Once my AT&T contract is over (maybe before - going to look into whether my ETF is prorated) I'm going to ST + unlocked phones (possibly the next Nexus now that Google is selling them on the Play Store.)
Through my employer, I get 25% off of my plan and 50% off of my accessories, however: 1) I still am spending $25/mo more on AT&T than I would on Straight Talk 2) AT&T's phone selection sucks, and their software update policies have been atrocious. Every official update for the Galaxy S II was a horrific bugfest compared to the software available for the international version - even though getting I9100 firmware fully working on the I777 required only a weekend of kernel hacking for one guy (me). 3) Because I am now using international unlocked devices, the 50% accesory discount is useless to me.
Unless I can bring an unlocked phone WITHOUT paying a contract subsidy penalty by the end of my contract, I'm gone. Fuck you, AT&T.
How is it bullshit? Did you bother to read what I wrote at all? What part of "It probably won't work with mixed vehicles at all - you don't get the speed/separation capacity benefits." didn't you understand?
How many HOV lanes have you seen with curves designed for 50 mph?
One of the things that has been advertised as a big benefit for autonomous cars IS that much higher speeds are permissible while remaining safe. Similarly, much closer following distances are possible without compromising safety.
Many of our speed limits are based on safety decisions made based on "typical" human reaction times. You can get a ticket now for "following too closely" based on the assumption that at speed X, you need Y feet of separation to be safe based on a reaction time of N milliseconds.
The reaction time of an autonomous vehicle is far less than N milliseconts, permitting X to be higher and Y much lower.
There have been, for example, "auto trains" of multiple autonomous vehicles operating with ridiculously small separation distances on test tracks.
The problem is - how do you make the transition? A mix of autonomous and human-driven vehicles won't work well unless the autonomous vehicles obey the limits imposed on human-driven vehicles. So you need to segregate the human vehicles from the autonomous ones. This is really difficult in most places.
There's one exception: In many metropolitan areas, highways have HOV lanes. HOV lanes are intended to increase the capacity (in humans per hour) of that lane. In quite a few areas, they have the secondary goal of reducing fuel consumption and emissions per user. (In some places, this goal has been prioritized to the point where vehicles that meet certain emissions/efficiency standards are permitted in HOV lanes with fewer occupants than the normal HOV limit - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-occupancy_vehicle_lane#Qualifying_vehicles.)
A big problem with current HOV lanes is, honestly, the humans. On quite a few business trips to Long Island, my coworkers and I met the HOV lane criteria during a time the HOV lane restrictions were enforced (usually the tail end/beginning end of that period when traffic was lighter than the peaks the HOV lane was designed for). In quite a few cases, there were enough HOV-eligible vehicles that the HOV lanes weren't any faster than the main lanes. In a few cases, a single vehicle meeting HOV eligibility but with a slow driver would render the HOV lane significantly slower than the non-HOV lanes of the highway.
Autonomous vehicles would be the perfect solution to the remaining HOV lane problems. Most likely, the cost of autonomous vehicles will mean that the costs of them meeting above-average emissions/efficiency standards won't be that much more. (After all, Google's "open road" driverless vehicle is a Prius, which meets the "single occupant in HOV lane exception" requirements in many areas that have such exceptions for "green" vehicles.) - Autonomous vehicles can achieve significantly higher speeds at lower separations in a HOV lane, significantly increasing the lane's capacity significantly even for single-occupant vehicles.
The problem is, of course - the transition. Making a HOV lane into an autonomous-only lane requires enough autonomous vehicles to justify it. It probably won't work with mixed vehicles at all - you don't get the speed/separation capacity benefits.
Yeah. "Sandbox" apps like this will be received better by employees. If you try OS-level encryption with policy enforcements (such as Exchange policy enforcements), users will find ways to bypass the policy enforcements that get in the way of "normal personal operations" and this will also kill the security of the things you want to keep secure.
Sandboxes like Good for Enterprise don't annoy users when they are engaged in personal use, so they are far less likely to disable security measures.
