I won’t name names or give examples because I’m not an asshole. But also because I don’t have to. I’d wager everyone reading this will have clear and obvious examples of what I’m talking about in their own circles—even if only in their own virtual circles. This is everywhere.
Hey, those people over there, they are out of touch. I won't say how, but you know what I mean. If you don't, make up something in your head. Then think it, and imagine that's what I'm talking about.
This article is a big fat troll. Zero substance or data. Just hopping on the "Facebook bad!" bandwagon, but too lazy to discuss why.
No carriers are involved. Who the hell are the partners they're waiting on?
Qualcomm? Or could be anyone that produces drivers for the hardware they use.
It's quite common to get a very short support lifecycle for drivers with consumer hardware. It's possible Moto used old components in that device for which there are no drivers that support the newer version of Android.
On Android the patch date is just a string the manufacturer sets. They can set it to anything they want. Google releases quarterly patches, so the date is supposed to correspond to the release date of those patch sets.
As to what it means, the implication is that you are "up to date" with the patches as of your listed patch date.
Well don't keep us in suspense, link it. Hope we have the source as well otherwise we are right back to knowing squat.
The idea that they wrote code to test all of the issues fixed in patches is rather outlandish. Most the issues end up being hypothetical exploits that have *never* been executed in the lab let alone in the wild.
If you actually want to influence the thinking of others, it's definitely your problem. By the way, I hear Trump eats babies. It's true. If you didn't bother to read about it, that's your problem. See how that works?
As for the rest of your post, I don't know who you are talking to. I never argued for (or against) regulation.
Millions of Android devices are still vulnerable to the Broadcom hack
My $849 Pixel 2 isn't. Sorry about your phone, but two phones in two completely different price points will have differing long term support. Who'd have thunk it.
Even Google stopped supporting their Pixel phones, when almost their only selling point was getting proper updates.
Google guarantees 3 years of updates (OS updates, not just patches) on the Pixel 2, and the Pixel 1 is guaranteed 3 years of patches (but I think only 2 years of OS updates): https://www.theverge.com/circu...
One of the huge problems with Android is it is now so fragmented, and every vendor has filled it with their own custom shit and they've done god knows what to the core of it.
You get what you pay for.
And one of the huge benefits of Android is that you aren't locked into one manufacturer. This is why you can get Android devices with SD card slots, dual SIMs, dual screens, touch sensitive sides, built in projectors, big screens, small screens, etc. If you don't want any of that, by all means buy Apple.
Heck, you can even by an Android phone that gets the most up to date software and patches. All you have to do is pay for it. It costs about as much as an iPhone... surprised?
manufacturers need to say to no to carriers roms or let us load the manufacturers rom with no knox trips.
If you are a struggling Android device maker (as are they all), that is not even close to an option. If you say no there are 100 other manufacturers waiting to get their phones approved on the carriers' network.
The question is how they know the devices are missing the patch. Did the test all of the problems covered in the patch, on 1,200 different devices? Seems unlikely.
Because of vendor specific code changes, patches don't always apply cleanly and need changes, or the issue may have been fixed by the vendor in a different way, or even not relevant to the vendor's dist.
Slick Willie put the draft dodging thing to rest decades ago.
Sorry, "what about..." doesn't work here. We're just judging people on who they are, not who someone else was. Two wrongs don't make a right. I learned that when I was 4.
LOL bankruptcies happen all the time in business and they're nothing to be ashamed of.
Bankruptcy = screwing your investors out of a shit-ton of money. Now, if that's done with America, who exactly gets screwed?
Making profit for megacorps needs to come to an end.
Then maybe you should have voted for someone that didn't pass a tax bill that is universally understood to benefit corporations over individuals. You are either retarded, or a bought and paid for troll if you think you voted for someone that is going to reign in megacorps. Not sure wish option I prefer.
NATO benefits the US in a large way. Having a global military is what allows US corporations to profit, by doing things like propping up friendly dictators in areas where we need the natural resources, or need to maintain trade routes, or where they can oppose our adversaries. We're not children. Do you think the US has military bases all over the world, in the name of truth and justice for all? Of course not. It's for profit.
The Middle East is the most obvious example. We get out of Iraq. We stop supporting Israel. Friendly oil nations are overrun with fundamentalists. America is held hostage by oil prices. Our economy tanks. It happened in the 70s it can happen again.
There's also the thinking that maintaining some amount of stability with small conflicts is better than world war. The US was hands off of europe prior to WW1. Then WW2. We know what happened there. Ever since then we've maintained a presence in europe.
Whether we should continue down the road of a globally dominant military is a question, but just make sure you are deciding based on facts and the advice of people like economists and military generals. Trump is a failed business person, http://www.businessinsider.com...
Check the link. It discusses trafficking of underage girls on the internet.
Last I looked, you buy things on the internet by clicking a button.
Right, so because people involved with human trafficking use the internet (like most of humanity), it therefore follows that in the USA, you can but a 12 year old girl with the click of a button.
