QR Tattoos + Google Reader = win?
From what I've read, it's still XMPP, but they've just severed server-server communications so you can only talk to Google+ accounts over XMPP.
I suppose with the lack of big names federating, there probably wasn't much to lose with this action?
This is where organisations should be signing agreements with local governments and utilities ensuring that they have a guaranteed rate, with a maximum yearly price adjustment, for a given period of time. If the local government reneges on the agreement, then there should be a penalty in the contract, which was signed.
This is why a good QA team is always worth having. Sure it won't isolate you from every issue, but it should protect you from some of the obvious stuff.
Sometimes the problem isn't even to do with software, but with information policy and what can be placed on a server that is on the outside of a firewall.
Does anyone know whether the new protocol will be undocumented or if it is documented, if there is any resemblance to xmpp? Hopefully Google will allow xmpp bridges.
I am just worried that Google is trying to do more to force us to use their tools, rather than allowing us to use our favourite messaging clients., but with their service.
Why should, say, the marching cubes algorithm, which transforms bitmap data into polygonal surface data, not be worthy of a patent when the set of instructions for turning bauxite into aluminum is? Because one uses a silicon chip and electricity and the other uses a pressure vessel and electricity?
The computer is a general purpose machine that will run whatever program you write for it. That program is copyrightable, and thus already protected. It doens't need any more protection than that.
The machine you build for processing bauxite has one function. And instructions to build the processing plant are not copyrightable (in the same way recipes are not copyrightable). Therefore, the process is patentable.
There is also a notion of relative cost. The machine for turning bauxite into aluminium probably cost millions of dollars and years to develop, which is an investment that needs to be protected. Software costs are often no more than tens of thousands of dollars and took months to develop, possibly even weeks. The relevance of the first investment is probably more than ten years, while the the relevance of the software investment is probably in the order of 2-5 years.
Also, in the first case there is no incentive to replace the technology quickly whereas there is incentive for software - software gets replaced either because the is a commercial incentive or a bunch of geeks just had an urge to prove something could be done.
When we do comparisons of investment, development periods and how long something is useful we can can see that we can't apply the same rule book and carrot in both cases.
As stated, copyright provides sufficient protection in the world of software.
This where "hosted services" have an advantage, if you are trying to protect your code. Since the code runs on the server, there is nothing really that can be decompiled by the client, other than the UI portion and the communicated data packets - the rest of the logic can remain server side.
At the same time, given the rate at which the software industry evolves, anything more than five years old is probably good for a refresh anyhow. If a company hasn't made an effort to keep their software relevant, then they shouldn't have anything that would allow them to keep an artificial competitive advantage.
The other thing is that individual software concepts don't usually take years to develop and millions of dollars to develop, so why a 20 year patent on something like that. From my experience most software concepts are evolutionary and often have multiple ways of being implemented. For example a 'shopping cart' is a mere concept with plenty of different implementations, so why should the notion of an electronic shopping cart be patentable?
In certain ways embedded devices have actually become a bit more mainstream. First there is the Arduino and then there is the legion of boards using ARM based SoCs, which include the RaspberryPi and the Beagle Bone. And now you can write your code in a language such as Python. Embedded devices are a lot more capable than than they used to be.
There are certainly more out there and the market seems to be developing. The problem I find is that it isn't always easy finding what is going in in the market.
Linux Devices started to feel a bit forgotten about and didn't seem to have created a thriving community. The new owners probably couldn't monetize the site, couldn't understand the site and if the small number of people there were blocking ads, then that probably did not help either (sites have been hurt by this). In many ways the death of Linux Devices just means there is now a void to be filled, possibly with something better?
From my experience, Google has quite good customer support. But only for their customers!
Customers, remember? That are those people that pay someone for goods or service....
And that service basically is the main selling point for their pro-grade services.
For all others, they offer at least user to user help forums.
It really depends where you are. In many places a customer is someone you provide a service to. The fact you chose to charge $0 for that service is immaterial.
The German government may be going overboard, but they are following the letter of their law. Google is a big company and they also want to be sure they look good while making money. Google also has lawyers and business guys who will work out how to follow the law without costing too much to them. I am just curious though if they would go as far as charging a base fee for accounts in Germany to cover costs?
One thing I would say though, is that many online-only companies do need to improve ways of handling customer feedback. Often enough the service user is presented with a long FAQ without any clear way of getting answer which aren't documented.
But paper is highly flammable and prone to decomposition.
Not on Mars, there's no oxygen and no bacteria. Perfect match for the Curiosity rover, but noooo, they *had* to use flash memory and now their toy is broken. Don't make me say "I told you so".
I am just imagining how different the mars rover would be using punch cards as storage. Maybe that's getting too weird.
Weird. While reading this story I just barely updated Flash (on Windows XP) with both IE 8 and Firefox open. No restart at all.
I was on a Mac, so maybe Flash goes by different rules here?
You mean "There's life Jim, but not as we know it"?
One thing that I see as causing some people to delay updating their Flash, despite an update being available, is that the installer requires you to restart your browser or anything else Flash think is using it. Many people take the attitude "I am working and don't want to be bothered restarting my apps, for something I rarely use".
Is there any other way Flash could install its updates, without requiring browsers to be restarted?
What I meant, is that given certain usage scenarios, such as with a desktop, the user may opt for what is easier to them: a reboot.
If we took this attitude for everything, then we would still be banging rocks, because they work fine.
At this point let the guys demonstrate their concept and see how well it works. A compromise could be simply to keep a minimal set of TTY devices for situations where userspace royally failed. It should be noted that for a good number of cases if userspace royally screwed up, then it is time for a reboot anyhow.