I haven't seen anything from Amazon saying you should uncheck it after installation for your own protection.
that's because if you uncheck it, amazon app store won't be able to install any amazon app store apps. amazon app store is not a privileged app. all of the apps you install via amazon app store are side loaded.
And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to check that box in settings that allows installation from untrusted sources.
checking the box in android puts up a sufficiently scary warning first. if you aren't going to read that or choose to ignore it, then you'll get what's coming to you. in the same way you will if you enter your root / admin password every time it pops up in windows / mac / linux.
they're cleaning X86's clock in the only rapidly expanding market... And ARM's next core design is aimed at servers.
it's important to qualify that. ARM uses a lot less power, but it's not more power efficient. it uses less power because it's so much less powerful.
as much as mobile mobile has been ARM's domain, servers are intel's domain. making a claim that they are "aiming at servers" is one thing, toppling the giant is quite another.
as much as i'd like to see intel have some healthy competition, in all likelihood they'll end up steamrolling ARM with their superior manufacturing technology and their deep pockets, in the long run.
yes i was being facetious. what i really meant is that we shouldn't fund other people's projects if they aren't going to guarantee access. the money is better spent on things like curiosity.
Your argument is basically that if you pay a million dollar for a glass of lemonade, you should somehow magically become co-owner of the lemonade stand. You Americans just don't grasp capitalism, do you?
no, it's like footing the bill for over 1/2 the cost of the lemons, the stand, staffing, sugar, and cups and expecting to not be denied a glass of lemonade now and then.
right, why would anyone expect a return on an investment? i think you are the one with troubles understanding capitalism. but don't let the facts get in the way of your rhetoric...
NASA does not own space. They don't even own the International Space Station (note the name). They certainly don't own Soyuz.
except, NASA did primarily pay for the ISS. it wouldn't exist if they hadn't funded it.
sure they don't own it, but something is very wrong if scientifically significant personel are bumped for a singer who will contribute *nothing* to the further the science for which the ISS was built in the first place.
you seem to forget the ISS wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the US's contributions (which are nearly 2x everyone else put together). how many russian workers benefited from jobs related to the ISS?
Maybe NASA should have planned ahead to make sure they'd have a launch vehicle to reach their expensive ISS?
that's ridiculous. if the US is contributing almost 2x the cash of all the others together it should buy them something. if they're going to be denied seats over a few million, screw the ISS... we might as well build our own space station.
being illegal and being in poor judgement are two different things. was samsung's copying of apple in poor judgement? that's what google said. is it illegal? google almost certainly did try to comment on the legality of samsung's products.
So internal documents telling Samsung what to copy, and Google itself telling Samsung "you're copying too much, stop" is simply things you disregard?
copying isn't a crime in itself. apple copied the idea of the smartphone, the touchscreen, gestures, tablet computers, portable audio devices... the list goes on.
the fact that google warned them doesn't implicate them in a crime. if i tell you not to cross the street because that man is going to rob you, and you do it anyway and get robbed, that doesn't make the robber innocent... it just means you have poor judgement / don't listen to advice.
For me, I use them for exactly the same thing. To get an idea of where somewhere I am going looks like so I'll have a better chance of knowing when I am there or if I missed something.
no 3D maps gives you anywhere close the detail you can get from street view. street view is actual high-res, omni-directional photos. 3D maps are either cartoon renderings of actual buildings or "3D-ized" versions of 2D maps.
can you read the address off the brown-colored house with the white picket fence and the the small pine tree in the front yard with 3D maps? no.
So does the iPhone, there's an app that lets you access Street View images.
right, so i have to download a 3rd party app and jump back and forth between the native maps and and the 3rd party app. sweet.
I disagree. A 3D overhead view, like both Apple and Nokia offer is a good alternative to street view. I fact I would say it's slightly better. Why would you drive down the street "looking at street view". That's what you are seeing right now while driving!
street view and 3D maps serve different purposes, and google has both.
Also, even with precached maps, Google Maps require online connectivity for navigation. Nokia ones don't - once you preload, it can search for POI, navigate etc completely offline.
that's nice, so nokia can go the way of the dedicated GPS device and become a supplier to a niche market. there are reasons why people aren't paying for dedicated GPS devices any longer. figuring the reasons for that is an exercise for the reader.
