No, I mean like the Treo, exactly as I wrote before. The screen was 320x320, it had a chiclet keyboard, and did not come with Graffiti.
So I looked it up, and the highest-resolution Tungsten device was at 320 x 480 and now median phones are 720p, the display was only TFT and now phones are starting to be OLED, and the screen was 3.7" while modern phones are 4-5". The specs of the best Tungsten phone were beaten by feature phones some years ago.
Yes. I didn't say it was high-resolution did I? But it has only been a relative few years that smartphones have had screens bigger than about 3.5". THAT'S MY POINT. Where's the argument?
We did, and no, Palm's 3.7 inch display with almost no dots and also very few colors by modern standards was not comparable to a modern smartphone display. Not even a cheap one.
No, we didn't. Not until a few years ago. Nothing you are saying (except that) has contradicted my point in any way. Size of the screen does matter, even if the resolution was not stellar.
I'll repeat my point since you don't seem to have gotten it: they shrunk the screen (compared to most Tungstens), added the Blackberry-style keyboard, and ditched the handwriting input. In other words, they were competing with THE OTHER CELL PHONE MAKERS of the day, rather than marketing the things that made Palm unique. They could have simply added a phone and left everything else alone.
I didn't try to claim the resolutions were the same as today. That would be ridiculous.
Google has been ever-more pissing me off with its "sponsored" results in which I am almost never interested... I have to go further down the page to get the things I want.
Related to this: Google's recent proposal to post "truthy" results before others. Just no. I don't want or need a nanny-search. I'll judge the results for myself.
As far as I am concerned, results "filtered" or sorted according to Google's idea of "truth" is little more than a rather transparent effort toward censorship.
And here's where you go straight off the rails. See, space curved there. In specifics, the PDA market went away, and was replaced by the smartphone market.
Nonsense. Palm had the Tungsten. It was a perfectly good color handheld, with color touchscreen as big as a modern smartphone. I used to play Bejeweled on my Tungsten and IMO it was just about as good as Bejeweled 3 is on the desktop now.
Then came the Treo... their smartphone. They reduced the size of the screen to 1/2 or even less of what it had been before, added chicklet-style keyboard ala Blackberry, and dropped the Graffiti written input.
In other words, they were trying to copy Blackberry. They dropped the things that made them truly unique: a full-size color touchscreen, and Graffiti.
Now, finally, we have smartphones that match or best the Tungsten's color screen in size and resolution. We could have had that many years ago, if Palm had simply added a phone to their existing device, and left the rest alone.
I see, they have added it as yet another app in the app store, not open source, and I guess requiring to have google apps installed. I don't need shit like that.
Wow! We're back to what Palm did quite well 15 years ago! How wonderful!
Fact is, Palm had it made. The OS had shortcomings but they had a mini-computer in a handheld device, with adequate handwriting recognition.
They threw it all away to compete in the "mainstream" cell phone business, and producing "mainstream" cell phones, giving up all that made them unique at the time. What a waste.
Hint to future Palms: don't give up what you're good at, in order to compete in a market that is already doing all that other stuff, better.
I'll lose all my mod points I handed out, but does anyone think it a bit "creepy" when someone uses the term "our leader"? Seems a bit nationalistic.
I wouldn't even call it "nationalistic". This is America, in which the citizen is sovereign.
I don't know about anyone else, but Barack Obama is about the farthest thing from MY "leader". In my honest opinion he has been a tremendous lesson in how NOT to be a good example of leadership.
(1) Because a bomb landing on the White House lawn that was realistically large enough to physically harm the President (or the building), would be enormous.
Think inverse-square law. That's not exactly it, but it gives you an idea.
You do realize that every plant manufactures its own pesticides, right?
You and the other earlier poster are missing the point. Or at the very least, a large part of it.
"Roundup-Ready" crops were supposed to REDUCE the use of pesticides. Instead, the practical effect is that it has ENABLED more use of glyphosate. As a real result, the use of glyphosate and the level of glyphosate in some food products has multiplied.
These are "perverse consequences". As another poster mentioned, there has been "voluntary" passing of the glyphosate-resistant gene to what are normally considered noxious weeds, meaning its widespread use is probably self-defeating, in exactly the same sense as over-use of antibiotics.
To say that GMO foods are "safe" therefore is naive at best.
While it may be true that this guy was "literally flying under the radar", that phrase gives a very misleading impression: the impression that he was trying to sneak up on them.
Quite the contrary. He sent them a message a full hour in advance, saying that they should expect him.
So while it might have been "literally" under the radar, it wasn't figuratively under the radar. The White House knew he was coming and expected him. That being the case, they don't get to say they were surprised by his arrival, or imply that he was any kind of serious threat. If they were surprised at all, it was nobody's fault but their own.
It's a trivial result and just what you'd expect by chance, but it does drive the point home that you can't rely on p-values alone if you're testing multiple hypotheses.
