"RIM is providing an appropriate lawful access solution that enables India's telecom operators to be legally compliant with respect to their BlackBerry consumer traffic, to the same degree as other smartphone providers in India, but this does not extend to secure BlackBerry enterprise communications"
Or a better AI project: cyborgs that travel back in time and assassinate people who made useless clickbait YouTube videos when they should have just written it down.
Ever heard a phrase to the effect 'This is not a world I would want to bring a child into'?
Have you ever seen the TV show "16 and Pregnant"? (if not, you're lucky. It seems like it was meant to be a warning, but then horribly miscalculated teenage stupidity and turned into an aspiration).
You seem to think that the majority of the population is made up of reasonable, logical-thinking people who actually think before they act. I think you need to go watch Idiocracy, it's becoming more of a documentary than a comedy.
And I didn't even address the completely ridiculous second half of your post. Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the police should be allowed to do whatever shitty things they want without criticism because they also do good things?
My property taxes help pay police salaries, so of course I expect them to respond to crimes regardless of whether I point out their mistakes, just as I would be expected to do my job regardless of whether my employer or customer criticized my mistakes.
That's their job, and is why they get paid a lot of money, early retirement, and have insanely good pension plans.
Initially arresting the child because of a school zero tolerance policy might not be the police's fault. Holding a child for 3 days and requiring him to wear an ankle bracelet after knowing he had a backpack with a phone charger is most definitely the police's fault.
That sounds really useful for a multi-story building, but not really not so much for the submitter since the dog isn't in his basement:)
For a dog next door, double paned (or even better, laminated) windows and acoustic insulation/etc in the outer walls would probably be a much more effective first step.
He has moved from business to philanthropy. The fundamentals of climate change are irrelevant (unless you are trying to say it's not true, in which case you are an idiot who will ignore the fundamentals anyway). He knows the fundamentals of public policy and fundraising, which is what this is about.
1) "software built into the CPU?" That doesn't even make sense.
It's hardware and software. Every modern CPU has microcode onboard, but these chips go beyond that. They have a whole little computer in the processor.
And that whole little computer's software is NOT built into the CPU. It's SOFTWARE, pure and simple. The code it runs is loaded in via the firmware/drivers.
2) More efficient standby and better battery life? That sounds good to me...
No, it's just so that it can wake it up with a voice command. It's not more efficient or better battery life.
Yes, it is. Using a separate hardware component to do this means you don't need to run the power-hungry main CPU all of the time.
Because Google publishes the code to their operating system, but they're not going to publish the netlists for their processors
They publish the code to the basic operating system - not the drivers. You know, the drivers that control all of the hardware features of the SoCs? It's pretty irrelevant in that case whether it's hardware/firmware/driver software (a lot of the "hardware" - especially things like TPMs - these days is really microcode loaded into separate controllers on the SoC anyway).
software built into the CPU that is still powered even when the machine is ostensibly asleep, allegedly for the purpose of waking the machine up. Is that what you want in your phone?
1) "software built into the CPU?" That doesn't even make sense. 2) More efficient standby and better battery life? That sounds good to me...
I have had "words" with Nvidia - and in fact am working with them on a project for their Android TV-based Shield. They have great hardware for STBs and high end tablets.
But this article was about smartphones, and they gave up on the Android phone market months ago...
And it's totally as easy to implement an entire TCP/IP stack, file system, memory, and app code scanner in hardware that would be able to report information to Google without ANY OS/driver support.
I'm surprised no one hast mentioned nVidia. $15B market cap (totally in Google's price range), and they already have a tablet and Android TV STB that kicks everyone else's ass. Guess it's currently too expensive, but there's no question it blows away the Android high end...
Also - did you read the article and understand the point?
Qualcomm is the only SoC manufacturer for Android pushing the high end - MediaTek, etc are focusing on the mid-range. Google wants to push the high end to compete with the latest Apple chips, and MTK and others aren't even close. Right now it's either push Qualcomm or do it themselves.
Except Google is perfectly capable of hiring away mobile SoC designers from anyone they want. Or, of course, just going the Apple route and buying an entire mobile semiconductor company. Remember, they already bought Motorola and kept most of the IP.
Do you have an Android phone now? If not, no one cares about your opinion on this. If so, why on earth would you be more worried about a Google chip than a Google ENTIRE OPERATING SYSTEM?
You say that like they're required to sell a subscription through the Apple TV App.
