Yeah, that seems to be a common complaint but it seems mostly with early production units. Mine has had no issue and it has been severely abused. I think the replacement speaker is quite cheap and easy to replace. Easier than the iphone which has had similar issues.
... is that the superb Motorola cell phone radios get implemented in the Google phones. I live in a rural area and although I really like both the iPhone and the Samsung android phones, I rely almost exclusively on my Motorola Defy.
The reception and voice quality is incredibly better than any other cell phone I have used (and that is a lot). I have never experienced a dropped call with it and it always connects unless there is absolutely no signal.
LTE capability is just part of it. The direction is to get off of dedicated telephony transport systems and move to an all IP solution. LTE to the carriers is not just bandwidth and a different spectrum but also the promise of controlling future costs by getting away from systems that have to be replaced every couple years with a new technology.
Phone design becomes simpler and the telephony application is disentangled from the physical system (towers, radios, cell management, etc etc). Most people are not aware of just how much infrastructure the cell providers have gone through in the past decade.
Not feeling sorry for them as there is always a profit in there but it does help explain why your carrier may not come out with your much anticipated latest device as quickly as you like. Often there are hidden system changes that have to be invested in and implemented: all of which requires investment, resources and time.
There is a payoff from convergence for the user as well. You may not know it but that old CDMA or whatever phone may have better coverage than your GSM iphone simply because your carrier chose not to upgrade/add/replace hardware on all towers. Lots of fragmentation in the cellular coverage because of the many different "standards" that have come and gone.
IP convergence has been a religious mantra in the wireline world for a long time now but it also is hugely important in the wireless world.
Your phone becomes a pure data device where the telephone is essentially just a canned VOIP application.
I hope he has the required testing/engineering done and monitoring in place to maintain slope stability on the pit face under the excavator.
He could accelerate the bucket-and-shovel process by acquiring an RC dragline unit. This would be especially desirable if he has future work lined up in the area. eg: Neighbors' basements, latrine (outhouse) pits, etc.
. . . to bring clarity to the market no matter what the cost to them or their competitors. ($100 million for apple . . . how much did this force their competition to spend on legal fees, research etc.).
Clearly a company that has ideals and values, and is willing to stand up for them.
Sigh. Your comment is valid but I guess a bit trollish. As a long time Solaris/Linux/Windows admin, I fully welcome this approach. My experience is that GUIs cause more problems on the server side than they help with.
I know I'm an old curmudgeon but security, availability, and reliability go hand in hand with built-to-function, sparse servers that don't encourage people logging in without a specific purpose or task to be performed.
The GUI-less approach properly separates the GUI from the os and makes it a presentation layer instead of an integral part of the operating system.
I believe there is some legislation brewing in Canada to keep commercial audio levels the same as programs. Muting is still the best option for that annoyance but killing the audio on your remote doesn't stop the ability to gather info.
Your stb is able to record and report every button push but that doesn't mean the service provider either wants or gathers the info. Mostly they want to know about network quality and whether or not you really did watch that adult pay per view that you are denying ever since your wife caught it on the bill.
Nonetheless, we are now bound in a tracking web by the very nature of the services we use and it isn't necessarily because there is some evil plan or because big brother wants to watch us, although these are possibilities.
It's just the way the stuff works. Dumb landline phones and 56k audio modems are pretty simple and do not require a provider control presence on the device. If you draw out a block diagram of the overall system, it is reasonable to draw a border between subscriber side and network side with the phones and modems on the subscriber side. Sub purchases and owns the device, and is responsible for everything on his/her side of the nid (the point where the phone line enters the location).
Cell phones, stbs, and dsl/cable modems are different. You may think you bought the phone and you own it but not really. Major parts of it are only licensed to you. Further, if you can still draw that border it has moved with the DSL modem or stb on the network side. The sub only owns the local network and even that is getting invaded with TR69 derivatives (service provider can configure your home network remotely).
