Maybe this will allow people to decide updates again.
Maybe this will allow people to decide updates again.
Documents 6 bankruptcies, and 13 businesses that closed up shop - at the very least suggests he doesn't know what he's doing.
Business has something in common with war and engineering:
1 You try a bunch of stuff that looks like it might work.
2 Some of it works, some of it doesn't.
3a. You stop doing (and wasting resources on) what doesn't work
3b, and continue doing more of what does (transferring any remaining resources from the abandoned paths.)
In business, step 3a is called "a large business environment, major projects are done in separate subsidiary corporations. This uses the "corporate veil" as a firewall, to keep the failed attempts from reaching back and sucking up more resources from what's succeeding. Dropping a failed experiment in step 3a (when it's failed so badly that there's nothing left to salvage in a different attempt's 3b) is called "bankruptcy". It lets you stop throwing good money after bad and move on.
So bankruptcy is NOT necessarily a sign of weakness, stupidity, or lack of business acumen. On the contrary: It shows the decision-maker was smart enough to spend a bit extra to erect the firewall between the bulk of his holdings and the iffy project.
So a successful large-business-empire-operator who is also innovative will usually have a number of bankruptcies in his history. It's no big deal, anyone in business at or near that level knows it, and took it into account if they risked some of their resources in someone else's experiment that failed in the hope of profit if it succeeded.
Also: Someone starting out may have to few resources to run many experiments simultaneously. (Or even a big guy may be reduced to a little guy by too many failures - not necessarily his fault.) So he has to try serially, doing only one or a few at a time. This may mean total bankruptcy, even multiple times, before coming up with something that does work. Lots of successful businessmen went through total bankruptcy, sometimes several times, before hitting it big.
Do you believe that H1-B workers are the best talent?
I don't believe that the United States has a monopoly on talent. There are talented people all over the world, indeed the vast majority of highly-talented people are born outside of the US, because the vast majority of people are born outside the US. Whatever the immigration mechanism, it's in the United States' best interest to draw the most talented people from the whole world to work and live here.
The problem is that any given reviewer wont "mesh" with what *YOU* like. Or what *I* like.
OTOH, I find that the aggregate consensus of several hundred reviewers actually gives me a really good idea of how good a movie is. That's not the same as saying it's a good indicator of what I'll like; there are some crappy movies that I like quite a lot. But if a film gets an 80% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and it has a significant number of reviews (obscure films sometimes don't), I can be pretty much guaranteed that it will not be a waste of my time. Perhaps it won't become a favorite, but it will be reasonably well-written, well-acted, etc. In other words, it won't suck.
I do occasionally see movies with low ratings, but only when there's some other factor motivating me -- and I often walk out disappointed. I also occasionally see movies that I have no real interest in, but have high ratings (and which my wife wants to see) -- and I nearly always enjoy them anyway. There are exceptions both ways, but the RT rating is generally an excellent guide.
I actually believe if self-driving cars take off, drive times will go down. The programmers of the cars can do a lot to alleviate the bad behaviors people have gotten in to that just makes heavy traffic worse.
If you then ban human-operated vehicles from (some) roads, or maybe just some lanes (which should be separated from lanes usable by human-operated vehicles), it can get even better. Vehicles in constant radio communication with each other and with sub-millisecond reaction times should be able to significantly increase highway speeds and reduce inter-vehicle distance to inches, while simultaneously increasing safety.
If you can remove human-operated vehicles from all roads, you can also get rid of stop lights and stop signs. Vehicles can negotiate appropriate gaps as they approach an intersection.
His big mistake is neither incorporating nor filing suit in West Texas
Well, that and suing eBay rather than the makers/sellers of the allegedly-infringing products.
You might - but If I pay for a service, it should be ad free. If it isn't, I'm not paying. And I'm not the only one out there with the same stance.
But if he weren't dense, how could we then understand the true superior Character in the movie? You Know, The woman, who was better than both men!
Ask Schrodinger, he put it in a box somewhere.
You seem to think there's some assault on free speech here. There isn't. At all. YouTube isn't taking "offensive" videos down -- not any more than they always have, anyway -- they're just not showing ads on videos the advertisers don't want to be associated with. The free speech of the people uploading the videos is fully intact, and in fact YouTube continues giving them a free soapbox from which to reach the world. The free speech of the advertisers is also being honored, by allowing them to avoid appearing to speak in support of things they don't want to support.
The only perspective from which anything "bad" is happening is the one which presumes that the makers of YouTube content have some "right" to be paid. There is no such right, never has been and I sincerely hope there never, ever will be.
(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but that has absolutely nothing to do with my position on this issue.)
Just the fact that you use those silly google names to indicate android version shows how far up the posterior of google you are. So sad. Just refer to android versions by number so we can understand.
You're crazy, basically no one knows the numbers. Look at all the discussions in the press, ask around to people (among people who even know that there are different versions of Android). Everyone who knows anything about Android releases knows the dessert names. The numbers are enthusiast-only trivia.
That means 29% of up-to-date Androids would have to come from 34.1% of users, or that 85% of Marshmallow and Nougat users are fully patched. I'm skeptical.
You're assuming that the statistics don't simply exclude phones without the field.
I highly doubt that 29% of Androids are up to date.
Keep in mind that the security patch level field was added in Android Marshmallow (IIRC), and I expect that's what they're using to determine patch date. If so, KitKat and Lollipop devices aren't counted, and this really says that 29% of Android devices that are new enough to have Marshmallow or Nougat are up to date. That's not surprising, though it's obviously still far too low.
Unless, of course, the report assumes that anything running Lollipop or older is not recently patched, which seems like a reasonable assumption.
Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft ... and the only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor. -- Wernher von Braun