This makes sense, but I would be afraid of employers that attempt retribution for failing to show up at work (for non-critical duties).
Perhaps a compromise could have worked, the government does not shut down the city but it does provide an official warning that requires employers to allow workers to make their own judgment call without retribution. (By this I mean, the employee may not necessarily get paid for missed time, but they also can't get fired for failing to show.)
We received updates. We just stopped receiving updates before our devices were even 2 years old. Actually most of the devices got their last update before 1.5 years.
The earliest mainstream Galaxy device to have 4.2 was the S4 so I'll assume you have that. As it stands, it hasn't been 2 years since release and Lollipop is likely to come to the device before the 2 year mark, and that's as far as we know it will be updated.
Not sure what your point is... 2 years is good for Android, but compares poorly with competition.
Actually it isn't useless. Having emergency responders spread out, instead of gathered at the station, can significantly reduce response times in the event of an emergency.
This was one of the subjects of a friend's Ph.D. dissertation. He used it to show that while random spread can reduce emergency response times, creating patrol routes that target hot spots based on time of day can reduce response times nearly in half (compared with random spread).
No, what I want is some guaranteed level of support for consumer electronics.
If I buy something I don't expect it to be unsupported in under 3 years.
I agree. But you act as if Apple were the worst about this, when in reality they tend to be one of the best among mainstream tech brands (although, as I stated and others have corrected me further, they are not perfect).
Had I known they were killing off the iPod classic I'd have replaced mine... because it has no OS to be upgraded until it's broken.
Need I remind you about your original complaint on this thread: "Companies expect you to buy the new hotness all the time, and stop expending resources on older platforms."
Yet now you've changed your tune, you only want products that were the new hotness at the time but where the company stopped expending resources once it became older?
Ok.
If it wasn't for the fact that I still need some Windows software, my next desktop would be Linux. As it is, it might be worth it to buy a copy of Win 7 and run it in Virtual Box.
Ah, so that's the meat of the matter. You just don't like Apple. It has nothing to do with the topic of the conversation, which is how long support is offered on a product.
Ok, well after that I can understand your hesitancy to get Apple products in the future.
But do realize, that was an outlier and is atypical of what Apple does. I doubt you would see that from them again. Whereas their primary competitor has such an abysmal record that 2.5 years would also be considered an outlier (just in the opposite way).
It would be a major improvement if Android products were supported for even 2 year contract periods.
Google should require manufacturers to provide all Android updates for 2 years minimum and 2 minor versions minimum, and security updates for those minor versions for 4 years minimum.
2.5 years is pretty good compared with many Android devices. My wife and I have owned 4 Android devices between us, and none of them received updates even 2 years after their initial release date.
Also I suspect you picked on the first iPad because it was the worst. I can't recall any mainstream Apple product that was supported for less time. Many of them are supported for 4 years or more.
Really, I have to wonder what Microsoft is thinking these days.
Maybe they want to win back the consumer market they lost? Perhaps diversify a bit?
I just appreciate that they need to compete, and they are forcing their major competitors to bring new things to the table. Otherwise we might be looking at a repeat of mid-2000s, with stagnation like happened in Windows XP and IE 6... just with Apple or Google at the helm this time.
It's pretty obvious why Microsoft has been within the top few spots of the computing industry for so long. Beats the hell out of me how Oracle is still around.
They've been WAY ahead of everyone else for years. Apple is the one you should worry about there.
You're missing the point. If he gets this legislated, then Blackberry or any company could refuse to support new standards and also have the legal standing to sue any developers who write apps that need those new standards.
So, it would effectively kill any push for new standards since developers would still need to be able to create the same apps under the old standard that BB supports.
Is HTML/JS/CSS a platform? Does an application's availability via HTTP/HTML constitute bringing the service to every platform?
What if Blackberry refuses to provide a compatible HTML browser? Is it they who are in breach, or should developers still have to provide an app for their alternative native platform?
Suppose I port the application, but leave out some feature. Does that count? What if the feature I leave out is something like the "Investor Relations" link at the bottom? What if the feature I leave out is video? What constitutes an acceptably feature-complete version of Netflix?
Voting whether something is fact is indeed stupid.
Now if it were a vote on whether to implement a policy based on the assumption that climate change is real, or a vote whether to direct courts to make future rulings based on the assumption of climate change, I can understand that.
I'd say that most of my Facebook friends are religious, but I have not once seen someone post "DIE UNBELIEVER".
I've never seen Fox News or other right-wing news sites post "DIE UNBELIEVER".
With the exception of some very extremist (i.e. terrorist) sects, most religious people don't say things like "DIE UNBELIEVER". You may not like everything they say and believe, but there is a stark contrast between believing people morally shouldn't do certain things and telling them to die.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can't see the difference between X11 and Yosemite, I'm just going to ignore the rest of what you have to say on the subject of graphics.
This makes sense, but I would be afraid of employers that attempt retribution for failing to show up at work (for non-critical duties).
Perhaps a compromise could have worked, the government does not shut down the city but it does provide an official warning that requires employers to allow workers to make their own judgment call without retribution. (By this I mean, the employee may not necessarily get paid for missed time, but they also can't get fired for failing to show.)
I was that GP. You misunderstood my post.
We received updates. We just stopped receiving updates before our devices were even 2 years old. Actually most of the devices got their last update before 1.5 years.
The earliest mainstream Galaxy device to have 4.2 was the S4 so I'll assume you have that. As it stands, it hasn't been 2 years since release and Lollipop is likely to come to the device before the 2 year mark, and that's as far as we know it will be updated.
