That's not even the biggest problem with Google and Android; the biggest problem is the complete lack of support Android devices get after they're a few months old, which makes them security nightmares. Cyanogen promises to fix that, but it's only going to work if they have better device coverage than they have now.
That makes no sense at all. Cyanogen is a bit player; how many people do you know who are running it? (If you do know any, exclude all the tech-heads and answer again.) MS doesn't care about destroying something that's barely larger than a hobby project.
MS *does* care about hurting Google and improving the marketshare for Windows Phone, or somehow improving their own presence in the mobile arena. So any actions here are going to be towards that end.
Perhaps they see any move to help Cyanogen as something which will help destabilize Android in general. Or, more likely, they see it as something that can use to get a big foothold into the Android space, and then use it to take it over from Google. Embrace, extend, extinguish.
There's also code besides the driver code; the Broadcom chips themselves have CPU cores (not sure what kind exactly) running their own firmware, which of course is loaded by the driver. This code is completely closed-source and secret. (The driver code is partially open; you can see their open-source Linux code in the kernel tree; it's "brcmfmac" and "brcmsmac")
I wonder if Apple's recent updates updated the firmware blobs for the Broadcom chips? This could also explain the problems.
I've worked with the Broadcom driver source code; it's crap. It doesn't surprise me they're having problems. What's funny is (now that I think about it and remember this from a prior job) Apple is easily Broadcom's biggest wifi customer; you'd think they could do a better job with their software for them, but apparently not.
I wonder if these are Broadcom chips, with the driver code actually being supplied by Broadcom. Broadcom drivers are shit.
I thought everyone liked the 3rd one the best of all the Prequels. I haven't seen it myself yet, but every single time I complain about the Prequels to someone and then I mention that I haven't seen the 3rd, they say that I missed the best one.
Well that's the whole problem: democracy is subject to the voters, so if the voters are blithering idiots, well you're not going to get a very good government.
This is why democracy simply doesn't work in countries with moronic, uneducated populaces such as Zimbabwe, Egypt, or the United States.
I always thought Pascal was better for most purposes than C and its offspring.
Ok, has anyone ever written an OS kernel in Pascal? How about bare-metal code which tweaks registers?
Nope, Beta was not far, far superior. You're totally forgetting that Betas could only store 1 hour of video. (They later fixed this, but by then it was far too late.) Who wants to change tapes in the middle of a movie? VHS tapes could store a whole 2-hour movie, so they easily took over. Not having Sony's stupid licensing costs helped too. And by the time Beta was on the way out, VHS had caught up to it video-quality-wise too.
But there are a number of times where explicit copy/paste is much nicer.
I don't know what DE you're using, but in KDE, both modes work, and they go into different buffers. So if you feel the need to do the explicit copy/paste with Ctrl-C/V, it works fine, and you can even highlight something else afterwards, then paste the two separately with middle-click and Ctrl-V.
No, having one buffer is not better in any way. It's stupid in fact. Better is KDE's Klipper, which keeps a history for this buffer and lets me choose things I previously highlighted or copied.
Yes. For people who use real computers, middle button = "paste selected text".
Yep, that's exactly what I use it for too. I make very frequent use of this function.
However, I have no problem just pressing on my mouse's scroll wheel to do this. I'm using a Dell laser mouse I picked up on Ebay for $6 and it works just fine this way. My previous Logitech G5 worked fine this way too (unfortunately I had to stop using it because the laser part stopped working for some reason).
IMO, the *real* reason for commercial licenses was the concept that commercial drivers are driving much larger vehicles that require special training/skills to operate safely on the roadways. (Your average licensed driver can't just hop into an 18-wheeler and operate it.
Exactly. That's the same reason people should be required to have commercial licenses to drive pickup trucks. They're much larger vehicles than regular cars, and need more training to drive properly. From what I've seen of most pickup truck drivers, they obviously lack the necessary training and skills for driving 6000-pound vehicles, especially ones with dual rear wheels.
A vehicle anyone buys at a regular car dealership and uses as a "daily driver" for things like commuting or trips to the grocery store should NOT require a commercial license.
Yes, it should, if it's a large vehicle. If someone buys a Kenworth and uses it for grocery runs, should they not be required to get a commercial license? It's no different for a Hummer. If you want a vehicle for getting groceries and commuting, get a 4-door sedan like everyone else.
This is an idiotic comment.
C, C++, and PHP are still very popular languages. Perl is not; it's largely faded away except for a few niches, for various reasons, and has been replaced mostly by Python.
Pascal has been mostly dead for a long time. However Python (which you obviously favor as "clean") is hugely popular these days, and Java is still holding its own in the enterprise space.
Obviously, your opinion of what is "ugly and unreadable" or "clean" has absolutely nothing to do with which languages are popular.
People gave up on Pascal and moved to C++ back then for a reason. Now you're asking people to go back to something which was abandoned in the past, for presumably good reasons. You need to have a **really** good reason for this, instead of just moving to a more modern language.
If your automatic dies in the middle of an intersection, can you put it in gear and crank the starter to move it? Didn't think so.
You don't need to do that. Put it in neutral and push it, fat-ass.
If your car is dying in the middle of an intersection, it's time to take it to the junkyard and buy something newer than a 1985 model.
Can you get an automatic with a dead battery rolling down a hill, pop the clutch, and start it? Didn't think so.
Try that in any manual-transmission car made in the last 15 years and get back to me. It won't work.
Plus, manual transmissions serve as an anti-theft device. There are numerous accounts of theives breaking into cars, finding a stick shift there, and not being able to drive it, fleeing the scene on-foot.
If the car they're stealing is a model which is hot and frequently comes with a manual (i.e. any sports car, "sport compact", etc.), this isn't a problem for the thief. Thieves targeting those cars know how to drive them.