I use terminal to run commands with busybox. your phone may also have iptables, samba, vnc, ssh.. probably some others.
terminal : runs on many os's. Not a "Linux" thing. Depending on what "Terminal" you are referring to, it may not even work/compile on Linux. vnc: run on any OS - definitely not just a "Linux" thing, any more than it's a Windows thing, or Max, or Android, etc. ssh: from openssh, which is also cross platform. And there many other implementations on many other OS's. Not a "Linux" thing.
Chromebooks don't necessarily "run linux software"; they run software, some of which happen to be Linux specfiic, and they currently ship with a Linux kernel. My machine "runs Perl software", "runs Java software", "runs ELF binaries", and even "runs Win32 software" (wine). Those should all be listed somewhere in the specs that cover what comes with it, even if it's some giant list in release notes, but there's no reason they all need listed on the box.
There's a much easier answer to all of this. Windows 3.1 didn't have stickers saying "DOS Inside!". Nor did Winodws 95. None of them said "Win32 Inside" (any more than ChromeOS says it runs on a Linux kernel). Windows 2000 didn't say "NT kernel inside". Ubuntu's front page has a box that says, "What is Ubuntu?", with the answer that "...the world's favorite free operating system..." and no mention of Linux. And, surprising to me, if you click on that for more information, there's still no mention of Linux on a whole page devoted to "What is Ubuntu". Shouldn't it say, somewhere on there, "a Debian based GNU/Linux distribution"???
The easy answer - no one does this. "Intel Inside" is the exception, not the norm. And the "Intel Inside" is talking about the hardware inside the computer, just as the Windows sticker denoties what it is running as the OS. They don't need to go into every little detail. If ChromeOS were to put an "... inside" type of tag on itself, Linux is pretty low on the core technology list (as in, it could easily be replaced by Solaris, any bsd, or even Windows, and it'd still be ChromeOS).
This complaint is right in line with Stallman's "GNU/Linux", except Stallman makes a much better, more sound case. "GNU/kFreeBSD" realizes much of that case, and yet we all commonly refer to "Linux distributions" and "Ubuntu" and "Linux", when we really mean the whole kit and kaboodle.
Granted, you maybe shit canned over it, but such is life.
So basically what you're saying is... if you have money, you can ignore the law, but if you're poor (and thus can't afford to lose your job), you're forced to go along with whatever freedom-eschewing measure your local legislator is cooking up this week to screw you over?
Even better... it's a means to keep the poor very poor, because now they can justifiably fire someone based on what is found after one hands over their passwords, or justify that firing if you don't hand it over, thus there are no unemployment fees to pay.
In many states, you can be shit canned for no reason at all (aka. "at will employment"). However, if you're shit canned with no reason, you can file for unemployment, and the employer pays half of that. That often deters employers from doing so (and I've seen many cases of this)... it's more palatable to them to pay more for a warm body and get a little something out of it, than to pay half as much into unemployment. I'm currently assuming this law could be a way around that (and that's simply awful).
WRT the fair calculator showing a direct 1:1 relationship with weight, I noticed that too, and that was the most surprising aspect of it I found.
There is definitely some basic overhead per-person that has nothing to do with weight. On the low end (think 5 year old), that overhead could even be more (attention needed, assistance, etc). Seems silly not to have a base + price per pound (ex. $30 + $1/kg). I do hope the weight includes luggage weight - I can pack light enough to make up for much of my weight
Hydro is abismal, it destroys millions of acres of land with flooding and disrupts the river ecosystem. Migratory freshwater fish all around the world are rapidly facing extinction because of hydro power.
Wrong. Why do so many people keep saying this? I'll just paste in what an AC wrote above:
Um well no, you do not need a damn dam to use hydro. It may be more effective to build a dam so you can store water. But if you remember way back in the early days of electric power, you know that AC DC battle between Tesla and Edison? Yeah, well Tesla built his hydro plant at Niagara Falls without a dam. You need fast flowing water to turn the turbines. Dams create this artificially by storing water behind the dam and using gravity to turn the turbines, in essence creating a waterfall that in turn turns the turbines. The water wheal is all you need to create "Hydro" electric energy. http://www.teslasociety.com/exhibition.htm
FWIW, I haven't supported either yet (neither financially nor investing time in them, other than talking about them). That said, the little I can glean about the DUO makes it sound much less polished, and I haven't seen any guarentee of the drivers being open source (though, it appears the hardware is, or will be, open hardware, and they certainly seem more involved in open source projects).
One thing that seems quite different about the two, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is the use of strobing IR's on the LEAP ("stobing" may not be the most accurate description, but there are three IR LED's, and the alternate being on at different times, so it appears to be a technique that may be what is helping them acheve their accuracy). Meanwhile, the DUO kickstarter page says if you pledge $70 or more, you'll get the "DUO COMPONENTS KIT", which includes a case, electronics, SDK, and instructions on building the sensor... and all you need is two PS3 Eye cameras. In other words, it's using two PS3 Eye cameras, which is already a significant difference (no light filter to restrict to IR, no IR leds, etc). In addition, those things are about $22 a pop, plus the $70 for the kit, plus you have to build it yourself, or you could get a LEAP for $70.
Don't get me wrong... when the DUO ships, if it works ok, has good linux support, and doesn't cost more than twice what the LEAP goes for, I'll support them. And if the leap lacks good linux support, they won't get my money at all. I actually want one for one of it's most basic features - just a floating touch area in front of my screen. Touchscreens are actually more expensive than either of these things, and these don't involve fingerprints on the screen... but I really don't *need* a touchscreen either, so I can easily live without them. There's some other things I'd like to use one for, but they're just goofing around type things, and probably wouldn't get used much in that manor in the long run (like the 3d part of my 3d projector - doesn't get used much, but it's fun once in a great while).
"Just to clear up a tiny bit of mystery. The device does not output any form of depth-map or point cloud over USB. There is no processor on the device." and "The developer units do not have firmware with plug-and-play legacy features right now."