On the other hand, TFA is proposing to replace this with Bayesian probabilities, which are likely even less understood, even more abused, and it could open the door to subjectivism.
Unless/until all connections (including power) are wireless, you'll never have a 1mm cube "computer". There's no way to fit all your I/O and power input, in that much space. Where do you plug in the keyboard?
I wouldn't doubt thaht the NSA has broken iPhone's encryption.
This proposal by NSA mirrors the Clipper Chip/Skipjack + Key Escrow system proposed back in the early 90s. People didn't trust the government with their keys THEN... why the hell should they do so NOW, given that government intrusion into our lives has only increased in the interim?
Unlike the 90s, by now they have proved they can't be trusted.
I'm surprised the USA makes advanced computer chips. I thought all that stuff was exported to Asia years ago.
Don't be ridiculous. Asia has made good on cheap manufacturing, but the majority of design AND cutting-edge fab is done in U.S. and Europe.
Intel should not have been allowed in the first place; it is a surprise to me that they have only been blocked now. There is a thin but very definite line between simple international commerce and treason.
Kids need to learn the consequences of embarrassing powerful people. That is one of the golden rules of modern society; thou shalt not embarrass thy superiors. Snowden forgot that, and this little punk forgot that.
Are you for real? It is hard to tell whether this is sarcasm, but I suspect that it is.
You respect your betters, or you get tossed in a cage. That's the law. Ingrain that into your kid's brains before puberty hits, or they will wind up in a cage too.
There are no "betters", in America. Hell, I had a very hard time trying to teach my British manager that, way back when. He felt justified in taking credit for my work, because he was a manager and a "better".
Haha.
But again, that's sarcasm. Here's what I actually suggest: pretend to respect your "betters", because in fact that's all they require: the facade. Then when they're not looking, prove they're not "better".
I don't mean backstabbing. I mean frontstabbing. Make the truth plain to all.
Anybody. Just get a.sucks domain and create a.sucks.sucks subdomain. Hell, you don't even have to know how to build a website to use cPanel or similar.
BINGO! And I see I'm not the only one suspicious of her bizarre excuse for refusing to negotiate.
I'm of divided mind. I think she might actually be sincere but misguided. It seems like it must be one of the two. I think that we can agree that either way, it won't result in overall advantage for the employees, women or not.
I wonder if she will also propose that from now on, all employees will get the same raises.
We are talking about a simple number. One party wants to maximize it, the other minimize. There isn't any room for anything except a game of chicken there.
Nonsense. What we're talking about here is supposed to be a labor MARKET. In a market, people negotiate for prices. That's how markets get "price signals" that allow them to find the proper balance between supply and demand.
Pao wants to make it a "take it or leave it" deal, with the result, as one GP said, that the "price" will almost surely go down across the board over time.
No thanks.
Or they can take advantage of their vastly stronger position and simply refuse to indulge the candidates. Sure, they might miss out on "top talent", but it doesn't take that to maintain a message board.
While you have a point about message boards, again the result of not playing in the market is (which you have given kind of a sideways nod to): you will end up with lesser quality employees.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, you mean like the Tungsten C?
No, I mean like the Treo, exactly as I wrote before. The screen was 320x320, it had a chiclet keyboard, and did not come with Graffiti.
So I looked it up, and the highest-resolution Tungsten device was at 320 x 480 and now median phones are 720p, the display was only TFT and now phones are starting to be OLED, and the screen was 3.7" while modern phones are 4-5". The specs of the best Tungsten phone were beaten by feature phones some years ago.
Yes. I didn't say it was high-resolution did I? But it has only been a relative few years that smartphones have had screens bigger than about 3.5". THAT'S MY POINT. Where's the argument?
We did, and no, Palm's 3.7 inch display with almost no dots and also very few colors by modern standards was not comparable to a modern smartphone display. Not even a cheap one.
No, we didn't. Not until a few years ago. Nothing you are saying (except that) has contradicted my point in any way. Size of the screen does matter, even if the resolution was not stellar.
I'll repeat my point since you don't seem to have gotten it: they shrunk the screen (compared to most Tungstens), added the Blackberry-style keyboard, and ditched the handwriting input. In other words, they were competing with THE OTHER CELL PHONE MAKERS of the day, rather than marketing the things that made Palm unique. They could have simply added a phone and left everything else alone.
I didn't try to claim the resolutions were the same as today. That would be ridiculous.
Google has been ever-more pissing me off with its "sponsored" results in which I am almost never interested... I have to go further down the page to get the things I want.
Related to this: Google's recent proposal to post "truthy" results before others. Just no. I don't want or need a nanny-search. I'll judge the results for myself.
As far as I am concerned, results "filtered" or sorted according to Google's idea of "truth" is little more than a rather transparent effort toward censorship.
If there were millions of users, how much would it COST to keep it operational? Figure that out, then add some reasonable profit percentage. Win-win.
Do you think you could run an operation like that for around $3.5M a year, given 1M users? Great. Charge $5 per year per user. I'd pay it.
