The debate isn't "do you believe in God or Science or both?", it's "do you have an UNSHAKABLE believe in God/Science"? The fact that the word "unshakable" is used means they must be mutually exclusive, because Science states that God doesn't exist (or rather, states that there's no proof that God exists).
Yes, in certain instances the two can be mixed, but this is an exception.
What if 10% of the population have an unshakable belief in the opposite? What happens then? Does society suffer, does one idea eventually take over?
I can think of plenty of examples where this might happen - Christianity vs. Science (or even another religion). It's very possible that 10% of society has an unshakable belief in God while another 10% have an unshakable belief in Science (or no God).
Except you've clearly missed the point entirely. Android wouldn't be anywhere near as successful as it is today if it wasn't open source. Yes, most manufacturers release their own version of it, with their own customisations and UI's, but they all base it off the same open source code. When Google pushes a new version, the manufacturers update their own versions with that code. No Android manufacturer has taken the code and ran with it, diverting off the official path to update and support it themselves. And no other Mobile OS gives them this ability, to concentrate entirely on making their devices unique, knowing that all those wonderful apps will still work with it (to a degree). Being open source is every reason why they chose it. If it was closed source, why would they bother? What would they have to gain over Windows Mobile (for example)? When Android first appeared, it was a pretty immature platform, the likes of (what was then called) iPhone OS and even Symbian far outshone it, so why did they even give it the time of day? Because it was free for them to use and allowed them to concentrate more on the device and device features and less on writing an entire mobile OS (As many have tried and failed to do).
You're right, not many people who bought an Android phone knew or care that it was open source, but if it wasn't open source, then they never would have had the chance to buy it because it simply wouldn't have existed.
Android has found success thanks to being open source. If it wasn't open source, how many handset manufacturers do you think would have given it the time of day? Plus, lets not forget that Android's success can be measured in other ways - the Open Handset Alliance and their push for the entire mobile ecosystem to simply be more open. I'd say that's been a fair success as well, thanks to the open nature of Android.
The main focus of laser technology seems to be shooting down incoming projectiles, SAVING lives rather than killing them. Is that such a terrible thing? Plus, lets say for the sake of it that the laser based weapons are eventually used to kill people, what exactly is wrong with being "more efficient" about it? By "more efficient", what do you actually mean? In my mind, this means less collateral damage. I like the idea of a weapon that's powerful, yet exceptionally accurate. I like the idea of being able to pick out a target hiding in a crowd and neutralising him without toasting the person standing next to him. I also don't see that as such a terrible thing.
War is tragic, but until we have some sort of united earth, it also seems inevitable. Rather than just building bigger bombs, I'm glad someone is investing in alternative ways of fighting those wars, ways that ultimately mean less people have to die.
The key is in the summary: "Thus far Google hasn’t specified what the exact nature of Transdoid’s violations are".
Anything beyond this is pure speculation. there are plenty of torrent apps on the market, why was this singled out? There's probably a completely separate issue with the program, but because it's "torrents", people assume it's copyright infringement. I'm not saying it isn't, I'm not saying it is, what I'm saying is only Google knows why.
Butthurt? Why? Bitcoin's value dropped considerably, but before that it was on the up and up. Sure, if you owned a lot of bitcoins, their value went down. boo hoo. It'll go back up again and be where it was in just a few months, but you already know that, so just buy up as many as you can and you'll be fine.
I have a better idea! Instead of resorting to nuclear power, think of the untapped resource of the common household hamster! All those wheels, spinning and turning - all that energy going to waste! Every hamster owning house should have a miniature turbine inside it, powered by the hamster. Think of the energy it'll generate! Why, after only a year, your single solitary hamster will probably have generated enough power to power a lightbulb for a few minutes! Assuming your hamster lives that long.
I watched that same documentary, I fully agree it was very interesting and insightful.
However, as naive as this probably sounds, I don't think burying the nuclear waste is the right course of action. As the documentary points out, suitable locations are rare, it's expensive and even Onkalo is no guarantee that future civilisations won't try to dig down far enough to find out what's down there.
I also don't think we should ignore nuclear power, either. It has tremendous benefits and although its very dangerous if not handled correctly, there's a lot of nuclear power plants out there and very few accidents by comparison. I also believe (but would like to be corrected if I'm wrong) that all of the disasters that have occurred so far have been with reactors built in the 1970's or earlier. Technology has improved a lot since then and modern reactors are several orders of magnitude safer today. But I digress, they still have nuclear waste and that still needs to be handled.