The latter was in regards to comments that it may behave as a basic multitouch HID device when no leap drivers are loaded (ie. could be used on an OS without proprietary drivers)... meaning that was not true, at least not in the units that are out there now. The former says there's no processor in the device, so it's not doing much. Granted, it's doing *something*, but it's not doing a whole bunch of image processing.
From what I have understood from reading Leap' employees posts in the Linux subforum, a large amount of input processing is done in drivers on the host which will therefore have to stay proprietary.
Almost right, up until the "...processing is done in drivers", which is imprecise. It's done in software. There is no reason the drivers couldn't be open. And then, also wrong at "have to stay proprietary". Should read, "...is done in software on the host which they are likely to keep as proprietary."
It may seem like a moot point, but there's a significant difference there, especially since many of the algorithms can already be commonly found in OpenCV and similar areas. They *could* just make good hardware and sell it. In addition, there is absolutely no reason why the DRIVER needs to remain closed source, ESPECIALLY since all the fancy bits are in their software (which is separate from the driver).
It's a cool little device, but it's essentially just two cameras, 3 IR LEDs that flash at various intervals, and it streams the camera frames back over USB. The driver does stuff to set the LED's going and trigger it to send video and such. The software takes the result and does the magic. I'd love it if that were open too, but it's the only bit they have any reason to keep closed (IMO).
Nobody cooks in naked cast iron. We use seasoned cast iron that has a protective layer of carbonized fat adhereing to it. I've made homemade tomato sauce in mine many times with no ill effects to either the dutch oven or the sauce.
From what I've heard, and experienced with my cast iron pans, cooking acidic stuff in them breaks down the seasoning you described. It'll be just fine if the next dish you cook is bacon or a ribeye or something fatty, but that protective layer continues to erode and be refreshed over the life of the pan. If you only cook stuff "safe" things in it (fatty stuff, or other stuff on a greesed pan), then that layer will keep being awesome.
Anyway... yes, you can cook tomato sauce in cast iron, and it'll be awesome... but don't make that the only thing you ever use it for, or that layer will get eaten away pretty quickly.
...at least with a VPN, it can be measured how much data is being sent to and recieved from the telecomuters.
As if network monitoring were impossible with an office (read: it's so much freaking easier inside the office!)
FWIW, I highly doubt the decision was made based on a single factor. This was probably just additional support and, more importantly, something that could be pointed to easily for others to blame.
I find the timing of this story rather interesting, because the History Channel's newest special miniseries Vikings...
I was about to say the same thing!
Oddly, it's the second reference from that series that I ran into today. The other is the Shield Maidens. I just hit a part in the book, "The Mongoliad: Book One" that mentions them. I had never heard of them before the series or the book. (yeah, it's not quite as coincidental timing-wise, since the book was released well before the series, but it was a surprising coincidence to me nonetheless)
I watched the youtube video by it's former owner (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nhLcmLVOb8). It's now a 3 wheeled vehicle, the gyro is gone, and the motor looks like it's different than what was shown in the scientific america pics. It's also weathered to hell and has a bunch of bolt on parts and stuff. There are some original things left, but it seems like they'd be better off just building a new one from scratch based on previous pictures.
The new rear wheels are really painful to see. Looks like a failed mad max car:-(
Perhaps (and I could be wrong here) another reason to buy this Pixel is that it's got decent hardware but isn't going to be troubled by secure-boot and things like that so you can install your own OS on it if you get tired of chrome-OS.
No. It DOES have secure boot on it. It's got a dev mode and a 3rd BIOS slot that boots an more standard bios image (I probably could have phrased that better), but you will still be troubled by secure boot, assuming you find it troubling in the first place. If you choose to use it this way, you're stuck in developer mode, which means it will take 30 seconds longer than usual to load every time you start it, because the boot sequence feels the need to take that time to remind you that you’re in Developer Mode. More info from a google dev that put Linux Mint on it: https://plus.google.com/100479847213284361344/posts/QhmBpn5GNE9
It's got *some* great hardware, but it's lacking in other areas (memory, local storage, battery life (5hr is good for a full blown laptop, but I'd like to see more from a 12.5" chromebook), physical screen size (2560x1700 makes me want it on a 15"+ screen), no USB 3.0, no eSATA, no ethernet (has wifi)). I'm sure it's perfect for some, but I'm still looking for the one.
Just keep in mind that any application that has access the files on your computer (mainly the browser cookies) can bypass the 2-factor-auth. You just need to copy the cookie to another browser and BAM! - you're logged into Google.
You are confusing various unrelated items. (or maybe you're just oversimplifying things)
Just to clarify, authentication (2-factor or single factor) is separate from session management. In addition, the application session is separate from the single sign on session.
Although google doesn't use Jasig CAS, I think it's protocol is one of the easiest ways to get a more detailed understanding of SSO: http://www.jasig.org/cas/protocol That protocol doc is actually quite readable. It differs from SAML in some respects, but it's a very similar process.
I honestly haven't tested this with google services, but I believe (and hope) that if you take a gmail session cookie, and copy it to another browser, it will only get you access to gmail (and maybe not even that, if it's doing some additional tests... you may need to bring over other information and key identifiers). I'd be curious to see this attempted (it'd be easy to try). In any case, this is unrelated to the authentication.
In addition, that session cookie is unlikely** to be present in the cookie file, since it's a session cookie (lives as long as the browser session is active) and is a secure cookie (shared and only accepted over SSL). It's still possible to get to it if your'e on the local machine, but it's not as simple as opening a file and reading it out.
** "unlikely" as in, unless you told the service to remember your session somehow, which may be the case in some situations, like on mobile devices... I'm not sure. The default on the browser won't do this though.
My point was that Microsoft can "afford" (even if it isn't done with a cash transaction) to manipulate the market in favor of a restricted boot that favors their OS. Add to this that they have done similar things in the past. Add to this that restricted boot significantly increases the difficulty / technical expertise need to install an alternate OS (including an older release of windows, which was more-or-less the GGGGP's point).
