In many cases, they do... after the satellites are tested and operational. Even in the cases where NASA's still in charge, the active mission is controlled from NOAA's operations center, mostly by NOAA personnel.
Also, oddly enough, most of the acquisition authority for civilian weather and Earth-observing satellite programs (even one primarily for operational meteorology... NOAA's bailiwick) are managed through NASA. I don't know why that happened; back in the day, NOAA was perfectly capable of buying its own satellite systems, but now it seems the contracting has to go through NASA. Odd.
"Broken" can be applied by objective and self-evident standards of rightness. Hence, the phrase "broken as designed." Which appears to be canonically applicable to Windows 8.
The patent (filed 2001, granted 2005) is for remote license checking. This, you may surmise, is ancient technology. It's ubiquitous technology. It's an egregiously bad candidate for a patent (in my non-lawyer opinion). But, there it is.
The "decades" part has nothing explicit to do with X-Plane, or with the Android license checking API. It has entirely to do with the fact that remote license checking has been done for decades, not that X-Plane has been doing it for decades.
Way to misinterpret TFA when constructing the summary, Original Submitter. (Assuming Editor didn't botch the summary and make it look like they're quoting the Submitter's pristine words.)
I love this place. It makes "finding the real story" into a bizarre and almost-entertaining "Where's Waldo" game.
The US has been pretty damn fortunate to be able to fight its wars on other peoples' land. It distorts the perspective, if you think about it. Ask an 80-year-old Russian about the Great Patriotic War. Ask my mom about hiding in the woods as B-29s burned her home town to the ground.
I wonder sometimes if our eagerness to slap leather and come out blazing has something to do with the fact that we won't have to clean up our own damage when the shooting is done. "Collateral damage" is easier to tolerate as long as it's someone else being damaged (or killed, to be perfectly candid).
But yes. Japan did attack the US mainland, and certainly did a job on our overseas holdings (Philippines, Hawaii, Alaska, etc.). But the attacks were never above the level of raids, with the exception of the worthless occupation of a few Aleutian islands (perhaps traumatic to the few locals, but not very effective and contested robustly enough to never develop beyond that point). Our island-hopping campaign reclaimed our territories right quick (with the exception of the Philippines) and shortly after that we were on the Japanese side of the 50-yard line, as it were, for the rest of the fight.
Java, the Oracle software language and environment, is not Open Source. Openjava, the community java language and environment whose community is led by Oracle, is Open Source.
They are distinct and different. Oracle attempted to sue Google over Java. The existence of OpenJava was not a viable defense for Google.
Like Android, Java (the closed software) has slightly different features and codebase than the Open equivalent. The Open equivalent is essentially a testing ground and a place to harvest good ideas from well-intentioned suckers ^w community developers to roll into the closed product.
(before you get all indignant and huffy... just because you can download the commercial Java product from Oracle gratis does not mean it's Open Software.)
I pulled some apps (mainly Wallet) from my Nexus 7 and installed them on my Galaxy Nexus (Verizon) running Cyanogen Mod. I could do the same thing with any of the "GApps". This is perfectly legal.
Oddly enough, you may be right about "perfectly legal"; nonetheless, I'd like to see your JD and your law license when you make random pronouncements of law like this.
Here's my point: The platform you're loading GApps onto is already a licensed platform. Verizon is a full commercial Android licensee, so your device is already blessed, even if you choose to roll back to the AOSP Android.
However, your argument is on much weaker ground in the case of a purely AOSP device from a manufacturer that never secured a Google Apps license. If you were to sideload GApps (or the device came pre-loaded with it), I'd be willing to argue that whoever loaded GApps is in violation of Google's license. And that would, to an arguable degree, be "illegal". (i.e., not a violation of criminal law, but possible a civil one... breach of contract, copyright violation, etc.)
If Acer still wants to use Android on some phones, why should Google care from a moral perspective what they do on the other phones?
Because businesses don't have a "moral perspective". They make money. And spending your money and your effort supporting a direct competitor doesn't make money.
Czechs and getting footage of a military base, they'd sure be instantly classified as terrorists.
Eh? The Czech Republic is an honored member of NATO. The U.S. has already sworn to shed its own blood and spend its own treasury to defend it. One NATO member spying on another is none of the U. S. 's business. Hell, one NATO member at war with another is almost none of the U. S.'s business, except for the diplomatic pressure to encourage them to stop.
