Google selects from the available choices. They don't get to write their own ticket. None of the available choices provides what you want. nVidia is beginning to, so you will have a valid complaint eventually.
So how is it a couple of days after bad press and their employee resigning from the project, the binaries magically get released? Google has bought entire companies to get their way. I find it absurd to think that they really couldn't find somebody to make a chip that didn't have proprietary drivers. They took the easy route.
And in this case, you'll have a point when you can show that the Google Apps contain GPL code. You don't understand the licenses you're complaining about.
I understand just fine. It's that their is a myth that a single line about aggregation invalidates what clearly applies:
" If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. "
Now idiots like you will tell me that Google Apps aren't being distributed as part of a whole because they aren't linked by a compiler, despite the fact that the GPLv2 contains no such verbiage, and it's obvious that Google is selling a whole product, and not mere aggregation. Take away either the Google Apps or the Linux kernel and the device either loses all its value for Google or doesn't function.
There's a huge gap between perfection, simply following the basic principles of open source, and what Google does. Google could follow the basic principles of open source and release all their source at the same time as they distribute their product. They could do this while being less-than-perfect by giving their "partners" a head start before making releases, like they do now.
Well, go buy that other tablet that satisfies all of your requirements then.
Keep on being an apologist and toady. In the meantime, it's good that others complain when they lapse. Ultimately you will benefit.
Google has fulfilled its promises and, indeed, been trustworthy.
If Google was trustworthy we'd have the source for blobs and there wouldn't have been a delay in the first place, and the Google employee in change of AOSP wouldn't have resigned from the project.
Every season the usual idiots tell us Google won't release the source and binaries for new, proper Android devices, and every season the usual idiots are proven wrong. Why does Slashdot keep dribbling this same old rubbish?
Yeah, that idiot employee at Google, the one in charge of their open source release, resigned from the project because he couldn't do his job, and then miraculously a couple of days later the binaries get released.
Nope, nobody should ever complain. We should all trust Google and their partners to eventually release the goods when the time is right.
What they all fear is explaining their own position to the American people. Our Congresscritters are going to keep their mouth shut and let the heat fall on the president.
That's not true. They've already spoken out in support of it.
Firstly there were many reasons to get Saddam, from the mass murders of his own people
Happened long before we invaded, and there are lots of bad guys we tolerate or do business with. That's not a good reason. Even worse, lots of people have died as a result of the invasion.
to the sponsoring of terrorism worldwide (even if not the 9/11 attackers)
No different than Syria or Iran, and we weren't going to invade them. Not a good reason.
to fulfilling the mandate for the invasion of of Iraq obtained from Congress by Bill Clinton
There was no mandate for the United States to invade Iraq by Bill Clinton. You are referring to the Iraq Liberation Act, which was "An Act To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq," which specified assistance to opposition organizations. It explicitly says, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as providedin section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act."
Firstly, there appear to have been WMDs in Iraq but before the invasion they were reportedly shipped to Syria (where they are being used by both sides today).
I've never heard this. I remember reports about this being a possible scenario that could happen. What actually occurred is that once we got into the country, overturned it, and debriefed people, we learned there was no WMD to begin with.
Criticise Bush all you want, but the memes that he lied and the only reason to invade Iraq was WMD that didn't exist are simply not true.
There were plenty of lies. He just pinned them on the CIA and washed his hands of it. The Powell report to the United Nations, "Curveball", the aluminum tubes, the yellowcake. They wanted war, and they got it, using whatever flimsy evidence was available.
According to some studies we've already crossed the tipping point and it's going to happen. So even if every government and every state and every person suddenly did everything they could to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we're going to get that methane anyway.
If you read the second link from the Slashdot summary, the catastrophic methane release is highly disputed by other scientists, and for good reasons.
To really stop it, you need a proxy like Privoxy or Squid.
Try the RequestPolicy plugin. It blocks all 3rd-party requests by default, and you can selectively enable stuff while browsing like you do in NoScript.
A bunch of my friends pinned me down while a big fat fuck stuck his shower wet limp dickhead into my ear... shit like this is common, and it was a joke and not rape
I wonder if the cure isn't worse than the infestation. I think sticky tape would have been the safer option. Plus somebody else mentioned using a steamer to kill the bugs and eggs.
The Android case is completely different, both because these are Linux-specific drivers and because they are being distributed with the Linux kernel on the same media as part of a complete operating system. This is just as much a violation of the license as distributing a closed-source program which depends on a GPL library.
