It communicates through an app to your phone. The phone still does the texting and everything, just that on your phone is an intermediary that communicates with your windows desktops. Theoretically, it shouldn't need to know your number, but probably will anyway.
These features sound ok until you go crazy with absolutely everything throwing a notification at you, rather than just your phone. These features have been messed around with on windows mobile, and you just get sick of seeing the same notifications on all your devices.
I think it's more because internationally, jurisdictions have outlawed and made possession of said plans illegal. I don't know how many jurisdictions, I know in my state in Australia possession of digital 'blueprints' are illegal and a jailable offense. I think for a platform like FB, they have no interest in this stuff, so blocking it probably best covers them.
The threat of war is never to be taken lightly, but currently, China isn't capable of fighting a war for very long. They have people, but that's about it. They don't have any substantive navy, air force or ability to force project. Considering the capability of modern armaments, analysts suggest that, unlike WW2, what you start the war with, will have to last the duration of that war. WW2 was different, because factories could be hidden, and winning the war basically came down to ability to produce meteriel to fight the war. Today, try to produce modern materiel with your power stations destroyed, or your explosives production destroyed, or your semi-conductor fabs destroyed. It's pretty much a given that if declarations of war were to be issued, those things would get targeted and probably destroyed immediately.
However, China's diminutive military will not be inadequate forever.
I think this is something that will only get worse as time goes on, in that, if the USA (I've never been in the states btw, I'm Australian) wants to maintain it's global economic position (in your terms, the playground bully, and more formally speaking [and probably ironically too], maintain the pax americana), it needs to start acting against China strategically. The problem with acting now is, the USA might not be in its ideal position to do so, but I think it will only get worse for the USA as time goes on, as China isn't sitting idly; it's growing and establishing its foothold.
Now, while I'm not infatuated with the USA, I'm concerned far more by China's political interference in oceania, and their general subversive nature of establishing their own hegemony. I'm inclined to side on the countries which, at least nominally, share our values of personal liberty, democracy, and a rule of law, which arguably places most above that of China. Despite our flaws, we're still much better than a regime which denies those freedoms, and champions the idea that people are too stupid to rule them selves, therefore they must be lorded over by the select few.
Another point to consider is that the Chinese have a chip on their shoulder that westerners have been exploiting them, and that has been stymieing their development. Their concept of face means that they're proud and arrogant, to their own detriment, to the degree that they'd rather go down with the ship than change course if it means admitting they were/are wrong, or that systems of governance that encourage skulduggery, corruption, and self interest, over talent and merit, has been holding them back.
From a trade perspective, I've noticed a growing sentiment amongst Chinese that they're starting to feel superior. They feel that where once their stuff wasn't taken all that seriously, it is significantly not the case now, and relating to their concept of sociological face, while they grow with the idea that they are superior, it is us who should be grateful that they trade with us, and we need them, and not they need us. This is definitely becoming the case in Australia, where we're so exposed to China, that if they stop buying our resources, we have problems, if we stop selling residential property to them, we have problems, if we try to stop them donating money/buying our politicians, we have problems! They have us where they want us; we're reliant on their money, they're not reliant on our resources.
Forgot to add; the free-to-play with in-app purchases model also has a lower barrier to entry, since people don't need to buy the game, nor a subscription. So we're now faced with the situation that almost no games can break through all the noise of free crapware, just like mobile apps and the app stores. You don't hear of developers striking it big anymore because there's just too many free apps, and if someone does something interesting, it gets reverse engineered, and a free ad-supported app may come along.
Not having a cap in order to nickel and dime is done by design. With all the mobile games, I think the industry has learnt that there's a very small proportion of people who spend the most on this sort of stuff. If they capped it, they would end up getting a lot less money. The industry refers to these high spenders as whales, just like the gambling industry. They concentrate and put their effort in them, after all they're a business.
From what I can see, they treat their game more like an addiction to these people. Quick google search suggests that ~0.15% of the player base provides ~50% of the revenue. Some mobile games dedicate staff to looking after their top spenders. So while we may be old school in just wanting a game you buy and that's it,
this is no longer the case. Kind of like when World of Warcraft blew up around 10 years ago, and then every other developer was trying a subscription based game,
and mostly failed, micro-transactions is the new bait. It allows them to release the game for free, and suck people in on insignificant things, like skins and dance moves.
