If you are more interested in Android as a platform rather then fixated on handset spec sheets (or engadget 'articles') the Droid is just not better enough to be interesting.
Nexus advantages:
* ROOT ACCESS INCLUDED. Sure, you can hack the Droid - but the manufacturer doesn't want you to own your device.
* The N1 is the current "reference" handset, meaning everything targets the N1 first and is well tested against it.
* You get your updates from Google, not whenever Verizon/Motorola get around to it.
* If you decide to get your updates elsewhere this is cool too, as your reference device will be compatible with any custom ROM you can find.
* It runs vanilla Android. Carrier/manufacturer embellishments are at best pretty; on average are broken; and at worst cause fragmentation.
For these reasons The N1 remains a compelling choice even against the new class of just-announced Android "super phone" devices, and will likely remain the smart choice for quite a while. The Droid is just another android phone.
Wait, I thought Apple would have to report it to the police for the phone to be considered "stolen". Otherwise the phone's status was simply "misplaced".
I'm hoping criminal charges get laid here.
Are you for real? To what end? To whom will Justice have been served?
Yes, very clever. Of course you and I both know that the poster did not use "believe" to mean "to take as a matter of faith" - but you get maximum smartarse points anyway.
Posting anonymously because the mentality in slashdot...
I see. So you only stand behind what you say when you know its gonna be popular, eh? Seriously, if you are going to fling poo from the sidelines spare us the justification.
No, that isn't odd at all - in fact the GUI does that fine (right click on file > properties > permissions > check "execute").
Setting the permission to executable by selecting "777" from a GUI would be odd. This is what I thought you wanted, but reading your comment again I see it could have just been a case of ambiguous wording. My bad.
Casinos are specifically and carefully designed to exploit people's natural instincts (for example, no windows so you have no sense of time) and mental illnesses; the layout of the floor is done purposefully...
So are shopping centers. Yeah, it's manipulative, and I hate it. But it's pretty shallow to attack casino's for the same thing big-box retail does.
Take a look at the police spending in any community pre-and-post Walmart. It always skyrockets after Walmart move in, because Walmart attract the desperate, mentally ill, and criminal.
Meh, auto-suggestion is the issue here, not the number of input boxes. Microsoft, Google and Mozilla support auto-suggestion by default, and they all offer the option to disable it.
I must say the quality of Microsoft FUD seems to have diminished over the years.
My mistake, I did intend to answer your questions, but got sidetracked by the example.
Are you against all patents altogether?
Not in theory. However the vast majority fail the basic tests for patent-ability. Patents should be VERY rare, dozens maybe a year, not thousands.
What's so special about software patents that they always hinder innovation?
Previous answer is still relevant here, namely the bar has been set so low as to be farcical. But also - software is covered by copyright, and doesn't need double protection; Algorithms should not be patentable; Software "innovation" is not in the implementation, but the addition of non-obvious features - while commendable, this is not patentable; and most tellingly, the way software patent "portfolios" are used to to crush competition is the very antithesis of encouraging innovation.
Google (in this context) is a search engine - If you want people to use your search engine, you don't need to tell them HOW it finds results.
The PageRank algorithm is an implementation. Search algorithms existed long before PageRank, and new ones are dreamt up all the time.
Now, Stanford University didn't patent PageRank to release it to the public. It's not like PageRank was some sekrit sauce that would be lost forever if the algorithm had not been described. On the contrary, if it hadn't been patented it could have been freely reverse engineered. In this case, patents have postponed wider use of this useful algorithm, and so harmed progress.
Let's say tomorrow someone comes up with an algorithm for strong AI.
A more interesting proposition to be sure, but a fantastical one. If you push me on it though I would say say patents are likely to stave off the singularity rather then hasten its arrival.
Without patent protection, people tend to keep their innovations secret.
Then how on earth can they sell it? You have to at least advertise what your product does if you want people to buy it.
If merely telling people what your product does enables them to make something that does it too, then the product does not qualify for patent protection.
Terry Welch's improvement on Abraham Lempel and Jacob Ziv's LZ78 algorithm was patented.
This is what really pisses me off. Unless Welch invented Comp Sci, Algebra, AC/DC transmission, Language, and the fucking Wheel, what right does he have to claim that he "invented" the refinement of solution to a particular problem that only exists because of the existence of these things?
I understand that there are save packs doing the rounds that work around these issues, but to be honest that is besides the point. This is not a win for DRM, its a loss for the consumer.
What a game, the universe was teaming with alien races, and really felt limitless. I never even found all the races or got close to beating the game as a kid. I did beat it years later in its Ur-Quan Masters form. Highly recommended.
Syndicate put you in control of an amoral conglomerate in a hard-core cyberpunk setting - with cyborgs, mind control devices and gauss guns at your disposal. I loved every minute of it.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are more interested in Android as a platform rather then fixated on handset spec sheets (or engadget 'articles') the Droid is just not better enough to be interesting.
Nexus advantages:
* ROOT ACCESS INCLUDED. Sure, you can hack the Droid - but the manufacturer doesn't want you to own your device.
* The N1 is the current "reference" handset, meaning everything targets the N1 first and is well tested against it.
* You get your updates from Google, not whenever Verizon/Motorola get around to it.
* If you decide to get your updates elsewhere this is cool too, as your reference device will be compatible with any custom ROM you can find.
* It runs vanilla Android. Carrier/manufacturer embellishments are at best pretty; on average are broken; and at worst cause fragmentation.
