in. But since IKEA, Nintendo and others provide full printed docs, I tend to read them because it's a lot easier to sit down with the thing and the manual.
Hell, the IKEA ones tend to be printed on large paper that sits flat and shows a lot of detail, rather than cost save and print it on tiny slips where reproduction is poor and details become smudges.
Oh I know the problem! IKEA manuals assume you have a brain! That's it., the manuals don't hand hold you through the process. You have to figure out which way a piece is supposed to go (to hide the unlaminated surface and figure out which way is up). You also have to interpret drawings that assume a working knowledge of the tools and parts that came in the kit. The instructions are too intellectual for most of the population!
It is very common to be able to buy a phone without contract in the Netherlands, and then buy a separate sim-card somewhere.
You can do that in the U.S. as well. You will just pay the full price.
Actually, despite saying the "no contract" price, most places will NOT sell you a phone unattached. The "no contract" price applies only to those who don't qualify for the upgrade price because they're still in a contract that they can't upgrade with.
Other than a few crap phones, you can't walk into a Best Buy and walk out with an unlocked cellphone - even the no contract ones are locked. And ones that aren't locked (e.g., Nexus phones) they don't let you pay the no contract price and go.
The only way to get an unlocked cellphone is pretty much either online, or walk into an Apple store (about your only option if you don't want a Nexus S or other crap phone and need it immediately). Now, you can get it through HTC (which hopefully they'll sell retail) as well.
The reason for this is carrier stores and resellers get a commission for every contract they sell - everytime you see a post that says "$100 gift card with new activation" - that $100 comes out of the contract commission (typically $150 or so per contract, decreasing with shorter ones). That's why they won't sell you a phone off contract unless you're stuck in one.
Of course, the other problem wasn't just the incorrect identification, but also the witch hunts. That alone is probably a good reason to simply stay out of this sort of crowdsourced game.
Or the saying goes - the more things change, the more they stay the same.
The fact you bring up witch hunts illustrates it brilliantly - all that's happened is we've moved the angry mob with pitchforks online and globally. But we're still basically the same after what, 300 years?
The only really good thing is it was solved before the lynching and trials began in earnest. Otherwise what's really happened is Salem all over again.
To be sure, I'm a bit surprised Qualcomm or ARM hasn't stepped up to that plate- they're selling hardware and the mojo is in the cores themselves. And, in the case of Qualcomm, I'm fairly sure the original IP rights holder (AMD) wouldn't be to touchy about them opening the Adreno up.
Except there's probably tons of third party IP still in the cores and tons of patented stuff in the drivers, so opening it up isn't possible.
I'm sure these guys would love to open things up - their main goal is to sell more chips, after all.
OTOH, other than the FOSS market, there isn't much demand - most users of these chips don't bother needing the specifics of the code - they'd just take it and lump it into their product as-is.
AMD may have helped create the x86-64 market, but now it's getting killed by it. soon Intel will be the only major player. ARM market is AMD's only hope.
Intel won't let AMD die. In fact, AMD is right where Intel wants them to be - big enough to ward off government regulators, small enough to not be a huge pain in the rear. Intel and other large companies are scared of government regulation and monopoly declaration, and we do know that Intel has committed enough sins that if the regulators look hard enough, they can make a case to break up Intel. Including separating the ASIC design and foundry parts (and we know Intel has a LOT of foundry capacity). And I'm sure Intel's shareholders would rather give up some revenue to ward off the much bigger hit that would happen when the government regulators step in.
It's entirely possible that Intel has a bunch of "AMD rescue" plans - ranging from simple "let's just buy up all of AMD's CPUs and bury them" to more elaborate schemes. Of course, Intel cannot directly fund AMD. Perhaps Intel could give AMD some patents in an emergency.
Heck, you could argue that Intel told Sony and Microsoft to buy AMD chips - it gives AMD a nice steady income for the next few years. Intel could've used their extensive fab capacity to make custom chips for the consoles (much more easily than AMD can), but you can bet an opportunity like this to help prevent AMD from keeling over was just perfect.
And no, this isn't unusual in the business world. What you see as competitors can have all sorts of incestuous relationships amongst themselves - it's not unknown to have competitors to buy parts from each other. And you can bet Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung and others are far more chummy to each other than patent lawsuits or settlements will imply. There's enough back room deals and arrangements that really hide the interdependence on each other they all have.
I doubt she "can't" afford the $10,000 software. I mean, if one of her $100,000 pieces of physical gear failed, she would replace it without thinking.
I *suspect* what is going on is that she is unable to process that software is worth $10,000 when she gets "super cool" games for her iPhone for only $4.99.
From what I've seen, professionals are generally super-penny pinchers. Something to do with the fact that they've went through university and all that extra training and therefore are smarter that the general population and thus know better, or something.
I had to have some surgery done, and the consults with the surgeons were done in offices that really showed their age - being run down and everything. The computers they used were basically the best buy special of the week - the generally cheapass ones.
Likewise, if you go to see an attorney, they may have the nicest offices, but have IT equipment from the dark ages - again, the best buy special computers on the desk, some old PC serving as the "file server" and the like. And the IT guy is probably harried and underpaid, looking around for the next opportunity.
