While true, you lose the benefits of having a Chromebook if you do this. It just becomes another GNU/Linux laptop, one without the Page Up/Page Down buttons, albeit one that can be booted into ChromeOS from time to time..
As others point out, you also generally have to install firmware modules to make this work. This is a complicated process, and if you want to still be able to boot ChromeOS, you can only do it with the rather annoying "Do this control key combination or we'll put you into a mode where you can easily and unintentionally powerwash your computer."
It's... not ideal.
The article is misleading, even if technically correct. Right now no Chromebooks come with the Linux feature enabled and supported. To use it you have to enable the dev channel for updates (not developer mode, just the equivalent of "Windows Insider" for Windows users, a channel that sends you betas of the operating system. Google specifically warns users not to rely on anything delivered via that channel being there forever, and has withdrawn features before (as I found out the hard way when Android app functionality was removed from my Asus C300 without warning.)
So, as of now, Google is talking about never implementing a feature for some supported laptops that isn't officially available for anyone except beta testers. And by the time Google officially releases the feature, in a production ready form, it's quite possible that either those laptops will no longer be supported, or they'll have been upgraded to run a more recent Linux.
I had suggested they use containers to add.NET support instead of straight Linux apps
Why not both?
No, I mean it, why not both? Yeah, there's a minor overhead with GNU/Linux that might not exist with.NET but it's only going to need to be there if you install GNU/Linux applications. And their VM architecture, while... weird... (a VM running Linux running one or more LXD instances? I'm guessing that this is supposed to be more secure, but I suspect it's probably the opposite even if I can't prove it...) could easily add.NET as a LXD instance.
In practice, while 4Mb was the official memory floor, it definitely needed a hell of a lot more than 4Mb. 16Mb in practice was the absolute minimum. 3.1 could just about work in 4Mb but it was barely usable with that little RAM.
I had a computer at the time of its release with 8Mb and didn't install '95 because I knew it wouldn't work.
I have misgivings about approaching state sponsored propaganda efforts in this way, but what you're saying is demonstrably incorrect. YouTube et al hosts plenty of videos with the themes you mention. If the themes were the problem, rather than the source, we wouldn't see that.
HTML5 supports forms of any kind, just like all versions of HTML prior to version 5. This includes credit cards. That's how you buy things from, say, Amazon.com. There is no gatekeeping authority for the web that will ban your site because you accept credit cards and charge them directly.
Here's why that's important: Google and Apple both ban direct sales on their app stores. If you want either company to host an app in their app store, then any purchases made using the app have to go via Google or Apple, and in both cases they'll take 15% of the income.
So:
Android App: You are not allowed to process credit cards directly. Google takes 15%.
iPhone App: You are not allowed to process credit cards directly. Apple takes 15%.
HTML5 App: You can process credit cards directly. Visa/MC/etc takes 1-2.5%
Is there any reason for Netflix not to use HTML5? Yes. HTML5 is not ideal for, say, letting users save offline copies of movies (there's probably a very ugly, unreliable, way to do it using the persistence API, but...) but otherwise - not really. All modern smartphones are capable of running HTML5 with all the DRM badness Netflix needs, for example.
NBC paying money for the Access Hollywood tape to air in October before the election was a blatant attempt to influence the election
The level of confusion in this comment is remarkable.
1. Access Hollywood is an NBC TV show. NBC didn't "pay money" for it. They already had it.
2. NBC generally supported Trump even if NBC News itself was reporting mostly negative news about him (which largely reflects the type of news there was about Trump.) They even had him host Saturday Night Live.
3. If it is a "blatant attempt to influence the election" to for a news organization to publish real, newsworthy, information about a candidate, then all news is "a blatant attempt to influence the election". If NBC News had sat on it, would you have said they were being neutral? Or would they have been attempting to influence the election by withholding important information as to Trump's character?
Lawyers have multiple roles. I seriously doubt my immigration lawyer has tried a case.