They are doing this with the Galaxy Nexus - yes it's more expensive because sticking an extra radio into a smaller device will drive costs, but still - $350 for an unsubsidized flagship smartphone is dirt cheap compared to the rest of the industry.
Because you often use a tablet like this in places (buses, trains, planes, cars you are not behind the wheel of) where there is no network connection.
Even for those situations listed above where you could tether to a smartphone, extremely low data caps (you'd kill your data allowance on most carriers with a single 720p movie for example) mean that cloud storage of video is nowhere near ready for mobile devices, and even cloud storage of music is a bad idea. (Streaming music frequently is a good way to hit your data cap.)
Wrong. It's pretty clear that the carriers are the major blocker for updates.
For example, the Samsung Infuse 4G was originally released with Android 2.2. Canadian devices on Rogers received Gingerbread (Android 2.3) in late July/early August 2011. AT&T devices did not see Gingerbread until February 2012.
The Samsung Captivate was nearly identical to the original Samsung Galaxy S. The similarities were enough that community developers were able to have the I9000 Gingerbread release fully functional within weeks of Gingerbread for the I9000 becoming available. The Captivate did not receive an official upgrade through AT&T for NINE MONTHS.
The AT&T variant of the Samsung Galaxy S II (SGH-I777) is nearly identical to the international version (GT-I9100). As a result, there are only a handful of software differences required between the two handsets: 1) Change the digital I/O settings for the audio chip to a different sample rate - this was included in the GT-I9100 source code release 2) Change the keymap for the touchkeys - This was also included in the GT-I9100 source code release 3) Unmap the GPIO line for the HOME key which doesn't exist on the device - This was missing from the GT-I9100 source code release, but took less than a week to identify and fix 4) Swap the audio channels for the noise cancelling and main microphones - This took me a single Saturday to reverse engineer and fix
Despite these minor changes, the AT&T ICS release was delayed for more than three months, and was of worse quality than some of the early I9100 ICS leak builds. In addition to poor battery performance, frequent crashes, and other bugs not present in the initial I9100 ICS release, the SGH-I777 official release contains a severe bug that can permanently damage the device's eMMC storage if the user performs a factory reset.
If carriers didn't get in the way, the SGH-I777 would not exist - users would have received the GT-I9100 and would have received a high-quality ICS build in mid-March instead of an awful hackjob in late June.
ICS was announced on October 19, 2012. ICS source was released on November 14, 2012. LESS THAN A MONTH.
In addition - the first device to actually RECEIVE ICS did not become available until NOVEMBER 17. Yes, that's right, source was released THREE DAYS BEFORE the first device to receive ICS became available.
So you'll have trouble getting an RF burn (or any other damage) even with direct antenna contact.
I was 99% certain that it would come out as "safe" - but you confirmed that.
I haven't personally experimented, but at around 5W CW you can get a mild RF burn from direct contact with an antenna element. There is nothing more dangerous about such a burn than if you touched a hot coffee pot in the wrong place.
For that thing to be unsafe you'd have to jam the antenna up your ass. At this point, there are plenty of "unsafe" things going on even if the RF is off, such as having a metal object jammed up your ass.:)
Key aspects of safety around pulsed transmitters that have very high peak power but moderate average power: 1) Don't walk through the fucking beam! (Although I know of an engineer that determined he would be within OSHA limits if he kept exposure to 30 seconds per 6 minutes at a range of 20+ feet occasionally...) 2) Humans don't arc. Shit that will instantly sizzlefry electronics will do nothing to a human if it's a low duty cycle pulse.
Another way to read this is: Duty cycle is very important when dealing with human safety. So that leads to the question: What is the transmit power of these smart meters? What is the duty cycle? The article claiming they are "unsafe" has zero data on these crucial parameters.
