Slashdot Mirror

Wow *claps* congraz on finding a single comment that might make it seem like Apple did no wrong... thing is a single user comment doesn't equal fact. The reality is that, yes, this bug effected all smartphones. Problem is, only Apple didn't feel the need to patch it before the information about it went live. That means you have every iPhone that could have been attacked (and was ). Since this glitch didn't need the user to cause it, many people would have been left in the dark without knowing the problem (my iPhone died, don't know how...). This is the phone's OS's fault since it would execute code it received from the service provider blindly without confirming the actions contained inside. And from as untrusted a source as a randomly sent SMS.

From this article http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/28/hackers-iphone-apple-technology-security-hackers.html :

The new attacks, by contrast, can strike a phone without any action on the part of the user and are virtually unpreventable while the phone is powered on, according to Miller and Mulliner's research. And unlike the earlier exploits, Apple has inexplicably left them unpatched

Now this article makes mention of the hack being mentioned on Thursday, 2 days later. As mentioned in the article, Apple had known of this problem for more then a month, Apple didn't feel that it's user security was worth addressing until Aug 1st, 48 hours after it went live.

Now, phones where hacked, Apple could have prevent these issues but didn't. So much for having your freedoms taken away from your devices 'for your safety and security'.

If you want more iPhone issues that very well could have been from that hack, try these since they are all from that 48 time frame and all involve iPhones suddenly not working even though the user didn't do anything (signs of that hack in use, though thats the nature of massive computer problems, user doesn't know what went wrong, they know is just doesn't work anymore):

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2101313&tstart=5310

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2100562&tstart=5325

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2099898&tstart=5340

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2097626&tstart=5370

Of course I agree with that - I think either extreme is a ridiculous farce. With that in mind, however, Apple *has* demonstrated time and again that the "lack" of something initially (cf. Native iPhone SDK, copy & paste, and now multitasking) is usually because they are spending time "getting it right," for some value of "right" that they decide upon in the context of their design goals.

That's something that makes sense, but people very rarely actually say it that way.

It's unusual to see "Applications/multitasking/etc would be nice to have, but I can wait until they get them right". No, it's usually "You don't need applications/multitasking/etc", which instantly changes to "Applications/multitasking/etc are awesome" the moment it gets fixed.

As for your porn requirement, mobile.spankwire.com works great on my iPhone. Maybe you should check it out, plenty of free streaming porn, over 3G or WiFi. Perfect for that early morning wank when you just don't feel like walking over to the computer.

I was speaking about the applications. Personally not my kind of thing, but due to the complaints of "geekiness" about the other examples, I figured this one wouldn't have that problem.

The question was intended in the sense that I was asking if we can agree that there is no "one right tool" for all jobs and purposes, and that what is appropriate for your needs may not be universally appropriate for everyone else's needs.

You should read what you originally replied to, then. I wasn't talking about any specific product. The subject matter was something like "my issues with claims made by some apple fanboys". You can agree or disagree with that, but it's not a post about a tool, and in fact should be right or wrong independently of the actual characteristics of any products.

Forget about them.

It will help clear your head.

The numbers don't add up to pocket change - and deep down the geek knows it.

Nothing says "old school" like IRC chat - but CNET alone still logs 140,000 downloads of mIRC a week. For AVG and Avira the numbers rocket up to more than two million downloads a week each. Most popular Windows downloads

You can't upgrade the hard drive on an iMac without voiding the warranty.

Wrong. What a tired myth. I upgraded my iMac hard drive and had warranty service on the computer months later.

You need specialized tools to remove the screen,

Wrong, unless you want to contend a $2 Torx screwdriver is "specialized". http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10210484-17.html

and it's generally a pain in the ass.

One out of three isn't bad.

I do actually think so. These ISP's clear your traffic data and have gone to court to defend your privacy and won. Some mail providers do the same, and some utilize encryption so that they wouldn't even have access to your emails even if they needed to.

Apparently, the iPads have a tendency to easily overheat in the sun.

At least according to this report. Can't really say I disagree. Of the friends and family who do have jobs now, I think mine is the best. Maybe not in term of money, but certainly in a money-to-suckiness kind of way.