Not sure what your point is... 2 years is good for Android, but compares poorly with competition.
Actually it isn't useless. Having emergency responders spread out, instead of gathered at the station, can significantly reduce response times in the event of an emergency.
This was one of the subjects of a friend's Ph.D. dissertation. He used it to show that while random spread can reduce emergency response times, creating patrol routes that target hot spots based on time of day can reduce response times nearly in half (compared with random spread).
I was that op. I know what I said, thanks.
The topic was support timelines, not whether Apple was perfect. What you said, "just ignore antennagate", clearly went off topic.
Do you have anything to contribute regarding the actual topic at hand?
No, what I want is some guaranteed level of support for consumer electronics.
If I buy something I don't expect it to be unsupported in under 3 years.
I agree. But you act as if Apple were the worst about this, when in reality they tend to be one of the best among mainstream tech brands (although, as I stated and others have corrected me further, they are not perfect).
Making a conclusion based on what you say a person said (but they didn't actually say it) is called a strawman argument.
Had I known they were killing off the iPod classic I'd have replaced mine ... because it has no OS to be upgraded until it's broken.
Need I remind you about your original complaint on this thread: "Companies expect you to buy the new hotness all the time, and stop expending resources on older platforms."
Yet now you've changed your tune, you only want products that were the new hotness at the time but where the company stopped expending resources once it became older?
Ok.
If it wasn't for the fact that I still need some Windows software, my next desktop would be Linux. As it is, it might be worth it to buy a copy of Win 7 and run it in Virtual Box.
Ah, so that's the meat of the matter. You just don't like Apple. It has nothing to do with the topic of the conversation, which is how long support is offered on a product.
Ok, well after that I can understand your hesitancy to get Apple products in the future.
But do realize, that was an outlier and is atypical of what Apple does. I doubt you would see that from them again. Whereas their primary competitor has such an abysmal record that 2.5 years would also be considered an outlier (just in the opposite way).
It would be a major improvement if Android products were supported for even 2 year contract periods.
Google should require manufacturers to provide all Android updates for 2 years minimum and 2 minor versions minimum, and security updates for those minor versions for 4 years minimum.
2.5 years is pretty good compared with many Android devices. My wife and I have owned 4 Android devices between us, and none of them received updates even 2 years after their initial release date.
Also I suspect you picked on the first iPad because it was the worst. I can't recall any mainstream Apple product that was supported for less time. Many of them are supported for 4 years or more.
Really, I have to wonder what Microsoft is thinking these days.
Maybe they want to win back the consumer market they lost? Perhaps diversify a bit?
I just appreciate that they need to compete, and they are forcing their major competitors to bring new things to the table. Otherwise we might be looking at a repeat of mid-2000s, with stagnation like happened in Windows XP and IE 6... just with Apple or Google at the helm this time.
That's not Oracle that's ANSI/ISO SQL Standard. Complain to them.
From what I can find, the standard length is 18. That appears to be a minimum, not a maximum.
Regardless, everyone else that matters supports more. Why not Oracle?
30 characters seems pretty long to me.
[Insert obligatory 640K quote here]
It's plenty if you have standards to abbreviate everything and remove all vowels. Of course, when your NMNG_CNVNTN_RQRS_UNDRSCR_CHRCTRS
oops too long
That's nice.
Isn't Oracle's table/column names still limited to 30 characters? I would think a modern, enterprise-worthy database could handle a bit more.
Oracle != Microsoft
It's pretty obvious why Microsoft has been within the top few spots of the computing industry for so long. Beats the hell out of me how Oracle is still around.
That assumes the bell had been drawing the same current that entire time. The bell used to ring, meaning it was drawing much more current then.
They've been WAY ahead of everyone else for years. Apple is the one you should worry about there.
You're missing the point. If he gets this legislated, then Blackberry or any company could refuse to support new standards and also have the legal standing to sue any developers who write apps that need those new standards.
So, it would effectively kill any push for new standards since developers would still need to be able to create the same apps under the old standard that BB supports.
What is a platform?
Is HTML/JS/CSS a platform? Does an application's availability via HTTP/HTML constitute bringing the service to every platform?
What if Blackberry refuses to provide a compatible HTML browser? Is it they who are in breach, or should developers still have to provide an app for their alternative native platform?
Suppose I port the application, but leave out some feature. Does that count? What if the feature I leave out is something like the "Investor Relations" link at the bottom? What if the feature I leave out is video? What constitutes an acceptably feature-complete version of Netflix?
Then there is a third option: no vote.
"I don't have an opinion."
"I don't think it's worth making a big deal over."
"I really just don't know because I'm a politician and not a scientist."
So 9/11 was not mass murder?
You sure they didn't unfriend you because you were being obnoxious or they don't see you any more or some other much more likely reason?
Otherwise why did they friend you in the first place?
Voting whether something is fact is indeed stupid.
Now if it were a vote on whether to implement a policy based on the assumption that climate change is real, or a vote whether to direct courts to make future rulings based on the assumption of climate change, I can understand that.
Talk about hyperbole.
I'd say that most of my Facebook friends are religious, but I have not once seen someone post "DIE UNBELIEVER".
I've never seen Fox News or other right-wing news sites post "DIE UNBELIEVER".
With the exception of some very extremist (i.e. terrorist) sects, most religious people don't say things like "DIE UNBELIEVER". You may not like everything they say and believe, but there is a stark contrast between believing people morally shouldn't do certain things and telling them to die.
Slashdot doesn't have a "False" moderation... and it could use one.