What other solutions are there, other than burying it? Is anyone working on such things? Why not pump the money you would spend digging a massive hold in the ground into researching ways to dispose of or recycle the nuclear waste? After all, any nuclear nation out there has waste to get rid off, so the first country to come up with a viable solution can pretty much charge what they want and most countries will be willing to pay for it. It just seems that burying it into the ground is much the same as our attitude to rubbish - stick it in a landfill and forget about it. That plan has a finite lifespan, too.
When it comes to natural disasters in the UK, about the worst we ever get is a bit of flooding and even then, that's just certain regions, there's plenty of places to build a nuclear reactor that would be relatively safe.
Except from terrorist attacks, of course, but we haven't quite pandered to fox news on that one just yet.
I am fairly young at 24, so the cold war is a history lesson for me rather than a horrific memory. Perhaps you're right, it is more of an emotional thing rather than a rational argument and I'm looking forward to seeing how the next generation sees things.
Of course the parent was trolling, but why should I care about that? I've been wondering this for ages and I've got quite a few solid, reasonable responses. The net result is that I've learned something and quite an interesting debate has sparked up. I don't think that was the troll's intention and even if it was, it's not like he's gained anything from it.
Right, I have to ask this as a (more than likely) ignorant European who probably just doesn't "get" it - but what's with the obsession with "commies"? Who exactly are you referring to? I know that "Back in the day" of the cold war when Russia was seen as the big mortal enemy of the US, most people referred to them simply as the commies, or "communist Russia", but it has been like 2 decades since the USSR fell, who's left? Is it China? Is that who the "commies" are? If so, what has China got to do with the Obama administration? I genuinely do not know - why are Americans obsessed with communism? Why is it that, for example, a national health service is a bit "communist"? And why does that inherently make it bad? I'm not saying +1 for communism, more along the lines of "Even if it is a tad communist, how can free health care for all actually be a bad thing?". In the same way that Hitler was supposedly a vegetarian (I know he actually wasn't and it's just a myth, but anyway), why does that mean that being a vegetarian is a bad thing? Charles Darwin was supposedly a womanising prick, but that doesn't mean his theory on Natural Selection is any less valid. Not that I think that a free health service IS communist or anything, but I digress.
Anyway, the sum total of what I'm asking is basically - * Who are the "commies"? * Why do people care about the "commies"? * Are people afraid of the "commies" for some reason? Are they thinking that if a new electric grid is built, suddenly Russia will revert back to the USSR or something? * Is Slashdot communist?
So Torvaldis is THINKING of changing the version number? Doesn't that basically mean that the number is entirely arbitrary and thus it doesn't make a difference?
A much better comparison was done months ago here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-hdmi It's a digital signal, so with the correct capture equipment, they were able to get a checksum of the image sent from different HDMI cables. And guess what, they were all identical.
World of Warcraft is a plot based game as well. And the plot only really moves forward with each major expansion, yet it never seems to have trouble attracting people.
Why don't you check YOUR facts? Sony had already released the PS3 Slims WITHOUT OtherOS support when Geohot decided to take a look. Sure, he used OtherOS as the attack vector, but surely that just points out that removing OtherOS wouldn't accomplish anything as the hackers can just not update and continue exploring?
Furthermore, the actual "hack" was nontrivial - it invovled a bit of soldering and require precise timing. Because of this, it wasn't easy to pull off and worked maybe 1/3 of the time. Not only that, but it wasn't even remotely permanent and it couldn't be used for piracy or anything. In fact, interest in this hack was more or less gone by the time OtherOS was removed, if Sony had just ignored it until there was actually an issue, then it would have just went away. But then again, Maybe Sony realised how weak their security was.
1) It's NOT POSSIBLE (and never has been) to run PS3 games from Linux on the PS3. All the games are encrypted and such so that they can only be run from GameOS. This new Linux method has more access than ever, but I believe it's still impossible to play games outside of OtherOS.
2) There has been game hacks and cheat devices released, but they're not that prevalent any more. You're correct that everything needs to be signed, but as we have the private keys from frimware OS 3.41 and earlier, this isn't a problem. The problem now is that PSN has been locked out for Custom firmware users. Upgrading is necessary to get on PSN and upgrading disables all homebrew, so it's not really an issue for most. Nobody has released tools or a method to build a custom firmware based on future firmware versions. I'm sure it's possible, but not likely any time soon.
It is, but that doesn't mean it's unusable. On certain PS3's (particularly earlier ones) it wont work at all, but on newer ones, especially the slims, it is actually fully operational.
Slashdot Mirror
The debate isn't "do you believe in God or Science or both?", it's "do you have an UNSHAKABLE believe in God/Science"? The fact that the word "unshakable" is used means they must be mutually exclusive, because Science states that God doesn't exist (or rather, states that there's no proof that God exists).
Yes, in certain instances the two can be mixed, but this is an exception.
