There is no way oracle can win the fight against all the companies which would be hurt if this goes trough. They will settle and make some patent agreement in the end.
Thats it. Exactly. No problems, even if you run Linux (and many other IDEs delivered with MCs are either crippled to sell you the $4000 professional development kit or have esoteric demands in OS)
The other thing is: simplicity; you can do a $10 "alarma clock project" up to a $200 bluetooth+gsm tracking project with the same HW.
What i dont like is that they could support the Reneas M16C (because of the nice HW inside) or the TI430 series (power) But
More important is - even if the ownership of the HW in unclear, if he put his face in the public and advertised WL at that moment to be a way of safe leaking, he also has the moral duty to at least that the harddrive into his possession until he is convinced that it does not fall into the wrong hands. How that Assange is effectively in jail and that the organization go a large amount of supporters, i am pretty sure that some of the newly won supporters may be from some secret service. Upon evaluating Assanges personality structure i think it would be rather easy to gain access right now; since WL needs programmers and also to fill other functions and Assange seems not to declare standard procedures since this would restrict his power, my personal estimation is that they are now infiltrated with a non-negligible probability on some level.
Actually he state stated that he will keep them in possession until ownership has been settled. He claimed he owned the servers. He said the servers were bought using money transferred by some dutch foundation which - among other things - also funded WL partially. He said in the interview that he will turn to that organization and settle the situation with them; how far that plan has proceeded i dont know.
Domscheit-Berg gave an very interesting interview (on netzpolitik.de, in German).
a) Assange assumed that everybody who worked with him has to follow his orders
b) Assange rejected to give wikileaks any legal structures or organizationl structures
c) Assange assumed that everybody works for WL, but left the modalities of influence or money completely undefined.
Domscheidt-Berg was "suspended" (from what exactly, if i may ask if there is no organizational structure behind?) and he decided to keep the hardware with the information in his possession (where it was) until wikileaks can give him convincing instructions what to do. Since there is no organization the ownership of the servers in unclear, and he askes Wikileaks to settle it with the foundation which collaborated with them to return the servers.
Endangering of the infromers was due to Assanges unwillingness to restrict themself in a meaningful and planned way and due to his promis to the newapapers to redact the documents, a task far beyond WLs capacities at that time, and DB claims he warned of that ans got increasingly frustrated with not having a organization structure behind.
DB describes the personality structure of Assange consistently with the other persons who have met Assange personally and gave interviews.
If you would ask me to hand over a server with unclear ownership containing critical information into the hands of some person coming in a due to circumstances strongly fluctuating non-organization based on the need and the evaluation of a self-proclaimed leader with a personality structure which for sure is prone to the usual tricks used during infiltration, at a time when this leader is under big stress and may be even more leaning towards no fully rational decisions, i would seriously *not* transfer that.
So while some personal connotations of the whole story may be irritating, i can follow DBs thoughts and arguments.
To put it in a nice way: Assange is somewhere on the line between madman and genius; i would say he is a case for a therapy (a mild ambulant one) to fight the problems he seems to causing constantly in personal interactions and his Hybris.
Well, we will see - i consider WP7 a little practically unttested, but that would be the same for meego. I agree on the Galaxy tab and the Iphone. I also have a Galaxy tab and while is works 'quite well' it is has more quirks than symbian-based phones; since my girlfriend owns an iphone and i can observe there are enough reasons not to buy one...
You can produce the same effect by making a last-minute switch to a new OS after carefully stabilizing and making an OS pefectly matched to your needs and hardware for several years. It will not be faster to use the new OS and if you main positive reputation is "It just works" then you can only loose more.
Palm crawled back to their original idea after getting distracted on the windows path and nearly died. The just wasted energy, confused the community and lost more time
I am really sad to see that history repeats itself. I liked every Nokia phone (6310,6310i,E71,E63) i used, because i could 100% rely on it.
