I don't get it, what is the big tech challenge to overcome here? Seems like the biggest issues are legal (exemptions from the FAA already made though) or logistical.
Lack of modern istrumentation, radar transponders, and other equipment which is normally used by modern air traffic control systems. You will recall that the newly overhauled system went online 7 days ago (30 Apr 2015):
The primary issue won't be in the corridor itself, it'll be getting into and out of it from shared public airspace, and avoiding collisions between the aircraft themselves, many of which do not have anti-collision systems or even radars.
The carriers don't pay the money; the money is paid per device by the OEM who wants to sell those devices.
Then I have a really good idea for the OEMs: Negotiate new contracts that don't allow Carrier-Specific modifications of the codebase, like Apple does; OR, shift the cost of the Certification to those Carriers that believe they MUST modify the codebase. The OEM would still pay the Regulatory Agency, then would get reimbursed by the Carrier.
See how easy that was?
Not really. You are aware that not all GSM or CDMA networks are configured identically, operate on the same frequency bands, etc., right? That translates to different radio tables in the baseband firmware, different dipole antenna lengths in the per-carrier phone models, and so on. There are also differences in the SIM/IMEI code exchange when doing a cell hand-off between cell towers in various countries.
Further, one of the things that the iPhone did early on with Orange was reclock the application CPU to a different frequency in the UK, since the CPU frequency happened to be a harmonic of the carrier band preferred by that provider. That meant that grey-market iPhones imported from the U.S., as opposed to configured for sale in the U.K., tended to drop calls, and ran at a slightly slower clock frequency than those configured for the U.S..
Rogers (the GSM carrier in Canada) faced similar issues.
I use "the FCC" in its royal sense here, i.e. to refer to all the regulatory agencies like the FCC that operate all over the world. I'm not going to list 120 regulatory agencies every time...
Then either do the following (which you have actually done in your snarky response) : a) Use a more generic term, such as "Regulatory Agency"; b)place "FCC" in quotes, which at least suggests you are using it as a "jargon term", rather than a "literal".
See how easy that was?
No need for a snarky, pseudo-pedantic response.
You mean snarky, as in suffixing every paragraph with the snarky, pseudo-pedantic "See how easy that was?", and being pedantic about being too damn literal about terms when it's obvious that other countries have similar regulatory agencies to the FCC, but limiting yourself to pretending that the FCC is only a problem for the U.S., and it's totally clear sailing through the regulatory agencies of other countries?
the FCC demands that the SDR be certified as a unit (software + hardware). That's a carrier certifiiation per carrier, per country, per device, per version update.
1. The 20 thousand dollars or so that the certification costs per year should be less than chump change for these carriers.
The carriers don't pay the money; the money is paid per device by the OEM who wants to sell those devices.
2. The FCC only controls what goes on in the USA. So the "per country" part of your "cost analysis" is completely bogus.
Quite correct. I use "the FCC" in its royal sense here, i.e. to refer to all the regulatory agencies like the FCC that operate all over the world. I'm not going to list 120 regulatory agencies every time I talk about the type of regulation that's carried out by:
Albania: Telecommunication Regulatory Entity Argentina: Secretaría de Communicaciones Austria: Austrian Regulatory Authority for Telecommunications and Broadcasting Australia: Australian Communications and Media Authority Bahrain: Telecommunications Regulatory Authority Barbados: Ministry of Finance, Investment, Telecommunications and Energy (MFIE) [...] United States: Federal Communications Commission (FCC) [...] Venezuela: Comisión Nacional de Telecommunicaciones Western Samoa: Ministry of Communications and Information technology Zambia: The Communications Authority (CAZ)
Looks like typical bureaucratic language. I think there is some kind of law that says all reports must be written in in passive voice and with no humor at all. I'd bet some of the Feds found Spot the Fed humorous...
Passive voice effectively disclaims responsibility, and disclaims chain of responsibility, by making a statement without anyone owning it. It's also frequently used as an argument-without-evidence technique.
This is trivial, given that there are only a couple of federated diagnostic testing services in her area.
Looks like a bacterial infection of some kind, although they also checked for Pappilomavirus, two other STDs, and a fungal yeast infection, BVAB2, and strep.
