It honestly depends on how they measure endurance. If it's measured as 1000x the 3 million writes, then no. If it's 1000x the three-year estimated wear-out time under consumer conditions, then that's phenomenal.
Nanoscale slider switches?
Seriously, though, it's some sort of material change according to what little information has been released.:
These columns contain a memory cell and a selector, but the real innovation is that unlike other technologies, which store data by trapping electrons in insulators (and other electron trapping techniques), 3D XPoint stores data by using the property change of the material itself. This bulk material property change utilizes the entire portion of the memory cell, which increases scalability and performance.
What's really interesting is the PDF with one diagram showing Xpoint sooner and then 3D XPoint on the 2018-2019 timeline at Semicon Taiwan that later has a diagram much similar to Intel/Micron's diagram. It appears to be showing a variable resistor (potentiometer) then a diode between the word line and bit line crossbars.
If they are building a materials-based variable resistor that gets written to be more or less resistive based on voltage what are they calling that process? It needn't be chalcogenide, but it sure sounds like some other sort of phase change to change the resistance. If it is memory that adjusts its resistance based on past voltages and uses that resistance for reading the value, that sounds like a memristor. (According to Chua all PCM, ReRAM, and MRAM are memristors.)
I think perhaps Intel and Micron are saying it's not PCM and it's not memristors just so people don't confuse it with other attempts at similar but different approaches.
I'm afraid I don't know exactly what will fail without the libraries. I'd think if you've got your phone rooted you'd just want Google's patch that your carrier hasn't sent you yet.
The vulnerability isn't in Hangouts. It's in Stagefright, which is a media library. Hangouts is only important here because it uses Stagefright in a way that exacerbates the issue. You can't fix Stagefright by updating Hangouts. You have to update Stagefright, which is part of the OS rather than part of an app.
No. Just no. Providing the source TO THE CUSTOMER does not make it open source. Allowing the customer TO DISTRIBUTE THE CODE AND THEIR CHANGES makes it open source.
This doesn't sound like open source is your real desire. It's totally possible to have a proprietary license with source provided to the customer.
You could use something very similar to the pre-2007 qmail license. It allows people to download and use it. They can make any changes locally. They can redistribute the pristine sources or binaries made from them to others. They can't distribute their alterations. They can distribute patches against the pristine sources, but they can't call those part of the product.
The OSI has a whole list of licenses. I'd bet not one of these meets your requirements. You really shouldn't be saying it's "open source" unless you're using an OSI-approved license.
Software licensing is a legal issue. The people you really want to be talking to about what license language meets your exact needs in light of the laws where you operate are lawyers. More specifically, you want probably want people versed in both copyright and contract law to look into this.
My company issued phone is a smart phone. I don't have a "desk phone". If I did, it would connect to our Asterisk box, not directly to a POTS line. We have WiFi all over the building, both a RADIUS-authenticated SSID and one for less secure stuff that just has a shared WPA password. Some things are only available via the wired Ethernet. What keeps us more secure than banning smartphones is hiring people who wouldn't steal and sell the company's source code and proprietary information.
A targeted threat that broke into an employee's phone then connected to the firewalled WiFi then got past the firewall and into the rest of the systems is really complex. It'd probably actually be simpler to target the developers' VMs where the source code lives.
You may notice I never suggested the OP join a union. I mentioned that the union would be interested in how he's being classified at an agency that undoubtably has some union employees.
Server? Get it right and apply only security updates. Work desktop? Change it up every once in a while as long as stability isn't sacrificed. Don't spend so much time tweaking that you lose a lot of time actually doing your work. Home workstation? Play with it. Try things out. See which updates are worth putting elsewhere. Game system? Make sure it supports the games you want to play and isn't an easy security target. Work phone? Get security updates, but don't update it to odd things that your IT department is going to hate you for. Personal phone? Well, who cares as long as it's as dependable as you need it to be?
People with green cards wouldn't need amnesty for being illegally present. Their green card is part of the paper trail of a legal immigrant.
If you're through a consulting company that sells your time to the state and managed like an employee then you're not an employee of the state. You're an employee of that consulting company. The arrangement between the state and your employer is one thing, and your arrangement with the consulting company is another. Your company can't sell your time on a regular schedule to the state and then tell you you're a contract employee. That doesn't mean the state can't contract for a company's employees to be assigned to work on-site at the state's offices, though.
If you're on contract with the state directly, then they should treat you like a contractor. If they manage you as an employee, they need to employ you internally. If they want to keep you as a contractor, they should give you those freedoms.
You need to know that this isn't just about you. Allowing yourself to be treated as an employee and compensated as a contractor weakens everyone else's position, too. In fact, there's probably a union like AFSCME that would be very interested to talk to you about this.
A four-hour hold for evaluation is not what most people would call a "sentence".
8500 of those, including manufacturing processes for those phones. They also bought perpetual licenses for every other patent Nokia has outside of the NSN stuff. MS also gets the protection of 60 or so cross-licenses Nokia had with other companies like Qualcomm, Motorola Mobility, and Motorola Solutions. Here's an article about those patent licenses and purchases.
In case "Motorola Mobility" doesn't ring quite the right bell, that's the portion of Motorola that Google bought and then sold to Arris Group and Lenovo as two separate pieces, keeping a third piece and all but about 2000 patents.
This significantly weakens the case of any Android phone manufacturer trying to settle patent suits against Microsoft in a patent-for-patent cross licensing swap. The patents Microsoft actually owns are one thing. The massive number of patents they already have a license to that could otherwise be used MAD-style in a back-and-forth license fee case are another entirely.
Sailfish and Symbian are both proven phone OS options. Nokia has strong ties to both. I wouldn't be surprised to see either one, although Sailfish has the advantage of already supporting most Android apps.
I think Microsoft knew they could never compete in the space long-term but wanted a big patent pool tied intimately to the phone industry. Their money-making strategy in the phone space was not to get Windows to actually be competitive. It was to sue and settle for royalties against all those Android phone makers.