I think you are right in stating that it is by no means obvious. The question is: Are there apps missing for which people would pay enough? I think the user base for Android right now has not yet developed subcultures in which you can trivially get or estimate revenue. I think trying to target the broad base of customers will only work out if use ads. This has the funny consequence that there are actually quite a few spezialized apps which i am missing on my Android device, which would be easy to program and where i would pay some money for it. However, for each of the popular application types I often have the choice between 10 or more (often equally crappy) apps.
So to come back to the statement (that it is not obvious): It is not obvious if either path (specialized audience vs. broad customer base) can overcome the associated problems.
ahem. 175parts per billion is 1.75e-7. For metrology that is a huge discrepancy. What is worse is that the measurements themself are a factor of 5 better, leaving no room for error.
For experiments where the physicists believe they understand them this is unacceptable, because it actually means the pysics of at least one method of both is not well enough understood, i.e. you have a systematic error. If the physics is not well understood then you don't know if the systematic error will be constant.
If the measurement will not be constant then the average will also not be constant. So an metrology institute where a reference weight should be define will need both methods and still not get any stable definition.
If you already need to afford both methods, then you can create reference weights and at the same time check if the difference between both methods is the right one and constant at your place.
Important rule in experimental physics: NEVER average over systematic mistakes. Average over random results. On systematic mistakes, the word average makes no sense
Censorship is an annoyance, but the great firewall (and the attached bureaucracy) has enough lag so that Chinese people are not that uninformed as the government would like them to be.
It reminds me a little about music albums, which where not allowed to advertise for in Germany, or sell to people below 18. In my youth it was a recommendation to buy the tape if it got that status.
If events in a country are important enough to be blocked, Chinese people will be more curious instead of less. Modern propaganda works differently.
If some there is an observation, then the most interesting question is: can we explaing this observation by the simplest model. There are two simple (extreme) models inheritance of religious views/bias to adhere to religion:
a) genetics does not play a role in the formation of religious closed groups
b) it does.
a or b can be falsified by comparing the predictions of statistical models with the reality, given that statistical data of high quality is available, and upon using a meta-analysis (sometimes an art, most times a hard science) to exclude/reduce study bias, unwanted correlations. It is a proper methology to first do the simulations of the simple assumptions and then ask a specific question to the statistics, otherwise you may end catching something significant just by chance (it is dangerous to look for anything).
So while the slashdot headline was an exageration (as usual) and i can not judge the articles validity in 10 minutes (not my field, and even then it would take longer), i find that the things which are done there give an interesting view on how to possibly falsify one of the two hypothesis.
In the abstract and the conclusion i have the feeling the author puts a little bit to much of his worldview without referencing the claims somewhere, but he states clearly what he assumes and what he calculated.
I dont care if you can append sth to a password. Mathematically accepting some additional input to a password is not bad - you can also type additional text.
The only loss in entropy is that you dont have to guess where the user cut of something from known words. The worst case scenario would be if you make a dictionary attack, and the password is in the dictionary in a longer form you dont have to send the right length. assuming that the chosen pw must be longer than 8 characters and probably is shorter than 32characters, this saves you *at most* 5 bit of entropy, probably less for most real world cases. given that a good pw should have more than 40-48bits of entropy, loosing 5 bits wont hurt much.
Is it asked too much to write a simple j2me program waiting fro the *right* message? I dont have any experience with building bombs, but i know that it i would have to construct one the focus would be on *not making it explode in the wrong moment* (e.g. when wiring it up). Reacting to *any* message which comes in is purely stupid.
I guess its not the best solution to find a single "best management for large open source projects". That expression is so vague, its meaningless. Linux has other structures and interest groups than apache and that is different from an office suite....
They will fight a little publicly to get attention. Then the lawyers of google, oracle, and the handset vendors using android will meet in a pleasant atmosphere, then they will compare the size of the patent stacks and compare the money everybody earns by handling it right, and then google and the other handset manufacturers will pay some amount of money to license java in the future (and probably will not make statements about the past aside from a declaration that nobody owes anybody else anything for the past). Google will have a problem less, the manufactures can continue to sell and oracle gets the badge of "biggest java provider for mobile solutions in the world" which they can use to advertise.
