the worm turns
Just a few years ago it was all about Linux users signing petitions for game/app/whatever to be ported to Linux, only to be told 'it's not worth it'
The times they are a changin eh
48 posts • joined 22 Jul 2010
As as been pointed out - patching this does not require a manufacturer Android update- just a Google Play Services update which should happen automatically to all phones that use it on Android 2.3 or above, regardless of manufacturer.
This article really should be updated to reflect this (or at least make it much clearer).
Bluebox security sells 'anti virus' software right? Are we taking their word as unbiased reporting?
The mesh is actually a huge plus for Sonos and one of the reason it's so stable. You don't contend with data on your own wifi network. And each Sonos component acts as an extender. Plus the Android app actually allows you to use the Sonos mesh to connect back into your own router- so I can browse the internet on my tablet at the end of the garden where wifi doesn't reach.
It's a fairly dramatic change at the point of privatisation though
Whilst I agree that of course correlation doesn't imply causation I think in this case my question would be - what else occurred in 1995 to account for such a sea change? The roads reaching breaking point argument doesn't wash for me- something like that would I imagine would have a gentler effect on the curve. It's not as if half the UK roads were suddenly closed in 1995.
"Elop said that manufacturers who had gone with Android years ago were struggling to maintain a booth presence at the show, because they were unable to differentiate their wares adequately"
"He insisted Nokia will differentiate itself too with build quality, design, reliability and Nokia's HERE and Mix Radio services."
Aren't these slightly contradictory? None of the differentiating items he points out depend on the use of Windows Phone.
It is absolutely a perception issue. Microsoft is no longer the "go-to" brand in the public mind when a "futuristic, technical" things are discussed. And that is a real problem for them in the consumer space where they want to be.
IBM is still a major and profitable technology player. With a huge professional presence. Who'd be proud to be sporting an IBM branded phone?
Maybe it's a natural progression and it's unfair to blame Ballmer - every company moves from cool teens to boring middle age at some point. But his famous iPhone quote does demonstrate a level of complacency that let the market get away from them.
One more time Steve..
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance. It's a $500 subsidized item. They may make a lot of money. But if you actually take a look at the 1.3 billion phones that get sold, I'd prefer to have our software in 60% or 70% or 80% of them, than I would to have 2% or 3%, which is what Apple might get. "
Yes, but once again you are equating discipline with physical punishment, as if they are the same thing.
I bring my children up with discipline and strong boundaries and consequences. They are loving and kind and socially adept and well adjusted and know right from wrong. As are the children of the large numbers of friends I have who also don't use physical punishment. So I just can't see the argument that it's necessary.
Plus, to be honest, unless I was extremely angry or in a very strong emotional state I don't believe I could mentally bring myself to actually deliberately hurt my children.
You incorrectly reversed my logic. I am not saying that all children who are hit grow up to be socialpaths. (I was one. And I'm not. I hope.)
I called out the original post on the fact that:
- I think it's incorrect to say that the "problem" people so often cited as part of our "society gone wrong" would be less of a problem if they'd been hit as children. Because they probably were.
- equating "consequence" with physical punishment is a simplification oft used by those in favour of it, in my experience. It does not follow that failing to smack your child means you offer them a consequence free existence.
There is no ban on smacking your own child (in the UK). So even if I believed such a thing could achieve a utopia, I wouldn't be surprised that we weren't there yet.
That's right. (Sarcasm alert:) Because I'm just sure it's the case that the thugs and disturbed sociopaths of the world are those who haven't been hit *enough* as children.
It is ironic that the above poster doesn't seem to realise that there can be 'consequences' other than violence. And that presumably the reason for this is because violence was the only or the most important consequence learned in childhood. And so the cycle continues.
But I think the point is there's no point in distributing audio at much above 16/48 (even though as you say there's a benefit in recording/mixing in 24 bits)
This is a great article for those interested why http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
The idea that someone passionate about music wouldn't want anyone to hear their compositions if there were no copyright law could only be promulgated by someone who doesn't understand music.
Those in the music biz only for the money might think twice - but would that be such a bad thing?
The personal view is the point of the article. The author is not saying, "Everyone must aspire to raising a family". He is saying, "ambition is a personal thing". Your ambition (chilled life), the author's ambition (a family), Sandberg's ambition (COO of major tech company) are different. He's saying it's unfair for Sandberg to criticise others for having different ambitions to herself. Of course, it's quite right to criticise organisations that have "glass ceilings" preventing the realisation of ambitions of those who do.
Seems fair enough to me.
It's interesting to hear the reviewer's opinion that the AI is dumb - many other reviews have presented the polar opposite - one in particular mentioned setting up bot vs bot matches and watching it play out. I'll be interested to see - mine arrived today! (my copy of Killzone 3, that is, not my artificial intelligence.)
I don't think it's a matter of the market shifting. The market is growing wider and there are whole swarths of people playing Angry Birds on their iPhone who probably wouldn't have played video games at all before.
My point is that Sony is not pitching the PSP at the iPhone market. It's pitching at a different market. Whether that market exists of course is a matter of debate, but it's certainly a market for which no device currently exists.
I'm a "professional" in my 30's, used to commuting and business travel. I get far more time to play games when on the move than at when at home with my family. I've love to be able to play "proper" PS3-style games on the tube, on the plane and plugged into the hotel TV in the evenings on business trips. Lots of my colleagues play video games. So I'd imagine "we" would be a reasonable part of a target market.
"In a hand-held, i dont want to play cut down versions of full console games,"
... so use your iPhone or your DS.
There are lots of people, myself included, who *do* want to play proper console games on a handheld. The original PSP wasn't quite good enough for this - the lack of dual analogues being a massive factor.
The new PSP is aimed at a market that neither Apple nor Nintendo nor Microsoft is competing in. Makes sense to me.
If Sony had aimed squarely at competing with the iPhone and DS markets they would indeed have been making a bad mistake.
I think Google could draw a distinction between brand and the actual product though. As they own the Android trademark they could just prevent anyone who ships prerelease code from calling it "Android". This would prevent negative impacts on Android's reputation whilst still allowing development to be open (in much the same was that anyone can distribute a buggy broken version of the Firefox code base, but not necessarily call it "Firefox")
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019