87481 SureSwab ®, Vaginosis/Vaginitis Plus 87481 SureSwab ®, Bacterial Vaginosis/Vaginitis
87491 SureSwab ®, Vaginosis/Vaginitis Plus 87491 SureSwab ®, CT/NG, T. vaginalis 87491 Chlamydia/Neisseria gonorrhoeae, T. vaginalis, Qualitative, TMA and HSV 1/2 DNA, Real-Time PCR, Pap Vial 87491 Chlamydia/N. gonorrhoeae and T. vaginalis RNA, Qualitative, TMA, Pap Vial
87798 SureSwab ®, Trichomonas vaginalis RNA, Qualitative, TMA 87798 SureSwab ®, Vaginosis/Vaginitis Plus 87798 SureSwab ®, CT/NG, T. vaginalis 87798 Trichomonas vaginalis RNA, Qualitative, TMA, PAP Vial 87798 Chlamydia/N. gonorrhoeae and T. vaginalis RNA, Qualitative, TMA, Pap Vial 87798 Chlamydia/Neisseria gonorrhoeae, T. vaginalis, Qualitative, TMA and HSV 1/2 DNA, Real-Time PCR, Pap Vial
MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORIES, L.L.C. 105 Chlamydia trachomatis 127 Group B Streptococcus (GBS) 164 Bacterial Vaginosis Associated Bacteria 2 (BVAB2)
These are probably not test codes that she should have published, given their sensitive nature.
I do agree with her assertion that medical billing is kind of terrible.
On the other hand, they intentionally make billing and coding as difficult as possible so that the doctors office has to correctly code it to the insurance companies liking before they are obligated to pay. Usually a medical office will try a couple of times, and then give up if they don't hit pay dirt, and just send the bill to the patient, and let them argue with the insurance company long enough to damage their credit for non-payment, or pay it out of pocket to save their credit.
HMOs are absolutely the worst for this, followed by PPOs.
I would have much preferred a single payer system, like Richard Nixon wanted (he was the first president to propose a national health care system), rather than the TARP III bailout for the insurance companies which we ended up getting with the ACA.
"Insurers writing automobile insurance in the state are allowed to exclude any and all coverage under the driver’s or vehicle owner’s insurance policy for any loss or injury occurring while the driver is logged on to a TNC’s digital network or providing a prearranged ride."
So basically, it's requiring that Uber carry the insurance on their drivers, rather than the drivers self-insuring, and gives insurance companies an "out" if they want to exclude insurance while the driver has the app running (i.e. is "on call") and while the driver is actually driving.
What insurance company is going to pass up being paid double for what would otherwise be a single policy?
Couldn't they leave the crapware and drivers alone and still provide critical security updates we expect and need on computers since well, the Windows XP SP2 days? Instead of updating the whole OS, Google would better provide say monthly security fixes for three years on the Android 4.4 OS, the 5.0 OS, the 5.1 OS etc.
This is not going to end well, I guess fragmentation hampers malware somewhat but what if some powerful piece of malware manages to get installed on say 10 million of Android computer phones and starts doing something really nasty?
I'm fairly certain that the biggest security threat is unverified and unmoderated software packages in the various web stores, and the ability to side-load applications. Most of the malware probably comes through the app installer, rather than a security exploit.
Although there have been issues with untrusted parties signing domain certs -- the latest was China's CNNIC root certificate removal -- and there are the heartbleed and other SSL exploits -- those are mostly untrusted public hotspot access or governmental eavesdropping attacks.
Malware is a much bigger problem.
Note that Apple is starting to have this same problem in China: there are unauthorized app stores which pirate apps (at best) or pirate them, and bundle them with malware, and then use an enterprise enrollment to let you install from their "enterprise app store", which is actually a pirate/malware site. But it's not nearly as widespread or fragmented as the Android marketplaces, and it's pretty easy to avoid -- unless you are going there because the app you want is not legally being sold by the app vendor in China. In which case: you take your chances.
In other words, it's a lose for everyone involved, due to the way the Android/OEM/Carrier relationship is structured, and there's no product continuity upsell like you have with the various iPhone models.
This is only true as long as consumers don't prioritize upgrades at point of purchase. If we could get OEMs to begin making binding upgrade and update support commitments, and get consumers looking at and comparing devices on that basis, then OEMs would be motivated to provide updates.
They can prioritize all they want, but no one wants to pay for the carrier certification of thee modified SDRs, particularly when using a T-Zone on a Snapdragon chip in order to run the baseband, and the FCC demands that the SDR be certified as a unit (software + hardware). That's a carrier certifiiation per carrier, per country, per device, per version update.