Going on the premise that: * a certain activity has a certain barrier to entry (be it technical know how, commitment to doing it, time, effort, money, etc) * there are people on both sides of that barrier, and some sit on the fence so-to-speak * restricted boot moves the barrier, making it more difficult / requiring more time / whatever
Then it is likely that: * Fewer people will be crossing that barrier.
rs1n said it well, "Perhaps users will, in the end, still be forced into Windows 8 if they lack the know-how to use alternate OSes?"
For those that were barely able to get dual booting working before on a standard BIOS, restricted/secure boot may be a big enough hurdle to dissuade them from doing so on these new machines.
That said, I think it WILL have an effect on the number of users running dual boot, and maybe even some that planned on running an alternate OS almost all the time.
Why would it impact them in that case?
Because they're the ones that aren't 100% committed to Linux or an alternate OS, and they are not only OK with running windows, but choose to do so often enough that they keep it available in dual boot. If restricted boot makes it more difficult to add linux in there as dual boot, it's very very likely to turn off at least some of those people. How many, I don't know.
I stand corrected. My definition of fold was simply wrong... sure made more sense to me that it meant to behave like folding a piece of paper (so 4 fold would be N * 2^4), and I thought that was the case for many many years, but it looks like I'm wrong, as you pointed out. Sorry.
...on a 7" display? I'd like more too, but I wouldn't call it an insult.
The threshold of acceptability is 800 the short way...
So 98% of laptops are below acceptability level. For a laptop screen, I agree. I'd extend that to say that 1920x1080 should be the minimum on anything above 14". I'm sincerely hoping that the retina displays and the new chromebook etc drag the minimum up to 1920x1080, rather than creating a dichotomy of pathetic 1366x768 and 2560x1600/1700/1800. I don't need 2560x1600 on a 10" screen, but I definitely want more than 1366x768 on a 15" screen (and 1600x900 isn't enough either).
1.2MP front facing vs 3MP rear facing + VGA (0.3MP) front facing
- Old version of Android
Android 4.1 vs Android 4.1.
- Usual HP "quality"
As opposed to usual Asus qualify (Asus makes the Nexus 7).
Lemme add one point that's very key, for myself at least: No expandable memory vs Micro SD card slot
It's a close race as is, and the HP is touted as being cheaper as well.
I won't buy a Nexus 7 without: * rear camera * micro SD * (optional) and I'd honestly like to have an IR port too
In my mind, I'm comparing this to the Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 7.0". The proposed HP compares even more favorably to that, though there are still some differences:
Samsung vs HP *both: 1024x600 TI OMAP 4430 1GHz vs ARM Dual Core Cortex-A9 1.6 GHz *both: 3MP rear facing + VGA (0.3MP) front facing *both: Android 4.1 Samsung vs HP (or who knows) *both: microSD card slot *both: 1GB ram *both: 8GB on board storage (samsung has 16gb option) IR port vs none 3 speakers vs 2 speakers (samsung retains correct stereo when rotated) $199 vs $169
I'd take a galaxy tab 2 7.0 over the nexus any day. I'm looking forward to their next 7" tablet... if they keep all the specs, and just increase screen resolution and cpu speed, I'll be a very happy camper.
Or just enough of the big ones that production and support costs for the alternatives fail to meet similar economies of scale.
and that would likely cost more than even MS pockets can stand.
Wrong. It essentially costs them zero. They just need to offer a discount on the Windows OS licenses (and/or other software/hardware/etc). Even if said discount doesn't seem to matter, it does matter in relation to the competition. It's not like we don't have evidence that this has happened in the past, and there's even a better chance of it happening now since they're not as much of a "monopoly".
Besides, MS has already insulted the Asian manufacturers, so why would they go out of their way to help MS?
Because it's what they're being paid to do. How did they insult them anyway, and when has that mattered as long as they're the ones making everything and getting paid for it?
FWIW, I don't think UEFI (actually, restricted boot, aka secure boot) changes much as far as the common users ability to install an alternate OS... most people don't care enough to learn how, even without anything in their way. There appear to be ways around it in all cases so far AFAICT. That said, I think it WILL have an effect on the number of users running dual boot, and maybe even some that planned on running an alternate OS almost all the time. Every little annoyance when not doing as you are told will make it less interesting to do otherwise; and making sure that it's still *possible*, and even providing docs to do so, will mean that people will be less likely to actively oppose it.
Imagine the number of times you might need to boot up a netbook-ish thing to check something really quick. If it takes an extra 30 seconds to boot the alternate OS, you'll probably do the path of least resistance (NOTE: this is in reference to the Chromebooks, but it's a similar issue, and all they seem to say is, "if you don't like it, don't buy it", while at the same time saying their commitment is to think of the user first, which is BS).
Wow, I have no idea what point you're trying to make. I also have no idea why everyone is stretching the meaning of what each party is saying.
The quote you provided says that Top Gear said the range of 55 miles was when drove on their track, which means drove fast and hard on that course full of hard stops and sharp bends and full accelerations. They say that Telsa representatives were the ones to give them the 55 miles number. And you know what, 55 miles on the track seems pretty accurate for any car that has an EPA rated range of about 200 miles.
That all sounds entirely accurate. How is that not reputable?
Don't get me wrong. I know Top Gear plays a lot of pranks and messes with things all the time. There are plenty of things about it that are exaggerations or push the edges of a play on words. For example, they never said it actually ran out of power... but they made a big scene of it as if it could have.
Do you honestly think the Tesla could do 200 miles on the Top Gear track driven as hard and fast as possible? I don't, and I don't think 55 miles is an extreme exaggeration given those conditions. Or is it just that you don't think people are smart enough to understand what, "... that on our track it would run out after..." means? IMO, that's the same type of categorization as Highway mileage versus City mileage.
