I don't know much about nginx, but any time I hear about it it's usually because of an error message like that.
Even though it isn't used nearly as much as Apache is, I must see an nginx error page like that at least two or three times a month. I can't say the same for Apache, or IIS, or Lighttpd, or any other major web server these days.
This means the opposite of what you seem to think.
Does nginx just suffer from really bad scalability under any sort of significant load? Is poor scalability and load tolerance the reason why it starts giving 500 Internal Server Error responses and error pages like that so commonly?
Short answer: No.
Nginx is very commonly used as a reverse proxy (for caching, encryption, load balancing, etc.) in front of another web server (might be another nginx instance, but it's commonly some other, more popular web server, nudge-nudge-wink-say-no-more). When the proxied web server doesn't respond in time, the proxying nginx returns a "500 Internal Server Error". While this isn't the only reason for a 500, it's far the most common from nginx.
So when you see that error, it doesn't mean the nginx instance that gives you the error fell over, it almost always means that nginx instance is doing fine, but some other web server (which could also be nginx, but is most likely not nginx) fell over.
Except, after every run, you'd have to extract the SD cards from each camera and download them one-by-one to a PC to turn into a movie. With this, you can download all the images over the network in a few seconds.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I mentioned that without CHDK it's definitely not an improvement in all ways. Note that the first CHDK option does permit automatic image retrieval* over the network, and even if you go with the second one, or with non-CHDK cameras, I'd just walk around with a laptop and a USB cable, plugging it into each one, let a script automatically mount/copy/umount, then unplugging it -- not only is the USB port typically more accessible than the SD slot (and if not, I've already got a cable in it for the remote-shutter, so I can break in at the other end of that!), but this way I don't risk cameras mysteriously swapping UUIDs because somebody mixed up the SD cards. It's still a fair bit of work, but given that the point of the rig is a cool tech demo you fire up once rather than a tool you use routinely, I don't see it as prohibitive -- once you get it working, you can take quite a number of pictures before you have to do the USB run-around and "develop" the results.
* As another poster suggested, you might be able to form a 3-level tree of 4-port hubs, connecting all cameras to one computer and skipping the network entirely -- not sure if latency would be a problem or not, but you can certainly connect a few to each of several networked nodes, and use the network to transfer files to a central location.
I don't think you get it -- each station has a ~$40 RPi-B, a ~$30 5MPx camera module, and a ~$30 LCD+buttons board (which AFAICT serves no actual purpose in this project, but is the product being sold by the people who put this project together to promote that product, so it kinda has to be in there).
You'd use an AVR/PIC at each station to control a point-and-shoot digital camera -- and a $40 RPi would be insane in that role. In this case, they're using the RPi not to control a standalone camera, but to be the mainboard of a digital camera. Depending on the smarts present in that camera module, and particularly on how slow a data rate it's capable of speaking, an AVR/PIC might be able to handle this, but it would be some heavy lifting. From that perspective, it almost makes sense -- if only a CHDK-capable P&S weren't basically the same price and a whole lot more featureful.
For each station, we have (priced at Newark): $40 Raspberry Pi B w/ NOOBS SD card. $25 Camera module $34 Piface display/control (seriously? why? aren't they controlled over the network? why aren't they headless? Oh, right: because this whole project is advertisement for Piface, even though their hardware contributes nothing of value to it...)
Making a total of $99 at each station. That's not counting ethernet cable, switches, and for no obvious reason, a separate 5V PSU for each Pi -- I left that out of the per-station cost, because anyone sane would use one power supply for multiple stations.
Now for $99, I can damn sure buy a cheap digital camera for each station, (and an SD card for each of them, if necessary), and have larger sensors, better glass, and crazy features like not being fixed-focus vs. the Raspberry Pi camera module. Sadly, remote shutter is not a common thing on the sort of cheap camera we're looking at, so some hardware hacking (*gasp*) might be required, and many camera models have issues like automatic power off that will make your life miserable -- so for an arbitrary cheap camera, this is better in some ways, worse in others, and not necessarily better on the whole. But with CHDK, we can beat it easily.
It'd be great if we had $120 a station -- for that money, we can easily rock CHDK. $99 is just on the edge, but I think you can find CHDK-compatible Canons for less (e.g. this one; note that other colors are cheaper, but very limited quantity, and without more research, I'm not sure that any of them will actually have firmware revisions supported by CHDK) -- if so, or if we can agree that the combination of better image quality, extra features, and reduced ethernet hardware, is worth a few extra bucks, you should have two options: 1. use USB hubs with CHDK's PTP extensions to control multiple CHDK-loaded cameras from each Raspberry Pi -- this will allow staggering individual cameras for the true bullet-time effect where the viewpoint revolves around a slow-motion (not completely frozen) subject, as well as the all-at-once mode described in TFA, and any combination. 2. forget the Raspberry Pis, and control the cameras using CHDK's USB remote shutter capability -- this is very simple in the all-at-once case, as you can simply wire 48 USB ports to a single 5V PSU, and switch it on and off. The proper effect is a little more complicated, but still no-CPU-required, e.g. use a single debounced pushbutton to generate a pulse, and clock source + a half-dozen 8-bit shift registers to sequence that pulse to all 48 USB cables. Or use a microcontroller with those shift registers to generate the pulse and the clock -- by varying the clock, you speed/slow the ratio of subject motion to viewpoint motion. Or use a microcontroller with enough GPIO to control all the cameras directly.
Gun-ownership is the most obvious example â" even in the "gun-friendly" locales (like Texas), keeping and bearing requires a license.
You blathered:
You don't need a license to own a gun in Texas. You need a concealed carry permit, if you want to carry your gun, but that's different.
Yeah. That's different -- the difference between keeping and bearing a gun. As GP said, if you want to keep and bear a firearm, you'll be needing that carry permit.
Think of how desktop linuxen can support Windows apps using WINE -- they mostly won't be mistaken for native apps, some won't run, some will have odd glitches, some will run just fine. (I'm not saying that the proportion of apps in each of those categories will be anything like WINE, merely that there's bound to be some of each type.)
If the Android app support is good enough, it could make a huge difference in uptake -- after all, if anyone who can flash a custom ROM can flash Sailfish instead, then install all the apps they had under Android, then carry on like nothing's changed, it won't take much UI improvement/novelty to get a bunch of geeks to do just that, thus boosting their install base well above the number of handsets Jolla sells themselves. That larger install base makes development of Sailfish-native apps more attractive, which means more native apps, which means more reason to switch from Android to Sailfish.
Of course, if the Android app support isn't good enough, people will flash back to android because only half their apps work, Sailfish won't have the big install base, so you'll never get the native apps to replace all those borked android apps, and the whole thing collapses in a heap of fail.
I'm not sure what to think of an OS created by former Nokia programmers. It isn't as if they did a bang up job when they had the resources of a giant corporation backing them.
Have you used an N9? Because IMO they did a really outstanding job of going from the nerd-centric Maemo 4.x (and earlier) on the 770, N800, and N810, through the kinda-sorta-enduser-ready Maemo 5.0 on the N900, to the fully enduser N9's "Meego/Harmattan" (which despite the name was essentially Maemo 6, with Meego libraries added; the next version would have been the first one built solely on Meego). Not saying N9 was a great enduser OS, just that they did a much better job that I expected of making that specific transition.
