Alternate hypothesis: users respond better to female digital voices. Most GPS units and previous IVR systems feature female voices.
Ha. It's not even a technology thing. Why are the majority of personal assistants and receptionists in meatspace women, too? Even when men apply to those jobs the person they hire if more likely to be female.
Looks like a case of coders simply following human behavior.
..."there is no easy solution to the problem"... oh yes, there is.
Even ignoring how one feels about the TSA's efforts and whether they do any good, this is the same "problem" many businesses face -- they have poor service because they don't have enough staff. The answer is easy -- hire more screeners.
You realize people can buy full BD copies of those movies they have in SD streaming format now for less than that, right? And they will get better quality from the BD than Sony's overpriced upgrade stream copy.
Heck, lots of those BDs even come with a code for a new HD UltraViolet copy as well, no prior SD purchase required.
I'm not sure why "court system" is in quotes in the headline, but I like how it implies the courts are a sham really when it comes to the government wanting to get its way to fight "terrorism".
So, how does this now play for Apple, who banked on their phones being secure as a selling point?
It's not a big problem if Apple's PR does their job (and they're very good at their job). The 5C didn't have the separate security chip and was known to be less secure for that reason. The 5S and newer do, and should be harder to penetrate. If the FBI had gotten into one of the latest models, that would have been a bigger issue.
They still need to close the loophole where Apple can until update iOS on the phone without the user's explicit permission. The FBI's whole case was that Apple could crate a new, less secure, iOS and upload it to the phone without unlocking it or disturbing the contents in the process.
...But the capital came in because the person who had control of the capital was able to justify it intellectually to themselves versus something else that could have become the next Facebook or Google.
The problem is many of these companies only get big because of a fad and not for any concrete business reason. Social media companies have no real source of revenue except advertising and data-mining their users. But revenue from that is going to be highly dependent on how popular they (may) become.
We had that story about the "emoji" company a few days back. Sounds like a pretty stupid company, right? But they likely got funding from someone, and now they are being bought for $100 million. Would a person approving that capital have any justification that the business would ever become the next Facebook? Or was Facebook really just that 1 in a million that managed to somehow take off?
One watches everything your type and listens in on your conversations with the microphone, sending the information to a shadowy information gathering operation. The other ships with the UI already set to a two-byte character language.
All this tells me is that Netflix has looked at what people actually watch or want to watch and have lessened everything else.
Isn't that how cable TV became the wasteland it is today? Only pushing programming that was extremely popular, reaching for the easy money, and shelving anything more innovative that might be a gamble or only appeal to a niche audience?
What's Netflix's excuse for doing it? It's not like they have a limited airtime to divvy up and make money on. The shows are just data on a hard disk somewhere and will be there to chase the long tail and give them more content to count in their marketing.
This doesn't reduce competition, because the service areas don't overlap. Each company is already a local monopoly.
It makes the new entity a much larger force politically, which can have a negative impact of future regulatory decisions. Also, it makes it harder to get away from the company.
Since this "they don't overlap" argument was already trotted out for the cableco mergers, let me say that if I really didn't like my Internet service offerings in my area, I wouldn't call and bitch about it to the Tier 1 tech support agents who literally can't do anything about it, I would move. It's harder to do that if the provider owns a much larger swath of the country, though.
$40 out the door sounds like you had a subsidized phone - this $399 price is the unsubsidized price.
My mom picked up a TracPhone Android smartphone on sale at our local grocery store for $10. That wasn't a super-special sale price, either. It's still on sale at that price months later. It's an LG with only a 3.5" screen. But it's running Android 4.4 and didn't seem really slouchy on UI reaction time. Plus it's a model that gives you 3x bonus on minutes purchased (when running on a new-customer activation).
Apple has officially unveiled a smaller, cheaper iPhone designed to make a splash in the budget-friendly smartphone market.
I keep seeing this. The iPhone SE being referred to as a "budget market" device. It's not budget-market at all, in price or features. Besides the lack of Touch 3D support, it is pretty much the same as the current get "premium market" 6S.
Have people really been deluded by marketers to the point they measure the value of a device simply based on screen size?
What is so unique about the launcher that it cannot simply be repositioned like any other GUI element? I understand keeping it snapped to an edge of the screen but I'm at a loss to why updates should even be necessary in the first place.
Sounds like Canonical was taking a page from Microsoft's book and trying to tell users how they "should" use their computers.
No. It's not a private party. It's a corporate event where they hired the equivalent of strippers that didn't even get their clothes off - tacky, wrong and just sad.
I never said it was a private party. But any event that requires invitation and cannot be just walked into by the general public is, by definition, a private party.
What's the difference between these paid attendees and "booth babes"? The booth babes don't dance with you, and may possibly have a product's feature bullet-points memorized.
Slashdot Mirror
Alternate hypothesis: users respond better to female digital voices. Most GPS units and previous IVR systems feature female voices.
Ha. It's not even a technology thing. Why are the majority of personal assistants and receptionists in meatspace women, too? Even when men apply to those jobs the person they hire if more likely to be female.
Looks like a case of coders simply following human behavior.
Is Rightscorp the developer?
Dude has been snorting cocoa powder all these years. Wondering what all the fuss is about.
Ah, that explains it. The employees didn't get the higher wages through collective bargaining. They were all brown-nosing.
You misspelled, You must be nude here.
I see you exposed him.
I'd like to see which they pick to hire if we restrict them to a choice between an Indian female and an American male.