I could have missed something, but this has NOTHING to do with phoning home, virtual machines, or any form of technical work-around.
As far as I can tell (mostly just from the summary), this is just about the EULA. So, if you agree to it, and if there's no state or federal law (or other jurisdiction) that trumps what's in there, then you are not LEGALLY allowed to put it on a different machine. IE, if you use** it, you are agreeing to their terms. If you disagree, then don't use it. Technical work-arounds don't matter in this regard.
All that said, for all I know, it probably does do some amount of phoning home. It may even disable your local copy if that fouls up or something, or make you call them. They already do that with windows after changing out enough of your hardware (I'm not sure if that's still the case, but it probably is).
**by "use", I mean the longer definition with all the "if you installed it and are the one that clicked the "I agree" button and etc etc etc other laws etc etc of age to agree to a contract etc.
Electric vehicles are still crippled by the fact that you cannot ever have an unplanned excursion of any length in one.
IMO, there will need to be significant change to expected norms (I know there's a better word for this, but I can't think of it). Everyone seems to be debating the extremes without considering doing those things differently.
For this example, unplanned excursion that's far enough away that the tesla is inconvenient, one could simply rent an ICE car for that short period of time. There are a whole lot of people who can back this up as a very workable solution (see New York City). Fully electric cars solve the daily commute problem quite well. Excellent public transit systems can do the same thing, but for that to excel it has to be in a dense city. Both result in the same scenario: lots more people that don't have cars they can take on long trips. You can buy a cheap car and keep it in storage (which, in NYC, would be exceedingly expensive), or simply rent a nice shiny late model car whenever you do need to make a long trip.
Please don't confuse the above examples. I'm not claiming electric cars would be great for everyone in NYC to own. IMO, the infrastructure wouldn't handle it well. But that has nothing to do with the point... there are lots of people without cars, and they get by just fine, with a lower impact on the environment than just about anywhere else.
Gas vehicles don't solve every problem either, but we're used to them, their issues, and their benefits. What if you had to travel 2 miles to work every day within Manhattan, and deal with parking and nothing but stop-and-go traffic? Guess what? There are very easy and readily available solutions for that already (subway, taxi, bus, or be rich and buy a spot at each end).
I'd much rather see someone do a review of the telsa as their day-to-day car. Even if you have to drive 50miles to work (and 50 miles back) every day, it *should* handle it just fine. Where's that review?
What benefit is it to mobile network operators to offer Ubuntu phones over, say, Android phones?
It's not an either or question.
What benefit is there for an end user to buy it instead of, say, an Android phone?
What benefit is there for an end user to buy a Droid Max over a Samsung SIII? This is going to come down to marketing, price, production quality, oooh shinny, etc. To most people, it's iPhone or some-other-smart-phone-made-by-company-X. To people that know much (ie. someone that knows whether Ice Cream Sandwich is newer than Jelly Bean), they'll know what this is and what its benefits/drawbacks are.
What benefit is there for an OEM (eg, Samsung, HTC, etc) to manufacture an Ubuntu phone?
It's another way to compete and grab some of the others market share on a profitable product. Every big phone maker has Android phones now, and some have Windows phones, and then there's Blackberries, then the gazillion different types of feature phones, and then dumb phones. Oh, and there's the iPhone, which only one company makes. This fits in the gamut, and could be the ticket for some company to make a comeback (maybe someone like RIM, Nokia, or maybe a new player - possibly a cell company).
It's like the game Blackberry and Microsoft are playing trying to get into a market with entrenched players. (Apple and Android) If there are apps and cool phones, users will buy. Developers will write apps if there are users. OEMs will build devices if users are going to buy. How do you get the ball rolling?
The ball is already rolling. Develop on your ubuntu desktop or ubuntu vm. No giant java stuff to install. No requirement to own a Mac or run Visual Studio (someone will tell me some other ways to do things I'm sure - whatever). Porting the big name apps won't be an issue (ex. netflix, flash, gmail, etc), and most of the must haves are there or easily built (dialer, phone book, email, sms/mms, browser).
Microsoft is trying again, but things are not looking good.
Someone took a chance on iPod when there were loads of other music players. That worked. Someone took a chance on Android when iPhone was THE smartphone. That's paying off. RIM was doing great before with their take on things. Now they're not so much. Nokia had a great run with Symbian - how did that work so well with those other players in the market? Things come and go. Just because one company tries and fails, and tries again and doesn't own the market overnight, doesn't mean someone else won't be able to pull a profit.
So given all that, WHY will Ubuntu phone be successful? For what business reason? What is the business case to OEMs, to mobile operators, to end users? What benefit does (or will) it have over existing ecosystems (iPhone, Android, etc)? Even if you can name one, is it a benefit the entrenched players cannot quickly replicate?
IMO, I think it has a chance. There's a better chance it'll not do so well. There's a really really good chance that the first version won't last forever and will eventually be replaced entirely (like every tech ever). There's plenty of reasons for entrenched players to give it a shot. They're doing their best to make it easy to put on phones, and even to cohabitate with android. If it's low cost to add, and it's a feature that could win them a little bit more market, then why wouldn't they at least try? And what if it's great?
Slashdot Mirror
I use terminal to run commands with busybox.
your phone may also have iptables, samba, vnc, ssh.. probably some others.
terminal : runs on many os's. Not a "Linux" thing. Depending on what "Terminal" you are referring to, it may not even work/compile on Linux.
vnc: run on any OS - definitely not just a "Linux" thing, any more than it's a Windows thing, or Max, or Android, etc.
ssh: from openssh, which is also cross platform. And there many other implementations on many other OS's. Not a "Linux" thing.
Chromebooks don't necessarily "run linux software"; they run software, some of which happen to be Linux specfiic, and they currently ship with a Linux kernel. My machine "runs Perl software", "runs Java software", "runs ELF binaries", and even "runs Win32 software" (wine). Those should all be listed somewhere in the specs that cover what comes with it, even if it's some giant list in release notes, but there's no reason they all need listed on the box.
