There's a whole bunch of reasons, and while they vary from person to person, they're usually not directly related to hardware specifications or flexibility.
If I'm missing the point, why does the submission end with the question, "So, does grammar matter anymore?"
I would say that was the point.
I don't think you're missing the point, but I do think WhiteHover makes a valid point.
If you're asserting "yes, grammar does matter" - then yes, you've answered the original question. But I would venture to suggest that if the answer is "yes", then the very next question has to be "Okay, given that grammar is important - and given that Microsoft have had desktop applications with built-in grammar check since around 1997 - how come Google don't?"
It honestly doesn't read like that. As the GP said, it's a very sensationalist headline. It'd be more accurate to say that the CEO takes the view that there is nothing wrong with the company that cannot be fixed.
They don't have any debt, they still have revenue and while they have problems, there's plans in place to deal with them.
I can understand they might provide some new @facebook address for you, but can't you just ignore it entirely? Presumably your friends would email you at the address they always used to, unless you told them otherwise.
Did you even RTF Headline? His friends won't email him at the address they always used to, they'll email the @facebook address because Facebook has thoughtfully updated all their address books for them.
So the Court ruled that the buyer of any non-expiring software license (consumer or not) has the ownership of the copy and is untrestricted in his right to sell the copy.
Seems fairly obvious the direction this will take then. Expiry periods built into software licenses.
I don't know what part of the world you're in, but in mine 100 watts worth of heat from a gas-fired boiler costs a lot less than 100 watts worth of heat from electricity.
Nobody's suggesting the CLI should go away. The problem is that many Linux distributions are quite happy to force you into a command line far more readily than Windows or OS X is.
Want to configure something in an obscure fashion? There's usually a GUI-driven way to do it in Windows or OS X. It may be a PITA to get to, but it's there and it works.
In Linux, chances are there isn't - you'll have to dive into the command line and once you've done that, you have to be careful in future that the GUI tools don't break your obscure configuration.
"Only possible by GUI", I'd agree, is a bad thing.
"Only possible by CLI" - I'd say that depends on the context. If it's a basic piece of system management that lots of people are likely to want to do, I'd say that "only possible by CLI" is equally broken.
IIRC most embedded systems don't have anything like that. They don't necessarily even have a standardised mechanism to load a kernel into memory and boot it.
Excuse my ignorance of Android architecture; but isn't there some equivalent to the DOS/Windows BIOS for Android?
Nope. In fact, having a basic text-mode that can be easily programmed with a generic driver is a bit of an anomaly to the PC world; most other architectures don't really have anything comparable.
Google fundamentally do not understand the mobile phone industry. Most phone manufacturers are following a broadly similar development methodology: design phone, put together firmware to run on it, release phone, get on with designing next phone.
This is all carried out at breakneck speed because most of the manufacturers insist on having a stupidly large range of handsets.
Once work on the next phone has started, firmware upgrades to the last model they were working on are few and far between - and often only because really bad bugs have been discovered. Sometimes not even then.
You can't resolve this with a generic Android build which anyone can install because mobile phone hardware isn't sufficiently standardised as to allow this. Look at cyanogenmod: yeah, it works on some devices, but it requires a build specific to the device and many devices have a great big long list of caveats associated with running cyanogenmod on them.
This won't change any time soon because the phone industry is happy with things the way they are - if anything, it works in their favour. Your two year old handset's looking a little long in the tooth because we haven't bothered to release any updates for it? Fine, your contract's up for renewal soon anyway. Why not just get a new handset then?
But the truth is that the vast majority of people don't care that much about a great big feature list. They care about "will this make me happier?" - emotional benefits, if you like.
The iPhone is regularly advertised with video chat to the hypothetical user's nearest and dearest. That's a great emotional-benefit type feature.
With an old vehicle, first and foremost it needs to be well looked-after. A well looked after vehicle - even if it's getting on in age - commands respect. A clapped-out rusty biscuit tin on wheels commands scorn, no matter how much technology it may have inside.
Fit bars to the front if it doesn't already have them. You don't want some idiot reversing into you and destroying the grille; I can't imagine parts will be too easy to find for a vehicle that age. Roo bars (the type that don't curve around the side) will probably look best.
Sort out any rust or dents it may have, then give it a nice shiny new paint job. I'm thinking something along the lines of a red stripe starting at the top rear and going diagonally to finish at about the level of the door handle, whereupon the red stripe goes horizontally along the door.
Paint it black below the red stripe, and grey above it.
Fit some lights to the roof just above the windscreen.
A spolier on top and red wheels complete the look.
I think RIM's lead worked against them - it made them complacent. By the time they realised they couldn't afford to be complacent, the rest of the world had noticed it some years earlier.
Let's look at a rough timeline:
- RIM release the first Blackberry along with BES.
