>"The problem is ultimately one of vendors. In the security and core OS the issue is long solved."
My point in all this was the original statement about back-porting it to Android 6. Even Google won't update their own Nexus devices running Android 6 [with other bug and security fixes], so why would any other vendor? Now, I say that, but I suppose it is POSSIBLE Google might update older devices running 6... I don't think we have had a security concern of this magnitude in recent history, so I guess we just wait and see. In this particular case, it wouldn't be difficult to develop and deliver a tiny patch a single driver to devices to which they already have access.
Of course the big issue is going beyond Google's own devices, and that really is a major problem when we hit something like this.
>"But all in all you're still talking about a single device. "
Not really. I not only do I have Nexus 5 running Android 6, I have a Nexus 10 also running Android 6.:)
>"Not sure why you're quoting version numbers instead of manufacturer support. This isn't iOS. Most security fixes are backported to earlier versions of Android"
Even that doesn't help much as an explanation, either. I am one of the 50% that have Android 6.0.1, but it is on a Nexus 5. Google hasn't pushed a single OS update since Dec 2016, and likely never will. So I won't matter if they push it to older versions of Android, because I still won't get it, even on Google's own device.
>"Maybe. I believe the media exploit from a year or two ago on Android was patched on phones assumed abandoned by OEMs. "Budget buyers, no-name brands, etc are most likely going to be hacked constantly until..."
What about Google's OWN DEVICES? I have a Nexus 5 which I bought in Feb 2014 when they were still very new. I haven't had a single update since Dec 2016. The phone works fine, it does what I want, but it will never be patched.
I don't expect updates forever, but mine didn't even get updates for 3 years from when I bought it. And it was a flagship AND a brand name. I haven't found a single phone I could replace it with that is Android, 5", no vendor crapware/mods, works on any carrier, has a headphone jack, 64+GB, and supports wireless charging. Still waiting.:(
>"giving officers the ability to zoom over congested traffic conditions by taking to the air...
Insanely unsafe to have that thing go OVER cars and people. 4 unprotected rotors? One operator error or equipment malfunction and it can chop people or things to bits or just fall out of the air like a 500 pound rock.
>"The fully-electric hoverbike stays aloft for about 25 minutes per charge"
And then you have to get back to the charger, so that is an outward range of what, 12.5 miles?? And it probably can only carry a single person with minimal equipment, right?
>"Don't be afraid to swing by your favourite ATM and take out a few bill now and then.
I am fascinated by young people who not only carry no cash at all, and often think cash is outdated and stupid, but also have absolutely no idea why that premise is potentially dangerous and why/how cash can be a good thing.
>"In a Cashless World, You'd Better Pray the Power Never Goes Out"
Or malware. Or a network problem. Or ID theft puts a freeze on your accounts. Or someone maliciously attacks your records. Or your device/card/whatever dies for some reason. Or you need to transact with someone who just doesn't have the necessary technology.
In a cashless world, you also give up every last bit of privacy left, because you can neither sell nor buy without the mark of the b..... I mean, without the tools and permission of the government and big business. Everything you buy and sell will be recorded and available for review immediately and any time in the future- revealing not only what you buy, but from whom, when, and where you have been. It also makes it easier for someone to tamper with those records to assist in framing you.
Don't be quick to give allow cash to disappear, you might regret it and there will be no going back.
The lyrics don't rhyme or even flow in "Linus Said." The videography and audio is good, though; but "meh". I bet a lot of people wouldn't finish it and then skip the second....
>"Even if there are no loopholes, a flat tax still means a tax increase for the poor and a tax cut for many wealthy people. "
? I would think that depends on the percent of tax proposed. If it were 10%, it would remain the same. As for cutting taxes to the wealth, again, that depends on how much income they were hiding. Some do a remarkably good job of it. Still, I think a more interesting proposal would be a consumption tax:
>"In that case, why not a progressive tax with unicorns? Dare to dream big."
Dreaming big (flat tax with no loopholes) is better than just giving up and accepting the mess we have now, which is likely to continue to get worse and worse.
>"Conservatives who advocate a "flat tax with no loopholes" still want to keep loopholes like business deductions for basically the same reason that their opponents on the other side of the aisle insist on having loopholes -- tax codes give the government a means to compel private behavior."
