People aren't being forced to install the GMS to sell an Android phone. They are, however, being forced to install the entire GMS or none of it. There's no unbundling of just one or two apps and leaving the rest uninstalled. So if you want to sell an Android that has for example the GMail app or the Google+ app (or the Play Store app, which is the big clincher) then you have to install the others.
This is from my head, so I'm sorry if it's not complete or includes apps not considered part of the GMS suite.
Other than Gmail, Play Store, Youtube, and Maps I can think of: Play Music, Play Books, Play Games, Play Movies & TV, Play Newsstand, Google search, Google voice search, Google Translate, the Chromecast app, Google+, Google Now, Drive, Chrome, Hangouts, and Google Wallet.
That's nineteen of the twenty I guess. I don't really use the movies/tv app or the newsstand app. The rest I do to some extent. I wonder if the separate Google Settings icon is considered part of the apps suite, or if maybe the Chromecast integration isn't.
Are the default clock, calendar, contacts, calculator, and SMS messaging app (that they keep trying to obsolete in favor of Hangouts) part of the suite?
People trust scientists who aren't scared of losing their funding. They don't trust scientists who only receive funding according to a politician's agenda.
The solution to trustworthy scientists is to get politics out of research and research funding.
Part of TFS says it's a starter interlock and another says it interrupts the ignition system. Contrary to what some people think, these are two related and interconnected but very different things.
The starter system primes the ignition system with a solenoid and starter motor to bring the engine up from a non-running state and is not needed again until the engine has stopped and needs to be started again. The engine needs the ignition system for more than the initial startup. It's used to ignite the fuel/air mixture. The ignition system is needed the whole time the engine is running.
The NYT has this terrible sentence in TFA: "But before they can drive off the lot, many subprime borrowers like Ms. Bolender must have their car outfitted with a so-called starter interrupt device, which allows lenders to remotely disable the ignition." If they disable just the starter, that's different from disabling the ignition system. This is reporting of the sloppiest sort.
One of the device companies clearly states on their web site it is a starter interrupt device only [passtimeusa.com] and also that there is a 24-hour emergency driving feature in case there is an emergency.
What another company may be selling that's not listed in TFA beats me.
Part of TFS says it's a starter interlock and another says it interrupts the ignition system. Contrary to what some people think, these are two related and interconnected but very different things.
The starter system primes the ignition system with a solenoid and starter motor to bring the engine up from a non-running state and is not needed again until the engine has stopped and needs to be started again. The engine needs the ignition system for more than the initial startup. It's used to ignite the fuel/air mixture. The ignition system is needed the whole time the engine is running.
The NYT has this terrible sentence in TFA: "But before they can drive off the lot, many subprime borrowers like Ms. Bolender must have their car outfitted with a so-called starter interrupt device, which allows lenders to remotely disable the ignition." If they disable just the starter, that's different from disabling the ignition system. This is reporting of the sloppiest sort.
One of the device companies clearly states on their web site it is a starter interrupt device only and also that there is a 24-hour emergency driving feature in case there is an emergency.
What another company may be selling that's not listed in TFA beats me.
Indeed. I live in Houston myself. I received a notice to vacate from my apartment leasing company for not paying rent. This was because while they took my check, deposited my check, and gave me a receipt for the check, they credited my check (with my name and address printed on the check, my apartment number also on the memo line, and my signature on the check) to someone else's ledger.
My girlfriend took the receipt (including a photocopy of the front of the check and the signature of their employee), the printout from my bank account showing the draft (including scans of the front and back of the check with their endorsement), a copy of the eviction notice, and a copy of the notice of amount due (because water is billed monthly besides the fixed rent) to the leasing office. They corrected my rent ledger, printed it out, and signed it. They also wrote an apology letter saying I was up to date and they were sorry for their mistake, and signed that.