As far as Cohen goes. You ever watch The Godfather? Remember a scene when an man introducing himself as a lawyer has a little discussion with a movie director, trying to persuade the director to include Frank Sinat... I mean, someone who totally isn't Frank Sinatra that's a lie and anyway you can't prove that... someone in his next movie, and the director is all like "Nah, he sucks, anyway, how do you like my horse? This is my favorite, it'd kill me if anything happened to him, I mean, like the worst thing that could ever happen to me is that I'd wake up and my bed would be soaked with blood and I'd look over and see my horse's decapitated head on my bed." And the lawyer walks off, and then the next morning... well, I don't want to spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen the movie.
Anywho, Cohen is more like that kind of lawyer. He makes deals. He makes deals to make, uh, problems go away.
I have said nothing about Alex Jones, and I have never described him as a Nazi or a White Nationalist. The comment I was responding to said nothing about Jones either.
Do I think Jones should be on Twitter? For what little it's worth, no, but it has nothing to do with Nazis, it has to do with him running a smear campaign that's resulted in active harassment of the victims of several school shootings.
That is literally the first time I've said anything about Alex Jones being on Twitter in public. You're welcome to search for other instances, but I'm sure you'll make something up. That's what you do.
You gang up on someone and start shoving them around it's at least battery and probably several other crimes.
Yeah, and what does that have to do with the sentence you quoted? Where does she say you should shove anyone around?
You'll attribute only the most benign meaning to these words because that fits your preferred narrative but that's not the only way to read it, and the ambiguity is deliberate.
I said you can't even quote her inciting violence. You come back with a statement that cannot be read in any way as inciting violence. You then pretend it means ganging up and shoving people around despite there being no words in the sentence that imply that at all. And you're saying I'm the one trying to read something into it to fit my preferred narrative?
You're fucked up.
The the circle widens. Back here you offered narrow criteria for who deserved deplatforming; the tattooed Nazis and self described white supremacists, oh my! But here we see that what I accused you of then is in fact true; it's anyone that voted for Trump, the new Republican mainstream, "conservatives" supposedly allied with all these bogeymen... all these evil people are indistinguishable to you and deserve the same fate as far as your hate filled little soul is concerned.
Liar. The paragraph you quote the beginning of doesn't even use the term "deplatforming" or talk about refusing to amplify the voices of any groups. All I said you have no shame.
Anyone reading this thread can easily see it, just as they can see Maxine Waters never advocated violence.
You have no shame. If you had, you'd apologize and reconsider your life.
When people on the right do what Maxine did they are said to be inciting violence and are de-platformed wherever possible. Yet somehow we're supposed to apply only the most benevolent possible interpretation to her calls for harassment.
Nobody on the right has ever said anything of the sort and been accused of "inciting violence". You're quite simply lying.
Sorry bud. That double standard doesn't fly in a world full of James Hodgkinsons.
Maxine Waters never incited violence. Period. You're being willfully dishonest. You can't even quote her inciting violence, instead you invent some persecution nonsense and pretend to be defiant hoping the issue will go away.
It's not. You're a liar. You're relying on the racist trope (I'm British born, believe me I noticed these things when I moved here) of black people being violent to hope that people just assume you're right. You should be ashamed of yourself.
But you won't be. If there's something we've learned since "conservatives" allied with neo-nazis and white supremacists at the last election to elect someone running a blatantly fascist, racist, campaign, it's that the mainstream right wing right now has no shame. There is no low to which you'll stoop.
Why exactly should we not call people who have Nazi tattoos Nazis, or people who describe themselves as White nationalists, white nationalists?
I keep hearing this complaint made over and over again, but it's not as if you can't look at the people being described as Nazis, and see that they are, actually, Nazis.
Saying it's OK to rip people off if they don't understand what you're offering doesn't say much that's positive about you.
Society and the free market doesn't work if there isn't at least a baseline level of honesty and understanding. If the only way you can sell something is to confuse the buyer and pretend it's something else, then it doesn't matter how "technically correct" you are, you're an asshole, and you deserve to have your business taken away from you.
