In fact, he says, Linux people tend to see genuine critical evaluation as a bad thing.
Idiots != critical evaluation. The problem is, idiots tend not to understand the difference. And that's the problem, being an idiot is not the same thing as critical constructive criticism.
I've never known a time when Linux isn't being critically evaluated; be it Fortune 500 or uber smart hackers. There are few facets of Linux which are not critically evaluated on a daily basis. Just the same, just because someone provides constructive criticism doesn't mean 1) everyone will agree with it and, 2) even if everyone does agree with you it doesn't mean it will be fixed/changed/addressed tomorrow.
Exactly right. There are several popular sites hoping to help here with alternative markets. SlideMe is likely the closest alternative. But if you check you'll find there is something like a half dozen alternatives available and even then authors are completely free to host/push/provide applications from their own websites.
You're right, it is pretty close. The difference is, for dev phones, jail breaking is not required as the phone comes with root access and a bootloader designed to easily load alternative firmwares. For the generally available G1 phones, it is exactly the same as jail breaking.
Its still easily done. If you have a rooted phone or a dev phone, you can simply run one of the many alternative firmwares where you can install copy-protected apps.
For someone who's sig attempts to claim you understand what trolling means, you seem completely lost when it comes to its definition. That's pretty funny.
Unless the Russian's hogging the toilet, or somehow the Russian's excrement is more damaging,
You've become unreasonably focused on toilets and have completely lost sight of the entire point. Every additional person up there places additional demands on very finite, very expensive resources. Bringing people up who contribute nothing to the mission of ISS, and in fact use it as a wedge to the explicit objections of the largest contributors is wrong, expensive, and certainly not co-operative. It is entirely contrary to the spirit of the ISS. To then have the balls to complain about the situation which is entirely of their own creation is dumbfoundingly stupid and arrogant; classic Russian politics.
When did sharing a toilet on the ISS equal prison rape??? You've lost the plot.
Actually, once again you lost sight and failed to follow along. The point is, according to you, not enjoying your rape means your uncooperative. Yes it is a ridiculous extreme but it does a wonderful job of highlighting the silliness of your position. Your position is, those that are uncooperatively abused or taken advantage of are wrong to object - which is plainly silly. Which reminds me...I'll be over this weekend to use your toilet and eat your food and use your gas; that is, while I'm using your car. I'm sure you won't mind.
Or they can simply download the application from the author's website since Android is open. Unlike with the iPhone, you are free to install applications from any number of sources which include both third party websites and your own computer via USB cable.
Don't forget, Android Market is a defacto application repository provided by Google to, in theory, multiple carriers. As such, Google must maintain a relationship with carriers for Android to continue to grow as rapidly as it has. Thusly it is reasonable to assume Google needs to acquiesce to carrier demands on the Android Market. Google exercising their rights intelligently does not limit a user's ability to install third party applications. Rather, it only limits a user's ability to install third party applications from the Android Market.
If people were not so caught up in the locked-in mentality which is associated with the iPhone's limitations this story wouldn't even be news worthy. But, since people are so used to a single application source with such restricted rights on the iPhone, no one stops to consider if stories like these should be framed the same way for Android. Simply put, it is incorrect to frame the story as you might an iPhone story - its simply a different world.
Right, but that's how things work. The FAA will never certify some random collection of electronics because that's not what they do. Not to mention, those same electronics will be meaningless in a year or two. Certifying a plane with some random collection of completely unrelated electronics is the same as certifying the electronics. The FAA only cares are electronics required for proper, safe, operation of an aircraft. That's all they can certify. And keep in mind, while the FAA is creating the certificate, it is the manufacturer who is actually conducting and paying for the tests - some of which is under FAA supervision.
You are also wrong about the FCC [fcc.gov].
Actually, I'm not. The only reason the FCC has that is because the carriers lobbied to get that passed - because of excess load created by its use. The FCC couldn't give a rats ass about the issue if it were not for the carriers complaining and lobbying about excess use.
Only so long as it remains in the bladder and the person does not have a bladder infection or is dehydrated. There is a huge difference between sterile urine in the bladder and it remaining so as it exits the body. The later is far more unlikely even assuming the urine in question is sterile in the bladder.