Still, it took time out of my workday to get the paperwork together and emailed to my girlfriend. It took time out of her day, too. She was very upset until it was resolved. If an apartment complex can carelessly give a 3.5 year resident a notice to vacate in ten days posted on the door, I have no doubt a car dealership in the same town can push a button carelessly.
H1N1 is a specific strain of a family of viruses known as influenza. Ebola is caused by multiple virus strains, too, each with their own origin name. Ebola strains
The system call in some languages will do that, and in some won't except under certain circumstances.
In Perl if you give system() a list it won't call the shell. If you give it a single scalar it will call the shell only if there are shell metacharacters in that scalar.
Simply because a language is billed as a "scripting" language (by which people tend to mean distributed as source code and partially compiled for each execution rather than compiled once and distributed as object code rather than actually used primarily to script other programs) doesn't mean there's no programming paradigm associated with them. They can support procedural, functional, actor-based, object-oriented, logical, dataflow, reactive, late binding, iteration, recursion, concurrency, and whatever other paradigms and methods people want. Some of them support mixing and matching even in the same program.
Languages that are typically fully compiled can even be run in an interpreter. C-- comes to mind. Often languages known for interpretation (actually most of which are partially compiled rather than interpreted line-by-line) have support for compiling at least portions of a program up front, too. Examples include the.pyc files of Python, luajit, Facebook's HHVM, Steelbank Common Lisp, and Reini Urban's work on perlcc.
People making claims about one type of language vs. another should really keep straight what types they are talking about.
When it comes to one's own habits it's better to be safe than sorry. After all it's pretty well known you won't be harmed from a lack of these sweeteners. I sure won't go spreading fear about it with this level of evidence, though.
I think getting an interesting result from a sample of seven people is enough to say a larger study should try to reproduce the experiment. It's not really big enough to stand on its own for anything more than that.
I would hold that all three of your choices are opinion, although #3 would be the consensus opinion. My disagreement here revolves around the random selection more than anything. If you said "average high school band student" that would be a stronger statement because of course both Mozart and Bach are far beyond average. When you say randomly selected there's the matter of pre-selection probability and post-selection actuality. Some high school band student may actually be better, although it's unlikely.
It would still be subjective until axioms about what makes a good composition and therefore a good composer are agreed upon. Most people, though, would agree. There are some things that are nearly universally agreed that come very close to the weright fact, but are still very widely held opinions.
Now, if you doctored the proposition just a bit to say "Either Mozart or Bach are considered by the vast majority of people to have been a better composer than any given high school band student" that's something upon which data could be collected and therefore factual.
Unfalsifiable in fact does not mean false. It also does not mean true. Unfalsifiable does mean unprovable and nonfactual. You can't have a fact unless it's falsifiable. That's part of the definition of a fact: even if it's true there's the possibility to attempt to show it is false.
Science is concerned with hypotheses (testable statements) and repeatable observations (empirical facts). If you can't test it repeatedly and observe it repeatedly then it's not science.
There's a big difference between "not scientific" and "anti-scientific".
You can disingenuously try to put whatever words you like into my mouth to build whatever strawman you like. I'm just tired of hearing the religious anti-science crowd and the science-minded folks baiting and presenting meaningless arguments back and forth. If someone's worldview is completely inconsistent with someone else's, that's no reason for them to try to make idiotic cross-boundary arguments adding noise to public fora.
Unfortunately many people have never learned to deal with cognitive dissonance very well. There have been great scientists who believed one thing as religious truth and who supported the objective evidence within a scientific model at the same time.
Allegory, fable, parable, subjective experience, and unobservable conjecture about spirits and deities is not anti-science or counter to science. The problem is when people try to conflate their by definition subjective, unobservable, untestable beliefs with what by definition must be objective, observable, and testable.
Religion and theology are informed by a wholly different part of philosophy than is science. Science assumes an acceptance of objectivism, which is anathema to most religions (in fact any religion with a supernatural explanation for anything). It's no wonder they are incompatible.
