Google isn't espousing a closed ecosystem, so it's a bad idea to approvingly quote the Alibaba guy who claimed that. Google just won't help anyone who wants to fragment the Android ecosystem in ways that Google thinks are bad ideas.
Orin Kerr a law professor who has been published a fair number of time on Fourth Amendment computer-related issues. I think he's even had one or two blog posts from the Volokh Conspiracy cited in judicial opinions.
One of the notable ways he got that blog post wrong, though, is that the statute in question provides a specific definition of "an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public" -- and unencrypted WiFi networks are covered by that definition. One of the comments on the post provides a citation and the definition.
The Memorandum of Understanding dated June 5th, 2009 (apparently the original one) allows non-Micro-USB connectors as long as the device can use a "Common EPS" (external power supply) cable: Micro-USB B plug on the device end, 500 mA to 1500 mA current. Annex II to that document mentions that a Common EPS that is supplied with a detachable cable must also have a USB full-size (standard) A socket. Apple's devices do not comply with the MoU.
That's a load of bollocks. If the computer can automatically reboot itself, it can automatically log everyone out and restart background services as needed.
I'm not an auto fanatic, so inform me if I have missed something: Has Porsche been using software and look-and-feel patents of questionable validity and worth to take their competitors' products off the market?
High-end video drivers differ from most other drivers in that they do more "data path" type operations (especially on vectors and matrices), and as a result they tend to use architecture-specific extensions for speed. Sometimes they also dynamically generate host-side code -- for example, to handle shader operations that the hardware cannot.
Nvidia's distinguishing technology and products are not its driver software or the interface between software and hardware. They sell video cards, remember?
I am not sure what distro you're using, but when Firefox gets updated on my Ubuntu machines, it does pop up a dialog box saying that Firefox was updated and needs to restart -- and then it waits for my permission to do so. When a low-level package (kernel, libc, etc.) gets updated, one of the menu bar icons changes to indicate that a restart is needed to complete the updates -- so also I have control over when that happens.
My system doesn't initialize USB properly on reboot; about every other boot, Grub can't see keyboard input, so I can't select which partition to boot from. I only reboot a few times a year, though, so it would be a gross waste of money to replace components (starting with the motherboard) until the problem got fixed.
Would you expect to find that phrase in a mathematics journal? In the proceedings of a computer science conference? In a doctoral thesis of marine biology? If you answered "no" to all these questions, it may just be field-specific jargon. In particular, while "culturally congruent [understanding]" has a fairly unambiguous meaning, I think the word choice is specific to the field rather than something that is generally used, and scientists in other fields would use a less dense description for that situation.
If the evidence shows that education and common sense tends to make a person your political opponent and policy adversary, call their social group names!
The first paragraph of the letter (after the abstract) almost perfectly identifies the problem, although the authors, being social "scientists", predictably fail to understand the implication: "As members of the public do not know what scientists know, or think the way scientists think, they predictably fail to take climate change as seriously as scientists believe they should."
The same is true of climate change, diet, exercise, privacy, foreign policy, gas mileage, law, and so forth: The general public does not take any of these issues as seriously as specialists in those fields think they should. This is not because the specialists are right, though; it is because the specialists devote their careers to those areas, and as a result have a distorted view of how much concern the average citizen should dedicate to the specialist's area of expertise. If I was as concerned about everything as experts thought I should be, I would spend all day worrying and no time getting anything done. Considering that dynamic (which often results in "rational ignorance" by average citizens), it is not at surprising that individuals look to peer groups or ideological leaders for cues on complicated issues.
(I suspect the authors also have an ideological bone to pick, based on the breakdowns they chose -- why focus on "hierarchical individualists" versus "egalitarian communitarians", and mention the hierarchy/egalitarianism and individualist/communitarian axis results in passing? How many other proxies did they look at before settling on those, and why did they reject other possible proxies? These social scientists might be unduly concerned with their narrative and as a result not take methodology as seriously as statisticians think they should [wink, wink -- I know that social scientists tend to take post-hoc analytic methodology more seriously than many domains because they are short on testably predictive hypotheses].)