There's a much easier answer to all of this.
Windows 3.1 didn't have stickers saying "DOS Inside!". Nor did Winodws 95.
None of them said "Win32 Inside" (any more than ChromeOS says it runs on a Linux kernel).
Windows 2000 didn't say "NT kernel inside".
Ubuntu's front page has a box that says, "What is Ubuntu?", with the answer that "...the world's favorite free operating system..." and no mention of Linux. And, surprising to me, if you click on that for more information, there's still no mention of Linux on a whole page devoted to "What is Ubuntu". Shouldn't it say, somewhere on there, "a Debian based GNU/Linux distribution"???
The easy answer - no one does this. "Intel Inside" is the exception, not the norm. And the "Intel Inside" is talking about the hardware inside the computer, just as the Windows sticker denoties what it is running as the OS. They don't need to go into every little detail. If ChromeOS were to put an "... inside" type of tag on itself, Linux is pretty low on the core technology list (as in, it could easily be replaced by Solaris, any bsd, or even Windows, and it'd still be ChromeOS).
This complaint is right in line with Stallman's "GNU/Linux", except Stallman makes a much better, more sound case. "GNU/kFreeBSD" realizes much of that case, and yet we all commonly refer to "Linux distributions" and "Ubuntu" and "Linux", when we really mean the whole kit and kaboodle.
This article is a troll :-)
Granted, you maybe shit canned over it, but such is life.
So basically what you're saying is... if you have money, you can ignore the law, but if you're poor (and thus can't afford to lose your job), you're forced to go along with whatever freedom-eschewing measure your local legislator is cooking up this week to screw you over?
Even better... it's a means to keep the poor very poor, because now they can justifiably fire someone based on what is found after one hands over their passwords, or justify that firing if you don't hand it over, thus there are no unemployment fees to pay.
In many states, you can be shit canned for no reason at all (aka. "at will employment"). However, if you're shit canned with no reason, you can file for unemployment, and the employer pays half of that. That often deters employers from doing so (and I've seen many cases of this)... it's more palatable to them to pay more for a warm body and get a little something out of it, than to pay half as much into unemployment. I'm currently assuming this law could be a way around that (and that's simply awful).
WRT the fair calculator showing a direct 1:1 relationship with weight, I noticed that too, and that was the most surprising aspect of it I found.
There is definitely some basic overhead per-person that has nothing to do with weight. On the low end (think 5 year old), that overhead could even be more (attention needed, assistance, etc). Seems silly not to have a base + price per pound (ex. $30 + $1/kg). I do hope the weight includes luggage weight - I can pack light enough to make up for much of my weight
Hydro is abismal, it destroys millions of acres of land with flooding and disrupts the river ecosystem. Migratory freshwater fish all around the world are rapidly facing extinction because of hydro power.
Wrong. Why do so many people keep saying this? I'll just paste in what an AC wrote above:
Um well no, you do not need a damn dam to use hydro. It may be more effective to build a dam so you can store water. But if you remember way back in the early days of electric power, you know that AC DC battle between Tesla and Edison? Yeah, well Tesla built his hydro plant at Niagara Falls without a dam. You need fast flowing water to turn the turbines. Dams create this artificially by storing water behind the dam and using gravity to turn the turbines, in essence creating a waterfall that in turn turns the turbines. The water wheal is all you need to create "Hydro" electric energy.
http://www.teslasociety.com/exhibition.htm
Right... so why not support the DUO instead...
FWIW, I haven't supported either yet (neither financially nor investing time in them, other than talking about them).
That said, the little I can glean about the DUO makes it sound much less polished, and I haven't seen any guarentee of the drivers being open source (though, it appears the hardware is, or will be, open hardware, and they certainly seem more involved in open source projects).
One thing that seems quite different about the two, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is the use of strobing IR's on the LEAP ("stobing" may not be the most accurate description, but there are three IR LED's, and the alternate being on at different times, so it appears to be a technique that may be what is helping them acheve their accuracy). Meanwhile, the DUO kickstarter page says if you pledge $70 or more, you'll get the "DUO COMPONENTS KIT", which includes a case, electronics, SDK, and instructions on building the sensor... and all you need is two PS3 Eye cameras. In other words, it's using two PS3 Eye cameras, which is already a significant difference (no light filter to restrict to IR, no IR leds, etc). In addition, those things are about $22 a pop, plus the $70 for the kit, plus you have to build it yourself, or you could get a LEAP for $70.
Don't get me wrong... when the DUO ships, if it works ok, has good linux support, and doesn't cost more than twice what the LEAP goes for, I'll support them. And if the leap lacks good linux support, they won't get my money at all. I actually want one for one of it's most basic features - just a floating touch area in front of my screen. Touchscreens are actually more expensive than either of these things, and these don't involve fingerprints on the screen... but I really don't *need* a touchscreen either, so I can easily live without them. There's some other things I'd like to use one for, but they're just goofing around type things, and probably wouldn't get used much in that manor in the long run (like the 3d part of my 3d projector - doesn't get used much, but it's fun once in a great while).
"... ESPECIALLY since all the fancy bits are in their software..."
Not really. An awful lot of processing is done in hardware and firmware. There is no way software could handle the load of data otherwise.
Here's two comments from leapmotion forums from the Co-Founder & CTO:
https://forums.leapmotion.com/showthread.php?1091-Started-Linux-Hacking-Effort&p=7032&viewfull=1#post7032
https://forums.leapmotion.com/showthread.php?1091-Started-Linux-Hacking-Effort&p=6968&viewfull=1#post6968
"Just to clear up a tiny bit of mystery. The device does not output any form of depth-map or point cloud over USB. There is no processor on the device."
and
"The developer units do not have firmware with plug-and-play legacy features right now."
The latter was in regards to comments that it may behave as a basic multitouch HID device when no leap drivers are loaded (ie. could be used on an OS without proprietary drivers)... meaning that was not true, at least not in the units that are out there now.
