Apple STILL shares their OS. It's called Darwin. They don't share some of the pretty Aqua stuff that runs on top of it, but they share the core OS. Google doesn't share some of the pretty stuff in Android either. They even had a little dispute with Cyanogen about it.
A LOT of those people probably didn't really want the product. It was "free" so they gave it a try. Most of the people who would have bought the software probably did.
Why would Google want to prevent locked phones? That would piss off the carriers and manufacturers making Android phones and they might decide to use some other OS instead. Then Google couldn't sell as many ads.
"Google wants a kind of openness which is good for everyone, especially including Google."
Right. Google wants what is good for Google. That is, they want Android on lots of devices so they can sell lots of ads.
Google thought making Android open source would be the best way to accomplish that, and it's worked pretty well so far. Except for this little bobble with fragmentation. Google couldn't care less whether you can upgrade the OS on your phone, or customize it as you wish. Actually, they probably prefer you can't, because hardware upgrades keep the manufacturers happy (more of them will use Android, more ads for Google) and no end user modifications prevent you from blocking their ads.
Notice how Google ISN'T making an issue out of carriers and manufacturers locking down Android phones.
Then you should be happier with increasing high school graduation requirements. If you can't do algebra then you really shouldn't be getting into university and should be considering something else instead - like a trade school that doesn't require a high school diploma for admission.
"That said, I'm in full support of requiring Algebra II in high school. I think continuously pushing students is a great learning technique, and I also think the world would be a better place if everyone had an understanding of these principles."
Wait, so you DO think that teaching students useful things is correlated with them learning useful things and being successful in life?
"Making everyone take it is going to have about as much success as cargo cults did."
Oopsie. You not only assumed a correlation (smarter kids take algebra), you also assumed it was also causation (smart kids taking algebra do better later in college). Yes, you should know better.
The proper thing to do is an experiment. Make some kids take algebra and see if they do better. Oh, that's what they're trying to do.
The only place it mentions the blink reflex being different with laser light is for IR - if you can't see it, you won't blink, and might not notice damage is being done until too late. Chromatic aberration, while probably a small effect, would be similar for lasers and other monochromatic (or nearly so) light sources such as LEDs.
Well collimated lasers CAN produce somewhat higher intensities than you'd otherwise expect due to high spatial coherence, but not magically so.
The reasons we put warning labels on lasers are (a) uninformed paranoia and (b) because many higher powered lasers ARE dangerous, and unexpectedly so because they are small, well collimated sources and don't diverge much.
Read the descriptions of the laser classes, and especially the laser pointers section. 5 mW lasers haven't been recorded causing any permanent damage except in a few rare cases where the person was really going out of his or her way to cause damage (such as staring into the beam for a full minute, and he recovered anyway).
Yes, a half watt laser is more dangerous than a 100 watt light bulb, but primarily because we insist on ridiculously labelling some light sources by their power consumption and that the laser is unidirectional. Note that in this case we're talking about a well collimated non-laser light source, not an omnidirectional one.
Nonsense. Laser light has two properties that are different than normal light: it's monochromatic and it's (often) well collimated so the beam doesn't diverge much.
Provided monochromatic light doesn't have any special effect on the retina (and I can't think why it would), a device that produces a light intensity on the retina greater than a particular value will be capable of causing permanent damage whether it's a laser or not. This thing probably affects a bigger portion of the retina but is also probably much more intense than your garden variety laser pointer.
Laser light is not magic "concentrated" light that can suddenly burn stuff.
Probably a little different. The reason everyone put on goggles in the old newsreels was that the UV from the explosion would blind you. The visible light probably wouldn't do you much good either, but the UV was the real killer.
No, once upon a time there was a web with little beyond basic HTML, images and a downloadable file or two. And it should have stayed that way. All this web app stuff should have been done with proper apps using protocols other than HTTP. Any decent programmer who's had the misfortune to do any dynamic HTML work knows just what a horrible cludge the whole thing is.
They have to do something. Almost all the features in the last few versions have just been bloat. Ditto here. Except for in-browser PDF viewing, which Safari has had forever, it's just more feature creep.
I specifically said the low dose version they sell to people as a blood thinner - they're more expensive. And from Bayer, so more expensive again. I think I accidentally dropped a factor of 3 or 4 though - if I remember the numbers correctly it works out to more like $600 / lb.
A better example would be nicotine. An average cigarette supposedly has 9 mg of nicotine, twenty to a pack makes 180 mg in a pack. Apparently the cost of a pack of cigarettes in the US is around $7 so that comes out to about $18000 / lb of nicotine (unless I made another mistake. It IS one thirty in the morning) and it's not even processed or purified like the coke.
Sure, you can probably get your nicotine cheaper in patch form but you can also buy your coke cheaper than the estimated street price if you get it uncut and in bulk.
Viagra, by the way, is over $70k / lb, and that's from a shady online pharmacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, yes, which is why the Falcon Heavy is more impressive than a Saturn V even though it can lift less.
Why? We're much better at orbital assembly now so we don't need the giant, all-the-eggs-in-one-basket rocket anymore. Cheap is MUCH more impressive.
Apple STILL shares their OS. It's called Darwin. They don't share some of the pretty Aqua stuff that runs on top of it, but they share the core OS. Google doesn't share some of the pretty stuff in Android either. They even had a little dispute with Cyanogen about it.
A LOT of those people probably didn't really want the product. It was "free" so they gave it a try. Most of the people who would have bought the software probably did.
Oh, someone said "straw man." That must mean an insightful post... oh right.
