Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:or, maybe Google screwed up "ownership" (Score 1) 161

If Google had designed (? or something?) Android so that updating the base OS was something that could be pushed direct from Google instead of from each manufacturer's bollixed version of the system, there'd be no problem for any of us.

That may seem obvious now, but it's far from clear that Android would have succeeded the way it has if OEMs hadn't been allowed to differentiate their versions. That was (and is) something that's important to them, and they may well have decided that they wanted to do their own thing instead if Google hadn't given them the degree of control they wanted. Or maybe they'd have adopted Windows, since while it wouldn't allow them to customize it would have had the advantage of being from the then-biggest OS maker around.

It seems very likely that the ability of OEMs to customize was a core component of what made the Android ecosystem successful.

Also, keep in mind that the only way Google could really have kept OEMs from modifying Android however they like would have been to keep it closed. Personally, I'm glad that Google made the choices it did, not because I'm a Google employee working on Android (though I am), but because I've been an open source and free software advocate since before Google even existed. Android is far from perfect, and devices aren't as open as I would like, but I think the mobile software world is much better than it would have been without a F/LOSS mobile OS.

Comment Re:modus operandi doesnt seem to make any sense. (Score 2) 52

Or maybe russian hackers understand that US Media outlets actively collaborate and conspire with political campaigns during election seasons to control and direct dissent within the party and defuse potential scandalous or controversial events in an effort to ensure a positive return on their future investment.

I'd say that's just too conspiratorial. The Russians probably realize that the Times' editorial bias favors Clinton. The Russians aren't trying to aid Trump or necessarily defeat Clinton. What they probably want is to minimize Clinton's ability to command some kind of "mandate" sized victory and maintain the fractured domestic political structure.

A non-landslide victory by Clinton will be met with at least as much if not more obstructionism by Republicans and a level of continued division in the public. Distract and divide benefits the Russians because it keeps whoever runs the US from having the political capital to make bold steps.

Comment Re:Apples and oranges (Score 1) 39

I was thinking more of how *Stalin* treated religious people.

There is a good reason for religious ruling over all- it really is the best model. Freedom and Liberty, as far as I'm concerned, lead only to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump- the freest country in human history, electing two "above the law" elite liberal genocidal maniacs to try to run the place.

Comment Re:Outrageously short service life for updates (Score 1) 161

I still think that two years of updates is outrageous forced obsolescence that is prematurely adding electronic garbage to landfills.

FWIW, it's actually two years of upgrades and three years of security updates on Nexus devices.

I'm seriously considering going back to an iPhone on my next phone upgrade, despite all the concerns I have about them too. They at least support their hardware for around 5 years.

At least they have done so in the past. Note that they've never made any commitment to that, so they could stop.

Comment Re:When everything you do (Score 1) 519

the fact that mbox is a terrible format for storing email with concurrent read/write access

And that's the weakness of an uncoordinated do one thing model. You're stuck with the common denominator of the uncoordinated legacy component of the system.

If you want to database the email, you break everything but MTAs. You need delivery agents and access daemons and clients that work with the database format.

Comment Re:Apples and oranges (Score 1) 39

Oddly, that's not how the conversation has historically gone.

You've only got half of it right.

Capitalist: Jesus is a dirty leftist socialist SJW commie! His father was a hard working carpenter, but Jesus squandered it to become a jobless hippie! He just provides bread and circuses... sorry, "miracles" to the crowd!

Communist: Religion is the opiate of the Masses. Belief in Jesus keeps the bourgeois in power, and the proletariat from revolting. Therefore we must burn all the churches and make religion illegal.

Both of these so-called "economic systems", really materialist religions in their own right, see Christianity as a competitor, offering a more complete and all encompassing view of life. Including Economic Life.

Distributism is an economic system that is merely a part of Christianity, but it is dangerous to the con artists of Capitalism and Communism because it would *remove their roles* from the economic system.

Comment Re:same flaws (Score 1) 39

Part of it is that like most Americans today, thanks to the suffragettes, he believes the individual, not the family, to be the basic economic unit.

I was just hearing something about that last night on Al Kresta as to why many Catholics, including Archbishops and Cardinals, back in the 1848-1920 era, opposed the 19th Amendment, but largely supported the 18th Amendment. Both of these at the time were considered feminism- women were the main people protesting for both to be passed. It is a sign that women in the 1800s and early 1900s had a lot more political power than we give them credit for even without the vote that the 18th is about Prohibition and the 19th about voting.

The reason for that power is that the basic assumption previous to the 19th Amendment was *one household, one vote* not *one man, one vote*. Husbands and fathers had a duty of protection over their wives and daughters, and drunkards were seen as shirking that duty. Likewise, it was seen as women actually losing political power over their husbands, was the reason to *oppose* them getting the vote.

It's easy to see why individualism, in that era, after 80 years of nagging, became the ascendent philosophy. It remains to be seen if it will continue to work for much longer.

Slashdot Top Deals

Genetics explains why you look like your father, and if you don't, why you should.