IN essence, the computer is just a tool in their toolbelt. If it works, they won't bother with maintenance. Upgrading is a possibility, but it's a tool. What they have now works, and unless they're shown a compelling reason to upgrade they won't spend a dime on it. They probably don't care that XP won't be supported anymore - if it works now, it's not worth spending money on it.
You can yell and scream and shout, but all they hear is "money money money flowing out". And yes, that $10,000 they save by not upgrading means it's $10,000 that can be spent elsewhere buying something else or doing something related to their line of business. Even if something needs upgrading (e.g., the old crufty 7-year old desktop repurposed as a server is dying every 5 minutes rather than needing a reboot hourly), they'll just find something else to replace it with - perhaps another old crufty desktop that was the receiptionist's PC from when they started years ago.
And yes, they're very receptive of open-source, because all they hear is free! free! free! (beer).
Why don't they put their heads together and get the voice-activated commands working properly. I have not yet been able to get my new Android phone to follow any of my voice commands. It does something, but never what I ask for
Ah, so when Samsung copied Siri to make S-Voice, they copied it exactly? Down to the uselessness of it?
If I recall, wattage = V * I. So in this case, 5V * 20A = 100W.
Yes, but you're going to need fat ass jumper cables for your USB cables because the gauge of the wire determines its current handling capacity (or ampacity).
If you want wires that are comparable to what we use today and still pass in 100W, you need to use higher voltages.
The major problem is that thin wires have high IIR losses - the square of the current times the resistance is how much power is lost in the wire. If you want to carry more power more efficiently, you use higher voltages. And past a certain point, the wire just can't carry the power, period. If your cable has a resistance of 0.1 ohms, and you pass in 20A, you're talking about 20*20*0.1 = 40W of power lost in the cable (as heat). Decrease the resistance 10 times and you're still talking about 4W loss through the cable, or nearly what high-power USB (500mA) provided. Of course, we're also assuming your cable doesn't burn up from the heat and catch fire.
In fact, if you're passing 20A through 5V, with a sufficiently small tip, you'd have a welder.
So if you have 4 USB SS ports on a motherboard that motherboard is going to have to be able to supply 400W @ 5V? You can't be serious. We'll need dedicated power connections on the motherboard just to supply this.
Not to mention what voltages are involved.
At 100W, you're not going to use 5V anymore - you're talking 20A, and your USB cables will be like jumper cables to have the ampacity without losing it all in the cable (cable losses are IIR losses - they go up with the square of the current).
You're probably going to make it a 48V Vbus (to keep with industry standard voltages), where your cables are now only going to carry just over 2A, which still makes for decently thin cables that can be packed up and moved. But of course, it means your power supply has to be able to supply 48V. And the voltages are getting high enough to be dangerous. And probably needing new plugs and connectors so the PCB creepage distances are maintained - don't want it to arc over to neighbouring traces now, do we?
Sikorsky unofficially holds the record on fastest helicopter (the Sikorsky X2) which while not stopping the rotors, use them to generate a little lift for high-speed flight. It too uses a pusher prop and wings...
Results posted today reflect realities from a bit back in history. The shift away from laptops and desktops is ramping up extremely quickly. I'm not sure I've ever witnessed such a rapid shift in the marketplace. The closest I can think of might be the migration away from IE and that took several years really.
The shift from desktops to laptops happened rather slowly - until the early 2000s, laptops were considered inferior to desktops in every possible way except one. Sometime in the middle 2000s did laptops overtake desktop sales - being powerful enough that mobility was extremely important. Enough so that even heavy engineering companies see value in using laptops over desktops and stop issuing desktops unless really required. The cost isn't much more and the benefits far outweigh the difference.
The thing is, though, computers are maintenance heavy - between all the malware and viruses and all that, and people are fed up with stuff like that. A modern PC is like an early generation car that broke down every few miles that required everyone to be their own mechanic and understand how it works. Or even like early generation computers that ran for 30 minutes before something needed fixing. People got fed up and demanded devices that were more "sealed" and required less maintenance - like how a modern vehicle can run for thousands of miles without popping the hood open. Even then you just need to change the oil and top up fluids.
Hence tablets, smartphones and other devices - stuff that handles 90% of what a user would use a PC for, but with none of the headaches or time consuming maintenance required.
Expensive isn't the word for it. Changing the battery technology would require months of re-engineering work and months more of certification, possibly grounding the plane for a year, and that doesn't factor in the performance loss from the extra weight. The result could cripple Boeing, possibly fatally, to implement a solution that probably is not required.
And most likely, not work at all.
The new airplanes use a lot of electricity (the generators on the 787 generate a total of 1.5MW of power - about 5 times what an older airliner had). These things power all the usual - avionics, lights, the little power plugs by the seats, etc. And they power some new things as well - including deice/anti-ice equipment (using electrical pumps and heaters saves a lot of weight in not having to route engine bleed air everywhere with associated pneumatic valves and all that).
The problem with this is of course, it means the critical load is a lot higher, so they have to store a LOT more power for emergencies. Hence using lithium-ion batteries.
