The implication of your statement is that if these devices _did_ work, we would expect that 9/11-2 would have happened by now. Think about that for a minute.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Did you read the article? At all? This is about build breakages during development, while you are still writing code, before you are even committing it. This has nothing to do with submitted code whatsoever.
But the problem is that people _aren't_ questioning authority. They're told vaccines aren't safe, and they believe it. Questioning authority means, "I don't know if it's safe or not, but I intend to find out." What's happening here is, "Somebody told me it wasn't safe, so it probably isn't."
That's the impression I get when I see CHP 11-99 and KMA 367 license plate frames: that the people who sell them actually have little to no relation to the actual cops on duty, and as a result they're like to get you pulled over more due to cops getting pissed that people think they can so easily get out of a ticket. I want to see some actual statistics about this kind of license plate frame usage.
Actually, that's not true at all. A while back, François Beaufort noted that the extension had been preemptively whitelisted so that it alone doesn't repeatedly need explicit permission to use the microphone. Usually, any website or extension that wants to use the microphone must ask the user for it at least once, repeatedly if the site doesn't use HTTPS. See here: https://plus.google.com/100132233764003563318/posts/YRq7NrS5waS
(The ilnk is messed up; the actual diff of interest is here: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/browser/media/media_capture_devices_dispatcher.cc?r1=225124&r2=226242&pathrev=226242)
* Camera -- Allows the app to take pictures and videos with this camera. This permission allows the app to use the camera at any time without your confirmation.
It's so you can use the app's barcode scanning capabilities to scan the barcodes of your rewards cards, or the number on your regular credit/debit card.
* Read your contacts -- Allows the app to read data about your contacts stored on your phone, including the frequency with which you've called, emailed, or communicated in other ways with specific individuals. This permission allows apps to save your contact data, and malicious apps may share contact data without your knowledge.
It's so you can send money to your friends, presumably sorted by who you talk to most frequently.
Frankly, for anyone who has used these apps, it should be pretty obvious what these permissions are for. Heck, the second permission should be obvious from just reading the description of the app, and the first permission is heavily implied by the fact that you can, in fact, add such cards from within the app.
Not having used the other 2 apps you mentioned, I can't really say why they need the permissions they need (my guess is the Starbucks app lets you call HQ if you have an issue or something). But they're in control of your money, and all you're concerned about is whether they _might_ make some phone calls you don't want them to make? They _might_ see that you're also running some other apps at the same time? Give me a break. There's nothing particularly nefarious about these permissions, and that Citeworld article is overblowing things as well. "I also wonder if Wallet's slow adoption rate has something to do with these intrusive permissions."? How about, "It's blocked by several major carriers to promote their own payment scheme, which somehow is accepted in even fewer places than the already rarely-accepted Google Wallet"?
They do not. They do not "insist" on synchronizing passwords at all, and if you do, there's also SHA-1 (still unsalted, though). Synchronizing passwords is 100% up to whoever's managing the domain. If you don't want to, you don't have to. Just use SAML SSO instead.
I agree. Is this just a bad
The Chrome browser uses a completely different strategy from Netflix/YouTube. Netflix/YouTube stream the content directly from the cloud. Chrome tab casting sends data from your machine.
I believe that's the justification given for not giving two weeks' notice: that the employer would not have given any better treatment anyway, so it wouldn't have mattered.
People on Verizon and T-Mobile got the same message. But sure, just blame AT&T for it anyway.
IE9 supports rounded corners just fine...
The revamped OS IS the current PlayBook OS. There are only a few features new to the OS that the PlayBook didn't already have.
I OWN a PlayBook and I don't think terribly highly of it. OK, it's not that bad, but I literally have nothing to do on it. There's just nothing to do on it that my Android phone doesn't do better (except for having a large screen).
I think the pricing tiers have remained the same; only the speed changed. I don't think they have a problem competing with AT&T, because AT&T gives you worse speeds for higher cost and adds a data cap to boot.