Took you long enough to muster up a response, I see.
The only one restricting freedom here is you.
Oh, I can't wait to see how you rationalize this.
Have you ever seen an Apple fan who argued that tinker-friendly options shouldn't exist?
Quite often. Every time they scream at me that I don't "need" an unlocked device because there's something available on the App Store. Every time they demand I justify why I should have the ability to do whatever I want with my property.
If your argument is that tinker-free alternatives can't survive without a subsidy by Apple; well, I think that is farfetched, but at least that would be a cogent argument.
No, my argument is that Apple, and eventually MS, are positioning these locked down platforms to displace the relatively open platforms that we've had. Leveraging their mass to change the perception of computing to something that is entirely corporate-controlled. When I got into computing, it wasn't via hardware that restricted me and controlled what I wanted to do. The system let me get up and going with whatever tools I wanted to use. I suspect we'll see less of that as more people grow up with only restricted, crippled environments like the iPad to work with.
I would offer as an example the existence of certified vs. experimental aircraft--they coexist under different regulatory rules, the latter allowing for a vibrant tinkering community.
It is significantly harder, shockingly, to produce consumer electronics on the scale of modern tablets and smartphones in small volume. Harder than producing an experimental airplane kit, which tend to be the purview of the already quite rich.
if you don't like Disneyworld then don't go there--but it is obnoxious to argue that it shouldn't exist just because you don't like it.
Sorry, I have not once suggested that the iPad or App Store should not exist. Please don't stuff words in my mouth.
There are so many examples of walled gardens that it is hard to believe you don't understand this very basic concept.
Point out one walled garden that parallels Apple's? And please don't say "Disneyworld," it's an irrelevant analogy.
stand by my assertion that you are a nerd wannabe--hacking away on some Ruby on Rails crap.
Don't make assertions you can't possibly back up. It shows how much of an arrogant ass you are.
No true engineer has such an open disgust for nontechnical users.
You are the greatest of hypocrites in making this statement, if you are in fact an engineer. You're also projecting, badly.
This is belied by the wide and varying types of software available for the platform.
They are not meant to be general purpose computers.
This is a false assertion. What Apple is trying to do is make a general purpose computer that they control exclusvely.
If/when Apple starts placing the same restrictions on their Macintosh computers, then your side of the argument will be valid.
Please don't attempt to defray things by suggesting that it's negated by the presence of their lesser platform.
iPads are designed to be locked-down devices (like your Nintendo), not PCs or development/hacking platforms.
All iOS devices are locked down. And I suspect that going forward, the push from Apple and MS will be for all devices except enterprise-targeted hardware to be locked down.
Please don't be an apologist for their power grab.
Deny everyone who buys their products, at the least, with Microsoft not far behind. The goal of this "sea change" in how computers are "supposed" to be viewed (as dictated by Apple and MS) really leads us back to Trusted Computing, something MS failed at but Apple managed to get people arguing FOR, even here on Slashdot.
You can always go out and buy an android tablet and tinker to your hearts content.
But for how much longer? Even Android devices are often locked down, if imperfectly.
it seems that jailbreaking iwhatsits isn't exactly challenging, and it certainly much easier than the 'hacking your microwave' example.
Jailbreaking and whatnot puts you on the wrong side of an EULA which is extremely unfair already.
To put it briefly, it fails the "Re: Re: Re: Here try this out!" attack.
People have done far dumber things with even less provocation. But obviously, to protect the ignorant and foolish we need to deny everyone. That's the sum of your argument.
A nontechnical user receives an email that claims they can unlock a free copy of Angry Birds Extreme by following some simple instructions to enable non-curated apps--they click through all warning messages (because that is what Windows has trained them to do over the last 20 years) and boom--they are using a buggy malware infested piece of crap app. Now they need to run virus checkers, take their phone into the Best Buy guys, or maybe over to that nerdy kid next door. Oh wait, I can just download this other app that promises to clean up my phone and make it run faster.
Ah yes, because SOMETHING bad might happen we can't allow anyone at all any flexibility. Or perhaps the solution isn't to dumb everyone down to the least common denominator, but to give them a baseline of education on what to do and not to do. That'd solve far more problems than getting malware on their phone.
