mattstocum

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.

No, resetting PRAM is triggered by holding down command-option-P-R. This was a special step that was required specifically for firmware updates.

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.

He was warned. Repeatedly. What the hell else did he want? An overt act of divine intervention?

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.

I'm wondering the same thing...

The author of the article clearly is confused over what's going on.

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".