The service providers see the home devices as part of the network because things like routers are complex and difficult to manage through conversation with the subscriber, and because the devices cause problems which are expensive to remedy. Misconfigure your home router and your IPTV may die. How is tier 1 going to fix it without rolling a truck? There is a legitimate impetus to bind your home network with the provider's control structure but it also ties the user to a sticky information web. The same system that gives the provider access to maintain your network also gives access to how you use your service.
The cell phone is murkier than your landline broadband because everything is in one device. There is no physical separation between the service provider piece and the subscriber's side; there are only information boundaries. It's OK to gather network quality info but not personal info. Not everything is that black and white though. Is it OK to gather stats on how often the settings menu is used? How about how often the "YouTube" app is invoked?
These information boundaries are only respected because of laws and organizations such as the EFF. Oh, and it just may be that no one has had the need or desire to graze on a particular set of data yet.
Sigh: even without CarrierIQ and like services, our smartphones bind us into the info/tracking web. No need for "AirMiles" cards. Every purchase a user makes is tracked forever by the App store. And that nifty app that maps provider 3G coverage also sends tidbits off to some developer geek's server without even a nod to privacy laws. Anyways, the user is in Canada and the dev is in China or Greece or Russia or where ever. Which laws apply?
Any subscribed service with a 2-way tethered user device such as cell phones, dsl / cable boxes, and cable/dsl/digital television will have embedded information gathering and remote update/control software almost guaranteed.
Much of it is strictly for service metrics, diagnostics and predictive problem avoidance. Some of it is used as an interactive problem solving tool for tier 1 support. You might want to look at www.motive.com as an example company.
If desired though, these products usually have the capability for being very invasive. eg: TV set top boxes can record all kinds of info about your viewing habits: every button push on the remote can be recorded, effectively recording much about your viewing habits.
It's an old story: there are legitimate and desirable uses for these tools but they are all capable of misuse. Even when not abused, our access to privacy and anonymity is severely eroded from what it was even 20 years ago.
I guess Oracle in their infinite wisdom have decided that a processor in a very marginal market is the reason Sun hardware sales are dying/dead, and not the fact that the Sun line is a choice between Intel (available from everyone) or Sparc (either slow and questionable performance, or power / rack space hungry ).
Considering it is actually Xeons, x86, and IBM hardware in the virtualization space that is the main market now, I don't see how this legal sidebar with HP does Oracle any benefit.
The RMS list is quite reasonable. He explains what he does and doesn't do and gives succinct explanations. His demands are easy to provide for.
Overall, RMS is a bit specific but nothing onerous and nothing particularly weird. Just reads to me like he has done so many talks and travelled to so many places that he has it all down pat and would prefer that whoever happens to be the host does not foist their own experience or desires onto RMS.
If anything, it is a red-herring that draws attention away from the illegal and morally bankrupt behaviour of G and the gang of monsters he called family and friends. These companies sold equipment and technology within legal boundaries, practices and processes. Absolutely everything we consume today is tied to a moral issue at some degree of separation. Techno-morality cherry picking.
Haul G's ass up onto the docket for prosecution. And reserve a special cell for Hannibal G and his twisted, obscene troll of a wife. Shine the spotlight on Algeria for propping up G with weapons, supplies and mercenaries, and in the final act for providing refuge for the clan.
There is so much real, solid, evil to latch onto in this conflict, I find this story to be laughable.
I would feel different if the foreign tech companies acted directly in immoral acts. Providing a country with monitoring capability is not even close to being immoral.
If this issue turns your crank, then let's look at some other activities in Libya:
Want a techno issue? How about the hosting providers who give voice to G propaganda outlets like mathaba.net and algathafi.org? Or other sites that the regime used to communicate with terrorist orgs?
There are companies which drilled for oil to feed money into the regime. How did G get $50B / yr to keep Saif, Mutassim, Hannibal etc in their positions of power?
Bankers gave safe harbour for billions embezzled from the country's coffers.