The former says there's no processor in the device, so it's not doing much. Granted, it's doing *something*, but it's not doing a whole bunch of image processing.
From what I have understood from reading Leap' employees posts in the Linux subforum, a large amount of input processing is done in drivers on the host which will therefore have to stay proprietary.
Almost right, up until the "...processing is done in drivers", which is imprecise. It's done in software. There is no reason the drivers couldn't be open.
And then, also wrong at "have to stay proprietary". Should read, "...is done in software on the host which they are likely to keep as proprietary."
It may seem like a moot point, but there's a significant difference there, especially since many of the algorithms can already be commonly found in OpenCV and similar areas. They *could* just make good hardware and sell it. In addition, there is absolutely no reason why the DRIVER needs to remain closed source, ESPECIALLY since all the fancy bits are in their software (which is separate from the driver).
It's a cool little device, but it's essentially just two cameras, 3 IR LEDs that flash at various intervals, and it streams the camera frames back over USB. The driver does stuff to set the LED's going and trigger it to send video and such. The software takes the result and does the magic. I'd love it if that were open too, but it's the only bit they have any reason to keep closed (IMO).
Nobody cooks in naked cast iron. We use seasoned cast iron that has a protective layer of carbonized fat adhereing to it. I've made homemade tomato sauce in mine many times with no ill effects to either the dutch oven or the sauce.
From what I've heard, and experienced with my cast iron pans, cooking acidic stuff in them breaks down the seasoning you described. It'll be just fine if the next dish you cook is bacon or a ribeye or something fatty, but that protective layer continues to erode and be refreshed over the life of the pan. If you only cook stuff "safe" things in it (fatty stuff, or other stuff on a greesed pan), then that layer will keep being awesome.
Anyway... yes, you can cook tomato sauce in cast iron, and it'll be awesome... but don't make that the only thing you ever use it for, or that layer will get eaten away pretty quickly.
Not to argue either side, but...
...at least with a VPN, it can be measured how much data is being sent to and recieved from the telecomuters.
As if network monitoring were impossible with an office (read: it's so much freaking easier inside the office!)
FWIW, I highly doubt the decision was made based on a single factor. This was probably just additional support and, more importantly, something that could be pointed to easily for others to blame.
I find the timing of this story rather interesting, because the History Channel's newest special miniseries Vikings...
I was about to say the same thing!
Oddly, it's the second reference from that series that I ran into today. The other is the Shield Maidens. I just hit a part in the book, "The Mongoliad: Book One" that mentions them. I had never heard of them before the series or the book. (yeah, it's not quite as coincidental timing-wise, since the book was released well before the series, but it was a surprising coincidence to me nonetheless)
I watched the youtube video by it's former owner (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nhLcmLVOb8).
It's now a 3 wheeled vehicle, the gyro is gone, and the motor looks like it's different than what was shown in the scientific america pics. It's also weathered to hell and has a bunch of bolt on parts and stuff. There are some original things left, but it seems like they'd be better off just building a new one from scratch based on previous pictures.
The new rear wheels are really painful to see. Looks like a failed mad max car :-(
Perhaps (and I could be wrong here) another reason to buy this Pixel is that it's got decent hardware but isn't going to be troubled by secure-boot and things like that so you can install your own OS on it if you get tired of chrome-OS.
No. It DOES have secure boot on it. It's got a dev mode and a 3rd BIOS slot that boots an more standard bios image (I probably could have phrased that better), but you will still be troubled by secure boot, assuming you find it troubling in the first place. If you choose to use it this way, you're stuck in developer mode, which means it will take 30 seconds longer than usual to load every time you start it, because the boot sequence feels the need to take that time to remind you that you’re in Developer Mode. More info from a google dev that put Linux Mint on it: https://plus.google.com/100479847213284361344/posts/QhmBpn5GNE9
It's got *some* great hardware, but it's lacking in other areas (memory, local storage, battery life (5hr is good for a full blown laptop, but I'd like to see more from a 12.5" chromebook), physical screen size (2560x1700 makes me want it on a 15"+ screen), no USB 3.0, no eSATA, no ethernet (has wifi)). I'm sure it's perfect for some, but I'm still looking for the one.
Just keep in mind that any application that has access the files on your computer (mainly the browser cookies) can bypass the 2-factor-auth. You just need to copy the cookie to another browser and BAM! - you're logged into Google.
You are confusing various unrelated items. (or maybe you're just oversimplifying things)
Just to clarify, authentication (2-factor or single factor) is separate from session management.
In addition, the application session is separate from the single sign on session.
Although google doesn't use Jasig CAS, I think it's protocol is one of the easiest ways to get a more detailed understanding of SSO: http://www.jasig.org/cas/protocol
That protocol doc is actually quite readable. It differs from SAML in some respects, but it's a very similar process.
I honestly haven't tested this with google services, but I believe (and hope) that if you take a gmail session cookie, and copy it to another browser, it will only get you access to gmail (and maybe not even that, if it's doing some additional tests... you may need to bring over other information and key identifiers). I'd be curious to see this attempted (it'd be easy to try). In any case, this is unrelated to the authentication.
In addition, that session cookie is unlikely** to be present in the cookie file, since it's a session cookie (lives as long as the browser session is active) and is a secure cookie (shared and only accepted over SSL). It's still possible to get to it if your'e on the local machine, but it's not as simple as opening a file and reading it out.
** "unlikely" as in, unless you told the service to remember your session somehow, which may be the case in some situations, like on mobile devices... I'm not sure. The default on the browser won't do this though.
So? What point are you trying to make?
My point was that Microsoft can "afford" (even if it isn't done with a cash transaction) to manipulate the market in favor of a restricted boot that favors their OS. Add to this that they have done similar things in the past. Add to this that restricted boot significantly increases the difficulty / technical expertise need to install an alternate OS (including an older release of windows, which was more-or-less the GGGGP's point).
