Who continued to pay these lawyers all this time? And what did they hope to accomplish?
Who continued to pay these lawyers all this time? And what did they hope to accomplish?
Except that Chrome on Android works much better than Firefox. I like and use Firefox on Windows, where it works fine - and I use Chrome on Linux where Firefox doesn't work as well. In any case, it would be a good thing if the default browser on most Android devices supported ad blocking. And 'acceptable ads' are just that - acceptable. I don't think 'no ads' is a viable model for free internet content. Do you?
They kind of have to do this. As mobile takes over, AdBlock is less and less prevalent - and the web is less and less usable. It's potentially interesting that Google has signed on to this. Whether you love or hate them, it'd be really nice if Chrome on Android supported AdBlock Plus. And Apple's support for ad blockers on iOS, is definitely a shot across Google's bow that they're going to have to address. Google's ads are probably as close to the 'acceptable ads' standards as any - basically because their site is funded by getting you to click ads - not simply getting you to see them. And, of course, by the very nature of the services they offer, they're 'tracking' you anyway - though not directly on behalf of their advertisers (don't get me started...).
They could've easily provided tools to let you port WIN32 code to ARM. They didn't want to. Instead they wanted to move to an app store model (just like Apple, duh) based around Metro stuff. Didn't work, and maybe they're kicking themselves now. Or maybe not - there may have been compelling reasons not to support WIN32 code on ARM - but in any case, that's why RT failed.
Maybe they want it for Surface tablets (and other detachables). They may have lost the phone war, but they're making a dent in the touchscreen world with these 2-in-1 laptops - and Android's hot on their tail there. The Pixel C is a proof of concept that's not viable today, but let's just say it has a more viable future as a competitor for Windows laptops than Windows Phone has as a competitor for Android and iOS...
I'm surprised there's still a 'market' for SwiftKey these days. The native Google keyboard in Android does the same stuff pretty well nowadays. I'd be surprised if Apple didn't also do the same.
Interesting arguments. Maybe this project is just a PR stunt. It sounds cool and forward looking, and maybe it's being publicized to make Azure (which, face it, has a huge marketing budget) seem cool. I think Amazon's 60 Minutes puff piece on delivery drones falls into this category, so why not undersea data centers - and self-driving cars for that matter, Google...
I have no doubt the underlying projects have some serious futurists supporting them inside these huge corporations, but perhaps even that support gets the nod from the money guys based on the PR value.
...minus the redundency. Which is why it never works.
If the web weren't the best way to deploy code, it would certainly win as the worst way to develop it...
What I don't get, is how did the kooky base get to decide what a Republican is? While I'm a registered independent, until 2000, I was a pretty reliable Republican voter - at least 75 percent. Mostly on financial issues. Then they party turned. First the Trotskyite neocons, then the Teabaggers took over. Now we're looking at Trump and/or Cruz?
They got to decide it when mainstream Republicans (i.e. big business, old money, etc.) realized that the only way they could win elections while continuing to oppose the economic interests of the majority of Americans is by catering to the kooky folks that became their base. And by Gerrymandering districts and messing with accessibility to the vote they could guarantee Republican wins - regardless of the kooky factor.
Before Reagan, Republicans used to tolerate progressive taxation so that they could win votes based on economic prosperity for all. But once the Reganites figured out that, with the formerly Democratic white Southern racist vote solidly in their corner, they didn't have to provide prosperity for all. Just demagogue on abortion, guns, dog whistle racism and, more recently, Christianist anti-science nonsense, and they can sew up roughly 50% of the electorate.
In the movie 'Cabaret', there's a scene where the sleazy German aristocrat says to the British main character, "Sure, the Nazis are a bunch of Hooligans, but we can control them. Let them take care of the Communists, and we'll take care of them." Famous last words...
Can you think of an instance where Obama or Clinton tried to deny a group of people some pretty basic right based on who they were? I doubt it. The closest you'll get is the twisted-ass pretzel logic that making an official stamp a marriage license amounts to denying her right to discriminate based on her 'religious values'. This is a pluralistic nation, and I'm sorry, but your religious values do not extend to my rights. You can think what you want, but you can't make me live according to your religious beliefs. Why is that so hard to understand?
I suppose you could try to point the finger towards universities that rescind speaking gigs to some people based on political correctness. I think that's pretty dumb too, but it's not in the same category as discrimination based on an immutable characteristic. False equivalencies are a false argument.
A CEO job is a special kind. The CEO serves as the public face of a company, and as such needs to reflect the values of that company - at least to the extent that the customers of the company don't revolt. That's what happened here. Mozilla fans didn't like his bigotry and, since Mozilla is as much a political movement as a product, that mattered to its survival. He didn't get fired for his views, he got fired for alienating his customers, and in turn, losing the confidence of his board.
By the way, apparently Slashdot doesn't have non-obtrusive ads, since I see no ads at all on the site. When I've visited Slashdot on a public computer, it's chock full of the nastiest, blinking-est shit. Why is that SD?
The recording industry was (partially) saved by Apple, who with iTunes, came up with a way to buy music that was less hassle than stealing it. That doesn't mean that the industry's model didn't take a huge hit - it did. And they're still able to make money from streaming sites and (golly!) radio.
Ad Block is, yes, threatening the Ad industry. But they're a more serious threat to online content in general. Advertisers have other places to get their messages out, but online publishers are stuck with online publishing (duh). Without advertising to fund it, the only other model is to charge for it. But iTunes had a much more salable product - people knew what songs they wanted, and there was no place else to get essentially the same thing as a recording by popstar X. So most online publishers can't charge, either. The only thing left is 'native advertising', which kind of ruins the content by hiding ads inside it. Not a rosy situation.
I say this as an AdBlock user, as well as a DVR user. Which doesn't say much for the argument that's about to kill Union participation at the Supreme Court. Given the chance, people won't pay - even if they 'know' they're getting benefits that might be threatened by their freeloading. But apparently Justice Kennedy thinks government workers will gladly fork over union dues once they become optional. Maybe so, since the union is directly working for their interests - as opposed to ad-supported media that are mostly just acting as bait for advertisers. But still...
I do have AdBlock set to allow some non-intrusive advertising. So far, so good. I haven't been tempted to turn that back off.
In addition, they 'embraced' ODF itself by providing an ODF format option in MSOffice that didn't work with any other ODF implementation - by intentionally 'interpreting' vague aspects of the spec as 'anything but what's already been implenented in OpenOffice'. At the same time, releasing an MSOffice implementation of OOXML that differs from the published standard.
Not exactly playing nice. More like polluting an existing standard while waiting for their monopoly magic to entrench their new pseudo-standard. Kind of like Java vs C#. And for the C# fans out there, it's not necessarily that their stuff isn't ever any good (though if excess complexity is a negative, OOXML's gotta be one of the worst standards ever). The point is that Microsoft could well embrace true open standards - even while keeping its implementations closed source, and even possibly coming out on top with the best implementation. But time and again, they try to subvert open standards. The simple fact that they're losing some of their ability to do it these days doesn't change a thing IMHO.
"Card readers? We don't need no stinking card readers." -- Peter da Silva (at the National Academy of Sciencies, 1965, in a particularly vivid fantasy)