Since when is a license to read an eBook revocable?
In 2009, Amazon Amazon erased Orwell books From Kindle devices. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?_r=0).
If you ever used Amazon Kindle app for iOS or Android you will noticed how easy it is for Amazon to remove books from the devices.
The US is awash in certain kinds of skilled tech workers: Java programmers, web programmers, iOS app programmers, and more. It's not hard to find them, nor is there any kind of shortage.
But for more complex work, the best qualified workers are from overseas. Go look in any US comp-sci graduate program, and try to find the Americans. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Back? How many did you find? 10%? 20% And from my experience interviewing them, they are often not the cream of the crop. Don't get me wrong, there are some really top notch American students coming out of graduate programs, but that's the exception, not the rule. If you want a deep understanding of theory, rather than another Java coder, it's hard to find that in the US. Not impossible. Just hard.
What does a "deep understanding of theory" have to do with lack of skilled tech workers? Your statement is too broad to the point that it makes you sound like a troll. Are you saying that all JAVA programmers, Web programmers, iOS developers or Android developers don't have a deep understanding of the theory underlining their tools? You sound like an older tech workers that looks down on new software tools, or you are not an American and is justifying H-1B's by disparaging Americans and their education. Either way, you are a troll.
One way around this dilemma is for Cisco to move manufacturing from U.S soil to a foreign country (not China). Brazil would be a good choice for Cisco to relocate some of their manufacturing plants.
I don't understand this deal yet, but my problem isn't with Beats headphones being a "rip off". That's not the issue for me. The larger issue for me is, I don't see why Apple couldn't have simply produced their own rip-off headphones if they wanted to, or their own music streaming service. They have the technical ability. They have the design and marketing talent. So what are they getting out of the deal?
I would imagine that this is either a waste of money, or there's some other calculation. Like maybe record labels have been trying to bend Apple over a barrel when they ask for streaming rights, and in this deal, Apple acquires the streaming rights that Beats had, thereby side-stepping the deal. Or maybe Apple looked at the organization and thought it was a good team as a whole, and rather than trying to steal the employees away one-by-one, they thought it was better to purchase them outright. There's always the explanation that they were buying the customer base, but I'm not sure that'll hold once they rebrand and integrate-- and I would be surprised if they didn't rebrand and integrate it into their existing products/services.
I don't know. Does anyone have info here that would shed light on the real motivation? Or has Apple just started buying random businesses because they're profitable, without a larger strategic plan?
I don't expect many here to know that Beats Headphones are very popular. Apple needs to branch out from phones and tablets. Beats headphones and speakers are popular, cool, stylish, high-end and expensive. It's the perfect match for Apple. A few weeks ago there was talk of Apple purchasing another cool company (Tesla Motors). Apple is looking to diversify, and they will only buy companies whose products are seen as popular, cool, stylish and expensive.
Do you believe it would be wise to give your typical call center employee a gun, a squad car and instructions to arrest lawbreakers?
Call centers offer dehumanizing jobs that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. The last thing in the world I want is for someone who has grown used to that environment, someone who considers it an acceptable form human interaction, to be in charge of whether or not you or I go to jail.
If you have any sense, you don't want that either.
The problems with working in call centers have nothing to do with recording conversations between call center workers and customers. All of the problems with working in call centers have to do with lousy pay, poor benefits and a general lack of job security. In all the years, I'm yet to hear call center employees complain that their conversations with customers are monitored. It's simply not an issue.
As I read these responses, I'm forced to wonder: would any of the posters tolerate having every spoken word recorded by The Boss throughout their shift? Even one of you?
That's the case for a great number of ordinary workers, and especially for those whose jobs entail great responsibilities, particularly the safeguarding of human life.
Pilots' every spoken word are recorded by "the boss" during flight. Call center employees interactions with customers are often times recorded by "the boss", heavily scrutinized, and used to evaluate the employee's performance. US government employees with high clearances surrender their privacy almost entirely, and fully expect that their communications are monitored.