It's also something the new Airbuses are going to be using as well - the A350 (the competitor to the 787) is supposed to use similar batteries.
The most obvious give-away is when it says "you must enable installing from untrusted sources", aka side-loading, to use the.apk file that just downloaded. For some not at all suspicious reason it isn't on Play. Ignore the warnings you see about not trusting unknown applications/companies. Just keep clicking "yes".
People who fall for this are too dumb to use a smartphone. They are on a par with people who drive over cliffs or off bridges because their sat-nav told them to. If you don't make the slightest effort to understand the messages you are being shown on screen or to do anything other than what you are told then, well... Don't blame the OS.
Actually, if you are one of those people, please go jump of a bridge right now. Ignore the danger signs and "no swimming" notice, it's perfectly safe, honest.
And you don't have that setting checked?
I mean, do you not install apps from say, Amazon? Or the Humble Bundle? Or dozens of other legit places that sell apps? (Isn't that the whole POINT of using Android? If you wanted to stick with the Play store, then iOS would work just as well).
Not to mention the folks who visit sites like AppCake to get their "free" apps. (There are very convenient tutorials on how to use those places, as well).
The problem is Android makes it an all-or-nothing procedure. You can't enable just Amazon and Play. It's either Play or everything.
As for complaining about that setting - please refer your security concerns to the following concept: Dancing Pigs (or rabbits). Users are task-oriented. Phones, computers, are tools meant to aid in getting tasks done. Just like your mechanic should not have to bother recompiling kernels or system updates in order to fix your car, people shouldn't need to understand how their engine works in order to drive one.
(Hell, you can probably bet mechanics wished drivers would understand how their car works...)
Perhaps that's why people have taken on tablets and other stuff with enthusiasm and shied away from buying lots of PCs. The flexibility and freedom of PCs is nice, but that comes with relatively huge maintenance requirements. Likewise how people watch Netflix using DVD/Blu-Ray/media tanks - hook it up, enter in your account information, done.
Every single Ars Technica laptop review complains about the trackpad. No trackpad is sufficient. As a matter of fact, we should all consider the presence of glowing praise about a trackpad in a Ars Technica review a clear signal that they're all being held hostage by crazed gunmen and the authorities need to be informed.
Until you read a Mac laptop review. There it seems they forget to review the trackpad - about the only complaint I found was a news article way back in 2008. I don't think they have any review of any still supported Mac laptop that mentions anything about the trackpad.
Then again, perhaps Apple has a patent on making a good trackpad, leaving everyone else only able to make crappy ones.
You can give out your virginity once only. If you licence under BSD, anyone can take your code and run with it. If you later relicence to GPL, companies can still use the earlier BSD licensed code instead of following the GPL rules.
And depending on how close new versions stick to the old versions. Eventually the effort of maintaining the old branch is going to get bigger and bigger as the code base diverges.
Anyhow, why does everyone see BSD as bad because it allows closed source development? BSD is bad because it enables copyleft theft as well!
Yes, the GPL allows locking up BSD code as well. A GPL'd project can take code from a BSD project. However, a BSD project cannot take code from a GPL project.
This leads to scenarios that have played out before in the FOSS world - a GPL project takes code from a BSD project. But said BSD project cannot take back the improvements the GPL project made.
In fact, this scenario is even worse than closed source - at least closed source make it don't ask don't tell - the BSD project doesn't care. But the GPL'd project doing the same is flaunting the changed code in their face and they can't do a thing about it. Even worse, the GPL folks are arguing about BSD being locked up by proprietary licenses, when they're just as guilty of doing the same thing - the GPL is locking up BSD code.
Which is fine, if it wasn't for the GPL folks being so in-you-face about it and ignoring the ugly fact that they're just as guilty of the same thing. And claiming superiority about being better than BSD.
Anyhow, I would release my code GPLv2. Make it incompatible with a growing number of GPLv3(+) code out there. Interestingly, GPL can vulture its own as well - a v2 project using some v2+ code can find that v2+ code locked up if the code suddenly incorporates v3(+) code that turns the entire thing GPLv3. The mind boggles.
No wonder I've seen companies start enforcing open-source usage policies - it's much to easy to end up in a conflict where some v2 code and v3 code end up together inadvertently.
I will never understand why phishing and malware attempts always have some weird tell that they're not legit. Whether it's some bizarre choice of words in the midst of an otherwise fairly legit looking piece of email or Cyrillic text in the middle of an otherwise semi-legit looking app there's always a tell.
It's as if the authors are carefully trying to prey only on the truly stupid.
There is some logic in that - if you eliminate the ones smart enough to do stuff like that, you have a better chance of remaining undetected. Think of it - you get a phish email, see some obvious misspellings, delete it and move on. If it was a bit too perfect, you might realize the URL is wrong and report it to the appropriate authority. Like Google Docs (which is a common vector for creating fake login sites, go figure).
But if a user doesn't notice, there's a greater chance they'll not notice the weird URL and just blindly enter their details as well.
Anyhow, notice how Android's permission list is getting harder and harder to view? Just the other day I was looking at a respectable app, and a fairly important permission was hidden underneath "Other permissions". Namely, it had access to the Accounts section of Android. Which is a major WTF because a crafty app could use that for ads and spam you, knowing they're verified e-mail addresses because they've got your Google account, your Dropbox account and other accounts that Android may be managing. And it wasn't listed by default.