Actually, no, most who advocate for "flat tax with no loopholes" really want just that- a flat tax with no loopholes. A simple tax code that is easy to understand, easy and cheap to manage, and simple to enforce.
But you are correct that the current tax code is used as yet another way for government to indirectly control what we do and how we spend and how we act, and it needs to stop. Taxing should be to raise revenue, that's it, not control behavior.
>"Neither side relinquishes such power willingly."
There isn't a "side", there are a zillion shades of grey. But the bigger government gets, the more it corrupts, controls, and protects itself. This is especially true of the Federal government where accountability is severely removed from the people they supposedly serve. Too many people are directly or indirectly associated with government- they all want jobs, money, and power.
>"A "flat tax" does nothing to make taxes less complex. 99.999% of the complexity is determining "what is income", not the single percentage calculation at the end. "
The "what is income" part *is* what makes taxes complex, and every flat tax proposal I have ever seen isn't about just a flat percent, but getting rid of all the zillions exceptions and loopholes that enable mostly the wealthy from using obscure exceptions to not pay that percent.
So it takes a SECOND breech before they decide to suspend the contract? If they have the option to suspend it now, why didn't they do it before? I think this speaks volumes about the competence of the IRS.
How about we move to a simple flat tax with no loopholes, which would dismantle 80% of the IRS and either pass the savings onto the taxpayers or use the savings to start paying off the 20 TRILLION DOLLAR national debt?
Even they admit they directly spend over 12 BILLION dollars a year, which goes up every year! Yet that doesn't include what it costs businesses and individuals to COMPLY with the insanely complicated tax codes. That compliance is estimated to cost the USA economy an additional $409 BILLION dollars every year. Wow, that works out to $3,500 dollars for every tax payer in the country, every year.
>"But the GOP got there in part by fighting against the Democrat party, which had put itself on the side of Progress."
LOL. I suppose that depends on how you define "progress". I would hardly use that label for either party. My definition of progress is change that makes the government comply with the Constitution, first. Instead of progress, we just get a larger and larger Federal government that taxes more and spends more than ever, every year, and now a 20 TRILLION dollar national debt to go with it. Abuse of Executive powers for decades. Abuse of police powers in the name of "safety." Stealing or interfering with powers specifically granted to States (or the People). Creation of so many laws and non-representative regulations that it chokes all markets and civil liberties while creating a hugely complex legal system that nobody can navigate. Rewarding people for not working or making up "disabilities." Raising entitlements to unheard of levels. Bailing out private market failures to reward them so they can do it again and again. Pushing up education costs through the roof due to unilateral funding without any real results requirements. Tax codes that are insanely complicated and impose legislation through code. Astronomical military spending and with associated waste. Crazy copyright and patent laws that destroy rather than protect learning and innovation. I could go on for pages, but I think you get the idea.
>" When you have that kind of automation in translation, is English still more important than programming? "
I think so, yes.
This is because although computers will eventually become very good at translation, they still won't have the finesse that understanding a language does. Plus, it frees one from dependency on technology, which is not always available, and certainly not always secure. And finally, as others have pointed out, when coding, the computer code, itself, is often in English. Plus good, short comments often don't translate well.
>" The EPA as well as other government agencies are gagged and can not point out health safety facts to anyone including the public."
Stop making it about the environment and it is STILL A WIN. Renewable energy is here to stay. And there are lots of reasons to use it that have nothing to do with feel-good environmentalism or greenhouse gas scariness.
1) Energy independence. Perhaps the most important reason of all- it means less dependence on imports. And those imports are what fuel (pun intended) conflict, hate, war, trade imbalance, debt interest, and disasters with transport..
2) Cost savings. Non-renewable energy will become more and more expensive over time, no matter what. So investing in renewable will, over time, save money.
3) Redundancy. Making your own energy, in addition to connecting to the grid, means you have more than one source to keep you going. It means you have choice, which spurs competition and innovation. It means a more robust system that is harder for terrorists to disrupt or natural disasters to destroy or nations to sabotage.