If someone wants to have faith in something, I have no issue with that. If they want everything proven to them, I have no problem with that. If they want to separate one form the other, I even have no problem with that. If, however, they want to bash science because it's not in accords with their scary invisible, inaudible, uncommunicative, unobservable supreme being in another existence then they need to step back and consider that their religion is not at all even germane to the discussion of science.
I'm sure they would, too. But what's Comcast's complaint about Tor? How is a VPN any less anonymous once you're tunneled through their network to somewhere else and how is the traffic any less hidden?
I turned in their modem because it was crap and I bought my own. It's been two months and I'm still fighting the modem lease fee they're still charging me. Going to the service center is not a cure-all.
In the US it is legal in every state to record a phone call if all parties are aware it's being recorded. In some states only one end of the call needs to be aware. IANAL but in some two-party states the fact that Comcast tells you they can records the call may give you an equal right to do so without notice. You can always tell them they are being recorded, though.
Hey, Comcast, continuing to charge me for a modem lease fee when I'm not leasing your piece of crap modem is not so-to-speak "legal". So why after dealing with your customer disservice personnel twice are you continuing to charge me an $8 a month fee for something you can't so-to-speak "legally" charge me?
This company needs to wither and die. The problem is the only other realistic choice where I live is AT&T. If I move across town I can get Time Warner who is almost as bad and about to be just as bad with the merger.
The public service commissions and the municipalities that grant them buildout rights are the only way to deal with this crap, as the FCC has proven useless.
Slashdot Mirror
People aren't being forced to install the GMS to sell an Android phone. They are, however, being forced to install the entire GMS or none of it. There's no unbundling of just one or two apps and leaving the rest uninstalled. So if you want to sell an Android that has for example the GMail app or the Google+ app (or the Play Store app, which is the big clincher) then you have to install the others.
This is from my head, so I'm sorry if it's not complete or includes apps not considered part of the GMS suite.
Other than Gmail, Play Store, Youtube, and Maps I can think of:
Play Music, Play Books, Play Games, Play Movies & TV, Play Newsstand, Google search, Google voice search, Google Translate, the Chromecast app, Google+, Google Now, Drive, Chrome, Hangouts, and Google Wallet.
That's nineteen of the twenty I guess. I don't really use the movies/tv app or the newsstand app. The rest I do to some extent. I wonder if the separate Google Settings icon is considered part of the apps suite, or if maybe the Chromecast integration isn't.
Are the default clock, calendar, contacts, calculator, and SMS messaging app (that they keep trying to obsolete in favor of Hangouts) part of the suite?
Google as it turns out has a list of apps for Android and another for iOS in case you want their apps on Apple hardware. Some of those I didn't think to list above.
People trust scientists who aren't scared of losing their funding. They don't trust scientists who only receive funding according to a politician's agenda.
The solution to trustworthy scientists is to get politics out of research and research funding.
The one-year view of world history seems to those of us older than about twelve to be somewhat short-sighted.
Part of TFS says it's a starter interlock and another says it interrupts the ignition system. Contrary to what some people think, these are two related and interconnected but very different things.
The starter system primes the ignition system with a solenoid and starter motor to bring the engine up from a non-running state and is not needed again until the engine has stopped and needs to be started again. The engine needs the ignition system for more than the initial startup. It's used to ignite the fuel/air mixture. The ignition system is needed the whole time the engine is running.
The NYT has this terrible sentence in TFA: "But before they can drive off the lot, many subprime borrowers like Ms. Bolender must have their car outfitted with a so-called starter interrupt device, which allows lenders to remotely disable the ignition." If they disable just the starter, that's different from disabling the ignition system. This is reporting of the sloppiest sort.
One of the device companies clearly states on their web site it is a starter interrupt device only [passtimeusa.com] and also that there is a 24-hour emergency driving feature in case there is an emergency.
What another company may be selling that's not listed in TFA beats me.
