Other phone vendors may view this (rightly) in terms of the lawsuits that Apple et al have been bringing against Google and view the acquisition purely on those terms. This acquisition didn't occur in a vacuum. So more than one interpretation is plausible. You don't have to jump to the most pessimistic option possible.
It's certainly a perception that Google needs to manage though.
Some of them do actually. So this might end up successfully litigated in their favor.
The biggest cash cows will likely involve the richest musicians. However, any precedents will likely carry weight even for the more obscure and penniless artists.
I could see Janie Lane yanking Cherry Pie into the public domain just out of spite (if he weren't dead already).
Yeah. It's a shame that we don't have decades of prior art in PnP mechanisms including some that were used by Apple themselves so long ago that any relevant patents would have expired by now.
No. The expense is not minimal. This is especially true for the cheaper CPUs.
In fact, this will add a significant cost to any CPU packaged without one and put it at that much more of a disadvantage when compared with rivals.
The expense is only "minimal" is when you are talking some bleeding edge part that costs several times more than it's marginal performance improvement warrants.
You did that just fine without violating any individuals personal privacy laws.
Not that a drug company would be in a position to disclose that sort of information anyways. They simply don't have the persons information. That's as it should be.
It's time for you to give up being a corporate shill.
You mean a health care company can't comment on their own data that they should have needed to gather in order to be able to sell a medical product in the first place?
Preposterious.
Drug companies own ad are ammunition enough. You just have to bother to pay attention.
Any time someone does something really exotic in the Unix world, it is immediately criticized for being different. It will be criticized by exactly the same people that would elevate it as genius if done by Microsoft or Apple. The ideological case against Flash is the perfect example of this.
If I pipe text into a program designed before you were born, it's usually to deal with the failings of GUIs and commercially developed software.
This includes the shell script I used to have for my iPhone.
The iPad is little more than a crippled Mac. The aspects of the iPad that are crippled don't have anything to do with usability.
We can make plenty sense of it. Fanboys just don't like what we come up with.
iPad apps are toys relative to what's available for other modern GUIs. Many are just ensapsulating websites that no longer work well because you're not using the form factor and types inputs that those websites were designed for. "apps" have to be simple because it's hard for the controls to keep up.
"Critics" in general have no clue what a non-geek needs out of a computing experience. This includes all manner of platform partisans and isn't just limited to Linux users.
Sadly enough this also includes most "professional" designers.
Until you identify the need, or the use case it's hard to create a meaningful design.
Rambling on about faster connectors on tablets with no storage to speak of in the first place is pretty absurd.
OTOH, I would love to be able to move large amounts of stuff around my non-portable storage a bit faster. Although current affordable consumer storage devices need to catch up to current interconnects first before the cable becomes the bottleneck.
People are simply fixating on the wrong bottleneck on the wrong device.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't about ideology. This is about experience.
You would like to pretend that our biases are not borne out of some rational basis but they are.
Trust is earned over a long period and Microsoft just isn't there yet.
Other phone vendors may view this (rightly) in terms of the lawsuits that Apple et al have been bringing against Google and view the acquisition purely on those terms. This acquisition didn't occur in a vacuum. So more than one interpretation is plausible. You don't have to jump to the most pessimistic option possible.
It's certainly a perception that Google needs to manage though.
The FUD here is more real here than the danger.
We already had an agreement in place with them that covered the mission in question.
Nice try though. Please play again.
Some of them do actually. So this might end up successfully litigated in their favor.
The biggest cash cows will likely involve the richest musicians. However, any precedents will likely carry weight even for the more obscure and penniless artists.
I could see Janie Lane yanking Cherry Pie into the public domain just out of spite (if he weren't dead already).
Clearly they didn't have enough to do. They got bored to the point of stupidity and it went all downhill from there.
If only the interfaces in question weren't so trivial, your lame analogy might actually mean something.
As things really are, the best thing you could call such an argument demagogy.
The less contentious the subject is, the less likely that this will be a problem.
Even then, you can provide metrics that allow the individual to judge the information based on it's churn.
The fact that some data will be crap is not a good reason to be afraid of collecting data in general.