This is one place where Apple's iron-fisted dominance of design comes in handy. The iPad is a nice consistent formfactor (only a couple of sizes to consider), so it's easy for a brisk aftermarket of compatible accessories, as long as those accessories can either license necessary compatibility technology (charge/audio/data port) or the compatibility is itself fairly open (Bluetooth); I haven't seen a one-size-fits-all equivalent for Android tablets simply because there's so much variability in size and shape.
GP's comment was about "hipsters" rooting and modding the OS. Unless you have a serious "you hipster kids get off my lawn" problem, that's not what this is about.
But yeah. Reverse-cool-chic might make this low-price low-spec dog appeal to the "too mainstream" crowd, especially if it's technically amenable to romming.
Well, sure. Knowing my 6-year-olds, they'd remove the bumper* and then drop the tablet on the sidewalk. They're just that talented.
But that's the marketing spin.
Like I said, if they were serious about kid-proofing, they'd ruggedize it like a $4,000 DoD job. And charge $4,000 for it. But I guess that market is already taken.
*Knowing my kids, they'd remove the bumper even if it were an integral part of the tablet's case. They're just that stubborn.
Ah, yes. The colloquializtion of Occam's Razor is "All things being equal, the simpler theory is more likely."
However, this neglects the little-known fact that William of Ockham was one of the founding members of the real Illuminati (and not the 18th-Century cover organization everyone knows about). He planted his philosophical disinformation into the intellectual culture specifically to cover the elaborate and long-running schemes he knew his secret society would enact over the coming centuries. By making us think that the simpler solution is the better one, he innoculated us against uncovering complex and insidious schemes, or believing them if they are uncovered. Fnord.
Unless this tablet is childproof from breaking, its not going to sell.
You didn't read TFA. That's OK, this is Slashdot; it would have been weird if you had.
Yeah. It is, to some extent, childproofed. Its edge is a shock-absorbent soft-plastic bumper, so odds are somewhat better that if a kid drops it on the sidewalk, it won't shatter into a dozen pieces.
I couldn't see any other obvious signs of child-proofing (which would require engineering beyond even military ruggedization), but at least that obvious contingency is covered.
And I suppose being arrested for receiving stolen goods after taking advantage of a shady boot sale is also terribly unfair?
There's this little voice in your head that says "this is too good to be legal," and you're supposed to listen to it.
If you're a gamer and you found a way to make the game do something it clearly shouldn't let you do (i.e., teleport across the battlefield, buy high-end gear at unreasonably low prices, disconnect other players, etc.), you're exploiting. Period. And if you keep doing it, you're knowingly and intentionally exploiting. And a lifetime ban is simply the kindest thing you deserve.
Contrary to popular opinion, "whatever you can get away with" is not a valid ethical choice, and if you get busted, whining about it just looks douchbaggish and immature.
True. But on one side is an idiot with a Twitter account. On the other side is a crowd of idiots with, ultimately, guns and the power to imprison. How do YOU think this would ever work out?
Neither can a B-52, but 35 tons of payload is plenty of room for carrying ordnance, as sure as shooting.
And the Air Force DID have the F-12 program, notionally working on a high-supersonic interceptor to replace the canceled F-108 Rapier program. But that program, and its prototype YF-12 aircraft, were also used as public cover for the SR-71 program (A-12) under development at the time, so it's hard to know how seriously the Air Force took it.
They did develop the plane to the point of an integrated prototype with weapons tests and everything, just short of production.
So, yeah, there is a little more to the SR-71 stable than just "we kill'um with fil'um" (as a recon pilot acquaintance of mine used to express it).
Slashdot Mirror
In many cases, they do... after the satellites are tested and operational. Even in the cases where NASA's still in charge, the active mission is controlled from NOAA's operations center, mostly by NOAA personnel.
Also, oddly enough, most of the acquisition authority for civilian weather and Earth-observing satellite programs (even one primarily for operational meteorology... NOAA's bailiwick) are managed through NASA. I don't know why that happened; back in the day, NOAA was perfectly capable of buying its own satellite systems, but now it seems the contracting has to go through NASA. Odd.
"Broken" can be applied by objective and self-evident standards of rightness. Hence, the phrase "broken as designed." Which appears to be canonically applicable to Windows 8.
The summary is, as usually, fairly terribad.
The patent (filed 2001, granted 2005) is for remote license checking. This, you may surmise, is ancient technology. It's ubiquitous technology. It's an egregiously bad candidate for a patent (in my non-lawyer opinion). But, there it is.
