IOS has it's place, particularly in places where you intend to do exactly what the limited functions given to you are, and very little branching out. IOS is great for things that require little thought, posting twitter and facebook updates. even basic pictures. Working on a basic research project where you are going to be working with a few dozen webpages, some extra files while simultaneously IMing a study partner etc... not so much. IOS is the perfect OS for consuming information, Great quick mindless way to do 1 thing at a time, it is the worse creator OS. Horrible for keeping track of many things at once, working with eachother etc...
Agreed, but you also have to look at one thing. Google is not the company with tons of bogus lax patents, and from my observations that seems to be more or less by choice. Does it seem imposible that a company google's size with google's legal budget, that they could not have say squeezed through enough pattents to keep microsoft in court for years trying to fight to get bing across. Or say patented their circles following feeds etc... in a way that facebook would have had to wait a few months for a court to invalidate patents before facebook could match every feature of G+. I agree a lawyer speaks in the interest of the client, but I do have to point out, the client specifically chose not to be a patent troll. If someone asks for harsher sentances for serial killers, is your first response "Yeah but if he were a serial killer he'd probably think differently"
While I agree, I also have to note, google was never one of the companies to not update their frontrunner products and wait for competition to move in. Google's algorithm had changed numerous times for filtering out spam-bots etc.... Long before bing even started resembling a threat. I'm not saying the competition isn't a good thing, and maybe some of the improvements were encouraged by hearing footsteps. But I would say this is far less of a change of pace vs say, facebook adds nothing but random UI changes for 2 years, then rolls out every feature of G+ right after google implements them.
It's an indi PC game, by 2Dboy, I don't think they've even ported to the smartphone market, it is available for windows linux and mac http://2dboy.com/games.php, from what I've played of it I could see it working very well on a tablet, I'm not sure about on a phone (may be a bit too small)
In most cases siri doesn't save time in setting things. I don't know anyone who can *hit button, say "Am I going to need an umbrella tomorrow" then get an answer, faster then I can hit the weather button on my android and look at tomorrows weather. I don't think siri is completely useless, but I consider it's situational usefulness on the low side. I'd say it is useful 10% of the time, a drawback 90% of the time (if the task is either easier to do via normal buttons, or if you are in a location with either too much background noise, or you don't want to be heard talking to a phone.
I have to agree, to me it seems like an average quality flash game, good for killing a bit of time, that just happened to hit the smartphone market at just the right time to have people talking about it. After that it's popularity grew because it was already popular. Personally I wish a more original game made it to that timing, say world of goo or something along those lines.
More like they actually have competition making them sweat a bit (no I'm not talking about the hypothetical year of the linux desktop, I'm talking about the actually approaching significant decline in use of the home PC). I still have to say I'm a bit nervous on them going after botnets directly, not because I don't want those scumbags shut down and/or put behind bars, but because corporations playing vigilantes in general is a bit nerve-wracking. What we approve for one company in one circumstance, is approved for all companies in all circumstances. It is hypocritical to cheer microsoft for shutting down a botnet, and then boo apple for raiding gizmodo, or the RIAA for raiding a teenagers house.
umm... which big businesses don't use patents to attack competitors? Type in any fortune 500 companies name into google and add "sues over patent" and I guarantee you you will find tons of results. The company using the least offensive attacks I can think of is google, and even they loaned their patents out to be used offensively by others. Bottom line, most the big guys aren't in favor of patent reform because to them patent trolls are just mosquito. Throw a couple million into a lawyer to defend and problem solved, then the trolls go back to attacking smaller companies that can't afford to fight them, squishing potential risks of market share loss.
Your damn lawmakers and the president all know the same thing, People who listen, and pay attention to specific policies are a minority in this country. Supporting a bill that will greatly improve the lives of thousands of people = +100 votes, accepting a bribe from a corporation for 10 million dollars in campaign money for the next election in exchange for shooting down the bill and then spending that money on a campaign commercial = + 10,000 votes.
