Google has published the patches but the carriers have not distributed them.
URL or it didn't happen. Google does not announce Android security updates on their official mailing list nor anywhere else. They don't publicly document the vulnerabilities they fixed with a new point release nor do they reserve CVE numbers for these. Not even speaking of publishing patches for individual vulnerabilities.
The root cause of high costs is centralization, which is a symptom of the need for control by the publishers. The solution is decentralization, which means mirroring (technically) and free copying (legally).
Not wanting to spoil your argument, but basic economic theory says exactly the opposite.
I think for low-profile journals which are edited by active scientists, it shouldn't be a problem to move to something like arXiv overlay journals, which comes as close to free as you can get. High-profile journals like Nature and Science, however, are a completely different story. Here, you have full-time editors paid by the journals who actually have to do tricky tasks such as finding good referees who will not reject a paper on political grounds or promote a paper because it was written by one of their pals. Therefore, it is not too bad if you have editors whose careers do not hinge on whether a topic becomes hot or not. If you remove this part of external quality control to save costs, chances are that scientific publishing will become even more politicized than it already is.
Its not just a yes, but something we should all be aware of, its also seems fairly trivial to do. Worryingly for those with a lot of cash, an ideal way to search a related technology, and *patent* technology that is otherwise obvious, or relevant as the field has matured, or identity gaps in things not patented.
Actually, I'm inclined to believe that algorithmic patent generation might actually make it much harder to claim non-obviousness. If your patent claims can be generated by a person having ordinary skill in the art just by running a computer program, what is the actual contribution by the inventor?
And until *GPL is contested in court we won't know for sure.
Come on, this is ridiculous. The GPL has been found perfectly enforcable in many cases in many jurisdictions, with some eventually going to courts. The reason that most cases are settled out of court comes from the fact that defending a GPL violation is such a hopeless endeavor in most situations.
I'm not arguing for or against the *GPL licenses myself. All I'm saying is that I've experienced enough funding or acquisition due diligence processes to have heard from the acquiring/funding party's counsel that *GPL code must either be replaced with a viable alternative, or that the deal might be called off.
While I understand that this can happen, it effectively means you are advocating against using the GPL not based on the actual content of the license, but because of the (quite likely irrational) behavior of a third party.
Until recently, I was regularly shuffling money back and forth between the US and Europe. No matter whether I did an international wire transfer or wrote a check, there were always quite substantial fees associated, although they were considerably lower than with "specialized" sevices like Paypal or XE. I haven't done the full math, but looking at the fee structure of various Bitcoin exchanges, it seems you could end paying much less.
Your two points are correct, but the work of this Australian guy has been largely overlooked for good reason because: a) It relies on an extension to QM not backed by any experimental observation. b) It does not solve an outstanding problem. I'm not saying that this work is bad or anything. It's good solid work relevant for people working in a specific sub-field, but not of such broad relevance that we have to rewrite our textbooks and give this guy a Nobel prize.
So of the choices given, CC-BY-NC-ND is the only one that should be in that list.
I strongly disagree. CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are extremely useful if someone wants to cover your work (e.g., figures) in a textbook or review article and needs to make some editorial changes. Extremely annoying for everyone if non-free licenses are being used and a lot of paperwork has to be done. Same goes for the case when people deem your work so important or interesting that they want to put it into Wikipedia. Great for the scientists, but a real PITA if the license of the paper is incompatible with the one used by Wikipedia.
Contrary to your claims, the seminal paper on decoherence by Joos and Zeh is from 1985, so this even predates Weinberg's nonlinear QM paper by several years. I'm not claiming that we understand everything about decoherence and the quantum-to-classical transition, but it is extremely unlikely that the gaps in our knowledge can be filled by looking at exotic extensions to QM not backed by any experimental findings, no matter how mathematically appealing they might look in the first place.
1. Last May, this guy announced he would GPL his stuff once he gets $4,000 in monthly donations. 2. Eight days later, he received a total of $4,000 in one-time donations and released his code under the GPL. 3. About a month later, he discovered that one-time donations and recurring donations are not the same thing. 4. Apparently until today, he is whining around how bad this all is and that open source is evil.
This however is a full mathematical description of how to get from the Schroedinger equation back to Hamilton mechanics. I.e. it exemplifies the correspondence principle. Care to show me some papers that can do the same?
Start with any introductory material on the theory of decoherence, such as the book by Joos and Zeh.