Part of TFS says it's a starter interlock and another says it interrupts the ignition system. Contrary to what some people think, these are two related and interconnected but very different things.
The starter system primes the ignition system with a solenoid and starter motor to bring the engine up from a non-running state and is not needed again until the engine has stopped and needs to be started again. The engine needs the ignition system for more than the initial startup. It's used to ignite the fuel/air mixture. The ignition system is needed the whole time the engine is running.
The NYT has this terrible sentence in TFA: "But before they can drive off the lot, many subprime borrowers like Ms. Bolender must have their car outfitted with a so-called starter interrupt device, which allows lenders to remotely disable the ignition." If they disable just the starter, that's different from disabling the ignition system. This is reporting of the sloppiest sort.
One of the device companies clearly states on their web site it is a starter interrupt device only and also that there is a 24-hour emergency driving feature in case there is an emergency.
What another company may be selling that's not listed in TFA beats me.
Indeed. I live in Houston myself. I received a notice to vacate from my apartment leasing company for not paying rent. This was because while they took my check, deposited my check, and gave me a receipt for the check, they credited my check (with my name and address printed on the check, my apartment number also on the memo line, and my signature on the check) to someone else's ledger.
My girlfriend took the receipt (including a photocopy of the front of the check and the signature of their employee), the printout from my bank account showing the draft (including scans of the front and back of the check with their endorsement), a copy of the eviction notice, and a copy of the notice of amount due (because water is billed monthly besides the fixed rent) to the leasing office. They corrected my rent ledger, printed it out, and signed it. They also wrote an apology letter saying I was up to date and they were sorry for their mistake, and signed that.
Still, it took time out of my workday to get the paperwork together and emailed to my girlfriend. It took time out of her day, too. She was very upset until it was resolved. If an apartment complex can carelessly give a 3.5 year resident a notice to vacate in ten days posted on the door, I have no doubt a car dealership in the same town can push a button carelessly.
It encourages people to be more timely on payments if they don't lose their job or their life due to having the ignition cut out.
Doing this while the car is moving is unconscionable. Not having an emergency short-term override for emergencies is pretty close.
H1N1 is a specific strain of a family of viruses known as influenza. Ebola is caused by multiple virus strains, too, each with their own origin name. Ebola strains
The system call in some languages will do that, and in some won't except under certain circumstances.
In Perl if you give system() a list it won't call the shell. If you give it a single scalar it will call the shell only if there are shell metacharacters in that scalar.
No. There were no boxes and lines when I was taught to add. We lined places up vertically. It's called column addition.
32.5
+60.0
--------
92.5
Number line addition, ten frame addition, etc. are different ways to teach addition.
Simply because a language is billed as a "scripting" language (by which people tend to mean distributed as source code and partially compiled for each execution rather than compiled once and distributed as object code rather than actually used primarily to script other programs) doesn't mean there's no programming paradigm associated with them. They can support procedural, functional, actor-based, object-oriented, logical, dataflow, reactive, late binding, iteration, recursion, concurrency, and whatever other paradigms and methods people want. Some of them support mixing and matching even in the same program.
Languages that are typically fully compiled can even be run in an interpreter. C-- comes to mind. Often languages known for interpretation (actually most of which are partially compiled rather than interpreted line-by-line) have support for compiling at least portions of a program up front, too. Examples include the .pyc files of Python, luajit, Facebook's HHVM, Steelbank Common Lisp, and Reini Urban's work on perlcc.
People making claims about one type of language vs. another should really keep straight what types they are talking about.
Simpsons did it! Oh, I mean there are other players in this same field. It'll be interesting to see who, if anyone, makes it to market.
When it comes to one's own habits it's better to be safe than sorry. After all it's pretty well known you won't be harmed from a lack of these sweeteners. I sure won't go spreading fear about it with this level of evidence, though.