So you've spent in the 2 or 3 digit BILLIONs on something designed to foster international cooperation, and you're worried about a few tens or hundreds of thousands for some extra wear and tear on a toilet?
Actually, last I heard the toilet cost in excess of a million bucks. And, you expect NASA to risk their funding should the population at large get wind of NASA dollars being used to directly subsidize playboys in space? There are larger, more important politics involved than you seem willing to acknowledge.
foster international cooperation
Takes at least two to "cooperate"; to which the Russians decided it takes only one and then started complaining about it. Getting raped in jail isn't most people's definition of "cooperation".
Yeah comments like this don't exactly fill me with hope for the future when it comes to understanding and international cooperation.
Then is speaks rather poorly of you. I'm not directly involved in any way. Accordingly I'm entitled to openly and bluntly speak my mind. I have no need to tip-toe around the politics here. Since you're unable to make the distinction, it in fact, speaks father poorly of you.
Pretty scary stuff as the pictures described contain more clothing (a braw, which typically covers more than a bikini, and long pant pajama bottoms) as would otherwise be present at a lake or beach outing. If allowed to stand, anyone who has ever taken a picture while at the beach or lake is likely a child pornographer in the eyes of this idiot prosecutor. According to this idiot, the majority of the world is a child pornographer.
It would be nice if this guy were to be beat over the head with wrongful and malicious prosecutions.
You mean after we already help pay to keep their program active in the first place? You mean after we already pay for the rides we receive? Now we have to pay a third time too? Nice...
Don't forget the US is already subsidizing the Russian space program because of national defence concerns. Now we have to pay twice for their participation?
Will, if you want to pull that out, let's not forget the US is basically footing a huge part of the entire Russian space program to prevent their Russian rocket scientists from otherwise being employed by hostile nations wishing to develope their own ICBM programs.
It's safe to say my "free ride" comment is accurate. The charity they receive more than makes up for the rides the US has received. In the least, its a break even - especially since the US normally has to kick in additional dollars to pay for the rides too.
The A/C did a good job of rebuffing your response. The simple fact is, if you're mad about the lack of collaboration, it starts and stops with Russia. It takes at least two to collaborate and Russia has made it clear they want a free ride. Now the Russians are complaining that NASA doesn't want to give them a free ride, over NASA's explicit objections.
This is classic Russian politics; what you can't steal, manipulate so as to force the other side to capitulate; allowing them to get their free ride.
If as a taxpayer you feel ripped off, you can thank Russia for failing, as usual, to uphold their side of things. Until such a time where Russia does the right thing, NASA is taking the only reasoned and responsible position they can.
I will also point out I've gotten interference from an ipod on my passenger's headset through the com panel. In other words, an RF device is not required to generate interference though unshielded cables. But interference through the com panel does not mean navigational interference.
Heck, you're more likely to create interference of your whiskey compass by bringing in metallic objects, than you are to any other navigational aid. Should pocket knives be illegal too?
There is a huge difference between interference on your headset, which typically has wires running inches within your phone, and placing an electronic device on your antenna.
Yes, yes, harmonic interference is possible and all that, but simply put, your example does not in any way establish the point.
I don't recall the FAA ever saying that electronic devices WILL cause a crash, only that the planes have not been certified with the devices.
The FAA does not certify any equipment which is not permanently installed or required for flight. Period. Meaning, your statement doesn't really make sense. Its actually not even clear the FAA has authority to regulate cell phones on planes in the first place. Its very, very, very likely the FAA has no such authority.
the FCC is more concerned
Actually, the FCC is not concerned at all. All of the equipment in question is certified to meet FCC standards and requirements. From the FCC's position, its a non-starter. Now then, from the carrier's position, its an issue as phones in planes place a heavier burden on limited resources because of the line of sight rule which applies to the frequencies in question. A plane at altitude has virtually unlimited line of sight which is certainly not true for phones in use on the ground. As such, a phone in the air has the potential to "talk" to many, many additional towers over and above the generally more limited view of three, maybe four at max on the ground.
Its actually not what it sounds like. Russia has been making money with space tourists and the US does not want to fund the extra wear and tear forced on the sparse resources.
