AOSP follows the "cathedral" approach of open source. gapps are closed and proprietary, that's true, and most apps require one or another gapp. Google has managed to get most apps rely on their services one way or another, even though they published most of the OS as open source. This can't be said for microsoft, or iOS (yeah, the compiler, browser engine and the kernel are open source, but what else?), so kudos to google for this.
Yes, Android is proprietary, but I still like that almost the whole OS is open source. Anyways, I wouldn't want to use the proprietary components anyways, e.g. their maps app, which sends the position I am interested in to google's servers. I use osmand, and have the full map on my device. I don't need to send google my position every time I look at the map, or tell google which route to drive, or etc. Or take the GCM service, which is good in thought, I don't deny that, but I don't trust an advertising company to run it, I prefer to have a free choice over this.
I'm comfortable with the fact that these apps are proprietary. I don't want spyware on my device. I don't want it to be integrated into the system and my ROM creator doesn't care to remove the spyware features. Its already now pretty common among CM users to download gapps onto their phones, even though its illegal, imagine the pressure from the community if the devs removed a spyware component from the open source part that rendered 90% of all apps unusable.
Perhaps by the time their servo rewrite is finished, the firefox name will be so unpopular that their best choice would be to release it under a different name.
The security of a cloud platform right now depends on whether the creators of the cloud platform care for security, and whether they know what they are doing. Google for example does both, their security is one of the best in the industry. And for IOT devices, usually one of the two criteria is wrong.
My major issue with IoT is about giving up control over my things to different entities. That's unfortunately what the term "IoT" stands for, even though "internet" is in theory a neutral medium without centralist "cloud" authorities.
Some people really want this, as bad as it sounds. With even the last anonymous payment method gone, the state is happy as it can tax precisely what its worth (of course only those people who can't afford to have all their companies owned by a holding in the crocodile islands), and the banks are happy as they can sell precise data about their customers to various people (perhaps even legally). They are even happier as now they can also introduce negative interests on the money you store at the bank. It can be used to "keep money in movement", to stifle the economy, and fill the purses of the banks: You now rather tend to take loans and pay those back with interest, because collecting the money in advance got more expensive.
True, swift had been heavily influenced by Objective-C. Swift now serves the same goals Objective-C served, namely adding lock-in. It basically ports the improvements rust brings to the C++ world over to the Objective-C world.
Swift 3.0 will not provide full source compatibility. Rather, it can and will introduce source-breaking changes needed to support the main goals of Swift 3.0.
I don't believe that apple will want swift to grow outside of the apple walled garden.
The main reason for using swift is that apple wants their developers to be locked in, on a language level. Their applications should be re-written from scratch if they want them to run on android or other plaftorms. They always went a different path to ensure this kind of lock-in. And they even found imitators, Google basically did this when they introduced java based apps.
1) "flashrom" is actually installed on a production machine (and I honestly can't think of a reason why it should be). 2) "flashrom" is in the path (which I can even less think of a reason why it should be).
Its a debian package. All you need to do is "apt-get install flashrom" as root. Other distros have it probably as well.
3) "flashrom" is executable in normal multiuser mode (which it should not be for VERY obvious reasons).
I don't know what you mean with "multiuser mode", but the standard debian package for flashrom doesn't have setuid bit set, and of course the kernel only allows flashrom to act if its executed by root. I guess its similar for "rm -rf/": it doesnt brick anything if executed as non-root user.
I wonder, why don't they just provide a configuration setting for this? Then everybody can decide what they want. In the kernel, this works super well. Not just on the build system level, but also on the config level once the kernel is built. Take sysrq for example, its a similar situation. You can use it for malicious purposes like killing a lock screen, but if you don't care you just edit/proc/sys/kernel/sysrq, and you get back the old functionality. And some distros even provide a file in/etc which is read at startup so that the change is persistent.
Almost everything I read up on the internet about KDE is outdated. And I'm not alone. You are happy to find somebody who had the problem you have in 2012, but now its entirely different and everything is much nicer now, so one can't use the current method anymore.