Who needs nukes when you can hurl big rocks at an enemy through a mass accelerator.
it's not really clear if you are saying this is a good or bad thing. it's good in that there's no radiation, so it damages the target and the target only (if it hits), not the rest of the world for decades. the bad thing is that fact might make it see a lot more use than nuclear weapons.
someone quoted $2.8M to train a pilot for a $190M aircraft. so yes, it's not peanuts. it's still not clear that it would add to the cost though. drones don't fly themselves today, they have operators that must be trained. the more sophisticated the drone, the more the training will cost.
It may not be 'wave after wave' - but with drones becoming 'cheaper', particularly if they were to be mass-produced - any idea how an advanced plane like the F22 will deal with a couple of dozen drones heading their way? Even if they managed to shoot down 8 or 10 - if those 8-10 drones still manage to get shots fired, they will likely cause enough problems for the advanced plane as well.
how about a cluster missile that races in and then spawns 50 mini missiles that wipe out the drones en-masse? that's of course hypothetical (AFAIK), but if i can think of a countermeasure to your "wave after wave" of drones, i'll bet the military types are all over it.
if your answer is that the drones get faster, or have better counter measures, or more maneuverable, well... now you're not talking about cheap things that can be used as cannon fodder any longer. you are talking about sophisticated, NOT mass produced, expensive aircraft. there's nothing about the fact that it's a drone that makes it cheap. it's cheap because it's slower, less maneuverable, and simpler.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't seen anything from Amazon saying you should uncheck it after installation for your own protection.
that's because if you uncheck it, amazon app store won't be able to install any amazon app store apps. amazon app store is not a privileged app. all of the apps you install via amazon app store are side loaded.
And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to check that box in settings that allows installation from untrusted sources.
checking the box in android puts up a sufficiently scary warning first. if you aren't going to read that or choose to ignore it, then you'll get what's coming to you. in the same way you will if you enter your root / admin password every time it pops up in windows / mac / linux.
they're cleaning X86's clock in the only rapidly expanding market ... And ARM's next core design is aimed at servers.
it's important to qualify that. ARM uses a lot less power, but it's not more power efficient. it uses less power because it's so much less powerful.
as much as mobile mobile has been ARM's domain, servers are intel's domain. making a claim that they are "aiming at servers" is one thing, toppling the giant is quite another.
as much as i'd like to see intel have some healthy competition, in all likelihood they'll end up steamrolling ARM with their superior manufacturing technology and their deep pockets, in the long run.
yes i was being facetious. what i really meant is that we shouldn't fund other people's projects if they aren't going to guarantee access. the money is better spent on things like curiosity.
i suspect nasa will think about it next to a "joint" project comes along where russia is involved.
i stand corrected. we just paid for it. i guess funding as much as all other contributors put together doesn't count as "building" though.
U.S.: $100 billion
Europe: $14 billion
Japan: $10 billion
Russia: Unknown (but estimated to be $40-50 billion)
Canada: $2 billion
We forgo our Mir station to focus on ISS.
and that was an act of charity? it was an economic decision. you are the second largest funder of the ISS, but still only 50% of the US.
well, i guess if US scientists can't get a seat on the way up, that wouldn't put them in any worse of a situation.
err ...
Russia: Unknown, but estimate to be in the range of $40-50 billion
Your argument is basically that if you pay a million dollar for a glass of lemonade, you should somehow magically become co-owner of the lemonade stand. You Americans just don't grasp capitalism, do you?
no, it's like footing the bill for over 1/2 the cost of the lemons, the stand, staffing, sugar, and cups and expecting to not be denied a glass of lemonade now and then.
right, why would anyone expect a return on an investment? i think you are the one with troubles understanding capitalism. but don't let the facts get in the way of your rhetoric ...
http://historical.whatitcosts.com/facts-space-station-pg2.htm
U.S.: $100 billion
Europe: $14 billion
Japan: $10 billion
Russia: Unknown, but estimate to be in the range of $40-50M
Canada: $2 billion
right, we *forced* $100M on the russians, and they *reluctantly* allowed us to cover over 1/2 the cost.
NASA does not own space. They don't even own the International Space Station (note the name). They certainly don't own Soyuz.
except, NASA did primarily pay for the ISS. it wouldn't exist if they hadn't funded it.
sure they don't own it, but something is very wrong if scientifically significant personel are bumped for a singer who will contribute *nothing* to the further the science for which the ISS was built in the first place.
you seem to forget the ISS wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the US's contributions (which are nearly 2x everyone else put together). how many russian workers benefited from jobs related to the ISS?
