Yes, nothing like owning a device where any of several modules can be easily swapped out for a visually identical one with additional monitoring built in, to make spying on you harder...
The idea here is that Nikon mass-markets the cameras, and you plug it into your Motorola processor with a Lenovo battery and a Linksys broadband module.
And you have a Total Mess. Because most of it kind of works, but the drivers for the cameras are a bit out of date or not compatible with the system version you need for the battery....
What you outlined is a dream - but not a dream for consumers. Yes in the abstract it sounds great but the reality as I and everyone else bore witness too in the PC era, is that the real life result is a mostly functional mess that needs constant upgrade or maintenance to keep working.
We are moving away from the PC era as we know it because real people, who just want to do stuff, do NOT want to be jiggering bits of things together like someone stranded on an island with boat wrecks to assemble a raft out of.
There's probably enough of a niche market that the device might survive... but I'm really dubious we're going to see a Nikon Camera module, as much as they wish it would be so. More like we'll see several camera modules from companies you've never heard of and cannot announce, and the rest of the components will be the same...
The main thing that might keep this effort afloat is if they come out of the gate with Steampunk modules. Then I'm in.
Please, this is hardly about politics, as far as Democrats vs Republicans - as if the GOP would have done things differently.
In any other industry, I would agree.
In the case of Hollywood/Democrats, there is a clear link and it simply does not exist with Republicans in the same way.
And if libertarians were in charge, same thing.
Brother, you do NOT know libertarians. Or Rand Paul in particular...
Salt Movie Spoilers Below
However, this isn't only about freedom of speech - it's about defamation and slanders. If it falsely makes it looks like the actors supported this film in a way they did not
OMG, I saw this movie called Salt, and it CLEARLY shows that Angelina Jolie is a Russian Mole - I had no idea she supported embedded terrorists.
Oh wait, she was an ACTRESS PORTRAYING A ROLE?
And even an IDIOT understands that actresses do not at all necessarily endorse what the characters they play are doing, or in fact even the main message of the movie because after an actress is doing a JOB?
Oh, my bad! I would have to be the dumbest person on the planet to claim that a movie in any way shed a bad light on an actress in it beyond the horror that may be their acting skills.
Where was the court injunction removing Gigli from the universe? If that didn't go this can certainly stay. Or else we start whacking a LOT of movies that any person on the planet finds objectionable.
The complainant is not a random critic who disagrees with the content of the film.
It's close enough as to make no difference. Do you really think that EVERY actress/actor who finds the released movie different than the one she/he worked on can get the movie pulled when they have ZERO ownership of it? Absurd.
The movie was never really a problem anyway - all of the protests against it were shams, as are death threats against the actress (obviously). And yet we are willing to let any person who appeared in a movie have a say over release and distribution... it will never work.
Now the visual artists have some real legal ground to stand on to compel the administration
The Obama administration does what it wants, laws are no. If there is no law, they give an executive order making one. If there is a law they don't like, they give an executive order ignoring it.
Obama (as with most Democrats) benefits tremendously from Hollywood. You do the math on what will REALLY happen.
Goodbye, VFX workers.
When I go to donate blood, am I in a room of people being "Bled Alive"? Technically yes but there's a good reason that term is not used to draw people to donate blood, and is also rather a bit much in this case too.
Not until its approved by Apple.
Which is how you get into the app store. Duh.
I mean, super duh.
But since the original point was you can't get games from Codea onto other iOS devices, that advice is plain wrong. You could do AdHoc builds also for friends of course, or submit it and let everyone use it.
I was right and only whiny childish losers come back with something like "but it has to be approved".
Because they weren't designed for it.
That's true of tablets you use I'm sure. Some of us know better and can select devices with the appropriate level of creative usability.
I had a Cintiq but sent it back because the iPad was enough in terms of drawing capability. You apparently know nothing of the vast array of creation going on with the iPad today - but far worse, you don't even want to know. How much sense does that make, to actually make yourself more stupid on purpose - just from hatred? Absurd.
Have to say, those are all pretty compelling reasons to jailbreak all by themselves.
Nor are Apple TV devices and Lightning to HDMI adapters "integrated so most people do not have them."
But most people use internet connectivity, most people do NOT use HDMI connections on mobile devices.
I would bet the use of tethering is several orders of magnitude higher on mobile devices that support both tethering and HDMI.
Citation needed
Just talking about smart phones, and tethering being extra on some plans just reenforces my point about some people mostly using mobile devices. The whole thing about tethering is that more people will have phones with them than PC's.
But in order for a user to contribute to a Wi-Fi list, a web application needs to know the location of the user's device and what access points are near it.
All modern mobile browsers have API to access location services on smartphones, so that works just fine as a web app on a smartphone. It would of course fail on a PC that lacked any cellular connectivity and wasn't connected to WiFi, highly likely when you are looking at a WiFi list... further proof of the assertion that smart phones are superiors to PCs.
Safari lacks such a means, as far as I can tell.
LMGTFY. Come on.
If all else fails, lower your standards.