While there are plenty of faults to be pointed out with any version of Maemo or Meego/Harmattan, I felt that Meego/Harmattan really was in fair shape to compete with iOS and Android if/when Nokia reallocated enough resources from Symbian to Meego to make a serious effort. Keep in mind they didn't have the resources of a giant corporation -- they had the resources of one small division of that corporation.
I hope for them, their failures with Nokia were more a result of poor management then they were a lack of quality or value proposition.
Everything I've heard suggests there were serious management issues, because much of Nokia upper management were "old guard", committed to Symbian, and were prone to viewing Maemo as a competitor.
Then again, if the truth was "Well, we kinda suck at our jobs", I suppose "Management stabbed us in the back" is exactly what one would expect to hear.
Right now there are many flavors of Android - mature with a large test, install, and app base - that are worth voiding warranties for. Unless Sailfish gets picked up by a handset mfg, I'm not sure why one would bother.
While it's not obvious from TFS, Jolla is a handset manufacturer as well. They're making and selling (in Finland only, at the moment) a handset running Sailfish, but they are also promoting the idea of running that Sailfish on Android devices.
While this does sound like enabling their own competition (why buy a Jolla phone when you can buy an HTC and install Sailfish?), the idea, as I understand it, is to come at the install-base vs. app-base chicken/egg problem from both ends -- by bootstrapping the app base with android apps, and bootstrapping the install base with android devices. Sailfish uses Android video drivers, so it can be relatively easily run anywhere Android runs (even platforms where no open-source video drivers exist). It runs Android apps with a compatibility layer. So it's most people with Android phones could switch to Sailfish, even though it doesn't start with a huge store of native apps, because you just use the same Android apps you already use. Only a tiny fraction of them will, of course, but a tiny fraction of all android users is still a good many. This gets you an install base, even though you don't yet have a good native app base.
Now that install base is hopefully big enough to make app development attractive; soon, users who switched from android start finding better native apps for a few things, and then they're hooked in the Sailfish ecosystem. Next time they buy a new phone, they may go with one made by Jolla, to save the hassle of installing Sailfish. They also evangelize others who are looking for a new Android phone, and get some of them to buy a Jolla phone instead -- particularly others who aren't skilled enough to or simply don't care to install a new OS on their new phone.
Eventually, Sailfish becomes so popular that HTC, Samsung, etc. all start shipping phones with it, and Jolla fades into obscurity? Or HTC (or whoever) buys out Jolla? Or something... Maybe they pull a Google and have some non-open stuff available for license by manufacturers, as well as the open base system. Or maybe they just become one of many Sailfish handset makers, and compete as best they can on features.
I'm really not sure how the endgame works. I don't know how well the parts of the plan I do understand will work out for them, but "success" in one form or another is not inconceivable.
You don't mind the attention-whore call for violence, as long it's in service of the policy you prefer. It's obviously not a real call for violence,
Exactly. A real call for violence, from someone who really believe privacy violations are on a level with punching someone, and thus merit the same level of response, wouldn't be near as bad. (That belief is IMO incorrect, particularly as it applies to violations of privacy in a public space, and thus issuing a call for violence based on nothing more than such violations is wrong, but at least it doesn't compound that with dishonesty.)
This is using a dishonest threat of violence to synthesize a more appealing story, in order to get free advertising. This sort of underhanded marketing is to journalism as SEO is to search -- but more on that later. And it is, sincere or not, still a call for violence -- claiming that it's somehow less wrong to endorse violence when one doesn't really mean it is like suggesting that, say, blackmailing someone is less wrong if you don't actually intend to exchange the embarrassing materials for payment, but are just using it as a ploy to draw them out to the exchange meet so you can beat them up. Any reasonable person would say you're wrong for blackmailing them and wrong for beating them!
like you (i.e. who care more about which team's on top) than like me (i.e. who care more about the way the game's being corrupted). Corruption, just because they don't want diners surreptitiously recorded?
Again, you're focusing on which side he's on, not on what dirty tricks he's playing.
No, not corruption, just because they don't want diners being openly recorded (Google Glass has nothing to do with surreptitious recording). Corruption, just because they're participating in the ongoing corruption of "news" into covert advertising, where instead of paying money to get your name out, you compete with all the other marketers to craft the best combination of attention-getting elements (in this case, the public's growing privacy concerns, a shiny new tech-toy, and a good-old-fashioned promise of ass-kicking) and feed it right to the "news" people via social media, so the "news" outlets will run your story to get the most ad views. I said earlier that this is like SEO, but it's worse -- while search engines continually change their algorithms to fight SEO tricks, the "news" outlets are complicit. Turns out letting marketers, on someone else's payroll, write your story is a lot cheaper than paying newsmen to find stories, investigate them, and write them up. And they wonder why nobody will pay for news anymore!
How would you feel if someone sat at a table next to you and a friend while you were eating, pulled out their phone and aimed it at you and started filming you two?
Depends a lot on the establishment. Burger King? fine. (And I think it's important for fast-food joints to remain Glass-permitted zones, if for no other reason so that Glass-wearers can't claim there's nowhere they're allowed to eat, and use that to push for legislation preventing restaurants from banning Glass.) Some classy restaurant? No, that's rude.
If you are fine with that, you are the exception.
So in other words, you're going to ask how I would feel about something, but my answer really doesn't matter? OK... you'll understand if I don't waste time answering your next few questions.
Anyway, the reason I said I was "not convinced of the value" of wearable cameras being banned in certain establishments is because in the long run, it doesn't matter what you think, what I think, or what anyone else thinks now, when wearable computing is just reaching the technological maturity to go mass-market.
What matters (or will matter) is what people who've grown up with wearable computing their whole lives will think. And I believe no matter how much we try to protect the status quo, where we have a measure of privacy in public places, it's ultimately doomed, because the next generation (or at latest, the one after that) will abandon it completely. I'm not saying it isn't worth fighting to hold as much ground as we can as long as possible, but I'm definitely not sure it is worth it. (I'm very concerned with privacy in private places, which will also be under attack, and indeed already is. But it's not obvious whether fighting for privacy in public is an essential part of defending privacy in private, or whether it's a waste of resources, and we should fall back to the prepared defensive positions of privacy in private spaces.)
The owner did not do this for advertising,
You do know Meinert's a music promoter amongst other things, right? So you're telling me he naively posted a statement on social media, touting the fact that his bar being the first in the world to ban not-yet-available Google Glass, and throwing in a juicy little call for violence, and was just completely surprised when a hundred media outlets worldwide ran stories on it?
Riiiiiiight.
the person that was kicked out went public with it and he responded.
Oh, I get it, you're conflating the two events, and applying my comments about the first event with the current one. (Surely not because this is the only way to make Meinert look the least bit sympathetic? I'll assume it's just because I wasn't clear enough...) To be completely clear, I'm saying, because of the first event, where Meinert used an inflammatory statement to get loads of media coverage, the Glass-wearing guy, if he had any sense, wouldn't have gone to a cafe owned by this asshole in the first place (first because, as shown by the first event, Meinert's a media-manipulating asshole who shouldn't be patronized, and second because, given he's banned it in one place, it seems likely he has or will have such a Glass ban in all his restaurants, so if you insist on wearing Glass while eating, you should just eat somewhere else); in that case, he'd have avoided the second event.
Ironic you are offended by that but see no issue with the Google Glasses wearing guy potentially offending others.
