No they won't. Not ever. If it came to it, they'd require customers to install a plugin or an app which connected to their service. They are contractually obliged to encrypt content and it also serves their interests too since it stops someone subscribing for a month, ripping off a load of content and cancelling until they had watched it all.
That is a clear advantage over Flash and/or HTML5 based video content. Another is the easy integration with other projects when using visual studio. It enables you to rapidly develop new software and code.
HTML5 based video content is a meaningless term. It just defines a video tag and the url that the data comes from, not how it is streamed. It's quite feasible that adaptive bitrate streaming could be used to alter the video quality according to the quality of the connection, e.g. MPEG-DASH.
Google Glass is a disaster waiting to happen. The owner may as well be wearing a sign saying "I'm a creepy person who is probably filming you and your pretty child right now so please punch me really hard and crush this stupid device under you shoe just to be on the safe side".
I wear a watch almost all the time (except in bed) for the simple reason that it tells me the time without hauling a smart phone out of my pocket and turning the display to see a value I can get from glancing at my wrist. Sometimes my phone isn't in my pocket because I'm in the gym or its charging or I'm in another room. Looking around me right now I can see other people wearing watches too.
So yes people do still use them and probably even people with phones or computers. I'm sure you can get by without a watch but it doesn't mean they are not useful.
In my experience a cheap Casio watch is good for five years providing you look after it reasonably well. It's the cheap plastic strap which is more likely to fail before the watch itself, and if that's a concern stump up for a leather or metal strap or a model where the strap can be replaced.
Don't worry, the app'll come in time:) Someone will figure a way write software that sticks a pair of exposed knockers on anybody you're looking at. There are already augmented reality apps for phones and I expect they will be ubiquitous for glasses since the APIs will be there for it, and because only the wearer can see the image.
Even if Google ban the app the damage will be done and it's only the tip of the iceberg of the ways that Glasses could be deeply offensive. Imagine apps which take pictures of women's asses, or rates people for attractiveness, or flags their likeness to celebs, or looks them up in a perp database, or lets people "review" other people, or records and transcribes their conversation, or scans their speech to detect lies etc.
People wearing Glasses are going to despised. I think the tech has uses in warehouses / fast food joints for order fulfillment, for military during ops and such like. For personal use, I think wearing these things increases the chances of arguments and personal injury tenfold.
Ah right, so if you are endowed with psychic powers or extreme luck you can exit with money. Such a wise investment. A bit like investing in a pyramid scheme, hoping that you can build enough chumps below you to be one of the few to exit with a profit.
Sorry, but the risk of bitcoin is right up there with "pyramid scheme" or "ponzi". Unless you were somebody who had bitcoins before the hype and chose the precise moment to exit, you are not going to see any return. That is because there is nothing to "invest" in.
It's so people in social situations and even strangers can instantly identify assholes by the little light on their glasses which shows they're more interested in their email or augmented naked boobie apps than their physical surroundings.
You don't have to be a professional economist to recognize that a "currency" that collapses and loses half its value in the space of minutes is a bad investment.
I wouldn't be replacing a desktop PC with a 10-11" tablet. I was think more of replacing my netbook with it reducing the need to haul around my larger laptop. The Atom processor might not be much but it's still dualcore and probably 2-3x more powerful than my existing netbook. Enough to browse the web, write some apps and mess around with and small enough to throw in a carry on bag.
XP was to W2K what you say 98 was for 95. It added a lot of polish to W2K, unifying Microsoft's product lines, adding a bunch of consumer friendly enhancements for media playback, gaming, multi user switching etc.
The cycle repeated again with Vista. Vista introduced some radical changes in particular with regards to the display management and the desktop but it took Windows 7 to refine them, particularly issues with performance and enterprise suitability.
I'm sure many people correctly perceive Windows 8 to be another cycle. It radically altered the UI to make it tablet & touch friendly but it will take another release to smooth out the bumps.
I use Windows 8 on a "classic" laptop. I feel it is a step down from Windows 7 and metro can be very clumsy in some ways especially with a mouse and keyboard. So it has obvious shortcomings but it's not unusable. It needs a lot of refinement however and I hope when 8.1 turns up that it gets a dose of that.
I fully expect that my next PC will be a tablet with dock running Windows 8.
The question is, how many people would buy this phone just to turn the app off? Unless the phone is subsidized it's just another phone in a crowded market, with nothing distinctive except for the heaping dollop of crapware courtesy of Facebook. If you don't want Facebook so bad that it's on constantly and in your face, just buy another phone.
She called Pinochet a great friend because Chile provided vital intelligence (early warning of attacks for example), military assistance and even a haven for special forces during the Falklands War. So she made a friend of one military junta in order to defeat another military junta (which subsequently collapsed). Britain won, Chile won. It might be unpalatable but that's politics for you.