Of course you'll say that the user got what he deserved, because fundamentally you think the point of technology is to make those who understand it feel righteously indignant towards those who don't.
No one deserves to have their ignorance taken advantage of. No one deserves to be treated as though they were ignorant, either. And in supporting companies in their efforts to take away people's ability to do as they wish with their computer technology, you manage to do both.
People who design bridges don't intend that the bridge should work properly only for those with civil engineering degrees.
Idiotic analogy. Bridges serve a solitary purpose.
People who design elevators don't feel offended when some obnoxious prick says it has a "dumbed down interface".
Again, idiotic analogy. Elevators serve a single, solitary purpose.
Your microwave also doesn't allow you to side load apps onto it.
My microwave has a 4-bit microcontroller than can control power and has a handful of timers. I could make it do whatever I wanted, and publish how, with out Apple complaining that it should be a DMCA violation or having the thing fight me.
Get the idea yet?
Yes, your argument is absolutely terrible, and you are far worse than any "arrogant nerd" in that you approve of limiting what people can do because you feel they are idiots, rather than giving them the option of flexibility. You are a prime example of an "Apple Authoritarian."
>You know what? people who design computers (I'm one of them) also really want those computers to be safe and usable for nontechnical folks, as do people who design operating systems and most apps
And we can have that, without losing capability. Rather, we will have it denied to us by the arrogant who claim it is to "protect" us.
these are people who have far more technical cred than most of the wannabes that hang out on slashdot. So who is it that is complaining about Apple? frankly it is a bunch of insecure bratty little script kiddies. Losers.
Oh please, you've made it readily apparent that you're arrogant beyond words, and hold average people in even greater contempt than any poster on slashdot.
On one level, saying "why has Apple locked down my iPad so I can't run whatever code I want?" is a bit like saying "why has Krups locked down my coffee maker so I can't use it as steam energy source to power my lights?" or "why has Bosch locked down my washing machine so I can't control the RPM of the centrifuge for analysing soil samples?".
This is a phenomenally stupid analogy.
Personally, I don't really see the grand purpose of jailbreaking an iPad.
Then surrender your PC and cease visiting Slashdot at once. Locked down devices like the iPad are the antithesis of everything that has led up to it.
After spending a day battling with my PC over the graphics driver being incompatible with the bluetooth driver or the antivirus not being able to update because of too many flibbles in the patch server or the printer software exiting unexpectedly because I waited the incorrect number of milliseconds before pressing the "Scan" button or whatever other spuriosity one might encounter in the course of an average day's computing, I'm quite happy to sit on the sofa with my iPad at the end of the day and have an hour or two away from that nonsense.
So it sounds like your problem lies with incompetent vendors. Also, because you had (made up) problems with your system doesn't mean that I have problems with mine, nor that arbitrary restrictions should be placed on everyone and anyone who uses a product.
I should say that I am also a programmer and have a few iOS apps in the App Store.
So you're terribly biased.
But even as a developper, I don't find the idea of "going through a manufacturer-approved procedure to develop for a particular device" as being terribly terribly shocking-- especially when (unlike, say, console manufacturers) Apple actually make the procedure very accessible to small developers.
But what about open source and free software developers, who don't want to pay someone $100 and beg them permission to make their software available? What about the end user that wants to use some software that Apple, for whatever totally arbitrary reason, has deemed unworthy?
The existence of the Apple Store does not necessitate lock down. The App Store's policies and existence itself inhibits malware as the vast majority of people would just use software distributed via the store. Denying end-users the ability to bypass those restrictions is PURELY a power grab.
perhaps Apple purposely leaves the holes in the OS to allow this type of circumvention.
If that was true they wouldn't have fought against the EFF when the DMCA exemption was brought up. Had they won, you can guarantee they would have been firing DMCA takedowns at everyone and anyone who created a jailbreak.
Apple provides those who want it a brief repose from the malware infested cesspool.
And the bullshit Apple line continues to be spewed.
The smug technoratti hate this because (a) they don't think that nontechnical people should be allowed to safely use technology without having to kiss their rings, and (b) they want hundreds of millions of nontechnical users to subsidize their desire to tinker.