Astronauts play stars in NASA mission 'movie' posters: For every space shuttle mission since STS-96 in 1999, which was the first time a U.S. shuttle docked with the International Space Station, the Kennedy Space Center's graphics department has been creating some pretty cool (and kitschy) mission posters.

I know this response will get buried with all the other low-scoring items, but I just had to say: you're absolutely 100% right. I use macs because I have so many things better to do than fiddle with stuff that was poorly designed, implemented, and is incompatible with other similar stuff.

First, thanx for the kudos. I have been taking a lot of flak in this thread. It's nice to have an ally or two... ;-)

On your main point, above, there is an internet sig that sums this up nicely:

"Mac users work WITH their computer; Windows users work ON their computer."

The sad part for me is I talk to less-savvy people at work who really feel bad that their computer crashes, gets a virus, or they don't understand how to use a program, like it's their fault or they are ignorant / incapable. I try to shake them (figuratively) and say, it's not your fault that the junk was poorly designed in the first place! don't feel bad! We would all be better off if we held programmers and hardware makers to higher standards of usability, reliability, and interoperability.

You must be new here: The typical reply from most members of the Computer Priesthood is to snort derisively, and call them a "stupid n00b" for not being able to fix the problem in the source code and "simply recompile" the broken app.

Even though it has been over 25 years since Steve Jobs voiced his idea of "The computer as an Appliance" (a key thought behind the original Mac development), nearly zero percent of the /. crowd seems to get that concept.

As I have said in many, many comments on this site: For a site that is visited by some fairly High Priests of Computing, by and large, /.ers are some of the biggest computer luddites around.

Afterall, if enough people in just a couple of weeks (and who knows how many still in the queue!) can understand and appreciate what the iPad is REALLY all about (and it isn't feeding Jobs' ego by making your apps have to be approved!) enough to plunk down $500, $600, or $700 of their hard-earned cash SIGHT UNSEEN to sell 700,000 iPads, then why can't a similar number of the "technorati" understand it, too?

Sorry, but all those people CANNOT be under the spell of St. Jobs. It just doesn't work that way.

Apple relies entirely on their cult to fund its sales.

Well, decent products too. Not to mention killer marketing. Can any other company manage 8 stories on the front page of http://cnet.com/ as Apple has at the moment as well as front pages of CNN, BBC, New York Times etc etc, just because they released a tablet?

In Apples case it does it's own dirty work with out a shell company.

Currently Apple is suing HTC for copyright infringement over aspects of it's use of android. http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/03/02patents.html

All while Apple has been under suit for many of these same technology's. http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20001424-260.html

This is just one of the more blatant examples of Apple being evil and using litigation to pound on an opponent.

But if the Iphone is anything to go buy, the sad fact is that even if it's a niche product in the market, you'll still be here talking as if they're the market leader.

So you think that building to the #3 share (~14% of the smartphone market) in just 2 years, with a single product line (contrast with the multitude of RIM & Nokia devices) makes someone a "niche" player? That's an odd definition of niche.

Yes, there are normal users who only care about being hip, but plenty of normal users do care about features too - if you really think otherwise, then you are the one suffering from a typical geek fallacy.

Of course "normal users" care about features. They care about iphone features like: "easy to use," "has the functionality I want," "simple to load apps on," and yes, even "looks pretty." Geeks here get awful frothy about: "Openness," "multitasking," "cut & paste," and "tethering." This is not to say that geeks don't care about some of the same things as "normal users," but it is not a device that is intended to be your one-stop all-purpose whiz-bang science fiction wet dream.

Geeks are used to being catered to when it comes to gadgets. My personal belief is that they get so off-the-rails upset about Apple products because the new products are generally sexy-looking new pieces of kit that they lust after, and Apple just doesn't care whether or not they like it, because (and here's the rub) the geeks are not the target market for this sexy-looking new gadget.

"People that email you don't get added to your contact list unless you reply to them, never have."

*sigh* If you're going to respond to a post could you please read the entire post?

I never claimed people that email get added to your follow list even if you don't respond to them. I claimed that, at least at launch, you could get added to the follow list of people who emailed you even if you never responded to them. The list of people you are following and the list of people following you are entirely distinct. It's impossible to prove if that was actually the case now since Google has made so many changes to the privacy settings between then and now, but enough people claimed it that I'm willing to believe it. However even if it isn't true the fact that it would auto-follow people based on a single email, regardless of the contents, is bad enough by itself.

