Considering that the teaching method of a lot of faculty has become doing nothing more than reading the slides to the class, I can't say I find that surprising. Some of the best PowerPoint presentations I've ever seen have nothing more than a single word or compound word as a slide. Regardless of what anyone thinks of him, watching Steve Jobs deliver a keynote can give you a lot of good material to imitate. Your slide deck should be there to support your presentation, not be your presentation.
You could accomplish all of that using PowerPoint. PowerPoint isn't the problem, bad presentations are the problem. It's the same problem Access has. It's not a bad program, but people use it to do bad things.
Macs used to require a physical step in addition to the software setup to modify the boot ROM. I think it was something along the lines of load firmware update which initiates a reboot, after reboot press and hold the power button until there was a loud beep from the computer, then the firmware update could proceed. Not convenient, but more secure.
Except Google clearly told him that his actions violated the rules. This isn't even a trademark issue. There has been no legal action taken against him. This is a rules issue, and the sole arbiter of those rules told him he was breaking them, twice, before banning him. Can you blame Google for banning him? If he didn't get the message after the first two warnings, why would you expect him to get it after the 20th.
Neither approach is right. There's nothing wrong with the write-once sell-many approach, that's basically all of non-custom software development. You shouldn't be charging for your time to learn, either. His 10 apps aren't worth $500,000 in any universe. Maybe you could argue that the entirety of the development was worth $50,000 and value each app at $5000. Maybe. I wouldn't argue that, but someone else could...
And that's all well and good, until you read the rest of the chain of events leading up to that. He had an app suspended, and was given a clear reason why ("The suspension email stated that I was trying to impersonate another company, and that this was forbidden"). Whether or not he agreed with the logic is immaterial. Then a second app gets suspended for the same reason. Any sane individual would take the rest down at this point. It's clear Google considered what he was doing a violation of their rules. But he just kept on trucking a long.
God had already sent him two boats, waiting for the helicopter is the act of a mad man.
"The app was simple. Launch it and it display the videos for a single YouTube channel. I made the app, and it was really nice and a pleasure to use."
I'm assuming his hourly rate is $50,000/hr. Did he do anything other than wrap the web page for the channel in a web view? I'm not familiar with Android, but on iOS, you can accomplish this without writing a single line of code, everything could be done inside Interface Builder. I can't imagine it's any more difficult on Android.
And if any web browser supported SRV records to do this properly, we wouldn't have an issue. You don't have to use mail.domain.com because MX records were created to solve this exact issue for mail servers. SRV records were a general purpose solution to the same problem.
Thank you! I get amazed every time the internet freaks out because XYZ Company confirms "blah", when in reality, it's just a single service rep, who probably just wants to get you off of the phone.
And I think that's where the confusion is. CarPlay doesn't "run on" QNX in the sense that QNX is the platform Apple chose to implement CarPlay. It's accurate to say iCloud "runs on" Azure, as the iCloud platform, at least partially, runs on Microsoft's Azure services. The QNX OS implements the car portion of the CarPlay protocol. Other OSes can also implement the car portion. CarPlay is a protocol, not software that runs on anything.
The title's implication is clearly that Apple is using BlackBerry tech for CarPlay, a very link-baity title. The reality is that QNX is able to implement CarPlay. A better title might be "Apple's CarPlay compatible with BlackBerry's QNX".
The title is hardly factual. It was a theory by the author that shows his misunderstanding of CarPlay, the update does not confirm his theory either. The in car entertainment system might run QNX, CarPlay is a protocol. It's not like Apple is designing the head unit.
CarPlay doesn't run anything. It's a protocol for iOS to talk to in car entertainment systems and controls. It's better to think of it as a specialized version of AirPlay for cars.
That's a bit of a false dichotomy, the implication that one of either vitalism or Soylent must be true. Of course, I'd say you're committing a bit of a straw-man fallacy by claiming that the author stated that.
Even if there were perfect competition, it doesn't matter much, people don't comparison shop for ERs. If you are having a heart attack, you're not in a position to compare prices at local hospitals.
On my MacBook Pro it's bad. The scrolling is jerky and doesn't feel right, like there's too much inertia and too much momentum, and you can't stop it once it's scrolling. On iOS there is to little momentum. There's also no point in it. Safari already scrolls web pages, why re-implement it in javascript? You're also losing new features OS X 10.9 does under the hood, like pre-rendering off-screen content to enable smooth 60fps scrolling. Let the OS do its job.
Especially since NiceScroll isn't very nice. The scrolling is jerky. Leave the OS defaults for scrolling. On OS X, there is an option to keep the scrollbar always visible, and the OS itself decides to do this if you don't have an input device capable of scrolling. Some janky 3rd party scroll library isn't going to know any of this information.
Why would you arrive before the light left? You could arrive at your destination before light from your source got there, so it would make phoning ahead to let them know you're on your way very difficult, but you wouldn't truly be in the past.
I think that's why you still move the ship forward within the warp bubble (to borrow a Star Trek term). So you're compressing space in front of you, while moving forward into the compressed space.
>"streams it directly to the Chromecast device from the cloud". So you are right about it being somewhat different from airPlay
AirPlay will send a URL to the Apple TV if possible. If you're streaming a video from a web page, it most likely will just send the URL to the Apple TV. The only communication with the device is the control channel.
> There doesn't need to be an OS or a UI for the Apple TV: your phone or tablet will be a better experience for typing and searching for content every time
I could not disagree more. I understand your point, and on an intellectual level, completely agree with it. However, I never used HBO Go until it showed up on my Apple TV. I have a Mac mini hooked up to my TV, but routinely use Netflix on the Apple TV. I would kill for a Plex app for the Apple TV, even though I have it running on the Mac mini, and have it set up to use a remote. I can't explain it, it just feels better.