I have to agree on #7: it's pretty annoying, especially for series where there's both TV shows and movies related to them. For instance, The X-Files: there's 11 seasons of shows, but also 2 movies. A better example is Star Trek, with a bunch of different TV series, plus a bunch of various movies related to the different series.
You can put these into "collections", but it'd be nice if my library could just have a "Star_Trek" directory and then subdirectories with all those things inside, and have it automatically sorted out by JF.
I'm a huge FOSS bigot, but even I can admit that FOSS frequently has bad UI design. FOSS is usually great for getting the fundamentals of the software right, making it reliable etc., but software experts usually are not very good at UI design.
This isn't that important a feature most of the time, because you can just press the skip-ahead button and skip the next 30 seconds. You might see some of the intro, but big deal
There is one big exception though: if you're watching Star Trek: Enterprise. The "skip intro" feature is invaluable so you don't have to be subjected to that truly horrific opening song.
>OS companies (particularly microsoft, who maintains a chrome fork already) seem like a good bet.
Great, so we go right back to the days of IE6. No thanks.
>There are other browser companies (brave, opera, etc) who might be interested
These companies are viable because they get to outsource the bulk of the browser development and maintenance to Google for free. I don't think they can afford to buy and run the whole browser.
>There's a lot of software based on top of chrome (via electron)
This is honestly the best scenario I can see of all the discussion I've read about this, and I'm surprised I haven't seen it brought up before. Still, from what I read on Wikipedia, Electron was spun off from Github (owned by MS now) and is run by a foundation with a bunch of tech company members, so going from this to a whole for-profit company for something that is basically just an open-source wrapper over Chrome's engine seems unlikely.
>Are you remembering Windows Mobile? That sucked, but Windows Phone did not (and was famously built by a totally different team)
This seems to show another of MS's big problems in those days: too many different products doing the same thing, and a lack of focus. IIRC, they went from Windows Mobile to Windows Phone (version x) and then to Windows Phone (version y, totally incompatible with version x). Each time, this alienated 3rd-party developers because all the apps they wrote wouldn't work on the all-new platform.
Judging by the movies I've seen on international flights in the past few years, I think this is really unfair to inflight video. (i.e., the available movies were all highly-rated theater movies, not direct-to-video garbage.)
Perhaps a better description would be "even worse than Netflix originals"...
Anyway, the requirement is for determining if a photo was taken in a park or not. The resolution wasn't stated, however: just how accurate do we need to be? If I'm in a canoe in a river that borders a park, but the river isn't part of the park, but the shoreline a few meters away is, our algorithm might claim I'm in the park, when I'm really not. The requirement wasn't "somewhere near a park", but "in a park". Rivers change their courses over time, so some polygons aren't going to accurately describe this border.
Well I already pointed out that if you're within a couple meters of the boundary, you won't have good confidence because of this fact.
>and a park boundary is a well defined hard line polygon.
Is it? I'm no expert on parks, but surely some of them have borders along rivers. Many US states have such borders.
>Being close to the border changes nothing, I can just add a buffer outwards the park polygon to account for that.
That doesn't account for the 2m accuracy. What if I'm standing exactly 1m from the boundary when I take the photo? You have no idea if I'm really in the park or not from the GPS data.
I also have serious doubts about your 2m accuracy claim, based on personal experience. Maybe if you're standing in a wide-open desert with nothing around you, but anywhere else, the accuracy isn't that great, especially around buildings. GPS accuracy is terrible in cities.
You're not going to get 100% confidence with either problem. The GPS one might be easier to get high confidence with, but even here you have to worry about 1) the accuracy of the GPS coordinates from your camera/phone, which isn't that good, and 2) calculating the exact boundaries of the park from the public data. So you could probably calculate with nearly 100% confidence that you're, for example, within 5km of a park, but if you take the photo from a location close to the park's boundary, the confidence will go way down. If you're a meter or two from the boundary, forget it.
>threw their weight behind the Linux kernel (or if GNU is too restrictive
The GPL isn't too restrictive. Google has no issue with it on Android (which uses a modified Linux kernel). GPL doesn't mean you have to open-source everything, just the GPL components, which in the case of the Linux kernel, is just the kernel itself. MS already contributes a bunch of drivers (for their hypervisor) to the Linux kernel. They could easily make a Linux-based OS with their own proprietary crap on top if they wanted to.
>support for Android apps without emulation
They wouldn't need CPU-level emulation, but the API would need some kind of compatibility layer, similar to how WINE serves this purpose for Windows applications on Linux.
>Microsoft could build Windows on top of that POSIX kernel and provide a compatibility layer for NT calls and Win32 APIs.
They don't need to: they can just use WINE. They could improve that, or maybe fork it and add some proprietary parts like CodeWeavers does, or they could even just buy out CodeWeavers.
Don't Americans working in Saudi Arabia generally live in a large, separate compound, where they don't have to mingle with Saudi society and don't have to follow normal Saudi laws (like the dress code for women)? That's probably a little different from living in an embassy, which is just a single building.
>If you read the article, they were allowed to travel freely.
What good is that in North Korea? The whole country is basically a prison, and after what happened to Otto, anyone with any sense of self-preservation should want to avoid the place.
Orders? Diplomatic service (in the UK and other democratic nations) isn't part of the military; it's a civilian job. The guards might be soldiers, but the rest of the jobs aren't to my knowledge.
You can put these into "collections", but it'd be nice if my library could just have a "Star_Trek" directory and then subdirectories with all those things inside, and have it automatically sorted out by JF.