I agree, but who is going to call them on it? By that I mean what copyright owner of GPL'd code. I think the Linus pragmatism of not caring about GPL principles has dominated the entire culture around the Linux kernel, so as long as the kernel source is released, they turn a blind eye on blobs that get distributed with Android.
Citation: "The power of judicial review makes the Supreme Court's role in our government vital. Judicial review is the power of any court, when deciding a case, to declare that a law passed by a legislature or an action of an executive branch officer or employee is invalid because it is inconsistent with the Constitution. Although district courts, courts of appeals, and state courts can exercise the power of judicial review, their decisions about federal law are always subject to review by the Supreme Court on appeal."
It is not this court's job to determine constitutionality. If you don't like the way it works, Congress is the proper venue for change.
Nonsense. It's every court's job to uphold the Constitution. If Congress or the Executive branch oversteps the line, it's their job to reel them in.
And of course logically it cannot be a rubber stamp if Bush felt the need to circumvent the court for his illegal spying on the American people.
That's a good point. So it isn't so surefire that Bush wasn't willing to risk it, though we'll never know since Bush didn't try.
These statistics do not reflect the fact that many applications are altered prior to final submission or even withheld from final submission entirely, often after an indication that a judge would not approve them
Yea, I've noticed a distinct decline in reading comprehension abilities over the last several years. Shame, that.
It's a shame somebody can't create a logical argument and expects their bullshit to stick.
FWIW, most people I talk to here don't require every single little thing explained to them in great detail - they understand that we're all connected to the same internet, so if anyone wants clarification of a topic they are free and able to go look it up for their own goddamn selves.
Pathetic. After all these posts, you want to play the Google card. Your argument failed. Google can't save you. You even admitted that when asked personally for a distinction, you would treat the two the same when being asked questions.
I've thoroughly enjoyed watching you increase your own blood pressure for no good reason, though. Thanks for the chuckle.
Congratulations of making an ass out of yourself and trying to play it like a joke at the end. Maybe one day you'll find some intellectual honesty.
Please cite where a distinction is made that the tv shows you're talking about aren't "Law and Order" or "CSI."
PS - See what I did there?
Yes, you made an ass out of yourself. I can easily cite the difference: Law & Order"is an American police procedural and legal drama television series, created by Dick Wolf and part of the Law & Order franchise"
and from legal drama: "A legal drama is a television show subgenre of dramatic programming. This subgenre presents fictional drama about law."
48 Hours: "48 Hours is an American documentary television series that airs on CBS. The series has been broadcast on the network since January 19, 1988."
I was pretty sure most people know the difference between cops, detectives, SWAT teams, etc., but I suppose you've successfully proven that assumption wrong.
Ok, since you can't cite a difference, let me ask you personally: Is it ok to talk to detectives, but not patrol officers? Or is it vice-versa?
No, I don't waste time watching crime dramas and pretending they're indicative of reality, you've got me there.
They are reality. Do you think they put on a separate investigation just for the camera? I'm not talking about "Law and Order" or "CSI".
In the brains of people capable of cogent reasoning.
In other words, you have none. Cogent reasoning will tell you that law enforcement is law enforcement, and no distinction is made when people give advice to not talk to the police.
crimes are solved by the examination of evidence, not dubious third-party accounts
Try watching some real detective shows where they follow along with a camera as (typically) murders are solved. Talking to people is crucial, and leads to non-witness evidence. You really don't know what you are talking about.
Not to mention, I think you're conflating detectives with patrol officers; world of difference betwix the two.
Please cite where a distinction is made when advised not to talk to the police.
Slashdot Mirror
Google selects from the available choices. They don't get to write their own ticket. None of the available choices provides what you want. nVidia is beginning to, so you will have a valid complaint eventually.
So how is it a couple of days after bad press and their employee resigning from the project, the binaries magically get released? Google has bought entire companies to get their way. I find it absurd to think that they really couldn't find somebody to make a chip that didn't have proprietary drivers. They took the easy route.
And in this case, you'll have a point when you can show that the Google Apps contain GPL code. You don't understand the licenses you're complaining about.
I understand just fine. It's that their is a myth that a single line about aggregation invalidates what clearly applies:
" If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. "
Now idiots like you will tell me that Google Apps aren't being distributed as part of a whole because they aren't linked by a compiler, despite the fact that the GPLv2 contains no such verbiage, and it's obvious that Google is selling a whole product, and not mere aggregation. Take away either the Google Apps or the Linux kernel and the device either loses all its value for Google or doesn't function.