"potentially" offending others? If I was in the same place as some Glass-wearer, and it did offend me, I guess I'd have to deal with it the same way as if that person were doing any other offensive thing (wearing an offensive t-shirt, talking on the phone at an inappropriate volume or context, etc.): first try talking like civilized adult
I don't live in Seattle, but if I did, I'd make it a point to find out what other establishments Mr. Meinert owns, and not patronize any of them.
Whereas the next time I'm in Seattle, I plan to visit all of them, and at each one buy a huge expensive meal at, and leave a giant tip with a "THANK YOU FOR YOUR RECORDING POLICY" written in big letters on the receipt.
You don't mind the attention-whore call for violence, as long it's in service of the policy you prefer.
Do you honestly think there are more people like you, or like me?
Judging from the state of politics in this land, I think it's all too clear there's more people like you (i.e. who care more about which team's on top) than like me (i.e. who care more about the way the game's being corrupted). But it doesn't matter how many people of what sort I think there are -- what matters is how I live my life, and I can't excuse wrong because the wrong-doer's on "our team".
... I am constantly amazed by how hard people here work to ghetto-ize themselves -- just like the so-called "Linux community".
Here's a hint: If you want to maintain the security of being a fringe player with no responsibility that everyone else laughs at, then keep up your lazy, selfish ways. If you want to be a major player, then clean up your act.
Right now, I have a free OS that does what I need it do, and that I can tinker with whenever I feel like it. And I've got plenty of choice -- i presently use Arch, but I've used (and could go back to) netbsd and slackware, and I could go pick up gentoo, debian, etc. if arch stopped updating, or decided to go in a direction I don't like.
What do I get out of making the "Linux community" a "major player"? At best, those things stay the same when it becomes "a major player" -- in fact, it's liable to become worse, because of the need to cater to the lowest common denominator (cf. Ubuntu).
You say lots of other people (who I don't care about) would start using Linux? OK, then maybe they should wish Linux community becomes "major player" (in reality, they should probably just use OS X -- all the same UNIXiness, a nice polished layer of user-friendliness, and neither them nor we of the Linux community need to get on one another's nerves!), but you're not preaching to them, you're preaching to me, and I just don't care what OS they use.
You say the increased market share would force manufacturers to provide hardware drivers? Well, that might actually be a good argument -- particularly if there were some reason to suppose this doesn't just mean more buggy binary-only drivers. (If this argument was sound, wouldn't we see lots of good from the "success" of Linux by way of Android in getting usable hardware drivers? No, we've got a ton of binary junk, and dozens of separately-maintained hardware-specific forks.) And the only times in the past decade I've run into this hardware-support problem that Linux supposedly has were 5 years ago when I had trouble with a USB-attached webcam in a laptop, and 3 years ago when I made the mistake of getting a UMPC with GMA500/Poulsbo graphics because I skipped the research, thinking Intel graphics==good support. I'm sure there's a lot of unsupported hardware out there, I'm just not running into it very often, and when I do, I don't see any evidence that being a "major player" would actually make it any better.
And I'm just not insecure enough to need the validation of knowing I'm a Major Player, or to care that "everyone else laughs at [us]" (And I note that's the one argument you could be arsed to actually make... good lord, man, see a shrink!) -- unless there's some real benefit to me, I don't see a reason to expend effort helping people who don't care enough to help themselves.
It's not mentioned in the summary, but the two stories linked are related. The current one involves the Lost Lake Cafe, which is owned by Dave Meinert. Dave Meinert also owns the 5 Point Cafe, and made the old story by posting to 5 Point's facebook page: "For the record, The 5 Point is the first Seattle business to ban in advance Google Glasses. And ass kickings will be encouraged for violators."
I don't live in Seattle, but if I did, I'd make it a point to find out what other establishments Mr. Meinert owns, and not patronize any of them. Not because I have a Glass I won't take off (I don't have one at all) or because I object to the idea of certain places being off-limits for wearable cameras (I'm not convinced of the value, and think it would be a bad thing if every restaurant or every bar had such a ban; I do think having some with and some without is an experiment worth trying), but because using a threat of violence to get free advertising makes it quite clear who the real "glasshole" is.
You've posited a very small amount of deflation - 1% a year is almost stable.
Yes, I did.
Loans in an deflationary currency are basically pointless for the creditor and crushing for the debtor.
I missed where you said "a currency with deflation over x%" instead of "a deflationary currency".
I agree completely that too much deflation causes serious problems. But this doesn't justify your statements; even though there's no guarantee that bitcoin won't go into sufficient rates of deflation to be problematic, there's also no guarantee that it will -- the guarantee that it will be somewhat deflationary because of the attrition of bitcoins to bitrot and forgotten passwords isn't strong enough to justify the doom-and-gloom of bitcoin haters.
At the moment, the bitcoin economy is in a silly bubble. Long-term, there's no reason to suppose this will continue indefinitely -- once enough speculators lose their shirts in the bubble's collapse, there's no reason to suppose bitcoin will necessarily be excessively deflationary.
Now the iPhone (not the iPad) was an innovative idea. Phones before the iPhone had external keyboards, at the expense of of screen size, or thickness. The idea of very few real buttons at the time was very foreign to us.
The 7710 says you're wrong. (As if being 2.5 years earlier wasn't enough, it had more pixels, too. And it's not as though that's some fluke that was promptly abandoned, as its descendants, while not as minimal as the iPhone, were definitely of a piece with the later iPhone/Android/WebOS/etc. "big screen, few buttons" concept. By the time the iPhone came out, the N800 was current, which while not a "phone" as it no longer contained a GSM radios (being made for tethering to a phone), was up to 800x480, and the non-screen elements on the front were down to 1 D-pad, a 3-button panel (back, home, and menu, equivalent to the capacitive buttons on most Android phones) and front-firing stereo speakers. The N810, in the works at the same time as the iPhone, and released some months after, reduced the front-face elements to the screen and a single, two-button rocker along one edge, as they moved the speakers to the sides, and the d-pad and other button to the new slide-out QWERTY.
And using gestures seemed almost impossible, as many early gesture systems had a lot of complicated gestures to get tasks done.
That's more true. The capacitive touch sensor was the big thing there, mainly because it permitted multitouch gestures -- previous touchscreen phones generally used single-touch resistive touch sensors which had a much more limited repertoire of simple gestures. Previous systems with similar capabilities to the capacitive touch sensor (mostly camera-based, and too bulky for use outside research) did have similarly useful and simple gesture sets, so IMO it was mainly an issue of hardware finally catching up to make decades-old innovation practical.
(There seems to be a not-uncommon misconception that reproduction of the results by other groups is part of the pre-publication "peer review" -- this is simply not the case. If you're not under that delusion, but think some group has reproduced these results, do share.)
1) install zshaolin 2) there is no step 2 3) enjoy your UNIX-like OS
yes, you can now scp -r whole folders across the network; what's more, you can do it using the same commands you would on a desktop machine. (Yeah, there's also rsync and sftp, among other options.)
I'm not saying buying a device with a gimped OS, just so you can install utilities to turn it back into a real computer, is necessarily a smart move, but if you've got an Android device for whatever reason, there are options there.
