I finally downgraded my 2012 Nexus 7 today back to KitKat. It was essentially unusable running Lollipop.
Unless Google can make their new versions perform well on older hardware, of course you're going to have a lot of people on the older OS versions. I'm not going to buy a new phone/tablet every time Google releases an update to their OS.
Pretty sure you are going to need a drink long before low gravity messes with you.
Pretty much all other reasons you list as problems could be applied to a move to Wyoming, but people do that all the time.
Nothing in that article suggests that patches are 'forced' on users, only that they are available when they are done, rather than once a month.
As much as I appreciate and generally agree with your point, I'd remind you of something Bjorn Lomborg - no stranger to controversy - pointed out: if you want to talk about a disease, you talk to a doctor, no question. If you want to talk about climate, you talk to a climatologist, again, no question.
But if you're making a value judgement - deciding which of those things is more important, or which you need to spend limited dollars fixing - NEITHER the doctor nor the climatologist is appropriate. That is rightly the realm of politics, insofar as politicians are the avenue by which the public's will is exercised.
Obama and his whole administration are a bunch of ideologues. They can't and won't get it. Therefore, they look like retards when the motive is clear as day but induces cognitive dissonance on their part.
Let's hold a hearing on scientifically driven politics, and don't invite the politicians!
Great, lets just look in on this group of scientists I found that are not funded by government money:
1) The app has to declare if it's going to be doing background processing, and you have to give a reason why they will accept. So not just any app can do that.
What we really need is the ability to turn on and off specific permissions by app. Perhaps with the ability to limit internet permission to certain IPs/URLs per app. That would solve most of the problem.
I thought Google added that ability in an early 4.0 or 5.0 version of Android, but then backed it out... Sadly I think because too many apps react badly when permissions are withdrawn it expects to run. The whole model creates a bad precedent I think where you assume you'll have all the app permissions you requested and so if any are withdrawn individually (which advanced users can do) the app is prone to break even though it could carry on just fine if it had been coded to detect that one permission was disabled. Google is going to have to bite that bullet at some point.
One of the things I was thinking the port was there for, was probably when developers could build native apps for the phone - since it would be a little pokey to ship debug builds and running debug info over wireless to the watch, a development cable would be a great idea.
It's probably also for Apple Store employees to run diagnostics (not sure if they have equipment for that yet).
The diagnostic port is hidden by a cover. I'd be interested to see if removing the cover adversely affect's the watch's water resistance.
It may somewhat, but given that the port itself is located under the round part of the band that slides into the watch, it seems like it would be sealed away fairly well (especially if you designed the strap with that in mind).
It seems pretty sure sweat would not be able to get in there, really only submersion would have a chance.
Excuse me sir, but I could not help heartily agreeing with the veracity of your statement and wondering just why it was your signature for at least that post is not "Ha Ha!".
I agree it would have been really illuminating to do the same test for a large range of free iOS apps.
However I think that you wouldn't see the most egregious of tracking stuff going on in iOS, for two reasons:
1) iOS reviews would I think alarm on something connecting to 810 different tracking sites. Definitely f you were trying to do anything like that in the background.
2) There's simply not as much data to gather. Most Android apps ask for all possible permissions, because why not? You're probably not going to read it anyway. With the iOS permissions as they are the user is going to think "why is this app which has nothing to do with contacts, asking for contacts" (or location, or photo library, or health data, etc).
That said I'm sure many free apps on iOS are doing everything they can possibly get away with, and I would love to see quantified just what that is.
Well, by that logic then this is relevant too:
According to data published by the Social Security Administration, the name Hillary is the most severely poisoned baby name in history. Hillary had been steadily climbing the baby name charts since the 1960s, when it first graced the Top 1000, becoming the 136th most common name for baby girls in 1992. But the name sharply reversed course in 1993, smashing several longstanding records (Ebeneezer, Adolph) for name contamination in its plunge from the Top 1000 girl names last year.
I'd only add one point further: as much as Ike's prescient warning about the military-industrial complex is quoted ad nauseum, what is much less-often quoted is his comments immediately following that bit...
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.