Those are just off the top of my head. If people were to focus on THOSE and not "saving the earth", we would do a lot better. Generally, businesses don't care about "saving the earth" they care about profit, growth, and continued operations. When big business jumps in the mix for the above reasons, then EVERYONE WINS.
>"Cable operators are trying to stem subscriber losses by offering a "basic" service with just a few channels and internet access for fans of Netflix or Amazon."
Which is exactly what they SHOULD be doing. I know it seems they can't understand this, but there is a huge portion of the population (me included) that has ABSOLTELY NO INTEREST IN SPORTS, WHATSOEVER, IN ANY FORM. And won't want to pay a "sports tax."
Once they figure this out, they then need to figure out how to give customers customized lineups with only the channels we really want. Out of the 1,000+ channels on Cox, I only ever use around 12. Paying $70 a month or more for around 12 channels, half of which can be had for free with an antenna (and with better quality) is not value. And for one household with one person with one TV, that value is even worse.
>"Apple CEO Tim Cook says it is more important to learn how to code than it is to learn English as a second language."
And that just shows how ignorant he really is. Knowing English is far, far, more important than learning coding. It is useful in just about every single field out there and give you the ability to communicate to nearly anyone on Earth, certainly any place that has a strong economy and/or strong educational system. But most importantly, communication language is something best learned when very young. The brain designed to be wide open and ready for communication language ability. Computer coding is something the brain is NOT really ready for when very young- that comes later with logic, reasoning, math, etc. And keep in mind that while all humans can easily learn English [when young], that is NOT true for coding- there is a large portion, perhaps a majority, of people who will never really learn or master coding at ANY age.
Knowing both (English and Coding) is great. But if you have to choose one, make it English and teach it young. If you can do both, teach coding later, after English.
>"What does a traditional Android tablet do that a convertible Chromebook doesn't?
Let's see how easy that is:
1) It is not as light as a tablet. 2) It is not as thin as a tablet. 3) It typically (but not always) costs more than a tablet. 4) It doesn't have an upside-down keyboard I have to worry about getting damaged, dirty, wet, etc. 5) It isn't typically available as small, like 10", which means even further weight savings, thinness, battery life, and portability.
And when the idea is portability, those matter a lot. Some of us want a tablet because we have no desire to use the tablet as a laptop. I have never, not even once, wanted to type on my tablet or use a trackpad with it. I use it to play games mostly, with some weather checking, music listening, watching video, and photo browsing.
Now, if it has a completely REMOVABLE keyboard and then was exactly as thin and light as a typical tablet, and available in several sizes/prices from 7" to 12", then yeah, it could replace a tablet for practically everyone. Until then, the concept of a "tablet" isn't moot.
>"It runs Debian. $ apt-cache search . | wc -l 52383 >That is a lot of "apps"."
Those are not "apps", they are shell scripts, X programs, text programs, services, fonts, etc, etc, etc. I doubt this phone is going to have X11, and text programs aren't helpful. Even with X, few if any native Linux GUI apps are designed for small touch-screens.
If we have learned one thing about all the failed phone attempts out there, it should be one lesson:
1) You must have apps people want.
There are other lessons, but that one is primary. Of course, there is a niche market that will exist for this Librem phone/platform. But if people can't play the games, or use the utilities they want, it will never get beyond niche. We are all dependent on quality maps, notification magic, multi-device syncing, advanced texting options, etc.
An obvious goal will be the necessity to somehow support Android/Google apps. And an emulation/isolation layer to do so is certainly technologically possible. It is even exciting to think about a device that might run quality non-Android Linux apps AND run Android apps in an isolated environment, denying it access to personal stuff, and/or feeding it fake data when wanted. But there are a lot of legal and monopolistic minefields in trying to do so. And trying to keep it compatible over time would be a big, big hurdle; especially on a tight budget with little resources.
Slashdot Mirror
>"The problem is ultimately one of vendors. In the security and core OS the issue is long solved."
My point in all this was the original statement about back-porting it to Android 6. Even Google won't update their own Nexus devices running Android 6 [with other bug and security fixes], so why would any other vendor? Now, I say that, but I suppose it is POSSIBLE Google might update older devices running 6... I don't think we have had a security concern of this magnitude in recent history, so I guess we just wait and see. In this particular case, it wouldn't be difficult to develop and deliver a tiny patch a single driver to devices to which they already have access.