In fact I'm only aware of zshaolin's existence because I got an Asus tf700* with the idea to dual-boot a mainstream Linux distro (probably Arch) with e17, then ditch Android completely once that was working well; I got stalled for a while due to lack of a dual-boot compatible kernel for Android 4.2, and even though that's done now, I've not made time to get back to it, in large part because zshaolin makes it 90% less chafing.
*Of course the reason I bought an Android tablet in the first place is because there are no netbooks with high-end ARM processors on the market, except those called "tablets with detachable keyboards" and shipped with either WinRT or Android. But as much trouble as I've had with it, I find myself wishing I'd gone with a recent Atom machine and just dealt with the battery life penalty. With any luck, my next laptop will be an EOMA-68 rig.
"Know how many people get viruses or malware on their iPhone (without jailbreaking)... 0."
Wrong. I just had to remove one from my fiance's iPhone 4S two days ago. It's a stock model, unmodified.
How exactly did you do that from a stock iPhone 4S?
I'm really curious.
If it was more than just deleting the app using the phone's built in method and then trashing the backup of the app from iTunes then I'm *really* interested.
Whether we define a virus as something you can trivially delete is an exercise for the reader.
It's not a matter of saving more or less, it's a matter of saving-by-investing, which happens to most money in the current system, or saving-by-stuffing-money-in-the-mattress, which is the safest and best way to save with a deflationary currency.
You can assert that all day, but it's not necessarily true. Safest depends on local crime rates, bank failure rates, and what sort of insurance depositors receive, but assuming typical values for the US, a bank is probably rather safer (for accounts below the $250,000 FDIC limit), and thus if offering zero-interest savings accounts, unambiguously better (same maximum return, better average return, less risk of losing it all); even at small negative rates, it's likely to have a better average return. And mattress-stuffing only becomes riskier once thieves realize how popular it's becoming and start planning their burglaries around cash rather than around big-screen TVs.
And it's very rare that the same investment is both safest and best -- it's generally considered wise to have a mix of low-risk and high-risk (with correspondingly higher yield) investment.
Loans in an deflationary currency are basically pointless for the creditor and crushing for the debtor.
You'll have to explain that. Suppose for the moment that deflation is 1% annually.
Suppose a student wishes to pursue a college education, but in his senior year he cannot (quite) afford to finish... he needs $1,000. So he applies for a loan, which is payable in full in one year, after he's (presumably) finished school and landed a well-paying job. The bank offers simple interest with a rate of 1% -- so after 1 year, he needs to pay back $1010. This corresponds to a real interest rate of ~2% (1% due to more dollars, 1% to the rising value of a dollar, and ~ due to the third term of 1.01 * 1.01 = 1+(0.01+0.01)+(0.01*0.01))
Now let's check your claims...
Loans in an deflationary currency are basically pointless for the creditor
Well, the bank started with $1000. At the end of a year, they have $1010 (worth $1020 and change in year 0 dollars). After a year of using your proposed "safest and best" investment strategy of locking the $1000 in the vault rather than loaning it out, they'd have $1000 ($1010 in year 0 dollars). If the default risk is less than 1%, that's the opposite of pointless. (If not, increase the interest rate to match.)
and crushing for the debtor.
Well, yeah, loans always are "crushing" to some degree -- that's why you don't take out a loan unless you need to! Maybe he should drop out of school, take a lower paying job, and keep the $1010 he'll have a year from now. But if the degree allows him to make over $10 more, he's better off taking it!
Would the scenario be different if the student needed, say, a $100,000 loan to pay for four years of schooling, instead of $1000 to cover the last semester's texbooks? For the bank, not much -- still pointful (although maybe at a higher interest rate, to accomodate the likely higher default rate). For the student, it gets a lot more complicated: 4 years of schooling, followed by a high-paying job and high loan payments, vs. 4 years of earning something in a non-degree job, hopefully getting raises along the way, and maybe the possibility to attend night school along the way and get the same degree over the course of a decade -- basically, the longer timescale means more options and more uncertainty in the outcomes of those options, but it's still likely to be a decent option.
And if not -- well, don't take out a loan that doesn't have a positive outcome! If some loans are neither pointless for the creditor, nor more crushing than the alternatives for the debtor, that's enough to refute your silly claim -- it's no more required to prove that other scenarios make sense for both parties in a deflationary regime than it is sane to assert that every
'Bitcoin exemplifies some of the problems of private money,' says Hadas. 'Its value is uncertain, its legal status is unclear, and it could easily become valueless if users lose faith.
Cash's value is uncertain, its legal status is... well, not unclear, but situationally dependent in a pretty bad way[1], and like anything, it becomes valueless if nobody wants it.
1. In the US, at least, while it's legal to use arbitrarily large amounts of cash in any legal transaction, it's not legal to use it for drug deals, money laundering, etc.. Sounds reasonable so far, but there's a whole boatload of policy and precedent to the effect that having large amounts of cash constitutes evidence that you were using it for drug deals, money laundering, etc., which combined with civil forfeiture, means that having large amounts of cash permits the state to seize that cash, unless you can prove that you were doing something good with it. Short of being an employee of a bank, vending machine company, etc., that's pretty hard.
I don't know if supporting Android apps is a good idea. Won't that kill any chance of having native apps?
Not necessarily. That issue's widely credited with the failure of OS/2, but that was a time when you drove to a store and bought a boxed application off the shelf, or mail-ordered it. Either way, you wound up with some removable media and installed the software -- there was no other way in practice. (Yes, I know modems did exist.) That means there's no incentive for someone with a Windows app to make an OS/2 port, because it's equal trouble for the consumer to acquire and use my Windows app or my competitor's OS/2 port -- I don't suffer lost sales for my lack of a port, so I I'd be a fool to dedicate the resources to one.
With smartphones, though, the normal method is to go to some app-store and download the app you want -- and this permits differentiation. If the Jolla app-store only carries Jolla-native apps, so that using an Android app requires downloading the.apk with a web browser, then my competitor with a Jolla-native port will get more market share than I do with my Android app, because there's less effort for users to install his app -- I'll have to do my own Jolla port to get in the Jolla app store and compete on an equal footing.
(I'm not sure that's exactly how the Jolla app-store situation will be -- maybe you can just install e.g. the Amazon app store APK, and have two app stores, one for android and one for jolla -- but you can see how that sort of thing lets you have the benefit of using existing Android apps while still giving developers a reason to bother with Jolla-native apps.)
Oh look, a hugely significant percentage of humans in a given environment want to do something. It comes with an added danger. Let's prohibit them from doing it! Because that works. It's always worked in the past, with everything from alcohol to abstinance.
I'm not sure what "added danger" comes with abstinence, but to my knowledge prohibiting abstinence has never been tried; if it were, I believe it would actually be fairly successful.
If they have to get up that high to see it, I don't think that's in "plain view."
If it's a custom monster truck affording them a view into other cars that no other drivers have, then yes.
If it's a standard vehicle (or has the same view as one, even if there's police-specific modifications in other areas) that many non-cops routinely use to haul themselves around, no.
And if every truck's cab sits even higher and affords an even better view, definitely no.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know much about nginx, but any time I hear about it it's usually because of an error message like that.
Even though it isn't used nearly as much as Apache is, I must see an nginx error page like that at least two or three times a month. I can't say the same for Apache, or IIS, or Lighttpd, or any other major web server these days.
This means the opposite of what you seem to think.