They don't have them because they don't want them. They can be manually installed. Kindle wants you to go to Amazon, etc. There is no Google tax.
They cannot be preloaded with them because Google controls it.
There is a set of requirements that a vendor must meet in order to qualify to have the Google apps. These include passing the CTS, being an OHA member (and paying the necessary dues) and having an agreement signed with Google. This will get the OEM access to the official Android repository (the one that is pushed to AOSP every so often).
Note that you must be an OHA member and sign the Google agreement. There may or may not be a per-device royalty that's payable as well.
While AOSP products CAN have Google Apps installed manually, they technically do not qualify and there's no support for it, and in a sense, they are "pirated" versions. Google has allowed Cyanogen to be the sole distributor, however, as Cyanogen supports phones that have already paid the tax.
But there are plenty of Android devices out there that are pure AOSP and do NOT come with Google. A lot of them ship with alternative app stores (and sometimes, Google just isn't allowed - see China). You can find them as those $150 tablets that are sold - they run Android, but have not been blessed by Google and are unable to ship with Google apps. You may install them yourself, though.
Amazon, Barnes and Noble, etc., they rely on an extensively customized version of Android whose business model relies on alternative app stores. This is not to be confused with devices that could run it, but not ship with it because they're not certified.
In fact, I think there was this very situation a year or two ago where a tablet sold at K-mart inadvertently came with Google apps, which were later removed from subsequent versions as they were not allowed to do so. As Google controls those apps, there could've been penalties.
CNN/NBC/Fox all want to be the first to get the story out. No matter what, for some reason being first though bad info - is good.
Then, they have hours of airtime to fill. So they use unknown "fact" combined with stupid pundits to just fill airtime. It is a bunch of shit in summation.
It's the evolution of news. All the media has taken the blogger threat seriously - thinking that they have to compete against Joe Schmoe with a blog reporting on news, and being able to do it quicker means catching up on twitter and other stuff. So quicker becomes better because you want to be the one to break it first, not the one who breaks it 5 minutes later. Plus we've all convinced ourselves that traditional media is dying because the internet can get it out quicker faster and cheaper
Of course, this rolls back into the discussion of something with a long update cycle - newspapers and magazines. There the added value they can have is NOT bringing the latest conjecture, but spend the extra time fact checking and following up because you cannot compete on instant, but you can compete on analysis.
Plus, there's a lot of news I don't care about knowing right this instant - if I find out the next day, that's fine with me. Sometimes knowing immediately isn't very valuable E.g., the bombing - yes it happened. But whether I find out two seconds after or the next day, my life remains unchanged for the most part because I'm nowhere near Boston, nor do I have friends or relatives there. And even if I did, I don't care about what caused it - the only information I'd want is "are they safe?". The type of bomb is irrelevant information in the near term.
That's the problem with the American political system, the people are too lazy to do anything, but complain.
Once elected, they don't care about you or your complaints, only power and $$$ from their corporate overlords.
That's the problem with the American political system
Perhaps the best way is these days, to follow the constitution. 1 representative per 30,000 people.
It's doable these days - you don't have to fit all 10,000 reps in one building - we have telecommuting, after all.
This has enormous implications.
First, pay will have to be cut dramatically - I believe the original founding fathers expected politicians to sacrifice themselves for political life. We can easily do this by making their pay equal to the median of the people they represent (not the average).
Second, corporate influence has just gone down significantly. When you have a company spending $1B on campaign contributions, that's rougly $2M per representive right now. With 10,000 of them, that's $100K apiece, or just over $3 per person they're representing. Companies wanting to buy laws suddenly have to pay a whole lot o more money. And the amount can actually be raised by individuals in the community.
Third, more local representation - because they're going to represent a smaller slice of the population, so it's a lot easier to actually see what people in the community want. And with lowered pay, they get to see the same problems everyone else in the community has.
Fourth, less whipping possible - you try keeping the entire party in line - if we assume half and half, you try keeping 5,000 people in line - it's a lot harder.
In other words: this generation doesn't care for limiting other developers' choices in development in the way Stallman wanted. They prefer to just give away the code instead of forcing everyone who uses it to open their own work. Good for this generation, I'd say. They've seen the outcome of a "GPL-only" world, and they didn't like it.
Or maybe they're tired of license confusion?
You can have two codebases that are "GPL" but which cannot be mixed together because they violate the GPL.
Yes, you can end up in this situation very easily, because GPLv2 is not compatible with GPLv3. You can combine GPLv2+ code with GPLv3 code (producing a GPLv3 work), GPLv2+ with GPLv3+ (producing GPLv3+ work), but NOT GPLv2 and GPLv3 because GPLv3 contains clauses that violate other clauses in GPLv2.
Anyone with a reasonably large codebase has to re-verify that there is no GPLv2 code in there before moving over to GPLv3.
Of course, there's also a chance that they're doing it because companies are scared of GPLv3 - I've seen companies enforce open-source policies because of GPLv3 where you're not allowed to use any GPL'd code - whether it's for internal use only or distribution without engaging lawyers and all that stuff.