Of course the big issue is going beyond Google's own devices, and that really is a major problem when we hit something like this.
>"But all in all you're still talking about a single device. "
Not really. I not only do I have Nexus 5 running Android 6, I have a Nexus 10 also running Android 6. :)
>"Not sure why you're quoting version numbers instead of manufacturer support. This isn't iOS. Most security fixes are backported to earlier versions of Android"
Even that doesn't help much as an explanation, either. I am one of the 50% that have Android 6.0.1, but it is on a Nexus 5. Google hasn't pushed a single OS update since Dec 2016, and likely never will. So I won't matter if they push it to older versions of Android, because I still won't get it, even on Google's own device.
>"Maybe. I believe the media exploit from a year or two ago on Android was patched on phones assumed abandoned by OEMs. "Budget buyers, no-name brands, etc are most likely going to be hacked constantly until..."
What about Google's OWN DEVICES? I have a Nexus 5 which I bought in Feb 2014 when they were still very new. I haven't had a single update since Dec 2016. The phone works fine, it does what I want, but it will never be patched.
I don't expect updates forever, but mine didn't even get updates for 3 years from when I bought it. And it was a flagship AND a brand name. I haven't found a single phone I could replace it with that is Android, 5", no vendor crapware/mods, works on any carrier, has a headphone jack, 64+GB, and supports wireless charging. Still waiting. :(
>"giving officers the ability to zoom over congested traffic conditions by taking to the air...
Insanely unsafe to have that thing go OVER cars and people. 4 unprotected rotors? One operator error or equipment malfunction and it can chop people or things to bits or just fall out of the air like a 500 pound rock.
>"The fully-electric hoverbike stays aloft for about 25 minutes per charge"
And then you have to get back to the charger, so that is an outward range of what, 12.5 miles?? And it probably can only carry a single person with minimal equipment, right?
Is this a joke?
>"Don't be afraid to swing by your favourite ATM and take out a few bill now and then.
I am fascinated by young people who not only carry no cash at all, and often think cash is outdated and stupid, but also have absolutely no idea why that premise is potentially dangerous and why/how cash can be a good thing.
>"In a Cashless World, You'd Better Pray the Power Never Goes Out"
Or malware. Or a network problem. Or ID theft puts a freeze on your accounts. Or someone maliciously attacks your records. Or your device/card/whatever dies for some reason. Or you need to transact with someone who just doesn't have the necessary technology.
In a cashless world, you also give up every last bit of privacy left, because you can neither sell nor buy without the mark of the b..... I mean, without the tools and permission of the government and big business. Everything you buy and sell will be recorded and available for review immediately and any time in the future- revealing not only what you buy, but from whom, when, and where you have been. It also makes it easier for someone to tamper with those records to assist in framing you.
Don't be quick to give allow cash to disappear, you might regret it and there will be no going back.
The lyrics don't rhyme or even flow in "Linus Said." The videography and audio is good, though; but "meh". I bet a lot of people wouldn't finish it and then skip the second....
"25 Years" is much better! Like :) Just jump to/share that one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
>"Even if there are no loopholes, a flat tax still means a tax increase for the poor and a tax cut for many wealthy people. "
? I would think that depends on the percent of tax proposed. If it were 10%, it would remain the same. As for cutting taxes to the wealth, again, that depends on how much income they were hiding. Some do a remarkably good job of it. Still, I think a more interesting proposal would be a consumption tax:
http://fairtax.org/
Google misses the issue, AGAIN.
It isn't the price of the adapter, it is the fact that you have to have one in the first place.
>"In that case, why not a progressive tax with unicorns? Dare to dream big."
Dreaming big (flat tax with no loopholes) is better than just giving up and accepting the mess we have now, which is likely to continue to get worse and worse.
>"Conservatives who advocate a "flat tax with no loopholes" still want to keep loopholes like business deductions for basically the same reason that their opponents on the other side of the aisle insist on having loopholes -- tax codes give the government a means to compel private behavior."
Actually, no, most who advocate for "flat tax with no loopholes" really want just that- a flat tax with no loopholes. A simple tax code that is easy to understand, easy and cheap to manage, and simple to enforce.