What about the tanks and guns used by G to suppress the population? Where did they come from?
Everybody and his malamute sold them arms. Want a morally corrupt issue? Talk to the Russians about the more than 20,000 SA7s (shoulder launched surface to air) missiles they sold G. Obsolete, next to useless against military aircraft even back when new, and useful mainly against civilian airliners. The CIA provided only 1500 Stingers to the mujahadin in Afghanistan. Expenditure on this one weapon system alone was over $100 million. Frick. Libyans are walking around with diseases caused primarily by neglect and malnutrition while the government is spending huge dollars on weapons useful only to terrorists.
Huawei built the cellular infrastructure and then refused to help the TNC get the system going again in the Eastern part of the country after G chopped off coverage.
How about the GMR and the unknown effect on water resources in Africa. Better haul Brown and Root to the table for a grilling along with Thyssen Krupp, and dozens of other companies.
True: free minutes but the service level is severely compromised. Plus the high calibre AA guns poking holes in the people around you can be a bit offputting. 8-P
It's odd. I made a cute little reference to creationism, maybe a bit of a troll but I thought humorous.
The guy you are replying to automatically thinks I'm a Yank and pops off about nationalistic centrism... and really that is all he/she is doing. Pots and kettles as they say.
Thanks for your reply to him. You had me in stitches with the "asshole tea" comment.
Well, they say that learning anything new at almost any age causes neurons to grow. Chess seems like a perfectly valid tool to reach some forms of enlightenment. Better than "Creationism". Sigh.
I disagree with you across the board (pun). Seriously, chess is a great tool for both tactical and strategic thinking... it does not have to be "an end unto itself". The fact that the most famous chess people have been obviously obsessive-compulsive should neither be surprising nor an indictment of chess as a narrow path to an intellectual dead end.
Perhaps you believe that learning chess for people, not computers, is simply a process of learning a finite myriad of canned games and situations. You also seem to be believe that the difficulty of a game is only governed by the constraints or lack of constraints on how an individual game piece moves. Both beliefs are wrong.
Say that all pieces on a chess board had the move constraints removed: all move like a Knight/Queen, any direction and no blocking. Suddenly there is no game. All pieces threaten almost all other pieces all of the time. Both Kings are under check and mate at the same time. To be sure this is the trivial case but there it is.
A competent chess strategist / tactician can easily confound a memory based player without memorizing positions and sequences. Although I was hardly a chess whiz, a very good friend taught me how to win at levels beyond my knowledge by using power tactics, playing for complexity, and planning on the overconfidence of the opponent to cause him/her to commit a grave mistake. Very unnerving for a rated player to get trounced by a relative neophyte who knows how to undermine their opponent. Somewhat Machiavellian but instructive and useful in life.
In a series of games I would get smoked but in a one-off I could hold my own against the odds.
It is a curious question "why are well known chess masters also not polymaths, CEOs, and world famous research scientists". That is kind of bass-ackwards. The world's top tennis players are not the worlds top CEOs either, at least not all or even most. Just because you have a huge talent asset in one are does not mean there is the same asset depth in all areas. Really, this is just a silly question.
A better question would be "how many top scientists, polymaths, CEOs etc etc play chess and value the game"? Much more relevant and meaningful.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that seems to be a common complaint but it seems mostly with early production units. Mine has had no issue and it has been severely abused. I think the replacement speaker is quite cheap and easy to replace. Easier than the iphone which has had similar issues.
... is that the superb Motorola cell phone radios get implemented in the Google phones. I live in a rural area and although I really like both the iPhone and the Samsung android phones, I rely almost exclusively on my Motorola Defy.
The reception and voice quality is incredibly better than any other cell phone I have used (and that is a lot). I have never experienced a dropped call with it and it always connects unless there is absolutely no signal.
