This comment section shows why our government has so many problems: citizens who blindly believe political rhetoric as fact and then continue to spout it and vote along lines which further the goals of the spin-doctors. Examples: 50% of the people in the US pay no taxes and it isn't the rich. Defense spending is where all the money goes.
Neither of the above is anywhere near the truth.
Every political entity has its own agenda and in a case like this one, so do businesses. Amazon and the e-tailers have one: continue sales without tax to maintain the margin advantage. Big brick and mortar stores (Walmart and such) have an agenda as well: to reduce e-tailer advertising in Cali because they are well aware that collecting state specific taxes for an e-tailer is not feasible. (Far too many variations in tax laws in the US.)
Customers will not see any direct changes: brick and mortar prices will remain what they are and e-tailer prices- and taxes- will also not change. The only losers will be those California residents who earn a portion of their income from advertising. They will not be getting paid by companies like Amazon anymore.
This is what I believe will actually happen, not spin, not an agenda. I don't live in California and the case has no direct bearing on me.
Discussing defense spending or the Teabag Party idea that half of the people in the US are not citizens is just muddying the waters and allowing politicians free reign to continue to mislead the public and treat us as idiots.
This is about sales tax people, and the fact that the Federal government needs to reform sales tax as it applies to internet vendors. The vendors can NOT afford to deal with each and every tax code in the country- it is far too complex at this time, and if they comply with one out of state code they will have to comply with all of them. However, local government does have the right to put their own codes in place- except where it conflicts with federal law. A federal law that requires a common tax rate for the entire US, supercedes local code and applies to online vendors is needed.
As someone who purchases online as much as possible, I enjoy how often I am not taxed- but I recognize the need.
Now- discussing the issue at hand is what the founding fathers intended when this country began. Dicussing other issues- defense spending, immigration, foreign wars- that is what the current political parties would prefer we do as a people. It keeps us from paying attention to what is really going on and lets them maintain the status quo.
Go ahead and criticize me for having an opinion. I still think the Prius sucks. There are a LOT of better vehicles- hybrid and non-hybrid that get better mileage, have more room and drive better. Toyota has done a lot to advance the art of hybrids- they make some of the best, in fact. I just don't believe that the Prius is one of them.
If you own a Prius and are offended because I think your car choice sucks- get over it. You most likely would think my choice sucks- as if I care.
AS to the original point of my post, and those of many others: We have succeeded at least partially- There is a blurb under the summary which helps take the sting out of the idiotic headline.
It's a personal opinion and there is plenty of evidence to back up both sides of the discussion.
Funny thing though- I am amongst the people who are correcting the clown who wrote the summary and pointing out all of the errors, and reinforcing how incredibly bad those are errors are by including the fact that I DON"T LIKE ELECTRIC CARS AND EVEN I KNOW MORE ABOUT TESLA THAN THE BOZO WHO ORIGINALLY POSTED THE STORY HERE.
Yet instead of those who are fans of Tesla appreciating the fact that someone who prefers ic engines is helping to defend against FUD and false statements, a few of you are trying to convince me of the benefits or taking me to task for my opinions.
Funny thing that, since the car was intended as a testbed and developmental project with sales added in order to further test and prove the technology and generate press about the company.
The car was never intended to become a profit center for the company so the fact that they have not yet turned a profit on it is misleading at the least and completely irrelevant.
My statement that the car succeeded on its strengths as a car: the type of vehicle that it is- small 2 seater with high performance driving as the priority in the $75-150 range. When compared to similar vehicles in that price range it fares quite well in most ways- acceleration, roadholding, braking, comfort, cargo (not much in the class!) and needs no disclaimer that it "does well even though it is electric." It just plain does WELL when compared to similar vehicles.
That makes it successful in its class: when compared to similar vehicles it doesn't need to excuse itself because it is electric. The fact that its very limited sales- which were extended as much as possible due to customer demand for still MORE vehicles- were so successful mean that yes, it was also a success in the market.