Ah yes, the classic pro-Apple, authoritarian "argument to the masses."
a) fails because Apple could keep the same restrictions on the market they have now, and would inconvenience no one. This is about giving people direct access to what they own. b) allowing people to tinker costs virtually NOTHING
Yet Apple defenders repeatedly spout bad rationalizations, often taking the form of attacks on groups they dislike, "nerds" and "tinkerers," while successfully omitting any and all valid points.
1: AC power supplies in devices tend to be more tolerant of power fluctuations. An all DC shop might completely be halted by a power surge/spike that wouldn't bother a data center on AC.
All this does is require that the conditioning for power be done well before it reaches the machines. There will be an AC->DC power supply regardless, it'll just be much, much larger and could probably supply even more resilience than a bunch of smaller power supplies.
2: DC sparks a lot when connecting/disconnecting. AC has plenty of zero-crossings a second (120 or so), so it won't make the fireworks show when plugging/unplugging. This makes switches rated for DC a lot more expensive than AC.
So you'll handle it much like most hotplug PC hardware is these days, with latches and mechanical disconnects that ensure + and - are disconnected simultaneously.
3: There is no such thing as a NEMA 380VDC connector. So, either items would have to be wired up to a bus bar similar to how 48VDC telco stuff gets, or it will end up like 12VDC with at least 5+ connectors (direct wires, cig lighter, airplane, marine connector, male/female combined connector, motorcycle accessory connector, banana plugs.)
Just because one doesn't exist now doesn't mean won't be brought into existence. Virtually all modern PC interconnects are standardized, even before products are on the market.
5: Issues with wire length. AC, it isn't hard to use a transformer to deal with voltage drop. DC, that will be a lot harder.
So we might see these on a rack-by-rack basis, or high voltage to the racks at which point we step down. Not an insoluble problem.
Really, the problem being approached here is that of power efficiency. A pile of 80 PLUS Gold power supplies spread across hundreds or thousands of machines is a pretty significant drop in efficiency compared to doing the AC->DC conversion in fewer places and stepping down. If it wasn't, people wouldn't be considering solutions like this.
As opposed to the transformer coming into your building? How about the UPS and HVAC units supporting your server room?
Obviously, you'll have redundant DC power supplies, just like you do now. Except instead of having two AC->DC power supplies per PC, you'll route two room-level DC power supplies to each machine in the room. Lots of little, less efficient, lower quality power supplies replaced by a pair of high quality, high efficiency supplies.
I've been in Japan, and I have not seen the so-called abuse that people so much cry about.
It's not abuse so much as immense societal pressure to achieve in school that it polarizes students into two groups: the ones driven by their parents and their subsequently skewed perspective on the value of their classes that they either succeed and burn out or drive themselves off a cliff, or they totally give up and either don't show up at all or act out.
Yes, there is a significant number of suicides in Japan compared to other countries, but to attribute it to so-called barbaric forms of education is ignorance to say the least.
Barbaric? I don't think anyone has ever called it that. Rote and oppressive, yes.
What they do not have over there is the habit of letting people graduate without knowing their shit (which is what we do here.)
Sure they do. It's entirely possible for a kid to graduate without ever setting foot in a classroom, if they're so disinclined to attend. Do keep in mind that highschool in Japan is entirely optional.
Kids in Japan don't go to school studies till 8PM. Get your facts straight buddy.
It's called "Juku," there are entire small businesses focused on post-school studying for kids at all levels: www.jyukunavi.jp just for starters. They're a booming business over there.
And what does this has to do with education in Japan?
Rote memorization is pointless and yet it's what they do over there for the vast majority of subjects. Holding it up as some sort of beacon of education is silly.
Have you ever been there? Ever seen the curriculum? Ever seen the students?
The culture of this country does not appreciate education, and the idea of studying as hard as South Koreans or Japanese is seen as if it were child abuse or something like that.
Considering their suicide rate among high school students is the highest in the world, it's borderline. Sending your kid to after school studies until 8PM just to reinforce what amounts to rote memorization of facts without much in the way of abstract or critical thinking isn't exactly the way to solve our education problems.