"Anyone who has 'leaked' information didn't fucking say no. They opted in and were too stupid to read the message they clicked yes to."

First of all, a lot of people reported that they had followers added to their profiles before they even signed up for Buzz. Again it's impossible to prove one way or the other now, but it was reported by enough people that I'm willing to believe it, given how many other things Google verifiably screwed up in the launch.

And again, even if that turns out to be false, the fact that they urged people to try it out and then provided no easy way to turn it off is bad enough just by itself.

Google didn't advertise exactly what it was actually going to do if you tried Buzz out, and i personally know a couple people who when they found out were frantic to turn a lot of the options off. Luckily none of those people risked anything more than personal embarrassment if people started going through their (now public) contacts and started putting two and two together, not like the smaller minority that faced potentially more serious consequences.

If that was Google "trying to be nice" then they've got some serious problems with relating to people in the real world. The "so few" minority was enough to drive articles about the lack of privacy in Buzz to the top of several of my news feeds for most of a week, and Google was really damn quick to start back-pedaling (though not so quick with the actual apologies.) I've actually got a number of friends working at Google, and none of them were able to come up with a good defense or even a good explanation for most of the decisions made regarding the initial roll-out of Buzz.

>Ask any drone in a large company, Open Source is bad news because there are law suits against it.
There are lawsuits against every mega-tech company too.

IBM http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/mainframe-blog/ibm-faces-another-anti-trust-lawsuit-in-europe-over-mainframe-practices/

Microsoft http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-20000597-75.html

Oracle http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201003291158dowjonesdjonline000278&title=rimini-street-files-countersuit-against-oracle

Lawsuits are practically a standard expense for most of these companies.

BTW, I'm referring to shady link-baiting stories like these:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=32470
http://gizmodo.com/5505682/how-adobe-and-google-are-making-sure-flash-will-never-die
http://www.fool.com/investing/high-growth/2010/03/30/is-this-googles-sneak-attack-on-apple.aspx
http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/30/chrome-os-flash/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/30/google_integrates_flash_with_chrome/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20001429-264.html

Firefox 3.6.2 addresses critical vulnerability

Opera vunerability that the company denies is a vunerability

You're better off running Chrome.

This holiday season. http://ces.cnet.com/8301-31045_1-10427280-269.html

Those settings are complicated And even now I can't hide 1) my friends list from the public

Just for reference, I think I managed that one based on these instructions: http://news.cnet.com/8301-19518_3-10416524-238.html

Since the biggest Toyota runaway story has turned out to be a problem exists between seat and pedals situation... is this all hype with no science behind it?

And this happen only with Toyota? This would imply one of three things:
-People who buy Toyotas are worse drivers than other makes.
-Toyota has human engineering flaws which make them hard to control.
-There is really a flaw and behavior of expert drivers testing doesn't trigger it.

Hint:Steve Wozniack, co-founder of Apple, says it's software and he can demonstrate the flaw with his Prius on demand.

It's been scientifically tested and found to be true, despite what "common sense" may say. The difference is, of course, that when you're drunk you're drunk the whole time you're driving, while most people onlt talk on the phone for a minute or two.

Cell phones as dangerous as drunk driving
www.lps.uci.edu/SSHonors/HFES2006.pdf

Yup, we do.

Here's one from last year.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10268282-38.html

Actually legally we don't and if they refuse to hire you because you refuse to give them your information it can become a very large headache for them if you have any motivation. They can ask to see your page but in no way shape or form do they have any right to ask you for your screen name and passwords!! It is flat out completely and totally against the law and when you "sign" your agreement with the site you joined part of the disclaimer is that you do not share your screen name and password with anyone nor are you to let anyone access your account.

Just a point of correction, it's been made free (as in beer) until the end of 2015. I do agree that using a codec that will eventually cost money seems like a terrible idea however. Unfortunately it's a matter of convincing the majority of browser makers and sites like YouTube of that; otherwise without H.264 support FireFox will be irrelevant long before the cost of the codec becomes an issue.

Yup, we do.