Maybe NASA should have planned ahead to make sure they'd have a launch vehicle to reach their expensive ISS?
that's ridiculous. if the US is contributing almost 2x the cash of all the others together it should buy them something. if they're going to be denied seats over a few million, screw the ISS ... we might as well build our own space station.
and also screw sarah brightman.
being illegal and being in poor judgement are two different things. was samsung's copying of apple in poor judgement? that's what google said. is it illegal? google almost certainly did try to comment on the legality of samsung's products.
google lets you select a rectangle to cache. it doesn't just cache the route (although it does also cache routes automatically).
So internal documents telling Samsung what to copy, and Google itself telling Samsung "you're copying too much, stop" is simply things you disregard?
copying isn't a crime in itself. apple copied the idea of the smartphone, the touchscreen, gestures, tablet computers, portable audio devices ... the list goes on.
the fact that google warned them doesn't implicate them in a crime. if i tell you not to cross the street because that man is going to rob you, and you do it anyway and get robbed, that doesn't make the robber innocent ... it just means you have poor judgement / don't listen to advice.
For me, I use them for exactly the same thing. To get an idea of where somewhere I am going looks like so I'll have a better chance of knowing when I am there or if I missed something.
no 3D maps gives you anywhere close the detail you can get from street view. street view is actual high-res, omni-directional photos. 3D maps are either cartoon renderings of actual buildings or "3D-ized" versions of 2D maps.
can you read the address off the brown-colored house with the white picket fence and the the small pine tree in the front yard with 3D maps? no.
So does the iPhone, there's an app that lets you access Street View images.
right, so i have to download a 3rd party app and jump back and forth between the native maps and and the 3rd party app. sweet.
I disagree. A 3D overhead view, like both Apple and Nokia offer is a good alternative to street view.
I fact I would say it's slightly better. Why would you drive down the street "looking at street view". That's what you are seeing right now while driving!
street view and 3D maps serve different purposes, and google has both.
Also, even with precached maps, Google Maps require online connectivity for navigation. Nokia ones don't - once you preload, it can search for POI, navigate etc completely offline.
that's nice, so nokia can go the way of the dedicated GPS device and become a supplier to a niche market. there are reasons why people aren't paying for dedicated GPS devices any longer. figuring the reasons for that is an exercise for the reader.
right, because i need the entire map of north america eating up gigabytes on my device when i'll never use it. great differentiator there.
In short, you can't even compare Nokia Maps to Google Maps; the latter is much better for looking POI, but for navigation Nokia Maps takes the cake.
nonsense indeed.
Nokia's maps are free
so are google's.
and use your GPS and naviagation offline
so does google. you can cache arbitrary map rectangles. you wouldn't use google nav though, you'd use google maps, or google tracker.
Nokia also offers turn-by-turn navigation with text-to-speech in real time,
... and so does google.
Who needs nukes when you can hurl big rocks at an enemy through a mass accelerator.
it's not really clear if you are saying this is a good or bad thing. it's good in that there's no radiation, so it damages the target and the target only (if it hits), not the rest of the world for decades. the bad thing is that fact might make it see a lot more use than nuclear weapons.
someone quoted $2.8M to train a pilot for a $190M aircraft. so yes, it's not peanuts. it's still not clear that it would add to the cost though. drones don't fly themselves today, they have operators that must be trained. the more sophisticated the drone, the more the training will cost.
It may not be 'wave after wave' - but with drones becoming 'cheaper', particularly if they were to be mass-produced - any idea how an advanced plane like the F22 will deal with a couple of dozen drones heading their way? Even if they managed to shoot down 8 or 10 - if those 8-10 drones still manage to get shots fired, they will likely cause enough problems for the advanced plane as well.
how about a cluster missile that races in and then spawns 50 mini missiles that wipe out the drones en-masse? that's of course hypothetical (AFAIK), but if i can think of a countermeasure to your "wave after wave" of drones, i'll bet the military types are all over it.
if your answer is that the drones get faster, or have better counter measures, or more maneuverable, well ... now you're not talking about cheap things that can be used as cannon fodder any longer. you are talking about sophisticated, NOT mass produced, expensive aircraft. there's nothing about the fact that it's a drone that makes it cheap. it's cheap because it's slower, less maneuverable, and simpler.