Unfortunately third party support for it sucks. It's the AmigaOS of tablet operating systems, kinda sorta. Hey, Microsoft, have you heard of this new, 30 year old, technology called MVC? Developers love it, and it makes it relatively easy to produce frameworks that allow completely different user interfaces that use entirely different paradigms to be targeted by the same application. There's another company that makes both desktop and tablet operating systems (ironically, currently not merge
Basically the idea is you walk up to your Chromebook, and without touching anything you say "OK Google what are my appointments today?"
The Chromebook will then say "About 15,700,000 results (0.39 seconds) "Ok Google" and voice search - Search Help - Google Help
And afer showing you an ad for OK Google it will then let you go to the next page of links.
I've read your reponse three times and it looks like you're responding to an entirely different claim:
Their claim: Chromebooks out-sold iPads.
Your apparent rebuttle: Apple's combined laptops and tablets outsold laptops and tablets running Google platforms in one sector, education, according to an Apple advocacy site.
Their claim may be easy to knock down, I don't know: it's unsourced, and it certainly sounds a little odd (the iPad is a remarkably popular platform, for it to be beaten by something most people seem to have never heard of seems strange and is either wrong, or we've severely underestimated the Chromebook's widespread appeal), but you don't appear to address it in any way whatsoever, and the argument you do make lacks a credible source.
Funny thing is C# isn't where
Shame, but I'm hoping an influx of interest now the platform is open source will move
A sudden popularity in C# may push Java to be more relevant, and if Java fails, we might see some interesting moves in areas that have traditionally been Java based.
At least you got some unsolicited text messages
To this day I find it unfathomable T-Mobile would allow any company to add charges to one of their customer's bills on their say-so. At the very least, I'd expect a "Show an example of a text message FROM customer TO creditor" requirement, something T-Mobile (and apparently the other companies to, according to Legere) never bothered to require.
Your use of the term "naive" suggests you think it's designed that way due to conspiracy.
SS7 is a protocol designed to do all these things because it's designed to manage the phone network. That's it's job. If it didn't do those things, it couldn't be used to route phone calls.
Does it have poor security? Yes in the 2014 world, but at the time it was developed virtually every phone company was a monopoly, and it was just assumed only a small handful of easily accountable giant telcos, usually only one in each nation, would ever use it directly. You might just as well criticize non-networked single-user circa-1977 CP/M for not having logins and user/group ownership of files.
Most of the people I've seen speaking out against GG seem to be the politcally correct thought police
Or... the loudest voices against GG have been those targetted by GG, who by and large are people seen by GG to be Feminists and widely misrepresented as a thought police rather than people sharing concerns they have about sexism.
You've just proven it's easy to convince yourself of something that's obviously not true simply by creating a narrative and tying some minor details into it.
Sarkeesian needs to screenshot a Twitter user who over the last few minutes is sending her death threats. She's getting notifications every few seconds from Twitter on her mobile device, presumably her phone. She knows how to make a screenshot on a computer, and it'll capture more tweets than the four or five you can typically see on a mobile phone, so she fires up a web browser, goes to the Twitter URL of the harasser who's still in the process of sending her death threats, hits Ctrl-PtSc, and then sends the screenshot somewhere.
Completely normal. Exactly what you'd expect someone to do (I know it's technically possible to take a screenshot on your phone, but (1) you won't get many tweets and (2) personally I don't actually know how to do it, if I were in the same situation I'd have to Google for the information.)
Your idiot evidence tries to make every element of this suspicious. They... *gasp* went to a PC they weren't logged into to make the screenshot. They *horror* didn't wait until the death threat stream had finished before making the screenshot, meaning some were coming in seconds before she took it! Because you've decided she must be making this up, you've had to invent a ridiculous narrative involving tablets and logging out of PCs that has Sarkeesian apparently unaware she can have two browsers on the PC that has a keyboard.
What's even more bizarre is you make these allegations while GamerGate simultaneously acknowledges that Sarkeesian does, actually, get death threats all the time. The GG "Anti-Harassment Patrol" even trumpeted it's "success" at finding a certain Brazillian journalist who is one source of anti-Sarkeesian death threats, and got terribly upset when Sarkeesian said "Yes, I know, I've already reported him" and spun it as "Sarkeesian refuses to report harasser we found!!!1!!"
GamerGate is about harassment. Stop trying to cover it up.
Android phone makers experimented with physical keyboards for a while, and lately seem to have decided to just issue the same bland iPhone-but-with-Android form factors and forget about being innovative in that area.
I hope BlackBerry stays relevent enough to undo that and get manufacturers looking at text input again. The current situation may suit many, but I see a 50/50 split between people who are happy with Swype-like text input, and people who really prefer the accuracy of physical push buttons. Me, I'm generally OK with the former, but want to have the latter to fall back on.
