Well, Google is also fond of dropping things more or less randomly, screwing its customers in the process. Caveat: this is not meant to be interpreted as an apology of MS, whom I hate with passion and hope to see burn in hell some day.
This may be a significant loss to the community, but I doubt it. How many Linux distros can one choose from? Scores, for sure. Maybe hundreds? How many of those accomplish something that is not already accomplished by many other distros? How many of them do something original? The vast majority of them seem to be based on one of Fedora, Debian or Ubuntu. What do they do that their parents don't? If you are going to come up with your own Linux distro, at the very least be original.
While I am all for variety and choice, this proliferation of that really are little more than me-too is preposterous.
Many sites require for you to register because they can. For such sites, which will contain nothing but spoofed information about me, I couldn't care less about the strength of my password.
The reason I am asking is because I have yet to see one in the wild. Which is weird, for I think that, in the circles I frequent, they should be visible.
I find this very frustrating as well, but the genie is out of the bottle. People will carry on calling these ridiculous contraptions flying cars regardless. And, yes, short of a breakthrough in power generation technology, probably preceded by a bigger one in fundamental physics, the flying cars that we have in mind will indefinitely and stubbornly remain in the realm of science-fiction.
Also change the name, to make it more confusing. Even better, have two products that do more or less the same thing, with wildly different names. That will make things even more confusing. That seems to be Google's goal, right?
It's my garbage bin. It allows me to log into sites for comments without having to register. All the concomitant trash just goes to my Facebook account. I don't know what is in it, and I don't care. I opened the account with false credentials throughout, and I use Facebook only on my desktop.
We do not want for you to do any analysis on what we are or are not interested in preventing from autoplaying. We are interested in a feature that will prevent EVERYTHING from autoplaying, except for those sites that we explicitly whitelist. This is FAR easier to implement than the ridiculous mumbo-jumbo that you are pushing. Which you are doing for one of two reasons - either you guys are stupid and can't see it, or else you are doing so because you want the autoplay feature untouched for some specific sites - in which cases, you are a bunch of crooks. Which is it?
If you are even wondering about it, you clearly do not have what it takes. Do some menial work instead, or go into management - you can still make lots of many with either. With the former, at least, you will be useful.
It's revenue != its revenue. It's (not its) a mystery that so many seem to be unable (or unwilling) to grasp the very simple, straightforward and unambiguous rules that govern this. Its (not it's) rationale (rather, lack therefore) is intriguing.
Surely they mean "less stupid"? Try this with either: "Do NOT give me the weather forecast for tomorrow." Sure enough, they both give you the weather forecast for tomorrow.
Dear cable TV providers: First and foremost, a big middle finger to you all, for you have shown that you are nothing but a bunch of abusive dicks. Second, you haven't got a single dime from me for over ten years now, and I am pretty sure that I have convinced quite a few people in the interim to stop giving any money to you. Third, if you want to ever get any money for me, allow me to select exactly what it is that I want to pay to watch. I might end up paying as much, or maybe even more, but that would be my decision, not yours. Fifth, stop insulting my intelligence by averring that packages are necessary to subsidize minority channels - nobody believes that your pseudo-altruistic claims. Sixth, please stick those said packages you know where. Thank you for your time.
What do companies and investors want? For each individual to own dozens of smartphones? I have never understood this worship for growth at any costs, and for punishing companies that do not growth, for any reason. No wonder the market behaves as if it were in the hands of a baby.
Serious traction? That's yet to be seen. The stuff that they have come up so far is, for the most part, an extension of notions that have been known and understood for decades, made to look more spectacular thanks to the increased computational power developed since. But Alexa, Google Home (or whatever it is called today) and Siri are pretty much as unintelligent as such things have always been, and only marginally useful; Watson is good at Jeopardy, but not much else so far, and the chess and go engines can't do anything outside go and chess.
Slashdot Mirror
That's their unofficial motto.
Well, Google is also fond of dropping things more or less randomly, screwing its customers in the process. Caveat: this is not meant to be interpreted as an apology of MS, whom I hate with passion and hope to see burn in hell some day.
It's certainly no iphone or Samsung killer. Your average person has no use for it,
And what use has your average person got for a $1K phone that cannot be met by a $300 phone?