Some random people say they are going to, anyone who's ever been to 4chan knows those particular clusters of idiots yell to attack facebook or google every other week. Anonymous works on a system, the popular ideas rise and are echod, the unpopular ones just become one idiot repeating the same thing until he shuts up. The FB and Google attack type ideas would fall into the latter category, The members of anon that have any knowledge of hacking don't bother with that crap.
Agreed, even the most paranoid CIA/FBI conspiracies, more or less end with an agent killing you, and making it look like an accident. It takes a lot more bravery (or to be a cold hearted bastard) to put not just your life, but essentially everyone around you on the line.
The Zeta's aren't the only drug cartel, or even the only fierce group. I'm sure their enemies wouldn't mind cutting them down a peg or 2 via killing their "Collaborators" (I put that in quotes for a reason, as I'm sure many people aiding them aren't doing it because they want to,
Indeed, how is that even new, go back 30 years radio shack carried everything people needed to tweak and build ham radios. Radio shack was originally the niche for the nerds of yesteryear. Them turning into a pointless half baked cellphone store was them breaking style, the fact that they still haven't gone out of business is still the mystery. *que 5 millionth link to onion article.
Lifehacker recently had an article on a service called "death switch" http://www.deathswitch.com/ Basically it e-mails you asking if you are still alive, if you don't respond back, after 3 e-mails, it sends out the assigned message to who you specified. It does cost $20 a year
Mainly because vista added nothing good and new to the table. They added UAC, but at least prior to the first service pack it was implemented so brokenly it failed to be a hindrance of anything (warnings are pointless if you warn every frickin thing, my old vista system would request administrative access to open a normal web browser). Apart from that vista did nothing but make systems with 2gb of ram, run like XP with 512K ram, and systems with less then 2GB.... I don't even want to think of it. Sure ram was getting cheaper even then, but I still never got why we want heavier UI's that add nothing to usability, but take memory away from applications. Windows 7 is actually decent, but far from a game changer to me. It is more secure, actually has 64 bit working decently, seems to have fixed almost all of the problems with UAC's implementation. Honestly though I do have to say, there is absolutely no feature in windows 7 that I find a huge improvement over XP, beyond a bit better security, but I no longer feel the compulsion to downgrade a system just to get something that works. I believe the issue with unity is, it doesn't add anything positive, it by default eats more resources, it's interface requires a ton of getting used to, but when you're done adjusting to it, you can finally access things at a similar speed as you could before. And the total absolute lack of customization is not really forgivable. Most people who pick the linux desktop, chose so for control. Personalization was a linux staple from the beginning, and unity fails in every way shape and form in that category.
Because human error car deaths are understood and expected. We live in a culture where the media see's a story, that will sell if they blow it out of proportion, followed by a wave of ambulance chaser lawyers etc... It dosn't matter if the cars are less then 1% as likely as a human to mess up, what matters is the 1% of situations where they might mess up that a human would probably not have. People were well adjusted to the risks and problems of normal cars, back when lawsuits over stupid crap were much less frequent then they are these days. The good old days when paint was lead and every product didn't have to have 500 warning labels about why you shouldn't stick your dick in an electric socket or eat rat poison or whatever other things a few idiots tried.
Netscape wasn't the only player in the browser market. In 1994 linux users had to use something, whether konqueror, opera or any other browsers rose, a niche existed to be filled for a better web browser. Microsoft was doing a terrible job, with little competition they had little concern and left themselves wide open to be overtaken. The FOSS community would have backed a different project, and a different browser would have had to have made the same move. Everyone assumes if X company didn't exist no-one else would ever have developed something. That is a completely inaccurate assumption doubly so for FOSS projects.
wow... next thing you know we're going to learn security by obscurity is not 100% effective, facebook and google may lead to concerns for privacy, and some virus's might not be detected by norton antivirus... Shocking.