Sigh
LTE capability is just part of it. The direction is to get off of dedicated telephony transport systems and move to an all IP solution. LTE to the carriers is not just bandwidth and a different spectrum but also the promise of controlling future costs by getting away from systems that have to be replaced every couple years with a new technology.
Phone design becomes simpler and the telephony application is disentangled from the physical system (towers, radios, cell management, etc etc). Most people are not aware of just how much infrastructure the cell providers have gone through in the past decade.
Not feeling sorry for them as there is always a profit in there but it does help explain why your carrier may not come out with your much anticipated latest device as quickly as you like. Often there are hidden system changes that have to be invested in and implemented: all of which requires investment, resources and time.
There is a payoff from convergence for the user as well. You may not know it but that old CDMA or whatever phone may have better coverage than your GSM iphone simply because your carrier chose not to upgrade/add/replace hardware on all towers. Lots of fragmentation in the cellular coverage because of the many different "standards" that have come and gone.
IP convergence has been a religious mantra in the wireline world for a long time now but it also is hugely important in the wireless world.
Your phone becomes a pure data device where the telephone is essentially just a canned VOIP application.
Further:
I hope he has the required testing/engineering done and monitoring in place to maintain slope stability on the pit face under the excavator.
He could accelerate the bucket-and-shovel process by acquiring an RC dragline unit. This would be especially desirable if he has future work lined up in the area. eg: Neighbors' basements, latrine (outhouse) pits, etc.
. . . to bring clarity to the market no matter what the cost to them or their competitors. ($100 million for apple . . . how much did this force their competition to spend on legal fees, research etc.).
Clearly a company that has ideals and values, and is willing to stand up for them.
FUBAR
Sigh. Your comment is valid but I guess a bit trollish. As a long time Solaris/Linux/Windows admin, I fully welcome this approach. My experience is that GUIs cause more problems on the server side than they help with.
I know I'm an old curmudgeon but security, availability, and reliability go hand in hand with built-to-function, sparse servers that don't encourage people logging in without a specific purpose or task to be performed.
The GUI-less approach properly separates the GUI from the os and makes it a presentation layer instead of an integral part of the operating system.
Thank the deity for this new bit of sanity.
IMHO.
It's a gift . . . and a curse.
I believe there is some legislation brewing in Canada to keep commercial audio levels the same as programs. Muting is still the best option for that annoyance but killing the audio on your remote doesn't stop the ability to gather info.
Your stb is able to record and report every button push but that doesn't mean the service provider either wants or gathers the info. Mostly they want to know about network quality and whether or not you really did watch that adult pay per view that you are denying ever since your wife caught it on the bill.
Nonetheless, we are now bound in a tracking web by the very nature of the services we use and it isn't necessarily because there is some evil plan or because big brother wants to watch us, although these are possibilities.
It's just the way the stuff works. Dumb landline phones and 56k audio modems are pretty simple and do not require a provider control presence on the device. If you draw out a block diagram of the overall system, it is reasonable to draw a border between subscriber side and network side with the phones and modems on the subscriber side. Sub purchases and owns the device, and is responsible for everything on his/her side of the nid (the point where the phone line enters the location).
Cell phones, stbs, and dsl/cable modems are different. You may think you bought the phone and you own it but not really. Major parts of it are only licensed to you. Further, if you can still draw that border it has moved with the DSL modem or stb on the network side. The sub only owns the local network and even that is getting invaded with TR69 derivatives (service provider can configure your home network remotely).
The service providers see the home devices as part of the network because things like routers are complex and difficult to manage through conversation with the subscriber, and because the devices cause problems which are expensive to remedy. Misconfigure your home router and your IPTV may die. How is tier 1 going to fix it without rolling a truck? There is a legitimate impetus to bind your home network with the provider's control structure but it also ties the user to a sticky information web. The same system that gives the provider access to maintain your network also gives access to how you use your service.