You'd need a ladder.
Yes, that's quite a pedestal you put yourself on.
Google still doesn't own all that source.
They are in charge. They make the choices about who to partner with and under what agreements.
And you really can't expect the source to Google Apps themselves.
Then they shouldn't use GPL components. At least Apple got it right and went with BSD.
I have my own concerns about Google but your objections aren't among them, because they are nonsensical.
Fuck you too.
Nothing short of perfection is acceptable.
There's a huge gap between perfection, simply following the basic principles of open source, and what Google does. Google could follow the basic principles of open source and release all their source at the same time as they distribute their product. They could do this while being less-than-perfect by giving their "partners" a head start before making releases, like they do now.
Well, go buy that other tablet that satisfies all of your requirements then.
Keep on being an apologist and toady. In the meantime, it's good that others complain when they lapse. Ultimately you will benefit.
Post the unpopular truth, get modded down. It's the Slashdot way.
Google has fulfilled its promises and, indeed, been trustworthy.
If Google was trustworthy we'd have the source for blobs and there wouldn't have been a delay in the first place, and the Google employee in change of AOSP wouldn't have resigned from the project.
Every season the usual idiots tell us Google won't release the source and binaries for new, proper Android devices, and every season the usual idiots are proven wrong. Why does Slashdot keep dribbling this same old rubbish?
Yeah, that idiot employee at Google, the one in charge of their open source release, resigned from the project because he couldn't do his job, and then miraculously a couple of days later the binaries get released.
Nope, nobody should ever complain. We should all trust Google and their partners to eventually release the goods when the time is right.
What they all fear is explaining their own position to the American people. Our Congresscritters are going to keep their mouth shut and let the heat fall on the president.
That's not true. They've already spoken out in support of it.
Firstly there were many reasons to get Saddam, from the mass murders of his own people
Happened long before we invaded, and there are lots of bad guys we tolerate or do business with. That's not a good reason. Even worse, lots of people have died as a result of the invasion.
to the sponsoring of terrorism worldwide (even if not the 9/11 attackers)
No different than Syria or Iran, and we weren't going to invade them. Not a good reason.
to fulfilling the mandate for the invasion of of Iraq obtained from Congress by Bill Clinton
There was no mandate for the United States to invade Iraq by Bill Clinton. You are referring to the Iraq Liberation Act, which was "An Act To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq," which specified assistance to opposition organizations. It explicitly says, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as providedin section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act."
Firstly, there appear to have been WMDs in Iraq but before the invasion they were reportedly shipped to Syria (where they are being used by both sides today).
I've never heard this. I remember reports about this being a possible scenario that could happen. What actually occurred is that once we got into the country, overturned it, and debriefed people, we learned there was no WMD to begin with.
Criticise Bush all you want, but the memes that he lied and the only reason to invade Iraq was WMD that didn't exist are simply not true.
There were plenty of lies. He just pinned them on the CIA and washed his hands of it. The Powell report to the United Nations, "Curveball", the aluminum tubes, the yellowcake. They wanted war, and they got it, using whatever flimsy evidence was available.
When CO2 levels are very very high the only things that can survive are plants and bacteria.
And your reference for this is...?
According to some studies we've already crossed the tipping point and it's going to happen. So even if every government and every state and every person suddenly did everything they could to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we're going to get that methane anyway.
If you read the second link from the Slashdot summary, the catastrophic methane release is highly disputed by other scientists, and for good reasons.
To really stop it, you need a proxy like Privoxy or Squid.
Try the RequestPolicy plugin. It blocks all 3rd-party requests by default, and you can selectively enable stuff while browsing like you do in NoScript.
A bunch of my friends pinned me down while a big fat fuck stuck his shower wet limp dickhead into my ear... shit like this is common, and it was a joke and not rape
I think you have Stockholm syndrome.
This "story" is still a crappy ad.
As understand it, Bill was never the technology guy at Microsoft.
He was one of the original three programmers for their BASIC software, which started the company.
I wonder if the cure isn't worse than the infestation. I think sticky tape would have been the safer option. Plus somebody else mentioned using a steamer to kill the bugs and eggs.
I think Jefferson was informed wrongly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law
The Android case is completely different, both because these are Linux-specific drivers and because they are being distributed with the Linux kernel on the same media as part of a complete operating system. This is just as much a violation of the license as distributing a closed-source program which depends on a GPL library.