Here's one from last year.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10268282-38.html

They want username AND passwords? Unbelievable. What possible use could they have for the password unless they want to commit identity theft. Sorry, but that's going to be a TOS violation and is definitely the stupidest thing I've read all day... FB could probably make a case against them for unauthorized access to FBs computer systems. This is like the idiot school officials peeping kids with school laptop cams. It's pretty clear that control freaks are invariably the stupidest people alive. How do these morons even get jobs where they are in a position to manage/hire other people?

Was thinking of http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/fbi-spyware-pro/ and
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9920665-7.html

Yup, we do.

Here's one from last year.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10268282-38.html

An unrelated, but also interesting trend is that of technical book sales - have a look, and notice how rapidly Java in particular is falling.

It is not clear from that picture, are they books about the Java _language_? Because that is not surprising -- the language have not changed much for years. A lot of books produced however (at least my library is full of them and still growing) about frameworks, libraries, etc that use Java.

I thought that "Operation Aurora" proved that the Chinese government wasn't satisfied with censorship; they want to use every company as a means of tracking down undesirable members of society. Microsoft, through their recent statements, seems to be implicitly accepting China's methods and goals.

Oh, and IBM didn't build gas chambers. They (quoting Wikipedia, quoting "IBM and the Holocaust", by Edwin Black) "[helped] the Nazis organize and coordinate their efforts toward gathering and organizing all available information about their victims." They built the infrastructure the Third Reich wanted, capable of tracking millions of people, and as a result were quite instrumental in the ensuing holocaust.

You can read more about the book here and here.

Blizzard actively (some would complain not actively enough) pursues gold farmers and cheaters. In my opinion their suit against the Glider tool proved very effectively that we have very little rights to run what we choose on our own computers in certain circumstances. They won the suit and the TOS was upheld in a court of law.

It will be much harder if you realize that the ads are not served by the content creators, but by thirth party servers (like google and yahoo).

You can fix that, but don't forget that advertisers do some real strange Stuff you really do not want to integegrate that in your reputable website.

As long as adblockers stay under a certain threshold you do not want to spend the time to block them, you need enhoug time filtering out the ads that get really annoying (popovers YOUR content, sounds, high cpu usage flash content, NSFW stuff).

facebook could fight content filters, but might loose that technological battle.

and hey, Fluff Busting Purity only got a letter, i don't see anything beyond that at this moment.

I'm beginning to think that everything will one day stream Netflix. It would be nice if Netflix would concentrate less on getting their service on my refrigerator and more on expanding their selection of movies and shows available for streaming. It doesn't seem to have improved all that much since the service started.

Because selection is dependent on the content providers and not technological limitations, which is far as I can tell are much easier to overcome. However, they have been working quite hard at improving their streaming selection http://criterioncast.com/2009/12/21/criterion-on-netflix/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-10426792-261.html

Again, you need to compare C# + VB.NET to get a meaningful comparison of .NET vs Java.

And if you want to count Groovy and Scala, sure - but then let's also count Boo and F#.

Oh, and the link is from 2006. Here is a newer comparison, from 2009 (though they don't give the methodology they used to determine what ".NET" is). Still shows Java roughly 1.5x ahead in terms of job count, which isn't surprising, considering the head start.

Salary distribution is more interesting. It shows that .NET salary distribution is skewed more towards lower pay, while Java spikes at a higher rate. This also produces an average salary disparsity. Overall, I'd take it to mean what I wrote previously - that .NET has more people in it who are new to this whole programming thing, while Java has more senior devs that specialize in the platform.

Here is a job trend graph for a typical job search web site. Notice how both C# and VB on themselves, and even combined, are way below Java, but .NET is above. Just goes to show how many job postings specify ".NET" without detailing the language...

An unrelated, but also interesting trend is that of technical book sales - have a look, and notice how rapidly Java in particular is falling.

Then also there are studies like this one - but I'm not sure what to look at there, since they don't give neither their sources nor methodology, so the numbers could all just as well be conjured from thin air.

reply to self - go figure.. I tried to dig up some more information on the old service.. and somewhere buried among the google hits:
http://www.cnet.com/techtracker/

Which sounds like it does what the old app did... except you now need a CNet account to see the results? *sigh*
Some posts in the forum for it ( http://forums.cnet.com/techtracker-forum/ ) seem to indicate some possible issues as well.

reply to self - go figure.. I tried to dig up some more information on the old service.. and somewhere buried among the google hits:
http://www.cnet.com/techtracker/

Which sounds like it does what the old app did... except you now need a CNet account to see the results? *sigh*
Some posts in the forum for it ( http://forums.cnet.com/techtracker-forum/ ) seem to indicate some possible issues as well.