Fisherman report there are more fish in the sea other than those they have already caught.
Even ignoring how one feels about the TSA's efforts and whether they do any good, this is the same "problem" many businesses face -- they have poor service because they don't have enough staff. The answer is easy -- hire more screeners.
Not sure if joking or just...
You realize people can buy full BD copies of those movies they have in SD streaming format now for less than that, right? And they will get better quality from the BD than Sony's overpriced upgrade stream copy.
Heck, lots of those BDs even come with a code for a new HD UltraViolet copy as well, no prior SD purchase required.
I'm not sure why "court system" is in quotes in the headline, but I like how it implies the courts are a sham really when it comes to the government wanting to get its way to fight "terrorism".
So, how does this now play for Apple, who banked on their phones being secure as a selling point?
It's not a big problem if Apple's PR does their job (and they're very good at their job). The 5C didn't have the separate security chip and was known to be less secure for that reason. The 5S and newer do, and should be harder to penetrate. If the FBI had gotten into one of the latest models, that would have been a bigger issue.
They still need to close the loophole where Apple can until update iOS on the phone without the user's explicit permission.
The FBI's whole case was that Apple could crate a new, less secure, iOS and upload it to the phone without unlocking it or disturbing the contents in the process.
...But the capital came in because the person who had control of the capital was able to justify it intellectually to themselves versus something else that could have become the next Facebook or Google.
The problem is many of these companies only get big because of a fad and not for any concrete business reason. Social media companies have no real source of revenue except advertising and data-mining their users. But revenue from that is going to be highly dependent on how popular they (may) become.
We had that story about the "emoji" company a few days back. Sounds like a pretty stupid company, right? But they likely got funding from someone, and now they are being bought for $100 million. Would a person approving that capital have any justification that the business would ever become the next Facebook? Or was Facebook really just that 1 in a million that managed to somehow take off?
What does Edward Scissor-hands have to do with this? :/
No search results got cut during that period of time?
Now there are two versions of Windows 10.
One watches everything your type and listens in on your conversations with the microphone, sending the information to a shadowy information gathering operation.
The other ships with the UI already set to a two-byte character language.
All this tells me is that Netflix has looked at what people actually watch or want to watch and have lessened everything else.
Isn't that how cable TV became the wasteland it is today? Only pushing programming that was extremely popular, reaching for the easy money, and shelving anything more innovative that might be a gamble or only appeal to a niche audience?
What's Netflix's excuse for doing it? It's not like they have a limited airtime to divvy up and make money on. The shows are just data on a hard disk somewhere and will be there to chase the long tail and give them more content to count in their marketing.
Everyone work 60-80 hour weeks (as on-call for those "budding business emergencies") and take a 30% pay cut!
...the app will be free at launch with pricing to be introduced at a later date.
/insert metaphor about drug dealers here
This doesn't reduce competition, because the service areas don't overlap. Each company is already a local monopoly.
It makes the new entity a much larger force politically, which can have a negative impact of future regulatory decisions.
Also, it makes it harder to get away from the company.
Since this "they don't overlap" argument was already trotted out for the cableco mergers, let me say that if I really didn't like my Internet service offerings in my area, I wouldn't call and bitch about it to the Tier 1 tech support agents who literally can't do anything about it, I would move. It's harder to do that if the provider owns a much larger swath of the country, though.
That's how Intel will waltz into the next decade.
But Celebrite is the one cracking the phone. Would an Israeli company be punishable under the DMCA?
"Apple makes money on hardware and not on the sale of customer data."
iAd ... http://advertising.apple.com/ ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ...
iBeacon
iTunes
All of these use user data to facilitate advertising or other revenue for Apple.
iAd is being discontinued.
With no new ads being accepted once current campaigns end it will be gone. The sales team has already been dismantled.
...foreign countries don't want anything to do with a country that's going to spy on all of their information or communications.
Really? So China gives foreign companies a free pass on communications?
$40 out the door sounds like you had a subsidized phone - this $399 price is the unsubsidized price.
My mom picked up a TracPhone Android smartphone on sale at our local grocery store for $10. That wasn't a super-special sale price, either. It's still on sale at that price months later. It's an LG with only a 3.5" screen. But it's running Android 4.4 and didn't seem really slouchy on UI reaction time. Plus it's a model that gives you 3x bonus on minutes purchased (when running on a new-customer activation).
Apple has officially unveiled a smaller, cheaper iPhone designed to make a splash in the budget-friendly smartphone market.
I keep seeing this. The iPhone SE being referred to as a "budget market" device. It's not budget-market at all, in price or features.
Besides the lack of Touch 3D support, it is pretty much the same as the current get "premium market" 6S.
Have people really been deluded by marketers to the point they measure the value of a device simply based on screen size?
What is so unique about the launcher that it cannot simply be repositioned like any other GUI element? I understand keeping it snapped to an edge of the screen but I'm at a loss to why updates should even be necessary in the first place.
Sounds like Canonical was taking a page from Microsoft's book and trying to tell users how they "should" use their computers.
No. It's not a private party. It's a corporate event where they hired the equivalent of strippers that didn't even get their clothes off - tacky, wrong and just sad.
I never said it was a private party. But any event that requires invitation and cannot be just walked into by the general public is, by definition, a private party.
What's the difference between these paid attendees and "booth babes"?
The booth babes don't dance with you, and may possibly have a product's feature bullet-points memorized.