Of course they aren't. But remember Prime isn't all of Amazon's streaming business, they also have a significant VOD service. And they can't make ANY money on the AppleTV on that service without selling any content, of course. So why encourage Amazon customers to use an AppleTV when they have their own set top box that lets them make money on VOD?
Did ANYONE who replied to my comment actually read it? (you even quoted it, so I can't see how you didn't).
Only a complete Apple Fanboy could complain about a streaming service not supporting Apple TV as an ANTITRUST issue
The article said people were calling Amazon's decision "anti-competitive" not to offer an app on the ultimate anti-competitive platform. I said that was absurd, because it is. I never said it wasn't possible for them to write an app if they wanted to.
Besides, you can already use Airplay streaming from those apps to the Apple TV. And I doubt many people who have an Apple TV don't have an iPhone or iPad - Apple TV is like level 4 on the AppleKoolaid acquisition scale. So it's not like Apple TV isn't reasonably supported, i.e. "anti-competitive" is total BS.
iOS != tvOS (jeez, what an inspired name, Apple - almost as inspired as "Apple TV"...) And regardless of the APIs, it's a totally different screen/UI and input method.
Plus, the fact that Amazon Video is not only on iOS but supports AirPlay Streaming means there isn't all that much more gained by an Apple TV app - you can already watch Amazon streams on Apple TV (of course, you just have to buy them somewhere else).
Anyway, your post was not so much Devil's Advocate as Devil's Public Defender. You don't seem to know anything about the subject but seem to think you need to interject your useless opinion anyway.
There really isn't an excuse for Chromecast, but not supporting or selling Apple TV makes perfect sense.
Only a complete Apple Fanboy could complain about a streaming service not supporting Apple TV as an ANTITRUST issue, since the main reason streaming services don't support Apple TV is that Apple wants to take 30% of their GROSS on every transaction if they do "support" it.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly like that. SMS was 160 chars so they decided on something short enough to include a message and user name, etc.
Maybe he's Chinese, you insensitive clod!
Very old article, not even true, and refuted by Blackberry.
http://in.reuters.com/article/...
"RIM is providing an appropriate lawful access solution that enables India's telecom operators to be legally compliant with respect to their BlackBerry consumer traffic, to the same degree as other smartphone providers in India, but this does not extend to secure BlackBerry enterprise communications"
Or a better AI project: cyborgs that travel back in time and assassinate people who made useless clickbait YouTube videos when they should have just written it down.
Ever heard a phrase to the effect 'This is not a world I would want to bring a child into'?
Have you ever seen the TV show "16 and Pregnant"? (if not, you're lucky. It seems like it was meant to be a warning, but then horribly miscalculated teenage stupidity and turned into an aspiration).
You seem to think that the majority of the population is made up of reasonable, logical-thinking people who actually think before they act. I think you need to go watch Idiocracy, it's becoming more of a documentary than a comedy.
I'd take service to fans in a Star Wars movie over service to the director's 8 year old kids any day.
Don't forget Marvel is owned by Disney, as well.
And I didn't even address the completely ridiculous second half of your post. Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the police should be allowed to do whatever shitty things they want without criticism because they also do good things?
My property taxes help pay police salaries, so of course I expect them to respond to crimes regardless of whether I point out their mistakes, just as I would be expected to do my job regardless of whether my employer or customer criticized my mistakes.
That's their job, and is why they get paid a lot of money, early retirement, and have insanely good pension plans.
Initially arresting the child because of a school zero tolerance policy might not be the police's fault. Holding a child for 3 days and requiring him to wear an ankle bracelet after knowing he had a backpack with a phone charger is most definitely the police's fault.
That sounds really useful for a multi-story building, but not really not so much for the submitter since the dog isn't in his basement :)
For a dog next door, double paned (or even better, laminated) windows and acoustic insulation/etc in the outer walls would probably be a much more effective first step.
He has moved from business to philanthropy. The fundamentals of climate change are irrelevant (unless you are trying to say it's not true, in which case you are an idiot who will ignore the fundamentals anyway). He knows the fundamentals of public policy and fundraising, which is what this is about.
pro-tip: Bill arrived at high monetary holdings for reasons other than his "climate management" skills.
And you arrived at your Anonymous commentary of his activities through zero skills.
Didn't read the rest, because see above...
1) "software built into the CPU?" That doesn't even make sense.