I agree with your sentiment, but you're not doing a particularly great job of demonstrating how thoughtful Republicans and how mean people are for making them look "stupid" by interpreting a spoof about how conservatives don't want lines painted in the road as a claim Republicans have a problem with the government building roads.
You would need to tunnel out 4x as much volume per traveler to fit a regular train.
The tunnels loop proposals assume are about the same size as London Underground's deep bore tube tunnels. It's extremely hard for me to believe, given the high capacity of the deep bore trains, that they have less capacity than a similar tunnel with skates (that will often carry cars instead of people.)
I'd be surprised if your figures are accurate anyway, civil engineers have been banging on about the apparent low capacity of the Loop proposals anyway. I think they'd be considerably more enthusiastic if capacities were similar per square foot of tunnel.
The bigger issue is that the proposed system is designed to trickle people into an area when it needs a system that can cope with massive floods of people. Trains are literally the only system in existence that'll give you that.
American infrastructure is crippled because the establishment is unwilling to adopt anything that's rail based. It's extremely obvious and it's depressing to see people jump on the next "great new alternative to doing the right thing", following the failure of numerous "people mover" designs since the 1970s when it became the American, and only the American, establishment's article of good faith that passenger trains can't possibly work because over regulated, over taxed, commercial passenger trains were unable to compete against massively subsidized competitors.
I've travelled this old world of ours from Barnsley to Peru,
I've had sunshine in the arctic and a swim in Tinbuktu,
I've seen unicorns in Burma and a Yetti in Nepal,
And I've danced with ten foot pygmies in a Montezuma hall,
I've met the King of China and a working Yorkshire miner -
But I've never met a nice South African!
No he's never met a nice South African,
And that's not bloody surprising man!
'Cause we're a bunch of arrogant b***tards,
Who hate black people!
I once got served in Woolies aften less than four week's wait,
I had lunch with Rowan Atkinson when he paid and wasn't late,
I know a public swimming bath where they don't piss in the pool,
I know a guy who got a job straight after leaving school,
I've met a normal merman, and a fairly modest German -
But I've never met a nice South African!
No he's never met a nice South African,
And that's not bloody surprising man!
'Cause we're a bunch of talentless murderers,
Who smell like baboons.
I've had a close encounter of the twenty-second kind,
That's when an alien spaceship disappears up your behind,
I got directory enquiries after less than forty rings,
I've even heard a decent song by Paul McCartney's Wings,
I've seen a flying pig, in a quite convincing wig,
But I've never met a nice South African!
No he's never met a nice South African,
And that's not bloody surprising man!
'Cause we're a bunch of ignorant loudmouths,
With no sense of humour.
I've met the Loch Ness monster and he looks like Fred Astaire,
At the BBC in London he's the chief commissionaire,
I know a place in Glasgow which is rife with daffodillies,
I met a man in Katmandu who claimed to have two willies,
I've had a nice pot noodle, but I've never had a poodle -
And I've never met a nice South African.
No he's never met a nice South African,
And that's not bloody surprising man,
Because we've never met one either!
Except for Breyten Breytenbach, and he's emigrated to Paris. (farts)
Yes he's quite a nice South African,
And he's hardly ever killed anyone,
And he's not smelly at all.
That's why we put him prison!
We'd still be setting 9600,N,8,1 for our Printers and using Parallel Ports for our Scanners if we lived in YOUR world.
No, if we lived in your world we'd have replaced parallel and serial ports with IrDA, rather than waiting for USB, Ethernet, and Wi-fi to come along.
You are literally arguing for change for the sake of change, without any regard to whether something is actually an improvement or not. Do you work for Twitter perhaps?
The floppy disc was useless even in 1998. It held less than two megabytes of data, which even then was not much. The Internet was a "thing" even back then, and transferring files using a network connection was, in practice, more viable than having a stack of floppies and having to use an archiver to cut up files into pieces and copy them onto floppies.