In fact, the URL is encrypted. The only thing that is not encrypted is the hostname. You should probably use APK's host file engine if you don't want the DNS request info to leave your computer (or use DNSSEC), and even then you'd have to disable SNI.
But I kind of agree. HTTPS is a nice concept, but its no silver bullet. It only protects your data on the way to the cloud provider or whatever you are visiting. The cloud provider still gets the unencrypted files. But yeah, HTTPS is something the cloud industry really likes. It protects the data from everyone but them. So they control it, and its their version of greenwashing.
You are a captive buyer of energy utilities, you have not ability to pick and choose who you buy electricity from.
I don't know how its in the USA, but at least in the EU there are multiple markets: the network providers, the plant running companies, and the actual vendor company you buy the energy from. And EU regulation (called REMIT if you want to look it up) requires network providers to be separate from the plant running companies, so big providers don't abuse their advanced position. As customer, you have choice from multiple energy vendors, you are not captive.
Because that's what would be needed to remove one of the biggest imperfections in the electricity market: fixed consumer tariffs.
Consumers have a demand for planability, and if they turn on the dishwasher it shouldn't cause a hundred dollar bill, while the next time they can heat their house with electricity and its still a few dollars, this isn't something a consumer wants. They want to stay warm all the time and get their dishes washed all the time. So there is no "imperfection" here, just a special kind of demand. The energy producers either offer tarriffs with fixed prices, or they can offer tariffs with added price variation but lower prices in total if used smartly. They can offer it, and as long as the alternative is still provided, and not everybody is required to use a "smart" tariff which includes a spyware "smart" electricity meter, I have no problem with this.
And, there is even a much bigger "imperfect" constant: The network frequency. The network is built so that if you turn on a light somewhere, somewhere else a plant has to do the additional work. The thing that would change/vary if demanded != provided energy is the network frequency. And due to multiple reasons, it is tried to be kept constant. As the consumers can basically turn on their devices whenever they want, the producers have to account for it. Multiple systems have been put in place in order to keep the frequency inside safe bounds, like the rotational momentum of the moving parts of the generators in the power plants (for the fast-response changes), or plants that stay ready and can be turned on within minutes if the demand raises.
None of these two things would level out "imperfect"nesses of the market, the market has already found fine solutions for both cases.
And it *demonstrably* results in quite substantial savings for customers.
So you care about the market, or about the customers?
If a proposed law is advertised as "Energy Conservation Program", then its clear that it isn't intended to level out market imperfections. Yes, externeralities exist for every market, but if you want to internalize the cost then you should clearly label it that way, and not give it some bolshevik slogan. Your goal should be to find the factors you want to internalize, not to conserve energy, whatever this means. Energy can't be "conserved" either way, its against the law of energy preservation.
There is already location based inequality on real estate, and the system is working great in reducing demand in the high-demand regions. Yes, of course, some things need to be regulated, like requiring water coming out of the tap to be clean, or where monopolies are too easily abused, e.g. with violating net neutrality or with walled-garden apps/services/operating systems/office suites, but requiring energy producers to not turn on the plants they own and have paid for? They do it probably because an energy plant can't be moved to india, and the state can do everything to them it wants.
The reduction in power use means electric utilities don't need to turn on backup power plants, which cost more to run and boost electricity prices
Have these people ever heard of a thing called "free market", where one can sell and buy? If the prices are too high, the stores and other places should feel them as well, and if the stores have made super great contracts (for the stores) with the energy companies, then its the companie's fault if they now have to pay the bill. The state regulating what should happen and what shouldn't happen is socialism. And I'm saying this while living in "socialist" europe.
Slashdot Mirror
AOSP follows the "cathedral" approach of open source. gapps are closed and proprietary, that's true, and most apps require one or another gapp. Google has managed to get most apps rely on their services one way or another, even though they published most of the OS as open source. This can't be said for microsoft, or iOS (yeah, the compiler, browser engine and the kernel are open source, but what else?), so kudos to google for this.