1) The GPS in real aircraft (small cheapo drones use cheapo GPS) does self-integrity monitoring. So far we only know they spoofed a consumer-grade (or equivalent) GPS. No indication that they defeated a RAIM-enabled unit. (e.g. spoofing it without triggering an alarm) 2) Most such aircraft also have a fairly robust inertial navigation system the GPS is checked against. (often this is checked as part of the RAIM monitoring process) 3) In the case of manned aircraft not on an instrument approach, you need to defeat the Mk1 Eyeball in addition to the GPS and INS. 4) In the case of manned aircraft on instrument approach - most airports still also have legacy ILS.
In short - spoofing a civilian aircraft without causing a "my instruments are fucked, pull up" pilot response is orders of magnitude more difficult than this hack.
In addition, there's absolutely no evidence to back this claim - "But the big worry is — it also means that it wouldn't be too hard for [a very skilled person] to work out how to un-encrypt military drones and spoof them, and that could be extremely dangerous because they could turn them on the wrong people."
Transitioning from "making a few fake pseudolites" to "discovering the crypto key before it changes" (I believe the keys rotate on a daily basis, so you would need to crack the key AND the key change algorithm) is a MAJOR step. I don't know what universe that person lives in if they thing breaking military-grade crypto is even remotely close to this attack in complexity. This attack is easymode compared to generating a proper P(Y) code.
The only "break" so far in the military encryption is the fact that the same keys (and in fact same signal) are used on both L1 and L2, allowing you to cross-correlate L1 and L2 to determine ionospheric delay and remove that one error source. Note that the next block of GPS satellites adds a civilian L2 signal, so this "break" is mostly irrelevant.
In addition, no evidence was provided that a RAIM-enabled receiver was successfully spoofed, only a cheap consumer-grade unit that lacked RAIM.
Let's not forget the fact that the only pictures where the items DO look the same were doctored by Apple. (The comparison photos were not to scale, which hides the fact that the aspect ratios and dimensions of the two devices are completely different, and also I think Apple may even have done some stretching to make the aspect ratios look the same!)
1) A multiband radio system and UMTS/GSM baseband adds a LOT of cost to devices. Look at the price deltas between the original GalaxyS series and the Galaxy Player series. Remove the 3G and price goes WAY down. 2) SAMOLED screens are gorgeous but expensive. LCD is far cheaper.
I agree. The description makes it sound like CEO caught a cold that included laryngitis... Seriously, that's not worthy of telling the whole goddamn planet where he is.
In a world where much work is done at a computer, it's pretty easy to continue as CEO of a company (especially one as tech-oriented as Google) but not be able to participate in a public speaking engagement due to laryngitis.
Yeah... There are rumors the next "nexus" round could be 5 devices.
But then the tablet rumors started coming out, which started speculation that the "5 Nexuses" might be tablets in two different size/price classes, and maybe 2-3 handsets in various size/price classes.
My personal favorite would be a selection of multiple Nexus handsets in similar size/price categories.
The thing is, I don't think Google has EVER wanted a "single" Nexus handset in each generation. The problem is that many handset manufacturers don't want their handset to be that open. The success of many of the Nexus devices shows that there's a major market demand for unskinned fully open Android devices - And the thing is, if you have a degree of openness that matches a Nexus device, Google will likely be perfectly willing to give your device the Nexus designation, or at the very least, push the device as being on par with a Nexus. (e.g. direct sales from the Play store, etc.)
None of the Nexus devices are done in-house - Google partners with one of their licensees for each one. To avoid licensees possibly getting angry, they tend to rotate it around. And honestly, Google would likely aggressively market any device a manufacturer makes that is as open as one of their Nexus devices.
N1 was HTC, NS and GN were Samsung, rumored upcoming tablet is rumored to be Asus
While the Xoom was not officially a "nexus" it was Google's "Google Experience" tablet device in some regions, adding Motorola to the list
No, about 2% of the island is owned by (if I recall correctly) descendents of Hawaiian natives.
The rest was owned by Dole for a long time, I was unaware it was no longer a pineapple plantation.
