"Rogue" because of their recent statements of wanting to "take Android away from Google" - I.e. fork AOSP and do more than just 'skin' it. That is different than those you mentioned, making them more like Amazon than HTC/Samsung/Etc
Must be a new thing then. Been a few years(like 10-15), but I owned a number of pick up trucks in california, including buying from dealers who took care of all paperwork to make sure it is proper and never needed any commercial plates or registration. My understanding is that it needed to hit 10k GVW before any of that comes into play. (F150 is like 6 or 7)
When he says "pickup trucks require commercial license" he is not talking your average Toyota pickups or F150's - he is talking F350+ commercial size ones.
You are missing the point. Lyft already provides commercial insurance for its drivers when they are driving passengers - I am sure same is true of others. This would require the drivers to carry commercial plates/insurance on personal vehicles when NOT on used for work.
Ahh, you miss the point. The vast majority do not need to understand the code.
Open source's strength is not that everyone has to read/understand the code -- it is that everyone can. It takes only one person to find an issue, then others can see for themselves and confirm/fix. If the vendor not fixing it fast enough, a fork or patch can be done without vendor's approval. On the other hand when Apple logged your location, it was only found by accident because they left data laying around. Then you had to wait for Apple to fix it, which, for all we know, they did by not leaving the data easily findable.
Of course that is not perfect and plenty of bugs and issues do not get found quickly in Open Source - but if it is popular enough, it is much harder to be evil on purpose and hide it.
Oh, it's open source so it's all good?
Open source is so fast to get a pass on being Evil(tm) around here. More people who own an Android phone have the skills to rebuild an engine than to properly interpret the source code of their phone. Open source only matters if you have the skills to understand the code. The vast majority of people running CyanogenMod don't have this skill set.
Can an author survive (and thrive) self-publishing? Retailers and publishers are certainly important for physical copies of a book; how well can an author do publishing only digitally?
According to Bezos in the HD presentation, something like a quarter of Kindle top 100 sellers are self published.
Hmm, I wonder how many of the top 100 grossing titles are self published.
Self published titles tend to be very cheaply priced and Amazon frequently has a (virtual) monopoly on the sale of the title. This places them higher on the list of most units sold for the Kindle. Even with that advantage they only occp>
Writing a good book is very hard. Editing a book is very demanding as well. Add on top of that the need to market it yourself
Just being a good writer is hard enough.
Well let's do the math and see - the #1 and #2 on kindle top 100 paid are kdp(self) published, #3 is a publisher book. They are priced $3.99, $6.59, and $12.99. Assuming they all sell same number of copies (which giving their rankings they don't, but let's assume) author of the first gets about $2.79 a copy, author of the second one gets about $4.54, and the third is lucky if he is getting $1.29 a copy. You think the first two authors would rather be with the publisher?
And by the way, kdp is not only digital, you can get a paper copy too. There are even audiobooks available. Furthermore - you are not restricted to kdp either - you can sell through other channels too. Amazon will want the cheapest price though. Quick google of the #1 book finds her in a number of online bookstores.
Depends on what you want. Most people do not care if it is android, iOS or windows. Most people don't know what bootloader is, let alone know why a locked one is bad. In fact for most people, locked bootloader is good, or at least irrelevant. They want someone else to take care of everything for them and the device to just work, even if only in limited capacity. On the other hand Fire HD has nice hardware, stereo sound, good WiFi, hi-res screen, features not found elsewhere (xray, basic multiuser support, backup of your app data, etc) all at a dirt cheap price.
It is not a device for everyone - I'd rather have a real android device, but I get why it is popular and would even recommend itin some cases.
You are assuming their goal is to sell tablets. YOU ARE WRONG. They do not care about Android. They do not care about selling Fire to someone who wants an Android tablet. They are selling these things at cost, so the main thing they care about is you buying content and other items from them. If you want an open tablet, they would much rather you buy Nexus7. If you want apple experience, they cringe a little, but say "knock yourself out"- buy an iPad. Guess what, you can still use either to read Kindle content, or shop at amazon.com. If you don't want to do that, why should they waste their and your time selling you something you do not care about and they make no money on?
Truth is that you and I and others who want open devices are a minority. Most just want a simple device that just works and does the few limited things they need. Fire, (just like iPad) is for them, not for us. Just a way to make it easier to buy from amazon for those who WANT to buy from amazon and don't care about building our own custom ROMs or paying through the nose for overpriced iCrap. It is not a mistake, it is a brilliant strategy which is clearly working for them (22% of the market in under a year ain't bad)
Can an author survive (and thrive) self-publishing? Retailers and publishers are certainly important for physical copies of a book; how well can an author do publishing only digitally?
According to Bezos in the Kindle HD presentation, something like a quarter of Kindle top 100 sellers are self published.
The computer is a "communication" device. It is a fairly safe assumption that it is, or will be connected to the internet at some point, more often sooner rather than later (or never)..
Erm, computer is inherently a computing device, not a communication device, thats why they call it a "computer" and not "communicator".
No. Not even close.
Knee-jerk much? At least spend a second Googling something you know nothing about before commenting.
This is EXACTLY like Opera Turbo - which is an optimizing proxy server - the only key difference is that Google's service is browser agnostic and Opera's designed to work with Opera browsers only.
-Em
How do you expect a 3rd party without your TLS private key to proxy AND compress (i.e. modifying the content) your HTTPS connections?
Its Google - we expect magic. Damn the common sense!!!
Seriously though - they could support it by you providing them with a key/cert - just like any other HTTPS proxy. The issue is that the way GHS works - it is very difficult, if not impossible, to support SSL. They would have to have a separate dedicated IP for each site (i.e. no just assigning your DNS to ghs.google.com) or a very large, very convoluted, ever changing certificates with a LOT of aliases. This is why GHS never supported SSL - even for content hosted by Google.
-Em
Holy shit, 6 out of 7 respondents to the GP (all but anredo) completely missed the point. [insert standard complaint about slashdot going downhill].
Web pages with script are not static, and caching the HTML script output does nothing. Server-side code generally has to be run per-visitor. Akamai has all sorts of crazy custom XML to specify which portions are static.
Setting up a proper CDN for the modern web is more complicated than just redirecting some DNS entries.
LOL. Talk about pot calling kettle black. This is what happens when you read the slashdot summary instead of the source material. Allow me to explain what you are missing - what Google is doing is not a CDN at all, its just a bad summary. They are providing an optimizing proxy - it could care less if your content is static or dynamic, as long as it generates HTML output, it will work. It is unclear from first glance if the proxy is a caching proxy - I would guess it is - but even then it would be a stretch to call it a CDN in a modern sense of the word.
The next time Microsoft releases a patch for a security vulnerability I would like to see this sentiment repeated.
Generally I think when Microsoft release a patch of a security vulnerability - I do say good job. Everyone has security problems, the issue is how they deal with it - and Microsoft in the past often ignored the issue for a long time (I dont deal a lot with Windows these days, but it does seem that that has shifted as of late)
Of course as others pointed out - this less like Microsoft patches to their own code and more like forced Anti-Malware install - for which I have mixed feelings.
I suggest looking up the difference between "division" and "subsidiary".
For the Google challenged: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/subsidiary
The best way to accelerate a Macintoy is at 9.8 meters per second per second.