Should US tax dollars really be used to allow for billionaires to play around in space? No. The simple fact is, it is VERY expensive to repair/replace anything in space and Russia is increasing the wear on various components by bringing additional people aboard who provide no benefit what-so-ever. In a very reasonable and appropriate response, the US' position is, if the Russians want to place additional burdens on sparse resources, they need to do so only on their own resources. Contrary to the idiocy of the article, its a very reasonable position to hold. If Russia wants their complaint to be heard, all they have to do is start being reasonable and responsible. Until such time, they can STFU and burden their own resources. If they don't like it, they can start acting responsibly.
That was a VOR they used. Mythbuster's test was completely invalid. All pilots/engineers who watched that test were banging their head on their remotes with frustration. Also, at the end of the show even the Mythbusters mention their errors were brought to their attention and point out their test may not have been accurate because their VOR WAS BROKEN IN THE FIRST PLACE.
The simple fact is, hundreds, if not thousands of planes fly every day with cell phones turned on. The truth of the matter is, cell phones in flight place a higher demand on a carrier's network. This has always been a political issue and has never been a safety issue.
Lastly, AFAIK, there has never been been a substantiated claim a cell phone interfered with the safe operation of a plane in flight. Furthermore, all of the reports which received significant news coverage were later determined to have absolutely nothing to do with passenger electronic devices.
I specifically said, "NASA". Bluntly, few organizations can ever hope to obtain the quality achieved by NASA for their software development used in extra-planet missions.
Simple fact is, Apple's policy here is dumbfounding as they are demanding developers exceed a standard to which Apple it self can not currently meet - not even close. To call it hypocrisy is an understatement.
That's why it is entertainment and not science/research. First and foremost it is entertainment. In spite of themselves, sometimes they do actually pull off some science - but by in large, its just fun, geek, entertainment.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, he says, Linux people tend to see genuine critical evaluation as a bad thing.
Idiots != critical evaluation. The problem is, idiots tend not to understand the difference. And that's the problem, being an idiot is not the same thing as critical constructive criticism.
I've never known a time when Linux isn't being critically evaluated; be it Fortune 500 or uber smart hackers. There are few facets of Linux which are not critically evaluated on a daily basis. Just the same, just because someone provides constructive criticism doesn't mean 1) everyone will agree with it and, 2) even if everyone does agree with you it doesn't mean it will be fixed/changed/addressed tomorrow.
Why jump to conclusions just because it's Microsoft?
You're new here, huh?
Exactly right. There are several popular sites hoping to help here with alternative markets. SlideMe is likely the closest alternative. But if you check you'll find there is something like a half dozen alternatives available and even then authors are completely free to host/push/provide applications from their own websites.
Options galore for sure.
You're right, it is pretty close. The difference is, for dev phones, jail breaking is not required as the phone comes with root access and a bootloader designed to easily load alternative firmwares. For the generally available G1 phones, it is exactly the same as jail breaking.
Its still easily done. If you have a rooted phone or a dev phone, you can simply run one of the many alternative firmwares where you can install copy-protected apps.
Are you trying to troll
For someone who's sig attempts to claim you understand what trolling means, you seem completely lost when it comes to its definition. That's pretty funny.
Unless the Russian's hogging the toilet, or somehow the Russian's excrement is more damaging,
You've become unreasonably focused on toilets and have completely lost sight of the entire point. Every additional person up there places additional demands on very finite, very expensive resources. Bringing people up who contribute nothing to the mission of ISS, and in fact use it as a wedge to the explicit objections of the largest contributors is wrong, expensive, and certainly not co-operative. It is entirely contrary to the spirit of the ISS. To then have the balls to complain about the situation which is entirely of their own creation is dumbfoundingly stupid and arrogant; classic Russian politics.
When did sharing a toilet on the ISS equal prison rape??? You've lost the plot.
Actually, once again you lost sight and failed to follow along. The point is, according to you, not enjoying your rape means your uncooperative. Yes it is a ridiculous extreme but it does a wonderful job of highlighting the silliness of your position. Your position is, those that are uncooperatively abused or taken advantage of are wrong to object - which is plainly silly. Which reminds me...I'll be over this weekend to use your toilet and eat your food and use your gas; that is, while I'm using your car. I'm sure you won't mind.