The job police do is vital to the functioning of society, but it carries at least as much potential for abuse than any of these others I just mentioned. A police officer who does not perform his job appropriately puts the public at an extreme level of risk. It is appropriate that, given this extreme degree of power, we monitor, check, and balance their behavior through a commensurately extreme degree of supervision.
In addition, CIA employees and many members of various federal agencies have to take a yearly polygraph test. So, it's very common for employees in sensitive positions to be highly scrutinized.
You're equating a constantly-overwriting black box that keeps around last two minutes of talk before a crash with continuous recording and long term storage of everything a police officer says, retrievable at his employers' pleasure.
You accuse me of logical fallacy? Really?
The Black box is not the only recording instrument on a commercial plane. There is a cockpit recording device that records all conversations in the cockpit for the entire flight.
The only conclusions that I can draw has to do with the people who use Twitter. While twitter's user base may be sufficiently representative of the overall mobile user space, I don't see how it can correlate to wealth of platform adoption until other factors are also ruled out.
Their assumptions are based on economics and geography. For example, most of the Tweets in Manhattan (a high income area) comes from iPhones. In comparison, most of the tweets in Newark (a much lower income area than Manhattan) comes from Android devices. Therefore, iPhone users are more wealthy than Android users. Of course other factors weren't taken into consideration making the author's conclusion dubious.
Seems like this would be an education issue not a hiring issue. e.g. are there really a lot of underemployed / unemployed black or hispanics with CS degrees?
You are correct. Blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented in colleges. To make matters worse less than 10% of Blacks/Hispanics get STEM degrees. For White students approximately 20% get STEM degrees. Not to mention, the graduation rate for Blacks and Hispanics is much lower than Whites and Asians. Obviously this is going to have a dire effect on the representation of Blacks and Hispanics in STEM careers. I read an article that states if Black and Hispanic students raise their graduation rates in science and engineering to equal the rate attained by Asians this would raise new STEM graduates by 48,000 annually. In addition, raising Black/Hispanic graduation rates to their share of the population and to reflect that of Asians would increase Black/Hispanic STEM graduates by more than 140,000. So, yeah, it's an education issue. I don't see this changing anytime soon, because American high school students treat STEM education as if it was kryptonite.
I've been in the tech industry (software, circuit board design, chip design, and then back to software) for 24 years. I've worked with engineers with heritage from India, China, Korea, various eastern European countries, and probably a couple other countries in Asia. I've never had a black or latino co-worker. In all those years, I've only ever seen us interview a single black candidate, and he so inadequate that he got sent home after speaking with a single interviewer.
Hiring is not the problem. A lack of black and latino candidates worth hiring is.
So, in 24 years your company only interviewed one Black/Hispanic candidate and that doesn't raise red flags to you. In 24 years, only one Black person and no Hispanic was worthy of an interview. That's statistically unlikely to occur unless it's deliberate. Which proves Jessie Jackson point.
Apple's own sales numbers say they sold 74 million iPads in 2014. Not sure how gartner lost 4 million.
Also, Apple's numbers are reported as sales to users, everyone else uses sales to channel (the channel can return unsold stock to the company in the following quarter but can still claim it sold that many)
They can't claim in their financial statements shipments to sales channels as sales if a right to return clause exists. If companies claim sales on shipments to channels when a right to return exists then they are committing fraud (see Worldcom and FASB Issue No. 48). Also, adjusting Apple's units sold to 74 million doesn't change Apple's market share by much. By my calculation, Apple market share goes from approximately 38% to 40% and Google goes from 62% to 60%. Hardly a big change.
The best analysis of this seems to be ArsTechnica, which looks into the conflict with Samsung. Even in the beginning of the deal, people were furrowing brows on how Google can be competing on hardware with the rest of Android.
