And it's the launch of the Dev Kit, not the launch of a consumer product. I thought the whole point is that it wouldn't have support for any games at all when the dev kits first shipped.
So it sounds like the contents of blah.zip haven't been published and he can't state what they were without further charges? That sucks. I wonder if Daniel Domscheit Berg deleted that shit.
With its limited pin count, it's not a surprise that the Lightning connector does not have the bandwidth to transfer uncompressed video.
I totally disagree. Coax and Ethernet get you plenty of bandwidth on fewer pins. When Apple announced this thing, I was delighted that they must have some kind of brilliant plan for using these very few pins in a flexible, high quality, eventually low-cost manner. If their plan for flexibility was just "send a system image over USB, then connect via USB to that thing once it boots" then I am surprised and disappointed.
Costs may come down as we approach computing ubiquity, but this puts a ceiling on quality and that seems like a poor plan. We might want our iPads to drive 4K displays. Probably not next year, but in 8 years, sure.
I'm sure there are real, physical limitations that I don't understand that make this required, but I'm still disappointed.
Although this evidence does seem to show that the NYT reporter is a liar, one of the most alarming issues was the overnight loss of charge. Broder claimed that his car went from 90 miles range to 25 miles range overnight for no reason.
When I parked the car, its computer said I had 90 miles of range, twice the 46 miles back to Milford. It was a different story at 8:30 the next morning. The thermometer read 10 degrees and the display showed 25 miles of remaining range — the electrical equivalent of someone having siphoned off more than two-thirds of the fuel that was in the tank when I parked.
You can see what looks like exactly this issue in the charts between Milford and Norwich.
Even if Silent Circle is secure, that doesn't mean that the cell phone is secure. The safest mobile innernet device is probably an iPod Touch.
I think it would be more harmful to those people junking up the web if we made a browser extension that clicked on every +1, like, and follow button you surf past.
They should have released office applications for iOS at 2x the price of their iWork equivalents. Then they should have moved all that into the metro style, and released basically the same metro designs for Windows 8.
That might have cost them more than it produced in revenue, but now the result is that millions of people have been delightedly using their iPads for a couple years, and they're doing ok without MS Office. Even enterprise users. And MS still doesn't have an announced plan to bring Office to Metro (Windows 8 Style, whatever).
Including Office in Windows 8 RT might attract a lot of people to the platform. But it might also be the only way they can get Office deployed on a lot of tablets. Like, great, but also technically shovelware. I'd love to say that Microsoft has their work cut out for them, but that implies that they are working on the right things now. Dunno. I hope it works.
Uh... You aren't contradicting his valid point. He didn't say HTML5 was failed. He said it was a mistake to do HTML5 to the exclusion of other client platforms. How can you disagree with that? He's running a giant software company - they can support a few platforms. They will have different merits.
Advertisers agree to honor DNT only from browsers that display the setting behind a door labelled "beware leopard".
It's bullshit anyway - any standard based on advertisers behaving ethically is a nonstarter. Apple's default no-third-party cookies seems worthwhile, if circumventable. Why not do more of that? If there are Moz people working on the DNT standard, I feel like they are being suckered.
If it's google's display advertising business you're concerned with, I don't really understand your concerns. If it's any of the many less scrupulous parties that you are concerned with, they're just going to ignore DNT.
PvP launched 5 months before Penny Arcade according to Wikipedia. It might not make any sense now, but when Penny Arcade launched, they appeared to consider themselves the fresh young upstarts and PvP the entrenched old-guard of videogame web comics.
Wikileaks used to be stronger for his leadership. Now he's accused of being a rapist, and the accusations aren't going away. If he secures his freedom without facing these allegations, Wikileaks will never be respected again.
Assange claims he can't face these allegations because he will be extradited to the U.S. and I expect that is correct. That either means that they beat him, or that he really is a rapist. So what if we gave him the benefit of the doubt? He has still been beaten. The question is whether beating Assange also means they have beaten Wikileaks.
Openleaks sounded like a total pile of crap when it first launched. I hope that there are other capable people that share the core values of Wikileaks. Every day until Assange hands over leadership and control to those people, Wikileaks is further diminished.
He says NeXTStep was their best option. Is he full of shit or are you?
That wikileaks video has apparently been a bigger PR disaster for video games more than the US fucking military.
So much so that when SLASHDOT USERS see that the military might use video games, their concern is for the corrupting influence of video games rather than the corrupting influence of war.
The behavior of those pilots does not indicate the influence of video games but rather policy.
Men are capable of evil fucking things, with or without the assistance of video games, ak-47s, or predator drones. Some of those are more enabling than others.
The real point this PR roadkill is trying to make is that video games use techniques that would be useful in other contexts. Obviously this is true and fucking harmless, on its face. Unfortunately, his example is that they would be useful for helping to implementing corporate and military policy.
That won't matter unless they can get out of Chrome's sandbox.
Isn't your point about Chrome invalidated by your point about the time taken?
Did no one attack Chrome because none of these researchers had an exploit that would work against it?