...but what if the site I want to use uses it.
...but what if the site I want to use uses it.
It's not your responsibility to adapt the look of your page to the size of the browser window. If the browser is semi decent and you write proper HTML it'll just work everywhere. That's the whole idea behind HTML.
... and that's for portable, but not mobile computing. Essentially when you want to have a computer on a table where you have electricity, but you still want to be able to carry it around.
Essentially you want something like that in a rather rugged case, so it'll withstand some abuse. It doesn't matter how light or thick it is, as it won't be "carried around" with someone, but specifically carried from place A to B, probably as part of some larger setup.
For example this could take part in stage productions controlling the lights, or a video mixer.
However this form factor has one large disadvantage over the classical "portable" one. The keyboard is non-detachable. So you'll always have to be at a fixed distance to the screen. You move the keyboard independently of the rest of your computer. That's not very ergonomically.
My argument is that many programmers design needless complexity into things because they believe they can just "outsource" their problems.
For example people design systems with complex file formats they could not parse themselves, then they load a script interpreter which will parse it for them.... and as a side effect execute any code in that file.
If they would have chosen a simpler file format, a few lines of code would have been able to parse it perfectly well.
Also there is one particularly toxic way of code reuse and that's dynamically linked libraries. While those sound like a decent idea at first, in reality they have the big disadvantage of not only making your system a lot more brittle, but also increasing start-up times. Increased start-up times mean that, to use the functionality of another program you can no longer economically just start up that program to do you bidding as it would take far to long. Instead people now run things like TLS in a library running in the same memory space so that buffer overruns can simply read the keys and data of other connections or even the rest of your program.
So while code reuse has it's advantages, it can go terribly wrong when it's done wrong... and it's often done wrong.
After all there is no legal way to watch that show without giving away our basic freedoms of "Privaccy and Integrity of Information processing systems" as declared by the German constitutional court in 2008.
Offer it as a DRM-free downloadable copy and people will buy it in hordes.
Yes, particularly since running a "successful" business only requires a certain minimum level of "cleverness" and relies much more on business connections.
Just look at Research in Motion (aka Blackberry). That company is largely run by idiots which chase the iPhone and contradict their main claim (security) by cooperating with everybody on breaking their devices up to a point where they send your e-mail login data to a central server.
I may be wrong, but isn't it that systemd also depends on things like dbus?
And again the problem is the mindset. Even though it might be possible to run systemd in a sane way, distributions now package it with all sorts of crap. The opposition against systemd is not about systemd itself, it's about people who constantly try to re-invent the wheel while not having understood the problem or how to solve problems in general. Just look at alsa and pulseaudio which were both attempts at fixing the previous state of the art... and making it somewhat worse. (i.e. Alsa created unfathomable device names which were written differently in every application instead of the simple
In the spirit of "Do one thing and do it well", systemd's goal is "manage services and dependencies".
If it was it wouldn't include its own DNS server, or it's own timeserver, or it's own logging infrastructure.
The problem with systemd and the whole Freedesktop crowd is that they are trying to solve problems that do not exist anymore. For example you now have hugely complex systems just to make sure your soundcard will only be usable by users logged in locally. While this is, in theory, a great security benefit, most machines today are single user. So in effect it's lots of code that's useless at best and a potential security problem at worst.
Everybody goes through a phase where they think they can re-invent the world and design something cool and complex with the technologies they have just heard of. In the past only large companies could afford such an effort. Microsoft, for example, implemented many of the "new" ideas in Windows. This is why you have things like OLE with it's offspring of OLE automation, or a logging system nobody uses because it's essentially unusable. Windows being so unusable, particularly in the 1990s, was a big push for Linux for "serious" applications.
Now we have a new situation, it's "fancy" to have some work on a Open Source project on your CV, that's why there's a huge pressure for mediocre and bad developers to do something with Open Source. Those mostly are people who still having gone past their "coimplexity is good" phase and don't understand yet, that it's not a good idea to require 5 daemons in the background just to have a GUI running.
Ideally we should take a step back and look at what we _really_ need. Do we really have to have such a complex service management system? Shouldn't it be enough for a desktop system to just have a single shell script booting up X and the window manager and setting up the network? Why do we have a wireless subsystem that needs a "wpa-manager" just to set up the keys to encrypted networks? Why do we have a modem manager that reliably is unable to access your cellular card after a upgrade?
Have you ever tried to write your own minimalistic init-system? I once turned an old SuSE installation into an X-Terminal. It took a shell script of 5 lines and it booted in a few seconds... on an Pentium 90! You can get much faster if you cut all that crap you don't need.
It's a filter to filter out the people you don't want to have as employees. For example it constantly bugs you to give them your e-mail accounts so it can get your contacts!
... that their new movie is as good as "Manos Hands of Fate", or speaking English as good as "GÃ¼nther Ã-ttinger".
Seriously, _all_ mobile operating systems are shit when it comes to security. Android has the theoretical advantage that you can root it and hypothetically install iptables. That's not a lot, but it can help you to make sure your device only tries to talk to your server and not other servers.
Now if you live in a country where, for example, homosexuality is illegal, and you want to go to a "gay bar" you can't, because no cash means no way to anonymously pay for your drink.
The same goes for many other areas where people have opinions that may be illegal but not morally wrong.Cash is essential there.
It started right away with "big budget" devices. Devices that were hard to program and had to sell huge numbers to recover their investments. Those devices were then aimed at the "fitness tracker" market and nothing else. Not even displaying the time was a priority any more. Also screens have been to small compared to their sci-fi counterparts and nobody bothered about the input problem. In fact in order to use (=program) all of those computers you had to use a separate computer with a special development environment. Any idea you have for such a device will be eliminated by the frustrating experience of installing that environment and actually doing the programming. Also, since most of those devices run fully fledged bloated operating systems, they needed to recharge quite more often to be useful.
What we would need is a simple system centred around the software a digital watch would usually run, then add hooks to allow people to hook their own code to experiment with the system. This sort of "experimental phase with geeks" is rather important, but the modern smartwatch industry tried to skip it.
Fingerprints are something you own not something you know. It's much easier for the police to take things from you than to extract knowledge from you.
It's a bit weird to get through all that hassle as your fingerprints are probably on the phone itself. (or on a nearby object)
They had a "Java ring" which used that technology to communicate with others. That way you could exchange contact information just by shaking hands with someone.
In reality this isn't constrained to ones body, just like coaxial cables you do have a certain leakage to the outside.
Blinding speed can compensate for a lot of deficiencies. -- David Nichols