The vast, vast, majority of audio devices have a 3.5mm jack. That includes both the ones you have, and the ones you'll ultimately connect to when you're away from home. Bluetooth is not ubiquitous, and the audio quality of Bluetooth is poor. Digital wired headphones are virtually non-existent, in part because of Apple's refusal to follow standards for a wired connector, and the Android's world's current split between uUSB and USB-C, with the Android world also not standardizing on common capabilities for USB, such as simultaneous charging plus communications.
In addition to the poor quality of Bluetooth, BT devices tend not to play nicely with one another. While I can plug my phone into my car radio to play music, and answer the phone with a bluetooth headset for actual phone calls, trying to do the same thing with both devices being bluetooth just never seems to work.
Apple did this too early. If they had:
1. Standardized on USB-C.
2. Waited for others to standardize on USB-C
3. Required pass-through capabilities on USB plugs (so making it easy to add chargers, etc)
4. Promoted USB headsets.
...then, yeah, dropping the 3.5mm jack might have made sense. But they didn't. Instead they charged ahead with a half assed, unreliable, poor quality, inferior alternative to a technology that is known, reliable, standardized, and "just works". And the technology they adopted literally does not have a single advantage, not one, to end users over the one they replaced.
You cannot seriously compare that to CDs vs floppies.
Why is it that when right wingers claim Google "censors" something, it always turns out that the most trivial Google search brings up whatever they claim is being suppressed? Not only did "Ruger", for example, bring up the RUGER HOMEPAGE as its first result, but "confederate flag" even brought up a fucking picture of a confederate flag.
Is Google not censoring my results but is censoring the results of conspiracy-theory minded conservatives? Or are you just assuming they will without even bothering to check?
Is this like the "Conservatives are being kicked off Twitter" crap, where if you actually look at it, the "conservatives" are either trolls like @Nero who were given many, many, warnings and then reluctantly thrown out, or... wait for it... actual Nazis who conservatives have suddenly decided count as "conservative" when we're talking about people being kicked off Twitter, but not when liberals say "Republicans really need to stop pandering to racists". And "kicked off" in this case usually also has a rather expansive meaning, like "They removed his blue checkmark! HIS BLUE CHECKMARK! This is the worst thing ever!"
The other day some idiot claimed that anyone who posts a video to YouTube that merely mentions Alex Jones will get their account suspended. So I went to YouTube. I entered "Alex Jones" in the search bar. Do I need to tell you that it came up with videos of all types, from all periods of time, recent, an hour ago, last week, last month, a year old, whatever?
Did that stop the idiot from being moderated up and people pointing out it was balderdash being modded down? Nope.
Why do you not even bother to check that your claims aren't going to look ridiculous before posting them?
I agree with you ARM performance was great at the time, but I would point out that pretty much everyone had chips that were faster and more pleasant to program for than Intel at the time. Motorola, IBM...
Apple has a long history of trying to prevent choice and innovation. They forced DR to lobotomize GEM, threatened Microsoft for the best part of a decade to prevent them from producing a decent UI for Windows (you really don't want to know what Windows was like pre-95), and until the late nineties was notorious for avoiding open technologies, even when there was no serious advantage to its own. While things warmed again under Jobs, the latter went ballistic over Google's Android despite the iPhone itself being a blatant copy of an LG design.
They're not the good guys, they're just a company that very often comes up with some good ideas.
It appears to be correct that Musk had, at the time, no guaranteed path to achieve his goal, that is, he hadn't secured the funding necessary to buy every share of Tesla at $420. That part appears to be correct.
However, the second part of the statement, that he did it to manipulate the stock price, is less certain. What proof do you have as to his motives?
I'm surprised by the blanket love and trust Musk receives here. There are still people who think the Hyperloop proposal was honest, despite it being a clear attempt to sink CAHSR by proposing something that, even if working as described, wouldn't actually be an adequate replacement (a quarter of the capacity, two cities "served", terminals 50-100 miles outside of the cities they're supposed to serve, ultimately doing not enough to reduce air traffic, and doing nothing - actually making worse - internal traffic problems in SF and LA.)