Of course, things like Android have also helped raise the profile of alternative open-source licenses - I'm sure a lot of GPL'd projects used the GPL because that's all they knew - that all FOSS software was GPL'd.
(And for the record, I tend to use a mix of BSD, MIT and GPLv2 (not v2+ or v3) for my code. Heck, you can even use unmodified BSD (the GPL-incompatible one)).
Slashdot Mirror
Those statements don't follow.
There are two ways to a polite society. The first is the Google way, which with Glass, means there are no secrets between anyone. Everyone will be polite to each other because they have to. Just like how if everyone had guns pointed at everyone else, they'd be pretty darned polite as well. Of course, this does restrict a lot of freedom since everything is known about everyone. You can't do anything someone somewhere might disapprove of, for example (be it play video games, smoke, cuss, visit adult places, etc).
The other is one where we have private lives that we keep private and use common etiquette to not be asshats to everyone (and enforced by a higher level - i.e., the law). This means overhearing something between two individuals conducting private business isn't acted on by third parties and the like. Unless there is significant public interest (this excludes sensational, but otherwise private dealings - e.g., Apple leaks aren't covered, but whistleblowing is)
Note, I said "private business". This excludes what Bradley Manning did because what he leaked was conversations between public officials. We don't call our government workers "public servants" for nothing. In which case the actions of public servants are well, of public interest.
One can note that this sort of government openness is of the first type of politeness which is fine because barring international treaty, there is no such thing as international law, so the only way to ensure otherwise unregulated government from creating havoc is complete openness.
How about a "set back box" that uses a lot of the deadspace behind a TV? the IR control signals can be either bounced off the back wall or a small little mirror/prism can distribute it behind the TV for all those boxes. You don't need to see most of them anyways.
There was an article on how Facebook did their software updates. First they compiled their PHP into C, then compiled that to produce a binary that's several gigabytes in size (with all the resources and stuff).
That binary is then sent to their datacenter via Bittorrent so it can replicate itself across all the servers efficiently. The final stage is to bring down the node, swap the binaries and bring it back up.
http://agilewarrior.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/how-facebook-pushes-new-code-live/
There was another article on it from Facebook, but I can't seem to find it.
Yes, and we'll return to the web of the mid 2000's where everyone assumed you have flash, because anyone who wanted to see the web had flash, and if you wanted to see the web, you needed flash.
In which case, the HTML was just to launch the flash player.
Same thing here - if everyone assumes their target market will watch Netflix, they'll make the assumption that whatever Netflix requires, they have on their PCs and thus be free to use it.
Face it - most people will have Silverlight installed, and the only reason they have it installed is Netflix. If web developers needed "rich" tools, they're going to assume you have Silverlight installed.
The only reason we broke from requiring flash on the web was one platform didn't ship with flash despite much protest.
No need to reverse engineer, man in the middle is here if you have a couple of Gnexes with 3G or WiFi connection between them and one has a modded Cyanogen kernel.
NFC Proxy. You can't read it and store later, but you can have your helper read an NFC card while you use your phone to pay for something. NFC Proxy basically captures the data sends it to the other phone which sends it to the card, then captures the card's response, sends it back, and your phone echoes the response to the terminal.
It's real-time only.
If you just want to capture cards to clone them, the other NFC readers work just fine capturing track 2 data that you can write back. You won't have CVV information though, and a lot of places require CVV as well.
Strange, the IKEA instructions tend to be fairly good. Perhaps because they have people actually testing them?
The only real time I just "dove in" was when there was very little provided other than a quick-start guide with the rest of the documentation on PDF somewhere. In which case reading the docs is more work than just diving in. But since IKEA, Nintendo and others provide full printed docs, I tend to read them because it's a lot easier to sit down with the thing and the manual.
Hell, the IKEA ones tend to be printed on large paper that sits flat and shows a lot of detail, rather than cost save and print it on tiny slips where reproduction is poor and details become smudges.
Oh I know the problem! IKEA manuals assume you have a brain! That's it., the manuals don't hand hold you through the process. You have to figure out which way a piece is supposed to go (to hide the unlaminated surface and figure out which way is up). You also have to interpret drawings that assume a working knowledge of the tools and parts that came in the kit. The instructions are too intellectual for most of the population!
Actually, despite saying the "no contract" price, most places will NOT sell you a phone unattached. The "no contract" price applies only to those who don't qualify for the upgrade price because they're still in a contract that they can't upgrade with.
Other than a few crap phones, you can't walk into a Best Buy and walk out with an unlocked cellphone - even the no contract ones are locked. And ones that aren't locked (e.g., Nexus phones) they don't let you pay the no contract price and go.
The only way to get an unlocked cellphone is pretty much either online, or walk into an Apple store (about your only option if you don't want a Nexus S or other crap phone and need it immediately). Now, you can get it through HTC (which hopefully they'll sell retail) as well.
The reason for this is carrier stores and resellers get a commission for every contract they sell - everytime you see a post that says "$100 gift card with new activation" - that $100 comes out of the contract commission (typically $150 or so per contract, decreasing with shorter ones). That's why they won't sell you a phone off contract unless you're stuck in one.