Until Page and Brin lose control of Google by selling off their shares. Afterwords it'll be in control of the board. Does anyone think an executive board would turn down the potential business in China for something as trivial as free speech?

I'd love to see the next version of windows released on a USB thumb drive. I own one external usb DVD player for OS installs and that's it. It feels very 1995 to still be installing my OS from optical media.

It is.

(FWIW installing Linux from USB is, if anything, even more straightforward.)

That's why I don't think CDs are relevant to me. I didn't go out and do a market analysis study before I posted to /., so that's why I qualified my statement with "I'm not sure that..." ...

But you didn't state it is not relevant *TO YOU* you stated it was not relevant *AT ALL*.

Not to be pedantic about it, but I stated that I wasn't sure that CDs are still a relevant media today. not that they aren't relevant.

You next follow up with a second statement saying I'm not sure I'd call CDs relevant still." (I assume that this is where your claim that this is your opinion comes from). Followed by another inaccurate statement about solid state media (solid state does not even have a single percentage point in the market yet).

Fair enough; I really am guilty of lumping "solid state" media in with hard drives. I didn't mean to, but I kindof forgot that most iPods aren't flash-based. I probably should have said "user-writeable" media.

I have no idea on figures, but I have to assume if you added up all the storage on iPods and flash-based mp3 players that it would be more than 1% of the market, though. Granted, a lot of iPods have tiny hard drives in them, not solid state storage. I also meant to include hard drives in home media servers and NAS solutions, as well, just to give a better idea of where I was coming from.

I'm not sure I'd call CDs relevant still. We've moved on to solid state media, writeable storage decoupled from the content. You could discount 8-track tapes and they wouldn't sell today.

I should also mention that they DO still sell 8 tracks:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10287864-1.html

I dunno, I think that article does more to support my case than it does the case that 8-tracks still would sell if they were discounted. The Cheap Trick album is $30 on 8-track format, which is by far the most expensive way to purchase the album. I'd really love to see the total sales figures for that album, broken down by format.

Also, that cnet article mentions that "major labels" stopped producing the format in 1988, but that "entrepreneurial souls" have kept making them. Basically, it's indeed a dead format, and a tiny number of 8-track fetishists are keeping it alive in niches. Just like there are people who own and maintain Model T's.

Even the cnet editors admit they didn't know the 8-track format was still offered. Which, it isn't really -- try ordering a major label release on 8-track from a mainstream retailer. Except for one Cheap Trick album and whatever the aforementioned "entrepreneurial souls" are putting out, you won't find any for sale anywhere.

When you describe someone as a "soul" it kindof connotes "dead" to me, though;)

Lastly I would disagree with the premise that the CD is dieing. It will be here for the next 10-20 years.

I don't actually disagree with that -- CDs will be around as long as there are players. As long as DVD and Blu Ray players exist, they'll likely continue to support reading/writing CDs. And if the next format after Blu Ray is the same size spinning laser-read disc, I bet CDs will be playable and writeable on it, too.

So at the very least all the zillions of CDs that exist will be playable, and the format will certainly not die in that sense.

Not dying is not the same as remaining relevant, though. What counts as relevant is probably a matter of debate, and if the 55% figure is accurate perhaps I'm a bit ahead of my time in saying it yet, but to me it's pretty clear that the future is network distribution, not physical distribution.

I should point out, I have zero plans to buy a Blu Ray player for watching movies. I may or may not get one in my next computer, but if I do it'll likely be due to it being

That's why I don't think CDs are relevant to me. I didn't go out and do a market analysis study before I posted to /., so that's why I qualified my statement with "I'm not sure that..." ...

But you didn't state it is not relevant *TO YOU* you stated it was not relevant *AT ALL*.

This would have been a great strategy for the late 1990's, when the CD was still a relevant media (and, for that matter, when consumers were demanding that prices be lowered, both through their words and through their actions -- which the industry by and large ignored completely).