I am sorry that my bias against vehicles I consider unworthy offended you. That was not my intention. I posted MY bias to show that while I am not a fan of such vehicles I still follow development somewhat and know full well that the summary Attila Dimedici wrote was based on absolutely no evidence or knowledge of the subject.
If I had been writing an article or summary that I was presenting as FACT I would not include my inflammatory opinions in such a way.
I do not like to see FUD such as the summary above written about a company that has done so much to advance the art of the modern automobile and been successful at every step up to this point.
Attila Dimedici has posted an article to/. and failed to understand the subject matter in a manner that is simply amazing. Even more incredible is his attempts to reply to corrections with more inaccurate and contradictory statements.
This type of thing is not exactly new to Slashdot or other news websites but what IS new is the fact that he continues to defend his position with such vehemence even when faced with a complete lack of factual material to back up any statement he has made.
It has become increasingly obvious to this writer- and most readers of the thread- that Attila Dimedici is simply not attempting to understand anything on the topic but appears to be spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt on the subject due to a personal agenda.
What this agenda may be has come under discussion as well- politics, an "Opinion for Hire" situation or even possibly rank stupidity, but at his time there is no conclusive evidence for any one of the three possibilities.
What IS clear is that he knows little about anything in an automotive or business sense.
And probably should not be allowed to submit articles to Slashdot.
The Model S will continue to generate buzz, most likely.
So far there is not a single successful electric car on the market that has succeeded on its strength as a car- unless it was made by Tesla.
The Leaf? What success it has is owed to eco-weenies who WANT a car that screams "I drive a lousy car to help save the world!" Many of the hybrids out there are in the same boat. There is not a single Prius sold because it is a good CAR. They sell because they are a rolling billboard that says "I'm greener than you!".
Tesla made a damn good sports car that was competitive with its competition in all ways but range- they are the one and only to do so. Tesla are the ONLY company with a damn good electric sedan planned that will be able to compete with its competitors in all ways but range.
And most people feel that the range is sufficient as it is. (I disagree, of course.)
The big companies are not even pursuing this market- only Tesla is.
If Tesla DOES succeed with introducing the S as planned they will get a HUGE amount of discussion- unless some other manufacturer releases one first. Since there are exactly none in development....
But yours is long gone and you are digging yourself a deeper hole with further inaccuracies.
Never was the Roadster intended to be a long-term "boutique" production model. But as I recall it ended up selling better than expected, and more than originally planned.
How many BMW, Mercedes and Lexus sedans are available for $20,000? You earn another dope slap for that argument as well.
As for competing with cars in the projected price range- very much so as far as accoutrements, handling and performance other than the range/cost per mile variances. I do expect the S to come in 10 or 15K over projected cost, at least initially, but those who are tempted by such a vehicle are likely to pay the extra happily.
Look, Attila Dimedici: I do not LIKE electric vehicles. The Leaf, for example is useless and if given one I would burn it just to make a statement. I think Hybrids are a good thing but even there many of them are crap- the Prius leading that segment. It is a horrible little car that should have all existing examples gathered up and destroyed in an effort to protect the planet from mediocrity.
Most important to ME is a car that provides reliable transportation for up to 250 miles AT SPEED per day and allows me to enjoy my time driving it. Good fuel mileage is ever more important, but NOT at the cost of a good vehicle that is fun to drive.
And yet even I know far more about Tesla and how successful they have been so far and how bright the future looks for them and their products.
Fission. Fission Rom Manager is the whole thing you want, really. The good news is that it runs well and is reported just fine with global use. The bad news is that the dev has basically moved on and done no updates, at least not for the D2G and it is now an OLD rom.
There are other roms and methods of installing roms for other phones that work well reportedly, but if you need to be able to use the phone outside the US Moto and FRM seem the only options.
The url bar is an excellent tool and takes up very little space.
As time has gone on some developers seem to feel that a "clean" (empty) design both looks better and is easier to use. Not necessarily correct, folks.