I believe the fear is, you might have the ability to. So far I haven't heard any manufacturer stand up and say "Don't worry we absolutely will give the ability to control this feature to our customers", and with hardware manufacturers getting more and more power over what they can limit on the hardware they sell (look at intel, they've got password locks to prevent you from using all the cores on a CPU they sell you, so that they can sell you an "upgrade" to unlock the features). I admit this fear isn't by definition justified, but it is possibly justified. There are 2 possible ways it can be done.
1. A setup is enabled in the bios, the user can set what boot loaders to allow
2. A default setup is set, Windows 8 by default is allowed, all other OS's are blocked without a code that the manufacturer does not provide, or perhaps they don't even have an option available.
I believe that should be rephrased to "Justice is provided to the highest bidder" FSF and Redhat are both corporations, but unless their pockets are deep enough and ethics low enough to pay equal contributions. Their odds of success are low.
Judging by majority of polls etc... I'm inclined to theorize that apple's units sold numbers are more inflated then samsungs (both probably are). Apple tends to sell best to people who "price is no object", and apple products down to the mac-books have had some of the worse resell potential (Tiny scratch on the outside of the case, nobody will consider buying it). So I'd imagine apple fans are more apple fans likely to upgrade from a perfectly functional phone that is a year out of date, to the newest model. While android owners are more likely to wait until the phone no longer meets their needs, or the carriers contract offers a free upgrade. (note these are not absolutes, only increased likely-hoods, half way frugal apple buyers do exist, as do wealthy "gotta get the next big thing" android owners, but as an overall trend I would say larger percentages of each audience fits into the stereotypes)
a poor half assed incineration perhaps. If by incineration you mean dumping a pile of un-shredded papers into a normal run of the mill fireplace yes. If you mean a closed stove or chamber designed for incineration with a decent filter that does not allow anything of significant size out then reconstruction is pretty much impossible.
In this case I do have to say a bit right on this part. This nowhere near matches the ranks of MSE destroying chrome (subject to suspicion due to companies being rivals), nor is it even remotely on the league of McAffee rendering systems unbootable. Though I do have to say it does say something negative due to it being curious to pass testing. (Microsoft can at least say "Chrome wasn't installed on our machines that we tested it on" and it be a very plausible explanation)
Slashdot Mirror
IOS has it's place, particularly in places where you intend to do exactly what the limited functions given to you are, and very little branching out. IOS is great for things that require little thought, posting twitter and facebook updates. even basic pictures. Working on a basic research project where you are going to be working with a few dozen webpages, some extra files while simultaneously IMing a study partner etc... not so much. IOS is the perfect OS for consuming information, Great quick mindless way to do 1 thing at a time, it is the worse creator OS. Horrible for keeping track of many things at once, working with eachother etc...
Agreed, but you also have to look at one thing. Google is not the company with tons of bogus lax patents, and from my observations that seems to be more or less by choice. Does it seem imposible that a company google's size with google's legal budget, that they could not have say squeezed through enough pattents to keep microsoft in court for years trying to fight to get bing across. Or say patented their circles following feeds etc... in a way that facebook would have had to wait a few months for a court to invalidate patents before facebook could match every feature of G+. I agree a lawyer speaks in the interest of the client, but I do have to point out, the client specifically chose not to be a patent troll. If someone asks for harsher sentances for serial killers, is your first response "Yeah but if he were a serial killer he'd probably think differently"
While I agree, I also have to note, google was never one of the companies to not update their frontrunner products and wait for competition to move in. Google's algorithm had changed numerous times for filtering out spam-bots etc.... Long before bing even started resembling a threat. I'm not saying the competition isn't a good thing, and maybe some of the improvements were encouraged by hearing footsteps. But I would say this is far less of a change of pace vs say, facebook adds nothing but random UI changes for 2 years, then rolls out every feature of G+ right after google implements them.