Anyhow, this dude from down under found a pretty astounding approach to the correspondence principle [wikipedia.org] (i.e. how QM gives rise) to classical mechanics in a mathematical framework originally developed by Steven Weinberg. Something the latter astoundingly overlooked. The talkback page on this math can be found here [wikipedia.org]. The article itself meanwhile has been deleted. Please note: Not because the math is wrong, but because the citation record has been deemed to be too low by the editors.
I like Wikipedia-bashing as much as everyone else, but in this case there is hardly anything to complain about. The Weinberg paper talks about nonlinear extensions to QM, which are widely believed to be nonexistent. So this guy found a statement on an obscure theory almost everyone believes to be wrong anyway, and you expect this to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article?
We have no falsifiable, measurable, or experimentally verifiable explanation for gravity, spacetime, or other fundamental forces.
Semiclassical gravity, i.e., couple the metric to the expectation values of the energy-momentum tensor. Granted, it's not pretty, but it contains all the physics we know and is not refuted by a single experiment.
What does it bring new to developers that isn't there in Android?
Access to the ~47,000 packages, including thousands of libraries that you do not have to painstakingly port to Android (good luck with that on a non-POSIX system)?
You can publish VLC on the App store yourself as long as you also distribute the source as it is GPLv2 which doesnt' do any silly things that prevent it from being put there.
While it's true that OSX has way less malware than Windows, the main cause of malware infections is the users who click anything that's offered to them without thinking.
No. Any system that can be botched more or less accidentally is a complete failure. While GNU/Linux and to a lesser extent OS X are far from perfect, they make it considerably harder to run untrusted code, simply because this is an operation typically not needed during daily use.
It depends how they do it. If they've done it by making their additions a binary kernel module, they've not (clearly) broken the GPL.
I think you have a hard time proving in court that your product is not a derivative work when it's just a piece of binary waste once you take away the GPLed portions.
Lots of vendors ship binary only kernel modules. Can you imagine how screwed up things would get if the courts ruled right now that binary kernel modules are considered as GPL tainted when loaded into a GPL piece of software?
This is a very different case than Oracle v Google. Google was distributing their own implementation of the Java API, without using Oracle's code. Here, however, RTS is shipping a copy of the Linux kernel. Their defense seems to be that they are somehow exempt from the requirements under GPLv2 because they ship their modifications as a module, but I'm a bit skeptical whether this would actually hold up in court.
There is no single experiment ruling out such a model.
There are conceptual problems. Such as where did the space come from in your model? Or is space curved by your quantum effects (such as a non-zero vacuum energy)?
Spacetime itself does not have to come from somewhere as an emergent concept. It could just be there as it's currently the case with either GR or QFT. Spacetime could get curved via the expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor. No mathemetical ambiguities, no contradiction to experiments, and fully consistent with both GR and the SM. However, I would hardly call this a "unified" description of all forces. Nevertheless, arguing against such a description of nature on purely aesthetic grounds is a bit shaky, IMO.
The fundamental problem with the standard model is gravity. In terms of particle interactions, they have it covered via the Higgs particle and gravitinos. But the standard model doesn't have curvature of space.
But you can do quantum field theory in curved spacetime, i.e., without quantizing the gravitational field. There is no single experiment ruling out such a model. So I don't think gravity is a problem for the SM, it's rather our desire to find a unified description of all forces in nature. But of course, nobody knows whether such a unified theory will be correct in the end.
The point is actually that the poll averages are reasonably likely to be wrong, because some polls are designed much better than others. Most news outlets just average the polls. Nate Silver weights them in an attempt to give more weight to accurate ones. So, the simple averages of polls are right in most cases, but in a handful of states are sufficiently skewed by biased polls to give an incorrect prediction. Nate Silvers' weighting of polls, on the other hand, got all 50 states correct--and in many so-called "contested" states actually nailed the Romney v Obama share perfectly to 0.1%!
I don't think a safe call can be made that Nate Silver's method (which not only uses poll weighting, but also "state fundamentals") is actually superior compared to simple poll averaging as done by the Princeton people or by Andrew Tanenbaum. While Silver correctly predicted all states in the presidential election, with Florida being sheer luck, he missed the Senate races in MT and ND quite badly (in the latter he claimed a 92% probability for an R win).
Slashdot Mirror
Google has published the patches but the carriers have not distributed them.
URL or it didn't happen. Google does not announce Android security updates on their official mailing list nor anywhere else. They don't publicly document the vulnerabilities they fixed with a new point release nor do they reserve CVE numbers for these. Not even speaking of publishing patches for individual vulnerabilities.