Maybe Musk will manage to scrape the money together for the buy-out anyway, but at this point I wouldn't trust him enough to buy shares at $419, and people in tech - people on Slashdot - ought to be more wary than most about this.
Do phone vendors actually pay money to Google? I was under the impression they don't. I know they'd have been very upset with the CyanogenMod team given Google's tolerance of the latter's distribution of the Google Play framework.
Slashdot Mirror
While true, you lose the benefits of having a Chromebook if you do this. It just becomes another GNU/Linux laptop, one without the Page Up/Page Down buttons, albeit one that can be booted into ChromeOS from time to time..
As others point out, you also generally have to install firmware modules to make this work. This is a complicated process, and if you want to still be able to boot ChromeOS, you can only do it with the rather annoying "Do this control key combination or we'll put you into a mode where you can easily and unintentionally powerwash your computer."
It's... not ideal.
The article is misleading, even if technically correct. Right now no Chromebooks come with the Linux feature enabled and supported. To use it you have to enable the dev channel for updates (not developer mode, just the equivalent of "Windows Insider" for Windows users, a channel that sends you betas of the operating system. Google specifically warns users not to rely on anything delivered via that channel being there forever, and has withdrawn features before (as I found out the hard way when Android app functionality was removed from my Asus C300 without warning.)
So, as of now, Google is talking about never implementing a feature for some supported laptops that isn't officially available for anyone except beta testers. And by the time Google officially releases the feature, in a production ready form, it's quite possible that either those laptops will no longer be supported, or they'll have been upgraded to run a more recent Linux.
In short, it's a non-story.
Why not both?
No, I mean it, why not both? Yeah, there's a minor overhead with GNU/Linux that might not exist with .NET but it's only going to need to be there if you install GNU/Linux applications. And their VM architecture, while... weird... (a VM running Linux running one or more LXD instances? I'm guessing that this is supposed to be more secure, but I suspect it's probably the opposite even if I can't prove it...) could easily add .NET as a LXD instance.
In practice, while 4Mb was the official memory floor, it definitely needed a hell of a lot more than 4Mb. 16Mb in practice was the absolute minimum. 3.1 could just about work in 4Mb but it was barely usable with that little RAM.
I had a computer at the time of its release with 8Mb and didn't install '95 because I knew it wouldn't work.
I have misgivings about approaching state sponsored propaganda efforts in this way, but what you're saying is demonstrably incorrect. YouTube et al hosts plenty of videos with the themes you mention. If the themes were the problem, rather than the source, we wouldn't see that.
I think you're missing a few things.
HTML5 supports forms of any kind, just like all versions of HTML prior to version 5. This includes credit cards. That's how you buy things from, say, Amazon.com. There is no gatekeeping authority for the web that will ban your site because you accept credit cards and charge them directly.
Here's why that's important: Google and Apple both ban direct sales on their app stores. If you want either company to host an app in their app store, then any purchases made using the app have to go via Google or Apple, and in both cases they'll take 15% of the income.
So:
Android App: You are not allowed to process credit cards directly. Google takes 15%.
iPhone App: You are not allowed to process credit cards directly. Apple takes 15%.
HTML5 App: You can process credit cards directly. Visa/MC/etc takes 1-2.5%
Is there any reason for Netflix not to use HTML5? Yes. HTML5 is not ideal for, say, letting users save offline copies of movies (there's probably a very ugly, unreliable, way to do it using the persistence API, but...) but otherwise - not really. All modern smartphones are capable of running HTML5 with all the DRM badness Netflix needs, for example.
I'm 90% sure that US law doesn't work on the basis of "It's not illegal if you pay someone else to do it for you."
But I admit, with the plutocratic nature of power in the US, that there's at least a silver of doubt, hence 90%.
The level of confusion in this comment is remarkable.
