Comment SCOTUK (Score 1) 80
UK has a Supreme Court, you know. It broke off from the House of Lords in 2009.
There's absolutely no reason at all you should use
"Absolutely no reason" is strong words when some tools for creating mix CDs still prefer
It'd be nice if apps had a base set of privs then expanded sets that could be allowed on install or later by request to the system/user.
That's already possible in current Android. Offer one app in Google Play Store that needs a small set of permissions, then offer other apps in Google Play Store that act as content providers for the main app. For example, there might be a "Swype" keyboard app that needs only the input method permission, a "Swype auf Deutsch" app that adds a German dictionary, a "Swype Local" app that adds nearby businesses to the dictionary (which requires the location permission), and a "Swype Knows Your Name" app that adds your contacts to the dictionary (which requires the read contacts permission). If they're all digitally signed by the same publisher (such as Nuance), they can share data structures intimately as if they were one app.
Also it'd be nice if the privileges were a lot more restricted, like "Use Ad Service to show you ads" instead of "Use Internet"
The example you give is not possible unless you want all ad-supported apps in Google Play Store to move to a single monopoly ad provider. If you whitelist communication with one hostname, that host could act as a proxy to access any other host.
Android is *NOT* Linux based, it is merely Linux hosted. Android is its own OS, its own environment.
And now you know why Richard Stallman was right about calling the familiar desktop and server operating system "GNU/Linux". Android has a completely different userland on top of the same Linux kernel that underlies GNU/Linux.
If an app needs new permissions in an update it must be explicily accepted by the user.
Recent changes to Google Play Store's permission display mean that a new permission will be automatically accepted so long as the new permission is in the same group as a permission that an app already has. Predictably, Slashdot users female dogged and moaned about it.
But just for shits and giggles I took a 320k MP3 and recoded to 128k and compared it to the CD where I ripped it as 128k and honestly? I can't tell a difference between the two.
If you can't ABX a difference between CD to 128K mp3/aac/ogg and CD to 256-320K mp3 to 128K mp3/aac/ogg, then I guess that problem is solved. Thanks for testing this for us.
If there was an optical disc and it happened to be able to hold all your music (insert a sufficiently large value here to satisfy you), but it still skipped if you ran through your n-second buffer, would you still be using it?
Let n > the length of one piece of music and it's fine. If there were a digital audio player with a BD-ROM drive that could hold 25,000 minutes of music but started skipping if I were to jog for 4 minutes straight, that wouldn't be a problem. I could catch my breath every 3 minutes, and the BD player could catch its. That's why I bought an MP3 CD player years ago before sufficiently large solid state digital audio players became affordable, because MP3 allowed for a much larger skip buffer than a Red Book-only player.
Turns out, I don't care about carrying everything
That's fine if you just use music for background noise or for pacing exercise (like a ~120 BPM mix for walking), not so fine if you end up wanting to play a specific song in a specific circumstance.
isn't disk space really cheap these days?
Spinning disks at home yes, Internet-connected disks no. A free Dropbox provides only 2 GB, for instance. And cellular ISPs tend to charge about $10 per GB uploaded or downloaded.
MKV is only common for pirated non-streaming contents
"The WebM container is based on a profile of Matroska." Are you now claiming that WebM itself is uncommon?
"Money is the root of all money." -- the moving finger