The root cause of high costs is centralization, which is a symptom of the need for control by the publishers. The solution is decentralization, which means mirroring (technically) and free copying (legally).
Not wanting to spoil your argument, but basic economic theory says exactly the opposite.
I think for low-profile journals which are edited by active scientists, it shouldn't be a problem to move to something like arXiv overlay journals, which comes as close to free as you can get. High-profile journals like Nature and Science, however, are a completely different story. Here, you have full-time editors paid by the journals who actually have to do tricky tasks such as finding good referees who will not reject a paper on political grounds or promote a paper because it was written by one of their pals. Therefore, it is not too bad if you have editors whose careers do not hinge on whether a topic becomes hot or not. If you remove this part of external quality control to save costs, chances are that scientific publishing will become even more politicized than it already is.
Its not just a yes, but something we should all be aware of, its also seems fairly trivial to do. Worryingly for those with a lot of cash, an ideal way to search a related technology, and *patent* technology that is otherwise obvious, or relevant as the field has matured, or identity gaps in things not patented.
Actually, I'm inclined to believe that algorithmic patent generation might actually make it much harder to claim non-obviousness. If your patent claims can be generated by a person having ordinary skill in the art just by running a computer program, what is the actual contribution by the inventor?
And until *GPL is contested in court we won't know for sure.
Come on, this is ridiculous. The GPL has been found perfectly enforcable in many cases in many jurisdictions, with some eventually going to courts. The reason that most cases are settled out of court comes from the fact that defending a GPL violation is such a hopeless endeavor in most situations.
I'm not arguing for or against the *GPL licenses myself. All I'm saying is that I've experienced enough funding or acquisition due diligence processes to have heard from the acquiring/funding party's counsel that *GPL code must either be replaced with a viable alternative, or that the deal might be called off.
While I understand that this can happen, it effectively means you are advocating against using the GPL not based on the actual content of the license, but because of the (quite likely irrational) behavior of a third party.
The H Security: Treacherous backdoor found in TP-Link routers
Until recently, I was regularly shuffling money back and forth between the US and Europe. No matter whether I did an international wire transfer or wrote a check, there were always quite substantial fees associated, although they were considerably lower than with "specialized" sevices like Paypal or XE. I haven't done the full math, but looking at the fee structure of various Bitcoin exchanges, it seems you could end paying much less.
Your two points are correct, but the work of this Australian guy has been largely overlooked for good reason because:
a) It relies on an extension to QM not backed by any experimental observation.
b) It does not solve an outstanding problem.
I'm not saying that this work is bad or anything. It's good solid work relevant for people working in a specific sub-field, but not of such broad relevance that we have to rewrite our textbooks and give this guy a Nobel prize.
So of the choices given, CC-BY-NC-ND is the only one that should be in that list.
I strongly disagree. CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are extremely useful if someone wants to cover your work (e.g., figures) in a textbook or review article and needs to make some editorial changes. Extremely annoying for everyone if non-free licenses are being used and a lot of paperwork has to be done. Same goes for the case when people deem your work so important or interesting that they want to put it into Wikipedia. Great for the scientists, but a real PITA if the license of the paper is incompatible with the one used by Wikipedia.
Contrary to your claims, the seminal paper on decoherence by Joos and Zeh is from 1985, so this even predates Weinberg's nonlinear QM paper by several years. I'm not claiming that we understand everything about decoherence and the quantum-to-classical transition, but it is extremely unlikely that the gaps in our knowledge can be filled by looking at exotic extensions to QM not backed by any experimental findings, no matter how mathematically appealing they might look in the first place.
1. Last May, this guy announced he would GPL his stuff once he gets $4,000 in monthly donations.
2. Eight days later, he received a total of $4,000 in one-time donations and released his code under the GPL.
3. About a month later, he discovered that one-time donations and recurring donations are not the same thing.
4. Apparently until today, he is whining around how bad this all is and that open source is evil.
This however is a full mathematical description of how to get from the Schroedinger equation back to Hamilton mechanics. I.e. it exemplifies the correspondence principle. Care to show me some papers that can do the same?
Start with any introductory material on the theory of decoherence, such as the book by Joos and Zeh.
There is nothing about the correspondence principle that needs to be resolved. This is hardly noteworthy science.