Also no carrier using a contract lock-in revenue model is going to provide an update that doesn't lock you into a new contract, and a version update won't do that unless there's a charge for the update, based on FAS (Federal Accounting Standard) rules, since without an exchange of consideration, there is no contract. This is why Apple charged for the WiFi software update on iPods, and non-cellular network iPads, but didn't charge for cellular connected iPads and iPhones. It had to do with realization of revenue over time, versus a one time sale, and adding features to the device via software.
You should also be aware that the image that's shipped by the OEM is often not even buildable by Google engineers; apart from the fact that the devices used during development are generally signature neutered, and it's impossible to cryptographically sign the image for the given device without it either being neutered like that, or signing code that they device manufacturer generally does not share due to it containing a signing key they don't want out there... they entirety of the board file is generally not committed back to the Google maintained Android source tree. Nor is it maintained going forward so that it's up to date, nor is the remainder of the OS productization standardized across all the OEMs. They are trying to differentiate their products, after all, and my Samsung device looking and feeling exactly like a non-Samsung device is not in Samsung's interest: it makes them into a commodity, which is a quick race to the bottom on margin.
Google has significant dictatorial powers when it comes to Chromebooks, which are not available to the Android folks, even if they had the ability to code sign, and could dictate a code cut, the Android in the tree is pretty raw, and never productized.
Finally, Android lacks a uniform app ecosystem; this is a more or less direct consequence of having allowed third party stores, without a strong compatibility for the apps across all devices.
Seriously, one of the smartest things that Apple did was keep the baseband processor separate from the application processor so that there was no telecom recertification required, unless they were explicitly hacking the baseband for some reason (e.g. the carrier lock they did by re-doing the SIM/IMEI handshake when doing a hand-off between cell towers in order to intentionally break SuperSIMs and similar techniques for hardware carrier unlocks).
Without the app ecosystem and the continuity of app and other content going forward on Android -- which it doesn't -- I don't see a means of enforcing carrier lock-in to support that economic model, particularly if you started supporting software updates.
This has nothing to do with Google. Maybe Google is at fault for not making updates mandatory, but that would have been a completely different set of issues.
Actually, it does.
The Android partner model is to snapshot the tree, and then the OEM productizes the snapshot, adding hardware driver support, their own apps and UI changes, and then they do a deal with the carrier for badging and more apps -- like pointing by default to the OEM or carrier's app store, in order to monetize the device further.
This model exists to avoid disclosing information between OEMs and different carriers, since Google does not do the actual productization.
Because of this, pretty much every Android device, other than the ones which were Google-badged as "buy them from Samsung, resell them under the Google name", is a one-off with a one-off version of the OS. In order to update the OS, it'd be necessary to (effectively) re-do the port of the OS to the device for each new version.
On top of that, there's really not a lot of incentive for the carrier to have the versions of the OS an Android phone is running changing on them, since each new one requires recertification, and, depending on the degree of changes made to things like the baseband and changes in electronic noise due to changes in the software, FCC recertification, or whatever the local equivalent happens to be in your home country.
It's like building a whole new phone, except you're not getting paid for it, and theres no upsell to get you back under contract for the next 18 months.
In other words, it's a lose for everyone involved, due to the way the Android/OEM/Carrier relationship is structured, and there's no product continuity upsell like you have with the various iPhone models.
I converted time_t to 64 bits on 64 bit systems (which include the most recent iPhones) as part of the changes for 64 bit binary support on the G5 when I wrote the 64 bit binary loader support into exec/fork/spawn, and again as part of UNIX Conformance. It's basically been fixed since Tiger.
Obviously... if it's AI, and it has some real world utility, then we rename it so that it's not AI any more. Then we complain loudly that "AI has never produced anything useful".
It is very hard to believe that they are going to send a propulsion system into space without a clear understanding of how it works.
We send drivers on the road every day who don't have a clear idea how cars work.
Knowing how something works is nice, but not knowing how it works won't diminish its utility, so long as it *does*.
We use gravity daily to generate hydroelectric power. Ask a group of physicists how gravity works. We have the math for it, but we don't have the story of it. Either way, the lights come on when the water weight is converted from potential to kinetic energy, and we are still damned if we know the mechanism of conversion. If we did, we'd al be riding around on hoverboards.
I think you're just latching on to insurrection because it has fewer negative connotations which is basically linguistic pathos. I find this type of meaningless rhetoric to be counter productive.