I live in Chicago. I have a relative in Motorola. Google spent a lot of cash to get people to move to the Merchandise Mart downtown, spending a huge wad of cash to lease out an entire floor of the Mart. This was very disruptive for the teams, and only would pay longer term benefits. This doesn't seem to me to be a strip-and-dump purchase by Google, but the Samsung-Tizen thing kind of forced their hand. People were worrying about Android fragmentation, and the sale of Motorola was the pound of flesh that Google needed to give up to stop a huge split with Samsung.
That's not correct. Tizen is not an Android fork (it's actually a Linux fork) so it will not fragment Android. The sale of Motorola Mobile will not affect Samsung plans for lunching Tizen powered phones. In the two years that Google owned Motorola Mobile they didn't show any interest in running the company. The fact that Motorola Mobile waited almost two years to release new Android phones shows a lack of interest from Google. At the time that Google bought Motorola Mobile many of the posters on/. predicted that Google will sell the hardware division of Motorola Mobile.
Does Tizen support Android apps in any manner? (i.e., in a manner like BlackBerry 10 supports Android apps).
If not, the software ecosystem is going to be very poor, and kill the device.
If it does, then third-party native software is probably never going to get written.
By that logic, no new platform will ever be able to succeed.
Current trends might make that seem right, but don't forget -- every platform was new once and they all started with a tiny ecosystem, even the ones that are successful now.
New platforms will find it difficult to succeed in a world dominated by Google and Apple. Just look at Microsoft's efforts. For all Microsoft's name recognition, market clout, an unlimited marketing budget and over 3 years of trying their market share for smart phones is about 5% and less than 10% for tablets. The average Consumer will think why should they buy a Tizen device over an Android or iPhone. What is the compelling reason that consumers should buy yet another smart phone OS? My prediction, Tizen will never see market share over 3%.
This. I think Samsung was waiting to see how well Amazons and others did. The biggest threat to Android was never Apple & iOS, but Samsung. The question in my mind has always been, what happens if Samsung forks and derives their own OS without google...
What is Samsung going to do for apps if that happens? No one is going to buy a Samsung phone if there aren't much apps available. The window to defeat Google has closed. Motorola and Google Nexus line of smart phones and tablets have made Samsung not as important to Android's success as in the past.
New Kindle Fire tablets are powered by the latest version of Fire OS—Fire OS 3.0 "Mojito", which starts with Android and adds cloud services
As far as I understood the restrictions, they could use the word Android, but they can't use the Google logo or Google Apps (Mail, Maps and others) without Googles permission. For Samsung, they might not be allowed to fork Android, but they do invest in Tizen. I'm looking forward to finally see the first devices.
Tizen is not an Android fork. Tizen is built on Linux and the project resides within Linux Foundation. So, Samsung building Tizen phones doesn't break their agreement to abide by Google's OHA requirements.
Is that a serious question? Take a look at the proceedings from any security conference in the last 2 years and you can find a very long list. The latest trick is for individuals who release small apps for free or a token amount to be offered money to sell their app, especially if the app already asks for more permissions than it really needs (great incentives there...). The buyers then release a new version bundled with malware. The new version is installed automatically if it doesn't need any more permissions, and since most manufacturers don't ship software updates for Android phones in a timely fashion there are typically a few nice root vulnerabilities lying around on a significant fraction of the installed base. From there, the attacker can do what they want (attack mobile banking apps, harvest passwords, send premium-rate SMS, or just proxy all network traffic and inject their own ads, the last being the most common).
I know a couple of people who have turned down money to sell their (free, with only a few thousand users) apps for this purpose.
Can you backup your claim and list a few of the problem apps?
When I hear news like these I always wonder what type of idiot thinks that shooting the texter solves anything?
Thank you for providing an answer.
p.s. The shooter will spend the rest of his life in jail, how's that preferable to someone annoyingly texting in a movie?