Interesting story: While the island was a pineapple plantation, it was nearly impossible to find fresh pineapple on the island in any restaurant or store. This was apparently because the natives were all sick of eating pineapple, and when they did want pineapple they would just sneak onto the plantation and steal one...
(My family went to Lanai when I was in middle school or high school, back when Dole owned most of it.)
If you actually bothered to read his complants, they were directed at Optimus (almost completely unsupported in Linux) and Tegra (Nvidia is making a shit-ton of money off of Linux and not being cooperative. Their PR bullshit about contributing to Linux is inconsistent with the reality of the code. They might have had the most changes from 3.3 to 3.4 - but that's probably because their shit was in the worst state to begin with. Even in 3.4, looking at their codebase it's woefully incomplete in mainline, for example the cpuidle driver is missing the most important power-saving states. Their support is simply shit compared to TI's OMAP support.)
There's what they say... And then there's the code.
If they're really contributing as much as they claim, then why is the mainline cpuidle support for Tegra in 3.4 so piss-poor compared to that of their own forked 2.6.36 branch? Where's the documentation on their CPU's idle/power management capabilities? Why is the Tegra code so badly branched that devices running Android 4.0 on Tegra are running 2.6.39 instead of the officially recommended 3.0.8?
Approach a similarly-priced GeForce? No - since the Quadro was sold with a massive price premium.
However, as I understand it, some of the features in Quadros make them unsuitable for gaming. Google "SoftQuadro" (which is ancient, NV has provided significantly more lockdown in newer models) - it was known for being detrimental to gaming performance.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you mean Straight Talk?
Once my AT&T contract is over (maybe before - going to look into whether my ETF is prorated) I'm going to ST + unlocked phones (possibly the next Nexus now that Google is selling them on the Play Store.)
Through my employer, I get 25% off of my plan and 50% off of my accessories, however:
1) I still am spending $25/mo more on AT&T than I would on Straight Talk
2) AT&T's phone selection sucks, and their software update policies have been atrocious. Every official update for the Galaxy S II was a horrific bugfest compared to the software available for the international version - even though getting I9100 firmware fully working on the I777 required only a weekend of kernel hacking for one guy (me).
3) Because I am now using international unlocked devices, the 50% accesory discount is useless to me.
Unless I can bring an unlocked phone WITHOUT paying a contract subsidy penalty by the end of my contract, I'm gone. Fuck you, AT&T.
How is it bullshit? Did you bother to read what I wrote at all? What part of "It probably won't work with mixed vehicles at all - you don't get the speed/separation capacity benefits." didn't you understand?
How many HOV lanes have you seen with curves designed for 50 mph?
One of the things that has been advertised as a big benefit for autonomous cars IS that much higher speeds are permissible while remaining safe. Similarly, much closer following distances are possible without compromising safety.
Many of our speed limits are based on safety decisions made based on "typical" human reaction times. You can get a ticket now for "following too closely" based on the assumption that at speed X, you need Y feet of separation to be safe based on a reaction time of N milliseconds.
The reaction time of an autonomous vehicle is far less than N milliseconts, permitting X to be higher and Y much lower.
There have been, for example, "auto trains" of multiple autonomous vehicles operating with ridiculously small separation distances on test tracks.
The problem is - how do you make the transition? A mix of autonomous and human-driven vehicles won't work well unless the autonomous vehicles obey the limits imposed on human-driven vehicles. So you need to segregate the human vehicles from the autonomous ones. This is really difficult in most places.
There's one exception: In many metropolitan areas, highways have HOV lanes. HOV lanes are intended to increase the capacity (in humans per hour) of that lane. In quite a few areas, they have the secondary goal of reducing fuel consumption and emissions per user. (In some places, this goal has been prioritized to the point where vehicles that meet certain emissions/efficiency standards are permitted in HOV lanes with fewer occupants than the normal HOV limit - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-occupancy_vehicle_lane#Qualifying_vehicles.)