The cell phone is murkier than your landline broadband because everything is in one device. There is no physical separation between the service provider piece and the subscriber's side; there are only information boundaries. It's OK to gather network quality info but not personal info. Not everything is that black and white though. Is it OK to gather stats on how often the settings menu is used? How about how often the "YouTube" app is invoked?
These information boundaries are only respected because of laws and organizations such as the EFF. Oh, and it just may be that no one has had the need or desire to graze on a particular set of data yet.
Sigh: even without CarrierIQ and like services, our smartphones bind us into the info/tracking web. No need for "AirMiles" cards. Every purchase a user makes is tracked forever by the App store. And that nifty app that maps provider 3G coverage also sends tidbits off to some developer geek's server without even a nod to privacy laws. Anyways, the user is in Canada and the dev is in China or Greece or Russia or where ever. Which laws apply?
Caveat emptor.
er . . . you are replying while intoxicated?
Any subscribed service with a 2-way tethered user device such as cell phones, dsl / cable boxes, and cable/dsl/digital television will have embedded information gathering and remote update/control software almost guaranteed.
Much of it is strictly for service metrics, diagnostics and predictive problem avoidance. Some of it is used as an interactive problem solving tool for tier 1 support. You might want to look at www.motive.com as an example company.
If desired though, these products usually have the capability for being very invasive. eg: TV set top boxes can record all kinds of info about your viewing habits: every button push on the remote can be recorded, effectively recording much about your viewing habits.
It's an old story: there are legitimate and desirable uses for these tools but they are all capable of misuse. Even when not abused, our access to privacy and anonymity is severely eroded from what it was even 20 years ago.
Benign? Maybe. Food for thought anyways.
I guess Oracle in their infinite wisdom have decided that a processor in a very marginal market is the reason Sun hardware sales are dying/dead, and not the fact that the Sun line is a choice between Intel (available from everyone) or Sparc (either slow and questionable performance, or power / rack space hungry ).
Considering it is actually Xeons, x86, and IBM hardware in the virtualization space that is the main market now, I don't see how this legal sidebar with HP does Oracle any benefit.
Do you mean to say:
To understand the acronym is ATRoCiOuS {
You must understand the acronym is ATRoCiOus
}
?
( with some apologies to recursion freaks, and formatting n*zis )
The RMS list is quite reasonable. He explains what he does and doesn't do and gives succinct explanations. His demands are easy to provide for.
Overall, RMS is a bit specific but nothing onerous and nothing particularly weird. Just reads to me like he has done so many talks and travelled to so many places that he has it all down pat and would prefer that whoever happens to be the host does not foist their own experience or desires onto RMS.
'nuff said
RMS has never been one to hold back his opinion and he is just saying what a lot of us have felt for a long time.
I am extremely sad that Jobs died. I would never have wished this on him.
OTOH, I am happy that his personal influence on Apple is done. Perhaps Apple will loosen up a bit on some of its product policies.
Funny guy. Can't read but funny.
This is just a non-issue.
If anything, it is a red-herring that draws attention away from the illegal and morally bankrupt behaviour of G and the gang of monsters he called family and friends. These companies sold equipment and technology within legal boundaries, practices and processes. Absolutely everything we consume today is tied to a moral issue at some degree of separation. Techno-morality cherry picking.
Haul G's ass up onto the docket for prosecution. And reserve a special cell for Hannibal G and his twisted, obscene troll of a wife. Shine the spotlight on Algeria for propping up G with weapons, supplies and mercenaries, and in the final act for providing refuge for the clan.
Go to
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031390/Aline-Skaf-Gaddafis-daughter-law-threw-boiling-water-nanny-Shweyga-Mullah.html
to see what Aline Skaf (Hannibal's wife) did to their nanny.
There is so much real, solid, evil to latch onto in this conflict, I find this story to be laughable.
I would feel different if the foreign tech companies acted directly in immoral acts. Providing a country with monitoring capability is not even close to being immoral.