It's hardware and software. Every modern CPU has microcode onboard, but these chips go beyond that. They have a whole little computer in the processor.
And that whole little computer's software is NOT built into the CPU. It's SOFTWARE, pure and simple. The code it runs is loaded in via the firmware/drivers.
2) More efficient standby and better battery life? That sounds good to me...
No, it's just so that it can wake it up with a voice command. It's not more efficient or better battery life.
Yes, it is. Using a separate hardware component to do this means you don't need to run the power-hungry main CPU all of the time.
Because Google publishes the code to their operating system, but they're not going to publish the netlists for their processors
They publish the code to the basic operating system - not the drivers. You know, the drivers that control all of the hardware features of the SoCs? It's pretty irrelevant in that case whether it's hardware/firmware/driver software (a lot of the "hardware" - especially things like TPMs - these days is really microcode loaded into separate controllers on the SoC anyway).
software built into the CPU that is still powered even when the machine is ostensibly asleep, allegedly for the purpose of waking the machine up. Is that what you want in your phone?
1) "software built into the CPU?" That doesn't even make sense.
2) More efficient standby and better battery life? That sounds good to me...
I have had "words" with Nvidia - and in fact am working with them on a project for their Android TV-based Shield. They have great hardware for STBs and high end tablets.
But this article was about smartphones, and they gave up on the Android phone market months ago...
And if you are going to post nonsense as AC, consider the option of not posting.
And it's totally as easy to implement an entire TCP/IP stack, file system, memory, and app code scanner in hardware that would be able to report information to Google without ANY OS/driver support.
I'm surprised no one hast mentioned nVidia. $15B market cap (totally in Google's price range), and they already have a tablet and Android TV STB that kicks everyone else's ass. Guess it's currently too expensive, but there's no question it blows away the Android high end...
Also - did you read the article and understand the point?
Qualcomm is the only SoC manufacturer for Android pushing the high end - MediaTek, etc are focusing on the mid-range. Google wants to push the high end to compete with the latest Apple chips, and MTK and others aren't even close. Right now it's either push Qualcomm or do it themselves.
Except Google is perfectly capable of hiring away mobile SoC designers from anyone they want. Or, of course, just going the Apple route and buying an entire mobile semiconductor company. Remember, they already bought Motorola and kept most of the IP.
Do you have an Android phone now? If not, no one cares about your opinion on this. If so, why on earth would you be more worried about a Google chip than a Google ENTIRE OPERATING SYSTEM?
You say that like they're required to sell a subscription through the Apple TV App.
Of course they aren't. But remember Prime isn't all of Amazon's streaming business, they also have a significant VOD service. And they can't make ANY money on the AppleTV on that service without selling any content, of course. So why encourage Amazon customers to use an AppleTV when they have their own set top box that lets them make money on VOD?
Did ANYONE who replied to my comment actually read it? (you even quoted it, so I can't see how you didn't).
Only a complete Apple Fanboy could complain about a streaming service not supporting Apple TV as an ANTITRUST issue
The article said people were calling Amazon's decision "anti-competitive" not to offer an app on the ultimate anti-competitive platform. I said that was absurd, because it is. I never said it wasn't possible for them to write an app if they wanted to.
Besides, you can already use Airplay streaming from those apps to the Apple TV. And I doubt many people who have an Apple TV don't have an iPhone or iPad - Apple TV is like level 4 on the AppleKoolaid acquisition scale. So it's not like Apple TV isn't reasonably supported, i.e. "anti-competitive" is total BS.
iOS != tvOS (jeez, what an inspired name, Apple - almost as inspired as "Apple TV"...) And regardless of the APIs, it's a totally different screen/UI and input method.
Plus, the fact that Amazon Video is not only on iOS but supports AirPlay Streaming means there isn't all that much more gained by an Apple TV app - you can already watch Amazon streams on Apple TV (of course, you just have to buy them somewhere else).
Anyway, your post was not so much Devil's Advocate as Devil's Public Defender. You don't seem to know anything about the subject but seem to think you need to interject your useless opinion anyway.
There really isn't an excuse for Chromecast, but not supporting or selling Apple TV makes perfect sense.
Only a complete Apple Fanboy could complain about a streaming service not supporting Apple TV as an ANTITRUST issue, since the main reason streaming services don't support Apple TV is that Apple wants to take 30% of their GROSS on every transaction if they do "support" it.