Nelson Mandela *was* a terrorist - go look up Umkhonto we Sizwe. Now it may be his incarceration was unjust, the evidence shaky, the regime brutal and oppressive. It may be with 50 years of hindsight, rehabilitation, forgiveness and reform that people have forgotten this, but his group were engaged in a campaign of bombings, murder and torture. Even the US recognized his group as a terrorism organisation. Second, Thatcher's role in apartheid is controversial. It's not hard to find people who say she hastened the end by assisting de Clerk to dismantle it, others who say she hindered it by providing support for the regime. I expect Great Britain's concern was that if apartheid collapsed that the country would fall to a predominantly communist (and soviet funded) ANC and turn into another shithole African state. Again, that's politics for you.
As for Pol Pot, I shouldn't have to point out that Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos were all in turmoil at the time and there was this little thing called the Cold War. It should be no surprise to anybody that Western powers were assisting any group which had the potential to disrupt the communist activities in other countries. If bunging a few weapons at Pol Pot could put some pressure to keep Cambodia in check and stop insurgency spreading to Thailand then so be it. And likewise communist powers were supporting the ANC, the IRA etc. for similar reasons. Each saw the other's terrorists / freedom fighters as a way to disrupt the other.
Thatcher might have been more forthright and public in her views but it's completely naive to pretend that other powers weren't engaged in activities which were just as bad. In an ideal world where morals are black and white with no shades of grey, perhaps we wouldn't need to debate this point. But the world isn't like that.
The trailers for the World War Z movie suggest that it is radically different from the source material. Most obviously that would be things such as the whole fast vs slow zombie deal but perhaps more importantly the focus appears to have turned on a single globetrotting protagonist in the thick of the action. What was your original vision for the script and why do you think it has turned out the way it has?
No, curse those lousy unions who held the country to ransom, who beat up any body crossing their picket line, who called sympathy strikes for disputes that had nothing to do with them, who announced strikes without bothering to ballot members, who operated closed shops, who deliberately undermined two democratically elected governments in succession and attempted to do the same to a third, and who caused the country to suffer through two miserable economic crises in the space of 5 years.
The conservatives passed quite reasonable restrictions on what they could do namely, requiring them to call a ballot before strike, requiring them to represent their workers not themselves, requiring them to ballot on closed shop practices, making them liable for financial losses for businesses they picketed who formed no part of the grievance.
Basically the laws required unions to start representing their members rather than acting as an unelected, unbeholden political force which is what they were until then. Even most of the unions and the members accepted the laws. It was the likes of the NUM which didn't and look where it got them and their members.
Despite what I think of Thatcher for other reasons, she did what previous leaders lacked the balls to do - stand up to the unions and put them in their place.
Android lets you replace the launcher and other component parts and it looks like that is all this Facebook app is doing. Given how intrusive and battery sapping their app is, I think I'll pass.
Slashdot Mirror
A more likely application of AR will be to overlay a pair of exposed breasts on every woman in your field of vision.
No they won't. Not ever. If it came to it, they'd require customers to install a plugin or an app which connected to their service. They are contractually obliged to encrypt content and it also serves their interests too since it stops someone subscribing for a month, ripping off a load of content and cancelling until they had watched it all.
That is a clear advantage over Flash and/or HTML5 based video content. Another is the easy integration with other projects when using visual studio. It enables you to rapidly develop new software and code.
HTML5 based video content is a meaningless term. It just defines a video tag and the url that the data comes from, not how it is streamed. It's quite feasible that adaptive bitrate streaming could be used to alter the video quality according to the quality of the connection, e.g. MPEG-DASH.
Google Glass is a disaster waiting to happen. The owner may as well be wearing a sign saying "I'm a creepy person who is probably filming you and your pretty child right now so please punch me really hard and crush this stupid device under you shoe just to be on the safe side".
So yes people do still use them and probably even people with phones or computers. I'm sure you can get by without a watch but it doesn't mean they are not useful.
In my experience a cheap Casio watch is good for five years providing you look after it reasonably well. It's the cheap plastic strap which is more likely to fail before the watch itself, and if that's a concern stump up for a leather or metal strap or a model where the strap can be replaced.
The answer is a rout. Down to $54 at this time with trades through the roof as people scramble to get out.
Even if Google ban the app the damage will be done and it's only the tip of the iceberg of the ways that Glasses could be deeply offensive. Imagine apps which take pictures of women's asses, or rates people for attractiveness, or flags their likeness to celebs, or looks them up in a perp database, or lets people "review" other people, or records and transcribes their conversation, or scans their speech to detect lies etc.