A big problem with current HOV lanes is, honestly, the humans. On quite a few business trips to Long Island, my coworkers and I met the HOV lane criteria during a time the HOV lane restrictions were enforced (usually the tail end/beginning end of that period when traffic was lighter than the peaks the HOV lane was designed for). In quite a few cases, there were enough HOV-eligible vehicles that the HOV lanes weren't any faster than the main lanes. In a few cases, a single vehicle meeting HOV eligibility but with a slow driver would render the HOV lane significantly slower than the non-HOV lanes of the highway.
Autonomous vehicles would be the perfect solution to the remaining HOV lane problems. Most likely, the cost of autonomous vehicles will mean that the costs of them meeting above-average emissions/efficiency standards won't be that much more. (After all, Google's "open road" driverless vehicle is a Prius, which meets the "single occupant in HOV lane exception" requirements in many areas that have such exceptions for "green" vehicles.) - Autonomous vehicles can achieve significantly higher speeds at lower separations in a HOV lane, significantly increasing the lane's capacity significantly even for single-occupant vehicles.
The problem is, of course - the transition. Making a HOV lane into an autonomous-only lane requires enough autonomous vehicles to justify it. It probably won't work with mixed vehicles at all - you don't get the speed/separation capacity benefits.
Yeah. "Sandbox" apps like this will be received better by employees. If you try OS-level encryption with policy enforcements (such as Exchange policy enforcements), users will find ways to bypass the policy enforcements that get in the way of "normal personal operations" and this will also kill the security of the things you want to keep secure.
Sandboxes like Good for Enterprise don't annoy users when they are engaged in personal use, so they are far less likely to disable security measures.
They are doing this with the Galaxy Nexus - yes it's more expensive because sticking an extra radio into a smaller device will drive costs, but still - $350 for an unsubsidized flagship smartphone is dirt cheap compared to the rest of the industry.
Because you often use a tablet like this in places (buses, trains, planes, cars you are not behind the wheel of) where there is no network connection.
Even for those situations listed above where you could tether to a smartphone, extremely low data caps (you'd kill your data allowance on most carriers with a single 720p movie for example) mean that cloud storage of video is nowhere near ready for mobile devices, and even cloud storage of music is a bad idea. (Streaming music frequently is a good way to hit your data cap.)
That was a special exception that has been explained time and time again - Google didn't want people shoehorning it into phones.
Wrong. It's pretty clear that the carriers are the major blocker for updates.
For example, the Samsung Infuse 4G was originally released with Android 2.2. Canadian devices on Rogers received Gingerbread (Android 2.3) in late July/early August 2011. AT&T devices did not see Gingerbread until February 2012.
The Samsung Captivate was nearly identical to the original Samsung Galaxy S. The similarities were enough that community developers were able to have the I9000 Gingerbread release fully functional within weeks of Gingerbread for the I9000 becoming available. The Captivate did not receive an official upgrade through AT&T for NINE MONTHS.
The AT&T variant of the Samsung Galaxy S II (SGH-I777) is nearly identical to the international version (GT-I9100). As a result, there are only a handful of software differences required between the two handsets:
1) Change the digital I/O settings for the audio chip to a different sample rate - this was included in the GT-I9100 source code release
2) Change the keymap for the touchkeys - This was also included in the GT-I9100 source code release
3) Unmap the GPIO line for the HOME key which doesn't exist on the device - This was missing from the GT-I9100 source code release, but took less than a week to identify and fix
4) Swap the audio channels for the noise cancelling and main microphones - This took me a single Saturday to reverse engineer and fix
Despite these minor changes, the AT&T ICS release was delayed for more than three months, and was of worse quality than some of the early I9100 ICS leak builds. In addition to poor battery performance, frequent crashes, and other bugs not present in the initial I9100 ICS release, the SGH-I777 official release contains a severe bug that can permanently damage the device's eMMC storage if the user performs a factory reset.
If carriers didn't get in the way, the SGH-I777 would not exist - users would have received the GT-I9100 and would have received a high-quality ICS build in mid-March instead of an awful hackjob in late June.