There's a difference between a history class spouting off dates, names, and places and a history class asking you why a certain person acted a certain way on that date in history, or what its impact was.
Perhaps one of the things we should do, instead, is start paying sports stars, movie stars and financial fucker-uppers less and paying the people who truly make the country's economy tick more.
We had no idea ten years ago that the Window monopoly was going to be breaking up within our lifetimes.
It hasn't broken up yet. last I checked, Windows was still on some 90% of desktops worldwide. And Microsoft's tactics haven't changed much, if anything they're more subtle and insidious now that they have to keep the DoJ and EU off their back.
No, blobs are an obvious problem. The real problem here is Google distracting people from creating truly open and Free platforms by drawing them on to the platform whose direction and technology they control and develop behind closed doors, and sees no use outside of Android.
I wouldn't make this point if Dalvik, Bionic, et. al. were each their own open source project funded by Google, and others, but instead they're ALL contained and directed by Google's desires for their platform.
As opposed to, say, glibc, which is in the grip of a single megalomaniac.
Read up on egcs, which forked from its original project then eventually replaced it and became GCC. There is already a GPL alternative for glibc, eglibc. If enough people switch to it, glibc could find itself replaced with a compatible, equal, and even more open project.
They all rely on (the same) proprietary drivers to run on any real hardware, and they all have completely open userspace.
Until Google closes the source again. They could also disappear the AOSP on a whim, too. Sure you'd have what was already released, but unless you're going to continue with a divergent project that has competition in existing, heavily developed projects already, there's no point.
The part that will cause problems for Replicant is that they cannot be an upstream. They will forever trail Google as the platform goes where Google desires and nowhere else. All of the components, Dalvik, Bionic, the GUI and rendering subsystem, all remain exclusively developed behind closed doors by Google.
Until they can fully fork it, there's no more reason to use Replicant rather than CyanogenMod. If you're interested in a truly Free mobile platform, take a look and put some weight behind the other projects out there like Tizen or, for a really open platform, Mer. Letting Google lead everyone by the nose won't get those interested in mobile FOSS anywhere.
Unlikely, MS is making aggressive moves to ensure there's little in the way of "generic" hardware, and all the existing Android vendors will stick with Android and layer it with locked bootloaders and other DRM to make the RIAA/MPAA happy.
No, they'll just attack all the Android handset vendors if they dare offer anything in terms of configuration options that are obvious given the problem set.
Americans are slow to pick up this kind of technology. It's been a problem for decades and it has nothing to do with patents.
Except that no NFC hardware has been on the market here for the better part of a decade, while it's been steadily rolled out and available elsewhere. The technology has, quite simply, not been available.
Do you think Europe and Japan don't have patents? or that they are irrelevant?
At least in Europe, software patents aren't valid. And in Japan, they seem to not have nearly the problems we do in the US with building and rolling out systems that are widely compatible between companies and regions. Here in the US a purely software pile of BS will block other vendors from distributing anything useful and open up everyone to legal assault, and deliberate incompatibilities and everyone demanding their own transaction fee and associated charge and alliance or it fails to work readily inhibits the adoption of new technologies and other customer-beneficial options.
And if you've ever wondered why Japan and Europe have had things like this for ages but we're just now seeing a glimmer of it here, it's because of stuff like this. No one ever gets ahead without someone tossing a landmine in your path and asking for their pound of flesh.
I see that the site actually useful for linking, Patently Apple, is getting their monopoly fetish on. From the sounds of things, they've managed to patent the entire concept out from under everyone else. They've managed to claim ownership over the concept of configuring accounts and placing various transaction rules on them.
So no one else can do that without Apple attacking them. I can't wait to have the entirety of NFC payments reserved exclusively to Apple devices, or Apple demanding exorbitant per-device fees for the ability to do so.
I like how vocal you are, but completely bereft of an actual point except being anti-nuke.
You want to know why we outlawed Coley's system and are just now rediscovering it?
Outlawed? I don't see that in anything you've cited. If you mean, rather, that it isn't FDA approved, I think you need to blame Coley himself.
