No language is popular because of the features. Languages are attributes of platforms, people write for platforms. Even platforms that support multiple languages, like iOS and the WinRT, have a "favorite" language where the documentation is most focused, and people will write for whichever language is the most documented.
You, the users, are paying it all back with more than enough profit.
They don't charge less to people who bring their own phones, thus the cost of the phone is completely incident upon them. Because the price of the service is inelastic with regard to the supply (it's the same wether they supply you with a phone or not), they're the ones that incur all the deadweight loss.
Mr. Verizon and Mr. Sprint think it's better, certainly for them, and since they're paying for 60% of your phone....
Also Mr. HTC and Mr. Samsung would probably stop selling Android phones if they didn't have the liberty to skin them, how are they supposed to make their phones look "better" than their competitors on the shelf at the AT&T store?
Doing what you want != doing it dirt simple. Congratulations, you own your own "damn" cellphone, so you can run any ARM instruction you want.
Oh, what, running the bare hardware is actually useless to you? You're actually dependent on a loose confederation of a thousand programmers working in their free time around the world, who never guarantee anything will ever work, in order to turn your hardware into something useful to you?
You should get over the whole "it's my hardware" thing. Computer hardware by itself is useless and inert, particularly when 99.999% of the time you're just running someone else's instructions. Is someone really in a position to claim that when they run Linux (or Windows, or OS X) "you" are running what "you" want? Isn't that claiming a lot of other people's work for yourself?
Politics is no place for nuclear weapons policy!:)
(I mean like, you're right, but you're expressing an opprobrium that is totally unjustified. Some dudes say nukes aren't a problem, some dudes do, some dudes sell bomb shelters and iodine tablets, some dudes draw pictures of clocks. Nuclear power is intensively political, and the BAS doesn't really make any pretensions to scientific proof. That's why they're "concerned" in the first place.)
Some operations on an iPad are not HIPAA compliant, such as regular email. However, other things like iMessages and FaceTime calls are as well as any number of 3rd party iPad apps.
Michael Dell is usually right about that kind of thing. That's not because I'm any kind of fangirl, or because I used to work for him, just that he's historically been pretty good at predicting market trends.
Michael Dell got ahead of this one: direct-marketing PCs works as a business model, and commoditization makes PC hardware mainly a supply chain management business. That was in 1984 and he rode this insight to victory!
Aside from that, it's been mostly misses, he's been cursed ever since he gave his free advice to Steve Jobs in 1997. He might occasionally prognosticate but he doesn't put his money where his mouth is. Dell completely misread media players and mobile, and its market share and profit margin off PCs has been in decline for years. It has not service or cloud strategy, no content strategy, no real brick and mortar retail, something hardware manufacturers have been getting into over the past decade. It's a mess, it's like they're still in 1997 and have their sights dead-set on Packard Bell.
sabotaging android and all the search revenue it brings in now, and all the potential search revenue, to try and scrape some inconsequential profits from motorola hardware would be completely silly.
That's the challenge, they have to figure out how much "potential" search revenue is worth versus "realized" hardware sales.
The problem if you're a Motorola competitor is you are now competing with Google, and anything short of Motorola closing up shop is going to be read, correctly, as an ambiguous signal from Google about their commitment to a level playing field on the platform. Are they running Motorola to make the best phones? Integrate Android with Motorola for unfair, though legal, advantage? Is there a "Chinese wall" between the Android developers and the Motorola people, to preserve the appearance of a level playing field -- like what Nokia tried and failed to do with Symbian?
These issues are completely unresolved. And it may not matter, MOTO issued an earnings warning this morning and GOOG is paying, they might just let Moto's phone business collapse in order to preserve the appearance of an open platform. But if you're a GOOG shareholder, you have to look at the price they paid for motorola and think they're nuts to have paid all that money just for IP, IP that probably wouldn't effectively defend them from lawsuits anyways.
Just because Google thinks they can dictate anyone and tell them what to do with impunity.
Well they did write the thing. This is Slashdot, where an open source developer is something more and less than a saint, to be quoted reverently, loved as a brother, feared as a tyrant, and accorded all the perquisites of an 18th level mage. Everybody knows that a copyright license is a holy compact, reifying Lockean rights and Benedictine virtue, and none shall interfere with the licensor's prerogatives (unless the licensor is rich, "doesn't give back to the community," or creates something that isn't source code, that is).
You jest, but if Slashdot wanted to shut me up they'd be completely in their rights. I have no right to have anything I post appear here, moderation or no.
I think if people did more standing on soapboxes and spent less energy fighting for the hypothetical rights of someone to reproduce five minutes from The Daily Show on Youtube we'd certainly live in a better world.