/quote
The elderly man didn't shoot the texter over his texting. He shot the victim because the victim physically assaulted him with a bag of popcorn. The moral of the story is, don't physically assaulted someone unless you are prepared to deal with the consequence.
the pissed off guy got physical with the 71 year old man by assaulting him by throwing popcorn, and was being physically restrained by his wife's hand on his chest when the 71 year old shot him (through the wife's hand; there was only a single shot).
If you are 71 years old under the threat of physical violence from a 43 year old, it's reasonable to fear for your life.
There's something HORRIBLY wrong with you. Throwing popcorn is NOT assault, and certainly doesn't warrant deadly force. If the young guy was trying to assault the old man, a hand on his chest wouldn't have done the slightest thing. Even the local police officers tacitly acknowledged their ex-chief was way the hell out of line, and weren't trying to justify it in the slightest, but were instead playing up what a pointless tragedy it was.
That is not true. Throwing popcorn is assault, and it can be the beginning of more aggressive behavior. Maybe the victim's body language, after he threw the popcorn, suggested that he was about to escalate the altercation into full blown violence. In that case, the shooter fear for his safety is warranted. None of us know for sure. We will have to wait on the trial for all the facts to come out. It's sad for someone to lose their life like this. I think they were both hot heads especially the victim.
They made the right choice as long as they don't need to use what ever they get as a replacement. We still make the best planes over here.
Even the people at f-16.net appears to like Gripen more. The consensus seems to be that F-16 is a better at carrying loads at long distances but Gripen in better in direct combat or situations where maneuverability is of importance.
In any training missions where both planes were used Gripen came out ahead.
The thing is that the designs are different for a reason. Gripen is designed to defend a relatively small airspace against intruding planes. The F-16 have sacrificed some of this ability to make it more usable as a medium range offensive unit.
So if you want to take out tanks in Iraq, go for F-16. If you want to defend yourself against F-16, use Gripen.
I don't know what you mean with "over here" but I'm pretty sure you don't mean over at Boeing.
Nonsense. Both aircraft are roughly equal in capabilities and performance. The F-16 is older but has a more powerful engine. This translates into faster acceleration and a higher ceiling for the F-16. The F-16 is slightly more versatile than the Gripen due to 40% more takeoff weight and can handle 31% more external stores than the Gripen. The Gripen can out turn the F-16 and has a greater combat radius. Personally, I would take both the Gripen and F-16 over the F-18 Hornet. Here is a comparison between the two aircraft. http://www.brighthub.com/science/aviation/articles/92292.aspx
An astonishing number of accountants don't think that way, and just blindly apply memorized formulas where they don't apply.
Can you give an example of this or are you just blowing smoke out your rear end. If accountants blindly memorized formulas and that is all that is needed for them to accomplish their tasks then companies wouldn't need accountants (a computer program would be able to replace them). At least, companies wouldn't need as many as they currently do.
One problem is if business is taught as if it were a course as a trade school or tech school. Ie, learn the formulas, learn how to repeat them when asked, try not to rock the boat. That same approach fails when applied to IT and computing except if just want a generic grunt worker with the right certificates. Instead if they learn to think for themselves, learn to be adaptable, learn how to tell if their ideas are working or not, then this will lead to a more successful approach, whether it's business or engineering or science or arts or humanities...
What's strange in this is that MBA is a "masters" degree, which is something you would expect to involve more high level thinking than a mere trade school degree.
Do you even know what is involved in a MBA education? If you don't know don't feel too bad. Just about every poster in this thread don't have a clue about the typical MBA education.
Seriously, other than nostalgia why are they still using corks when much better methods have existed for decades?
Do you know why the older wine gets the more expensive it is? Aging. As wine ages the taste becomes refined, and the aging process depends on oxidation. Corks are permeable which allows the oxidation process (aging) to continue. Using materials other that cork stops the oxidation process making the wine less desirable and reduces the price of the wine.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when is a license to read an eBook revocable?
In 2009, Amazon Amazon erased Orwell books From Kindle devices. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?_r=0). If you ever used Amazon Kindle app for iOS or Android you will noticed how easy it is for Amazon to remove books from the devices.