Although Coley claimed successful treatment of hundreds of patients, the absence of proven benefit or reproducibility
A lack of reproducibility is FATAL to a scientific claim and any sort of study. You might as well claim you saw a unicorn in the forest.
Coley's studies were not well controlled and factors such as length of treatment and fever level were not adequately documented. Many of his patients had also received radiation and sometimes surgery.
Unless you're going to now claim the article has been surreptitiously changed by "nuke shills" to discredit him. Chances are he was on to something, but failed to appropriately document it in a way that was useful. Then, unsurprisingly, an effective solution came along and overshadowed his work.
But you didn't post this to highlight his work. You came to scream OOGA BOOGA NUKULAR.
Slashdot Mirror
Took you long enough to muster up a response, I see.
Oh, I can't wait to see how you rationalize this.
Quite often. Every time they scream at me that I don't "need" an unlocked device because there's something available on the App Store. Every time they demand I justify why I should have the ability to do whatever I want with my property.
No, my argument is that Apple, and eventually MS, are positioning these locked down platforms to displace the relatively open platforms that we've had. Leveraging their mass to change the perception of computing to something that is entirely corporate-controlled. When I got into computing, it wasn't via hardware that restricted me and controlled what I wanted to do. The system let me get up and going with whatever tools I wanted to use. I suspect we'll see less of that as more people grow up with only restricted, crippled environments like the iPad to work with.
It is significantly harder, shockingly, to produce consumer electronics on the scale of modern tablets and smartphones in small volume. Harder than producing an experimental airplane kit, which tend to be the purview of the already quite rich.
Sorry, I have not once suggested that the iPad or App Store should not exist. Please don't stuff words in my mouth.
Point out one walled garden that parallels Apple's? And please don't say "Disneyworld," it's an irrelevant analogy.
Don't make assertions you can't possibly back up. It shows how much of an arrogant ass you are.
You are the greatest of hypocrites in making this statement, if you are in fact an engineer. You're also projecting, badly.
This is belied by the wide and varying types of software available for the platform.
This is a false assertion. What Apple is trying to do is make a general purpose computer that they control exclusvely.
Please don't attempt to defray things by suggesting that it's negated by the presence of their lesser platform.
All iOS devices are locked down. And I suspect that going forward, the push from Apple and MS will be for all devices except enterprise-targeted hardware to be locked down.
Please don't be an apologist for their power grab.
Deny everyone who buys their products, at the least, with Microsoft not far behind. The goal of this "sea change" in how computers are "supposed" to be viewed (as dictated by Apple and MS) really leads us back to Trusted Computing, something MS failed at but Apple managed to get people arguing FOR, even here on Slashdot.
But for how much longer? Even Android devices are often locked down, if imperfectly.
Jailbreaking and whatnot puts you on the wrong side of an EULA which is extremely unfair already.
People have done far dumber things with even less provocation. But obviously, to protect the ignorant and foolish we need to deny everyone. That's the sum of your argument.
Ah yes, because SOMETHING bad might happen we can't allow anyone at all any flexibility. Or perhaps the solution isn't to dumb everyone down to the least common denominator, but to give them a baseline of education on what to do and not to do. That'd solve far more problems than getting malware on their phone.
No one deserves to have their ignorance taken advantage of. No one deserves to be treated as though they were ignorant, either. And in supporting companies in their efforts to take away people's ability to do as they wish with their computer technology, you manage to do both.
Idiotic analogy. Bridges serve a solitary purpose.
Again, idiotic analogy. Elevators serve a single, solitary purpose.
My microwave has a 4-bit microcontroller than can control power and has a handful of timers. I could make it do whatever I wanted, and publish how, with out Apple complaining that it should be a DMCA violation or having the thing fight me.
Yes, your argument is absolutely terrible, and you are far worse than any "arrogant nerd" in that you approve of limiting what people can do because you feel they are idiots, rather than giving them the option of flexibility. You are a prime example of an "Apple Authoritarian."
And we can have that, without losing capability. Rather, we will have it denied to us by the arrogant who claim it is to "protect" us.
Oh please, you've made it readily apparent that you're arrogant beyond words, and hold average people in even greater contempt than any poster on slashdot.
Good thing you aren't in government.
This is a phenomenally stupid analogy.