- Microsoft think "What a good idea". They integrate some of the more basic features of BES into Exchange under the name of ActiveSync, and improve it considerably as the years go by. Why does Microsoft do this? Simple, it's a popular feature and they can use it to persuade companies to upgrade their existing Exchange infrastructure rather than buy BES. All they need to do is find some handset vendors to license the client-side to.
- RIM doubtless looks into this, concludes that ActiveSync is nothing like as sophisticated as BES (it isn't), and that nobody else has released a handset that does a half-decent job of managing email anyway (they haven't).
- Apple release the iPhone. It's a swishy piece of kit - far prettier than anything RIM have ever produced, and much more pleasant to use - but ultimately not terribly sophisticated. RIM ignore it.
- Microsoft release Exchange 2007. ActiveSync is greatly improved. RIM ignore it.
- HTC release the HTC Dream - one of the first Android handsets. Android's prettier than Blackberry, and a sight easier to use. But RIM ignore it.
- Apple license ActiveSync and include support in an update to the iPhone OS. RIM ignore it.
- Google license ActiveSync and include support in Android. Phones that support Android 2.0 or later get Exchange support.
- RIM buy QNX with a view to rewriting their OS. Corporate acquisitions typically involve months of due diligence before they're announced to the public; it's safe to assume that RIM were looking into this some time before Android 2.0 was released.
So where does this leave RIM? It's Q2 2010, they've obviously decided that long-term, they want a new base for their smartphone OS. At this point they're probably at least three years behind Apple and two years behind Android. Pretty much all they can do is maintain their existing product line while putting together what will be their next major OS upgrade and hope to hell they can keep their heads above water for as long as it takes to get something released. Will they? It's looking doubtful.
The whole thing is a shadow-play, to get Sweden extraditing him to the US, where he will be "Braziled", a'la Sam Lowery.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
I thought that at first, but now I'm not so sure. As others have said, there's a very one-sided extradition treaty in place between the UK and the US; I wouldn't be at all surprised if the US could have had him sent directly to them.
But... even if the US were to get hold of Assange, there's a good chance they'd have a hard time proving he did anything wrong. And regardless of the outcome of any court case, the US can't possibly come out of it looking good.
If Assange is found guilty - a man who has demonstrated an amazing ability to garner publicity has just become a political prisoner in a supposedly first-world country. If he dies in prison, he's a political martyr.
If he's found not guilty, a situation that's already embarrassing becomes considerably more embarrassing. Not only can the US not keep secret documents secret, they can't do much about it if those secrets leak.
Better, then, not to extradite him to the US at all. But how to deal with all these embarrassing documents - and ensure that any future leaks in don't wind up with a similar result? Arranging for Assange to mysteriously commit suicide may satisfy a human need for vengeance, but risks making Wikileaks look like a credible source for future leaks and ensures that quite a few investigative journalists will start to do some serious digging through the leaked documents (which are mostly pretty boring, benign bureaucratic stuff).
So, what to do? Well, Assange has become the human face of Wikileaks. Discredit the human face, and with any luck the organisation will suffer with it. And the best bit from the US perspective is that Assange is playing right into their hands. Assange's reaction to these allegations has been:
- To remain associated with Wikileaks rather than publicly resign and pass the reigns over to someone else.
- To move hell and high water to avoid extradition to Sweden.
The US doesn't need to do anything more. If Assange's request for political asylum is granted, he's a man on the run from rape charges - his credibility (and by extension that of Wikileaks) is shot to hell. If Assange is extradited to Sweden, he'll doubtless be charged. Whatever happens after that point, his credibility is equally shot to hell.
My understanding is it's perfectly okay for you to build a PC, stick an OEM copy of Windows on there and flog the lot as a complete system. But the OEM copy has to go on a system which you are going to sell, not one you're going to keep for yourself.
(Though TBH I suspect there's probably about a dozen people worldwide who've bought a full retail non-OEM boxed copy of Windows)
If the shop has in their terms that people who take their goods without paying for them at the till will subsequently be charged 100 times the marked price then that is what should happen.
Nope, won't work. You can't sue for punitive damages in the UK, and you can't skirt around that by inventing terms & conditions that pretend it's not punitive.
(IANAL, so take this with as much salt as you think it needs).
Slashdot Mirror
He paid the price for this defiance, and they're slowly trying to get rid of free view
Cite?
Is that still true when we consider that the analogue signal in the UK is all but switched off? It'll be completely gone in October.
There's a whole bunch of reasons, and while they vary from person to person, they're usually not directly related to hardware specifications or flexibility.
This was suggested by Black & Gass in their 2001 work, "City Hall":
"(...) From now on, we will travel in tubes!"