The US is awash in certain kinds of skilled tech workers: Java programmers, web programmers, iOS app programmers, and more. It's not hard to find them, nor is there any kind of shortage.
But for more complex work, the best qualified workers are from overseas. Go look in any US comp-sci graduate program, and try to find the Americans. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Back? How many did you find? 10%? 20% And from my experience interviewing them, they are often not the cream of the crop. Don't get me wrong, there are some really top notch American students coming out of graduate programs, but that's the exception, not the rule. If you want a deep understanding of theory, rather than another Java coder, it's hard to find that in the US. Not impossible. Just hard.
What does a "deep understanding of theory" have to do with lack of skilled tech workers? Your statement is too broad to the point that it makes you sound like a troll. Are you saying that all JAVA programmers, Web programmers, iOS developers or Android developers don't have a deep understanding of the theory underlining their tools? You sound like an older tech workers that looks down on new software tools, or you are not an American and is justifying H-1B's by disparaging Americans and their education. Either way, you are a troll.
One way around this dilemma is for Cisco to move manufacturing from U.S soil to a foreign country (not China). Brazil would be a good choice for Cisco to relocate some of their manufacturing plants.
I don't understand this deal yet, but my problem isn't with Beats headphones being a "rip off". That's not the issue for me. The larger issue for me is, I don't see why Apple couldn't have simply produced their own rip-off headphones if they wanted to, or their own music streaming service. They have the technical ability. They have the design and marketing talent. So what are they getting out of the deal?
I would imagine that this is either a waste of money, or there's some other calculation. Like maybe record labels have been trying to bend Apple over a barrel when they ask for streaming rights, and in this deal, Apple acquires the streaming rights that Beats had, thereby side-stepping the deal. Or maybe Apple looked at the organization and thought it was a good team as a whole, and rather than trying to steal the employees away one-by-one, they thought it was better to purchase them outright. There's always the explanation that they were buying the customer base, but I'm not sure that'll hold once they rebrand and integrate-- and I would be surprised if they didn't rebrand and integrate it into their existing products/services.
I don't know. Does anyone have info here that would shed light on the real motivation? Or has Apple just started buying random businesses because they're profitable, without a larger strategic plan?
I don't expect many here to know that Beats Headphones are very popular. Apple needs to branch out from phones and tablets. Beats headphones and speakers are popular, cool, stylish, high-end and expensive. It's the perfect match for Apple. A few weeks ago there was talk of Apple purchasing another cool company (Tesla Motors). Apple is looking to diversify, and they will only buy companies whose products are seen as popular, cool, stylish and expensive.
Do you believe it would be wise to give your typical call center employee a gun, a squad car and instructions to arrest lawbreakers?
Call centers offer dehumanizing jobs that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. The last thing in the world I want is for someone who has grown used to that environment, someone who considers it an acceptable form human interaction, to be in charge of whether or not you or I go to jail.
If you have any sense, you don't want that either.
The problems with working in call centers have nothing to do with recording conversations between call center workers and customers. All of the problems with working in call centers have to do with lousy pay, poor benefits and a general lack of job security. In all the years, I'm yet to hear call center employees complain that their conversations with customers are monitored. It's simply not an issue.
As I read these responses, I'm forced to wonder: would any of the posters tolerate having every spoken word recorded by The Boss throughout their shift? Even one of you?
That's the case for a great number of ordinary workers, and especially for those whose jobs entail great responsibilities, particularly the safeguarding of human life.
Pilots' every spoken word are recorded by "the boss" during flight. Call center employees interactions with customers are often times recorded by "the boss", heavily scrutinized, and used to evaluate the employee's performance. US government employees with high clearances surrender their privacy almost entirely, and fully expect that their communications are monitored.
The job police do is vital to the functioning of society, but it carries at least as much potential for abuse than any of these others I just mentioned. A police officer who does not perform his job appropriately puts the public at an extreme level of risk. It is appropriate that, given this extreme degree of power, we monitor, check, and balance their behavior through a commensurately extreme degree of supervision.