Having to click on an area of a title bar and choose a menu option to be able to navigate to a site is NOT easier, better or a more elegant design than simply having a url bar.
I can understand (sort of) why Chrome is doing it- not as a better design but to get more advertising done as people resort to Google's Search to navigate to sites. I can not understand why Mozilla is also choosing to send users to one search site or another to navigate to web sites... unless Google or another search company is paying them a bunch of cash.
Of course I am sure there will be at least one browser who chooses ease of use and security over "clean", bad design....
That means that the source code for Android is available.
It does NOT mean that all the applications must be open source, it does not mean that every app must be able to access everything in the world. It does not mean that the web browser on the phone can access a proprietary file format that is not compatible.
It means that the source code for the operating system itself is available and can be modified.
The FACT that Android is Open Source does give us, the users and potential users, a great deal of additional possibilities WITH THE OPERATING SYSTEM.
It does not mean that phone manufacturers or carriers have a requirement to allow us to run a custom version of Android- some make it quite difficult in fact. It does not mean that software developers are required to open source their applications (although some do.)
It does not even mean that Google is required to open source all of THEIR applications.
Being open source does not guarantee the os is easier to use, more stable or more resistant to malware. Being Open Source does NOT mean that it is trivial to modify the OS so that a user can remotely drive their car with their cellphone!
But there ARE a tremendous number of advantages that being open source DOES provide: since the source is open, once a device can be updated (rooting and exploits usually required- carriers and manufacturers fault, not Google) it can often be updated and extended to be able to do more and work better than it did originally. Usually this is because the custom versions of Android are based on Google's Android, not the carrier/manufacturer versions.
Yes, I use Android on phones and a tablet and I am very happy with them. Many people are likely to be happier with iPhones and other smartphones, and I am happy they have them. But the fact remains that at an OPERATING SYSTEM LEVEL, Android is open and Iphone is not. On a Market level, iPhone is severely restricted and Android far less so.
There are those who claim that jailbreaking and rooting are the same- completely incorrect. Very different indeed. Jailbreaking an iPhone is more akin to installing the Amazon Market for Android than it is to rooting.
What you are referring to is "usability" NOT being "open."
Rather a huge difference. Even if I did not disagree with your points about usability...
Open refers to Open Source which means that the operating system has source code available so that users can look at the code themselves and modify it if they so choose.
Usability, or Ease of Use refers to how easy it is to DO SOMETHING with the software. Email, web, video whatever you want.
By saying that Android is open Google does NOT imply that you can do anything with Android other than look at the source code.
However the ability and FREEDOM to look at the source code gives US (users) the ability to either modify the os ourselves or use code modified by others IF WE CHOOSE.
IOS is not open. WIndows is not open. Linux and Android ARE open.
Does this mean that they are better for all and sundry? No, of course not. But they are better for many, and personally I have yet to find a better os for a smartphone: I can do more at lower cost, more reliably than with any other phone.
And I can do so without resorting to spreading FUD or false statements, pal.;)
Running a serious business server using a Microsoft product means you will HAVE to have a full time staff and multiple redundant systems to even approach a decent availability of service number.
Sounds to me like you would do better with GoDaddy or some other simple, easy webhost to avoid straining yourself.
Nowhere did I say that believing in God, a God or even many Gods made it impossible to understand math. There have been and are now many people who are both religious and intelligent.
Creationists are another matter entirely. They are a completely different discussion.
Anything that helps put creationism back in its place- as a fairy story told to and by those who have a hard time with the scientific process... Or anything much more advanced than 2+2 (which equals 4 for any Creationists reading this.)
Getting kids excited about actual science and rational though processes is a good thing. And needed to help counter what some "people" (note the loose use of the term) try to pass off as science- creationism, "Intelligent Design" and the Flat Earth Society.
Hell, maybe they can get some adults interested in rational thought too!
What would you prefer the definition of "habitable" to be? "Capable of supporting life that we do not know of or conceive."?