If I'm missing the point, why does the submission end with the question, "So, does grammar matter anymore?"
I would say that was the point.
I don't think you're missing the point, but I do think WhiteHover makes a valid point.
If you're asserting "yes, grammar does matter" - then yes, you've answered the original question. But I would venture to suggest that if the answer is "yes", then the very next question has to be "Okay, given that grammar is important - and given that Microsoft have had desktop applications with built-in grammar check since around 1997 - how come Google don't?"
That was the only way I could see it made sense.
But the image on page 5 seems to directly contradict this view - it strongly suggests that the screenshot comes from the client.
Reading the description, his application claims to get a screenshot of the "offending" computer.
How? I can't imagine that any of these P2P applications include such functionality.
But who would do Microsoft's research & development?
It honestly doesn't read like that. As the GP said, it's a very sensationalist headline. It'd be more accurate to say that the CEO takes the view that there is nothing wrong with the company that cannot be fixed.
They don't have any debt, they still have revenue and while they have problems, there's plans in place to deal with them.
I can understand they might provide some new @facebook address for you, but can't you just ignore it entirely? Presumably your friends would email you at the address they always used to, unless you told them otherwise.
Did you even RTF Headline? His friends won't email him at the address they always used to, they'll email the @facebook address because Facebook has thoughtfully updated all their address books for them.
Microsoft has NOTHING to gain by patent trolling Google. Zero.
Not true, I'm quite sure they'd love to bring their office furniture repair costs down.
So the Court ruled that the buyer of any non-expiring software license (consumer or not) has the ownership of the copy and is untrestricted in his right to sell the copy.
Seems fairly obvious the direction this will take then. Expiry periods built into software licenses.
I don't know what part of the world you're in, but in mine 100 watts worth of heat from a gas-fired boiler costs a lot less than 100 watts worth of heat from electricity.
Nobody's suggesting the CLI should go away. The problem is that many Linux distributions are quite happy to force you into a command line far more readily than Windows or OS X is.
Want to configure something in an obscure fashion? There's usually a GUI-driven way to do it in Windows or OS X. It may be a PITA to get to, but it's there and it works.
In Linux, chances are there isn't - you'll have to dive into the command line and once you've done that, you have to be careful in future that the GUI tools don't break your obscure configuration.
"Only possible by GUI", I'd agree, is a bad thing.
"Only possible by CLI" - I'd say that depends on the context. If it's a basic piece of system management that lots of people are likely to want to do, I'd say that "only possible by CLI" is equally broken.
With you.
IIRC most embedded systems don't have anything like that. They don't necessarily even have a standardised mechanism to load a kernel into memory and boot it.
Excuse my ignorance of Android architecture; but isn't there some equivalent to the DOS/Windows BIOS for Android?
Nope. In fact, having a basic text-mode that can be easily programmed with a generic driver is a bit of an anomaly to the PC world; most other architectures don't really have anything comparable.
It won't help, and here's why:
Google fundamentally do not understand the mobile phone industry. Most phone manufacturers are following a broadly similar development methodology: design phone, put together firmware to run on it, release phone, get on with designing next phone.
This is all carried out at breakneck speed because most of the manufacturers insist on having a stupidly large range of handsets.
Once work on the next phone has started, firmware upgrades to the last model they were working on are few and far between - and often only because really bad bugs have been discovered. Sometimes not even then.
You can't resolve this with a generic Android build which anyone can install because mobile phone hardware isn't sufficiently standardised as to allow this. Look at cyanogenmod: yeah, it works on some devices, but it requires a build specific to the device and many devices have a great big long list of caveats associated with running cyanogenmod on them.
This won't change any time soon because the phone industry is happy with things the way they are - if anything, it works in their favour. Your two year old handset's looking a little long in the tooth because we haven't bothered to release any updates for it? Fine, your contract's up for renewal soon anyway. Why not just get a new handset then?
You ever tried getting official firmware updates for an Android handset two years after it was discontinued?
Okay, so you're a cellphone geek? Good for you.
But the truth is that the vast majority of people don't care that much about a great big feature list. They care about "will this make me happier?" - emotional benefits, if you like.
The iPhone is regularly advertised with video chat to the hypothetical user's nearest and dearest. That's a great emotional-benefit type feature.
Forget technology for now.
With an old vehicle, first and foremost it needs to be well looked-after. A well looked after vehicle - even if it's getting on in age - commands respect. A clapped-out rusty biscuit tin on wheels commands scorn, no matter how much technology it may have inside.
Fit bars to the front if it doesn't already have them. You don't want some idiot reversing into you and destroying the grille; I can't imagine parts will be too easy to find for a vehicle that age. Roo bars (the type that don't curve around the side) will probably look best.