1. Access Hollywood is an NBC TV show. NBC didn't "pay money" for it. They already had it.
2. NBC generally supported Trump even if NBC News itself was reporting mostly negative news about him (which largely reflects the type of news there was about Trump.) They even had him host Saturday Night Live.
3. If it is a "blatant attempt to influence the election" to for a news organization to publish real, newsworthy, information about a candidate, then all news is "a blatant attempt to influence the election". If NBC News had sat on it, would you have said they were being neutral? Or would they have been attempting to influence the election by withholding important information as to Trump's character?
Lawyers have multiple roles. I seriously doubt my immigration lawyer has tried a case.
As far as Cohen goes. You ever watch The Godfather? Remember a scene when an man introducing himself as a lawyer has a little discussion with a movie director, trying to persuade the director to include Frank Sinat... I mean, someone who totally isn't Frank Sinatra that's a lie and anyway you can't prove that... someone in his next movie, and the director is all like "Nah, he sucks, anyway, how do you like my horse? This is my favorite, it'd kill me if anything happened to him, I mean, like the worst thing that could ever happen to me is that I'd wake up and my bed would be soaked with blood and I'd look over and see my horse's decapitated head on my bed." And the lawyer walks off, and then the next morning... well, I don't want to spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen the movie.
Anywho, Cohen is more like that kind of lawyer. He makes deals. He makes deals to make, uh, problems go away.
Does that make sense?
Many of us would argue it hasn't been deprecating enough things...
I have said nothing about Alex Jones, and I have never described him as a Nazi or a White Nationalist. The comment I was responding to said nothing about Jones either.
Do I think Jones should be on Twitter? For what little it's worth, no, but it has nothing to do with Nazis, it has to do with him running a smear campaign that's resulted in active harassment of the victims of several school shootings.
That is literally the first time I've said anything about Alex Jones being on Twitter in public. You're welcome to search for other instances, but I'm sure you'll make something up. That's what you do.
Yeah, and what does that have to do with the sentence you quoted? Where does she say you should shove anyone around?
I said you can't even quote her inciting violence. You come back with a statement that cannot be read in any way as inciting violence. You then pretend it means ganging up and shoving people around despite there being no words in the sentence that imply that at all. And you're saying I'm the one trying to read something into it to fit my preferred narrative?
You're fucked up.
Liar. The paragraph you quote the beginning of doesn't even use the term "deplatforming" or talk about refusing to amplify the voices of any groups. All I said you have no shame.
Anyone reading this thread can easily see it, just as they can see Maxine Waters never advocated violence.
You have no shame. If you had, you'd apologize and reconsider your life.
Nobody on the right has ever said anything of the sort and been accused of "inciting violence". You're quite simply lying.
Maxine Waters never incited violence. Period. You're being willfully dishonest. You can't even quote her inciting violence, instead you invent some persecution nonsense and pretend to be defiant hoping the issue will go away.
It's not. You're a liar. You're relying on the racist trope (I'm British born, believe me I noticed these things when I moved here) of black people being violent to hope that people just assume you're right. You should be ashamed of yourself.
But you won't be. If there's something we've learned since "conservatives" allied with neo-nazis and white supremacists at the last election to elect someone running a blatantly fascist, racist, campaign, it's that the mainstream right wing right now has no shame. There is no low to which you'll stoop.
Why exactly should we not call people who have Nazi tattoos Nazis, or people who describe themselves as White nationalists, white nationalists?
I keep hearing this complaint made over and over again, but it's not as if you can't look at the people being described as Nazis, and see that they are, actually, Nazis.
No she didn't. That's a lie. Apologize.
Saying it's OK to rip people off if they don't understand what you're offering doesn't say much that's positive about you.
Society and the free market doesn't work if there isn't at least a baseline level of honesty and understanding. If the only way you can sell something is to confuse the buyer and pretend it's something else, then it doesn't matter how "technically correct" you are, you're an asshole, and you deserve to have your business taken away from you.