What if 10% of the population have an unshakable belief in the opposite? What happens then? Does society suffer, does one idea eventually take over?
I can think of plenty of examples where this might happen - Christianity vs. Science (or even another religion). It's very possible that 10% of society has an unshakable belief in God while another 10% have an unshakable belief in Science (or no God).
Except you've clearly missed the point entirely. Android wouldn't be anywhere near as successful as it is today if it wasn't open source. Yes, most manufacturers release their own version of it, with their own customisations and UI's, but they all base it off the same open source code. When Google pushes a new version, the manufacturers update their own versions with that code. No Android manufacturer has taken the code and ran with it, diverting off the official path to update and support it themselves. And no other Mobile OS gives them this ability, to concentrate entirely on making their devices unique, knowing that all those wonderful apps will still work with it (to a degree). Being open source is every reason why they chose it. If it was closed source, why would they bother? What would they have to gain over Windows Mobile (for example)? When Android first appeared, it was a pretty immature platform, the likes of (what was then called) iPhone OS and even Symbian far outshone it, so why did they even give it the time of day? Because it was free for them to use and allowed them to concentrate more on the device and device features and less on writing an entire mobile OS (As many have tried and failed to do).
You're right, not many people who bought an Android phone knew or care that it was open source, but if it wasn't open source, then they never would have had the chance to buy it because it simply wouldn't have existed.
Android has found success thanks to being open source. If it wasn't open source, how many handset manufacturers do you think would have given it the time of day?
Plus, lets not forget that Android's success can be measured in other ways - the Open Handset Alliance and their push for the entire mobile ecosystem to simply be more open. I'd say that's been a fair success as well, thanks to the open nature of Android.
The main focus of laser technology seems to be shooting down incoming projectiles, SAVING lives rather than killing them. Is that such a terrible thing?
Plus, lets say for the sake of it that the laser based weapons are eventually used to kill people, what exactly is wrong with being "more efficient" about it? By "more efficient", what do you actually mean? In my mind, this means less collateral damage. I like the idea of a weapon that's powerful, yet exceptionally accurate. I like the idea of being able to pick out a target hiding in a crowd and neutralising him without toasting the person standing next to him. I also don't see that as such a terrible thing.
War is tragic, but until we have some sort of united earth, it also seems inevitable. Rather than just building bigger bombs, I'm glad someone is investing in alternative ways of fighting those wars, ways that ultimately mean less people have to die.
The key is in the summary: "Thus far Google hasn’t specified what the exact nature of Transdoid’s violations are".
Anything beyond this is pure speculation. there are plenty of torrent apps on the market, why was this singled out? There's probably a completely separate issue with the program, but because it's "torrents", people assume it's copyright infringement. I'm not saying it isn't, I'm not saying it is, what I'm saying is only Google knows why.
Butthurt? Why? Bitcoin's value dropped considerably, but before that it was on the up and up. Sure, if you owned a lot of bitcoins, their value went down. boo hoo. It'll go back up again and be where it was in just a few months, but you already know that, so just buy up as many as you can and you'll be fine.
I have a better idea!
Instead of resorting to nuclear power, think of the untapped resource of the common household hamster!
All those wheels, spinning and turning - all that energy going to waste! Every hamster owning house should have a miniature turbine inside it, powered by the hamster. Think of the energy it'll generate! Why, after only a year, your single solitary hamster will probably have generated enough power to power a lightbulb for a few minutes! Assuming your hamster lives that long.
I watched that same documentary, I fully agree it was very interesting and insightful.
However, as naive as this probably sounds, I don't think burying the nuclear waste is the right course of action. As the documentary points out, suitable locations are rare, it's expensive and even Onkalo is no guarantee that future civilisations won't try to dig down far enough to find out what's down there.
I also don't think we should ignore nuclear power, either. It has tremendous benefits and although its very dangerous if not handled correctly, there's a lot of nuclear power plants out there and very few accidents by comparison. I also believe (but would like to be corrected if I'm wrong) that all of the disasters that have occurred so far have been with reactors built in the 1970's or earlier. Technology has improved a lot since then and modern reactors are several orders of magnitude safer today. But I digress, they still have nuclear waste and that still needs to be handled.
What other solutions are there, other than burying it? Is anyone working on such things? Why not pump the money you would spend digging a massive hold in the ground into researching ways to dispose of or recycle the nuclear waste? After all, any nuclear nation out there has waste to get rid off, so the first country to come up with a viable solution can pretty much charge what they want and most countries will be willing to pay for it. It just seems that burying it into the ground is much the same as our attitude to rubbish - stick it in a landfill and forget about it. That plan has a finite lifespan, too.