If those folks are still in the Pacific, it wouldn't do much good to tell them -- they would have drowned by now.
But seriously, your argument is as bad as your sentence construction. If Americans were willing to pay more to put food in their cars than these Pacific-region people were able to pay for food to put in their mouths, that is an economic problem that is unrelated to the question of cash crops versus subsistence farming. If you have a complaint about inefficient allocation of the harvest, take it to the corruptocrats in the US who handed out subsidies for ethanol production. The farmers growing ethanol feedstocks are already growing cash crops; unless they are the same people who were starving in the Pacific region, it would not help anyone for those farmers to switch to subsistence farming.
Then try economics. Note that u38cg's distinction was not between "cash crops" and "food crops" but between cash crops and subsistence farming -- the former means you produce enough of whatever crop to bring in net income, the latter means you can only grow enough to feed your own family. Food crops often are cash crops.
I hate to break it to you, but that expectation is ridiculous(ly naive). If those cheap, quick, outsourced projects get finished at all, the code will probably not be robust and will almost certainly be unmaintainble over the course of a year.
That is a distinction that the study apparently did not make, because it talks about "malicious code" rather than viruses. In fact, most of the malicious apps that one hears about are spyware or trojans rather than viruses.
Once certainly does choose MATLAB over C -- one chooses the MATLAB language over C because the former makes it much easier to represent many mathematical operations; one chooses the MATLAB libraries and execution environment because they are richer than C in mathematics building blocks. When a particular numerical analysis needs to be performed at most a few times, development time becomes a major factor in the cost, which is why people would prefer MATLAB over C -- but the MATLAB execution time might be so long that alternatives become interesting.
(I suspect that Julia and R do not have code generation for signal processors, but Mathworks and its partner companies will gladly sell you tools that will convert a subset of MATLAB code to C or an HDL to run on an embedded system or FPGA. They will even give away free stories about how awesome those tools are, while glossing over their limitations, but hey -- they are sales pitches..)
If you are going to do very infrequently do something that is morally questionable, it is usually better to get forgiveness than permission. In cases like illegal spying or torture, that would be through keeping the activities classified and issuing pardons as necessary. "Addressing the issue" by making it legal for the government to do morally dubious things is awful long-term strategy -- it indicates that the government will be doing that often enough to need advance permission.
I'm sure that President Obama will be glad to know that the idea of waste, fraud and abuse in government-paid healthcare systems is a straw man.
I'm sure that the Catholic Church will be glad to know that mandatory insurance for all kinds of things, including obvious consequences of life choices, is a slippery slope that nobody will really go down.
When they equate seeking privacy with terrorism, only terrorists will have privacy.
They told me that if I voted for John McCain, the Federal government and huge corporations would conspire to take away our privacy rights... and they were right!
The programming challenge with these architectures is not how to write applications for them. It's how to write efficient, correct applications reasonably quickly. In practice, the processors quickly become special-purpose rather than general-purpose as a result of their programming frameworks focusing on particular problems that the architecture is good at. (Not to mention Amdahl's law kicks in pretty quickly.)
If you order protest methodologies from most convincing to least convincing, denial-of-service is pretty far down the list. It doesn't even have the virtue of standing on its own as a statement.
The memos that talk about the data centers make the criteria clear. A "data center is defined as: *Any room that is greater than 500 square feet and devoted to data processing; and, * Meets one of the tier (I, II, III & IV) classifications defined by the Uptime Institute."
If you are surprised that the US Federal government has more than 3,000 of those -- welcome to the (not-so-)new bureaucracy, trying hard to pretend it is a technocracy.
The Fifth Amendment allows a criminal defendant not to testify in his trial. It does not allow him to avoid cross-examination if he chooses to testify; choosing to testify waives the right to avoid self-incrimination, at least with regard to the case being tried.
The defendant's lawyer can raise that possibility, but would have to introduce some evidence to trigger reasonable doubt of guilt.