Does nginx just suffer from really bad scalability under any sort of significant load? Is poor scalability and load tolerance the reason why it starts giving 500 Internal Server Error responses and error pages like that so commonly?
Short answer: No.
Nginx is very commonly used as a reverse proxy (for caching, encryption, load balancing, etc.) in front of another web server (might be another nginx instance, but it's commonly some other, more popular web server, nudge-nudge-wink-say-no-more). When the proxied web server doesn't respond in time, the proxying nginx returns a "500 Internal Server Error". While this isn't the only reason for a 500, it's far the most common from nginx.
So when you see that error, it doesn't mean the nginx instance that gives you the error fell over, it almost always means that nginx instance is doing fine, but some other web server (which could also be nginx, but is most likely not nginx) fell over.
Except, after every run, you'd have to extract the SD cards from each camera and download them one-by-one to a PC to turn into a movie. With this, you can download all the images over the network in a few seconds.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I mentioned that without CHDK it's definitely not an improvement in all ways. Note that the first CHDK option does permit automatic image retrieval* over the network, and even if you go with the second one, or with non-CHDK cameras, I'd just walk around with a laptop and a USB cable, plugging it into each one, let a script automatically mount/copy/umount, then unplugging it -- not only is the USB port typically more accessible than the SD slot (and if not, I've already got a cable in it for the remote-shutter, so I can break in at the other end of that!), but this way I don't risk cameras mysteriously swapping UUIDs because somebody mixed up the SD cards. It's still a fair bit of work, but given that the point of the rig is a cool tech demo you fire up once rather than a tool you use routinely, I don't see it as prohibitive -- once you get it working, you can take quite a number of pictures before you have to do the USB run-around and "develop" the results.
* As another poster suggested, you might be able to form a 3-level tree of 4-port hubs, connecting all cameras to one computer and skipping the network entirely -- not sure if latency would be a problem or not, but you can certainly connect a few to each of several networked nodes, and use the network to transfer files to a central location.
I don't think you get it -- each station has a ~$40 RPi-B, a ~$30 5MPx camera module, and a ~$30 LCD+buttons board (which AFAICT serves no actual purpose in this project, but is the product being sold by the people who put this project together to promote that product, so it kinda has to be in there).
You'd use an AVR/PIC at each station to control a point-and-shoot digital camera -- and a $40 RPi would be insane in that role. In this case, they're using the RPi not to control a standalone camera, but to be the mainboard of a digital camera. Depending on the smarts present in that camera module, and particularly on how slow a data rate it's capable of speaking, an AVR/PIC might be able to handle this, but it would be some heavy lifting. From that perspective, it almost makes sense -- if only a CHDK-capable P&S weren't basically the same price and a whole lot more featureful.
For each station, we have (priced at Newark):
$40 Raspberry Pi B w/ NOOBS SD card.
$25 Camera module
$34 Piface display/control (seriously? why? aren't they controlled over the network? why aren't they headless? Oh, right: because this whole project is advertisement for Piface, even though their hardware contributes nothing of value to it...)
Making a total of $99 at each station. That's not counting ethernet cable, switches, and for no obvious reason, a separate 5V PSU for each Pi -- I left that out of the per-station cost, because anyone sane would use one power supply for multiple stations.
Now for $99, I can damn sure buy a cheap digital camera for each station, (and an SD card for each of them, if necessary), and have larger sensors, better glass, and crazy features like not being fixed-focus vs. the Raspberry Pi camera module. Sadly, remote shutter is not a common thing on the sort of cheap camera we're looking at, so some hardware hacking (*gasp*) might be required, and many camera models have issues like automatic power off that will make your life miserable -- so for an arbitrary cheap camera, this is better in some ways, worse in others, and not necessarily better on the whole. But with CHDK, we can beat it easily.
It'd be great if we had $120 a station -- for that money, we can easily rock CHDK. $99 is just on the edge, but I think you can find CHDK-compatible Canons for less (e.g. this one; note that other colors are cheaper, but very limited quantity, and without more research, I'm not sure that any of them will actually have firmware revisions supported by CHDK) -- if so, or if we can agree that the combination of better image quality, extra features, and reduced ethernet hardware, is worth a few extra bucks, you should have two options:
1. use USB hubs with CHDK's PTP extensions to control multiple CHDK-loaded cameras from each Raspberry Pi -- this will allow staggering individual cameras for the true bullet-time effect where the viewpoint revolves around a slow-motion (not completely frozen) subject, as well as the all-at-once mode described in TFA, and any combination.
2. forget the Raspberry Pis, and control the cameras using CHDK's USB remote shutter capability -- this is very simple in the all-at-once case, as you can simply wire 48 USB ports to a single 5V PSU, and switch it on and off. The proper effect is a little more complicated, but still no-CPU-required, e.g. use a single debounced pushbutton to generate a pulse, and clock source + a half-dozen 8-bit shift registers to sequence that pulse to all 48 USB cables. Or use a microcontroller with those shift registers to generate the pulse and the clock -- by varying the clock, you speed/slow the ratio of subject motion to viewpoint motion. Or use a microcontroller with enough GPIO to control all the cameras directly.
Q: Which cut of Brazil does the Netflix stream (no I don't have a netflix account)? Hopefully not the atrocious "Love Conquers All" version...
But the Ministry of Love does conquer all!
GP said: (emphasis mine)
Gun-ownership is the most obvious example â" even in the "gun-friendly" locales (like Texas), keeping and bearing requires a license.
You blathered:
You don't need a license to own a gun in Texas. You need a concealed carry permit, if you want to carry your gun, but that's different.
Yeah. That's different -- the difference between keeping and bearing a gun. As GP said, if you want to keep and bear a firearm, you'll be needing that carry permit.
It will support Android apps.
Think of how desktop linuxen can support Windows apps using WINE -- they mostly won't be mistaken for native apps, some won't run, some will have odd glitches, some will run just fine. (I'm not saying that the proportion of apps in each of those categories will be anything like WINE, merely that there's bound to be some of each type.)
If the Android app support is good enough, it could make a huge difference in uptake -- after all, if anyone who can flash a custom ROM can flash Sailfish instead, then install all the apps they had under Android, then carry on like nothing's changed, it won't take much UI improvement/novelty to get a bunch of geeks to do just that, thus boosting their install base well above the number of handsets Jolla sells themselves. That larger install base makes development of Sailfish-native apps more attractive, which means more native apps, which means more reason to switch from Android to Sailfish.
Of course, if the Android app support isn't good enough, people will flash back to android because only half their apps work, Sailfish won't have the big install base, so you'll never get the native apps to replace all those borked android apps, and the whole thing collapses in a heap of fail.
I'm not sure what to think of an OS created by former Nokia programmers. It isn't as if they did a bang up job when they had the resources of a giant corporation backing them.
Have you used an N9? Because IMO they did a really outstanding job of going from the nerd-centric Maemo 4.x (and earlier) on the 770, N800, and N810, through the kinda-sorta-enduser-ready Maemo 5.0 on the N900, to the fully enduser N9's "Meego/Harmattan" (which despite the name was essentially Maemo 6, with Meego libraries added; the next version would have been the first one built solely on Meego). Not saying N9 was a great enduser OS, just that they did a much better job that I expected of making that specific transition.