Yes, Android is proprietary, but I still like that almost the whole OS is open source. Anyways, I wouldn't want to use the proprietary components anyways, e.g. their maps app, which sends the position I am interested in to google's servers. I use osmand, and have the full map on my device. I don't need to send google my position every time I look at the map, or tell google which route to drive, or etc. Or take the GCM service, which is good in thought, I don't deny that, but I don't trust an advertising company to run it, I prefer to have a free choice over this.
I'm comfortable with the fact that these apps are proprietary. I don't want spyware on my device. I don't want it to be integrated into the system and my ROM creator doesn't care to remove the spyware features. Its already now pretty common among CM users to download gapps onto their phones, even though its illegal, imagine the pressure from the community if the devs removed a spyware component from the open source part that rendered 90% of all apps unusable.
Perhaps by the time their servo rewrite is finished, the firefox name will be so unpopular that their best choice would be to release it under a different name.
when can we get rid of facebook?
"Cloud only hardware". Must remember this phrase, really sums up the current trend.
The security of a cloud platform right now depends on whether the creators of the cloud platform care for security, and whether they know what they are doing. Google for example does both, their security is one of the best in the industry. And for IOT devices, usually one of the two criteria is wrong.
My major issue with IoT is about giving up control over my things to different entities. That's unfortunately what the term "IoT" stands for, even though "internet" is in theory a neutral medium without centralist "cloud" authorities.
Some people really want this, as bad as it sounds. With even the last anonymous payment method gone, the state is happy as it can tax precisely what its worth (of course only those people who can't afford to have all their companies owned by a holding in the crocodile islands), and the banks are happy as they can sell precise data about their customers to various people (perhaps even legally). They are even happier as now they can also introduce negative interests on the money you store at the bank. It can be used to "keep money in movement", to stifle the economy, and fill the purses of the banks: You now rather tend to take loans and pay those back with interest, because collecting the money in advance got more expensive.
True, swift had been heavily influenced by Objective-C. Swift now serves the same goals Objective-C served, namely adding lock-in. It basically ports the improvements rust brings to the C++ world over to the Objective-C world.
In fact you are right. From the swift-evolution repo:
Swift 3.0 will not provide full source compatibility. Rather, it can and will introduce source-breaking changes needed to support the main goals of Swift 3.0.
I don't believe that apple will want swift to grow outside of the apple walled garden.
The main reason for using swift is that apple wants their developers to be locked in, on a language level. Their applications should be re-written from scratch if they want them to run on android or other plaftorms. They always went a different path to ensure this kind of lock-in. And they even found imitators, Google basically did this when they introduced java based apps.
1) "flashrom" is actually installed on a production machine (and I honestly can't think of a reason why it should be).
2) "flashrom" is in the path (which I can even less think of a reason why it should be).
Its a debian package. All you need to do is "apt-get install flashrom" as root. Other distros have it probably as well.
3) "flashrom" is executable in normal multiuser mode (which it should not be for VERY obvious reasons).
I don't know what you mean with "multiuser mode", but the standard debian package for flashrom doesn't have setuid bit set, and of course the kernel only allows flashrom to act if its executed by root. I guess its similar for "rm -rf /": it doesnt brick anything if executed as non-root user.
I wonder, why don't they just provide a configuration setting for this? Then everybody can decide what they want. In the kernel, this works super well. Not just on the build system level, but also on the config level once the kernel is built. Take sysrq for example, its a similar situation. You can use it for malicious purposes like killing a lock screen, but if you don't care you just edit /proc/sys/kernel/sysrq, and you get back the old functionality. And some distros even provide a file in /etc which is read at startup so that the change is persistent.
Btw, BIOS allows the OS to brick it as well. Just run "flashrom -E --programmer internal". (Haven't tested it for obvious reasons).
Almost everything I read up on the internet about KDE is outdated. And I'm not alone. You are happy to find somebody who had the problem you have in 2012, but now its entirely different and everything is much nicer now, so one can't use the current method anymore.
Ah right, seems I was wrong.
In fact, the URL is encrypted. The only thing that is not encrypted is the hostname. You should probably use APK's host file engine if you don't want the DNS request info to leave your computer (or use DNSSEC), and even then you'd have to disable SNI.