Slashdot Mirror
Google isn't espousing a closed ecosystem, so it's a bad idea to approvingly quote the Alibaba guy who claimed that. Google just won't help anyone who wants to fragment the Android ecosystem in ways that Google thinks are bad ideas.
Apple forbid that phones be tailored to the users' interests rather than to the vendors' and app makers' interests.
Orin Kerr a law professor who has been published a fair number of time on Fourth Amendment computer-related issues. I think he's even had one or two blog posts from the Volokh Conspiracy cited in judicial opinions.
One of the notable ways he got that blog post wrong, though, is that the statute in question provides a specific definition of "an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public" -- and unencrypted WiFi networks are covered by that definition. One of the comments on the post provides a citation and the definition.
Got a citation?
The Memorandum of Understanding dated June 5th, 2009 (apparently the original one) allows non-Micro-USB connectors as long as the device can use a "Common EPS" (external power supply) cable: Micro-USB B plug on the device end, 500 mA to 1500 mA current. Annex II to that document mentions that a Common EPS that is supplied with a detachable cable must also have a USB full-size (standard) A socket. Apple's devices do not comply with the MoU.
That's a load of bollocks. If the computer can automatically reboot itself, it can automatically log everyone out and restart background services as needed.
I'm not an auto fanatic, so inform me if I have missed something: Has Porsche been using software and look-and-feel patents of questionable validity and worth to take their competitors' products off the market?
High-end video drivers differ from most other drivers in that they do more "data path" type operations (especially on vectors and matrices), and as a result they tend to use architecture-specific extensions for speed. Sometimes they also dynamically generate host-side code -- for example, to handle shader operations that the hardware cannot.
Nvidia's distinguishing technology and products are not its driver software or the interface between software and hardware. They sell video cards, remember?
I am not sure what distro you're using, but when Firefox gets updated on my Ubuntu machines, it does pop up a dialog box saying that Firefox was updated and needs to restart -- and then it waits for my permission to do so. When a low-level package (kernel, libc, etc.) gets updated, one of the menu bar icons changes to indicate that a restart is needed to complete the updates -- so also I have control over when that happens.
My system doesn't initialize USB properly on reboot; about every other boot, Grub can't see keyboard input, so I can't select which partition to boot from. I only reboot a few times a year, though, so it would be a gross waste of money to replace components (starting with the motherboard) until the problem got fixed.
Would you expect to find that phrase in a mathematics journal? In the proceedings of a computer science conference? In a doctoral thesis of marine biology? If you answered "no" to all these questions, it may just be field-specific jargon. In particular, while "culturally congruent [understanding]" has a fairly unambiguous meaning, I think the word choice is specific to the field rather than something that is generally used, and scientists in other fields would use a less dense description for that situation.
If the evidence shows that education and common sense tends to make a person your political opponent and policy adversary, call their social group names!
The first paragraph of the letter (after the abstract) almost perfectly identifies the problem, although the authors, being social "scientists", predictably fail to understand the implication: "As members of the public do not know what scientists know, or think the way scientists think, they predictably fail to take climate change as seriously as scientists believe they should."
The same is true of climate change, diet, exercise, privacy, foreign policy, gas mileage, law, and so forth: The general public does not take any of these issues as seriously as specialists in those fields think they should. This is not because the specialists are right, though; it is because the specialists devote their careers to those areas, and as a result have a distorted view of how much concern the average citizen should dedicate to the specialist's area of expertise. If I was as concerned about everything as experts thought I should be, I would spend all day worrying and no time getting anything done. Considering that dynamic (which often results in "rational ignorance" by average citizens), it is not at surprising that individuals look to peer groups or ideological leaders for cues on complicated issues.
(I suspect the authors also have an ideological bone to pick, based on the breakdowns they chose -- why focus on "hierarchical individualists" versus "egalitarian communitarians", and mention the hierarchy/egalitarianism and individualist/communitarian axis results in passing? How many other proxies did they look at before settling on those, and why did they reject other possible proxies? These social scientists might be unduly concerned with their narrative and as a result not take methodology as seriously as statisticians think they should [wink, wink -- I know that social scientists tend to take post-hoc analytic methodology more seriously than many domains because they are short on testably predictive hypotheses].)