If you want to make large generalized statements, then expect to people to point out you are wrong. In this case all you had to do was do a google search of the issue and read any of the articles. Your first sentience is a broad generalized statement, that also happens to be untrue.

You next follow up with a second statement saying I'm not sure I'd call CDs relevant still." (I assume that this is where your claim that this is your opinion comes from). Followed by another inaccurate statement about solid state media (solid state does not even have a single percentage point in the market yet).

I'm not sure I'd call CDs relevant still. We've moved on to solid state media, writeable storage decoupled from the content. You could discount 8-track tapes and they wouldn't sell today.

I should also mention that they DO still sell 8 tracks:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10287864-1.html

Lastly I would disagree with the premise that the CD is dieing. It will be here for the next 10-20 years. Why? Because there is no replacement to the physical format. When we DO have a replacement format that is as easy to use as the CD then it will be replaced, but not before.

I don't mean to say you should not share your feelings or opinions. However when you enter into a public debate using incorrect information that is your own fault. The statement that *you think* that the format is dieing and no longer relevant to you (and to many others I assume you point would be) is entirely valid. The change from the *for you* to *for everyone* however is one of those dangerous statements that speakers such as Joseph McCarthy and former Governor Palin use when they didn't bother to inform themselves. It is a tool to win a debate without having accuracy or truth on your side.

I also want to be clear that I am not trying to associate you with either of those extreme examples. I just find the use of such "opinion-as-fact" tactics morally repugnant. (Even when used by accident, which is what I assume happened here.)

I do apologize about the being-a-dick part, that was probably uncalled for.

Clearly it isn't Intel over AMD, it could support both Intel VT and AMD-V. Don't throw out the hate without justification!

I think the claimed Intel/AMD distinction is not about which particular set of visualization helper modes were supported - it is about the differences in general availability of the features between the manufacturers. I think *all* recent AMD chips have the relevant support, whereas Intel are still segmenting their market by putting out chips both with and without - see http://news.cnet.com/some-intel-chips-dont-support-windows-7-xp-mode/ for one example of this being discussed.

We just saw this. And USAA has an app for that.

Does anyone care to explain to me how it is possible that doing such a thing is more cost effective than just purchasing stuff already on the market in bulk? I've been wondering it for years after seeing this.

Really?

Buying in Qty affords the buyer the ability to customize the items.

As I recall from a presentation about the servers at Google, while they are based on off-the-shelf items, most elements are customized - for example, the power supplies are built to runn of DC, simplifying the design and lowere electrical costs. They specify MB with very few on-board options, emphasising processor and RAM capacity, but ignoring USB, video, sound, other things usually included in consumer MBs.

Here is a link to an article on what appears to be the same generation "google server" your photos show - the text describes design choices made to produce highly-efficient compute clusters:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10209580-92.html

Now that they're doing this for mp3 players (and I'm sure, PMPs in general),

This isn't new at all, they're just trying harder to legalize it. I paid a levy on my iPod Mini in 2004. It was later refunded when the levy was overturned.
http://news.cnet.com/No-iPod-tax-for-Canada/2100-1041_3-5809117.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/17/canada_ipod_tax_illegal/

Then they tried again in 2007.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/07/copyright-board-of-canada-gives-thumbs-up-to-ipod-tax.ars
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/01/ipod-tax-smacked-down-in-canada.ars

So it's on about a three year cycle.

Google's servers have been much discussed... they are standard (but some things are not populated) and they have an on board battery to act as a UPS.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10209580-92.html

How many
http://news.cnet.com/No-iPod-tax-for-Canada/2100-1041_3-5809117.html
times
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=235987
are they going to try and bring this tax in? This has to be the 3rd or 4th time this has come up.

Actually, you get more detail from color saturation than from raw resolution - counterintuitive perhaps, but true.

Many people claiming greater detail on their 1080p sets may be sitting beyond the resolution point for their eyes - but - the newer set may have superior color, and if transitioning from SD to HDTV (specifically, going above CRT tech), is likely to not have convergence issues.

Add to that the fact that the seating charts spec'd by the SMPTE is an excellent guideline, it's not the bible. Try a test card and see for yourself - you may be seeing much better or much worse than that chart suggests.