You are incorrect. The difference between a riot and an insurrection is that, for an insurrection, I'm perfectly happy bringing in the National Guard and shooting the assholes.
A rebellion can be either violent resistance or open resistance. For violent resistance: bring in the national guard. For merely open resistance: put them on national television, and hear what they have to say. Occupy Wall Street was an open resistance rebellion; Rosa Parks was open resistance rebellion; Mahatma Gandhi was open resistance rebellion. The Serbian events which ousted Slobodan Miloevi was open resistance rebellion. Birmingham, Alabama and Selma, Alabama during the U.S. Civil rights movement was open resistance rebellion.
If it's just a riot, you handle it with local policing.
A thing is what a thing is indifferent to whatever you call it. I can call something great a pile of shit or I can call a pile of shit something great... it is still going to be itself.
But involuntary manslaughter, manslaughter, third degree murder, second degree murder, and first degree murder are all murder, aren't they?
So it shouldn't matter what we call it: if we have the death penalty for first degree murder, we should have the same penalty for involuntary manslaughter, because "A thing is what a thing is indifferent to what you call it"... right?
Just because you can lump an event into a category does not make it the same as all of the other events you are able to lump into the same broad category.
If you find yourself putting everything into the same bucket, perhaps the problem isn't the thing, it's the fact that you have too few buckets.
Anyone with some legal experience able to clarify this? Given that grooveshark wasn't...exactly...apologetic about their strategy(nor has it changed all that much), my assumption is that the sudden shift to grovelling-apology-mode has much more to do with losing than it does with any change of heart.
I'm pretty sure the apology has a hell of a lot more to do with the transfer of control of the domain name to the record label than it has to do with the actual opinions of Grooveshark, or really, anyone who was employed by them, since whatever statements are up currently are hosted on RIAA owned servers on a RIAA owned domain, and likely dictated to RIAA employed web masters by RIAA marketing executives.
I don't think anyone at Grooveshark would willingly admit legal liability so blatantly, unless they had discontinued their schizophrenia medication.
If you wrote some software and sold it to someone for $1000, you are cool with them making copies and giving it away?
If it took him less than 20 hours, he's making over $104,000 / year writing software, so he's probably OK with it.
The entire GNU philosophy / GNU Manifesto is based on the idea that software writers are craftsmen engaged in making works for hire. It's no different than making furniture.
I personally don't agree with that economic model, but I'm pretty sure by his statements that he's OK with it.
No, an insurrection requires an intention to subvert the government and take over as the new rulling authority.
Incorrect; you are confusing an insurrection with a revolution:
insurrection: noun: a violent uprising against an authority or government. rebellion: noun: an act of violent or open resistance to an established government or ruler. revolution: noun: a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system.
An insurrection can lead to a revolution, as can a rebellion, but it's not a sufficient condition. Planned rioting with no political or social goals is insurrection. Unplanned rioting is not insurrection, it is merely rioting.
Given that these riots were planned via social media, they were insurrection; given that they were against authority, rather than an established government or ruler, they were NOT a rebellion.
I think you are mistaking "stupid" for "desperate" or "hopeless" or "disillusioned".
You can be those things without rioting. They are not synonymous with "being an asshole", which is what rioting is all about. Wanton destruction of property achieves no reasonable political or social agenda, other than harming people already operating hand to mouth in cash flow businesses, and forcing them into poverty with you.
If you weren't "just being an asshole", you'd be rioting in areas where there would be a net political effect from the reaction in the desired direction. Directionless riots are closer in nature to the 9/11 attacks than they are the Boston Tea Party.
Why should we believe you've got it as bad as people who are rioting?
Mod parent up.
People stupid enough to riot definitely have it worse off than people smart enough to not riot. Because they're not only in poverty, they are also stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad the protesting postman didn't just wait for the event, and fly a vintage autogyro.
Just sayin'...
I don't get it, what is the big tech challenge to overcome here? Seems like the biggest issues are legal (exemptions from the FAA already made though) or logistical.
Lack of modern istrumentation, radar transponders, and other equipment which is normally used by modern air traffic control systems. You will recall that the newly overhauled system went online 7 days ago (30 Apr 2015):
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
The primary issue won't be in the corridor itself, it'll be getting into and out of it from shared public airspace, and avoiding collisions between the aircraft themselves, many of which do not have anti-collision systems or even radars.
