Agreed. My 2 year old has figured that out on the iPodTouch, iPad Mini, an Android 4 tablet, and his Nubi Jr. He also figured out the OK/CANCEL thing before he was 2 when the iPod would pop up a message (typically about some sale or the battery or something) so that he could get rid of it and go back to the video.

And no, he doesn't get free reign of the devices.

Please name a few.

As does the atheist.

Yes. .NET does that. But it never really got used for shipping stuff using the Byte Encoding, just the final x86/x86-64 binary encodings. Yeah, some people did the byte encoding stuff early on, but that quickly fell by the wayside as people realized it was only ever going to be on Windows, and normally 32-bit/64-bit x86 Windows at that.

Yeah, if they got serious they could push for the byte encoding again, or even make it the default output. But then, you wouldn't get much benefit if you had to mix non-.NET code with it.

I am not referring to the US. I am referring to places like the Pacific Rim, China, India, SWA - Nokia was extremely popular there even just a few years back, and their Symbian phones did very well. People used the Ovi store there. The rise of the Android phones there was occurring but its exponential rise in those locations was primarily due to the drop of Symbian by Nokia ala Elop.

Now, in the US - yeah, Nokia was almost non-existent.

Please tell that to the many millions of people that bought apps for the Nokia Feature Phones, who used the Ovi store, etc. Nokia did very well in making money using Feature Phones for quite a while.

MeeGo was about transferring what Nokia had on Symbian to a new platform. They supported developing both with Qt in a compatible way such that a simple recompile could move the application from Symbian over to MeeGo. Of course, they could have chosen to do the same thing with Android or Tizen (Bada/Ubuntu Phone/FireFox OS/etc didn't come until later), but they would have still had to integrated Qt into it, where Qt was a central component MeeGo from the get to.

Instead, they dropped everything they did in favor of a platform that none of their existing Symbian developers had any kind of migration path to. So everyone had to go out and start from scratch, in which case, why not chose the dominant platforms (iOS and Android)?

The question isn't exactly when he took over (9/21/2010), but when he started making big company destruction announcements (2/2011) - and that you can spot in the 6 year graph.

Someone has to have root access. Otherwise you cannot maintain a server.

And using 'su' or 'sudo' in *nix, and "Run As Administrator" in Windows is all root access.

No. The court is limited by law and legal precedence; they honor common law but are not strictly bound by it like they are written law. Lawyers can try to be innovative in their arguments to try to build new case-law (and thereby establish precedence) but they run a big risk if they do so.

In this case, it's a judge responding to one of the arguments made saying that he can see under certain circumstances where the liability would occur, but does not agree those circumstances match in this particular case. In other words, it's a valid argument but not valid in the current case. Another lawyer within the same jurisdiction in another case with slightly different facts can point to this as saying "it's a valid argument" now, but they would still have to establish the facts required to show that liability extends to the person sending the text as well - which will still not be an easy thing to do. A lawyer in another jurisdiction might have a little bit easier time, but they would also have to pursuade the judge that what this judge said is supported by the law (precedence, etc) in that jurisdiction too.

If she reads it, then yes you do have a culpability to a degree. However, my guess (IANAL) is that a single text would not qualify you; sending numerous ones and trying to carry on a conversation would. Now, IANAL but there is already established case law in other areas that would seem to equally apply here in determining liability/culpability.

True. No one is forcing the driver to read it. But that's not the question. The question is at what point does the sender become liable? The judge is saying that if they send texts to someone that they know is driving and that driver reads them (for whatever reason) and an accident happens then they are liable. Sending one text would not likely qualify - it would probably have to be something like a conversation going on over texts where the driver is responding, something sending a lot of texts quickly, or someone having been told "I'm driving" and continuing to text. There's already a large amount of case law that can probably be used to help make the determination that the sender knew about the driving (IANAL, that's just my educated guess).

It's probably more for when the driver responds and the sender responds back in those situations. Thereby they know the driver is actually driving and continued the texting.

Many places have already made it illegal to text while driving. They are just existing the liability to the other party of the conversation when that party has knowingly participated in the illegal texting, at the very least as an accessory to the crime itself.