While there are plenty of faults to be pointed out with any version of Maemo or Meego/Harmattan, I felt that Meego/Harmattan really was in fair shape to compete with iOS and Android if/when Nokia reallocated enough resources from Symbian to Meego to make a serious effort. Keep in mind they didn't have the resources of a giant corporation -- they had the resources of one small division of that corporation.
I hope for them, their failures with Nokia were more a result of poor management then they were a lack of quality or value proposition.
Everything I've heard suggests there were serious management issues, because much of Nokia upper management were "old guard", committed to Symbian, and were prone to viewing Maemo as a competitor.
Then again, if the truth was "Well, we kinda suck at our jobs", I suppose "Management stabbed us in the back" is exactly what one would expect to hear.
Right now there are many flavors of Android - mature with a large test, install, and app base - that are worth voiding warranties for. Unless Sailfish gets picked up by a handset mfg, I'm not sure why one would bother.
While it's not obvious from TFS, Jolla is a handset manufacturer as well. They're making and selling (in Finland only, at the moment) a handset running Sailfish, but they are also promoting the idea of running that Sailfish on Android devices.
While this does sound like enabling their own competition (why buy a Jolla phone when you can buy an HTC and install Sailfish?), the idea, as I understand it, is to come at the install-base vs. app-base chicken/egg problem from both ends -- by bootstrapping the app base with android apps, and bootstrapping the install base with android devices. Sailfish uses Android video drivers, so it can be relatively easily run anywhere Android runs (even platforms where no open-source video drivers exist). It runs Android apps with a compatibility layer. So it's most people with Android phones could switch to Sailfish, even though it doesn't start with a huge store of native apps, because you just use the same Android apps you already use. Only a tiny fraction of them will, of course, but a tiny fraction of all android users is still a good many. This gets you an install base, even though you don't yet have a good native app base.
Now that install base is hopefully big enough to make app development attractive; soon, users who switched from android start finding better native apps for a few things, and then they're hooked in the Sailfish ecosystem. Next time they buy a new phone, they may go with one made by Jolla, to save the hassle of installing Sailfish. They also evangelize others who are looking for a new Android phone, and get some of them to buy a Jolla phone instead -- particularly others who aren't skilled enough to or simply don't care to install a new OS on their new phone.
Eventually, Sailfish becomes so popular that HTC, Samsung, etc. all start shipping phones with it, and Jolla fades into obscurity? Or HTC (or whoever) buys out Jolla? Or something... Maybe they pull a Google and have some non-open stuff available for license by manufacturers, as well as the open base system. Or maybe they just become one of many Sailfish handset makers, and compete as best they can on features.
I'm really not sure how the endgame works. I don't know how well the parts of the plan I do understand will work out for them, but "success" in one form or another is not inconceivable.
You don't mind the attention-whore call for violence, as long it's in service of the policy you prefer.
It's obviously not a real call for violence,
Exactly. A real call for violence, from someone who really believe privacy violations are on a level with punching someone, and thus merit the same level of response, wouldn't be near as bad. (That belief is IMO incorrect, particularly as it applies to violations of privacy in a public space, and thus issuing a call for violence based on nothing more than such violations is wrong, but at least it doesn't compound that with dishonesty.)
This is using a dishonest threat of violence to synthesize a more appealing story, in order to get free advertising. This sort of underhanded marketing is to journalism as SEO is to search -- but more on that later.
And it is, sincere or not, still a call for violence -- claiming that it's somehow less wrong to endorse violence when one doesn't really mean it is like suggesting that, say, blackmailing someone is less wrong if you don't actually intend to exchange the embarrassing materials for payment, but are just using it as a ploy to draw them out to the exchange meet so you can beat them up. Any reasonable person would say you're wrong for blackmailing them and wrong for beating them!
like you (i.e. who care more about which team's on top) than like me (i.e. who care more about the way the game's being corrupted).
Corruption, just because they don't want diners surreptitiously recorded?
Again, you're focusing on which side he's on, not on what dirty tricks he's playing.
No, not corruption, just because they don't want diners being openly recorded (Google Glass has nothing to do with surreptitious recording).
Corruption, just because they're participating in the ongoing corruption of "news" into covert advertising, where instead of paying money to get your name out, you compete with all the other marketers to craft the best combination of attention-getting elements (in this case, the public's growing privacy concerns, a shiny new tech-toy, and a good-old-fashioned promise of ass-kicking) and feed it right to the "news" people via social media, so the "news" outlets will run your story to get the most ad views. I said earlier that this is like SEO, but it's worse -- while search engines continually change their algorithms to fight SEO tricks, the "news" outlets are complicit. Turns out letting marketers, on someone else's payroll, write your story is a lot cheaper than paying newsmen to find stories, investigate them, and write them up. And they wonder why nobody will pay for news anymore!
How would you feel if someone sat at a table next to you and a friend while you were eating, pulled out their phone and aimed it at you and started filming you two?
Depends a lot on the establishment. Burger King? fine. (And I think it's important for fast-food joints to remain Glass-permitted zones, if for no other reason so that Glass-wearers can't claim there's nowhere they're allowed to eat, and use that to push for legislation preventing restaurants from banning Glass.)
Some classy restaurant? No, that's rude.
If you are fine with that, you are the exception.
So in other words, you're going to ask how I would feel about something, but my answer really doesn't matter? OK... you'll understand if I don't waste time answering your next few questions.
Anyway, the reason I said I was "not convinced of the value" of wearable cameras being banned in certain establishments is because in the long run, it doesn't matter what you think, what I think, or what anyone else thinks now, when wearable computing is just reaching the technological maturity to go mass-market.
What matters (or will matter) is what people who've grown up with wearable computing their whole lives will think. And I believe no matter how much we try to protect the status quo, where we have a measure of privacy in public places, it's ultimately doomed, because the next generation (or at latest, the one after that) will abandon it completely. I'm not saying it isn't worth fighting to hold as much ground as we can as long as possible, but I'm definitely not sure it is worth it. (I'm very concerned with privacy in private places, which will also be under attack, and indeed already is. But it's not obvious whether fighting for privacy in public is an essential part of defending privacy in private, or whether it's a waste of resources, and we should fall back to the prepared defensive positions of privacy in private spaces.)
The owner did not do this for advertising,
You do know Meinert's a music promoter amongst other things, right? So you're telling me he naively posted a statement on social media, touting the fact that his bar being the first in the world to ban not-yet-available Google Glass, and throwing in a juicy little call for violence, and was just completely surprised when a hundred media outlets worldwide ran stories on it?
Riiiiiiight.
the person that was kicked out went public with it and he responded.
Oh, I get it, you're conflating the two events, and applying my comments about the first event with the current one. (Surely not because this is the only way to make Meinert look the least bit sympathetic? I'll assume it's just because I wasn't clear enough...)
To be completely clear, I'm saying, because of the first event, where Meinert used an inflammatory statement to get loads of media coverage, the Glass-wearing guy, if he had any sense, wouldn't have gone to a cafe owned by this asshole in the first place (first because, as shown by the first event, Meinert's a media-manipulating asshole who shouldn't be patronized, and second because, given he's banned it in one place, it seems likely he has or will have such a Glass ban in all his restaurants, so if you insist on wearing Glass while eating, you should just eat somewhere else); in that case, he'd have avoided the second event.
Ironic you are offended by that but see no issue with the Google Glasses wearing guy potentially offending others.