Then surrender your PC and cease visiting Slashdot at once. Locked down devices like the iPad are the antithesis of everything that has led up to it.
So it sounds like your problem lies with incompetent vendors. Also, because you had (made up) problems with your system doesn't mean that I have problems with mine, nor that arbitrary restrictions should be placed on everyone and anyone who uses a product.
So you're terribly biased.
But what about open source and free software developers, who don't want to pay someone $100 and beg them permission to make their software available? What about the end user that wants to use some software that Apple, for whatever totally arbitrary reason, has deemed unworthy?
The existence of the Apple Store does not necessitate lock down. The App Store's policies and existence itself inhibits malware as the vast majority of people would just use software distributed via the store. Denying end-users the ability to bypass those restrictions is PURELY a power grab.
If that was true they wouldn't have fought against the EFF when the DMCA exemption was brought up. Had they won, you can guarantee they would have been firing DMCA takedowns at everyone and anyone who created a jailbreak.
And the bullshit Apple line continues to be spewed.
Ah yes, the classic pro-Apple, authoritarian "argument to the masses."
a) fails because Apple could keep the same restrictions on the market they have now, and would inconvenience no one. This is about giving people direct access to what they own.
b) allowing people to tinker costs virtually NOTHING
Yet Apple defenders repeatedly spout bad rationalizations, often taking the form of attacks on groups they dislike, "nerds" and "tinkerers," while successfully omitting any and all valid points.
All this does is require that the conditioning for power be done well before it reaches the machines. There will be an AC->DC power supply regardless, it'll just be much, much larger and could probably supply even more resilience than a bunch of smaller power supplies.
So you'll handle it much like most hotplug PC hardware is these days, with latches and mechanical disconnects that ensure + and - are disconnected simultaneously.
Just because one doesn't exist now doesn't mean won't be brought into existence. Virtually all modern PC interconnects are standardized, even before products are on the market.
So we might see these on a rack-by-rack basis, or high voltage to the racks at which point we step down. Not an insoluble problem.
Really, the problem being approached here is that of power efficiency. A pile of 80 PLUS Gold power supplies spread across hundreds or thousands of machines is a pretty significant drop in efficiency compared to doing the AC->DC conversion in fewer places and stepping down. If it wasn't, people wouldn't be considering solutions like this.
As opposed to the transformer coming into your building? How about the UPS and HVAC units supporting your server room?
Obviously, you'll have redundant DC power supplies, just like you do now. Except instead of having two AC->DC power supplies per PC, you'll route two room-level DC power supplies to each machine in the room. Lots of little, less efficient, lower quality power supplies replaced by a pair of high quality, high efficiency supplies.
Thus, advertising gives you cancer. QED.
It's not abuse so much as immense societal pressure to achieve in school that it polarizes students into two groups: the ones driven by their parents and their subsequently skewed perspective on the value of their classes that they either succeed and burn out or drive themselves off a cliff, or they totally give up and either don't show up at all or act out.
Barbaric? I don't think anyone has ever called it that. Rote and oppressive, yes.
Sure they do. It's entirely possible for a kid to graduate without ever setting foot in a classroom, if they're so disinclined to attend. Do keep in mind that highschool in Japan is entirely optional.
It's called "Juku," there are entire small businesses focused on post-school studying for kids at all levels: www.jyukunavi.jp just for starters. They're a booming business over there.
Rote memorization is pointless and yet it's what they do over there for the vast majority of subjects. Holding it up as some sort of beacon of education is silly.
Have you ever been there? Ever seen the curriculum? Ever seen the students?
Yes to all. Next question?
Considering their suicide rate among high school students is the highest in the world, it's borderline. Sending your kid to after school studies until 8PM just to reinforce what amounts to rote memorization of facts without much in the way of abstract or critical thinking isn't exactly the way to solve our education problems.
There's a difference between a history class spouting off dates, names, and places and a history class asking you why a certain person acted a certain way on that date in history, or what its impact was.
Perhaps one of the things we should do, instead, is start paying sports stars, movie stars and financial fucker-uppers less and paying the people who truly make the country's economy tick more.