It's an indi PC game, by 2Dboy, I don't think they've even ported to the smartphone market, it is available for windows linux and mac http://2dboy.com/games.php, from what I've played of it I could see it working very well on a tablet, I'm not sure about on a phone (may be a bit too small)
In most cases siri doesn't save time in setting things. I don't know anyone who can *hit button, say "Am I going to need an umbrella tomorrow" then get an answer, faster then I can hit the weather button on my android and look at tomorrows weather. I don't think siri is completely useless, but I consider it's situational usefulness on the low side. I'd say it is useful 10% of the time, a drawback 90% of the time (if the task is either easier to do via normal buttons, or if you are in a location with either too much background noise, or you don't want to be heard talking to a phone.
I have to agree, to me it seems like an average quality flash game, good for killing a bit of time, that just happened to hit the smartphone market at just the right time to have people talking about it. After that it's popularity grew because it was already popular. Personally I wish a more original game made it to that timing, say world of goo or something along those lines.
More like they actually have competition making them sweat a bit (no I'm not talking about the hypothetical year of the linux desktop, I'm talking about the actually approaching significant decline in use of the home PC). I still have to say I'm a bit nervous on them going after botnets directly, not because I don't want those scumbags shut down and/or put behind bars, but because corporations playing vigilantes in general is a bit nerve-wracking. What we approve for one company in one circumstance, is approved for all companies in all circumstances. It is hypocritical to cheer microsoft for shutting down a botnet, and then boo apple for raiding gizmodo, or the RIAA for raiding a teenagers house.
umm... which big businesses don't use patents to attack competitors? Type in any fortune 500 companies name into google and add "sues over patent" and I guarantee you you will find tons of results. The company using the least offensive attacks I can think of is google, and even they loaned their patents out to be used offensively by others. Bottom line, most the big guys aren't in favor of patent reform because to them patent trolls are just mosquito. Throw a couple million into a lawyer to defend and problem solved, then the trolls go back to attacking smaller companies that can't afford to fight them, squishing potential risks of market share loss.
Your damn lawmakers and the president all know the same thing, People who listen, and pay attention to specific policies are a minority in this country. Supporting a bill that will greatly improve the lives of thousands of people = +100 votes, accepting a bribe from a corporation for 10 million dollars in campaign money for the next election in exchange for shooting down the bill and then spending that money on a campaign commercial = + 10,000 votes.
Some random people say they are going to, anyone who's ever been to 4chan knows those particular clusters of idiots yell to attack facebook or google every other week. Anonymous works on a system, the popular ideas rise and are echod, the unpopular ones just become one idiot repeating the same thing until he shuts up. The FB and Google attack type ideas would fall into the latter category, The members of anon that have any knowledge of hacking don't bother with that crap.
Agreed, even the most paranoid CIA/FBI conspiracies, more or less end with an agent killing you, and making it look like an accident. It takes a lot more bravery (or to be a cold hearted bastard) to put not just your life, but essentially everyone around you on the line.
The Zeta's aren't the only drug cartel, or even the only fierce group. I'm sure their enemies wouldn't mind cutting them down a peg or 2 via killing their "Collaborators" (I put that in quotes for a reason, as I'm sure many people aiding them aren't doing it because they want to,
Indeed, how is that even new, go back 30 years radio shack carried everything people needed to tweak and build ham radios. Radio shack was originally the niche for the nerds of yesteryear. Them turning into a pointless half baked cellphone store was them breaking style, the fact that they still haven't gone out of business is still the mystery. *que 5 millionth link to onion article.
Lifehacker recently had an article on a service called "death switch" http://www.deathswitch.com/ Basically it e-mails you asking if you are still alive, if you don't respond back, after 3 e-mails, it sends out the assigned message to who you specified. It does cost $20 a year
at $4 per thousand hits, that would imply the company will tack on an extra 4 hundredths of a cent to your bill.