The carriers don't pay the money; the money is paid per device by the OEM who wants to sell those devices.
Then I have a really good idea for the OEMs: Negotiate new contracts that don't allow Carrier-Specific modifications of the codebase, like Apple does; OR, shift the cost of the Certification to those Carriers that believe they MUST modify the codebase. The OEM would still pay the Regulatory Agency, then would get reimbursed by the Carrier.
See how easy that was?
Not really. You are aware that not all GSM or CDMA networks are configured identically, operate on the same frequency bands, etc., right? That translates to different radio tables in the baseband firmware, different dipole antenna lengths in the per-carrier phone models, and so on. There are also differences in the SIM/IMEI code exchange when doing a cell hand-off between cell towers in various countries.
Further, one of the things that the iPhone did early on with Orange was reclock the application CPU to a different frequency in the UK, since the CPU frequency happened to be a harmonic of the carrier band preferred by that provider. That meant that grey-market iPhones imported from the U.S., as opposed to configured for sale in the U.K., tended to drop calls, and ran at a slightly slower clock frequency than those configured for the U.S..
Rogers (the GSM carrier in Canada) faced similar issues.
I use "the FCC" in its royal sense here, i.e. to refer to all the regulatory agencies like the FCC that operate all over the world. I'm not going to list 120 regulatory agencies every time...
Then either do the following (which you have actually done in your snarky response) : a) Use a more generic term, such as "Regulatory Agency"; b)place "FCC" in quotes, which at least suggests you are using it as a "jargon term", rather than a "literal".
See how easy that was?
No need for a snarky, pseudo-pedantic response.
You mean snarky, as in suffixing every paragraph with the snarky, pseudo-pedantic "See how easy that was?", and being pedantic about being too damn literal about terms when it's obvious that other countries have similar regulatory agencies to the FCC, but limiting yourself to pretending that the FCC is only a problem for the U.S., and it's totally clear sailing through the regulatory agencies of other countries?
All you had to do was ask politely.
See how easy that was?
the FCC demands that the SDR be certified as a unit (software + hardware). That's a carrier certifiiation per carrier, per country, per device, per version update.
1. The 20 thousand dollars or so that the certification costs per year should be less than chump change for these carriers.
The carriers don't pay the money; the money is paid per device by the OEM who wants to sell those devices.
2. The FCC only controls what goes on in the USA. So the "per country" part of your "cost analysis" is completely bogus.
Quite correct. I use "the FCC" in its royal sense here, i.e. to refer to all the regulatory agencies like the FCC that operate all over the world. I'm not going to list 120 regulatory agencies every time I talk about the type of regulation that's carried out by:
Albania: Telecommunication Regulatory Entity
Argentina: Secretaría de Communicaciones
Austria: Austrian Regulatory Authority for Telecommunications and Broadcasting
Australia: Australian Communications and Media Authority
Bahrain: Telecommunications Regulatory Authority
Barbados: Ministry of Finance, Investment, Telecommunications and Energy (MFIE)
[...]
United States: Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
[...]
Venezuela: Comisión Nacional de Telecommunicaciones
Western Samoa: Ministry of Communications and Information technology
Zambia: The Communications Authority (CAZ)
I think you get the freaking point here.
Looks like typical bureaucratic language. I think there is some kind of law that says all reports must be written in in passive voice and with no humor at all. I'd bet some of the Feds found Spot the Fed humorous...
Passive voice effectively disclaims responsibility, and disclaims chain of responsibility, by making a statement without anyone owning it. It's also frequently used as an argument-without-evidence technique.
We are seeing many extreme examples of U.S. government corruption.
Uh... what other governments in supposedly non-corrupt jurisdictions respond to "Freedom Of Information Act" requests with ... actual information?
Try getting information on e.g. "Pussy Riot" out of the Putin government.
This is trivial, given that there are only a couple of federated diagnostic testing services in her area.
Looks like a bacterial infection of some kind, although they also checked for Pappilomavirus, two other STDs, and a fungal yeast infection, BVAB2, and strep.