In a working state, the power to punish by act seen as criminal is exerted by the police and the courts. If "the strong" can "retaliate" against the weak, the we call that anarchy.
If Amazon want they can take offline everybody who is hosting wikileaks and every imageboard which used the word "anonymous" on the planet by dedicating 10% of their computational/network power to "retaliate". If google would like to "retaliate" against somebody, they could take a medium-sized country offline and render it inoperative for months (imagine what amount of disturbance they could cause by searching all gmail for important infrastructure numbers and showing them up in 10% of the search results - an adminitration getting 10times more calls than they can handle will not be able to work any more). Imagine if they show a companies homepage randomly in 1% of the search results - the homepage will be offline for some time. If china wants, they can take any NGO offline by an attack.
We should not aim for an internet, where we retaliate and fight wars without any legal court having said anything, but plainly with the legitimation of the own strength. Once this would be the established order of things, the internet failed.
If somebody behave badly, put them on a list. Don't pair with them, don't accept mail from them, and anybody who systematically ignores that ends on the same list. That system is not perfect, but its the best we have. Try to figure out the people behind and bring them to justice. The security companies should dedicate a substential amount of their products to educating the user (e.g.: pay high-level news speakers or actors to speak a 2 minute warning on the current trends). Official/company websites need to stop to put "ssl-certified" logos on the webpage itself, but should put a picture with how the URL bar should look like and ask the user to compare and remember it. Big companies should not educate the user to install just every program, because they tell to.
What i want to say: the image, the resources, and the power of big companies can be used in constructive ways, and not to establish illegal actions as the course of the day.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no way oracle can win the fight against all the companies which would be hurt if this goes trough. They will settle and make some patent agreement in the end.
Always Skip one....
Thats it. Exactly. No problems, even if you run Linux (and many other IDEs delivered with MCs are either crippled to sell you the $4000 professional development kit or have esoteric demands in OS)
The other thing is: simplicity; you can do a $10 "alarma clock project" up to a $200 bluetooth+gsm tracking project with the same HW.
What i dont like is that they could support the Reneas M16C (because of the nice HW inside) or the TI430 series (power) But
More important is - even if the ownership of the HW in unclear, if he put his face in the public and advertised WL at that moment to be a way of safe leaking, he also has the moral duty to at least that the harddrive into his possession until he is convinced that it does not fall into the wrong hands. How that Assange is effectively in jail and that the organization go a large amount of supporters, i am pretty sure that some of the newly won supporters may be from some secret service. Upon evaluating Assanges personality structure i think it would be rather easy to gain access right now; since WL needs programmers and also to fill other functions and Assange seems not to declare standard procedures since this would restrict his power, my personal estimation is that they are now infiltrated with a non-negligible probability on some level.
Actually he state stated that he will keep them in possession until ownership has been settled. He claimed he owned the servers. He said the servers were bought using money transferred by some dutch foundation which - among other things - also funded WL partially. He said in the interview that he will turn to that organization and settle the situation with them; how far that plan has proceeded i dont know.
Domscheit-Berg gave an very interesting interview (on netzpolitik.de, in German).
a) Assange assumed that everybody who worked with him has to follow his orders
b) Assange rejected to give wikileaks any legal structures or organizationl structures
c) Assange assumed that everybody works for WL, but left the modalities of influence or money completely undefined.
Domscheidt-Berg was "suspended" (from what exactly, if i may ask if there is no organizational structure behind?) and he decided to keep the hardware with the information in his possession (where it was) until wikileaks can give him convincing instructions what to do. Since there is no organization the ownership of the servers in unclear, and he askes Wikileaks to settle it with the foundation which collaborated with them to return the servers.
Endangering of the infromers was due to Assanges unwillingness to restrict themself in a meaningful and planned way and due to his promis to the newapapers to redact the documents, a task far beyond WLs capacities at that time, and DB claims he warned of that ans got increasingly frustrated with not having a organization structure behind.
