You seem to confusing hindsight and foresight. Everyone knew what Elop and Microsoft were doing from the very beginning. This is definitely not a case of everyone figuring it out after the fall.
So, since it was so obvious. What should Nokia done? Stick with their internal OSes that weren't competitive? Move to Android and be a me too? Started from scratch, again? Everyone seems to want to pretend Nokia was in a good place and THEN Elop came along. His memo was stupid (in that he should have known it would get out and would have horrible side effects). But it wasn't wrong. They were in a bad place and the projected trend numbers seemed likely at the time. So what did they do so wrong at the time? Or are you just saying because Elop is Elop it followed that it must have been M$' plan to take over Nokia, just cause. And that's the part I'm missing?
...(I really hope they have).
Of course you do... your commenting in Slashdot.
Before anyone bothers to carefully craft a response to the poster above, have a look at his comment history: this is one of the clearest examples of a Microsoft shill that I've ever seen on Slashdot.
If you were honest you would have put: "Before anyone bothers to engage in a reasoned debate *I* shall step in with an ad hominem attack and show how my thoughts are superior over this loser. You know because I don't actually have the ability to debate them. " Sad!
1. Old ladies and kids in school give a shit about gossip. No one else.
But if they point a camera at me in public I'm going to lose it? Wow...
2. Even today, walk up to anyone in public, point a camera right at them, and see what happens.
Even today walk right up into someones face and see what happens. See? It's a bogus analogy.
Whether you like it or not, you ~cannot~ blatantly film someone against their will, whether they are in public or not. If there are laws that say you can, then those laws ~will~ change..if only to protect people like you from themselves.
Over one hundred years of it happening (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozXvAIOtifE). Your right, someday people are going to make laws to *protect* themselves from being ignorant of the english language (see the word PUBLIC). Oh wait, that must mean... I guess you ~CAN~ "blatantly film someone" in.... wait for it... *public*.
Do you seriously ever envision a scenario wherein a cop stands there and tells people they have to let you film them whether they like it or not? If anything, you would be arrested for creating a disturbance.
Do you seriously ever envision a scenario wherein a cop stands there and tells people they have to let you walk down the street whether they like it or not? Most people can.... know why? 'Cause your in *PUBLIC*
Have you ever noticed how on many newscasts, peoples faces in the background are blurred? Have you ever wondered why?
Yes, have you? Check out private use vs for profit use.
And surveillance cameras are typically far away from the subjects and also not recording audio.
So your just quibling over the extent of the recording? If so then I propose that the quality/abilities of those cameras are going to improve with time.
They also don't follow you around or go into bathrooms either.
No that's what portable cameras are for. Oh oh and hidden cameras. But of course our society doesn't deem the bathroom to be public for recording. So your argument is weak.
Yes, I'm recorded pretty often in public by surveillance cameras, but those don't store the video for very long and...
This is just a guess by you. You don't actually know how long a random security tape willl be stored.
Nor do you know if it is being posted to the internet.
..., much more importantly, aren't all sending their videos to Google.
Again this is just an opinion formed in ignorance; since you don't know the specifics of the camera's watching you.
The single centralized collection of surveillance videos is the privacy issue with Google Glass.
Then stop complaining about google glasses and start fighting to keep videos taken in *public* off the internet.
Do you seriously think there is any similarity between someone seeing/hearing something with their eyes/ears vs. someone going around possibly recording everything and then possibly "sharing" any or all of it with the entire Internet and in a way that can be indexed, aggregated, identified, and with no limit to how long it is stored or controlled?
1. Yes there is a similarity. It's called gossip.
2. Your in *public* not "private". So your desire for "privacy" in *public* is ignorant.
3. You are recorded all the time NOW. Just because they don't point out the camera(s) does not mean you are free from being recorded. And the recording can be shared anyway they want (relative to this discussion)... why? Because you are in *PUBLIC*!
Atheist males have more rights than Christian males. It's called the Separation of Church and State (which is not Constitutional, or even in the Bill of Rights, whether it's right or wrong, I won't debate today).
Why did you implicitly separate the first ten amendments to the Constitution from the rest of the body of work, as it applies to law?
Also why does everyone being barred from making laws for their religion only benefit the atheist?
I'm not looking for a debate. I'm trying to unpack your choice of words.
And your WP7 apps don't get to come along.... So there is ABSOLUTELY no reason to buy a WP7 device, or develop WP7 apps, because it won't gain you anything.
What are you talking about? WP7 apps DO carry over to WP8. from: http://www.liveside.net/2012/09/26/will-windows-phone-7-apps-just-work-in-windows-phone-8/
Microsoft said that Windows Phone 7 apps would run in Windows Phone 8
You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish. You can tune a filesystem, but you can't tuna fish. -- from the tunefs(8) man page