The "decades" part has nothing explicit to do with X-Plane, or with the Android license checking API. It has entirely to do with the fact that remote license checking has been done for decades, not that X-Plane has been doing it for decades.
Way to misinterpret TFA when constructing the summary, Original Submitter. (Assuming Editor didn't botch the summary and make it look like they're quoting the Submitter's pristine words.)
I love this place. It makes "finding the real story" into a bizarre and almost-entertaining "Where's Waldo" game.
In space you can't hear you "Whoosh".
The US has been pretty damn fortunate to be able to fight its wars on other peoples' land. It distorts the perspective, if you think about it. Ask an 80-year-old Russian about the Great Patriotic War. Ask my mom about hiding in the woods as B-29s burned her home town to the ground.
I wonder sometimes if our eagerness to slap leather and come out blazing has something to do with the fact that we won't have to clean up our own damage when the shooting is done. "Collateral damage" is easier to tolerate as long as it's someone else being damaged (or killed, to be perfectly candid).
But yes. Japan did attack the US mainland, and certainly did a job on our overseas holdings (Philippines, Hawaii, Alaska, etc.). But the attacks were never above the level of raids, with the exception of the worthless occupation of a few Aleutian islands (perhaps traumatic to the few locals, but not very effective and contested robustly enough to never develop beyond that point). Our island-hopping campaign reclaimed our territories right quick (with the exception of the Philippines) and shortly after that we were on the Japanese side of the 50-yard line, as it were, for the rest of the fight.
You do understand about dual licensing, right?
Java, the Oracle software language and environment, is not Open Source. Openjava, the community java language and environment whose community is led by Oracle, is Open Source.
They are distinct and different. Oracle attempted to sue Google over Java. The existence of OpenJava was not a viable defense for Google.
Like Android, Java (the closed software) has slightly different features and codebase than the Open equivalent. The Open equivalent is essentially a testing ground and a place to harvest good ideas from well-intentioned suckers ^w community developers to roll into the closed product.
(before you get all indignant and huffy... just because you can download the commercial Java product from Oracle gratis does not mean it's Open Software.)
I pulled some apps (mainly Wallet) from my Nexus 7 and installed them on my Galaxy Nexus (Verizon) running Cyanogen Mod. I could do the same thing with any of the "GApps". This is perfectly legal.
Oddly enough, you may be right about "perfectly legal"; nonetheless, I'd like to see your JD and your law license when you make random pronouncements of law like this.
Here's my point: The platform you're loading GApps onto is already a licensed platform. Verizon is a full commercial Android licensee, so your device is already blessed, even if you choose to roll back to the AOSP Android.
However, your argument is on much weaker ground in the case of a purely AOSP device from a manufacturer that never secured a Google Apps license. If you were to sideload GApps (or the device came pre-loaded with it), I'd be willing to argue that whoever loaded GApps is in violation of Google's license. And that would, to an arguable degree, be "illegal". (i.e., not a violation of criminal law, but possible a civil one... breach of contract, copyright violation, etc.)
If Acer still wants to use Android on some phones, why should Google care from a moral perspective what they do on the other phones?
Because businesses don't have a "moral perspective". They make money. And spending your money and your effort supporting a direct competitor doesn't make money.
In other news, Red Hat goes out of its way to obfuscate Oracle's attempts to bundle (completely Open Source) Red Hat Linux into an Oracle product and undercut Red Hat's support business. Are you saying that Red Hat is in the wrong here?
In terms of emotional maturity and psychological vulnerability, that's just redundant.
At least children outgrow it.
Let's put it this way: South Park depicted Mohammed once, without causing any riots, suicide bombings, or other forms of kililng in response.
If I recall, their depiction of Xenu caused more trouble than that.
Let's not kid ourselves. The main device in most peoples' lives is the TV, and has been for decades, and will be for decades more.
This is squabbling for second place, and even then, the PC wasn't it. There wasn't a second place until smartphones and tablets created it.
And sitting on a factory line stuffing ICs into boards is hardly "dangerous".
I wonder what the educational value of that would be, other than the important life lesson of "Be careful when signing any contract."
Czechs and getting footage of a military base, they'd sure be instantly classified as terrorists.
Eh? The Czech Republic is an honored member of NATO. The U.S. has already sworn to shed its own blood and spend its own treasury to defend it. One NATO member spying on another is none of the U. S. 's business. Hell, one NATO member at war with another is almost none of the U. S.'s business, except for the diplomatic pressure to encourage them to stop.
