A dice.com opinion piece with clickbait headline? That's what we're getting here alongside our daily ration of infoworld articles?
I really need to take my own advice and not bother coming back - but somehow, I still end up doing it every week or two.
Why concern ourselves with facts when we can get a good baseless bash on?
What a predictable clickbait title. I come by here every few weeks (less and less often, honestly - too much crap is just filtering through from populate media conglomerates) and am always able to find something on the front page that reminds me why I've taken to staying away.
But for old time's sake, I'll bite.
- RIM gave access to BIS communications when lawfully requested. This isn't new - they do it for every major government that submits legal requests. The fact that they'd do it for India was resolved months ago, in mid-2012 I think.
- RIM still has not and cannot give access to BES communications. THAT is what the battle with India is about - INdia said "you will give us ALL communications". RIM said "SOrry, we literally just can't do that.". India said "Do it or GTFO". RIM said "Sorry, we really just... can't". India realized this was true, and a big deal was made about the fact that theyr eceived BIS access (like any other government, for any service - not just RIM).
- It was face-saving, because they could not get what they actually insisted on getting - BES. Because the claim was that *BES* was used to planning subversive activities, not consumer BBM and email.
- they've given India no more than another other government. And they give the US government considerably less than any other government.
On that topic: you'll also notice that BlackBerry is NOT on the list of companies assisting NSA with Prism efforts. They do comply with lawful requests for specific data (as long as it's not BES, which they have no access to). But they do NOT hand over data in bulk, unlike all of their competition.
Interesting. On paper, it satisfies many of my requirements, but I just hated the last Blackberry device I had... I think I'm going to wait for Ubuntu, MeeGo, and Firefox OS.
The last blackberry device you had ran an outdated J2ME-based OS. The new one is built atop the POSIX-compliant QNX kernel and in many ways (though not all) is better technology than is offered by the competition. Not specs, but underlying capabilities.
I'd suggest trying it out before discardng it out of hand. Also - no reason not to develop for both. Qt apps will run just fine on BB10 with minor tweaking, and I suspect on Sailfish as well.
Android started as a tiny project, too.
Android started as a tiny project when the sum total of the smartphone market was approximately the size of the number of devices that Samsung or Apple sells in a quarter now.
It's a different world. I wish them luck, but it's an uphill battle.
And the answer to your question is, as always, to be technically superior.
BB has tried that route with BB10. It's yet to be determined if they'll succeed - but certainly it's not enough on its own.
In this case in particular, compatibility with Android apps is a pretty good start, too, making switching much less painful.
See above.
As a developer, I'd find an alternative to Java/Dalvik and Objective-C/iOS pretty appealing.
http://developer.blackberry.com/cascades/.
You're welcome.
So what you're saying is that you want a BlackBerry?
Legacy OS and BB OS 10 both offer this feature. The user is in control for the most part - OS10 doesn't do it quite as well as legacy BB, but it still does it.
I haven't seen the sources for sailfish yet, but I gather many of the people at Jolla didn't like the portions of the os that were shipped binary only while they were at nokia. So I'd expect the openness to improve.
I hadn't noticed where the folks at Jolla had committed to an open source stack, do you have a reference?
Nobody is making an argument for anthropomorphic global warming - that is, global warming with human-like characteristics.
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Nice to know you've looked sometime in the last two years
They gave India what every other government gets: consumer messages when proper legal channels are followed. This isn't new or surprising, it's required by law. Every messaging platform provides it.
They have not and cannot give access to business messages because they do not own the keys that businesses use to encrypt their data within BES. So if you're using bes for BBM, you're still safe.
If you aren't, you were never safe from a subpoena. If there is no subpoena your data is not interceptable even as a consumer.
I would wager the various adblocking tools will be updated to handle these new Facebook ads pretty quickly. You would think that by now marketers would have learned that people will generally let ads slide as long as they are unobtrusive, but these 'HEY LOOK AT ME!' ones always end up with people either avoiding the site or installing blocking software. These ads just don't work.
I guess we are seeing yet another new generation of marketers learning old lessons, or old marketers who have rising through the ranks and not learned a think for the last 20 years.
You would think that by now people would have learned that their own experiences does not equate to those of most people
Most people don't use ad blocking software. Most people don't actually know it exists.
Most people accept that the Internet is all full of ads, and will continue to frequent sites laden with them because they don't realize there's a choice.
We know this is true because the advertising business remains extremely profitable - which only happens when ad impressions are made.
I also have no FB account anymoer, and I have to say that you're not as right as you might think.
Sure, you get communication with people when you initiate conversations - but if you want to just keep up-to-date on what your friends are doing in life without having to pester them about, it's gotten much harder for the facebook-disconnected to do.
So you'd rather that no one was allowed to report on any news until it had been sanitised and given some official seal of approval?
Please tell me where I said that. The rest of your argument is based on that premise, which is incorrect.
My point was not that anything should be sanitized, but that the sensationalist so-called journalism we have today does have consequences. Nothing more or less.
In one 15 minute news segment that I watched today, I counted 23 uses of the word "terror". Over the course of an hour, they had non-stop live reporting - but told us basically the same basic known *facts* - there were three of them - and filled the rest of the time with speculation and fear-mongering.
Among the patients discussing this in the doctor's office I was in today (that's why i got force-fed an hour of this crap), the consensus was that the increased police presence that we'll be seeing in several major cities was a good thing, and that those Muslims (wtf? speculation - based only on a 'what if' scenario in the NBC 'news' coverage) deserved whatever they got.
My favorite part of that segment was when they had a child psychologist come on to tell parents not to continually expose their children to images from the attack - while looping video from the attack in a sidebar next to her head.
The only thing you need to do to see the harm of such 'journalism' is open your eyes.
The rule on staying alive as a program manager is to give 'em a number or give 'em a date, but never give 'em both at once.