But you are correct that the current tax code is used as yet another way for government to indirectly control what we do and how we spend and how we act, and it needs to stop. Taxing should be to raise revenue, that's it, not control behavior.
>"Neither side relinquishes such power willingly."
There isn't a "side", there are a zillion shades of grey. But the bigger government gets, the more it corrupts, controls, and protects itself. This is especially true of the Federal government where accountability is severely removed from the people they supposedly serve. Too many people are directly or indirectly associated with government- they all want jobs, money, and power.
>"A "flat tax" does nothing to make taxes less complex. 99.999% of the complexity is determining "what is income", not the single percentage calculation at the end. "
The "what is income" part *is* what makes taxes complex, and every flat tax proposal I have ever seen isn't about just a flat percent, but getting rid of all the zillions exceptions and loopholes that enable mostly the wealthy from using obscure exceptions to not pay that percent.
>Because "flat tax" really means "tax increase for the poor, tax cut for the wealthy".
Nope. I said "flat tax with no loopholes." The wealthy get the loopholes.
So it takes a SECOND breech before they decide to suspend the contract? If they have the option to suspend it now, why didn't they do it before? I think this speaks volumes about the competence of the IRS.
How about we move to a simple flat tax with no loopholes, which would dismantle 80% of the IRS and either pass the savings onto the taxpayers or use the savings to start paying off the 20 TRILLION DOLLAR national debt?
Even they admit they directly spend over 12 BILLION dollars a year, which goes up every year! Yet that doesn't include what it costs businesses and individuals to COMPLY with the insanely complicated tax codes. That compliance is estimated to cost the USA economy an additional $409 BILLION dollars every year. Wow, that works out to $3,500 dollars for every tax payer in the country, every year.
https://taxfoundation.org/comp...
https://www.usatoday.com/story...
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
https://fairtax.org/index
>"But the GOP got there in part by fighting against the Democrat party, which had put itself on the side of Progress."
LOL. I suppose that depends on how you define "progress". I would hardly use that label for either party. My definition of progress is change that makes the government comply with the Constitution, first. Instead of progress, we just get a larger and larger Federal government that taxes more and spends more than ever, every year, and now a 20 TRILLION dollar national debt to go with it. Abuse of Executive powers for decades. Abuse of police powers in the name of "safety." Stealing or interfering with powers specifically granted to States (or the People). Creation of so many laws and non-representative regulations that it chokes all markets and civil liberties while creating a hugely complex legal system that nobody can navigate. Rewarding people for not working or making up "disabilities." Raising entitlements to unheard of levels. Bailing out private market failures to reward them so they can do it again and again. Pushing up education costs through the roof due to unilateral funding without any real results requirements. Tax codes that are insanely complicated and impose legislation through code. Astronomical military spending and with associated waste. Crazy copyright and patent laws that destroy rather than protect learning and innovation. I could go on for pages, but I think you get the idea.
Progress. Yeah, right.
>" When you have that kind of automation in translation, is English still more important than programming? "
I think so, yes.
This is because although computers will eventually become very good at translation, they still won't have the finesse that understanding a language does. Plus, it frees one from dependency on technology, which is not always available, and certainly not always secure. And finally, as others have pointed out, when coding, the computer code, itself, is often in English. Plus good, short comments often don't translate well.
>"Primarily"? Really, that's the most important thing in their success? Not their engineering, quality, etc?
Okay, "secondarily" :)
>" The EPA as well as other government agencies are gagged and can not point out health safety facts to anyone including the public."
Stop making it about the environment and it is STILL A WIN. Renewable energy is here to stay. And there are lots of reasons to use it that have nothing to do with feel-good environmentalism or greenhouse gas scariness.
1) Energy independence. Perhaps the most important reason of all- it means less dependence on imports. And those imports are what fuel (pun intended) conflict, hate, war, trade imbalance, debt interest, and disasters with transport..
2) Cost savings. Non-renewable energy will become more and more expensive over time, no matter what. So investing in renewable will, over time, save money.