People will jailbreak, people will fork android
Or they can simply download the application from the author's website since Android is open. Unlike with the iPhone, you are free to install applications from any number of sources which include both third party websites and your own computer via USB cable.
Don't forget, Android Market is a defacto application repository provided by Google to, in theory, multiple carriers. As such, Google must maintain a relationship with carriers for Android to continue to grow as rapidly as it has. Thusly it is reasonable to assume Google needs to acquiesce to carrier demands on the Android Market. Google exercising their rights intelligently does not limit a user's ability to install third party applications. Rather, it only limits a user's ability to install third party applications from the Android Market.
If people were not so caught up in the locked-in mentality which is associated with the iPhone's limitations this story wouldn't even be news worthy. But, since people are so used to a single application source with such restricted rights on the iPhone, no one stops to consider if stories like these should be framed the same way for Android. Simply put, it is incorrect to frame the story as you might an iPhone story - its simply a different world.
I did not say the FAA certified the devices.
Right, but that's how things work. The FAA will never certify some random collection of electronics because that's not what they do. Not to mention, those same electronics will be meaningless in a year or two. Certifying a plane with some random collection of completely unrelated electronics is the same as certifying the electronics. The FAA only cares are electronics required for proper, safe, operation of an aircraft. That's all they can certify. And keep in mind, while the FAA is creating the certificate, it is the manufacturer who is actually conducting and paying for the tests - some of which is under FAA supervision.
You are also wrong about the FCC [fcc.gov].
Actually, I'm not. The only reason the FCC has that is because the carriers lobbied to get that passed - because of excess load created by its use. The FCC couldn't give a rats ass about the issue if it were not for the carriers complaining and lobbying about excess use.
Urine is sterile
Only so long as it remains in the bladder and the person does not have a bladder infection or is dehydrated. There is a huge difference between sterile urine in the bladder and it remaining so as it exits the body. The later is far more unlikely even assuming the urine in question is sterile in the bladder.
So you've spent in the 2 or 3 digit BILLIONs on something designed to foster international cooperation, and you're worried about a few tens or hundreds of thousands for some extra wear and tear on a toilet?
Actually, last I heard the toilet cost in excess of a million bucks. And, you expect NASA to risk their funding should the population at large get wind of NASA dollars being used to directly subsidize playboys in space? There are larger, more important politics involved than you seem willing to acknowledge.
foster international cooperation
Takes at least two to "cooperate"; to which the Russians decided it takes only one and then started complaining about it. Getting raped in jail isn't most people's definition of "cooperation".
Yeah comments like this don't exactly fill me with hope for the future when it comes to understanding and international cooperation.
Then is speaks rather poorly of you. I'm not directly involved in any way. Accordingly I'm entitled to openly and bluntly speak my mind. I have no need to tip-toe around the politics here. Since you're unable to make the distinction, it in fact, speaks father poorly of you.
Pretty scary stuff as the pictures described contain more clothing (a braw, which typically covers more than a bikini, and long pant pajama bottoms) as would otherwise be present at a lake or beach outing. If allowed to stand, anyone who has ever taken a picture while at the beach or lake is likely a child pornographer in the eyes of this idiot prosecutor. According to this idiot, the majority of the world is a child pornographer.
It would be nice if this guy were to be beat over the head with wrongful and malicious prosecutions.
Perhaps you've heard of the Columbia Shuttle accident? There goes that theory.
Re-read what I said. There is nothing silly about it, aside from the article which casts a rather silly light on the facts surrounding the situation.
You mean after we already help pay to keep their program active in the first place? You mean after we already pay for the rides we receive? Now we have to pay a third time too? Nice...
Don't forget the US is already subsidizing the Russian space program because of national defence concerns. Now we have to pay twice for their participation?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1182149&cid=27406159
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1182149&cid=27406159
Will, if you want to pull that out, let's not forget the US is basically footing a huge part of the entire Russian space program to prevent their Russian rocket scientists from otherwise being employed by hostile nations wishing to develope their own ICBM programs.