"potentially" offending others? If I was in the same place as some Glass-wearer, and it did offend me, I guess I'd have to deal with it the same way as if that person were doing any other offensive thing (wearing an offensive t-shirt, talking on the phone at an inappropriate volume or context, etc.): first try talking like civilized adult
I don't live in Seattle, but if I did, I'd make it a point to find out what other establishments Mr. Meinert owns, and not patronize any of them.
Whereas the next time I'm in Seattle, I plan to visit all of them, and at each one buy a huge expensive meal at, and leave a giant tip with a "THANK YOU FOR YOUR RECORDING POLICY" written in big letters on the receipt.
You don't mind the attention-whore call for violence, as long it's in service of the policy you prefer.
Do you honestly think there are more people like you, or like me?
Judging from the state of politics in this land, I think it's all too clear there's more people like you (i.e. who care more about which team's on top) than like me (i.e. who care more about the way the game's being corrupted). But it doesn't matter how many people of what sort I think there are -- what matters is how I live my life, and I can't excuse wrong because the wrong-doer's on "our team".
... I am constantly amazed by how hard people here work to ghetto-ize themselves -- just like the so-called "Linux community".
Here's a hint: If you want to maintain the security of being a fringe player with no responsibility that everyone else laughs at, then keep up your lazy, selfish ways. If you want to be a major player, then clean up your act.
Right now, I have a free OS that does what I need it do, and that I can tinker with whenever I feel like it. And I've got plenty of choice -- i presently use Arch, but I've used (and could go back to) netbsd and slackware, and I could go pick up gentoo, debian, etc. if arch stopped updating, or decided to go in a direction I don't like.
What do I get out of making the "Linux community" a "major player"? At best, those things stay the same when it becomes "a major player" -- in fact, it's liable to become worse, because of the need to cater to the lowest common denominator (cf. Ubuntu).
You say lots of other people (who I don't care about) would start using Linux? OK, then maybe they should wish Linux community becomes "major player" (in reality, they should probably just use OS X -- all the same UNIXiness, a nice polished layer of user-friendliness, and neither them nor we of the Linux community need to get on one another's nerves!), but you're not preaching to them, you're preaching to me, and I just don't care what OS they use.
You say the increased market share would force manufacturers to provide hardware drivers? Well, that might actually be a good argument -- particularly if there were some reason to suppose this doesn't just mean more buggy binary-only drivers. (If this argument was sound, wouldn't we see lots of good from the "success" of Linux by way of Android in getting usable hardware drivers? No, we've got a ton of binary junk, and dozens of separately-maintained hardware-specific forks.) And the only times in the past decade I've run into this hardware-support problem that Linux supposedly has were 5 years ago when I had trouble with a USB-attached webcam in a laptop, and 3 years ago when I made the mistake of getting a UMPC with GMA500/Poulsbo graphics because I skipped the research, thinking Intel graphics==good support. I'm sure there's a lot of unsupported hardware out there, I'm just not running into it very often, and when I do, I don't see any evidence that being a "major player" would actually make it any better.
And I'm just not insecure enough to need the validation of knowing I'm a Major Player, or to care that "everyone else laughs at [us]" (And I note that's the one argument you could be arsed to actually make... good lord, man, see a shrink!) -- unless there's some real benefit to me, I don't see a reason to expend effort helping people who don't care enough to help themselves.
It's not mentioned in the summary, but the two stories linked are related. The current one involves the Lost Lake Cafe, which is owned by Dave Meinert. Dave Meinert also owns the 5 Point Cafe, and made the old story by posting to 5 Point's facebook page: "For the record, The 5 Point is the first Seattle business to ban in advance Google Glasses. And ass kickings will be encouraged for violators."
I don't live in Seattle, but if I did, I'd make it a point to find out what other establishments Mr. Meinert owns, and not patronize any of them. Not because I have a Glass I won't take off (I don't have one at all) or because I object to the idea of certain places being off-limits for wearable cameras (I'm not convinced of the value, and think it would be a bad thing if every restaurant or every bar had such a ban; I do think having some with and some without is an experiment worth trying), but because using a threat of violence to get free advertising makes it quite clear who the real "glasshole" is.
You've posited a very small amount of deflation - 1% a year is almost stable.
Yes, I did.
Loans in an deflationary currency are basically pointless for the creditor and crushing for the debtor.
I missed where you said "a currency with deflation over x%" instead of "a deflationary currency".
I agree completely that too much deflation causes serious problems. But this doesn't justify your statements; even though there's no guarantee that bitcoin won't go into sufficient rates of deflation to be problematic, there's also no guarantee that it will -- the guarantee that it will be somewhat deflationary because of the attrition of bitcoins to bitrot and forgotten passwords isn't strong enough to justify the doom-and-gloom of bitcoin haters.
At the moment, the bitcoin economy is in a silly bubble. Long-term, there's no reason to suppose this will continue indefinitely -- once enough speculators lose their shirts in the bubble's collapse, there's no reason to suppose bitcoin will necessarily be excessively deflationary.
Now the iPhone (not the iPad) was an innovative idea. Phones before the iPhone had external keyboards, at the expense of of screen size, or thickness. The idea of very few real buttons at the time was very foreign to us.
The 7710 says you're wrong. (As if being 2.5 years earlier wasn't enough, it had more pixels, too. And it's not as though that's some fluke that was promptly abandoned, as its descendants, while not as minimal as the iPhone, were definitely of a piece with the later iPhone/Android/WebOS/etc. "big screen, few buttons" concept. By the time the iPhone came out, the N800 was current, which while not a "phone" as it no longer contained a GSM radios (being made for tethering to a phone), was up to 800x480, and the non-screen elements on the front were down to 1 D-pad, a 3-button panel (back, home, and menu, equivalent to the capacitive buttons on most Android phones) and front-firing stereo speakers. The N810, in the works at the same time as the iPhone, and released some months after, reduced the front-face elements to the screen and a single, two-button rocker along one edge, as they moved the speakers to the sides, and the d-pad and other button to the new slide-out QWERTY.
And using gestures seemed almost impossible, as many early gesture systems had a lot of complicated gestures to get tasks done.
That's more true. The capacitive touch sensor was the big thing there, mainly because it permitted multitouch gestures -- previous touchscreen phones generally used single-touch resistive touch sensors which had a much more limited repertoire of simple gestures. Previous systems with similar capabilities to the capacitive touch sensor (mostly camera-based, and too bulky for use outside research) did have similarly useful and simple gesture sets, so IMO it was mainly an issue of hardware finally catching up to make decades-old innovation practical.
"have been honestly reproduced"
[citation needed]
(There seems to be a not-uncommon misconception that reproduction of the results by other groups is part of the pre-publication "peer review" -- this is simply not the case. If you're not under that delusion, but think some group has reproduced these results, do share.)
1) install zshaolin
2) there is no step 2
3) enjoy your UNIX-like OS
yes, you can now scp -r whole folders across the network; what's more, you can do it using the same commands you would on a desktop machine. (Yeah, there's also rsync and sftp, among other options.)
I'm not saying buying a device with a gimped OS, just so you can install utilities to turn it back into a real computer, is necessarily a smart move, but if you've got an Android device for whatever reason, there are options there.
