I should note that after reading the whole review, it is particularly and unusually glowing, plus they do mention BF3 albeit negatively. I still think it's hardly pure slashvertisements.
At least we'll finally see what patents Microsoft has been using to strong arm manufacturers of Android based phones into patent licensing. The must-sign-a-nda-or-we-wont-tell-what-you're-infringing-on tactic they've been using on everyone feels really underhanded to me, and I'm no Microsoft hater.
I figure there actually has to be something substantial in those patents to merit virtually all the big names in Android phones agreeing to license them at the amount MIcrosoft has been asking.
I thought the unranked dedicated servers was a cruel joke, honestly. Most people will play ranked until they unlock all they want to unlock, so dedicated servers will be barren except for like minded individuals already feeling like they're "complete".
Overall I don't mind the Gmail switch, but there is a lot of information needlessly hidden and filled with whitespace I think is retarded. For instance, you can't find out when an email was received while in the email without clicking the tiny little arrow next to the sender of that particular message. The area the time was normally listed instead only lists the date. I just don't get why you would take a time and date field, remove the time, and hide it somewhere else.
Considering how Microsoft released a shared-source licensed cross-platform implementation of the CLI, of which one of its express purposes was to assist those in creating their own implementations, I really doubt Microsoft intends on suing over anything.NET specific. To me all this fear over how Microsoft will bring wrath if Linux even so much at looks at Mono (even though popular distros have been including mono for years without incident) seems like a whole lot of unnecessary FUD.
Also, since I completely spaced on this fact: Microsoft did release an implementation of the CLI which was cross platform, and one of its intended goals was to help those who intended on creating their own implementation.
This is another reason why I don't think these dreaded lawsuits always supposedly looming over Mono will never come.
Because Microsoft isn't obligated to make anything cross platform. They provided the means to for us to make it ourselves. Giving everyone a true implementation of.NET instead of leveraging it as a bonus of Windows does not make a lot of business sense for them, regardless of the good will we think it might garner (but more than likely people would be too afraid to use Microsoft's implementation anyway, bringing us full circle to now). Just because they want the true implementation of.NET to be a core asset to Windows doesn't mean they're going to go guns-a-blazin' at open source implementations like Mono. Mono has been huge for years now, with support highly entwined into the default install of more than one major Linux distro at one point. If Microsoft were going to call foul, they would have done it already. This whole biding their time paranoia is getting really old.
The way Chrome updates makes sense for Chrome because Chrome isn't really identified with its version number. It's silently kept up to date when a new version comes out. It's pretty easy to forget what version you're even using. Chrome has pretty much set standards on how the browser works in the front end and changes to the browser do not generally effect these things. Addons developed for Chrome back to extremely early versions of Chrome still almost always work fine.
The opposite is true for Firefox. The constant tweaks to the browser has the potential to (and has) broken a lot of things. This rapid release schedule is much more problematic for Firefox, and I hope they stop soon.
Just because "most people" don't see it, does not mean it's FUD. We don't know how many people actually see it. 51% not seeing it could be considered "most people". Not that I'm suggesting it's anywhere near that bad, but I'm also not pretending that the problem isn't there.
I somehow missed that. Honestly; wow. I really feel no sympathy for the girl anymore after reading her dads statement, as it made a whole hell of a lot more sense than how she tried to justifying the timing.
I had a lot of sympathy for her on account of her cerebral palsy, but if she's as functional as she appears on tv and according to her dad, then she's really not disabled enough to merit being funded by her father and given cars the rest of her life while she works at gamestop.
Companies should assume they are not compliant unless the company tells them they are. I don't think Dropbox should need to put they are not compliant on their webpage, but they should be able to answer questions regarding their compliance if asked by a prospective business client.
Slashdot Mirror
I should note that after reading the whole review, it is particularly and unusually glowing, plus they do mention BF3 albeit negatively. I still think it's hardly pure slashvertisements.
A trial on Microsoft’s patent claims against Barnes & Noble is scheduled for February in Washington.
Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-08/barnes-noble-urges-u-s-regulators-to-probe-microsoft-on-mobile-patents.html
At least we'll finally see what patents Microsoft has been using to strong arm manufacturers of Android based phones into patent licensing. The must-sign-a-nda-or-we-wont-tell-what-you're-infringing-on tactic they've been using on everyone feels really underhanded to me, and I'm no Microsoft hater.