In addition, CIA employees and many members of various federal agencies have to take a yearly polygraph test. So, it's very common for employees in sensitive positions to be highly scrutinized.
You're equating a constantly-overwriting black box that keeps around last two minutes of talk before a crash with continuous recording and long term storage of everything a police officer says, retrievable at his employers' pleasure.
You accuse me of logical fallacy? Really?
The Black box is not the only recording instrument on a commercial plane. There is a cockpit recording device that records all conversations in the cockpit for the entire flight.
1) Lots of people do already. For instance, call center employees.
There are reasons call center ranks below garbage collection on the list of desirable jobs. This is one of them.
I understand your point though: you wouldn't tolerate that sort of treatment but the other guy should have to. He's different!
The other guy doesn't have to tolerate that sort of treatment either. They are free to quit.
The only conclusions that I can draw has to do with the people who use Twitter. While twitter's user base may be sufficiently representative of the overall mobile user space, I don't see how it can correlate to wealth of platform adoption until other factors are also ruled out.
Their assumptions are based on economics and geography. For example, most of the Tweets in Manhattan (a high income area) comes from iPhones. In comparison, most of the tweets in Newark (a much lower income area than Manhattan) comes from Android devices. Therefore, iPhone users are more wealthy than Android users. Of course other factors weren't taken into consideration making the author's conclusion dubious.
... "Manhattan, a generally affluent area."
Manhattan is generally an affluent area. What's the problem with the statement?
Seems like this would be an education issue not a hiring issue. e.g. are there really a lot of underemployed / unemployed black or hispanics with CS degrees?
You are correct. Blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented in colleges. To make matters worse less than 10% of Blacks/Hispanics get STEM degrees. For White students approximately 20% get STEM degrees. Not to mention, the graduation rate for Blacks and Hispanics is much lower than Whites and Asians. Obviously this is going to have a dire effect on the representation of Blacks and Hispanics in STEM careers. I read an article that states if Black and Hispanic students raise their graduation rates in science and engineering to equal the rate attained by Asians this would raise new STEM graduates by 48,000 annually. In addition, raising Black/Hispanic graduation rates to their share of the population and to reflect that of Asians would increase Black/Hispanic STEM graduates by more than 140,000. So, yeah, it's an education issue. I don't see this changing anytime soon, because American high school students treat STEM education as if it was kryptonite.
I've been in the tech industry (software, circuit board design, chip design, and then back to software) for 24 years. I've worked with engineers with heritage from India, China, Korea, various eastern European countries, and probably a couple other countries in Asia. I've never had a black or latino co-worker. In all those years, I've only ever seen us interview a single black candidate, and he so inadequate that he got sent home after speaking with a single interviewer.
Hiring is not the problem. A lack of black and latino candidates worth hiring is.
So, in 24 years your company only interviewed one Black/Hispanic candidate and that doesn't raise red flags to you. In 24 years, only one Black person and no Hispanic was worthy of an interview. That's statistically unlikely to occur unless it's deliberate. Which proves Jessie Jackson point.
No idea how they make up sales numbers.
Apple's own sales numbers say they sold 74 million iPads in 2014. Not sure how gartner lost 4 million.
Also, Apple's numbers are reported as sales to users, everyone else uses sales to channel (the channel can return unsold stock to the company in the following quarter but can still claim it sold that many)
They can't claim in their financial statements shipments to sales channels as sales if a right to return clause exists. If companies claim sales on shipments to channels when a right to return exists then they are committing fraud (see Worldcom and FASB Issue No. 48). Also, adjusting Apple's units sold to 74 million doesn't change Apple's market share by much. By my calculation, Apple market share goes from approximately 38% to 40% and Google goes from 62% to 60%. Hardly a big change.