Remember, laws are not enforced those who bought the laws.
If you accept that, then free expression on the Internet is the least of your concerns.
See, I don't really care if Disney silences poor, destitute Crimson Tide Bittorrent peers. I just don't care about defending the Internet as a medium of free expression; it was never meant to be and it shall never be.
That's the thing about SOPA, you don't go to the government to shut down a site. You can already go to the FTC or a court to take down a site, or just write a letter to the owner of the host.
Not to necessarily defend SOPA, though I'm completely happy with it, but you have to admit that any regime that makes copyrights more enforceable will have the effect of making the GPL stronger and more defendable. For people releasing BSD or otherwise it's a wash.
SOPA could also be used to take down closed-source uses of GPL'd software-- both instances are legitimate applications. The problem is the copyright claim, not the enforcement.
A problem here could be in the remedy, according to TFA the court may simply find that the database in question isn't copyrightable, as it's merely facts. That's a win for the fork, but it's a fail if you're release GPL software and commercial software vendors decide they want to copy static resources out of your distribution insofar as they can claim that they're "mere facts."
Thank goodness, I hadn't realized that Samsung failing to upgrade the Galaxy S to ICS, and all Android vendor's and carrier's systematic failure to offer good support of anything, is actually part of an Apple marketing campaign.
Fortunately, you offer the solution. All I have to do is stopping using the word "fragmentation," and start calling all vendor mistakes "diversity," and, my mind being thus made right, I will understand that bad support is actually a good thing.
Yeah, real languages don't do that, or they at least give you a way of avoiding that; Ruby doesn't compulsorily load post data into a hash, you can always handle a post body yourself and POST request handling is provided by a library, not bolted into the language and invoked automagically.
A more simple solution would be to simply go through submitted POST keys and filter out unexpected or illegitimate keys -- the application made the form, so it should know exactly what it should be getting back. If you load the key strings into a vector or an array, filter it, and THEN create a map/hash/whatever, you should be safe.
I admit this is an eye-opening vuln. I'd never thought twice about using tainted strings as hash keys.
Hopefully not too many people depend on hashCode() always returning the same value for identical objects between runs. Fixing this vulnerability, the way TFA recommends, would necessarily break this expectation. I see in the documentation they word the contract in such a way that people should be scared off from doing it this way, but you never know:)
David Ulevitch, founder of OpenDNS, had a more likely hypothesis, which is that Google is protecting itself from increased antitrust scrutiny.
Are you sure that gets them off the hook? It keeps their market share of the web browser segment under control, but if there was ever any evidence that Firefox coordinated its revenue deal with Google, or that Firefox offered its search box as a private-label product to Google, that would be sufficiently illegal at this point, given Google's utter command of the search referral market segment.
The problem with the current arrangement is that Firefox is really only an independent organization in name only; while Google may not own it, it decides its bottom line. This goes quite a bit beyond MS propping up Apple in the good old days: at least back then Apple actually made money from physical products it actually sold. Apple wasn't a pass-thru affiliate for Windows, deriving it's total operating income from them, year over year.
I don't think antitrust regulators are doing much with anybody right now. Google just didn't want to lose eyeballs to Bing.
Of course they do, they want you to buy a new phone every two years so you'll sign a new contract to get the subsidized price, thereby guaranteeing their profitability for a further two years each iteration.
They want to keep you from churning to the competitor, but their ideal scenario would have you using the same handset for as many months as physically possible. They handsets are expensive, because, as you say, they subsidize them at no cost to the subscriber. OS upgrades are approximately as bad for carriers, because they require as much development and support effort as a whole new handset SKU, but unlike a new phone, an upgrade doesn't cause subscribers to sign a new contract.
I'd like to point out that we're not the ones who are telling CNN to keep our caucuses in the 24/7 news cycle.
You guys could just move your caucuses to March if you're so desperate to get out of the limelight. You have only your state parties to blame, not CNN or dirty coastal elites.
And yet, while the rest of the country is arguing about gay marriage, Iowa is actually doing it, having decided that it is required by our State constitution.
And then a buncha pricks from Dubuque recalled half your supreme court, so now every social conservative in the US thinks it's practical and desirable to fire judges they disagree with. Wonderful outcome!
NB. It's impossible to get good sushi anywhere in the midwest, the fish just doesn't keep. And you can get amazing Ethiopian food in Minneapolis, due to the large Somali immigrant community. That's not a "flyover country" issue and if you think people are being pretentious asking for it you've clearly never had good injera. Check your small town elitism at the door, please.
Slashdot Mirror
No language is popular because of the features. Languages are attributes of platforms, people write for platforms. Even platforms that support multiple languages, like iOS and the WinRT, have a "favorite" language where the documentation is most focused, and people will write for whichever language is the most documented.