I agree with your sentiment, but you're not doing a particularly great job of demonstrating how thoughtful Republicans and how mean people are for making them look "stupid" by interpreting a spoof about how conservatives don't want lines painted in the road as a claim Republicans have a problem with the government building roads.
The tunnels loop proposals assume are about the same size as London Underground's deep bore tube tunnels. It's extremely hard for me to believe, given the high capacity of the deep bore trains, that they have less capacity than a similar tunnel with skates (that will often carry cars instead of people.)
I'd be surprised if your figures are accurate anyway, civil engineers have been banging on about the apparent low capacity of the Loop proposals anyway. I think they'd be considerably more enthusiastic if capacities were similar per square foot of tunnel.
The bigger issue is that the proposed system is designed to trickle people into an area when it needs a system that can cope with massive floods of people. Trains are literally the only system in existence that'll give you that.
American infrastructure is crippled because the establishment is unwilling to adopt anything that's rail based. It's extremely obvious and it's depressing to see people jump on the next "great new alternative to doing the right thing", following the failure of numerous "people mover" designs since the 1970s when it became the American, and only the American, establishment's article of good faith that passenger trains can't possibly work because over regulated, over taxed, commercial passenger trains were unable to compete against massively subsidized competitors.
Build. The. Fucking. Subway.
I've had sunshine in the arctic and a swim in Tinbuktu,
I've seen unicorns in Burma and a Yetti in Nepal,
And I've danced with ten foot pygmies in a Montezuma hall,
I've met the King of China and a working Yorkshire miner -
But I've never met a nice South African!
No he's never met a nice South African,
And that's not bloody surprising man!
'Cause we're a bunch of arrogant b***tards,
Who hate black people!
I once got served in Woolies aften less than four week's wait,
I had lunch with Rowan Atkinson when he paid and wasn't late,
I know a public swimming bath where they don't piss in the pool,
I know a guy who got a job straight after leaving school,
I've met a normal merman, and a fairly modest German -
But I've never met a nice South African!
No he's never met a nice South African,
And that's not bloody surprising man!
'Cause we're a bunch of talentless murderers,
Who smell like baboons.
I've had a close encounter of the twenty-second kind,
That's when an alien spaceship disappears up your behind,
I got directory enquiries after less than forty rings,
I've even heard a decent song by Paul McCartney's Wings,
I've seen a flying pig, in a quite convincing wig,
But I've never met a nice South African!
No he's never met a nice South African,
And that's not bloody surprising man!
'Cause we're a bunch of ignorant loudmouths,
With no sense of humour.
I've met the Loch Ness monster and he looks like Fred Astaire,
At the BBC in London he's the chief commissionaire,
I know a place in Glasgow which is rife with daffodillies,
I met a man in Katmandu who claimed to have two willies,
I've had a nice pot noodle, but I've never had a poodle -
And I've never met a nice South African.
No he's never met a nice South African,
And that's not bloody surprising man,
Because we've never met one either!
Except for Breyten Breytenbach, and he's emigrated to Paris. (farts)
Yes he's quite a nice South African,
And he's hardly ever killed anyone,
And he's not smelly at all.
That's why we put him prison!
(Video)
No, if we lived in your world we'd have replaced parallel and serial ports with IrDA, rather than waiting for USB, Ethernet, and Wi-fi to come along.
You are literally arguing for change for the sake of change, without any regard to whether something is actually an improvement or not. Do you work for Twitter perhaps?
The floppy disc was useless even in 1998. It held less than two megabytes of data, which even then was not much. The Internet was a "thing" even back then, and transferring files using a network connection was, in practice, more viable than having a stack of floppies and having to use an archiver to cut up files into pieces and copy them onto floppies.