I agree, but who is going to call them on it? By that I mean what copyright owner of GPL'd code. I think the Linus pragmatism of not caring about GPL principles has dominated the entire culture around the Linux kernel, so as long as the kernel source is released, they turn a blind eye on blobs that get distributed with Android.
Citation: "The power of judicial review makes the Supreme Court's role in our government vital. Judicial review is the power of any court, when deciding a case, to declare that a law passed by a legislature or an action of an executive branch officer or employee is invalid because it is inconsistent with the Constitution. Although district courts, courts of appeals, and state courts can exercise the power of judicial review, their decisions about federal law are always subject to review by the Supreme Court on appeal."
It is not this court's job to determine constitutionality. If you don't like the way it works, Congress is the proper venue for change.
Nonsense. It's every court's job to uphold the Constitution. If Congress or the Executive branch oversteps the line, it's their job to reel them in.
And of course logically it cannot be a rubber stamp if Bush felt the need to circumvent the court for his illegal spying on the American people.
That's a good point. So it isn't so surefire that Bush wasn't willing to risk it, though we'll never know since Bush didn't try.
These statistics do not reflect the fact that many applications are altered prior to final submission or even withheld from final submission entirely, often after an indication that a judge would not approve them
Thanks for the citation. I concede your point.
Yea, I've noticed a distinct decline in reading comprehension abilities over the last several years. Shame, that.
It's a shame somebody can't create a logical argument and expects their bullshit to stick.
FWIW, most people I talk to here don't require every single little thing explained to them in great detail - they understand that we're all connected to the same internet, so if anyone wants clarification of a topic they are free and able to go look it up for their own goddamn selves.
Pathetic. After all these posts, you want to play the Google card. Your argument failed. Google can't save you. You even admitted that when asked personally for a distinction, you would treat the two the same when being asked questions.
I've thoroughly enjoyed watching you increase your own blood pressure for no good reason, though. Thanks for the chuckle.
Congratulations of making an ass out of yourself and trying to play it like a joke at the end. Maybe one day you'll find some intellectual honesty.
Movin' the ol' goalposts, are we? Neat.
However, fact remains you committed the same sin you lambasted me for. Then got all butthurt and snarky about it. Just sayin'.
I honestly don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You asked, I delivered. The only person moving the goalpost is you. "Just sayin'".
Deciding whether or not to speak to one of any rank is a personal decision. YMMV, I prefer to not risk it.
In other words, you offer no distinction in the context under consideration. Moving the goalposts. "Just sayin'."
Please cite where a distinction is made that the tv shows you're talking about aren't "Law and Order" or "CSI."
PS - See what I did there?
Yes, you made an ass out of yourself. I can easily cite the difference: Law & Order "is an American police procedural and legal drama television series, created by Dick Wolf and part of the Law & Order franchise"
and from legal drama: "A legal drama is a television show subgenre of dramatic programming. This subgenre presents fictional drama about law."
48 Hours: "48 Hours is an American documentary television series that airs on CBS. The series has been broadcast on the network since January 19, 1988."
I was pretty sure most people know the difference between cops, detectives, SWAT teams, etc., but I suppose you've successfully proven that assumption wrong.
Ok, since you can't cite a difference, let me ask you personally: Is it ok to talk to detectives, but not patrol officers? Or is it vice-versa?
No, I don't waste time watching crime dramas and pretending they're indicative of reality, you've got me there.
They are reality. Do you think they put on a separate investigation just for the camera? I'm not talking about "Law and Order" or "CSI".
In the brains of people capable of cogent reasoning.
In other words, you have none. Cogent reasoning will tell you that law enforcement is law enforcement, and no distinction is made when people give advice to not talk to the police.
Their job is to grant or deny requests according to the law, not interpret the Constitution. If a requests fits the law, it is granted.
The Constitution is the highest law in the land.
The fact is that all requests are vetted before they get to the judges to be approved or disapproved.
Where is your citation?
There could be a 90% rejection rate for all we know
Right, speculation.
crimes are solved by the examination of evidence, not dubious third-party accounts
Try watching some real detective shows where they follow along with a camera as (typically) murders are solved. Talking to people is crucial, and leads to non-witness evidence. You really don't know what you are talking about.
Not to mention, I think you're conflating detectives with patrol officers; world of difference betwix the two.
Please cite where a distinction is made when advised not to talk to the police.