It is only logical to define habitable as capable of supporting life as we KNOW it and therefore earth-like. A non earth-like planet isn't habitable by life as we KNOW it..
My only excuse for hoping for such a thing is this:
The CM Team has created the best version of Android for every device I have been able to use it on. They fix things that Google get wrong, increase stability and improve the capabilities of both the devices and Android.
It would be good for ME and for Android if such a thing happened. Not necessarily good for the CM Team folks.;)
I run gingerbread on a hacked Nook Color and it runs great, albeit with some phone crap that is useless since it isn't a phone. I tried the hacked up version of Honeycomb Preview (not quite the real deal) and saw nothing that was all that compelling; I did have a lot of force closes and crashes though.
Gingerbread is SOLID on the tablet.
Reading this does lead me to think the problems with the hacked release of Honeycomb Preview are not due to the community so much as the screwed up original code. Which is why the source isn't to be released.
While I could wish many things- like having the CyanogenMod team be hired by Google!- I think this decision may actually be the right thing to do. Google says the code is flawed still so they don't want to release it.
I am sure that those more knowledgeable about the legal ramifications will deal with the situation and I hope that whatever accommodations should be made to satisfy the licensing (if any) WILL be made. I don't expect Google to not be "evil"- they are a big company, so some amount of that is to be expected. I do hope that they never forget what helped get them into their position and FOSS code was a pretty big part of that. Do the ad-based stuff you need to, evil though it may be, but honor the code licenses, Google.
If there was such a channel available in the US. The closest we have, unfortunately, is BBC-America although that is pretty good.
There used to be a SciFi channel in the US but it went out of business or something. Now there is one that tried to capitalize on that large albeit niche market by calling themselves SyFy (pronounced "siffy" I think. I basically look at that as the syphilis channel. There are a couple of decent programs on it accidentally but most of the programming seems oriented towards the same lowest common denominator types who watch "American Idol" and such shows. Wrestling?? GHOST HUNTERS??? You have got to be kidding me.
If that is the channel you mean- hell, I would pay a couple of bucks to have it removed from my channel listing!
There IS good SciFi around and when you include the Fantasy genre as is most commonly done, even more. Plenty of content for a 24/7 channel with some new stuff and the classics. I wish we had one.
It is not a matter of finding people qualified to write a textbook but a matter of finding a publisher who is willing to PUBLISH one.
Printing costs money and as public school textbooks have a limited market it is difficult to recoup the cost and make a profit. As big as Texas is it provides a fairly large market with a single set of criteria to meet which means that a book that can be sold successfully to Texas schools is more likely to make money.
Is it the only state with a lot of public schools? No. But it is probably the largest that maintains close control of educational materials at a state level. Which is why the publishers who work with textbooks for public schools tend to publish material that is acceptable to that school system.
It is not a matter of who can write the book but finding a publishing house willing to float a boatload of money to PRINT the book.
The sad thing is that US textbooks are generally written to follow the guidelines of the largest single purchaser in order to gain the best financial return. That means Texas.
This gives them more power than they should have but is a reality in the market. If US schools need to replace textbooks the new ones are likely to be based on the Texas guidelines, or else extremely expensive.
So it is ok to gain and try to force the honoring of invalid patents?
Basically the B&N arguments seem to me to indicate that the patents SCO.. err, I mean Microsoft, are trying to have "protect" are invalid due to prior art. Microsoft is trying to say "We have a patent on creating fire using heat, oxygen and a combustible material. If you create fire using these materials you must pay us for a license."
If others have used the same methods before you than your patent should not have been granted and it should be rendered invalid. It looks to me like that is where B&N is going with the case, and hopefully they will prevail.
Valid patents are one thing. Invalid patents gained due to a patent office that is royally screwed up are another thing entirely.
Slashdot Mirror
This comment section shows why our government has so many problems: citizens who blindly believe political rhetoric as fact and then continue to spout it and vote along lines which further the goals of the spin-doctors.
Examples:
50% of the people in the US pay no taxes and it isn't the rich.
Defense spending is where all the money goes.