Going on the premise that:
* a certain activity has a certain barrier to entry (be it technical know how, commitment to doing it, time, effort, money, etc)
* there are people on both sides of that barrier, and some sit on the fence so-to-speak
* restricted boot moves the barrier, making it more difficult / requiring more time / whatever
Then it is likely that:
* Fewer people will be crossing that barrier.
rs1n said it well, "Perhaps users will, in the end, still be forced into Windows 8 if they lack the know-how to use alternate OSes?"
For those that were barely able to get dual booting working before on a standard BIOS, restricted/secure boot may be a big enough hurdle to dissuade them from doing so on these new machines.
That said, I think it WILL have an effect on the number of users running dual boot, and maybe even some that planned on running an alternate OS almost all the time.
Why would it impact them in that case?
Because they're the ones that aren't 100% committed to Linux or an alternate OS, and they are not only OK with running windows, but choose to do so often enough that they keep it available in dual boot. If restricted boot makes it more difficult to add linux in there as dual boot, it's very very likely to turn off at least some of those people. How many, I don't know.
I stand corrected.
My definition of fold was simply wrong... sure made more sense to me that it meant to behave like folding a piece of paper (so 4 fold would be N * 2^4), and I thought that was the case for many many years, but it looks like I'm wrong, as you pointed out. Sorry.
1024x600 is an absolute insult.
...on a 7" display? I'd like more too, but I wouldn't call it an insult.
The threshold of acceptability is 800 the short way...
So 98% of laptops are below acceptability level. For a laptop screen, I agree. I'd extend that to say that 1920x1080 should be the minimum on anything above 14". I'm sincerely hoping that the retina displays and the new chromebook etc drag the minimum up to 1920x1080, rather than creating a dichotomy of pathetic 1366x768 and 2560x1600/1700/1800. I don't need 2560x1600 on a 10" screen, but I definitely want more than 1366x768 on a 15" screen (and 1600x900 isn't enough either).
My thoughts exactly. Compare it to the Nexus 7:
- Shit screen
1280x800 vs 1024x600
- Shit CPU
NVIDIA Tegra 3 vs ARM Dual Core Cortex-A9 1.6 GHz
- Shit camera
1.2MP front facing vs 3MP rear facing + VGA (0.3MP) front facing
- Old version of Android
Android 4.1 vs Android 4.1.
- Usual HP "quality"
As opposed to usual Asus qualify (Asus makes the Nexus 7).
Lemme add one point that's very key, for myself at least:
No expandable memory vs Micro SD card slot
It's a close race as is, and the HP is touted as being cheaper as well.
I won't buy a Nexus 7 without:
* rear camera
* micro SD
* (optional) and I'd honestly like to have an IR port too
In my mind, I'm comparing this to the Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 7.0". The proposed HP compares even more favorably to that, though there are still some differences:
Samsung vs HP
*both: 1024x600
TI OMAP 4430 1GHz vs ARM Dual Core Cortex-A9 1.6 GHz
*both: 3MP rear facing + VGA (0.3MP) front facing
*both: Android 4.1
Samsung vs HP (or who knows)
*both: microSD card slot
*both: 1GB ram
*both: 8GB on board storage (samsung has 16gb option)
IR port vs none
3 speakers vs 2 speakers (samsung retains correct stereo when rotated)
$199 vs $169
I'd take a galaxy tab 2 7.0 over the nexus any day. I'm looking forward to their next 7" tablet... if they keep all the specs, and just increase screen resolution and cpu speed, I'll be a very happy camper.
It would only work by bribing all the vendors...
Or just enough of the big ones that production and support costs for the alternatives fail to meet similar economies of scale.
and that would likely cost more than even MS pockets can stand.
Wrong. It essentially costs them zero. They just need to offer a discount on the Windows OS licenses (and/or other software/hardware/etc). Even if said discount doesn't seem to matter, it does matter in relation to the competition. It's not like we don't have evidence that this has happened in the past, and there's even a better chance of it happening now since they're not as much of a "monopoly".
Besides, MS has already insulted the Asian manufacturers, so why would they go out of their way to help MS?
Because it's what they're being paid to do. How did they insult them anyway, and when has that mattered as long as they're the ones making everything and getting paid for it?
FWIW, I don't think UEFI (actually, restricted boot, aka secure boot) changes much as far as the common users ability to install an alternate OS... most people don't care enough to learn how, even without anything in their way. There appear to be ways around it in all cases so far AFAICT. That said, I think it WILL have an effect on the number of users running dual boot, and maybe even some that planned on running an alternate OS almost all the time. Every little annoyance when not doing as you are told will make it less interesting to do otherwise; and making sure that it's still *possible*, and even providing docs to do so, will mean that people will be less likely to actively oppose it.
Imagine the number of times you might need to boot up a netbook-ish thing to check something really quick. If it takes an extra 30 seconds to boot the alternate OS, you'll probably do the path of least resistance (NOTE: this is in reference to the Chromebooks, but it's a similar issue, and all they seem to say is, "if you don't like it, don't buy it", while at the same time saying their commitment is to think of the user first, which is BS).
My Galaxy nexus speedtests at 1,380 kb/s in 3G CDMA mode.
same phone, same spot, speedtests 22,100 kb/s in 4G LTE mode.
that's a 16fold improvement. What the hell more do you want between generations? hell even ethernet only increases 10fold between generations.
Wrong.
That's an improvement of 16 times, or 4 fold. Ethernet increases 10 times between generations, or just over 3 fold.
1380 * 16 = 22080 ...or...
1380 * 2 = 2760
2760 * 2 = 5520
5520 * 2 = 11040
11040 * 2 = 22080
= 4 fold
Wow, I have no idea what point you're trying to make. I also have no idea why everyone is stretching the meaning of what each party is saying.
The quote you provided says that Top Gear said the range of 55 miles was when drove on their track, which means drove fast and hard on that course full of hard stops and sharp bends and full accelerations. They say that Telsa representatives were the ones to give them the 55 miles number. And you know what, 55 miles on the track seems pretty accurate for any car that has an EPA rated range of about 200 miles.