For these reasons The N1 remains a compelling choice even against the new class of just-announced Android "super phone" devices, and will likely remain the smart choice for quite a while. The Droid is just another android phone.
Irresponsible? Perhaps. Criminally irresponsible? Hardly. No puppies were harmed in the making of this non-story.
The attitude that it is appropriate to tie up the courts up with trivialities such as this is irresponsible.
I'm hoping criminal charges get laid here.
Are you for real? To what end? To whom will Justice have been served?
so did Nethack :P
Yes, very clever. Of course you and I both know that the poster did not use "believe" to mean "to take as a matter of faith" - but you get maximum smartarse points anyway.
Only on Slashdot do people believe that consumers buy Apple products because they're "cool and hip".
Knowelegable consumers are by no means unique to Slashdot my friend, nor is successful marketing unique to Apple.
Posting anonymously because the mentality in slashdot...
I see. So you only stand behind what you say when you know its gonna be popular, eh? Seriously, if you are going to fling poo from the sidelines spare us the justification.
Not at all - it is not that Murdoch likes the iPad, but the reason he likes it. It is a locked-down device designed for passive media consumption.
If the fact that Murdoch is promoting the iPad really should be setting of alarm bells in your geek psyche.
No, that isn't odd at all - in fact the GUI does that fine (right click on file > properties > permissions > check "execute").
Setting the permission to executable by selecting "777" from a GUI would be odd. This is what I thought you wanted, but reading your comment again I see it could have just been a case of ambiguous wording. My bad.
sudo passwd root and you are good to go
Your desire for a GUI that sets file permissions by octal expression seems... odd.
Linux's touch support seems pretty dodgy, so I ended up settling on an... android-based ereader/tablet.
:cough:
Casinos are specifically and carefully designed to exploit people's natural instincts (for example, no windows so you have no sense of time) and mental illnesses; the layout of the floor is done purposefully...
So are shopping centers. Yeah, it's manipulative, and I hate it. But it's pretty shallow to attack casino's for the same thing big-box retail does.
Take a look at the police spending in any community pre-and-post Walmart. It always skyrockets after Walmart move in, because Walmart attract the desperate, mentally ill, and criminal.
A joke. But I'm not laughing either.
Just use debian then. Choice FTW!
And the answer is a resounding yes
Meh, auto-suggestion is the issue here, not the number of input boxes. Microsoft, Google and Mozilla support auto-suggestion by default, and they all offer the option to disable it.
I must say the quality of Microsoft FUD seems to have diminished over the years.
My mistake, I did intend to answer your questions, but got sidetracked by the example.
Are you against all patents altogether?
Not in theory. However the vast majority fail the basic tests for patent-ability. Patents should be VERY rare, dozens maybe a year, not thousands.
What's so special about software patents that they always hinder innovation?
Previous answer is still relevant here, namely the bar has been set so low as to be farcical. But also - software is covered by copyright, and doesn't need double protection; Algorithms should not be patentable; Software "innovation" is not in the implementation, but the addition of non-obvious features - while commendable, this is not patentable; and most tellingly, the way software patent "portfolios" are used to to crush competition is the very antithesis of encouraging innovation.
Happy to discuss your example.
Google (in this context) is a search engine - If you want people to use your search engine, you don't need to tell them HOW it finds results.
The PageRank algorithm is an implementation. Search algorithms existed long before PageRank, and new ones are dreamt up all the time.
Now, Stanford University didn't patent PageRank to release it to the public. It's not like PageRank was some sekrit sauce that would be lost forever if the algorithm had not been described. On the contrary, if it hadn't been patented it could have been freely reverse engineered. In this case, patents have postponed wider use of this useful algorithm, and so harmed progress.
Let's say tomorrow someone comes up with an algorithm for strong AI.
A more interesting proposition to be sure, but a fantastical one. If you push me on it though I would say say patents are likely to stave off the singularity rather then hasten its arrival.
Without patent protection, people tend to keep their innovations secret.
Then how on earth can they sell it? You have to at least advertise what your product does if you want people to buy it.
If merely telling people what your product does enables them to make something that does it too, then the product does not qualify for patent protection.
Terry Welch's improvement on Abraham Lempel and Jacob Ziv's LZ78 algorithm was patented.
This is what really pisses me off. Unless Welch invented Comp Sci, Algebra, AC/DC transmission, Language, and the fucking Wheel, what right does he have to claim that he "invented" the refinement of solution to a particular problem that only exists because of the existence of these things?
It is you who have been brainwashed. The intent of patents was NOT to allow inventors to earn a living, but to encourage innovation.
Can you give me a single example of a software patent where this has been the case?
"Active Directory-esque"? Is that what the kids are calling LDAP these days?
"Identity Theft" is to Fraud what "Stealing" is to Copyright Infringement. There is no such thing as "Intellectual Property".
So it's practically useless
No different to the retail version then?
I understand that there are save packs doing the rounds that work around these issues, but to be honest that is besides the point. This is not a win for DRM, its a loss for the consumer.
What a game, the universe was teaming with alien races, and really felt limitless. I never even found all the races or got close to beating the game as a kid. I did beat it years later in its Ur-Quan Masters form. Highly recommended.
Syndicate put you in control of an amoral conglomerate in a hard-core cyberpunk setting - with cyborgs, mind control devices and gauss guns at your disposal. I loved every minute of it.