Or the saying goes - the more things change, the more they stay the same.
The fact you bring up witch hunts illustrates it brilliantly - all that's happened is we've moved the angry mob with pitchforks online and globally. But we're still basically the same after what, 300 years?
The only really good thing is it was solved before the lynching and trials began in earnest. Otherwise what's really happened is Salem all over again.
Except there's probably tons of third party IP still in the cores and tons of patented stuff in the drivers, so opening it up isn't possible.
I'm sure these guys would love to open things up - their main goal is to sell more chips, after all.
OTOH, other than the FOSS market, there isn't much demand - most users of these chips don't bother needing the specifics of the code - they'd just take it and lump it into their product as-is.
Intel won't let AMD die. In fact, AMD is right where Intel wants them to be - big enough to ward off government regulators, small enough to not be a huge pain in the rear. Intel and other large companies are scared of government regulation and monopoly declaration, and we do know that Intel has committed enough sins that if the regulators look hard enough, they can make a case to break up Intel. Including separating the ASIC design and foundry parts (and we know Intel has a LOT of foundry capacity). And I'm sure Intel's shareholders would rather give up some revenue to ward off the much bigger hit that would happen when the government regulators step in.
It's entirely possible that Intel has a bunch of "AMD rescue" plans - ranging from simple "let's just buy up all of AMD's CPUs and bury them" to more elaborate schemes. Of course, Intel cannot directly fund AMD. Perhaps Intel could give AMD some patents in an emergency.
Heck, you could argue that Intel told Sony and Microsoft to buy AMD chips - it gives AMD a nice steady income for the next few years. Intel could've used their extensive fab capacity to make custom chips for the consoles (much more easily than AMD can), but you can bet an opportunity like this to help prevent AMD from keeling over was just perfect.
And no, this isn't unusual in the business world. What you see as competitors can have all sorts of incestuous relationships amongst themselves - it's not unknown to have competitors to buy parts from each other. And you can bet Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung and others are far more chummy to each other than patent lawsuits or settlements will imply. There's enough back room deals and arrangements that really hide the interdependence on each other they all have.
From what I've seen, professionals are generally super-penny pinchers. Something to do with the fact that they've went through university and all that extra training and therefore are smarter that the general population and thus know better, or something.
I had to have some surgery done, and the consults with the surgeons were done in offices that really showed their age - being run down and everything. The computers they used were basically the best buy special of the week - the generally cheapass ones.
Likewise, if you go to see an attorney, they may have the nicest offices, but have IT equipment from the dark ages - again, the best buy special computers on the desk, some old PC serving as the "file server" and the like. And the IT guy is probably harried and underpaid, looking around for the next opportunity.
IN essence, the computer is just a tool in their toolbelt. If it works, they won't bother with maintenance. Upgrading is a possibility, but it's a tool. What they have now works, and unless they're shown a compelling reason to upgrade they won't spend a dime on it. They probably don't care that XP won't be supported anymore - if it works now, it's not worth spending money on it.
You can yell and scream and shout, but all they hear is "money money money flowing out". And yes, that $10,000 they save by not upgrading means it's $10,000 that can be spent elsewhere buying something else or doing something related to their line of business. Even if something needs upgrading (e.g., the old crufty 7-year old desktop repurposed as a server is dying every 5 minutes rather than needing a reboot hourly), they'll just find something else to replace it with - perhaps another old crufty desktop that was the receiptionist's PC from when they started years ago.
And yes, they're very receptive of open-source, because all they hear is free! free! free! (beer).
Ah, so when Samsung copied Siri to make S-Voice, they copied it exactly? Down to the uselessness of it?
Yes, but you're going to need fat ass jumper cables for your USB cables because the gauge of the wire determines its current handling capacity (or ampacity).
If you want wires that are comparable to what we use today and still pass in 100W, you need to use higher voltages.
The major problem is that thin wires have high IIR losses - the square of the current times the resistance is how much power is lost in the wire. If you want to carry more power more efficiently, you use higher voltages. And past a certain point, the wire just can't carry the power, period. If your cable has a resistance of 0.1 ohms, and you pass in 20A, you're talking about 20*20*0.1 = 40W of power lost in the cable (as heat). Decrease the resistance 10 times and you're still talking about 4W loss through the cable, or nearly what high-power USB (500mA) provided. Of course, we're also assuming your cable doesn't burn up from the heat and catch fire.
In fact, if you're passing 20A through 5V, with a sufficiently small tip, you'd have a welder.
Not to mention what voltages are involved.
At 100W, you're not going to use 5V anymore - you're talking 20A, and your USB cables will be like jumper cables to have the ampacity without losing it all in the cable (cable losses are IIR losses - they go up with the square of the current).
You're probably going to make it a 48V Vbus (to keep with industry standard voltages), where your cables are now only going to carry just over 2A, which still makes for decently thin cables that can be packed up and moved. But of course, it means your power supply has to be able to supply 48V. And the voltages are getting high enough to be dangerous. And probably needing new plugs and connectors so the PCB creepage distances are maintained - don't want it to arc over to neighbouring traces now, do we?