87481 SureSwab ®, Vaginosis/Vaginitis Plus
87481 SureSwab ®, Bacterial Vaginosis/Vaginitis
87491 SureSwab ®, Vaginosis/Vaginitis Plus
87491 SureSwab ®, CT/NG, T. vaginalis
87491 Chlamydia/Neisseria gonorrhoeae, T. vaginalis, Qualitative, TMA and HSV 1/2 DNA, Real-Time PCR, Pap Vial
87491 Chlamydia/N. gonorrhoeae and T. vaginalis RNA, Qualitative, TMA, Pap Vial
87798 SureSwab ®, Trichomonas vaginalis RNA, Qualitative, TMA
87798 SureSwab ®, Vaginosis/Vaginitis Plus
87798 SureSwab ®, CT/NG, T. vaginalis
87798 Trichomonas vaginalis RNA, Qualitative, TMA, PAP Vial
87798 Chlamydia/N. gonorrhoeae and T. vaginalis RNA, Qualitative, TMA, Pap Vial
87798 Chlamydia/Neisseria gonorrhoeae, T. vaginalis, Qualitative, TMA and HSV 1/2 DNA, Real-Time PCR, Pap Vial
MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORIES, L.L.C.
105 Chlamydia trachomatis
127 Group B Streptococcus (GBS)
164 Bacterial Vaginosis Associated Bacteria 2 (BVAB2)
These are probably not test codes that she should have published, given their sensitive nature.
I do agree with her assertion that medical billing is kind of terrible.
On the other hand, they intentionally make billing and coding as difficult as possible so that the doctors office has to correctly code it to the insurance companies liking before they are obligated to pay. Usually a medical office will try a couple of times, and then give up if they don't hit pay dirt, and just send the bill to the patient, and let them argue with the insurance company long enough to damage their credit for non-payment, or pay it out of pocket to save their credit.
HMOs are absolutely the worst for this, followed by PPOs.
I would have much preferred a single payer system, like Richard Nixon wanted (he was the first president to propose a national health care system), rather than the TARP III bailout for the insurance companies which we ended up getting with the ACA.
They pretty much requires a commercial policy.
http://www.kslegislature.org/l...
"Insurers writing automobile insurance in the state are allowed to exclude any and all coverage under the driver’s or vehicle owner’s insurance policy for any loss or injury occurring while the driver is logged on to a TNC’s digital network or providing a prearranged ride."
So basically, it's requiring that Uber carry the insurance on their drivers, rather than the drivers self-insuring, and gives insurance companies an "out" if they want to exclude insurance while the driver has the app running (i.e. is "on call") and while the driver is actually driving.
What insurance company is going to pass up being paid double for what would otherwise be a single policy?
Couldn't they leave the crapware and drivers alone and still provide critical security updates we expect and need on computers since well, the Windows XP SP2 days?
Instead of updating the whole OS, Google would better provide say monthly security fixes for three years on the Android 4.4 OS, the 5.0 OS, the 5.1 OS etc.
This is not going to end well, I guess fragmentation hampers malware somewhat but what if some powerful piece of malware manages to get installed on say 10 million of Android computer phones and starts doing something really nasty?
I'm fairly certain that the biggest security threat is unverified and unmoderated software packages in the various web stores, and the ability to side-load applications. Most of the malware probably comes through the app installer, rather than a security exploit.
Although there have been issues with untrusted parties signing domain certs -- the latest was China's CNNIC root certificate removal -- and there are the heartbleed and other SSL exploits -- those are mostly untrusted public hotspot access or governmental eavesdropping attacks.
Malware is a much bigger problem.
Note that Apple is starting to have this same problem in China: there are unauthorized app stores which pirate apps (at best) or pirate them, and bundle them with malware, and then use an enterprise enrollment to let you install from their "enterprise app store", which is actually a pirate/malware site. But it's not nearly as widespread or fragmented as the Android marketplaces, and it's pretty easy to avoid -- unless you are going there because the app you want is not legally being sold by the app vendor in China. In which case: you take your chances.
And what, pray tell, is this putative rebellion against? Against Labour? The Tories? The Greens? The Crown itself?
Darth Vader, Emperor Palpatine, Count Dooku, and the other Sith, of course.
In other words, it's a lose for everyone involved, due to the way the Android/OEM/Carrier relationship is structured, and there's no product continuity upsell like you have with the various iPhone models.
This is only true as long as consumers don't prioritize upgrades at point of purchase. If we could get OEMs to begin making binding upgrade and update support commitments, and get consumers looking at and comparing devices on that basis, then OEMs would be motivated to provide updates.
They can prioritize all they want, but no one wants to pay for the carrier certification of thee modified SDRs, particularly when using a T-Zone on a Snapdragon chip in order to run the baseband, and the FCC demands that the SDR be certified as a unit (software + hardware). That's a carrier certifiiation per carrier, per country, per device, per version update.