The vast, vast, majority of audio devices have a 3.5mm jack. That includes both the ones you have, and the ones you'll ultimately connect to when you're away from home. Bluetooth is not ubiquitous, and the audio quality of Bluetooth is poor. Digital wired headphones are virtually non-existent, in part because of Apple's refusal to follow standards for a wired connector, and the Android's world's current split between uUSB and USB-C, with the Android world also not standardizing on common capabilities for USB, such as simultaneous charging plus communications.
In addition to the poor quality of Bluetooth, BT devices tend not to play nicely with one another. While I can plug my phone into my car radio to play music, and answer the phone with a bluetooth headset for actual phone calls, trying to do the same thing with both devices being bluetooth just never seems to work.
Apple did this too early. If they had:
1. Standardized on USB-C.
2. Waited for others to standardize on USB-C
3. Required pass-through capabilities on USB plugs (so making it easy to add chargers, etc)
4. Promoted USB headsets.
You cannot seriously compare that to CDs vs floppies.
Why is it that when right wingers claim Google "censors" something, it always turns out that the most trivial Google search brings up whatever they claim is being suppressed? Not only did "Ruger", for example, bring up the RUGER HOMEPAGE as its first result, but "confederate flag" even brought up a fucking picture of a confederate flag.
Is Google not censoring my results but is censoring the results of conspiracy-theory minded conservatives? Or are you just assuming they will without even bothering to check?
Is this like the "Conservatives are being kicked off Twitter" crap, where if you actually look at it, the "conservatives" are either trolls like @Nero who were given many, many, warnings and then reluctantly thrown out, or... wait for it... actual Nazis who conservatives have suddenly decided count as "conservative" when we're talking about people being kicked off Twitter, but not when liberals say "Republicans really need to stop pandering to racists". And "kicked off" in this case usually also has a rather expansive meaning, like "They removed his blue checkmark! HIS BLUE CHECKMARK! This is the worst thing ever!"
The other day some idiot claimed that anyone who posts a video to YouTube that merely mentions Alex Jones will get their account suspended. So I went to YouTube. I entered "Alex Jones" in the search bar. Do I need to tell you that it came up with videos of all types, from all periods of time, recent, an hour ago, last week, last month, a year old, whatever?
Did that stop the idiot from being moderated up and people pointing out it was balderdash being modded down? Nope.
Why do you not even bother to check that your claims aren't going to look ridiculous before posting them?
I agree with you ARM performance was great at the time, but I would point out that pretty much everyone had chips that were faster and more pleasant to program for than Intel at the time. Motorola, IBM...
Apple has a long history of trying to prevent choice and innovation. They forced DR to lobotomize GEM, threatened Microsoft for the best part of a decade to prevent them from producing a decent UI for Windows (you really don't want to know what Windows was like pre-95), and until the late nineties was notorious for avoiding open technologies, even when there was no serious advantage to its own. While things warmed again under Jobs, the latter went ballistic over Google's Android despite the iPhone itself being a blatant copy of an LG design.
They're not the good guys, they're just a company that very often comes up with some good ideas.
It appears to be correct that Musk had, at the time, no guaranteed path to achieve his goal, that is, he hadn't secured the funding necessary to buy every share of Tesla at $420. That part appears to be correct.
However, the second part of the statement, that he did it to manipulate the stock price, is less certain. What proof do you have as to his motives?
I'm surprised by the blanket love and trust Musk receives here. There are still people who think the Hyperloop proposal was honest, despite it being a clear attempt to sink CAHSR by proposing something that, even if working as described, wouldn't actually be an adequate replacement (a quarter of the capacity, two cities "served", terminals 50-100 miles outside of the cities they're supposed to serve, ultimately doing not enough to reduce air traffic, and doing nothing - actually making worse - internal traffic problems in SF and LA.)
Maybe Musk will manage to scrape the money together for the buy-out anyway, but at this point I wouldn't trust him enough to buy shares at $419, and people in tech - people on Slashdot - ought to be more wary than most about this.
Do phone vendors actually pay money to Google? I was under the impression they don't. I know they'd have been very upset with the CyanogenMod team given Google's tolerance of the latter's distribution of the Google Play framework.