If this issue turns your crank, then let's look at some other activities in Libya:
Want a techno issue? How about the hosting providers who give voice to G propaganda outlets like mathaba.net and algathafi.org? Or other sites that the regime used to communicate with terrorist orgs?
There are companies which drilled for oil to feed money into the regime. How did G get $50B / yr to keep Saif, Mutassim, Hannibal etc in their positions of power?
Bankers gave safe harbour for billions embezzled from the country's coffers.
What about the tanks and guns used by G to suppress the population? Where did they come from?
Everybody and his malamute sold them arms. Want a morally corrupt issue? Talk to the Russians about the more than 20,000 SA7s (shoulder launched surface to air) missiles they sold G. Obsolete, next to useless against military aircraft even back when new, and useful mainly against civilian airliners. The CIA provided only 1500 Stingers to the mujahadin in Afghanistan. Expenditure on this one weapon system alone was over $100 million. Frick. Libyans are walking around with diseases caused primarily by neglect and malnutrition while the government is spending huge dollars on weapons useful only to terrorists.
Huawei built the cellular infrastructure and then refused to help the TNC get the system going again in the Eastern part of the country after G chopped off coverage.
How about the GMR and the unknown effect on water resources in Africa. Better haul Brown and Root to the table for a grilling along with Thyssen Krupp, and dozens of other companies.
The list goes on and on, but so what?
True: free minutes but the service level is severely compromised. Plus the high calibre AA guns poking holes in the people around you can be a bit offputting. 8-P
It's odd. I made a cute little reference to creationism, maybe a bit of a troll but I thought humorous.
The guy you are replying to automatically thinks I'm a Yank and pops off about nationalistic centrism... and really that is all he/she is doing. Pots and kettles as they say.
Thanks for your reply to him. You had me in stitches with the "asshole tea" comment.
Ciao
Absolutely agree on this. No, absolutely no personal servers on the network.
You're lucky if all they want is a login. Give it to em or get out.
Well, they say that learning anything new at almost any age causes neurons to grow. Chess seems like a perfectly valid tool to reach some forms of enlightenment. Better than "Creationism". Sigh.
TTFN
The Armenian national anthem, how quaint.
I disagree with you across the board (pun). Seriously, chess is a great tool for both tactical and strategic thinking... it does not have to be "an end unto itself". The fact that the most famous chess people have been obviously obsessive-compulsive should neither be surprising nor an indictment of chess as a narrow path to an intellectual dead end.
Perhaps you believe that learning chess for people, not computers, is simply a process of learning a finite myriad of canned games and situations. You also seem to be believe that the difficulty of a game is only governed by the constraints or lack of constraints on how an individual game piece moves. Both beliefs are wrong.
Say that all pieces on a chess board had the move constraints removed: all move like a Knight/Queen, any direction and no blocking. Suddenly there is no game. All pieces threaten almost all other pieces all of the time. Both Kings are under check and mate at the same time. To be sure this is the trivial case but there it is.
A competent chess strategist / tactician can easily confound a memory based player without memorizing positions and sequences. Although I was hardly a chess whiz, a very good friend taught me how to win at levels beyond my knowledge by using power tactics, playing for complexity, and planning on the overconfidence of the opponent to cause him/her to commit a grave mistake. Very unnerving for a rated player to get trounced by a relative neophyte who knows how to undermine their opponent. Somewhat Machiavellian but instructive and useful in life.
In a series of games I would get smoked but in a one-off I could hold my own against the odds.
It is a curious question "why are well known chess masters also not polymaths, CEOs, and world famous research scientists". That is kind of bass-ackwards. The world's top tennis players are not the worlds top CEOs either, at least not all or even most. Just because you have a huge talent asset in one are does not mean there is the same asset depth in all areas. Really, this is just a silly question.
A better question would be "how many top scientists, polymaths, CEOs etc etc play chess and value the game"? Much more relevant and meaningful.
no... I guess I was foolish. and I was smote down as "redundant" for it. I feel much shame.