Sikorsky unofficially holds the record on fastest helicopter (the Sikorsky X2) which while not stopping the rotors, use them to generate a little lift for high-speed flight. It too uses a pusher prop and wings...
The shift from desktops to laptops happened rather slowly - until the early 2000s, laptops were considered inferior to desktops in every possible way except one. Sometime in the middle 2000s did laptops overtake desktop sales - being powerful enough that mobility was extremely important. Enough so that even heavy engineering companies see value in using laptops over desktops and stop issuing desktops unless really required. The cost isn't much more and the benefits far outweigh the difference.
The thing is, though, computers are maintenance heavy - between all the malware and viruses and all that, and people are fed up with stuff like that. A modern PC is like an early generation car that broke down every few miles that required everyone to be their own mechanic and understand how it works. Or even like early generation computers that ran for 30 minutes before something needed fixing. People got fed up and demanded devices that were more "sealed" and required less maintenance - like how a modern vehicle can run for thousands of miles without popping the hood open. Even then you just need to change the oil and top up fluids.
Hence tablets, smartphones and other devices - stuff that handles 90% of what a user would use a PC for, but with none of the headaches or time consuming maintenance required.
And most likely, not work at all.
The new airplanes use a lot of electricity (the generators on the 787 generate a total of 1.5MW of power - about 5 times what an older airliner had). These things power all the usual - avionics, lights, the little power plugs by the seats, etc. And they power some new things as well - including deice/anti-ice equipment (using electrical pumps and heaters saves a lot of weight in not having to route engine bleed air everywhere with associated pneumatic valves and all that).
The problem with this is of course, it means the critical load is a lot higher, so they have to store a LOT more power for emergencies. Hence using lithium-ion batteries.
It's also something the new Airbuses are going to be using as well - the A350 (the competitor to the 787) is supposed to use similar batteries.
And you don't have that setting checked?
I mean, do you not install apps from say, Amazon? Or the Humble Bundle? Or dozens of other legit places that sell apps? (Isn't that the whole POINT of using Android? If you wanted to stick with the Play store, then iOS would work just as well).
Not to mention the folks who visit sites like AppCake to get their "free" apps. (There are very convenient tutorials on how to use those places, as well).
The problem is Android makes it an all-or-nothing procedure. You can't enable just Amazon and Play. It's either Play or everything.
As for complaining about that setting - please refer your security concerns to the following concept: Dancing Pigs (or rabbits). Users are task-oriented. Phones, computers, are tools meant to aid in getting tasks done. Just like your mechanic should not have to bother recompiling kernels or system updates in order to fix your car, people shouldn't need to understand how their engine works in order to drive one.
(Hell, you can probably bet mechanics wished drivers would understand how their car works...)
Perhaps that's why people have taken on tablets and other stuff with enthusiasm and shied away from buying lots of PCs. The flexibility and freedom of PCs is nice, but that comes with relatively huge maintenance requirements. Likewise how people watch Netflix using DVD/Blu-Ray/media tanks - hook it up, enter in your account information, done.
Until you read a Mac laptop review. There it seems they forget to review the trackpad - about the only complaint I found was a news article way back in 2008. I don't think they have any review of any still supported Mac laptop that mentions anything about the trackpad.
Then again, perhaps Apple has a patent on making a good trackpad, leaving everyone else only able to make crappy ones.
And depending on how close new versions stick to the old versions. Eventually the effort of maintaining the old branch is going to get bigger and bigger as the code base diverges.
Anyhow, why does everyone see BSD as bad because it allows closed source development? BSD is bad because it enables copyleft theft as well!
Yes, the GPL allows locking up BSD code as well. A GPL'd project can take code from a BSD project. However, a BSD project cannot take code from a GPL project.
This leads to scenarios that have played out before in the FOSS world - a GPL project takes code from a BSD project. But said BSD project cannot take back the improvements the GPL project made.
In fact, this scenario is even worse than closed source - at least closed source make it don't ask don't tell - the BSD project doesn't care. But the GPL'd project doing the same is flaunting the changed code in their face and they can't do a thing about it. Even worse, the GPL folks are arguing about BSD being locked up by proprietary licenses, when they're just as guilty of doing the same thing - the GPL is locking up BSD code.
Which is fine, if it wasn't for the GPL folks being so in-you-face about it and ignoring the ugly fact that they're just as guilty of the same thing. And claiming superiority about being better than BSD.
Anyhow, I would release my code GPLv2. Make it incompatible with a growing number of GPLv3(+) code out there. Interestingly, GPL can vulture its own as well - a v2 project using some v2+ code can find that v2+ code locked up if the code suddenly incorporates v3(+) code that turns the entire thing GPLv3. The mind boggles.
No wonder I've seen companies start enforcing open-source usage policies - it's much to easy to end up in a conflict where some v2 code and v3 code end up together inadvertently.
There is some logic in that - if you eliminate the ones smart enough to do stuff like that, you have a better chance of remaining undetected. Think of it - you get a phish email, see some obvious misspellings, delete it and move on. If it was a bit too perfect, you might realize the URL is wrong and report it to the appropriate authority. Like Google Docs (which is a common vector for creating fake login sites, go figure).