ICS was announced on October 19, 2012.
ICS source was released on November 14, 2012. LESS THAN A MONTH.
In addition - the first device to actually RECEIVE ICS did not become available until NOVEMBER 17. Yes, that's right, source was released THREE DAYS BEFORE the first device to receive ICS became available.
So you'll have trouble getting an RF burn (or any other damage) even with direct antenna contact.
I was 99% certain that it would come out as "safe" - but you confirmed that.
I haven't personally experimented, but at around 5W CW you can get a mild RF burn from direct contact with an antenna element. There is nothing more dangerous about such a burn than if you touched a hot coffee pot in the wrong place.
For that thing to be unsafe you'd have to jam the antenna up your ass. At this point, there are plenty of "unsafe" things going on even if the RF is off, such as having a metal object jammed up your ass. :)
Key aspects of safety around pulsed transmitters that have very high peak power but moderate average power:
1) Don't walk through the fucking beam! (Although I know of an engineer that determined he would be within OSHA limits if he kept exposure to 30 seconds per 6 minutes at a range of 20+ feet occasionally...)
2) Humans don't arc. Shit that will instantly sizzlefry electronics will do nothing to a human if it's a low duty cycle pulse.
Another way to read this is: Duty cycle is very important when dealing with human safety. So that leads to the question: What is the transmit power of these smart meters? What is the duty cycle? The article claiming they are "unsafe" has zero data on these crucial parameters.
You have zero evidence to support your claim.
The Iranians were VERY careful not to show the underside of the drone, which is the part most likely to sustain crash damage.
1) The GPS in real aircraft (small cheapo drones use cheapo GPS) does self-integrity monitoring. So far we only know they spoofed a consumer-grade (or equivalent) GPS. No indication that they defeated a RAIM-enabled unit. (e.g. spoofing it without triggering an alarm)
2) Most such aircraft also have a fairly robust inertial navigation system the GPS is checked against. (often this is checked as part of the RAIM monitoring process)
3) In the case of manned aircraft not on an instrument approach, you need to defeat the Mk1 Eyeball in addition to the GPS and INS.
4) In the case of manned aircraft on instrument approach - most airports still also have legacy ILS.
In short - spoofing a civilian aircraft without causing a "my instruments are fucked, pull up" pilot response is orders of magnitude more difficult than this hack.
In addition, there's absolutely no evidence to back this claim - "But the big worry is — it also means that it wouldn't be too hard for [a very skilled person] to work out how to un-encrypt military drones and spoof them, and that could be extremely dangerous because they could turn them on the wrong people."
Transitioning from "making a few fake pseudolites" to "discovering the crypto key before it changes" (I believe the keys rotate on a daily basis, so you would need to crack the key AND the key change algorithm) is a MAJOR step. I don't know what universe that person lives in if they thing breaking military-grade crypto is even remotely close to this attack in complexity. This attack is easymode compared to generating a proper P(Y) code.
The only "break" so far in the military encryption is the fact that the same keys (and in fact same signal) are used on both L1 and L2, allowing you to cross-correlate L1 and L2 to determine ionospheric delay and remove that one error source. Note that the next block of GPS satellites adds a civilian L2 signal, so this "break" is mostly irrelevant.
In addition, no evidence was provided that a RAIM-enabled receiver was successfully spoofed, only a cheap consumer-grade unit that lacked RAIM.
Samsung's lawyers did have a field day - http://9to5mac.com/2011/08/19/samsung-claims-apple-doctored-galaxy-phone-images-in-netherlands-court/
Also, that's not the first time doctored evidence had been found in court filings - http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/apple-accused-of-doctoring-image-to-sink-galaxy-tab-101-in-europe-update/14246
Let's not forget the fact that the only pictures where the items DO look the same were doctored by Apple. (The comparison photos were not to scale, which hides the fact that the aspect ratios and dimensions of the two devices are completely different, and also I think Apple may even have done some stretching to make the aspect ratios look the same!)