Thrill me
At least you're not bonch. Yeessh.
You, the users, are paying it all back with more than enough profit.
They don't charge less to people who bring their own phones, thus the cost of the phone is completely incident upon them. Because the price of the service is inelastic with regard to the supply (it's the same wether they supply you with a phone or not), they're the ones that incur all the deadweight loss.
Mr. Verizon and Mr. Sprint think it's better, certainly for them, and since they're paying for 60% of your phone....
Also Mr. HTC and Mr. Samsung would probably stop selling Android phones if they didn't have the liberty to skin them, how are they supposed to make their phones look "better" than their competitors on the shelf at the AT&T store?
Doing what you want != doing it dirt simple. Congratulations, you own your own "damn" cellphone, so you can run any ARM instruction you want.
Oh, what, running the bare hardware is actually useless to you? You're actually dependent on a loose confederation of a thousand programmers working in their free time around the world, who never guarantee anything will ever work, in order to turn your hardware into something useful to you?
You should get over the whole "it's my hardware" thing. Computer hardware by itself is useless and inert, particularly when 99.999% of the time you're just running someone else's instructions. Is someone really in a position to claim that when they run Linux (or Windows, or OS X) "you" are running what "you" want? Isn't that claiming a lot of other people's work for yourself?
Politics is no place for nuclear weapons policy! :)
(I mean like, you're right, but you're expressing an opprobrium that is totally unjustified. Some dudes say nukes aren't a problem, some dudes do, some dudes sell bomb shelters and iodine tablets, some dudes draw pictures of clocks. Nuclear power is intensively political, and the BAS doesn't really make any pretensions to scientific proof. That's why they're "concerned" in the first place.)
Some operations on an iPad are not HIPAA compliant, such as regular email. However, other things like iMessages and FaceTime calls are as well as any number of 3rd party iPad apps.
Michael Dell is usually right about that kind of thing. That's not because I'm any kind of fangirl, or because I used to work for him, just that he's historically been pretty good at predicting market trends.
Michael Dell got ahead of this one: direct-marketing PCs works as a business model, and commoditization makes PC hardware mainly a supply chain management business. That was in 1984 and he rode this insight to victory!
Aside from that, it's been mostly misses, he's been cursed ever since he gave his free advice to Steve Jobs in 1997. He might occasionally prognosticate but he doesn't put his money where his mouth is. Dell completely misread media players and mobile, and its market share and profit margin off PCs has been in decline for years. It has not service or cloud strategy, no content strategy, no real brick and mortar retail, something hardware manufacturers have been getting into over the past decade. It's a mess, it's like they're still in 1997 and have their sights dead-set on Packard Bell.
sabotaging android and all the search revenue it brings in now, and all the potential search revenue, to try and scrape some inconsequential profits from motorola hardware would be completely silly.
That's the challenge, they have to figure out how much "potential" search revenue is worth versus "realized" hardware sales.
The problem if you're a Motorola competitor is you are now competing with Google, and anything short of Motorola closing up shop is going to be read, correctly, as an ambiguous signal from Google about their commitment to a level playing field on the platform. Are they running Motorola to make the best phones? Integrate Android with Motorola for unfair, though legal, advantage? Is there a "Chinese wall" between the Android developers and the Motorola people, to preserve the appearance of a level playing field -- like what Nokia tried and failed to do with Symbian?
These issues are completely unresolved. And it may not matter, MOTO issued an earnings warning this morning and GOOG is paying, they might just let Moto's phone business collapse in order to preserve the appearance of an open platform. But if you're a GOOG shareholder, you have to look at the price they paid for motorola and think they're nuts to have paid all that money just for IP, IP that probably wouldn't effectively defend them from lawsuits anyways.
Just because Google thinks they can dictate anyone and tell them what to do with impunity.
Well they did write the thing. This is Slashdot, where an open source developer is something more and less than a saint, to be quoted reverently, loved as a brother, feared as a tyrant, and accorded all the perquisites of an 18th level mage. Everybody knows that a copyright license is a holy compact, reifying Lockean rights and Benedictine virtue, and none shall interfere with the licensor's prerogatives (unless the licensor is rich, "doesn't give back to the community," or creates something that isn't source code, that is).
Oh shut up already
You jest, but if Slashdot wanted to shut me up they'd be completely in their rights. I have no right to have anything I post appear here, moderation or no.
I think if people did more standing on soapboxes and spent less energy fighting for the hypothetical rights of someone to reproduce five minutes from The Daily Show on Youtube we'd certainly live in a better world.
You're not entitled to due process of law on the Internet. Your rights on the Internet are approximately those of a visitor at a theme park.