Why should America subsidize the defense of wealthy First World countries?
NATO provides a HUGE military advantage to the US for any conflict with either Russian or China. The US's missiles, tanks, bombers, drones, etc are hundreds of miles from the target, vs. thousands for Russia / China (except maybe Alaska). The US is paying for the privilege of that advantage. Maybe you remember a little thing called the Cuban Missile Crisis where the USSR came within a hair's breadth of nuclear war with the US just to try and level the tables in this regard.
I get it, you are trying to make it sound like NATO is a charity mission between the US and all others involved. That's simply not the case.
You seriously don't think human trafficking is a thing, eh?
I didn't say that. I was questioning YOUR claim:
After all, the Founding Fathers could never had imagined that a 12 year old girl could be purchased anywhere on the continent with the click of a button.
Please, post links where one can purchase a 12 year old girl with the click of a button. In the USA (I assume that's what you mean by anywhere on the continent, and referring to the founding fathers).
You mean by actually getting more of NATO to kick in $$ to the pot?
That's one way to look at it. Another is that NATO countries are allowing the US to stage weapons and troops on their soil... knowing that they will be first strike targets, not the US. Now let's get them to pay for the privilege.
Mozilla has an advantage over those companies: it is open sourced. Not only that, it is FREE software.
Being free means they get a lot of PITA nerds yelling at them about losing support for some 5 year old extensions, and zero revenue for their headache.
Google begins to prioritize its own services over those of start-up competitor Foundem.com in search results.
No shit? In 2006 Google didn't actively prop up its competitors? Gee thanks that's some shocking info. In other news, Target doesn't provide free Ubers taking people over to Walmart.
As for the rest, provide links to reputable sources for those things or it's all disregarded. Not saying it didn't happen, but I need to verify that this isn't "fake news". You understand, right?
After all, the Founding Fathers could never had imagined that a 12 year old girl could be purchased anywhere on the continent with the click of a button.
Make sure and provide reputable links when making outlandish claims.
Slashdot Mirror
I won’t name names or give examples because I’m not an asshole. But also because I don’t have to. I’d wager everyone reading this will have clear and obvious examples of what I’m talking about in their own circles—even if only in their own virtual circles. This is everywhere.
Hey, those people over there, they are out of touch. I won't say how, but you know what I mean. If you don't, make up something in your head. Then think it, and imagine that's what I'm talking about.
This article is a big fat troll. Zero substance or data. Just hopping on the "Facebook bad!" bandwagon, but too lazy to discuss why.
No carriers are involved. Who the hell are the partners they're waiting on?
Qualcomm? Or could be anyone that produces drivers for the hardware they use.
It's quite common to get a very short support lifecycle for drivers with consumer hardware. It's possible Moto used old components in that device for which there are no drivers that support the newer version of Android.
What exactly does the patch date mean?
On Android the patch date is just a string the manufacturer sets. They can set it to anything they want. Google releases quarterly patches, so the date is supposed to correspond to the release date of those patch sets.
As to what it means, the implication is that you are "up to date" with the patches as of your listed patch date.
I find the claim frighteningly plausible.
Do you see any difference between finding something plausible and claiming it as a fact? That's my point.
Well don't keep us in suspense, link it. Hope we have the source as well otherwise we are right back to knowing squat.
The idea that they wrote code to test all of the issues fixed in patches is rather outlandish. Most the issues end up being hypothetical exploits that have *never* been executed in the lab let alone in the wild.
if you missed them that's your problem
If you actually want to influence the thinking of others, it's definitely your problem. By the way, I hear Trump eats babies. It's true. If you didn't bother to read about it, that's your problem. See how that works?
As for the rest of your post, I don't know who you are talking to. I never argued for (or against) regulation.
You get what you pay for.
Millions of Android devices are still vulnerable to the Broadcom hack
My $849 Pixel 2 isn't. Sorry about your phone, but two phones in two completely different price points will have differing long term support. Who'd have thunk it.
Even Google stopped supporting their Pixel phones, when almost their only selling point was getting proper updates.
Google guarantees 3 years of updates (OS updates, not just patches) on the Pixel 2, and the Pixel 1 is guaranteed 3 years of patches (but I think only 2 years of OS updates):
https://www.theverge.com/circu...
One of the huge problems with Android is it is now so fragmented, and every vendor has filled it with their own custom shit and they've done god knows what to the core of it.
You get what you pay for.
And one of the huge benefits of Android is that you aren't locked into one manufacturer. This is why you can get Android devices with SD card slots, dual SIMs, dual screens, touch sensitive sides, built in projectors, big screens, small screens, etc. If you don't want any of that, by all means buy Apple.
Heck, you can even by an Android phone that gets the most up to date software and patches. All you have to do is pay for it. It costs about as much as an iPhone... surprised?
manufacturers need to say to no to carriers roms or let us load the manufacturers rom with no knox trips.