Neither of the above is anywhere near the truth.
Every political entity has its own agenda and in a case like this one, so do businesses.
Amazon and the e-tailers have one: continue sales without tax to maintain the margin advantage.
Big brick and mortar stores (Walmart and such) have an agenda as well: to reduce e-tailer advertising in Cali because they are well aware that collecting state specific taxes for an e-tailer is not feasible. (Far too many variations in tax laws in the US.)
Customers will not see any direct changes: brick and mortar prices will remain what they are and e-tailer prices- and taxes- will also not change. The only losers will be those California residents who earn a portion of their income from advertising. They will not be getting paid by companies like Amazon anymore.
This is what I believe will actually happen, not spin, not an agenda. I don't live in California and the case has no direct bearing on me.
Discussing defense spending or the Teabag Party idea that half of the people in the US are not citizens is just muddying the waters and allowing politicians free reign to continue to mislead the public and treat us as idiots.
This is about sales tax people, and the fact that the Federal government needs to reform sales tax as it applies to internet vendors.
The vendors can NOT afford to deal with each and every tax code in the country- it is far too complex at this time, and if they comply with one out of state code they will have to comply with all of them.
However, local government does have the right to put their own codes in place- except where it conflicts with federal law.
A federal law that requires a common tax rate for the entire US, supercedes local code and applies to online vendors is needed.
As someone who purchases online as much as possible, I enjoy how often I am not taxed- but I recognize the need.
Now- discussing the issue at hand is what the founding fathers intended when this country began.
Dicussing other issues- defense spending, immigration, foreign wars- that is what the current political parties would prefer we do as a people. It keeps us from paying attention to what is really going on and lets them maintain the status quo.
Your choice folks.
Go ahead and criticize me for having an opinion.
I still think the Prius sucks. There are a LOT of better vehicles- hybrid and non-hybrid that get better mileage, have more room and drive better.
Toyota has done a lot to advance the art of hybrids- they make some of the best, in fact. I just don't believe that the Prius is one of them.
If you own a Prius and are offended because I think your car choice sucks- get over it.
You most likely would think my choice sucks- as if I care.
AS to the original point of my post, and those of many others:
We have succeeded at least partially-
There is a blurb under the summary which helps take the sting out of the idiotic headline.
It's a personal opinion and there is plenty of evidence to back up both sides of the discussion.
Funny thing though- I am amongst the people who are correcting the clown who wrote the summary and pointing out all of the errors, and reinforcing how incredibly bad those are errors are by including the fact that I DON"T LIKE ELECTRIC CARS AND EVEN I KNOW MORE ABOUT TESLA THAN THE BOZO WHO ORIGINALLY POSTED THE STORY HERE.
Yet instead of those who are fans of Tesla appreciating the fact that someone who prefers ic engines is helping to defend against FUD and false statements, a few of you are trying to convince me of the benefits or taking me to task for my opinions.
Funny thing that, since the car was intended as a testbed and developmental project with sales added in order to further test and prove the technology and generate press about the company.
The car was never intended to become a profit center for the company so the fact that they have not yet turned a profit on it is misleading at the least and completely irrelevant.
My statement that the car succeeded on its strengths as a car: the type of vehicle that it is- small 2 seater with high performance driving as the priority in the $75-150 range.
When compared to similar vehicles in that price range it fares quite well in most ways- acceleration, roadholding, braking, comfort, cargo (not much in the class!) and needs no disclaimer that it "does well even though it is electric."
It just plain does WELL when compared to similar vehicles.
That makes it successful in its class: when compared to similar vehicles it doesn't need to excuse itself because it is electric.
The fact that its very limited sales- which were extended as much as possible due to customer demand for still MORE vehicles- were so successful mean that yes, it was also a success in the market.
I am sorry that my bias against vehicles I consider unworthy offended you. That was not my intention.
I posted MY bias to show that while I am not a fan of such vehicles I still follow development somewhat and know full well that the summary Attila Dimedici wrote was based on absolutely no evidence or knowledge of the subject.
