Kahless
The post is required, and must contain letters.
3721 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
The way I understand it, that will still work. As long as the tab is visible when the sound starts, it will keep going on even if you hide it.
I bet a lot of people start a music video on YouTube and keep surfing in a different tab; I'm sure Google thought of them.
Apparently, Microsoft is one of the biggest backers of the investigation.
You don't say…
Actually, I wonder what product Microsoft claims is unfairly penalized by Google. They have no more map service, and surely they're not asking Google Search to show results provided by Bing? Do they have a social network?
It's impressive that they managed to keep their lead on Apple. I'd bet on them keeping that lead. I would say that most of the people who were going to buy an Apple watch bought one already, and the demand for next quarters is going to be lower, until they release a second model. Fitbit, on the other hand, probably is selling the same amount regularly, and did not get a particular bump this quarter.
The statements of competitors notwithstanding, the only other subject that didn't seem to be solved was the subject of scraping… and that was before the German publishers admitted they preferred Google to scrape and display snippets rather than just display titles.
Then again, maybe they prefer the Spanish solution.
I love Lego as much as the next geek, but I can't really see the point of this. The amount of people who want to modify their phone according to the occasion is probably less than 1%, and the result has to be more bulky than a standard model in which components can be put more tightly. The way I see it, it's a solution looking for a problem.
I'm unsure if that is the case. IIRC, Roman Polanski would still be put in jail if he is ever caught in the US, almost forty years after sex with a minor. There is no statute of limitations that apply, not due to the nature of the crime, but due to the particulars of how he escaped after pleading guilty.
All because I change my default search engine in Firefox doesn't mean I want it changed in Windows \ Cortana.
…I'm trying to imagine a universe where I want to use a different search engine depending on whether I start my search from the browser or the OS. I think it's the first time I've ever seen somebody claim they want this, but maybe I just lack imagination.
I thought Google has been scanning its data for years to find such images:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/18/microsoft-google-summit-halt-child-abuse-images
http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/5/5970141/how-google-scans-your-gmail-for-child-porn
I would assume downloading isn't something they have a problem with, it is uploading what you downloaded from them that causes them to lawyer up.
That's not the way I'm reading it. It looks to me like they're attacking people who download their stuff from third-party websites. Because technically, it is illegal to simply download.
You'll remember that the music industry also used to sue random Joes for like $15'000 for every single song they downloaded, as an attempt to scare the public away from randomly downloading from the Internet. The music industry has stopped with the aggressive scare tactics, not because downloading has become legal, but because of the backlash in public opinion.
1. Stop random cars
2. Ask if they have money
3. Confiscate the money under civil asset forfeiture laws
4. Profit
It would be funnier if some actual cops were not already doing that.
taxes upon income are lower over there, as Ed Prescott pointed out, so it makes sense to work more hours
I'll believe this when there is a study comparing US States and finding any kind of correlation between local income tax rates and number of holidays taken.
It is entirely silly to claim the income tax rate is the determinant factor for the different length of holidays between the US and Europe.
Is it just me, or is David Cameron really, really off base on this? What can possibly the reason he's so obsessed with the subject, when frankly there are so many other more worthy of his attention?
I think this must have been what it felt like in the US during the prohibition.
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So iWatch would, were it not iWatch call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which it owes
Without that title. iWatch, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.
with Tim Cook in the role of Juliet
It's almost certainly a trademark troll. I assume they tried to sell the trademark to Apple for a huge sum and were rebuffed.
From what Ars Technica says, buying ads with a competitor's trademark as keyword has generally been ruled legal, as long as the trademark does not appear in the text of the ad. So I imagine they're out of luck on this one.
People keep reimplementing stuff that already exists on the new abstraction layer, because they don't understand how the old one works…
Oh, and everybody is trying to have all features, which duplicates everything. If I want to watch a YouTube video on my TV, I can use the YouTube app of the set-top box, I can cast it to the A/V receiver, or I can cast it directly to the TV. Without counting the different ways I can surf the web on my TV, then go to youtube.com.
The researchers call for far greater disclosure from Google, which has disappointed privacy advocates
by choosing to act as secret judge and jury on every RTBF case.
If I remember correctly, the ruling of the European Court of Justice specifically demanded from Google to accept requests from individuals, instead of making people go through privacy regulators, and now people complain Google should not be allowed to act as secret judge and jury. They're just doing what the law forces them to do! Otherwise, what would have been the point of the ruling of the ECJ?
I remember there used to be two applications for looking at your pictures, the stock Android one and the Google one. In fact, I believe that Samsung phones carry an additional app built by Samsung.
So this user seemed to think that deleting the app would delete all pictures taken with the app. Not so, since multiple apps can access the pictures…
Admittedly, it's a bit confusing. For most apps, deleting the app removes all data associated with the app.