People wearing Glasses are going to despised. I think the tech has uses in warehouses / fast food joints for order fulfillment, for military during ops and such like. For personal use, I think wearing these things increases the chances of arguments and personal injury tenfold.
Ah right, so if you are endowed with psychic powers or extreme luck you can exit with money. Such a wise investment. A bit like investing in a pyramid scheme, hoping that you can build enough chumps below you to be one of the few to exit with a profit.
Sorry, but the risk of bitcoin is right up there with "pyramid scheme" or "ponzi". Unless you were somebody who had bitcoins before the hype and chose the precise moment to exit, you are not going to see any return. That is because there is nothing to "invest" in.
It's so people in social situations and even strangers can instantly identify assholes by the little light on their glasses which shows they're more interested in their email or augmented naked boobie apps than their physical surroundings.
You don't have to be a professional economist to recognize that a "currency" that collapses and loses half its value in the space of minutes is a bad investment.
I wouldn't be replacing a desktop PC with a 10-11" tablet. I was think more of replacing my netbook with it reducing the need to haul around my larger laptop. The Atom processor might not be much but it's still dualcore and probably 2-3x more powerful than my existing netbook. Enough to browse the web, write some apps and mess around with and small enough to throw in a carry on bag.
Bu-bu-but it's such an amazing investment!
Someone suggested Bitcoins should be called Dunning-Krugerands given the sort of people who think "investing" in this scam is a great idea.
The cycle repeated again with Vista. Vista introduced some radical changes in particular with regards to the display management and the desktop but it took Windows 7 to refine them, particularly issues with performance and enterprise suitability.
I'm sure many people correctly perceive Windows 8 to be another cycle. It radically altered the UI to make it tablet & touch friendly but it will take another release to smooth out the bumps.
Unfortunately SSDs are too damned expensive. I replaced my PC's failed drive with 2TB HDD recently which cost about the same as a 64GB SSD.
I fully expect that my next PC will be a tablet with dock running Windows 8.
The question is, how many people would buy this phone just to turn the app off? Unless the phone is subsidized it's just another phone in a crowded market, with nothing distinctive except for the heaping dollop of crapware courtesy of Facebook. If you don't want Facebook so bad that it's on constantly and in your face, just buy another phone.
Nelson Mandela *was* a terrorist - go look up Umkhonto we Sizwe. Now it may be his incarceration was unjust, the evidence shaky, the regime brutal and oppressive. It may be with 50 years of hindsight, rehabilitation, forgiveness and reform that people have forgotten this, but his group were engaged in a campaign of bombings, murder and torture. Even the US recognized his group as a terrorism organisation. Second, Thatcher's role in apartheid is controversial. It's not hard to find people who say she hastened the end by assisting de Clerk to dismantle it, others who say she hindered it by providing support for the regime. I expect Great Britain's concern was that if apartheid collapsed that the country would fall to a predominantly communist (and soviet funded) ANC and turn into another shithole African state. Again, that's politics for you.
As for Pol Pot, I shouldn't have to point out that Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos were all in turmoil at the time and there was this little thing called the Cold War. It should be no surprise to anybody that Western powers were assisting any group which had the potential to disrupt the communist activities in other countries. If bunging a few weapons at Pol Pot could put some pressure to keep Cambodia in check and stop insurgency spreading to Thailand then so be it. And likewise communist powers were supporting the ANC, the IRA etc. for similar reasons. Each saw the other's terrorists / freedom fighters as a way to disrupt the other.
Thatcher might have been more forthright and public in her views but it's completely naive to pretend that other powers weren't engaged in activities which were just as bad. In an ideal world where morals are black and white with no shades of grey, perhaps we wouldn't need to debate this point. But the world isn't like that.
The trailers for the World War Z movie suggest that it is radically different from the source material. Most obviously that would be things such as the whole fast vs slow zombie deal but perhaps more importantly the focus appears to have turned on a single globetrotting protagonist in the thick of the action. What was your original vision for the script and why do you think it has turned out the way it has?
The conservatives passed quite reasonable restrictions on what they could do namely, requiring them to call a ballot before strike, requiring them to represent their workers not themselves, requiring them to ballot on closed shop practices, making them liable for financial losses for businesses they picketed who formed no part of the grievance.
Basically the laws required unions to start representing their members rather than acting as an unelected, unbeholden political force which is what they were until then. Even most of the unions and the members accepted the laws. It was the likes of the NUM which didn't and look where it got them and their members.
Despite what I think of Thatcher for other reasons, she did what previous leaders lacked the balls to do - stand up to the unions and put them in their place.
I've always wanted a watch which could tell me the approximate time and requires charging once a week.
Android lets you replace the launcher and other component parts and it looks like that is all this Facebook app is doing. Given how intrusive and battery sapping their app is, I think I'll pass.