Remember, laws are not enforced those who bought the laws.
If you accept that, then free expression on the Internet is the least of your concerns.
See, I don't really care if Disney silences poor, destitute Crimson Tide Bittorrent peers. I just don't care about defending the Internet as a medium of free expression; it was never meant to be and it shall never be.
That's the thing about SOPA, you don't go to the government to shut down a site. You can already go to the FTC or a court to take down a site, or just write a letter to the owner of the host.
Not to necessarily defend SOPA, though I'm completely happy with it, but you have to admit that any regime that makes copyrights more enforceable will have the effect of making the GPL stronger and more defendable. For people releasing BSD or otherwise it's a wash.
SOPA could also be used to take down closed-source uses of GPL'd software-- both instances are legitimate applications. The problem is the copyright claim, not the enforcement.
A problem here could be in the remedy, according to TFA the court may simply find that the database in question isn't copyrightable, as it's merely facts. That's a win for the fork, but it's a fail if you're release GPL software and commercial software vendors decide they want to copy static resources out of your distribution insofar as they can claim that they're "mere facts."
Thank goodness, I hadn't realized that Samsung failing to upgrade the Galaxy S to ICS, and all Android vendor's and carrier's systematic failure to offer good support of anything, is actually part of an Apple marketing campaign.
Fortunately, you offer the solution. All I have to do is stopping using the word "fragmentation," and start calling all vendor mistakes "diversity," and, my mind being thus made right, I will understand that bad support is actually a good thing.
Yeah, real languages don't do that, or they at least give you a way of avoiding that; Ruby doesn't compulsorily load post data into a hash, you can always handle a post body yourself and POST request handling is provided by a library, not bolted into the language and invoked automagically.
He's not right but it's relatively easy to find collisions in the fast hashing algorithms that platforms use, like adler or CRC32.
A more simple solution would be to simply go through submitted POST keys and filter out unexpected or illegitimate keys -- the application made the form, so it should know exactly what it should be getting back. If you load the key strings into a vector or an array, filter it, and THEN create a map/hash/whatever, you should be safe.
I admit this is an eye-opening vuln. I'd never thought twice about using tainted strings as hash keys.
Hopefully not too many people depend on hashCode() always returning the same value for identical objects between runs. Fixing this vulnerability, the way TFA recommends, would necessarily break this expectation. I see in the documentation they word the contract in such a way that people should be scared off from doing it this way, but you never know :)
David Ulevitch, founder of OpenDNS, had a more likely hypothesis, which is that Google is protecting itself from increased antitrust scrutiny.
Are you sure that gets them off the hook? It keeps their market share of the web browser segment under control, but if there was ever any evidence that Firefox coordinated its revenue deal with Google, or that Firefox offered its search box as a private-label product to Google, that would be sufficiently illegal at this point, given Google's utter command of the search referral market segment.
The problem with the current arrangement is that Firefox is really only an independent organization in name only; while Google may not own it, it decides its bottom line. This goes quite a bit beyond MS propping up Apple in the good old days: at least back then Apple actually made money from physical products it actually sold. Apple wasn't a pass-thru affiliate for Windows, deriving it's total operating income from them, year over year.
I don't think antitrust regulators are doing much with anybody right now. Google just didn't want to lose eyeballs to Bing.
Of course they do, they want you to buy a new phone every two years so you'll sign a new contract to get the subsidized price, thereby guaranteeing their profitability for a further two years each iteration.
They want to keep you from churning to the competitor, but their ideal scenario would have you using the same handset for as many months as physically possible. They handsets are expensive, because, as you say, they subsidize them at no cost to the subscriber. OS upgrades are approximately as bad for carriers, because they require as much development and support effort as a whole new handset SKU, but unlike a new phone, an upgrade doesn't cause subscribers to sign a new contract.
I'd like to point out that we're not the ones who are telling CNN to keep our caucuses in the 24/7 news cycle.
You guys could just move your caucuses to March if you're so desperate to get out of the limelight. You have only your state parties to blame, not CNN or dirty coastal elites.
And yet, while the rest of the country is arguing about gay marriage, Iowa is actually doing it, having decided that it is required by our State constitution.
And then a buncha pricks from Dubuque recalled half your supreme court, so now every social conservative in the US thinks it's practical and desirable to fire judges they disagree with. Wonderful outcome!
NB. It's impossible to get good sushi anywhere in the midwest, the fish just doesn't keep. And you can get amazing Ethiopian food in Minneapolis, due to the large Somali immigrant community. That's not a "flyover country" issue and if you think people are being pretentious asking for it you've clearly never had good injera. Check your small town elitism at the door, please.
I've been to Decorah, he speaks the truth :)