The best analysis of this seems to be ArsTechnica, which looks into the conflict with Samsung. Even in the beginning of the deal, people were furrowing brows on how Google can be competing on hardware with the rest of Android.
I live in Chicago. I have a relative in Motorola. Google spent a lot of cash to get people to move to the Merchandise Mart downtown, spending a huge wad of cash to lease out an entire floor of the Mart. This was very disruptive for the teams, and only would pay longer term benefits. This doesn't seem to me to be a strip-and-dump purchase by Google, but the Samsung-Tizen thing kind of forced their hand. People were worrying about Android fragmentation, and the sale of Motorola was the pound of flesh that Google needed to give up to stop a huge split with Samsung.
That's not correct. Tizen is not an Android fork (it's actually a Linux fork) so it will not fragment Android. The sale of Motorola Mobile will not affect Samsung plans for lunching Tizen powered phones. In the two years that Google owned Motorola Mobile they didn't show any interest in running the company. The fact that Motorola Mobile waited almost two years to release new Android phones shows a lack of interest from Google. At the time that Google bought Motorola Mobile many of the posters on /. predicted that Google will sell the hardware division of Motorola Mobile.
Does Tizen support Android apps in any manner? (i.e., in a manner like BlackBerry 10 supports Android apps).
If not, the software ecosystem is going to be very poor, and kill the device.
If it does, then third-party native software is probably never going to get written.
By that logic, no new platform will ever be able to succeed.
Current trends might make that seem right, but don't forget -- every platform was new once and they all started with a tiny ecosystem, even the ones that are successful now.
New platforms will find it difficult to succeed in a world dominated by Google and Apple. Just look at Microsoft's efforts. For all Microsoft's name recognition, market clout, an unlimited marketing budget and over 3 years of trying their market share for smart phones is about 5% and less than 10% for tablets. The average Consumer will think why should they buy a Tizen device over an Android or iPhone. What is the compelling reason that consumers should buy yet another smart phone OS? My prediction, Tizen will never see market share over 3%.
This. I think Samsung was waiting to see how well Amazons and others did. The biggest threat to Android was never Apple & iOS, but Samsung. The question in my mind has always been, what happens if Samsung forks and derives their own OS without google...
What is Samsung going to do for apps if that happens? No one is going to buy a Samsung phone if there aren't much apps available. The window to defeat Google has closed. Motorola and Google Nexus line of smart phones and tablets have made Samsung not as important to Android's success as in the past.
Quote from http://www.amazon.com/kindle-f...:
All-New Fire OS "Mojito"
New Kindle Fire tablets are powered by the latest version of Fire OS—Fire OS 3.0 "Mojito", which starts with Android and adds cloud services
As far as I understood the restrictions, they could use the word Android, but they can't use the Google logo or Google Apps (Mail, Maps and others) without Googles permission. For Samsung, they might not be allowed to fork Android, but they do invest in Tizen. I'm looking forward to finally see the first devices.
Tizen is not an Android fork. Tizen is built on Linux and the project resides within Linux Foundation. So, Samsung building Tizen phones doesn't break their agreement to abide by Google's OHA requirements.
Is that a serious question? Take a look at the proceedings from any security conference in the last 2 years and you can find a very long list. The latest trick is for individuals who release small apps for free or a token amount to be offered money to sell their app, especially if the app already asks for more permissions than it really needs (great incentives there...). The buyers then release a new version bundled with malware. The new version is installed automatically if it doesn't need any more permissions, and since most manufacturers don't ship software updates for Android phones in a timely fashion there are typically a few nice root vulnerabilities lying around on a significant fraction of the installed base. From there, the attacker can do what they want (attack mobile banking apps, harvest passwords, send premium-rate SMS, or just proxy all network traffic and inject their own ads, the last being the most common).
I know a couple of people who have turned down money to sell their (free, with only a few thousand users) apps for this purpose.
Can you backup your claim and list a few of the problem apps?
When I hear news like these I always wonder what type of idiot thinks that shooting the texter solves anything?