If I had been writing an article or summary that I was presenting as FACT I would not include my inflammatory opinions in such a way.
I do not like to see FUD such as the summary above written about a company that has done so much to advance the art of the modern automobile and been successful at every step up to this point.
Attila Dimedici has posted an article to /. and failed to understand the subject matter in a manner that is simply amazing.
Even more incredible is his attempts to reply to corrections with more inaccurate and contradictory statements.
This type of thing is not exactly new to Slashdot or other news websites but what IS new is the fact that he continues to defend his position with such vehemence even when faced with a complete lack of factual material to back up any statement he has made.
It has become increasingly obvious to this writer- and most readers of the thread- that Attila Dimedici is simply not attempting to understand anything on the topic but appears to be spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt on the subject due to a personal agenda.
What this agenda may be has come under discussion as well- politics, an "Opinion for Hire" situation or even possibly rank stupidity, but at his time there is no conclusive evidence for any one of the three possibilities.
What IS clear is that he knows little about anything in an automotive or business sense.
And probably should not be allowed to submit articles to Slashdot.
The Model S will continue to generate buzz, most likely.
So far there is not a single successful electric car on the market that has succeeded on its strength as a car- unless it was made by Tesla.
The Leaf? What success it has is owed to eco-weenies who WANT a car that screams "I drive a lousy car to help save the world!"
Many of the hybrids out there are in the same boat. There is not a single Prius sold because it is a good CAR. They sell because they are a rolling billboard that says "I'm greener than you!".
Tesla made a damn good sports car that was competitive with its competition in all ways but range- they are the one and only to do so.
Tesla are the ONLY company with a damn good electric sedan planned that will be able to compete with its competitors in all ways but range.
And most people feel that the range is sufficient as it is. (I disagree, of course.)
The big companies are not even pursuing this market- only Tesla is.
If Tesla DOES succeed with introducing the S as planned they will get a HUGE amount of discussion- unless some other manufacturer releases one first.
Since there are exactly none in development....
But yours is long gone and you are digging yourself a deeper hole with further inaccuracies.
Never was the Roadster intended to be a long-term "boutique" production model. But as I recall it ended up selling better than expected, and more than originally planned.
How many BMW, Mercedes and Lexus sedans are available for $20,000? You earn another dope slap for that argument as well.
As for competing with cars in the projected price range- very much so as far as accoutrements, handling and performance other than the range/cost per mile variances. I do expect the S to come in 10 or 15K over projected cost, at least initially, but those who are tempted by such a vehicle are likely to pay the extra happily.
Look, Attila Dimedici:
I do not LIKE electric vehicles. The Leaf, for example is useless and if given one I would burn it just to make a statement.
I think Hybrids are a good thing but even there many of them are crap- the Prius leading that segment. It is a horrible little car that should have all existing examples gathered up and destroyed in an effort to protect the planet from mediocrity.
Most important to ME is a car that provides reliable transportation for up to 250 miles AT SPEED per day and allows me to enjoy my time driving it.
Good fuel mileage is ever more important, but NOT at the cost of a good vehicle that is fun to drive.
And yet even I know far more about Tesla and how successful they have been so far and how bright the future looks for them and their products.
You need a remedial course, man.
Fission.
Fission Rom Manager is the whole thing you want, really.
The good news is that it runs well and is reported just fine with global use.
The bad news is that the dev has basically moved on and done no updates, at least not for the D2G and it is now an OLD rom.
There are other roms and methods of installing roms for other phones that work well reportedly, but if you need to be able to use the phone outside the US Moto and FRM seem the only options.
The url bar is an excellent tool and takes up very little space.
As time has gone on some developers seem to feel that a "clean" (empty) design both looks better and is easier to use. Not necessarily correct, folks.
Having to click on an area of a title bar and choose a menu option to be able to navigate to a site is NOT easier, better or a more elegant design than simply having a url bar.