If you are a struggling Android device maker (as are they all), that is not even close to an option. If you say no there are 100 other manufacturers waiting to get their phones approved on the carriers' network.
or meltdown (the CPU bug)
As opposed to the Samsung Galaxy Note 8 meltdown. Thanks for clarifying.
The question is how they know the devices are missing the patch. Did the test all of the problems covered in the patch, on 1,200 different devices? Seems unlikely.
Because of vendor specific code changes, patches don't always apply cleanly and need changes, or the issue may have been fixed by the vendor in a different way, or even not relevant to the vendor's dist.
I guess all of those generals and military experts that gave the guidance getting us to where we are now are socialists.
Slick Willie put the draft dodging thing to rest decades ago.
Sorry, "what about..." doesn't work here. We're just judging people on who they are, not who someone else was. Two wrongs don't make a right. I learned that when I was 4.
LOL bankruptcies happen all the time in business and they're nothing to be ashamed of.
Bankruptcy = screwing your investors out of a shit-ton of money. Now, if that's done with America, who exactly gets screwed?
Making profit for megacorps needs to come to an end.
Then maybe you should have voted for someone that didn't pass a tax bill that is universally understood to benefit corporations over individuals. You are either retarded, or a bought and paid for troll if you think you voted for someone that is going to reign in megacorps. Not sure wish option I prefer.
NATO benefits the US in a large way. Having a global military is what allows US corporations to profit, by doing things like propping up friendly dictators in areas where we need the natural resources, or need to maintain trade routes, or where they can oppose our adversaries. We're not children. Do you think the US has military bases all over the world, in the name of truth and justice for all? Of course not. It's for profit.
The Middle East is the most obvious example. We get out of Iraq. We stop supporting Israel. Friendly oil nations are overrun with fundamentalists. America is held hostage by oil prices. Our economy tanks. It happened in the 70s it can happen again.
There's also the thinking that maintaining some amount of stability with small conflicts is better than world war. The US was hands off of europe prior to WW1. Then WW2. We know what happened there. Ever since then we've maintained a presence in europe.
Whether we should continue down the road of a globally dominant military is a question, but just make sure you are deciding based on facts and the advice of people like economists and military generals. Trump is a failed business person,
http://www.businessinsider.com...
and a draft dodger.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...
Do you trust him to direct your military and economy?
Check the link. It discusses trafficking of underage girls on the internet.
Last I looked, you buy things on the internet by clicking a button.
Right, so because people involved with human trafficking use the internet (like most of humanity), it therefore follows that in the USA, you can but a 12 year old girl with the click of a button.
FUD much?
Why should America subsidize the defense of wealthy First World countries?
NATO provides a HUGE military advantage to the US for any conflict with either Russian or China. The US's missiles, tanks, bombers, drones, etc are hundreds of miles from the target, vs. thousands for Russia / China (except maybe Alaska). The US is paying for the privilege of that advantage. Maybe you remember a little thing called the Cuban Missile Crisis where the USSR came within a hair's breadth of nuclear war with the US just to try and level the tables in this regard.
I get it, you are trying to make it sound like NATO is a charity mission between the US and all others involved. That's simply not the case.
and is abusing the Android platform
The same Android platform that is 95% developed by Google?
their all-or-nothing demands for Google apps / app store
What does that mean. Anyone can take AOSP and build a commercial product on it. There's no obligation to run Google apps or their app store.
You seriously don't think human trafficking is a thing, eh?
I didn't say that. I was questioning YOUR claim:
After all, the Founding Fathers could never had imagined that a 12 year old girl could be purchased anywhere on the continent with the click of a button.
Please, post links where one can purchase a 12 year old girl with the click of a button. In the USA (I assume that's what you mean by anywhere on the continent, and referring to the founding fathers).
You mean by actually getting more of NATO to kick in $$ to the pot?
That's one way to look at it. Another is that NATO countries are allowing the US to stage weapons and troops on their soil... knowing that they will be first strike targets, not the US. Now let's get them to pay for the privilege.
Mozilla has an advantage over those companies: it is open sourced. Not only that, it is FREE software.
Being free means they get a lot of PITA nerds yelling at them about losing support for some 5 year old extensions, and zero revenue for their headache.
Google begins to prioritize its own services over those of start-up competitor Foundem.com in search results.
No shit? In 2006 Google didn't actively prop up its competitors? Gee thanks that's some shocking info. In other news, Target doesn't provide free Ubers taking people over to Walmart.
As for the rest, provide links to reputable sources for those things or it's all disregarded. Not saying it didn't happen, but I need to verify that this isn't "fake news". You understand, right?
After all, the Founding Fathers could never had imagined that a 12 year old girl could be purchased anywhere on the continent with the click of a button.
Make sure and provide reputable links when making outlandish claims.
Both are totally surrounded by multiple layers of US bases.
Don't worry, Trump is going to fix that by sabotaging NATO.
Really?
Yes, really, You are free to link whatever more reputable survey you see fit. I see you didn't link anything. I think that action speaks for itself.
When someone calls me for a survey, I don't answer the phone.
Enjoy your poor polling numbers then.