Sort out any rust or dents it may have, then give it a nice shiny new paint job. I'm thinking something along the lines of a red stripe starting at the top rear and going diagonally to finish at about the level of the door handle, whereupon the red stripe goes horizontally along the door.
Paint it black below the red stripe, and grey above it.
Fit some lights to the roof just above the windscreen.
A spolier on top and red wheels complete the look.
I think RIM's lead worked against them - it made them complacent. By the time they realised they couldn't afford to be complacent, the rest of the world had noticed it some years earlier.
Let's look at a rough timeline:
- RIM release the first Blackberry along with BES.
- Microsoft think "What a good idea". They integrate some of the more basic features of BES into Exchange under the name of ActiveSync, and improve it considerably as the years go by. Why does Microsoft do this? Simple, it's a popular feature and they can use it to persuade companies to upgrade their existing Exchange infrastructure rather than buy BES. All they need to do is find some handset vendors to license the client-side to.
- RIM doubtless looks into this, concludes that ActiveSync is nothing like as sophisticated as BES (it isn't), and that nobody else has released a handset that does a half-decent job of managing email anyway (they haven't).
- Apple release the iPhone. It's a swishy piece of kit - far prettier than anything RIM have ever produced, and much more pleasant to use - but ultimately not terribly sophisticated. RIM ignore it.
- Microsoft release Exchange 2007. ActiveSync is greatly improved. RIM ignore it.
- HTC release the HTC Dream - one of the first Android handsets. Android's prettier than Blackberry, and a sight easier to use. But RIM ignore it.
- Apple license ActiveSync and include support in an update to the iPhone OS. RIM ignore it.
- Google license ActiveSync and include support in Android. Phones that support Android 2.0 or later get Exchange support.
- RIM buy QNX with a view to rewriting their OS. Corporate acquisitions typically involve months of due diligence before they're announced to the public; it's safe to assume that RIM were looking into this some time before Android 2.0 was released.
So where does this leave RIM? It's Q2 2010, they've obviously decided that long-term, they want a new base for their smartphone OS. At this point they're probably at least three years behind Apple and two years behind Android. Pretty much all they can do is maintain their existing product line while putting together what will be their next major OS upgrade and hope to hell they can keep their heads above water for as long as it takes to get something released. Will they? It's looking doubtful.
The whole thing is a shadow-play, to get Sweden extraditing him to the US, where he will be "Braziled", a'la Sam Lowery.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
I thought that at first, but now I'm not so sure. As others have said, there's a very one-sided extradition treaty in place between the UK and the US; I wouldn't be at all surprised if the US could have had him sent directly to them.
But... even if the US were to get hold of Assange, there's a good chance they'd have a hard time proving he did anything wrong. And regardless of the outcome of any court case, the US can't possibly come out of it looking good.
If Assange is found guilty - a man who has demonstrated an amazing ability to garner publicity has just become a political prisoner in a supposedly first-world country. If he dies in prison, he's a political martyr.
If he's found not guilty, a situation that's already embarrassing becomes considerably more embarrassing. Not only can the US not keep secret documents secret, they can't do much about it if those secrets leak.
Better, then, not to extradite him to the US at all. But how to deal with all these embarrassing documents - and ensure that any future leaks in don't wind up with a similar result? Arranging for Assange to mysteriously commit suicide may satisfy a human need for vengeance, but risks making Wikileaks look like a credible source for future leaks and ensures that quite a few investigative journalists will start to do some serious digging through the leaked documents (which are mostly pretty boring, benign bureaucratic stuff).
So, what to do? Well, Assange has become the human face of Wikileaks. Discredit the human face, and with any luck the organisation will suffer with it. And the best bit from the US perspective is that Assange is playing right into their hands. Assange's reaction to these allegations has been:
- To remain associated with Wikileaks rather than publicly resign and pass the reigns over to someone else.
- To move hell and high water to avoid extradition to Sweden.
The US doesn't need to do anything more. If Assange's request for political asylum is granted, he's a man on the run from rape charges - his credibility (and by extension that of Wikileaks) is shot to hell. If Assange is extradited to Sweden, he'll doubtless be charged. Whatever happens after that point, his credibility is equally shot to hell.
My understanding is it's perfectly okay for you to build a PC, stick an OEM copy of Windows on there and flog the lot as a complete system. But the OEM copy has to go on a system which you are going to sell, not one you're going to keep for yourself.
(Though TBH I suspect there's probably about a dozen people worldwide who've bought a full retail non-OEM boxed copy of Windows)
If the shop has in their terms that people who take their goods without paying for them at the till will subsequently be charged 100 times the marked price then that is what should happen.
Nope, won't work. You can't sue for punitive damages in the UK, and you can't skirt around that by inventing terms & conditions that pretend it's not punitive.
(IANAL, so take this with as much salt as you think it needs).