And it does this at the (human readable version) 23:59:59 to 00:00:00 handover to make it happen at the end of the day.

I appreciate that Linux manages its TOD clock as xxx ticks etc, but what I wrote is accurate from a user watching the result. Trying to explain how NTP does it (on all the different OS' it runs on) is a bit much for for a slashdot post (well at least its more time that I have for posting!)

FWIW NTP on z/OS just spins the clock so the last second runs really slow to make sure that any apps don't ever see the ::60 (or try and react to it at least).

Apple didn't force you to update, just if you wanted to use a NEW development platform, then it was built using a NEWER version of the OS, so if you WANTED to use it, you would have to update his OS.

No forcing. You could have (and probably did) continue on just fine without updating. Its always your choice, just sometimes if you want to run program X then you may need to meet minimum requirements Y. And remember XCode is much more than just an iOS development platform, its for the whole Mac OS X as well.

And I'll leave the rest of your waffling, irrelevant comments for someone else to decipher. Though quite how you link minimum requirements for a development platform to your "Freedom" and the US Constitution I don't follow.

Oh and what you thought of as NTP sounds more like how NTPDATE works (i.e one shot "whats the time Mr Server" style clock updates)

NTP is /far/ more complicated and does stuff like working out the time delay between you and the server(s), the skew of /your/ clock (so it knows if your clock tends to run a bit fast/slow and adjusts for that) and lots of other clever "make time of day clocks work better" stuff (and sometimes even updating the HW TOD clock if needed)

When NTP knows that a leap second is to be added, it (on Linux at least) sets a flag in the kernel to say that at 23:59:59, please continue to 23:59:60 before going to 00:00:00. This is set by NTP anytime on the day that the leap second is due to be implemented, hence why a server running NTP on Linux would know that TODAY a leap second is due (cause they should always be posted at the 23:59:59 cross-over)

You're right that is the much better question. Most people would think that their phone does x,y and z when they buy it, so if they need the new shinyness of a or b, then they would think nothing of buying a new phone to get it.

Problem is getting manufacturer's to realize that.

And to be fair, how many non-technical people /really/ know about the S/W updates?

Problem is that the you are not (usually) the hardware manufacture's customer. The carrier is and from a hardware manufacture's point of view, why should they spend any money on getting a new version of the OS onto an already sold and accounted for phone?
It won't make them any more money, and might even help loose money in both the costs of getting the OS up and running, testing it and supporting it, and also if you (the end user) has the new OS on the existing phone, where is the incentive to buy a new phone with the new OS?

Not saying its right, but it seems to be the way it works right now.

And the patents ARE being used defensively as in "We will defend ourselves using our patents from you copying our research and development efforts"

And the vast majority of the patents are for things other than the physical look. For example the data detector patents are from old Mac OS and Newton tech, way before Google and Motorola even started work on Android. (Admittedly I think blocking import of a phone over a data detector patent is crazy, but thats the way its played out)

To violate a "design patent" you need to hit ALL the things in the patent, not just "its black with rounded corners". But on the other hand, to violate a "utility patent" you just need to hit one of the clauses.
So anytime you hear that Apple (or anyone really) sue someone over a design patent, then its usually because (they believe) of blatant whole-sale copying. Like your own lawyer not being able to tell the difference between Apple and Samsung's devices when the judge holds them both up.

Not to mention that Motorola's patents were committed to various standard's agencies (including the ITU) as FRAND, now Google/Motorola and Samsung want to go back on that commitment because they have no other defense against Apple's non-FRAND patents. "Do no evil"... Right.

What are the unstated rules of the tech patent game? We can copy you, but if you try and stop us we will attempt to sue you with FRAND patents?

I have a question? Are you a ten-year old child? Why else would you add someone to your "foe" list when they post a reply to someone who (judging by their previous comments) works for RIM Marketing and is attempting to bail water out of the Titanic with a bucket? Too late, Iceberg has already totalled the ship...

Best of luck with your anger management issues (after looking at your blog, you might want to chill slightly)

Cool. Well then looks like Android is something that will work for you better than it would for me.

Best of luck. Esp if your manufacturer or carrier blocks the latest updates. Or if you cannot find drivers for the H/W if you want to "roll your own".

If you are too lazy to search for it, doesn't give you the right to say it doesn't exist!

And the agreement between Apple and Xerox would have been a written contract. Why do you think the judge in the later case that Xerox attempted to bring against Apple was pretty much dismissed (all but one claim that Xerox owned stardock, which was not in doubt)? If Apple didn't have a written and agreed contract (that you might even call a "license") with Xerox over the GUI, how could they prevail?

And the links I posted to your comments included New Yorker articles. If you really want to find out more (and you should if you intend to call other people out on it) then I suggest you start there. Or even read the court transcript.

TL;DR? Research before you post!

The FRAND licensed patents that Apple licensed by purchasing baseband chips from Qualcomm (who had already payed Motorola the patent fee) that Motorola then "terminated" Qualcomm's license but only if the person purchasing the baseband chip was Apple...

After setting that up, they then sued Apple and demanded 2.25% of the retail price of each iPhone (apparently Motorola like 2.25%, looks like it was also the amount of the patent fee in the baseband chip).

Doesn't look very "Fair, Reasonable, Non-Discriminatory" to me....

You missed the "on their phone" bit...

What do you think "and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product" means then?

Just because I used the word "license" and the article uses the word "understanding" you don't seem to understand it means the same thing?

The "understanding" or "license" would have been in a written contract between Apple and Xerox.

Stop being deliberately stupid.