But if a user doesn't notice, there's a greater chance they'll not notice the weird URL and just blindly enter their details as well.
Anyhow, notice how Android's permission list is getting harder and harder to view? Just the other day I was looking at a respectable app, and a fairly important permission was hidden underneath "Other permissions". Namely, it had access to the Accounts section of Android. Which is a major WTF because a crafty app could use that for ads and spam you, knowing they're verified e-mail addresses because they've got your Google account, your Dropbox account and other accounts that Android may be managing. And it wasn't listed by default.
They cannot be preloaded with them because Google controls it.
There is a set of requirements that a vendor must meet in order to qualify to have the Google apps. These include passing the CTS, being an OHA member (and paying the necessary dues) and having an agreement signed with Google. This will get the OEM access to the official Android repository (the one that is pushed to AOSP every so often).
Note that you must be an OHA member and sign the Google agreement. There may or may not be a per-device royalty that's payable as well.
While AOSP products CAN have Google Apps installed manually, they technically do not qualify and there's no support for it, and in a sense, they are "pirated" versions. Google has allowed Cyanogen to be the sole distributor, however, as Cyanogen supports phones that have already paid the tax.
But there are plenty of Android devices out there that are pure AOSP and do NOT come with Google. A lot of them ship with alternative app stores (and sometimes, Google just isn't allowed - see China). You can find them as those $150 tablets that are sold - they run Android, but have not been blessed by Google and are unable to ship with Google apps. You may install them yourself, though.
Amazon, Barnes and Noble, etc., they rely on an extensively customized version of Android whose business model relies on alternative app stores. This is not to be confused with devices that could run it, but not ship with it because they're not certified.
In fact, I think there was this very situation a year or two ago where a tablet sold at K-mart inadvertently came with Google apps, which were later removed from subsequent versions as they were not allowed to do so. As Google controls those apps, there could've been penalties.
It's the evolution of news. All the media has taken the blogger threat seriously - thinking that they have to compete against Joe Schmoe with a blog reporting on news, and being able to do it quicker means catching up on twitter and other stuff. So quicker becomes better because you want to be the one to break it first, not the one who breaks it 5 minutes later. Plus we've all convinced ourselves that traditional media is dying because the internet can get it out quicker faster and cheaper
Of course, this rolls back into the discussion of something with a long update cycle - newspapers and magazines. There the added value they can have is NOT bringing the latest conjecture, but spend the extra time fact checking and following up because you cannot compete on instant, but you can compete on analysis.
Plus, there's a lot of news I don't care about knowing right this instant - if I find out the next day, that's fine with me. Sometimes knowing immediately isn't very valuable E.g., the bombing - yes it happened. But whether I find out two seconds after or the next day, my life remains unchanged for the most part because I'm nowhere near Boston, nor do I have friends or relatives there. And even if I did, I don't care about what caused it - the only information I'd want is "are they safe?". The type of bomb is irrelevant information in the near term.
Perhaps the best way is these days, to follow the constitution. 1 representative per 30,000 people.
It's doable these days - you don't have to fit all 10,000 reps in one building - we have telecommuting, after all.
This has enormous implications.
First, pay will have to be cut dramatically - I believe the original founding fathers expected politicians to sacrifice themselves for political life. We can easily do this by making their pay equal to the median of the people they represent (not the average).
Second, corporate influence has just gone down significantly. When you have a company spending $1B on campaign contributions, that's rougly $2M per representive right now. With 10,000 of them, that's $100K apiece, or just over $3 per person they're representing. Companies wanting to buy laws suddenly have to pay a whole lot o more money. And the amount can actually be raised by individuals in the community.
Third, more local representation - because they're going to represent a smaller slice of the population, so it's a lot easier to actually see what people in the community want. And with lowered pay, they get to see the same problems everyone else in the community has.
Fourth, less whipping possible - you try keeping the entire party in line - if we assume half and half, you try keeping 5,000 people in line - it's a lot harder.
Or maybe they're tired of license confusion?
You can have two codebases that are "GPL" but which cannot be mixed together because they violate the GPL.
Yes, you can end up in this situation very easily, because GPLv2 is not compatible with GPLv3. You can combine GPLv2+ code with GPLv3 code (producing a GPLv3 work), GPLv2+ with GPLv3+ (producing GPLv3+ work), but NOT GPLv2 and GPLv3 because GPLv3 contains clauses that violate other clauses in GPLv2.
Anyone with a reasonably large codebase has to re-verify that there is no GPLv2 code in there before moving over to GPLv3.
Of course, there's also a chance that they're doing it because companies are scared of GPLv3 - I've seen companies enforce open-source policies because of GPLv3 where you're not allowed to use any GPL'd code - whether it's for internal use only or distribution without engaging lawyers and all that stuff.
Of course, things like Android have also helped raise the profile of alternative open-source licenses - I'm sure a lot of GPL'd projects used the GPL because that's all they knew - that all FOSS software was GPL'd.
(And for the record, I tend to use a mix of BSD, MIT and GPLv2 (not v2+ or v3) for my code. Heck, you can even use unmodified BSD (the GPL-incompatible one)).