Or KDE.
Everybody else will look like a dork with this device to their ear.
Enjoy.
This may be a significant loss to the community, but I doubt it. How many Linux distros can one choose from? Scores, for sure. Maybe hundreds? How many of those accomplish something that is not already accomplished by many other distros? How many of them do something original? The vast majority of them seem to be based on one of Fedora, Debian or Ubuntu. What do they do that their parents don't? If you are going to come up with your own Linux distro, at the very least be original. While I am all for variety and choice, this proliferation of that really are little more than me-too is preposterous.
Many sites require for you to register because they can. For such sites, which will contain nothing but spoofed information about me, I couldn't care less about the strength of my password.
Your check is in the mail.
The reason I am asking is because I have yet to see one in the wild. Which is weird, for I think that, in the circles I frequent, they should be visible.
I find this very frustrating as well, but the genie is out of the bottle. People will carry on calling these ridiculous contraptions flying cars regardless. And, yes, short of a breakthrough in power generation technology, probably preceded by a bigger one in fundamental physics, the flying cars that we have in mind will indefinitely and stubbornly remain in the realm of science-fiction.
Just for fun? Throwing money away willfully, is fun? BS. They think that they may reasonably win. They have no clue that their chances are negligible.
Also change the name, to make it more confusing. Even better, have two products that do more or less the same thing, with wildly different names. That will make things even more confusing. That seems to be Google's goal, right?
It's my garbage bin. It allows me to log into sites for comments without having to register. All the concomitant trash just goes to my Facebook account. I don't know what is in it, and I don't care. I opened the account with false credentials throughout, and I use Facebook only on my desktop.
We do not want for you to do any analysis on what we are or are not interested in preventing from autoplaying. We are interested in a feature that will prevent EVERYTHING from autoplaying, except for those sites that we explicitly whitelist. This is FAR easier to implement than the ridiculous mumbo-jumbo that you are pushing. Which you are doing for one of two reasons - either you guys are stupid and can't see it, or else you are doing so because you want the autoplay feature untouched for some specific sites - in which cases, you are a bunch of crooks. Which is it?
If you are even wondering about it, you clearly do not have what it takes. Do some menial work instead, or go into management - you can still make lots of many with either. With the former, at least, you will be useful.
It's revenue != its revenue. It's (not its) a mystery that so many seem to be unable (or unwilling) to grasp the very simple, straightforward and unambiguous rules that govern this. Its (not it's) rationale (rather, lack therefore) is intriguing.
Although I am guessing that configuring it to use a decent desktop environment instead is not all that difficult.
There, I said it.
Their indian? And you, who seem to be only semi-literate, dare to pontificate about civilization?
These guys are going to get an introduction to the "positive feedback loop" concept. The hard way.
Surely they mean "less stupid"? Try this with either: "Do NOT give me the weather forecast for tomorrow." Sure enough, they both give you the weather forecast for tomorrow.
Dear cable TV providers: First and foremost, a big middle finger to you all, for you have shown that you are nothing but a bunch of abusive dicks. Second, you haven't got a single dime from me for over ten years now, and I am pretty sure that I have convinced quite a few people in the interim to stop giving any money to you. Third, if you want to ever get any money for me, allow me to select exactly what it is that I want to pay to watch. I might end up paying as much, or maybe even more, but that would be my decision, not yours. Fifth, stop insulting my intelligence by averring that packages are necessary to subsidize minority channels - nobody believes that your pseudo-altruistic claims. Sixth, please stick those said packages you know where. Thank you for your time.
What do companies and investors want? For each individual to own dozens of smartphones? I have never understood this worship for growth at any costs, and for punishing companies that do not growth, for any reason. No wonder the market behaves as if it were in the hands of a baby.
Serious traction? That's yet to be seen. The stuff that they have come up so far is, for the most part, an extension of notions that have been known and understood for decades, made to look more spectacular thanks to the increased computational power developed since. But Alexa, Google Home (or whatever it is called today) and Siri are pretty much as unintelligent as such things have always been, and only marginally useful; Watson is good at Jeopardy, but not much else so far, and the chess and go engines can't do anything outside go and chess.