I can't find the original ISF statement, but here are two derivative sources:

http://www.cnet.com/hdtv-resolution/

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter

The stated claim is that the order of importance is: contrast, color saturation, color accuracy and finally - actual pixel-resolution.

One thing that any TV engineer will tell you: you'll see more detail on a TV with excellent color and medium resolution than you will with a TV with so-so color and excellent, high resolution.

Counter-intuitive or not - I know this to be true. I'd actually had a case of watching an SD show where I was certain it was HD - but it was just a case of excellent color. The detail was astounding.

Therefore - another reason that many consumers may be liking 1080p sets could simply be that as these HDTVs improve, they're improving on all fronts - not just resolution.

Thus 90% of people that own a 1080p set cant see that it's any better than a 480p set. and this is why a regular DVD looks as good as a BluRay to most people.

I'd say that 90% of the people that can't see the difference between good and bad sources either have lousy HDTVs (read: "hahaha, I don't black is important" or "tech X is by definition superior tech Y" fanbois) or don't have them set up anywhere close to right ("my TV is calibrated - I set it to what I found on the internet!").

Or they watch lousy movies or have bad eyesight.

The last one's particularly hilarious among HDTV fanbois. After all, everyone is *entitled* to good eyesight, so everyone has it and you're an elitist if you say differently.

Otherwise, I totally agree in principle with what you're saying (sincerely) - just wanted to add a caveat and some spin. Cheers.

When we face a choice between adding features and resolving security issues, we need to choose security.

- Bill Gates, January 16, 2002 .

If Microsoft really wanted to kill IE6, they would make IE9 run on XP. They just made it very clear they won't do that.

OP here. Sorry I have to respond to this...

Is that why they have developed the best mobile browser to date?

You mean the *only* browser to date for the iPhone? And why is it the best? Because Apple says so and won't give you any alternatives? Unlike the webkit-based browser on Android, which can be replaced by downloading any other browser you feel like?

Pushing HTML5 instead of Flash? Contributing to webkit?

You think this is to embrace open standards or to reject Adobe's (non-Apple) standards?

You can write any application you want for the iPhone and iPad, as well, using the exact same environment.

You neglect to mention that if you want other phones to use it, you need to go through Apple's approval process, after forking out a fee and agreeing to a NDA.

The only question is whether or not you're going to be able to distribute it in the App Store.

The only question is not whether or not you are able to distribute it in the App Store but whether you can distribute it at all. The app store is the only way to do it, the only game in town on that platform. It's none of Apple's business (literally, as I am voting with my $ and my voice) what I run on my phone.

- Criticism #1: What, no native apps, only web apps? Solved in OS 2.0.

After hackers made it possible.

- Criticism #2: What, no copy and paste? Solved in OS 3.0.

Long after Android had it.

- Criticisms #3 and #4. Now Android is picking up steam. What are the primary advantages people name for Android? Multi-tasking and an open marketplace.

Open marketplace and multitasking are but a few. Open development of the OS is a major major advantage. So are multi-platform development tools, a better interface, etc etc.

The iPad is a slap in the face to what Apple is supposed to stand for. This isn't the kind of Different Thinking we need. I get why they chose the iPhone OS-- iphone apps are already touchpad-friendly. But they need to do a reversal of their policies on their extreme full control of the machine. When they do that, I'll stop complaining.

everybody seems to forget that Apple is doing exactly what the slashdot community rallied against Microsoft for doing

Microsoft was sued by 20 State Attorneys General for violating antitrust laws. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-238758.html

I don't think there's much of a comparison between Apple and Microsoft.

Don't other companies call that position 'Evangelist?'

Evangelists preach to developers, advocates listen to them. Since Google basically gives away most of its tools and platforms, it does make rather more sense to ask developers what they want, rather than tell them.

Just so nobody doubts my Google-skeptic creds: Google can afford to do this because they make so much money off their ad revenues they can afford to run almost every other business at a loss with profits postponed to an extremely hypothetical future. And even so, their stockholders would never stand for it — if they had any say in the matter.

There is software for your iPhone (about $400 also) that can turn it into a hearing aid. It is called SoundAMP and costs $10 http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19512_7-10281062-233.html