I just don't get why coffee comes with a sipping lid, and soft drinks always come with a straw. Maybe the first step is to ditch the straw and just go for a sipping lid for soft drinks.
Now I understand that when driving, the straw and lid works quite well against spilling, but seriously, people like old women, who can't leave the house with their tiny bottle of water, and yet, still must have a straw in it as well. It's like as if they'll die of thirst if they don't get their teaspoon of water that instant.
Just tax the crap out of it and make these suckers pay!
I think that if it can formulate and debate against people, then it's not a big stretch to have a much more impartial adjudication between two people. This would make debates around certain divisive topics quite a lot better, because having watched a few, I'm convinced that the audience is stacked with closed minded people there just to vote with their internal biases.
Additionally, it could test against stated facts and statistics, as opposed to false ones being asserted confidently and fooling many people.
There was an article written over 3 years ago about the sexodus, I have my suspicions that pathologising gaming addiction is specifically targeted because of a group of predominantly male gamers who are 'checking out' of society and regressing into non productivity. They're in bliss living a subsistence life that provides enough for them to just play their games.
I suspect that this has not gone on unnoticed, and as a result, attempts are being made to seriously address this with serious academics behind it (read; NOT humanities)
I love it when science doesn't have the answers, but tries to look like it does. The article is a case in point; they don't know what killed the trees, or why they died, but... it was climate change...
For most of copyright history, infringement was a civil matter, where the owner had to take the infringer to court for damages. It's only recently where governments have taken it upon themselves to turn it into a criminal matter and create exorbitant statutory damages. I guess money talks...
The thing to note is, you won't see Alan Walker in any billboard lists, just like how he's not mentioned in the original pieces linked in this post. He arguably had a huge hit that would have easily surpassed many in original article, while, not getting the coverage or radio airplay that they would have enjoyed.
My problem with the article is that it ignores how there's a lot of other activity in the music industry, which isn't covered by the billboards or major recording labels. I suspect that the reason there's such consolidation is because the mainstream industry is in decline, while people's listening habits and tastes are actually broadening, while it's not being measured.
But if they (currently) run in a browser, wouldn't that mean that you generally see the same code across all devices, as long as they adhere to standards? They way I've been reading about them is that they are platform agnostic, unless the coverage I've read is technically wrong.
Rumours have been that it's not going to be a surface phone as such, the internal name is the andromeda device and there is some coverage of it. Basically, MS have been licking their wounds and realised that they didn't win in the 'smartphone' space a few years ago. This new device, they will refuse to call it a smartphone, because they see it as something different. Don't know if it's partially to save face or whatever, but the current mantra at MS is to create new categories.
Another important thing to consider is PWA's (progressive web apps) which are probably the only sensible attempt at moving toward platform agnostic apps. This might go some way in attempting to help against the app gap MS has been plagued with, but who knows if it will take off. The MS store is an absolute mess, and it really sucks.
From what I can gather, MS have recognised that they lost smartphones, and really screwed up with reboots and delays. They also know that with the way that computing is moving, they won't remain relevant if they're exclusively on the desktop. We'll still have to see whether this thing is any good though, but smartphones have definitely hit stagnation, the biggest innovation of late is removing the headphone jack... so seeing a new attempt sounds promising, but can't predict if it will deliver.
I get the feeling they will start their own awards festivals, after all, my perception is that netflix started producing their own content because the rest of the industry were trying to call the shots on the content they were distributing.
I don't disagree with you, but I think that in general terms, the media is really bad at issuing corrections. Unlike the scientific and technical community where issuing revisions or corrections is just a normal procedure (in many or most situations), the news industry tend to do whatever it can to not correct the record, unless they absolutely have to. Ultimately, though, this only happens because yes, no one cares.
Yea, I should have said that the media aren't covering or admitting to their errors. They're not really doing it justice in comparison to the glowing praise of the female Steve Jobs that they published years ago.
I think this is one of those instances where gender politics has really favoured her, and she did more than just fool her investors. Not only has an ignorant media, oblivious to the technicalities, promoted her and gave publicity because she was a 'woman in tech', they're certainly not covering the mess now, when they clearly got it so wrong.
I think the media that covered her should apologise. In certain sectors, their fervour of covering all things related to culture wars, such as gender and minorities, they promoted and gave publicity to a charlatan.