When it comes to natural disasters in the UK, about the worst we ever get is a bit of flooding and even then, that's just certain regions, there's plenty of places to build a nuclear reactor that would be relatively safe.
Except from terrorist attacks, of course, but we haven't quite pandered to fox news on that one just yet.
It might not be as convenient and be designed for an entirely different purpose, but it works for me.
I am fairly young at 24, so the cold war is a history lesson for me rather than a horrific memory. Perhaps you're right, it is more of an emotional thing rather than a rational argument and I'm looking forward to seeing how the next generation sees things.
Of course the parent was trolling, but why should I care about that? I've been wondering this for ages and I've got quite a few solid, reasonable responses. The net result is that I've learned something and quite an interesting debate has sparked up. I don't think that was the troll's intention and even if it was, it's not like he's gained anything from it.
Right, I have to ask this as a (more than likely) ignorant European who probably just doesn't "get" it - but what's with the obsession with "commies"? Who exactly are you referring to? I know that "Back in the day" of the cold war when Russia was seen as the big mortal enemy of the US, most people referred to them simply as the commies, or "communist Russia", but it has been like 2 decades since the USSR fell, who's left? Is it China? Is that who the "commies" are? If so, what has China got to do with the Obama administration?
I genuinely do not know - why are Americans obsessed with communism? Why is it that, for example, a national health service is a bit "communist"? And why does that inherently make it bad? I'm not saying +1 for communism, more along the lines of "Even if it is a tad communist, how can free health care for all actually be a bad thing?". In the same way that Hitler was supposedly a vegetarian (I know he actually wasn't and it's just a myth, but anyway), why does that mean that being a vegetarian is a bad thing? Charles Darwin was supposedly a womanising prick, but that doesn't mean his theory on Natural Selection is any less valid. Not that I think that a free health service IS communist or anything, but I digress.
Anyway, the sum total of what I'm asking is basically -
* Who are the "commies"?
* Why do people care about the "commies"?
* Are people afraid of the "commies" for some reason? Are they thinking that if a new electric grid is built, suddenly Russia will revert back to the USSR or something?
* Is Slashdot communist?
Ahhh Slashdot, where bashing Microsoft for no good reason is always a good way to get modded up.
Or shall I rephrase that...[citation needed]?
So Torvaldis is THINKING of changing the version number? Doesn't that basically mean that the number is entirely arbitrary and thus it doesn't make a difference?
Ok so it's Ryan giggs, we've got that. But who's the journalist? I figured it'd be Ian Hisslop but I'm not sure.
A much better comparison was done months ago here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-hdmi
It's a digital signal, so with the correct capture equipment, they were able to get a checksum of the image sent from different HDMI cables. And guess what, they were all identical.
EA do what they must because they can.
World of Warcraft is a plot based game as well. And the plot only really moves forward with each major expansion, yet it never seems to have trouble attracting people.
Why don't you check YOUR facts?
Sony had already released the PS3 Slims WITHOUT OtherOS support when Geohot decided to take a look. Sure, he used OtherOS as the attack vector, but surely that just points out that removing OtherOS wouldn't accomplish anything as the hackers can just not update and continue exploring?
Furthermore, the actual "hack" was nontrivial - it invovled a bit of soldering and require precise timing. Because of this, it wasn't easy to pull off and worked maybe 1/3 of the time. Not only that, but it wasn't even remotely permanent and it couldn't be used for piracy or anything. In fact, interest in this hack was more or less gone by the time OtherOS was removed, if Sony had just ignored it until there was actually an issue, then it would have just went away. But then again, Maybe Sony realised how weak their security was.
It certainly makes slashdot look a damn sight more insightful though.
I'll field this -
1) It's NOT POSSIBLE (and never has been) to run PS3 games from Linux on the PS3. All the games are encrypted and such so that they can only be run from GameOS. This new Linux method has more access than ever, but I believe it's still impossible to play games outside of OtherOS.
2) There has been game hacks and cheat devices released, but they're not that prevalent any more. You're correct that everything needs to be signed, but as we have the private keys from frimware OS 3.41 and earlier, this isn't a problem. The problem now is that PSN has been locked out for Custom firmware users. Upgrading is necessary to get on PSN and upgrading disables all homebrew, so it's not really an issue for most. Nobody has released tools or a method to build a custom firmware based on future firmware versions. I'm sure it's possible, but not likely any time soon.
It is, but that doesn't mean it's unusable. On certain PS3's (particularly earlier ones) it wont work at all, but on newer ones, especially the slims, it is actually fully operational.
Look at the comments on the same piece of news, but from a site that's predominantly made up of PS3 fans...
http://n4g.com/news/756574/hackers-bring-back-otheros-for-ps3/com