As I said before, you're complaining about a different dynamic than getting farmers to grow cash crops instead of subsistence farming.
If those folks are still in the Pacific, it wouldn't do much good to tell them -- they would have drowned by now.
But seriously, your argument is as bad as your sentence construction. If Americans were willing to pay more to put food in their cars than these Pacific-region people were able to pay for food to put in their mouths, that is an economic problem that is unrelated to the question of cash crops versus subsistence farming. If you have a complaint about inefficient allocation of the harvest, take it to the corruptocrats in the US who handed out subsidies for ethanol production. The farmers growing ethanol feedstocks are already growing cash crops; unless they are the same people who were starving in the Pacific region, it would not help anyone for those farmers to switch to subsistence farming.
Then try economics. Note that u38cg's distinction was not between "cash crops" and "food crops" but between cash crops and subsistence farming -- the former means you produce enough of whatever crop to bring in net income, the latter means you can only grow enough to feed your own family. Food crops often are cash crops.
I hate to break it to you, but that expectation is ridiculous(ly naive). If those cheap, quick, outsourced projects get finished at all, the code will probably not be robust and will almost certainly be unmaintainble over the course of a year.
That is a distinction that the study apparently did not make, because it talks about "malicious code" rather than viruses. In fact, most of the malicious apps that one hears about are spyware or trojans rather than viruses.
Once certainly does choose MATLAB over C -- one chooses the MATLAB language over C because the former makes it much easier to represent many mathematical operations; one chooses the MATLAB libraries and execution environment because they are richer than C in mathematics building blocks. When a particular numerical analysis needs to be performed at most a few times, development time becomes a major factor in the cost, which is why people would prefer MATLAB over C -- but the MATLAB execution time might be so long that alternatives become interesting.
(I suspect that Julia and R do not have code generation for signal processors, but Mathworks and its partner companies will gladly sell you tools that will convert a subset of MATLAB code to C or an HDL to run on an embedded system or FPGA. They will even give away free stories about how awesome those tools are, while glossing over their limitations, but hey -- they are sales pitches..)
If you are going to do very infrequently do something that is morally questionable, it is usually better to get forgiveness than permission. In cases like illegal spying or torture, that would be through keeping the activities classified and issuing pardons as necessary. "Addressing the issue" by making it legal for the government to do morally dubious things is awful long-term strategy -- it indicates that the government will be doing that often enough to need advance permission.
I'm sure that President Obama will be glad to know that the idea of waste, fraud and abuse in government-paid healthcare systems is a straw man.
I'm sure that the Catholic Church will be glad to know that mandatory insurance for all kinds of things, including obvious consequences of life choices, is a slippery slope that nobody will really go down.
When they equate seeking privacy with terrorism, only terrorists will have privacy.
They told me that if I voted for John McCain, the Federal government and huge corporations would conspire to take away our privacy rights... and they were right!
The programming challenge with these architectures is not how to write applications for them. It's how to write efficient, correct applications reasonably quickly. In practice, the processors quickly become special-purpose rather than general-purpose as a result of their programming frameworks focusing on particular problems that the architecture is good at. (Not to mention Amdahl's law kicks in pretty quickly.)
If you order protest methodologies from most convincing to least convincing, denial-of-service is pretty far down the list. It doesn't even have the virtue of standing on its own as a statement.
The memos that talk about the data centers make the criteria clear. A "data center is defined as: *Any room that is greater than 500 square feet and devoted to data processing; and, * Meets one of the tier (I, II, III & IV) classifications defined by the Uptime Institute."
If you are surprised that the US Federal government has more than 3,000 of those -- welcome to the (not-so-)new bureaucracy, trying hard to pretend it is a technocracy.
The Fifth Amendment allows a criminal defendant not to testify in his trial. It does not allow him to avoid cross-examination if he chooses to testify; choosing to testify waives the right to avoid self-incrimination, at least with regard to the case being tried.
The defendant's lawyer can raise that possibility, but would have to introduce some evidence to trigger reasonable doubt of guilt.