I can understand (sort of) why Chrome is doing it- not as a better design but to get more advertising done as people resort to Google's Search to navigate to sites.
I can not understand why Mozilla is also choosing to send users to one search site or another to navigate to web sites... unless Google or another search company is paying them a bunch of cash.
Of course I am sure there will be at least one browser who chooses ease of use and security over "clean", bad design....
roflmao
The funny thing about this one is how exactly it is wrong.
There is no possible way for it to be more completely backwards.
That means that the source code for Android is available.
It does NOT mean that all the applications must be open source, it does not mean that every app must be able to access everything in the world.
It does not mean that the web browser on the phone can access a proprietary file format that is not compatible.
It means that the source code for the operating system itself is available and can be modified.
The FACT that Android is Open Source does give us, the users and potential users, a great deal of additional possibilities WITH THE OPERATING SYSTEM.
It does not mean that phone manufacturers or carriers have a requirement to allow us to run a custom version of Android- some make it quite difficult in fact.
It does not mean that software developers are required to open source their applications (although some do.)
It does not even mean that Google is required to open source all of THEIR applications.
Being open source does not guarantee the os is easier to use, more stable or more resistant to malware.
Being Open Source does NOT mean that it is trivial to modify the OS so that a user can remotely drive their car with their cellphone!
But there ARE a tremendous number of advantages that being open source DOES provide: since the source is open, once a device can be updated (rooting and exploits usually required- carriers and manufacturers fault, not Google) it can often be updated and extended to be able to do more and work better than it did originally. Usually this is because the custom versions of Android are based on Google's Android, not the carrier/manufacturer versions.
Yes, I use Android on phones and a tablet and I am very happy with them.
Many people are likely to be happier with iPhones and other smartphones, and I am happy they have them.
But the fact remains that at an OPERATING SYSTEM LEVEL, Android is open and Iphone is not.
On a Market level, iPhone is severely restricted and Android far less so.
There are those who claim that jailbreaking and rooting are the same- completely incorrect. Very different indeed.
Jailbreaking an iPhone is more akin to installing the Amazon Market for Android than it is to rooting.
What you are referring to is "usability" NOT being "open."
Rather a huge difference.
Even if I did not disagree with your points about usability...
Open refers to Open Source which means that the operating system has source code available so that users can look at the code themselves and modify it if they so choose.
Usability, or Ease of Use refers to how easy it is to DO SOMETHING with the software. Email, web, video whatever you want.
By saying that Android is open Google does NOT imply that you can do anything with Android other than look at the source code.
However the ability and FREEDOM to look at the source code gives US (users) the ability to either modify the os ourselves or use code modified by others IF WE CHOOSE.
IOS is not open.
WIndows is not open.
Linux and Android ARE open.
Does this mean that they are better for all and sundry? No, of course not.
But they are better for many, and personally I have yet to find a better os for a smartphone: I can do more at lower cost, more reliably than with any other phone.
And I can do so without resorting to spreading FUD or false statements, pal. ;)
But there is one gem at least- more respect for Mark Cuban.
I have to think this is a joke.
Running a serious business server using a Microsoft product means you will HAVE to have a full time staff and multiple redundant systems to even approach a decent availability of service number.
Sounds to me like you would do better with GoDaddy or some other simple, easy webhost to avoid straining yourself.
Nowhere did I say that believing in God, a God or even many Gods made it impossible to understand math.
There have been and are now many people who are both religious and intelligent.
Creationists are another matter entirely.
They are a completely different discussion.
Anything that helps put creationism back in its place- as a fairy story told to and by those who have a hard time with the scientific process...
Or anything much more advanced than 2+2 (which equals 4 for any Creationists reading this.)
Getting kids excited about actual science and rational though processes is a good thing. And needed to help counter what some "people" (note the loose use of the term) try to pass off as science- creationism, "Intelligent Design" and the Flat Earth Society.
Hell, maybe they can get some adults interested in rational thought too!
What would you prefer the definition of "habitable" to be? "Capable of supporting life that we do not know of or conceive."?