Technically, this already exists. iPad apparently supports Bluetooth keyboards, so you'll find many iPad cases with an integrated BT keyboard.
Here's an example at ThinkGeek.
This is one place where Apple's iron-fisted dominance of design comes in handy. The iPad is a nice consistent formfactor (only a couple of sizes to consider), so it's easy for a brisk aftermarket of compatible accessories, as long as those accessories can either license necessary compatibility technology (charge/audio/data port) or the compatibility is itself fairly open (Bluetooth); I haven't seen a one-size-fits-all equivalent for Android tablets simply because there's so much variability in size and shape.
GP's comment was about "hipsters" rooting and modding the OS. Unless you have a serious "you hipster kids get off my lawn" problem, that's not what this is about.
But yeah. Reverse-cool-chic might make this low-price low-spec dog appeal to the "too mainstream" crowd, especially if it's technically amenable to romming.
Well, sure. Knowing my 6-year-olds, they'd remove the bumper* and then drop the tablet on the sidewalk. They're just that talented.
But that's the marketing spin.
Like I said, if they were serious about kid-proofing, they'd ruggedize it like a $4,000 DoD job. And charge $4,000 for it. But I guess that market is already taken.
*Knowing my kids, they'd remove the bumper even if it were an integral part of the tablet's case. They're just that stubborn.
Ah, yes. The colloquializtion of Occam's Razor is "All things being equal, the simpler theory is more likely."
However, this neglects the little-known fact that William of Ockham was one of the founding members of the real Illuminati (and not the 18th-Century cover organization everyone knows about). He planted his philosophical disinformation into the intellectual culture specifically to cover the elaborate and long-running schemes he knew his secret society would enact over the coming centuries. By making us think that the simpler solution is the better one, he innoculated us against uncovering complex and insidious schemes, or believing them if they are uncovered. Fnord.
Unless this tablet is childproof from breaking, its not going to sell.
You didn't read TFA. That's OK, this is Slashdot; it would have been weird if you had.
Yeah. It is, to some extent, childproofed. Its edge is a shock-absorbent soft-plastic bumper, so odds are somewhat better that if a kid drops it on the sidewalk, it won't shatter into a dozen pieces.
I couldn't see any other obvious signs of child-proofing (which would require engineering beyond even military ruggedization), but at least that obvious contingency is covered.
Do robots ask if the general's judgment is correct? Is this war justified?
For the love of $DIETY, let's hope not.
Yeah. That movie was terrible. Ask a silly question, get a silly movie.
GPS doesn't tell The Man where you are. GPS tells YOU where you are.
If you want The Man to not be able to track you, turn off mobile voice and data. Cell tower triangulation is where it's at.
Wait, wait.
TFA has content? WTF? When did this happen?
This might force me to re-evaluate my deeply-held resistance to RTFA. All these year. And finally, an article to RTF.
And I suppose being arrested for receiving stolen goods after taking advantage of a shady boot sale is also terribly unfair?
There's this little voice in your head that says "this is too good to be legal," and you're supposed to listen to it.
If you're a gamer and you found a way to make the game do something it clearly shouldn't let you do (i.e., teleport across the battlefield, buy high-end gear at unreasonably low prices, disconnect other players, etc.), you're exploiting. Period. And if you keep doing it, you're knowingly and intentionally exploiting. And a lifetime ban is simply the kindest thing you deserve.
Contrary to popular opinion, "whatever you can get away with" is not a valid ethical choice, and if you get busted, whining about it just looks douchbaggish and immature.
True. But on one side is an idiot with a Twitter account. On the other side is a crowd of idiots with, ultimately, guns and the power to imprison. How do YOU think this would ever work out?
You can't get rid of Oracle. They are the ATT of Databases.
Ernestine
It can't even take off with it's fuel tanks full.
Neither can a B-52, but 35 tons of payload is plenty of room for carrying ordnance, as sure as shooting.
And the Air Force DID have the F-12 program, notionally working on a high-supersonic interceptor to replace the canceled F-108 Rapier program. But that program, and its prototype YF-12 aircraft, were also used as public cover for the SR-71 program (A-12) under development at the time, so it's hard to know how seriously the Air Force took it.
They did develop the plane to the point of an integrated prototype with weapons tests and everything, just short of production.
So, yeah, there is a little more to the SR-71 stable than just "we kill'um with fil'um" (as a recon pilot acquaintance of mine used to express it).