They won an injunction against an obsolete item that has been in the process of being pulled out of retail channels for a month or so.
"The Galaxy Tab 2 10.1, which Samsung uncrated last month, is not affected."
Way to waste your money asshats. Congratulations, you were a total douche and won nothing of value. (Of course, your lawyers made out by bandits.)
1) A multiband radio system and UMTS/GSM baseband adds a LOT of cost to devices. Look at the price deltas between the original GalaxyS series and the Galaxy Player series. Remove the 3G and price goes WAY down.
2) SAMOLED screens are gorgeous but expensive. LCD is far cheaper.
I agree. The description makes it sound like CEO caught a cold that included laryngitis... Seriously, that's not worthy of telling the whole goddamn planet where he is.
In a world where much work is done at a computer, it's pretty easy to continue as CEO of a company (especially one as tech-oriented as Google) but not be able to participate in a public speaking engagement due to laryngitis.
Yeah... There are rumors the next "nexus" round could be 5 devices.
But then the tablet rumors started coming out, which started speculation that the "5 Nexuses" might be tablets in two different size/price classes, and maybe 2-3 handsets in various size/price classes.
My personal favorite would be a selection of multiple Nexus handsets in similar size/price categories.
The thing is, I don't think Google has EVER wanted a "single" Nexus handset in each generation. The problem is that many handset manufacturers don't want their handset to be that open. The success of many of the Nexus devices shows that there's a major market demand for unskinned fully open Android devices - And the thing is, if you have a degree of openness that matches a Nexus device, Google will likely be perfectly willing to give your device the Nexus designation, or at the very least, push the device as being on par with a Nexus. (e.g. direct sales from the Play store, etc.)
None of the Nexus devices are done in-house - Google partners with one of their licensees for each one. To avoid licensees possibly getting angry, they tend to rotate it around. And honestly, Google would likely aggressively market any device a manufacturer makes that is as open as one of their Nexus devices.
N1 was HTC, NS and GN were Samsung, rumored upcoming tablet is rumored to be Asus
While the Xoom was not officially a "nexus" it was Google's "Google Experience" tablet device in some regions, adding Motorola to the list
No, about 2% of the island is owned by (if I recall correctly) descendents of Hawaiian natives.
The rest was owned by Dole for a long time, I was unaware it was no longer a pineapple plantation.
Interesting story: While the island was a pineapple plantation, it was nearly impossible to find fresh pineapple on the island in any restaurant or store. This was apparently because the natives were all sick of eating pineapple, and when they did want pineapple they would just sneak onto the plantation and steal one...
(My family went to Lanai when I was in middle school or high school, back when Dole owned most of it.)
If you actually bothered to read his complants, they were directed at Optimus (almost completely unsupported in Linux) and Tegra (Nvidia is making a shit-ton of money off of Linux and not being cooperative. Their PR bullshit about contributing to Linux is inconsistent with the reality of the code. They might have had the most changes from 3.3 to 3.4 - but that's probably because their shit was in the worst state to begin with. Even in 3.4, looking at their codebase it's woefully incomplete in mainline, for example the cpuidle driver is missing the most important power-saving states. Their support is simply shit compared to TI's OMAP support.)
There's what they say... And then there's the code.
If they're really contributing as much as they claim, then why is the mainline cpuidle support for Tegra in 3.4 so piss-poor compared to that of their own forked 2.6.36 branch? Where's the documentation on their CPU's idle/power management capabilities? Why is the Tegra code so badly branched that devices running Android 4.0 on Tegra are running 2.6.39 instead of the officially recommended 3.0.8?
Approach a similarly-priced GeForce? No - since the Quadro was sold with a massive price premium.
However, as I understand it, some of the features in Quadros make them unsuitable for gaming. Google "SoftQuadro" (which is ancient, NV has provided significantly more lockdown in newer models) - it was known for being detrimental to gaming performance.