Also no carrier using a contract lock-in revenue model is going to provide an update that doesn't lock you into a new contract, and a version update won't do that unless there's a charge for the update, based on FAS (Federal Accounting Standard) rules, since without an exchange of consideration, there is no contract. This is why Apple charged for the WiFi software update on iPods, and non-cellular network iPads, but didn't charge for cellular connected iPads and iPhones. It had to do with realization of revenue over time, versus a one time sale, and adding features to the device via software.
You should also be aware that the image that's shipped by the OEM is often not even buildable by Google engineers; apart from the fact that the devices used during development are generally signature neutered, and it's impossible to cryptographically sign the image for the given device without it either being neutered like that, or signing code that they device manufacturer generally does not share due to it containing a signing key they don't want out there... they entirety of the board file is generally not committed back to the Google maintained Android source tree. Nor is it maintained going forward so that it's up to date, nor is the remainder of the OS productization standardized across all the OEMs. They are trying to differentiate their products, after all, and my Samsung device looking and feeling exactly like a non-Samsung device is not in Samsung's interest: it makes them into a commodity, which is a quick race to the bottom on margin.
Google has significant dictatorial powers when it comes to Chromebooks, which are not available to the Android folks, even if they had the ability to code sign, and could dictate a code cut, the Android in the tree is pretty raw, and never productized.
Finally, Android lacks a uniform app ecosystem; this is a more or less direct consequence of having allowed third party stores, without a strong compatibility for the apps across all devices.
Seriously, one of the smartest things that Apple did was keep the baseband processor separate from the application processor so that there was no telecom recertification required, unless they were explicitly hacking the baseband for some reason (e.g. the carrier lock they did by re-doing the SIM/IMEI handshake when doing a hand-off between cell towers in order to intentionally break SuperSIMs and similar techniques for hardware carrier unlocks).
Without the app ecosystem and the continuity of app and other content going forward on Android -- which it doesn't -- I don't see a means of enforcing carrier lock-in to support that economic model, particularly if you started supporting software updates.
This has nothing to do with Google. Maybe Google is at fault for not making updates mandatory, but that would have been a completely different set of issues.
Actually, it does.
The Android partner model is to snapshot the tree, and then the OEM productizes the snapshot, adding hardware driver support, their own apps and UI changes, and then they do a deal with the carrier for badging and more apps -- like pointing by default to the OEM or carrier's app store, in order to monetize the device further.
This model exists to avoid disclosing information between OEMs and different carriers, since Google does not do the actual productization.
Because of this, pretty much every Android device, other than the ones which were Google-badged as "buy them from Samsung, resell them under the Google name", is a one-off with a one-off version of the OS. In order to update the OS, it'd be necessary to (effectively) re-do the port of the OS to the device for each new version.
On top of that, there's really not a lot of incentive for the carrier to have the versions of the OS an Android phone is running changing on them, since each new one requires recertification, and, depending on the degree of changes made to things like the baseband and changes in electronic noise due to changes in the software, FCC recertification, or whatever the local equivalent happens to be in your home country.
It's like building a whole new phone, except you're not getting paid for it, and theres no upsell to get you back under contract for the next 18 months.
In other words, it's a lose for everyone involved, due to the way the Android/OEM/Carrier relationship is structured, and there's no product continuity upsell like you have with the various iPhone models.
So Is Mac OS X.
I converted time_t to 64 bits on 64 bit systems (which include the most recent iPhones) as part of the changes for 64 bit binary support on the G5 when I wrote the 64 bit binary loader support into exec/fork/spawn, and again as part of UNIX Conformance. It's basically been fixed since Tiger.
Obviously... if it's AI, and it has some real world utility, then we rename it so that it's not AI any more. Then we complain loudly that "AI has never produced anything useful".
It's not like the script can run without the interpreter. Even if you were stupid enough to mount /tmp other than noexec (the default).
And what facial expressions would the computer betray?
That's not what arbiter1 meant.
"Reading your opponent" doesn't rely on facial expressions or tells when you are playing online poker.
It is very hard to believe that they are going to send a propulsion system into space without a clear understanding of how it works.
We send drivers on the road every day who don't have a clear idea how cars work.
Knowing how something works is nice, but not knowing how it works won't diminish its utility, so long as it *does*.
