And it therefore follows...
"Seeing photos and videos from brands you don't follow will be new, so we'll start slow"
People who "follow brands" need to be euthanized, so as to filter some of the more noxious trash from the gene pool.
1888 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Jan 2010
Without the Google apps, it can not be called "Android" at all. And Google will enforce that prohibition.
And those required-in-order-to-be-called-Android apps can't be called "open" in any way, no matter now the term is stretched.
I am also pretty sure that Google has a policy of giving new builds to selected manufacturers first, and only very much later to make it available generally
"Google will also want to turn off the ads for those who've stumped up the cash for Business Gmail accounts, just as it does for the website."
Well I don't know that Google will actually want to turn of the ads for paying customers, but they might have to.
PS: Android is not really "open".
"A lot of albums ( which were a thing back in the day ) consist of songs in a particular order that the artists who created them felt fitted together in some way to form a whole that exceeds the components from which it is constructed."
Good post. Artistically insightful. Elucidates a point lost on many people nowadays.
I have always felt the same way; in fact, I rarely listen to mp3 any other way than by album. "Shuffle" to me is an abomination, only for groups of songs from (what I consider) one-hit wonders*. When I used to engineer, it was always the case that, even for a three song demo, all the participants would devote a great deal of thought, not merely to picking the three best songs, but to picking the three best songs that also made a coherent whole.
And as John Lennon once complained, the Beatles would invest great amounts of time devising a good running order and then the albums would be re-released in the US, with completely different running orders - and songs added and subtracted. He said "It used to drive us crackers."
* I classify as a "one hit wonder" any entity that has only one song (or very few songs) that *I* like. It has nothing to do with the popularity of said entity on the world-at-large's record charts.
Your logic is, mutatis mutandis, applicable to the situation with Google/Motorola vs all the other Android handset makers, Samsung included. (I'm pretty sure that I have read about Samsung investigating the possibility of creating its own alternative to Android, so that they will not be dependent on a competitor.)
There are people who contend, plausibly, that Russia's richest man is actually Vladimir Putin. However, his wealth is hidden in a labyrinth of shell companies and the usual dodges that people use to hide their ownership of things, for the ownership of which they can not plausibly, and legally, account.
"Yahoo! has told thousands of users who are complaining about the Purple Palace's pisspoor redesign of its Groups service that it will not be rolled back to the old format - despite a huge outcry. The Marissa Mayer-run company revamped Yahoo! Groups last week, but it was immediately inundated with unhappy netizens who grumbled that the overhaul was glitchy, difficult to navigate and 'severely degraded'".
And to think that just a few days ago the Reg advanced Marissa Mayer as a candidate for Steve Ballmer's job.
That's insight! As this article shows, she could take Ballmer's place and no one would notice any meaningful difference. Possibly this is her way of showing Microsoft that she's up to the job!
(By the way, Yahoo groups has always been vile. It's not easy to imagine them being disimproved but the thought is such that I am not going to venture a look.)
"Tape was a distinct improvement back in the day."
As I recall, it was an "improvement" only in the sense that for certain purposes there were no viable alternatives. And in most cases, "something" is better than "nothing" and very often much better. But I do agree completely with you that it is not as bad as some people are saying, and all the much much superior tech that displaced it makes it look worse than it was at the time.
I still have my Nakamichi BX-300 - which served me as a mastering deck for mixdowns from my Tascam Portastudios, of which I still have three - one with Dolby and two with DBX, all for archiving purposes.
After having had a Tascam 244 and, especially, a 144, I considered the 246 to be a luxurious machine.
"So less than 1% of stock will get you a seat on the board? I am impressed."
Although I too was struck by this, I was not impressed. I was baffled. How does it happen that 0.8% gets a seat on the board? Could it be the case is that the largest shareholders are (even if their holdings are, comparatively, but a small percent of the total shares) automatically entitled to a seat on the board except if there are compelling reasons to deny them a seat?
"A firing squad - meh - but my jaw literally dropped when I read a *machine* *gun* firing squad. I mean, how dead do you want them?"
The intention was (or "would be" if this entire incident actually occurred, which for me is not a certainty) to produce an effect in the audience, which was composed of friends, family, and colleagues of the condemned. Much more "instructive" that way.
You can see some videos of wartime executions by firing squad on, if I correctly recall, the British Pathe site. Judging solely by those videos, execution by firing squad is not really very dramatic when the firing squad uses single-shot rifles. On the other hand, it would have to be more dramatic than those videos show, if solely because on the videos no blood is seen.
However, I would imagine that, if the firing squad was armed with "machine guns" (probably assault rifles or submachine guns, as opposed to real, mounted, crew-served machine guns proper) then the firing squad, each member of which is firing a multi-round burst into the condemned, would produce a *much* greater effect - on the condemned and on the observers too.
Of course it is possible that automatic weapons were used because the condemned were executed en masse, and not one by one.
Recall, parenthetically, that Himmler once decided to watch a mass execution. He fainted. (I believe that that is a true story.)
"I actually feel that the best thing to do in Syria is....er....nothing."
I think that you might be right. From the (admittedly limited) amount of reading that I have done about the situation in Syria, I too tend to think that there may be no favorable outcome possible.
" I can, however, think of some nightmare scenarios that become possible should we intervene."
To be fair, "nightmare scenarios" might also occur even without our intervention.
"Trust me, it's even more bizarre than reported."
I have a pretty good idea of how bizarre things can get, really. But to believe this particular report, I, personally, need more than the news report on offer.