Honeycomb, and it's withholding, was mentioned in the SUMMARY.
Google isn't, and hasn't, objected to e-Fuses or other locking mechanisms.
Why would Google want to prevent locked phones? That would piss off the carriers and manufacturers making Android phones and they might decide to use some other OS instead. Then Google couldn't sell as many ads.
"Google wants a kind of openness which is good for everyone, especially including Google."
Right. Google wants what is good for Google. That is, they want Android on lots of devices so they can sell lots of ads.
Google thought making Android open source would be the best way to accomplish that, and it's worked pretty well so far. Except for this little bobble with fragmentation. Google couldn't care less whether you can upgrade the OS on your phone, or customize it as you wish. Actually, they probably prefer you can't, because hardware upgrades keep the manufacturers happy (more of them will use Android, more ads for Google) and no end user modifications prevent you from blocking their ads.
Notice how Google ISN'T making an issue out of carriers and manufacturers locking down Android phones.
Except when they don't bother releasing the code at all.
So what you're saying is that open source is not viable for commercial products?
Google tried making phones and nobody wanted them. So now they're going to slowly stop sharing their OS, hey?
There's a company that's been doing that for a while now... oh yeah, Apple.
When Android was first announced I said that an open source phone OS wasn't worth much without good hardware and a good network to run it on.
So? Isn't the point of open source that other people can take it and modify it to try out ideas?
Then you should be happier with increasing high school graduation requirements. If you can't do algebra then you really shouldn't be getting into university and should be considering something else instead - like a trade school that doesn't require a high school diploma for admission.
"That said, I'm in full support of requiring Algebra II in high school. I think continuously pushing students is a great learning technique, and I also think the world would be a better place if everyone had an understanding of these principles."
Wait, so you DO think that teaching students useful things is correlated with them learning useful things and being successful in life?
I'm not American - does Algebra II cover Boolean algebra and logic?
"Making everyone take it is going to have about as much success as cargo cults did."
Oopsie. You not only assumed a correlation (smarter kids take algebra), you also assumed it was also causation (smart kids taking algebra do better later in college). Yes, you should know better.
The proper thing to do is an experiment. Make some kids take algebra and see if they do better. Oh, that's what they're trying to do.
You should read that article too.
The only place it mentions the blink reflex being different with laser light is for IR - if you can't see it, you won't blink, and might not notice damage is being done until too late. Chromatic aberration, while probably a small effect, would be similar for lasers and other monochromatic (or nearly so) light sources such as LEDs.
Well collimated lasers CAN produce somewhat higher intensities than you'd otherwise expect due to high spatial coherence, but not magically so.
The reasons we put warning labels on lasers are (a) uninformed paranoia and (b) because many higher powered lasers ARE dangerous, and unexpectedly so because they are small, well collimated sources and don't diverge much.
Read the descriptions of the laser classes, and especially the laser pointers section. 5 mW lasers haven't been recorded causing any permanent damage except in a few rare cases where the person was really going out of his or her way to cause damage (such as staring into the beam for a full minute, and he recovered anyway).
Yes, a half watt laser is more dangerous than a 100 watt light bulb, but primarily because we insist on ridiculously labelling some light sources by their power consumption and that the laser is unidirectional. Note that in this case we're talking about a well collimated non-laser light source, not an omnidirectional one.
Nonsense. Laser light has two properties that are different than normal light: it's monochromatic and it's (often) well collimated so the beam doesn't diverge much.
Provided monochromatic light doesn't have any special effect on the retina (and I can't think why it would), a device that produces a light intensity on the retina greater than a particular value will be capable of causing permanent damage whether it's a laser or not. This thing probably affects a bigger portion of the retina but is also probably much more intense than your garden variety laser pointer.
Laser light is not magic "concentrated" light that can suddenly burn stuff.
Only if you're (a) American and (b) have no knowledge of history.
Actually, you should be able to figure it out from recent pop culture too. Or were all the guys in "Band of Brothers" black?
Probably a little different. The reason everyone put on goggles in the old newsreels was that the UV from the explosion would blind you. The visible light probably wouldn't do you much good either, but the UV was the real killer.
No, once upon a time there was a web with little beyond basic HTML, images and a downloadable file or two. And it should have stayed that way. All this web app stuff should have been done with proper apps using protocols other than HTTP. Any decent programmer who's had the misfortune to do any dynamic HTML work knows just what a horrible cludge the whole thing is.
They have to do something. Almost all the features in the last few versions have just been bloat. Ditto here. Except for in-browser PDF viewing, which Safari has had forever, it's just more feature creep.
I specifically said the low dose version they sell to people as a blood thinner - they're more expensive. And from Bayer, so more expensive again. I think I accidentally dropped a factor of 3 or 4 though - if I remember the numbers correctly it works out to more like $600 / lb.
A better example would be nicotine. An average cigarette supposedly has 9 mg of nicotine, twenty to a pack makes 180 mg in a pack. Apparently the cost of a pack of cigarettes in the US is around $7 so that comes out to about $18000 / lb of nicotine (unless I made another mistake. It IS one thirty in the morning) and it's not even processed or purified like the coke.
Sure, you can probably get your nicotine cheaper in patch form but you can also buy your coke cheaper than the estimated street price if you get it uncut and in bulk.
Viagra, by the way, is over $70k / lb, and that's from a shady online pharmacy.
You're right, that's outrageous. Aspirin (the low dose stuff they sell to people with heart and stroke problems) is only about $2000 / lb.