Mainly because vista added nothing good and new to the table. They added UAC, but at least prior to the first service pack it was implemented so brokenly it failed to be a hindrance of anything (warnings are pointless if you warn every frickin thing, my old vista system would request administrative access to open a normal web browser). Apart from that vista did nothing but make systems with 2gb of ram, run like XP with 512K ram, and systems with less then 2GB.... I don't even want to think of it. Sure ram was getting cheaper even then, but I still never got why we want heavier UI's that add nothing to usability, but take memory away from applications. Windows 7 is actually decent, but far from a game changer to me. It is more secure, actually has 64 bit working decently, seems to have fixed almost all of the problems with UAC's implementation. Honestly though I do have to say, there is absolutely no feature in windows 7 that I find a huge improvement over XP, beyond a bit better security, but I no longer feel the compulsion to downgrade a system just to get something that works. I believe the issue with unity is, it doesn't add anything positive, it by default eats more resources, it's interface requires a ton of getting used to, but when you're done adjusting to it, you can finally access things at a similar speed as you could before. And the total absolute lack of customization is not really forgivable. Most people who pick the linux desktop, chose so for control. Personalization was a linux staple from the beginning, and unity fails in every way shape and form in that category.
Because human error car deaths are understood and expected. We live in a culture where the media see's a story, that will sell if they blow it out of proportion, followed by a wave of ambulance chaser lawyers etc... It dosn't matter if the cars are less then 1% as likely as a human to mess up, what matters is the 1% of situations where they might mess up that a human would probably not have. People were well adjusted to the risks and problems of normal cars, back when lawsuits over stupid crap were much less frequent then they are these days. The good old days when paint was lead and every product didn't have to have 500 warning labels about why you shouldn't stick your dick in an electric socket or eat rat poison or whatever other things a few idiots tried.
Netscape wasn't the only player in the browser market. In 1994 linux users had to use something, whether konqueror, opera or any other browsers rose, a niche existed to be filled for a better web browser. Microsoft was doing a terrible job, with little competition they had little concern and left themselves wide open to be overtaken. The FOSS community would have backed a different project, and a different browser would have had to have made the same move. Everyone assumes if X company didn't exist no-one else would ever have developed something. That is a completely inaccurate assumption doubly so for FOSS projects.
wow... next thing you know we're going to learn security by obscurity is not 100% effective, facebook and google may lead to concerns for privacy, and some virus's might not be detected by norton antivirus... Shocking.
1. A setup is enabled in the bios, the user can set what boot loaders to allow
2. A default setup is set, Windows 8 by default is allowed, all other OS's are blocked without a code that the manufacturer does not provide, or perhaps they don't even have an option available.
I believe that should be rephrased to "Justice is provided to the highest bidder" FSF and Redhat are both corporations, but unless their pockets are deep enough and ethics low enough to pay equal contributions. Their odds of success are low.
Judging by majority of polls etc... I'm inclined to theorize that apple's units sold numbers are more inflated then samsungs (both probably are). Apple tends to sell best to people who "price is no object", and apple products down to the mac-books have had some of the worse resell potential (Tiny scratch on the outside of the case, nobody will consider buying it). So I'd imagine apple fans are more apple fans likely to upgrade from a perfectly functional phone that is a year out of date, to the newest model. While android owners are more likely to wait until the phone no longer meets their needs, or the carriers contract offers a free upgrade. (note these are not absolutes, only increased likely-hoods, half way frugal apple buyers do exist, as do wealthy "gotta get the next big thing" android owners, but as an overall trend I would say larger percentages of each audience fits into the stereotypes)
a poor half assed incineration perhaps. If by incineration you mean dumping a pile of un-shredded papers into a normal run of the mill fireplace yes. If you mean a closed stove or chamber designed for incineration with a decent filter that does not allow anything of significant size out then reconstruction is pretty much impossible.
In this case I do have to say a bit right on this part. This nowhere near matches the ranks of MSE destroying chrome (subject to suspicion due to companies being rivals), nor is it even remotely on the league of McAffee rendering systems unbootable. Though I do have to say it does say something negative due to it being curious to pass testing. (Microsoft can at least say "Chrome wasn't installed on our machines that we tested it on" and it be a very plausible explanation)
maybe his family caught on since