In fact I'm only aware of zshaolin's existence because I got an Asus tf700* with the idea to dual-boot a mainstream Linux distro (probably Arch) with e17, then ditch Android completely once that was working well; I got stalled for a while due to lack of a dual-boot compatible kernel for Android 4.2, and even though that's done now, I've not made time to get back to it, in large part because zshaolin makes it 90% less chafing.
*Of course the reason I bought an Android tablet in the first place is because there are no netbooks with high-end ARM processors on the market, except those called "tablets with detachable keyboards" and shipped with either WinRT or Android. But as much trouble as I've had with it, I find myself wishing I'd gone with a recent Atom machine and just dealt with the battery life penalty. With any luck, my next laptop will be an EOMA-68 rig.
Emphasis mine:
"Know how many people get viruses or malware on their iPhone (without jailbreaking) ... 0."
Wrong. I just had to remove one from my fiance's iPhone 4S two days ago. It's a stock model, unmodified.
How exactly did you do that from a stock iPhone 4S?
I'm really curious.
If it was more than just deleting the app using the phone's built in method and then trashing the backup of the app from iTunes then I'm *really* interested.
Whether we define a virus as something you can trivially delete is an exercise for the reader.
Nice goalpost-shifting.
It's not a matter of saving more or less, it's a matter of saving-by-investing, which happens to most money in the current system, or saving-by-stuffing-money-in-the-mattress, which is the safest and best way to save with a deflationary currency.
You can assert that all day, but it's not necessarily true. Safest depends on local crime rates, bank failure rates, and what sort of insurance depositors receive, but assuming typical values for the US, a bank is probably rather safer (for accounts below the $250,000 FDIC limit), and thus if offering zero-interest savings accounts, unambiguously better (same maximum return, better average return, less risk of losing it all); even at small negative rates, it's likely to have a better average return. And mattress-stuffing only becomes riskier once thieves realize how popular it's becoming and start planning their burglaries around cash rather than around big-screen TVs.
And it's very rare that the same investment is both safest and best -- it's generally considered wise to have a mix of low-risk and high-risk (with correspondingly higher yield) investment.
Loans in an deflationary currency are basically pointless for the creditor and crushing for the debtor.
You'll have to explain that. Suppose for the moment that deflation is 1% annually.
Suppose a student wishes to pursue a college education, but in his senior year he cannot (quite) afford to finish... he needs $1,000. So he applies for a loan, which is payable in full in one year, after he's (presumably) finished school and landed a well-paying job. The bank offers simple interest with a rate of 1% -- so after 1 year, he needs to pay back $1010. This corresponds to a real interest rate of ~2% (1% due to more dollars, 1% to the rising value of a dollar, and ~ due to the third term of 1.01 * 1.01 = 1+(0.01+0.01)+(0.01*0.01))
Now let's check your claims...
Loans in an deflationary currency are basically pointless for the creditor
Well, the bank started with $1000. At the end of a year, they have $1010 (worth $1020 and change in year 0 dollars). After a year of using your proposed "safest and best" investment strategy of locking the $1000 in the vault rather than loaning it out, they'd have $1000 ($1010 in year 0 dollars). If the default risk is less than 1%, that's the opposite of pointless. (If not, increase the interest rate to match.)
and crushing for the debtor.
Well, yeah, loans always are "crushing" to some degree -- that's why you don't take out a loan unless you need to! Maybe he should drop out of school, take a lower paying job, and keep the $1010 he'll have a year from now. But if the degree allows him to make over $10 more, he's better off taking it!
Would the scenario be different if the student needed, say, a $100,000 loan to pay for four years of schooling, instead of $1000 to cover the last semester's texbooks? For the bank, not much -- still pointful (although maybe at a higher interest rate, to accomodate the likely higher default rate). For the student, it gets a lot more complicated: 4 years of schooling, followed by a high-paying job and high loan payments, vs. 4 years of earning something in a non-degree job, hopefully getting raises along the way, and maybe the possibility to attend night school along the way and get the same degree over the course of a decade -- basically, the longer timescale means more options and more uncertainty in the outcomes of those options, but it's still likely to be a decent option.
And if not -- well, don't take out a loan that doesn't have a positive outcome! If some loans are neither pointless for the creditor, nor more crushing than the alternatives for the debtor, that's enough to refute your silly claim -- it's no more required to prove that other scenarios make sense for both parties in a deflationary regime than it is sane to assert that every
'Bitcoin exemplifies some of the problems of private money,' says Hadas. 'Its value is uncertain, its legal status is unclear, and it could easily become valueless if users lose faith.
Cash's value is uncertain, its legal status is ... well, not unclear, but situationally dependent in a pretty bad way[1], and like anything, it becomes valueless if nobody wants it.
1. In the US, at least, while it's legal to use arbitrarily large amounts of cash in any legal transaction, it's not legal to use it for drug deals, money laundering, etc.. Sounds reasonable so far, but there's a whole boatload of policy and precedent to the effect that having large amounts of cash constitutes evidence that you were using it for drug deals, money laundering, etc., which combined with civil forfeiture, means that having large amounts of cash permits the state to seize that cash, unless you can prove that you were doing something good with it. Short of being an employee of a bank, vending machine company, etc., that's pretty hard.
I don't know if supporting Android apps is a good idea. Won't that kill any chance of having native apps?
Not necessarily. That issue's widely credited with the failure of OS/2, but that was a time when you drove to a store and bought a boxed application off the shelf, or mail-ordered it. Either way, you wound up with some removable media and installed the software -- there was no other way in practice. (Yes, I know modems did exist.) That means there's no incentive for someone with a Windows app to make an OS/2 port, because it's equal trouble for the consumer to acquire and use my Windows app or my competitor's OS/2 port -- I don't suffer lost sales for my lack of a port, so I I'd be a fool to dedicate the resources to one.
With smartphones, though, the normal method is to go to some app-store and download the app you want -- and this permits differentiation. If the Jolla app-store only carries Jolla-native apps, so that using an Android app requires downloading the .apk with a web browser, then my competitor with a Jolla-native port will get more market share than I do with my Android app, because there's less effort for users to install his app -- I'll have to do my own Jolla port to get in the Jolla app store and compete on an equal footing.
(I'm not sure that's exactly how the Jolla app-store situation will be -- maybe you can just install e.g. the Amazon app store APK, and have two app stores, one for android and one for jolla -- but you can see how that sort of thing lets you have the benefit of using existing Android apps while still giving developers a reason to bother with Jolla-native apps.)
Oh look, a hugely significant percentage of humans in a given environment want to do something. It comes with an added danger. Let's prohibit them from doing it! Because that works. It's always worked in the past, with everything from alcohol to abstinance.
I'm not sure what "added danger" comes with abstinence, but to my knowledge prohibiting abstinence has never been tried; if it were, I believe it would actually be fairly successful.
If they have to get up that high to see it, I don't think that's in "plain view."
If it's a custom monster truck affording them a view into other cars that no other drivers have, then yes.
If it's a standard vehicle (or has the same view as one, even if there's police-specific modifications in other areas) that many non-cops routinely use to haul themselves around, no.
And if every truck's cab sits even higher and affords an even better view, definitely no.
I'm sure it was a very expensive project, but I don't know that you'd fine anyone who had a reasonable complaint with the way it turned out.
I certainly hope not! That'd be a major freedom of speech issue, whether or not their complaint was "reasonable".
what is wrong with Arial?
Sir, it is a damnable cheap knockoff of the fine font Helvetica, and I will not countenance its use!