Anyhow, this dude from down under found a pretty astounding approach to the correspondence principle [wikipedia.org] (i.e. how QM gives rise) to classical mechanics in a mathematical framework originally developed by Steven Weinberg. Something the latter astoundingly overlooked. The talkback page on this math can be found here [wikipedia.org]. The article itself meanwhile has been deleted. Please note: Not because the math is wrong, but because the citation record has been deemed to be too low by the editors.
I like Wikipedia-bashing as much as everyone else, but in this case there is hardly anything to complain about. The Weinberg paper talks about nonlinear extensions to QM, which are widely believed to be nonexistent. So this guy found a statement on an obscure theory almost everyone believes to be wrong anyway, and you expect this to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article?
We have no falsifiable, measurable, or experimentally verifiable explanation for gravity, spacetime, or other fundamental forces.
Semiclassical gravity, i.e., couple the metric to the expectation values of the energy-momentum tensor. Granted, it's not pretty, but it contains all the physics we know and is not refuted by a single experiment.
* Android apps running native (or at least semi-native) under a Linux desktop. (Really, this should be pretty darn easy, in theory anyway)
Apparently, the WePad was doing just that, no idea how well it worked though.
What does it bring new to developers that isn't there in Android?
Access to the ~47,000 packages, including thousands of libraries that you do not have to painstakingly port to Android (good luck with that on a non-POSIX system)?
You can publish VLC on the App store yourself as long as you also distribute the source as it is GPLv2 which doesnt' do any silly things that prevent it from being put there.
Wrong.
While it's true that OSX has way less malware than Windows, the main cause of malware infections is the users who click anything that's offered to them without thinking.
No. Any system that can be botched more or less accidentally is a complete failure. While GNU/Linux and to a lesser extent OS X are far from perfect, they make it considerably harder to run untrusted code, simply because this is an operation typically not needed during daily use.
It depends how they do it. If they've done it by making their additions a binary kernel module, they've not (clearly) broken the GPL.
I think you have a hard time proving in court that your product is not a derivative work when it's just a piece of binary waste once you take away the GPLed portions.
Lots of vendors ship binary only kernel modules. Can you imagine how screwed up things would get if the courts ruled right now that binary kernel modules are considered as GPL tainted when loaded into a GPL piece of software?
$ cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
0
Not very much, apparently.
This is a very different case than Oracle v Google. Google was distributing their own implementation of the Java API, without using Oracle's code. Here, however, RTS is shipping a copy of the Linux kernel. Their defense seems to be that they are somehow exempt from the requirements under GPLv2 because they ship their modifications as a module, but I'm a bit skeptical whether this would actually hold up in court.
There is no single experiment ruling out such a model.
There are conceptual problems. Such as where did the space come from in your model? Or is space curved by your quantum effects (such as a non-zero vacuum energy)?
Spacetime itself does not have to come from somewhere as an emergent concept. It could just be there as it's currently the case with either GR or QFT. Spacetime could get curved via the expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor. No mathemetical ambiguities, no contradiction to experiments, and fully consistent with both GR and the SM. However, I would hardly call this a "unified" description of all forces. Nevertheless, arguing against such a description of nature on purely aesthetic grounds is a bit shaky, IMO.
The fundamental problem with the standard model is gravity. In terms of particle interactions, they have it covered via the Higgs particle and gravitinos. But the standard model doesn't have curvature of space.
But you can do quantum field theory in curved spacetime, i.e., without quantizing the gravitational field. There is no single experiment ruling out such a model. So I don't think gravity is a problem for the SM, it's rather our desire to find a unified description of all forces in nature. But of course, nobody knows whether such a unified theory will be correct in the end.
The point is actually that the poll averages are reasonably likely to be wrong, because some polls are designed much better than others. Most news outlets just average the polls. Nate Silver weights them in an attempt to give more weight to accurate ones. So, the simple averages of polls are right in most cases, but in a handful of states are sufficiently skewed by biased polls to give an incorrect prediction. Nate Silvers' weighting of polls, on the other hand, got all 50 states correct--and in many so-called "contested" states actually nailed the Romney v Obama share perfectly to 0.1%!
I don't think a safe call can be made that Nate Silver's method (which not only uses poll weighting, but also "state fundamentals") is actually superior compared to simple poll averaging as done by the Princeton people or by Andrew Tanenbaum. While Silver correctly predicted all states in the presidential election, with Florida being sheer luck, he missed the Senate races in MT and ND quite badly (in the latter he claimed a 92% probability for an R win).