That all sounds entirely accurate. How is that not reputable?
Don't get me wrong. I know Top Gear plays a lot of pranks and messes with things all the time. There are plenty of things about it that are exaggerations or push the edges of a play on words. For example, they never said it actually ran out of power... but they made a big scene of it as if it could have.
Do you honestly think the Tesla could do 200 miles on the Top Gear track driven as hard and fast as possible? I don't, and I don't think 55 miles is an extreme exaggeration given those conditions. Or is it just that you don't think people are smart enough to understand what, "... that on our track it would run out after ..." means? IMO, that's the same type of categorization as Highway mileage versus City mileage.
I could have missed something, but this has NOTHING to do with phoning home, virtual machines, or any form of technical work-around.
As far as I can tell (mostly just from the summary), this is just about the EULA. So, if you agree to it, and if there's no state or federal law (or other jurisdiction) that trumps what's in there, then you are not LEGALLY allowed to put it on a different machine. IE, if you use** it, you are agreeing to their terms. If you disagree, then don't use it. Technical work-arounds don't matter in this regard.
All that said, for all I know, it probably does do some amount of phoning home. It may even disable your local copy if that fouls up or something, or make you call them. They already do that with windows after changing out enough of your hardware (I'm not sure if that's still the case, but it probably is).
**by "use", I mean the longer definition with all the "if you installed it and are the one that clicked the "I agree" button and etc etc etc other laws etc etc of age to agree to a contract etc.
Electric vehicles are still crippled by the fact that you cannot ever have an unplanned excursion of any length in one.
IMO, there will need to be significant change to expected norms (I know there's a better word for this, but I can't think of it). Everyone seems to be debating the extremes without considering doing those things differently.
For this example, unplanned excursion that's far enough away that the tesla is inconvenient, one could simply rent an ICE car for that short period of time. There are a whole lot of people who can back this up as a very workable solution (see New York City). Fully electric cars solve the daily commute problem quite well. Excellent public transit systems can do the same thing, but for that to excel it has to be in a dense city. Both result in the same scenario: lots more people that don't have cars they can take on long trips. You can buy a cheap car and keep it in storage (which, in NYC, would be exceedingly expensive), or simply rent a nice shiny late model car whenever you do need to make a long trip.
Please don't confuse the above examples. I'm not claiming electric cars would be great for everyone in NYC to own. IMO, the infrastructure wouldn't handle it well. But that has nothing to do with the point... there are lots of people without cars, and they get by just fine, with a lower impact on the environment than just about anywhere else.
Gas vehicles don't solve every problem either, but we're used to them, their issues, and their benefits. What if you had to travel 2 miles to work every day within Manhattan, and deal with parking and nothing but stop-and-go traffic? Guess what? There are very easy and readily available solutions for that already (subway, taxi, bus, or be rich and buy a spot at each end).
I'd much rather see someone do a review of the telsa as their day-to-day car. Even if you have to drive 50miles to work (and 50 miles back) every day, it *should* handle it just fine. Where's that review?
What benefit is it to mobile network operators to offer Ubuntu phones over, say, Android phones?
It's not an either or question.
What benefit is there for an end user to buy it instead of, say, an Android phone?
What benefit is there for an end user to buy a Droid Max over a Samsung SIII? This is going to come down to marketing, price, production quality, oooh shinny, etc. To most people, it's iPhone or some-other-smart-phone-made-by-company-X. To people that know much (ie. someone that knows whether Ice Cream Sandwich is newer than Jelly Bean), they'll know what this is and what its benefits/drawbacks are.
What benefit is there for an OEM (eg, Samsung, HTC, etc) to manufacture an Ubuntu phone?
It's another way to compete and grab some of the others market share on a profitable product. Every big phone maker has Android phones now, and some have Windows phones, and then there's Blackberries, then the gazillion different types of feature phones, and then dumb phones. Oh, and there's the iPhone, which only one company makes. This fits in the gamut, and could be the ticket for some company to make a comeback (maybe someone like RIM, Nokia, or maybe a new player - possibly a cell company).
It's like the game Blackberry and Microsoft are playing trying to get into a market with entrenched players. (Apple and Android) If there are apps and cool phones, users will buy. Developers will write apps if there are users. OEMs will build devices if users are going to buy. How do you get the ball rolling?
The ball is already rolling. Develop on your ubuntu desktop or ubuntu vm. No giant java stuff to install. No requirement to own a Mac or run Visual Studio (someone will tell me some other ways to do things I'm sure - whatever).
Porting the big name apps won't be an issue (ex. netflix, flash, gmail, etc), and most of the must haves are there or easily built (dialer, phone book, email, sms/mms, browser).
Microsoft is trying again, but things are not looking good.
Someone took a chance on iPod when there were loads of other music players. That worked.
Someone took a chance on Android when iPhone was THE smartphone. That's paying off.
RIM was doing great before with their take on things. Now they're not so much.
Nokia had a great run with Symbian - how did that work so well with those other players in the market?
Things come and go. Just because one company tries and fails, and tries again and doesn't own the market overnight, doesn't mean someone else won't be able to pull a profit.
So given all that, WHY will Ubuntu phone be successful? For what business reason? What is the business case to OEMs, to mobile operators, to end users? What benefit does (or will) it have over existing ecosystems (iPhone, Android, etc)? Even if you can name one, is it a benefit the entrenched players cannot quickly replicate?
IMO, I think it has a chance. There's a better chance it'll not do so well. There's a really really good chance that the first version won't last forever and will eventually be replaced entirely (like every tech ever). There's plenty of reasons for entrenched players to give it a shot. They're doing their best to make it easy to put on phones, and even to cohabitate with android. If it's low cost to add, and it's a feature that could win them a little bit more market, then why wouldn't they at least try? And what if it's great?