Yeah. It's a shame that we don't have decades of prior art in PnP mechanisms including some that were used by Apple themselves so long ago that any relevant patents would have expired by now.
That reason might have been made moot by the advent of different and more interesting tablet options.
I will be dumping my netbook for an Android tablet very soon because of this.
No. The expense is not minimal. This is especially true for the cheaper CPUs.
In fact, this will add a significant cost to any CPU packaged without one and put it at that much more of a disadvantage when compared with rivals.
The expense is only "minimal" is when you are talking some bleeding edge part that costs several times more than it's marginal performance improvement warrants.
You did that just fine without violating any individuals personal privacy laws.
Not that a drug company would be in a position to disclose that sort of information anyways. They simply don't have the persons information. That's as it should be.
It's time for you to give up being a corporate shill.
You mean a health care company can't comment on their own data that they should have needed to gather in order to be able to sell a medical product in the first place?
Preposterious.
Drug companies own ad are ammunition enough. You just have to bother to pay attention.
This seems like a painful and uneccessarily complex way to avoid using CUPS.
Cloud concepts are certainly handy and useful. They just need to local. A cloud over Arizona tends to be less useful to you if you are in Indiana.
You use middleware in between the printer and the end user tools.
This was being done by Linux in the 90s and SunOS in the 80s.
They haven't anally raped us without lubrication after buying the Free Software we were using first.
We should think of ourselves as lucky. [/sarc]
Any time someone does something really exotic in the Unix world, it is immediately criticized for being different. It will be criticized by exactly the same people that would elevate it as genius if done by Microsoft or Apple. The ideological case against Flash is the perfect example of this.
If I pipe text into a program designed before you were born, it's usually to deal with the failings of GUIs and commercially developed software.
This includes the shell script I used to have for my iPhone.
The iPad is little more than a crippled Mac. The aspects of the iPad that are crippled don't have anything to do with usability.
We can make plenty sense of it. Fanboys just don't like what we come up with.
iPad apps are toys relative to what's available for other modern GUIs. Many are just ensapsulating websites that no longer work well because you're not using the form factor and types inputs that those websites were designed for. "apps" have to be simple because it's hard for the controls to keep up.
The fact that he thought there was no refresh button on the browser might have just been an artifact of current design trends.
"Critics" in general have no clue what a non-geek needs out of a computing experience. This includes all manner of platform partisans and isn't just limited to Linux users.
Sadly enough this also includes most "professional" designers.
You should not be swapping on a modern machine.
This is not 1995. Memory is cheap enough that your machine should have enough of it even with today's bloated operating systems.
If your OS benefits greatly from simply adding an SSD, then it's probably broken.
No you aren't. Really you aren't.
It doesn't sound like you have enough stuff for the slowness of current devices to be that painful.
Also, if you are going to bring "drop box" into this then the local storage tech doesn't even matter at all. You're bottlenecked by the network then.
No. It's not a nonsense question.
Until you identify the need, or the use case it's hard to create a meaningful design.
Rambling on about faster connectors on tablets with no storage to speak of in the first place is pretty absurd.
OTOH, I would love to be able to move large amounts of stuff around my non-portable storage a bit faster. Although current affordable consumer storage devices need to catch up to current interconnects first before the cable becomes the bottleneck.
People are simply fixating on the wrong bottleneck on the wrong device.
Nothing about any of the other available options prevented them for being put to business use.
The only limiting factor was the lack of a respectable brand name like IBM.
You're entire rant can be summed up as "no one ever got fired for buying IBM".
Microsoft merely inherited the old monopoly.
You can hardly create a consumer revolution if no one can buy your stuff.
Apple was certainly at the head of the pack but their stuff was rediculously priced and actually prevented more people from getting in on the action.
Apple was still selling it's 8-bit kit into the 68K era with prices higher than machines meant to compete with the Macintosh.
It's not force bundled for one.
That seems to be the key thing that all of the Lemming and Fanboy whiners here seem to be missing.
It's a free product. Search engines are based on open standards. What leverage can Google possibly have?
Google is not even engaging in the same tying Microsoft was. Plus Google doesn't have the leverage too.
Microsoft was able to bully it's OEMs through price discrimination. Free Software kind of takes that idea off the table.