I think getting an interesting result from a sample of seven people is enough to say a larger study should try to reproduce the experiment. It's not really big enough to stand on its own for anything more than that.
I would hold that all three of your choices are opinion, although #3 would be the consensus opinion. My disagreement here revolves around the random selection more than anything. If you said "average high school band student" that would be a stronger statement because of course both Mozart and Bach are far beyond average. When you say randomly selected there's the matter of pre-selection probability and post-selection actuality. Some high school band student may actually be better, although it's unlikely.
It would still be subjective until axioms about what makes a good composition and therefore a good composer are agreed upon. Most people, though, would agree. There are some things that are nearly universally agreed that come very close to the weright fact, but are still very widely held opinions.
Now, if you doctored the proposition just a bit to say "Either Mozart or Bach are considered by the vast majority of people to have been a better composer than any given high school band student" that's something upon which data could be collected and therefore factual.
Unfalsifiable in fact does not mean false. It also does not mean true. Unfalsifiable does mean unprovable and nonfactual. You can't have a fact unless it's falsifiable. That's part of the definition of a fact: even if it's true there's the possibility to attempt to show it is false.
Science is concerned with hypotheses (testable statements) and repeatable observations (empirical facts). If you can't test it repeatedly and observe it repeatedly then it's not science.
There's a big difference between "not scientific" and "anti-scientific".
You can disingenuously try to put whatever words you like into my mouth to build whatever strawman you like. I'm just tired of hearing the religious anti-science crowd and the science-minded folks baiting and presenting meaningless arguments back and forth. If someone's worldview is completely inconsistent with someone else's, that's no reason for them to try to make idiotic cross-boundary arguments adding noise to public fora.
Unfortunately many people have never learned to deal with cognitive dissonance very well. There have been great scientists who believed one thing as religious truth and who supported the objective evidence within a scientific model at the same time.
Allegory, fable, parable, subjective experience, and unobservable conjecture about spirits and deities is not anti-science or counter to science. The problem is when people try to conflate their by definition subjective, unobservable, untestable beliefs with what by definition must be objective, observable, and testable.
Religion and theology are informed by a wholly different part of philosophy than is science. Science assumes an acceptance of objectivism, which is anathema to most religions (in fact any religion with a supernatural explanation for anything). It's no wonder they are incompatible.
If someone wants to have faith in something, I have no issue with that. If they want everything proven to them, I have no problem with that. If they want to separate one form the other, I even have no problem with that. If, however, they want to bash science because it's not in accords with their scary invisible, inaudible, uncommunicative, unobservable supreme being in another existence then they need to step back and consider that their religion is not at all even germane to the discussion of science.
I'm sure they would, too. But what's Comcast's complaint about Tor? How is a VPN any less anonymous once you're tunneled through their network to somewhere else and how is the traffic any less hidden?
Yes.
I turned in their modem because it was crap and I bought my own. It's been two months and I'm still fighting the modem lease fee they're still charging me. Going to the service center is not a cure-all.
In the US it is legal in every state to record a phone call if all parties are aware it's being recorded. In some states only one end of the call needs to be aware. IANAL but in some two-party states the fact that Comcast tells you they can records the call may give you an equal right to do so without notice. You can always tell them they are being recorded, though.
A VPN? That's hiding internet traffic from them, which is precisely their problem with Tor.
Hey, Comcast, continuing to charge me for a modem lease fee when I'm not leasing your piece of crap modem is not so-to-speak "legal". So why after dealing with your customer disservice personnel twice are you continuing to charge me an $8 a month fee for something you can't so-to-speak "legally" charge me?
This company needs to wither and die. The problem is the only other realistic choice where I live is AT&T. If I move across town I can get Time Warner who is almost as bad and about to be just as bad with the merger.
The public service commissions and the municipalities that grant them buildout rights are the only way to deal with this crap, as the FCC has proven useless.
Did you by any chance use the same unique string of random crap at some third-party site where you used your email address as a verification email?