DB describes the personality structure of Assange consistently with the other persons who have met Assange personally and gave interviews.
If you would ask me to hand over a server with unclear ownership containing critical information into the hands of some person coming in a due to circumstances strongly fluctuating non-organization based on the need and the evaluation of a self-proclaimed leader with a personality structure which for sure is prone to the usual tricks used during infiltration, at a time when this leader is under big stress and may be even more leaning towards no fully rational decisions, i would seriously *not* transfer that.
So while some personal connotations of the whole story may be irritating, i can follow DBs thoughts and arguments.
To put it in a nice way: Assange is somewhere on the line between madman and genius; i would say he is a case for a therapy (a mild ambulant one) to fight the problems he seems to causing constantly in personal interactions and his Hybris.
So the real age verification question is: do you remember Duke in 2D? If the person answers yes the program stops complaining about the age....
Well, we will see - i consider WP7 a little practically unttested, but that would be the same for meego. I agree on the Galaxy tab and the Iphone. I also have a Galaxy tab and while is works 'quite well' it is has more quirks than symbian-based phones; since my girlfriend owns an iphone and i can observe there are enough reasons not to buy one...
You can produce the same effect by making a last-minute switch to a new OS after carefully stabilizing and making an OS pefectly matched to your needs and hardware for several years. It will not be faster to use the new OS and if you main positive reputation is "It just works" then you can only loose more.
Palm crawled back to their original idea after getting distracted on the windows path and nearly died. The just wasted energy, confused the community and lost more time
I am really sad to see that history repeats itself. I liked every Nokia phone (6310,6310i,E71,E63) i used, because i could 100% rely on it.
Uhm... You mean the 18+12 year waiting time old children?
Let me correct it:
i am sure that Apple wants to have money for everything on the device, but without responsibility....
Sure, only Fox news will be allowed to report on her. This is a move to ensure fair and balanced reporting, her spokesperson will say.
It a shitty Job with a lot of stress and weird times. Train and pay the guards well. Establish the right culture there.
I think you are right in stating that it is by no means obvious. The question is: Are there apps missing for which people would pay enough? I think the user base for Android right now has not yet developed subcultures in which you can trivially get or estimate revenue. I think trying to target the broad base of customers will only work out if use ads. This has the funny consequence that there are actually quite a few spezialized apps which i am missing on my Android device, which would be easy to program and where i would pay some money for it. However, for each of the popular application types I often have the choice between 10 or more (often equally crappy) apps.
So to come back to the statement (that it is not obvious): It is not obvious if either path (specialized audience vs. broad customer base) can overcome the associated problems.
Not enough that it matters anyway...
Speaking as an experimental physiscist
ahem. 175parts per billion is 1.75e-7. For metrology that is a huge discrepancy. What is worse is that the measurements themself are a factor of 5 better, leaving no room for error.
For experiments where the physicists believe they understand them this is unacceptable, because it actually means the pysics of at least one method of both is not well enough understood, i.e. you have a systematic error. If the physics is not well understood then you don't know if the systematic error will be constant.
If the measurement will not be constant then the average will also not be constant. So an metrology institute where a reference weight should be define will need both methods and still not get any stable definition.
If you already need to afford both methods, then you can create reference weights and at the same time check if the difference between both methods is the right one and constant at your place.
Important rule in experimental physics: NEVER average over systematic mistakes. Average over random results. On systematic mistakes, the word average makes no sense
Censorship is an annoyance, but the great firewall (and the attached bureaucracy) has enough lag so that Chinese people are not that uninformed as the government would like them to be.
It reminds me a little about music albums, which where not allowed to advertise for in Germany, or sell to people below 18.
In my youth it was a recommendation to buy the tape if it got that status.
If events in a country are important enough to be blocked, Chinese people will be more curious instead of less. Modern propaganda works differently.