So life is hard for developers, but in exchange the world gets a diversity of platforms and competition.
I don't. Nothing worse than a monopoly dictating the course of technology and allowing innovation to proceed only when they see fit.
It hasn't broken up yet. last I checked, Windows was still on some 90% of desktops worldwide. And Microsoft's tactics haven't changed much, if anything they're more subtle and insidious now that they have to keep the DoJ and EU off their back.
No, blobs are an obvious problem. The real problem here is Google distracting people from creating truly open and Free platforms by drawing them on to the platform whose direction and technology they control and develop behind closed doors, and sees no use outside of Android.
I wouldn't make this point if Dalvik, Bionic, et. al. were each their own open source project funded by Google, and others, but instead they're ALL contained and directed by Google's desires for their platform.
Read up on egcs, which forked from its original project then eventually replaced it and became GCC. There is already a GPL alternative for glibc, eglibc. If enough people switch to it, glibc could find itself replaced with a compatible, equal, and even more open project.
Until Google closes the source again. They could also disappear the AOSP on a whim, too. Sure you'd have what was already released, but unless you're going to continue with a divergent project that has competition in existing, heavily developed projects already, there's no point.
The part that will cause problems for Replicant is that they cannot be an upstream. They will forever trail Google as the platform goes where Google desires and nowhere else. All of the components, Dalvik, Bionic, the GUI and rendering subsystem, all remain exclusively developed behind closed doors by Google.
Until they can fully fork it, there's no more reason to use Replicant rather than CyanogenMod. If you're interested in a truly Free mobile platform, take a look and put some weight behind the other projects out there like Tizen or, for a really open platform, Mer. Letting Google lead everyone by the nose won't get those interested in mobile FOSS anywhere.
Unlikely, MS is making aggressive moves to ensure there's little in the way of "generic" hardware, and all the existing Android vendors will stick with Android and layer it with locked bootloaders and other DRM to make the RIAA/MPAA happy.
No, they'll just attack all the Android handset vendors if they dare offer anything in terms of configuration options that are obvious given the problem set.
Except that no NFC hardware has been on the market here for the better part of a decade, while it's been steadily rolled out and available elsewhere. The technology has, quite simply, not been available.
At least in Europe, software patents aren't valid. And in Japan, they seem to not have nearly the problems we do in the US with building and rolling out systems that are widely compatible between companies and regions. Here in the US a purely software pile of BS will block other vendors from distributing anything useful and open up everyone to legal assault, and deliberate incompatibilities and everyone demanding their own transaction fee and associated charge and alliance or it fails to work readily inhibits the adoption of new technologies and other customer-beneficial options.
And if you've ever wondered why Japan and Europe have had things like this for ages but we're just now seeing a glimmer of it here, it's because of stuff like this. No one ever gets ahead without someone tossing a landmine in your path and asking for their pound of flesh.
I see that the site actually useful for linking, Patently Apple, is getting their monopoly fetish on. From the sounds of things, they've managed to patent the entire concept out from under everyone else. They've managed to claim ownership over the concept of configuring accounts and placing various transaction rules on them.
So no one else can do that without Apple attacking them. I can't wait to have the entirety of NFC payments reserved exclusively to Apple devices, or Apple demanding exorbitant per-device fees for the ability to do so.
What would you prefer, something that had a hint of the Koch brothers? Maybe a dash of Rupert Murdoch for taste?
I like how vocal you are, but completely bereft of an actual point except being anti-nuke.
Outlawed? I don't see that in anything you've cited. If you mean, rather, that it isn't FDA approved, I think you need to blame Coley himself.
A lack of reproducibility is FATAL to a scientific claim and any sort of study. You might as well claim you saw a unicorn in the forest.
Unless you're going to now claim the article has been surreptitiously changed by "nuke shills" to discredit him. Chances are he was on to something, but failed to appropriately document it in a way that was useful. Then, unsurprisingly, an effective solution came along and overshadowed his work.
But you didn't post this to highlight his work. You came to scream OOGA BOOGA NUKULAR.
And since you usually have no standing under the GPL and they're in China, you're pretty much fucked.
In other words, don't buy the cheap Chinese knockoff if you're concerned about legal matters.