Thank you for providing an answer.
p.s. The shooter will spend the rest of his life in jail, how's that preferable to someone annoyingly texting in a movie?
/quote The elderly man didn't shoot the texter over his texting. He shot the victim because the victim physically assaulted him with a bag of popcorn. The moral of the story is, don't physically assaulted someone unless you are prepared to deal with the consequence.
There's something HORRIBLY wrong with you. Throwing popcorn is NOT assault, and certainly doesn't warrant deadly force. If the young guy was trying to assault the old man, a hand on his chest wouldn't have done the slightest thing. Even the local police officers tacitly acknowledged their ex-chief was way the hell out of line, and weren't trying to justify it in the slightest, but were instead playing up what a pointless tragedy it was.
That is not true. Throwing popcorn is assault, and it can be the beginning of more aggressive behavior. Maybe the victim's body language, after he threw the popcorn, suggested that he was about to escalate the altercation into full blown violence. In that case, the shooter fear for his safety is warranted. None of us know for sure. We will have to wait on the trial for all the facts to come out. It's sad for someone to lose their life like this. I think they were both hot heads especially the victim.
Sorry, I'd like to help you but I prefer not to sully unsubstantiated claims with mere facts and figures.
In other words, you don't know and prefer to blow smoke up /. collective asses. Carry on then.
They made the right choice as long as they don't need to use what ever they get as a replacement. We still make the best planes over here.
Even the people at f-16.net appears to like Gripen more. The consensus seems to be that F-16 is a better at carrying loads at long distances but Gripen in better in direct combat or situations where maneuverability is of importance. In any training missions where both planes were used Gripen came out ahead.
The thing is that the designs are different for a reason. Gripen is designed to defend a relatively small airspace against intruding planes. The F-16 have sacrificed some of this ability to make it more usable as a medium range offensive unit.
So if you want to take out tanks in Iraq, go for F-16. If you want to defend yourself against F-16, use Gripen.
I don't know what you mean with "over here" but I'm pretty sure you don't mean over at Boeing.
Nonsense. Both aircraft are roughly equal in capabilities and performance. The F-16 is older but has a more powerful engine. This translates into faster acceleration and a higher ceiling for the F-16. The F-16 is slightly more versatile than the Gripen due to 40% more takeoff weight and can handle 31% more external stores than the Gripen. The Gripen can out turn the F-16 and has a greater combat radius. Personally, I would take both the Gripen and F-16 over the F-18 Hornet. Here is a comparison between the two aircraft. http://www.brighthub.com/science/aviation/articles/92292.aspx
An astonishing number of accountants don't think that way, and just blindly apply memorized formulas where they don't apply.
Can you give an example of this or are you just blowing smoke out your rear end. If accountants blindly memorized formulas and that is all that is needed for them to accomplish their tasks then companies wouldn't need accountants (a computer program would be able to replace them). At least, companies wouldn't need as many as they currently do.
One problem is if business is taught as if it were a course as a trade school or tech school. Ie, learn the formulas, learn how to repeat them when asked, try not to rock the boat. That same approach fails when applied to IT and computing except if just want a generic grunt worker with the right certificates. Instead if they learn to think for themselves, learn to be adaptable, learn how to tell if their ideas are working or not, then this will lead to a more successful approach, whether it's business or engineering or science or arts or humanities...
What's strange in this is that MBA is a "masters" degree, which is something you would expect to involve more high level thinking than a mere trade school degree.
Do you even know what is involved in a MBA education? If you don't know don't feel too bad. Just about every poster in this thread don't have a clue about the typical MBA education.
Seriously, other than nostalgia why are they still using corks when much better methods have existed for decades?
Do you know why the older wine gets the more expensive it is? Aging. As wine ages the taste becomes refined, and the aging process depends on oxidation. Corks are permeable which allows the oxidation process (aging) to continue. Using materials other that cork stops the oxidation process making the wine less desirable and reduces the price of the wine.