Slashdot Mirror
It really makes you wonder, what are they putting their programming effort on?
It's looking like killing google has been having the opposite effect.
It communicates through an app to your phone. The phone still does the texting and everything, just that on your phone is an intermediary that communicates with your windows desktops. Theoretically, it shouldn't need to know your number, but probably will anyway.
These features sound ok until you go crazy with absolutely everything throwing a notification at you, rather than just your phone. These features have been messed around with on windows mobile, and you just get sick of seeing the same notifications on all your devices.
After all, twitter was having plenty of problems, Trump being on the platform probably brings them more users and ad revenue than anyone else.
I think it's more because internationally, jurisdictions have outlawed and made possession of said plans illegal. I don't know how many jurisdictions, I know in my state in Australia possession of digital 'blueprints' are illegal and a jailable offense. I think for a platform like FB, they have no interest in this stuff, so blocking it probably best covers them.
However, China's diminutive military will not be inadequate forever.
I think this is something that will only get worse as time goes on, in that, if the USA (I've never been in the states btw, I'm Australian) wants to maintain it's global economic position (in your terms, the playground bully, and more formally speaking [and probably ironically too], maintain the pax americana), it needs to start acting against China strategically. The problem with acting now is, the USA might not be in its ideal position to do so, but I think it will only get worse for the USA as time goes on, as China isn't sitting idly; it's growing and establishing its foothold.
Now, while I'm not infatuated with the USA, I'm concerned far more by China's political interference in oceania, and their general subversive nature of establishing their own hegemony. I'm inclined to side on the countries which, at least nominally, share our values of personal liberty, democracy, and a rule of law, which arguably places most above that of China. Despite our flaws, we're still much better than a regime which denies those freedoms, and champions the idea that people are too stupid to rule them selves, therefore they must be lorded over by the select few.
Another point to consider is that the Chinese have a chip on their shoulder that westerners have been exploiting them, and that has been stymieing their development. Their concept of face means that they're proud and arrogant, to their own detriment, to the degree that they'd rather go down with the ship than change course if it means admitting they were/are wrong, or that systems of governance that encourage skulduggery, corruption, and self interest, over talent and merit, has been holding them back.
From a trade perspective, I've noticed a growing sentiment amongst Chinese that they're starting to feel superior. They feel that where once their stuff wasn't taken all that seriously, it is significantly not the case now, and relating to their concept of sociological face, while they grow with the idea that they are superior, it is us who should be grateful that they trade with us, and we need them, and not they need us. This is definitely becoming the case in Australia, where we're so exposed to China, that if they stop buying our resources, we have problems, if we stop selling residential property to them, we have problems, if we try to stop them donating money/buying our politicians, we have problems! They have us where they want us; we're reliant on their money, they're not reliant on our resources.
Forgot to add; the free-to-play with in-app purchases model also has a lower barrier to entry, since people don't need to buy the game, nor a subscription. So we're now faced with the situation that almost no games can break through all the noise of free crapware, just like mobile apps and the app stores. You don't hear of developers striking it big anymore because there's just too many free apps, and if someone does something interesting, it gets reverse engineered, and a free ad-supported app may come along.
Not having a cap in order to nickel and dime is done by design. With all the mobile games, I think the industry has learnt that there's a very small proportion of people who spend the most on this sort of stuff. If they capped it, they would end up getting a lot less money. The industry refers to these high spenders as whales, just like the gambling industry. They concentrate and put their effort in them, after all they're a business.
From what I can see, they treat their game more like an addiction to these people. Quick google search suggests that ~0.15% of the player base provides ~50% of the revenue. Some mobile games dedicate staff to looking after their top spenders. So while we may be old school in just wanting a game you buy and that's it, this is no longer the case. Kind of like when World of Warcraft blew up around 10 years ago, and then every other developer was trying a subscription based game, and mostly failed, micro-transactions is the new bait. It allows them to release the game for free, and suck people in on insignificant things, like skins and dance moves.
Were LRH and Trump wrong? Clearly they were right in their assertions, not to comment on whether it is just or anything else.
I just don't get why coffee comes with a sipping lid, and soft drinks always come with a straw. Maybe the first step is to ditch the straw and just go for a sipping lid for soft drinks.