What's happening here is the standard (especially in GG) circle-j where GamerGaters theorize that something is a "false flag", then someone digs out some minor coincidence, KIA has a field day and declares that the case has been proven, and nobody there revisits the issue, usually genuinely shocked that anyone would disagree.
I'm _still_ arguing with people who think (or claim to think) that Nathan Grayson wrote anything at all as a result of his fling with "LW1" [the GamerGate term for their primary target, who isn't a journalist FWIW. The women herself has suffered enough harassment, so I'll subvert this term to actually avoid mentioning her by name respecting her wish she be kept out of it.] They read Grayson did, they've only listened to people who said he did, as far as they're concerned it's true, and no amount of "OK, point me at the articles he supposedly wrote" will change that. Given this is the original attempt to redefine GamerGate as an "ethics" campaign, something even this story has fallen for, that's a pretty bad thing.
1. Eron Gjoni initially tried to post his revenge-ex "tell all" about "LW1", to the forums of Something Awful. SA deleted it immediately and banned Gjoni.
2. Gjoni shops around, finally finding 4chan tolerates it long enough to stir up support from various anti-women trolls (well, it's 4chan, of course they're trolls.) Yadayadayada Adam Baldwin yadayadayadayada front page of New York Times, article about GamerGate's harassment and death threat campaign.
3. Goons (SA's term for forum members) discussing the trainwreck on Something Awful's forums notice the New York Times is covering a controversy that started at... Something Awful and post words to the effect of "What started here ended up on the NYT!"
So what happened then? Well, GamerGate developed a consensus, immediately, without any evidence whatsoever beyond forgetting, somehow, that SA was where Gjoni started trying to destroy "LW1", that Something Awful was behind all the death threats and was making them to make GamerGate look bad.
Because that totally makes sense. One, out of context, forum comment, with no actual quotes from SA members organizing this shadow campaign.
I mention this because it's one case where you specifically see the mindset. Something is "proven" because it gets repeated within KIA enough that it becomes an unquestioned fact. This is how GG holds on to its useful idiots long enough for them to make idiots of themselves.
Well, if you're lucky, the terrorists may kill you before the movie starts.
If you're not so lucky, the last thing you hear before your death is Seth Rogen laughing...
Yes, I'd go to the mall. And if I didn't, it'd solely be because I'd turn back if I saw over-zealous TSA-style "security" at all entrances. That's right, I'm more afraid of the TSA (guaranteed to cause misery) than a terrorist (can only cause misery if extremely lucky.)
I lived the first 25 years of my life in a county regularly attacked by real terrorists - not cartoonish villains wearing head dresses, but the sociopathic extreme of a (rightly, in my view, but that's another story) angry Irish Catholic community. I can honestly say I never changed anything I did based upon fear of being killed by terrorists. You don't live your life that way.
In this case, Sony and various theater chains are pissing their pants over a group that has no record of terrorism and which, having "warned" us, is highly unlikely to get away with an attack anyway. And whose justification for an attack anyway is absurd and highly improbable to drive anyone into a murderous rampage.
This is the logical continuation of the Bush response to terrorism: show the entire world we're terrified and lashing out at everyone, because somehow that's helpful, moral, and not going to encourage more terror.
It's time this nation stood up, and stopped pissing its pants every time someone phones in a bomb threat.
Open source is a success. It's taken over most of the server market. The fact it's open is why it's a success - do you think PHP would ever be popular if it were closed?
The question Microsoft is asking themselves is not "How do we kill this", but "How do we monetize this?" (followed by "How far should we jump right now, and to what extent should we hold back?")
- Slow down cowboy
- Slow down cowboy
- Slow down cowboy
Slow down cowboy
I may be wrong but I thought the only major patent things they've been involved in lately they were pretty up front about - in fact, many Slashdotters complained at the time they were just engaging in FUD by announcing they had any patents.
The things I know of are:
- The FAT LFN patent. Not a great idea, but they never picked FAT to be a SD card file system in the first place. Can't blame them for cashing in beyond general opposition to patents.
- The package of patents covering technologies in Android - this is the one I think Slashdot's commentator consensus complained was FUD until Microsoft started approaching mobile device makers.
- VC-1, which they were upfront about during the standardization process, and coordinated with the group licensing the MPEG LA was organizing.
Where have they tried to push something as an open standard and then turned around and said "Ha ha! Gotcha! Here are these hidden patents we never told you about"?
Kinda, there's an area in between that it also protects against. The first amendment also protects you against private prosecutions and civil actions, as well as (again, for the most part) the government using its megaphone to promote one view and not another. Of course, everything's subject to tests on whether it's actual speech or not, and some categories, generally involving dishonesty or involvement in crime, have less protection.
On that latter note, not being a lawyer, I can't comment on whether quoting from Sony's documents is likely to result in successful court action or not, and would be interested to hear a real lawyer's take on it (a good one, I don't mean NYCL.)