3) Redundancy. Making your own energy, in addition to connecting to the grid, means you have more than one source to keep you going. It means you have choice, which spurs competition and innovation. It means a more robust system that is harder for terrorists to disrupt or natural disasters to destroy or nations to sabotage.
Those are just off the top of my head. If people were to focus on THOSE and not "saving the earth", we would do a lot better. Generally, businesses don't care about "saving the earth" they care about profit, growth, and continued operations. When big business jumps in the mix for the above reasons, then EVERYONE WINS.
>"Cable operators are trying to stem subscriber losses by offering a "basic" service with just a few channels and internet access for fans of Netflix or Amazon."
Which is exactly what they SHOULD be doing. I know it seems they can't understand this, but there is a huge portion of the population (me included) that has ABSOLTELY NO INTEREST IN SPORTS, WHATSOEVER, IN ANY FORM. And won't want to pay a "sports tax."
Once they figure this out, they then need to figure out how to give customers customized lineups with only the channels we really want. Out of the 1,000+ channels on Cox, I only ever use around 12. Paying $70 a month or more for around 12 channels, half of which can be had for free with an antenna (and with better quality) is not value. And for one household with one person with one TV, that value is even worse.
>"Just look at the success the Germans and French had with Airbus."
Which is due primarily to knowing English.
>"Apple CEO Tim Cook says it is more important to learn how to code than it is to learn English as a second language."
And that just shows how ignorant he really is. Knowing English is far, far, more important than learning coding. It is useful in just about every single field out there and give you the ability to communicate to nearly anyone on Earth, certainly any place that has a strong economy and/or strong educational system. But most importantly, communication language is something best learned when very young. The brain designed to be wide open and ready for communication language ability. Computer coding is something the brain is NOT really ready for when very young- that comes later with logic, reasoning, math, etc. And keep in mind that while all humans can easily learn English [when young], that is NOT true for coding- there is a large portion, perhaps a majority, of people who will never really learn or master coding at ANY age.
Knowing both (English and Coding) is great. But if you have to choose one, make it English and teach it young. If you can do both, teach coding later, after English.
>" I'm not arguing with you, I'm saying that tablets are dumb."
Show me an 8" or 10" phone...
>"What does a traditional Android tablet do that a convertible Chromebook doesn't?
Let's see how easy that is:
1) It is not as light as a tablet.
2) It is not as thin as a tablet.
3) It typically (but not always) costs more than a tablet.
4) It doesn't have an upside-down keyboard I have to worry about getting damaged, dirty, wet, etc.
5) It isn't typically available as small, like 10", which means even further weight savings, thinness, battery life, and portability.
And when the idea is portability, those matter a lot. Some of us want a tablet because we have no desire to use the tablet as a laptop. I have never, not even once, wanted to type on my tablet or use a trackpad with it. I use it to play games mostly, with some weather checking, music listening, watching video, and photo browsing.
Now, if it has a completely REMOVABLE keyboard and then was exactly as thin and light as a typical tablet, and available in several sizes/prices from 7" to 12", then yeah, it could replace a tablet for practically everyone. Until then, the concept of a "tablet" isn't moot.
>"It runs Debian. $ apt-cache search . | wc -l 52383
>That is a lot of "apps"."
Those are not "apps", they are shell scripts, X programs, text programs, services, fonts, etc, etc, etc. I doubt this phone is going to have X11, and text programs aren't helpful. Even with X, few if any native Linux GUI apps are designed for small touch-screens.
If we have learned one thing about all the failed phone attempts out there, it should be one lesson:
1) You must have apps people want.
There are other lessons, but that one is primary. Of course, there is a niche market that will exist for this Librem phone/platform. But if people can't play the games, or use the utilities they want, it will never get beyond niche. We are all dependent on quality maps, notification magic, multi-device syncing, advanced texting options, etc.
An obvious goal will be the necessity to somehow support Android/Google apps. And an emulation/isolation layer to do so is certainly technologically possible. It is even exciting to think about a device that might run quality non-Android Linux apps AND run Android apps in an isolated environment, denying it access to personal stuff, and/or feeding it fake data when wanted. But there are a lot of legal and monopolistic minefields in trying to do so. And trying to keep it compatible over time would be a big, big hurdle; especially on a tight budget with little resources.
Fingers crossed....