We use gravity daily to generate hydroelectric power. Ask a group of physicists how gravity works. We have the math for it, but we don't have the story of it. Either way, the lights come on when the water weight is converted from potential to kinetic energy, and we are still damned if we know the mechanism of conversion. If we did, we'd al be riding around on hoverboards.
However, the editor could and should have ignored that one reviewer and accepted it anyway.
Or rejected it anyway?
I think you're just latching on to insurrection because it has fewer negative connotations which is basically linguistic pathos. I find this type of meaningless rhetoric to be counter productive.
You are incorrect. The difference between a riot and an insurrection is that, for an insurrection, I'm perfectly happy bringing in the National Guard and shooting the assholes.
A rebellion can be either violent resistance or open resistance. For violent resistance: bring in the national guard. For merely open resistance: put them on national television, and hear what they have to say. Occupy Wall Street was an open resistance rebellion; Rosa Parks was open resistance rebellion; Mahatma Gandhi was open resistance rebellion. The Serbian events which ousted Slobodan Miloevi was open resistance rebellion. Birmingham, Alabama and Selma, Alabama during the U.S. Civil rights movement was open resistance rebellion.
If it's just a riot, you handle it with local policing.
A thing is what a thing is indifferent to whatever you call it. I can call something great a pile of shit or I can call a pile of shit something great... it is still going to be itself.
But involuntary manslaughter, manslaughter, third degree murder, second degree murder, and first degree murder are all murder, aren't they?
So it shouldn't matter what we call it: if we have the death penalty for first degree murder, we should have the same penalty for involuntary manslaughter, because "A thing is what a thing is indifferent to what you call it"... right?
Just because you can lump an event into a category does not make it the same as all of the other events you are able to lump into the same broad category.
If you find yourself putting everything into the same bucket, perhaps the problem isn't the thing, it's the fact that you have too few buckets.
Anyone with some legal experience able to clarify this? Given that grooveshark wasn't...exactly...apologetic about their strategy(nor has it changed all that much), my assumption is that the sudden shift to grovelling-apology-mode has much more to do with losing than it does with any change of heart.
I'm pretty sure the apology has a hell of a lot more to do with the transfer of control of the domain name to the record label than it has to do with the actual opinions of Grooveshark, or really, anyone who was employed by them, since whatever statements are up currently are hosted on RIAA owned servers on a RIAA owned domain, and likely dictated to RIAA employed web masters by RIAA marketing executives.
I don't think anyone at Grooveshark would willingly admit legal liability so blatantly, unless they had discontinued their schizophrenia medication.
If you wrote some software and sold it to someone for $1000, you are cool with them making copies and giving it away?
If it took him less than 20 hours, he's making over $104,000 / year writing software, so he's probably OK with it.
The entire GNU philosophy / GNU Manifesto is based on the idea that software writers are craftsmen engaged in making works for hire. It's no different than making furniture.
I personally don't agree with that economic model, but I'm pretty sure by his statements that he's OK with it.
No, an insurrection requires an intention to subvert the government and take over as the new rulling authority.
Incorrect; you are confusing an insurrection with a revolution:
insurrection: noun: a violent uprising against an authority or government.
rebellion: noun: an act of violent or open resistance to an established government or ruler.
revolution: noun: a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system.
An insurrection can lead to a revolution, as can a rebellion, but it's not a sufficient condition. Planned rioting with no political or social goals is insurrection. Unplanned rioting is not insurrection, it is merely rioting.
Given that these riots were planned via social media, they were insurrection; given that they were against authority, rather than an established government or ruler, they were NOT a rebellion.
I think you are mistaking "stupid" for "desperate" or "hopeless" or "disillusioned".
You can be those things without rioting. They are not synonymous with "being an asshole", which is what rioting is all about. Wanton destruction of property achieves no reasonable political or social agenda, other than harming people already operating hand to mouth in cash flow businesses, and forcing them into poverty with you.
If you weren't "just being an asshole", you'd be rioting in areas where there would be a net political effect from the reaction in the desired direction. Directionless riots are closer in nature to the 9/11 attacks than they are the Boston Tea Party.
Flash mobs are organized on social media... if you do a riot the same way then...
Sorry, that's not a "riot". If you organize it in a premeditated fashion, it's called "insurrection".
Why should we believe you've got it as bad as people who are rioting?
Mod parent up.
People stupid enough to riot definitely have it worse off than people smart enough to not riot. Because they're not only in poverty, they are also stupid.