If there's no consistent way of handling an app's permissions, then those permissions-fudging apps make other developers' lives very difficult. I can imagine that's why Google wouldn't want them on the store.
Does it matter whether a bad app uses crashing or uses nagging to force its users to acquiesce? It's a bad app trying to strong-arm the user. The benefit is that good apps have an opportunity to behave reliably when the user wants privacy.
An app which refuses to acknowledge the possibility that it might be denied permission, is an app you should not use. It's really trivial to handle, especially for a non-critical app feature.
If you don't give permission, a good app will pop up a message explaining why it wanted to use that feature, while a bad one will usually just die or act upon null data (e.g. show your contacts as empty).
FWIW I find that I only give apps permissions they actually need with the runtime system. If I never use a feature in an app, it never gets permission to use it, so I know exactly what it can access from the moment I install it. If it makes an unreasonable request, it's rejected and I get on with what I actually want the app to do. Facebook can see my photos because I use it to post photos, but it doesn't know about my location or my contacts.
Furthermore you can pick and choose what permissions you give, and double check or revoke them later from one convenient "Privacy" pane. I'm switching permissions off and on for my own amusement right now.
Also the device UDID is no longer available; apps that look for it are rejected and I think the current version of iOS refuses to hand it over.
If you're wearing Glass properly your eye shouldn't be obscured, the display should be above and to the right. It doesn't provide an overlay on your normal vision so it's perfectly OK (and preferable) to have it out of your normal eyeline.
It's not the reaction that's the problem - it's close to 100% complete in a properly maintained car - but that turning the heat into useful work is not trivial. You can get more useful work out of the same energy with, say, a gas turbine.
Make a metal body that deforms and returns to its original shape, like plastic, rather than deforming and assuming a new shape, like current metals. Also it can be formed by casting rather than machining. It's exciting stuff, although it'll probably be for a few troublesome components rather than whole phone bodies for the immediate future given the cost.
All-metal mobile phone bodies go from the Nokia Eseries of about five years ago to the current iPhone 5 and HTC One. That's not counting tablets, laptops... you put in a radio-transparent window made out of a different material.
Yeah, I've used a really bad definition of "professonal" here that is downright tautological. I agree, many of the best musicians, full stop, just do it (or did it) on the side. And that's always the way with art, and it's how it should be. I just don't want to see the idea of being able to pay your way with your talent get written off casually as unsustainable in the information age.
See if you can start an argument over whether "stable orbit" is properly defined given the many-body problem. I figure that's got at least one good weekend symposium in it.
No, professional music isn't necessary, but I'd like to live in a world where someone at least has the option of making a living doing the thing they love. And if they can't, the reason isn't "we refused to give up unlimited streaming content".
Slashdot Mirror
If there's no consistent way of handling an app's permissions, then those permissions-fudging apps make other developers' lives very difficult. I can imagine that's why Google wouldn't want them on the store.
Does it matter whether a bad app uses crashing or uses nagging to force its users to acquiesce? It's a bad app trying to strong-arm the user. The benefit is that good apps have an opportunity to behave reliably when the user wants privacy.
I think Android will do the same, it's just an engineering challenge. Apple only got around to it with iOS6 last year.
I mean it's trivial for the programmer to handle. iOS 6 returns "null"; if you get that instead of the contact database, handle it right.
An app which refuses to acknowledge the possibility that it might be denied permission, is an app you should not use. It's really trivial to handle, especially for a non-critical app feature.
If you don't give permission, a good app will pop up a message explaining why it wanted to use that feature, while a bad one will usually just die or act upon null data (e.g. show your contacts as empty).
FWIW I find that I only give apps permissions they actually need with the runtime system. If I never use a feature in an app, it never gets permission to use it, so I know exactly what it can access from the moment I install it. If it makes an unreasonable request, it's rejected and I get on with what I actually want the app to do. Facebook can see my photos because I use it to post photos, but it doesn't know about my location or my contacts.
Furthermore you can pick and choose what permissions you give, and double check or revoke them later from one convenient "Privacy" pane. I'm switching permissions off and on for my own amusement right now.
Also the device UDID is no longer available; apps that look for it are rejected and I think the current version of iOS refuses to hand it over.
Glasses have glass transitions, which aren't the same thing as melting.
(This is apparently something GlassUp considered a bug, rather than a feature.)
If you're wearing Glass properly your eye shouldn't be obscured, the display should be above and to the right. It doesn't provide an overlay on your normal vision so it's perfectly OK (and preferable) to have it out of your normal eyeline.
SRM goes both ways; you can reduce albedo by, essentially, painting the snowcap black.
It's not the reaction that's the problem - it's close to 100% complete in a properly maintained car - but that turning the heat into useful work is not trivial. You can get more useful work out of the same energy with, say, a gas turbine.
Panchea, baby.
In the sense that it yields abruptly when taken beyond its limits, not in the sense that those limits are low.
No but according to the company it can make knives and stabbing weapons:
http://info.liquidmetal.com/blog/bid/289868/Liquidmetal-Blades-Knives-and-Other-Sharp-Things
You can injection mold it, too.
(BTW the only Apple product currently using it is a version of the paper-clip substitute they ship with the iPhone in some regions.)
Temperature control to ensure it remains glassy seems to be the trick.
Make a metal body that deforms and returns to its original shape, like plastic, rather than deforming and assuming a new shape, like current metals. Also it can be formed by casting rather than machining. It's exciting stuff, although it'll probably be for a few troublesome components rather than whole phone bodies for the immediate future given the cost.
All-metal mobile phone bodies go from the Nokia Eseries of about five years ago to the current iPhone 5 and HTC One. That's not counting tablets, laptops... you put in a radio-transparent window made out of a different material.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that radio is good, I'm just saying that Spotify causes problems in ways that a radio analogy doesn't capture.
Yeah, I've used a really bad definition of "professonal" here that is downright tautological. I agree, many of the best musicians, full stop, just do it (or did it) on the side. And that's always the way with art, and it's how it should be. I just don't want to see the idea of being able to pay your way with your talent get written off casually as unsustainable in the information age.
See if you can start an argument over whether "stable orbit" is properly defined given the many-body problem. I figure that's got at least one good weekend symposium in it.
No, professional music isn't necessary, but I'd like to live in a world where someone at least has the option of making a living doing the thing they love. And if they can't, the reason isn't "we refused to give up unlimited streaming content".
You can sign in with a regular old Spotify login.
Yes, Thom Yorke is a famous fan of Google and Napster.