Now I understand that when driving, the straw and lid works quite well against spilling, but seriously, people like old women, who can't leave the house with their tiny bottle of water, and yet, still must have a straw in it as well. It's like as if they'll die of thirst if they don't get their teaspoon of water that instant.
Just tax the crap out of it and make these suckers pay!
I think that if it can formulate and debate against people, then it's not a big stretch to have a much more impartial adjudication between two people. This would make debates around certain divisive topics quite a lot better, because having watched a few, I'm convinced that the audience is stacked with closed minded people there just to vote with their internal biases.
Additionally, it could test against stated facts and statistics, as opposed to false ones being asserted confidently and fooling many people.
There was an article written over 3 years ago about the sexodus, I have my suspicions that pathologising gaming addiction is specifically targeted because of a group of predominantly male gamers who are 'checking out' of society and regressing into non productivity. They're in bliss living a subsistence life that provides enough for them to just play their games.
I suspect that this has not gone on unnoticed, and as a result, attempts are being made to seriously address this with serious academics behind it (read; NOT humanities)
I love it when science doesn't have the answers, but tries to look like it does. The article is a case in point; they don't know what killed the trees, or why they died, but... it was climate change...
For most of copyright history, infringement was a civil matter, where the owner had to take the infringer to court for damages. It's only recently where governments have taken it upon themselves to turn it into a criminal matter and create exorbitant statutory damages. I guess money talks...
More like antefa...
The thing to note is, you won't see Alan Walker in any billboard lists, just like how he's not mentioned in the original pieces linked in this post. He arguably had a huge hit that would have easily surpassed many in original article, while, not getting the coverage or radio airplay that they would have enjoyed.
My problem with the article is that it ignores how there's a lot of other activity in the music industry, which isn't covered by the billboards or major recording labels. I suspect that the reason there's such consolidation is because the mainstream industry is in decline, while people's listening habits and tastes are actually broadening, while it's not being measured.
But if they (currently) run in a browser, wouldn't that mean that you generally see the same code across all devices, as long as they adhere to standards? They way I've been reading about them is that they are platform agnostic, unless the coverage I've read is technically wrong.
Rumours have been that it's not going to be a surface phone as such, the internal name is the andromeda device and there is some coverage of it. Basically, MS have been licking their wounds and realised that they didn't win in the 'smartphone' space a few years ago. This new device, they will refuse to call it a smartphone, because they see it as something different. Don't know if it's partially to save face or whatever, but the current mantra at MS is to create new categories.
Another important thing to consider is PWA's (progressive web apps) which are probably the only sensible attempt at moving toward platform agnostic apps. This might go some way in attempting to help against the app gap MS has been plagued with, but who knows if it will take off. The MS store is an absolute mess, and it really sucks.
From what I can gather, MS have recognised that they lost smartphones, and really screwed up with reboots and delays. They also know that with the way that computing is moving, they won't remain relevant if they're exclusively on the desktop. We'll still have to see whether this thing is any good though, but smartphones have definitely hit stagnation, the biggest innovation of late is removing the headphone jack... so seeing a new attempt sounds promising, but can't predict if it will deliver.
I'm waiting too...
I get the feeling they will start their own awards festivals, after all, my perception is that netflix started producing their own content because the rest of the industry were trying to call the shots on the content they were distributing.
I don't disagree with you, but I think that in general terms, the media is really bad at issuing corrections. Unlike the scientific and technical community where issuing revisions or corrections is just a normal procedure (in many or most situations), the news industry tend to do whatever it can to not correct the record, unless they absolutely have to. Ultimately, though, this only happens because yes, no one cares.
If you say it fast enough, probably can be called 'fucks-ya', which is quite fitting for a company like google.
Yea, I should have said that the media aren't covering or admitting to their errors. They're not really doing it justice in comparison to the glowing praise of the female Steve Jobs that they published years ago.
I think this is one of those instances where gender politics has really favoured her, and she did more than just fool her investors. Not only has an ignorant media, oblivious to the technicalities, promoted her and gave publicity because she was a 'woman in tech', they're certainly not covering the mess now, when they clearly got it so wrong.
I think the media that covered her should apologise. In certain sectors, their fervour of covering all things related to culture wars, such as gender and minorities, they promoted and gave publicity to a charlatan.