It's safe to say my "free ride" comment is accurate. The charity they receive more than makes up for the rides the US has received. In the least, its a break even - especially since the US normally has to kick in additional dollars to pay for the rides too.
The A/C did a good job of rebuffing your response. The simple fact is, if you're mad about the lack of collaboration, it starts and stops with Russia. It takes at least two to collaborate and Russia has made it clear they want a free ride. Now the Russians are complaining that NASA doesn't want to give them a free ride, over NASA's explicit objections.
This is classic Russian politics; what you can't steal, manipulate so as to force the other side to capitulate; allowing them to get their free ride.
If as a taxpayer you feel ripped off, you can thank Russia for failing, as usual, to uphold their side of things. Until such a time where Russia does the right thing, NASA is taking the only reasoned and responsible position they can.
I will also point out I've gotten interference from an ipod on my passenger's headset through the com panel. In other words, an RF device is not required to generate interference though unshielded cables. But interference through the com panel does not mean navigational interference.
Heck, you're more likely to create interference of your whiskey compass by bringing in metallic objects, than you are to any other navigational aid. Should pocket knives be illegal too?
There is a huge difference between interference on your headset, which typically has wires running inches within your phone, and placing an electronic device on your antenna.
Yes, yes, harmonic interference is possible and all that, but simply put, your example does not in any way establish the point.
I don't recall the FAA ever saying that electronic devices WILL cause a crash, only that the planes have not been certified with the devices.
The FAA does not certify any equipment which is not permanently installed or required for flight. Period. Meaning, your statement doesn't really make sense. Its actually not even clear the FAA has authority to regulate cell phones on planes in the first place. Its very, very, very likely the FAA has no such authority.
the FCC is more concerned
Actually, the FCC is not concerned at all. All of the equipment in question is certified to meet FCC standards and requirements. From the FCC's position, its a non-starter. Now then, from the carrier's position, its an issue as phones in planes place a heavier burden on limited resources because of the line of sight rule which applies to the frequencies in question. A plane at altitude has virtually unlimited line of sight which is certainly not true for phones in use on the ground. As such, a phone in the air has the potential to "talk" to many, many additional towers over and above the generally more limited view of three, maybe four at max on the ground.
Its actually not what it sounds like. Russia has been making money with space tourists and the US does not want to fund the extra wear and tear forced on the sparse resources.
Should US tax dollars really be used to allow for billionaires to play around in space? No. The simple fact is, it is VERY expensive to repair/replace anything in space and Russia is increasing the wear on various components by bringing additional people aboard who provide no benefit what-so-ever. In a very reasonable and appropriate response, the US' position is, if the Russians want to place additional burdens on sparse resources, they need to do so only on their own resources. Contrary to the idiocy of the article, its a very reasonable position to hold. If Russia wants their complaint to be heard, all they have to do is start being reasonable and responsible. Until such time, they can STFU and burden their own resources. If they don't like it, they can start acting responsibly.
That was a VOR they used. Mythbuster's test was completely invalid. All pilots/engineers who watched that test were banging their head on their remotes with frustration. Also, at the end of the show even the Mythbusters mention their errors were brought to their attention and point out their test may not have been accurate because their VOR WAS BROKEN IN THE FIRST PLACE.
The simple fact is, hundreds, if not thousands of planes fly every day with cell phones turned on. The truth of the matter is, cell phones in flight place a higher demand on a carrier's network. This has always been a political issue and has never been a safety issue.
Lastly, AFAIK, there has never been been a substantiated claim a cell phone interfered with the safe operation of a plane in flight. Furthermore, all of the reports which received significant news coverage were later determined to have absolutely nothing to do with passenger electronic devices.
I specifically said, "NASA". Bluntly, few organizations can ever hope to obtain the quality achieved by NASA for their software development used in extra-planet missions.
Simple fact is, Apple's policy here is dumbfounding as they are demanding developers exceed a standard to which Apple it self can not currently meet - not even close. To call it hypocrisy is an understatement.
Which makes it sound a bit more reasonable.
How is holding developers to a standard above what is required of NASA, "more reasonable"?
That's why it is entertainment and not science/research. First and foremost it is entertainment. In spite of themselves, sometimes they do actually pull off some science - but by in large, its just fun, geek, entertainment.