The problems I have with the report are, firstly, that these people, who in the context of Nork society are in relatively privileged positions, would actually make a sex tape at all. It seems like kind of an overly-elaborate way of committing "group suicide by prison camp with the possibility of additional serious repercussions for families, friends, and colleagues". It just doesn't make sense.
The second problem is the "public machine-gunning". I simply can't recall a similar case. If (and that's the proverbial *big* "if") the sex tape was actually made, there can be no way that the fat kid or his advisors would want to corroborate the fact officially, thereby revealing some of the, you know, decadent Western influences corrupting the country's artistic elite.
Now if it were to turn out that they were shot for simply smuggling and dealing in pornography and Bibles, I would find that quite believable.
So while I don't discount the possibility of the news story as reported being true, I am skeptical until further corroboration arrives.
"That's how they refer to Stalin's religion. "
Well not really. Stalin did not maintain his power via force of personality and charisma. He did it by controlling the bureaucracies - especially the ones that disposed of armed force (secret police, military, etc).
It was called a "cult of personality" as an attempt to divert attention from the fact that Stalin was able to accumulate and unrestrainedly exercise virtually unlimited power because of the essentially totalitarian political structure of Soviet Union. Stalin's successors wanted to condemn Stalin's "errors" while changing the system as little as possible, the underlying idea being that the Party needed (or rather, wanted and intended to continue to have) such power, but could henceforth be trusted not to abuse it.
"Isn't their whole point to release stuff?"
No, WikiLeaks point is to make money. Recall that John Young considers WikiLeaks a criminal organization whose primary purpose is commercial.
See "Wikileaks are for-hire mercenaries - Cryptome" http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/07/cryptome_on_wikileaks/ from where I cite: "From the earliest discussions, Young alleges, Wikileaks intended to pimp out the information for funds. 'Well, it only came up in the topic of raising $5 million the first year. That was the first red flag that I heard about. I thought that they were actually a public interest group up until then, but as soon as I heard that, I know that they were a criminal organisation.'"
"El Reg presumes the advertising giant's lawyers cleared the Gmail redesign and declared it compliant with US anti-spam laws."
*I* presume that if Google developed a plan to send every G-mail user large amounts of unsolicited child pornography on a daily basis, and then showed that plan to their lawyers, their lawyers would declare it complaint with all applicable laws.
"the Latvian foreign minister wrote: I do have my own reasons to vote against the extradition of Dennis Calovskis for trial in the United States."
Since the minister has not clearly stated the reasons for his objection, it's not possible to know if he objects because Dennis Calovskis gave him a large sum of money, or because Calovskis is a relative of his (or his wife's), or both of the foregoing.
"Money != Progress. Economical power generating fusion is hard. It's hard in a way that can not be solved by throwing money at it."
The prevalence of people who don't realize this is very distressing. Parenthetically, and sadly, "Money = Progress" seems to be the basis of modern politics.
"So I should scrap the plan to move to NY and open a fresh fruit drinks stand called 'Limey Drinks'?"
Well they have a racial slur and a big fat pig on their logo, in case anyone isn't getting the, uh, message, such as it is. So they are way, way ahead of your little limeade drink stand.
"100,000 people in a cricket stadium wouldn't sound like anything in America, because we don't have cricket stadiums that large."
If we did have a cricket stadium that large, crickets would be the only thing that you would ever hear in it - and even that only on warm summer nights.
On the other hand, going to a "footie" match and hearing "There Were Ten German Bombers In The Air" would be amusing!
"..who would self-reference themselves in a deragotory manner?"
"Ask the members of NWA"
Your answer is its own rebuttal: There is nothing inherently offensive about the letters N, W, or A. And NWA uses this three-letter acronym for a reason, yes?
"While Loguidice earlier this week resisted suggestions a name change might be in order ("It’s still America. Last time I checked, we were still on this side of the planet," she told the NY Daily News), the Wandering Dago Facebook page now has a poll asking Joe Public to vote on the matter. "
Even though I don't have a Facebook account, I can access their poll and see that it lacks an option allowing the "voters" to cast their vote in support of a proposition along the lines of "I think that Loguidice and Snooks are complete assholes".
This is a glaring omission, severely undermining the scientific value of the poll.
"In an interview Swiss publication Schweiz am Sonntag in May, Scholter had spoken of the stress induced by an 'always on' culture, reports The Independent."
I too was struck by this line. And that he made his living by enabling this "always-on" culture makes his complaints and subsequent suicide very ironic.
I just happened to read something a very short while ago that, though only tangentially related to the topic at hand, could, without terribly great effort, nevertheless seem at least somewhat appropriate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sark#One-person_invasion_attempt
"Way to fight the good fight Mr. Wyden"
Wyden is the same Google hireling who wants to expropriate musicians, photographers, artists, film makers, and other, for the sake of Page, Brin, Schmidt, and the other wealthy fascistic tech oligarchs. (Schmidt call himself and his cohorts "the Gang Of Four". It's not really a joke.)
And by the way, that's the same Google that has to be the biggest surveillance machine in the history of humanity.
Maybe Wyden thinks that if the NSA can't conduct surveillance directly, they will have to contract it out to other parties, like, oh, maybe Wyden's masters at Google: it appears that they've thought of a way to turn Snowden into a business opportunity.
"Activist investor Daniel Loeb is stepping down from Yahoo!'s board and giving up a chunk of his outfit Third Point's stake in exchange for a healthy payoff now that shares have risen."
Hey Danny, now that you've got some free time, how about you do me and some other people a favor and take a look at Microsoft, eh?