If some there is an observation, then the most interesting question is: can we explaing this observation by the simplest model. There are two simple (extreme) models inheritance of religious views/bias to adhere to religion:
a) genetics does not play a role in the formation of religious closed groups
b) it does.
a or b can be falsified by comparing the predictions of statistical models with the reality, given that statistical data of high quality is available, and upon using a meta-analysis (sometimes an art, most times a hard science) to exclude/reduce study bias, unwanted correlations. It is a proper methology to first do the simulations of the simple assumptions and then ask a specific question to the statistics, otherwise you may end catching something significant just by chance (it is dangerous to look for anything).
So while the slashdot headline was an exageration (as usual) and i can not judge the articles validity in 10 minutes (not my field, and even then it would take longer), i find that the things which are done there give an interesting view on how to possibly falsify one of the two hypothesis.
In the abstract and the conclusion i have the feeling the author puts a little bit to much of his worldview without referencing the claims somewhere, but he states clearly what he assumes and what he calculated.
I dont care if you can append sth to a password. Mathematically accepting some additional input to a password is not bad - you can also type additional text.
The only loss in entropy is that you dont have to guess where the user cut of something from known words. The worst case scenario would be if you make a dictionary attack, and the password is in the dictionary in a longer form you dont have to send the right length. assuming that the chosen pw must be longer than 8 characters and probably is shorter than 32characters, this saves you *at most* 5 bit of entropy, probably less for most real world cases. given that a good pw should have more than 40-48bits of entropy, loosing 5 bits wont hurt much.
Is it asked too much to write a simple j2me program waiting fro the *right* message? I dont have any experience with building bombs, but i know that it i would have to construct one the focus would be on *not making it explode in the wrong moment* (e.g. when wiring it up). Reacting to *any* message which comes in is purely stupid.
I guess its not the best solution to find a single "best management for large open source projects". That expression is so vague, its meaningless. Linux has other structures and interest groups than apache and that is different from an office suite....
Even worse. You have people stating that the bible should be the subject ob Biology classes.
They will fight a little publicly to get attention. Then the lawyers of google, oracle, and the handset vendors using android will meet in a pleasant atmosphere, then they will compare the size of the patent stacks and compare the money everybody earns by handling it right, and then google and the other handset manufacturers will pay some amount of money to license java in the future (and probably will not make statements about the past aside from a declaration that nobody owes anybody else anything for the past). Google will have a problem less, the manufactures can continue to sell and oracle gets the badge of "biggest java provider for mobile solutions in the world" which they can use to advertise.
In a working state, the power to punish by act seen as criminal is exerted by the police and the courts. If "the strong" can "retaliate" against the weak, the we call that anarchy.
If Amazon want they can take offline everybody who is hosting wikileaks and every imageboard which used the word "anonymous" on the planet by dedicating 10% of their computational/network power to "retaliate". If google would like to "retaliate" against somebody, they could take a medium-sized country offline and render it inoperative for months (imagine what amount of disturbance they could cause by searching all gmail for important infrastructure numbers and showing them up in 10% of the search results - an adminitration getting 10times more calls than they can handle will not be able to work any more). Imagine if they show a companies homepage randomly in 1% of the search results - the homepage will be offline for some time. If china wants, they can take any NGO offline by an attack.
We should not aim for an internet, where we retaliate and fight wars without any legal court having said anything, but plainly with the legitimation of the own strength. Once this would be the established order of things, the internet failed.
If somebody behave badly, put them on a list. Don't pair with them, don't accept mail from them, and anybody who systematically ignores that ends on the same list. That system is not perfect, but its the best we have. Try to figure out the people behind and bring them to justice. The security companies should dedicate a substential amount of their products to educating the user (e.g.: pay high-level news speakers or actors to speak a 2 minute warning on the current trends). Official/company websites need to stop to put "ssl-certified" logos on the webpage itself, but should put a picture with how the URL bar should look like and ask the user to compare and remember it. Big companies should not educate the user to install just every program, because they tell to.
What i want to say: the image, the resources, and the power of big companies can be used in constructive ways, and not to establish illegal actions as the course of the day.
And? Explain how being prospective customers for Microsoft, who are desperate to push their OS into the mobile market weakens their position?