But I kind of agree. HTTPS is a nice concept, but its no silver bullet. It only protects your data on the way to the cloud provider or whatever you are visiting. The cloud provider still gets the unencrypted files. But yeah, HTTPS is something the cloud industry really likes. It protects the data from everyone but them. So they control it, and its their version of greenwashing.
They should sell slashdot more often.
Google confirms, slashdot is dying. And its google, not netcraft. Google is never wrong.
Cool, thanks for the news. Google seems to confirm what you say: http://www.streetinsider.com/C...
Or here as well: http://www.marketwired.com/pre...
Looking forward to have the same overlords as www.MyRatePlan.com, www.VoipReview.org and www.Voip-Info.org!
This story is rather a followup than a dupe.
but it wasn't long ago (1 hour) since I found out about the outage, by seeing an unicorn. Congrats slashdot for being fast.
This is slashdot, nobody clicks the links.
You are a captive buyer of energy utilities, you have not ability to pick and choose who you buy electricity from.
I don't know how its in the USA, but at least in the EU there are multiple markets: the network providers, the plant running companies, and the actual vendor company you buy the energy from. And EU regulation (called REMIT if you want to look it up) requires network providers to be separate from the plant running companies, so big providers don't abuse their advanced position. As customer, you have choice from multiple energy vendors, you are not captive.
Because that's what would be needed to remove one of the biggest imperfections in the electricity market: fixed consumer tariffs.
Consumers have a demand for planability, and if they turn on the dishwasher it shouldn't cause a hundred dollar bill, while the next time they can heat their house with electricity and its still a few dollars, this isn't something a consumer wants. They want to stay warm all the time and get their dishes washed all the time. So there is no "imperfection" here, just a special kind of demand. The energy producers either offer tarriffs with fixed prices, or they can offer tariffs with added price variation but lower prices in total if used smartly. They can offer it, and as long as the alternative is still provided, and not everybody is required to use a "smart" tariff which includes a spyware "smart" electricity meter, I have no problem with this.
And, there is even a much bigger "imperfect" constant: The network frequency. The network is built so that if you turn on a light somewhere, somewhere else a plant has to do the additional work. The thing that would change/vary if demanded != provided energy is the network frequency. And due to multiple reasons, it is tried to be kept constant. As the consumers can basically turn on their devices whenever they want, the producers have to account for it. Multiple systems have been put in place in order to keep the frequency inside safe bounds, like the rotational momentum of the moving parts of the generators in the power plants (for the fast-response changes), or plants that stay ready and can be turned on within minutes if the demand raises.
None of these two things would level out "imperfect"nesses of the market, the market has already found fine solutions for both cases.
And it *demonstrably* results in quite substantial savings for customers.
So you care about the market, or about the customers?
If a proposed law is advertised as "Energy Conservation Program", then its clear that it isn't intended to level out market imperfections. Yes, externeralities exist for every market, but if you want to internalize the cost then you should clearly label it that way, and not give it some bolshevik slogan. Your goal should be to find the factors you want to internalize, not to conserve energy, whatever this means. Energy can't be "conserved" either way, its against the law of energy preservation.
There is already location based inequality on real estate, and the system is working great in reducing demand in the high-demand regions. Yes, of course, some things need to be regulated, like requiring water coming out of the tap to be clean, or where monopolies are too easily abused, e.g. with violating net neutrality or with walled-garden apps/services/operating systems/office suites, but requiring energy producers to not turn on the plants they own and have paid for? They do it probably because an energy plant can't be moved to india, and the state can do everything to them it wants.
The reduction in power use means electric utilities don't need to turn on backup power plants, which cost more to run and boost electricity prices
Have these people ever heard of a thing called "free market", where one can sell and buy? If the prices are too high, the stores and other places should feel them as well, and if the stores have made super great contracts (for the stores) with the energy companies, then its the companie's fault if they now have to pay the bill. The state regulating what should happen and what shouldn't happen is socialism. And I'm saying this while living in "socialist" europe.