It is only logical to define habitable as capable of supporting life as we KNOW it and therefore earth-like.
A non earth-like planet isn't habitable by life as we KNOW it..
lol.
Yeah, I know.
My only excuse for hoping for such a thing is this:
The CM Team has created the best version of Android for every device I have been able to use it on.
They fix things that Google get wrong, increase stability and improve the capabilities of both the devices and Android.
It would be good for ME and for Android if such a thing happened. Not necessarily good for the CM Team folks. ;)
I run gingerbread on a hacked Nook Color and it runs great, albeit with some phone crap that is useless since it isn't a phone.
I tried the hacked up version of Honeycomb Preview (not quite the real deal) and saw nothing that was all that compelling; I did have a lot of force closes and crashes though.
Gingerbread is SOLID on the tablet.
Reading this does lead me to think the problems with the hacked release of Honeycomb Preview are not due to the community so much as the screwed up original code. Which is why the source isn't to be released.
While I could wish many things- like having the CyanogenMod team be hired by Google!- I think this decision may actually be the right thing to do. Google says the code is flawed still so they don't want to release it.
I am sure that those more knowledgeable about the legal ramifications will deal with the situation and I hope that whatever accommodations should be made to satisfy the licensing (if any) WILL be made.
I don't expect Google to not be "evil"- they are a big company, so some amount of that is to be expected.
I do hope that they never forget what helped get them into their position and FOSS code was a pretty big part of that.
Do the ad-based stuff you need to, evil though it may be, but honor the code licenses, Google.
If there was such a channel available in the US.
The closest we have, unfortunately, is BBC-America although that is pretty good.
There used to be a SciFi channel in the US but it went out of business or something.
Now there is one that tried to capitalize on that large albeit niche market by calling themselves SyFy (pronounced "siffy" I think. I basically look at that as the syphilis channel. There are a couple of decent programs on it accidentally but most of the programming seems oriented towards the same lowest common denominator types who watch "American Idol" and such shows.
Wrestling??
GHOST HUNTERS???
You have got to be kidding me.
If that is the channel you mean- hell, I would pay a couple of bucks to have it removed from my channel listing!
There IS good SciFi around and when you include the Fantasy genre as is most commonly done, even more.
Plenty of content for a 24/7 channel with some new stuff and the classics.
I wish we had one.
That 23,000 people downloaded that movie intentionally.
I feel sorry for the poor folk who wasted drive space on that piece of crap.
It is not a matter of finding people qualified to write a textbook but a matter of finding a publisher who is willing to PUBLISH one.
Printing costs money and as public school textbooks have a limited market it is difficult to recoup the cost and make a profit.
As big as Texas is it provides a fairly large market with a single set of criteria to meet which means that a book that can be sold successfully to Texas schools is more likely to make money.
Is it the only state with a lot of public schools? No. But it is probably the largest that maintains close control of educational materials at a state level.
Which is why the publishers who work with textbooks for public schools tend to publish material that is acceptable to that school system.
It is not a matter of who can write the book but finding a publishing house willing to float a boatload of money to PRINT the book.
The sad thing is that US textbooks are generally written to follow the guidelines of the largest single purchaser in order to gain the best financial return.
That means Texas.
This gives them more power than they should have but is a reality in the market.
If US schools need to replace textbooks the new ones are likely to be based on the Texas guidelines, or else extremely expensive.
So it is ok to gain and try to force the honoring of invalid patents?
Basically the B&N arguments seem to me to indicate that the patents SCO.. err, I mean Microsoft, are trying to have "protect" are invalid due to prior art.
Microsoft is trying to say "We have a patent on creating fire using heat, oxygen and a combustible material. If you create fire using these materials you must pay us for a license."
If others have used the same methods before you than your patent should not have been granted and it should be rendered invalid. It looks to me like that is where B&N is going with the case, and hopefully they will prevail.
Valid patents are one thing. Invalid patents gained due to a patent office that is royally screwed up are another thing entirely.