I figure there actually has to be something substantial in those patents to merit virtually all the big names in Android phones agreeing to license them at the amount MIcrosoft has been asking.
I was not aware that a game review written by an independent gaming media website is considered pure slashvertising.
I thought the unranked dedicated servers was a cruel joke, honestly. Most people will play ranked until they unlock all they want to unlock, so dedicated servers will be barren except for like minded individuals already feeling like they're "complete".
Overall I don't mind the Gmail switch, but there is a lot of information needlessly hidden and filled with whitespace I think is retarded. For instance, you can't find out when an email was received while in the email without clicking the tiny little arrow next to the sender of that particular message. The area the time was normally listed instead only lists the date. I just don't get why you would take a time and date field, remove the time, and hide it somewhere else.
Considering how Microsoft released a shared-source licensed cross-platform implementation of the CLI, of which one of its express purposes was to assist those in creating their own implementations, I really doubt Microsoft intends on suing over anything .NET specific. To me all this fear over how Microsoft will bring wrath if Linux even so much at looks at Mono (even though popular distros have been including mono for years without incident) seems like a whole lot of unnecessary FUD.
Getting so tired of hearing this. There is nothing wrong with Mono on ARM. Nothing.
Also, since I completely spaced on this fact: Microsoft did release an implementation of the CLI which was cross platform, and one of its intended goals was to help those who intended on creating their own implementation.
This is another reason why I don't think these dreaded lawsuits always supposedly looming over Mono will never come.
Because Microsoft isn't obligated to make anything cross platform. They provided the means to for us to make it ourselves. Giving everyone a true implementation of .NET instead of leveraging it as a bonus of Windows does not make a lot of business sense for them, regardless of the good will we think it might garner (but more than likely people would be too afraid to use Microsoft's implementation anyway, bringing us full circle to now). Just because they want the true implementation of .NET to be a core asset to Windows doesn't mean they're going to go guns-a-blazin' at open source implementations like Mono. Mono has been huge for years now, with support highly entwined into the default install of more than one major Linux distro at one point. If Microsoft were going to call foul, they would have done it already. This whole biding their time paranoia is getting really old.
The way Chrome updates makes sense for Chrome because Chrome isn't really identified with its version number. It's silently kept up to date when a new version comes out. It's pretty easy to forget what version you're even using. Chrome has pretty much set standards on how the browser works in the front end and changes to the browser do not generally effect these things. Addons developed for Chrome back to extremely early versions of Chrome still almost always work fine.
The opposite is true for Firefox. The constant tweaks to the browser has the potential to (and has) broken a lot of things. This rapid release schedule is much more problematic for Firefox, and I hope they stop soon.
So you want Chromium, then.
I've never seen anything like this before with a substantially higher workload.
All it takes it not being a sheep and looking at your own needs and problems, rather than borrowing your grievances from the internet.
It's funny to see people abuse mod points seemingly pointlessly.
I have to wonder just what you're doing for flash to not be considered "fine" on a quad core i7.
...You actually believe that?
They didn't destroy it. All you have to do is put the term in quotes.
Weird. Works for me and I have nothing to do with Google+
Cable telelvision?
Probably the same reason most everyone else knows too: that exact url has been circulating around for months.
~Whoosh~
...what?
Just because "most people" don't see it, does not mean it's FUD. We don't know how many people actually see it. 51% not seeing it could be considered "most people". Not that I'm suggesting it's anywhere near that bad, but I'm also not pretending that the problem isn't there.
I somehow missed that. Honestly; wow. I really feel no sympathy for the girl anymore after reading her dads statement, as it made a whole hell of a lot more sense than how she tried to justifying the timing.
I had a lot of sympathy for her on account of her cerebral palsy, but if she's as functional as she appears on tv and according to her dad, then she's really not disabled enough to merit being funded by her father and given cars the rest of her life while she works at gamestop.
Companies should assume they are not compliant unless the company tells them they are. I don't think Dropbox should need to put they are not compliant on their webpage, but they should be able to answer questions regarding their compliance if asked by a prospective business client.