In the U.S., women are 50.8% of the population. I'd hardly call that a minority.
And here's where you go straight off the rails. See, space curved there. In specifics, the PDA market went away, and was replaced by the smartphone market.
Nonsense. Palm had the Tungsten. It was a perfectly good color handheld, with color touchscreen as big as a modern smartphone. I used to play Bejeweled on my Tungsten and IMO it was just about as good as Bejeweled 3 is on the desktop now.
Then came the Treo... their smartphone. They reduced the size of the screen to 1/2 or even less of what it had been before, added chicklet-style keyboard ala Blackberry, and dropped the Graffiti written input.
In other words, they were trying to copy Blackberry. They dropped the things that made them truly unique: a full-size color touchscreen, and Graffiti.
Now, finally, we have smartphones that match or best the Tungsten's color screen in size and resolution. We could have had that many years ago, if Palm had simply added a phone to their existing device, and left the rest alone.
I see, they have added it as yet another app in the app store, not open source, and I guess requiring to have google apps installed. I don't need shit like that.
Wow! We're back to what Palm did quite well 15 years ago! How wonderful!
Fact is, Palm had it made. The OS had shortcomings but they had a mini-computer in a handheld device, with adequate handwriting recognition.
They threw it all away to compete in the "mainstream" cell phone business, and producing "mainstream" cell phones, giving up all that made them unique at the time. What a waste.
Hint to future Palms: don't give up what you're good at, in order to compete in a market that is already doing all that other stuff, better.
Yeah, I'm in the Secret Service, and I'll just let good ol' Pres handle his own affairs while I'm on the shitter.
I'll lose all my mod points I handed out, but does anyone think it a bit "creepy" when someone uses the term "our leader"? Seems a bit nationalistic.
I wouldn't even call it "nationalistic". This is America, in which the citizen is sovereign.
I don't know about anyone else, but Barack Obama is about the farthest thing from MY "leader". In my honest opinion he has been a tremendous lesson in how NOT to be a good example of leadership.
You do make a good point. I didn't remember the email address, thought it was info@whitehouse.gov.
info@barackobama.com should not be expected to reach anyone of consequence, even if it went straight to the President's desk.
"One possible replacement that might fit the bill is a rival approach of data analysis called Bayesianism."
I did not mean to suggest it was the only alternative offered. But it was one, and I didn't see enough discussion of its shortcomings for my taste.
(1) Because a bomb landing on the White House lawn that was realistically large enough to physically harm the President (or the building), would be enormous.
Think inverse-square law. That's not exactly it, but it gives you an idea.
You're both right.
Of course people only go to the support forum to complain. That's what it's for.
On the other hand, the sheer number of people who complained should have told Google something.
You do realize that every plant manufactures its own pesticides, right?
You and the other earlier poster are missing the point. Or at the very least, a large part of it.
"Roundup-Ready" crops were supposed to REDUCE the use of pesticides. Instead, the practical effect is that it has ENABLED more use of glyphosate. As a real result, the use of glyphosate and the level of glyphosate in some food products has multiplied.
These are "perverse consequences". As another poster mentioned, there has been "voluntary" passing of the glyphosate-resistant gene to what are normally considered noxious weeds, meaning its widespread use is probably self-defeating, in exactly the same sense as over-use of antibiotics.
To say that GMO foods are "safe" therefore is naive at best.
While it may be true that this guy was "literally flying under the radar", that phrase gives a very misleading impression: the impression that he was trying to sneak up on them.
Quite the contrary. He sent them a message a full hour in advance, saying that they should expect him.
So while it might have been "literally" under the radar, it wasn't figuratively under the radar. The White House knew he was coming and expected him. That being the case, they don't get to say they were surprised by his arrival, or imply that he was any kind of serious threat. If they were surprised at all, it was nobody's fault but their own.
I suspect that book is still foundational in most University advertising/marketing progams.
I think historically, a more influential book has been Darrell Huff's "How To Lie With Statistics", the second book in this list.
It was originally written in 1954. And while less rigorous, it is an entertaining read and probably gets its point across to a much wider audience.
I know for a fact that Huff's book is still used as a text in college statistics courses... but probably only the lower-level classes.
It's a trivial result and just what you'd expect by chance, but it does drive the point home that you can't rely on p-values alone if you're testing multiple hypotheses.
On the other hand, TFA is proposing to replace this with Bayesian probabilities, which are likely even less understood, even more abused, and it could open the door to subjectivism.
On the Google Maps support forum, there was a long ongoing discussion about the "new" maps.
People overwhelmingly hated it.
It is harder to use, some features don't work anymore (or at least not as well as they did), etc.
It seemed to faze them not at all. Google asked people details about just exactly they didn't like, and why... and changed none of it.
Or pee on it to loosen up that static friction.
Unless/until all connections (including power) are wireless, you'll never have a 1mm cube "computer". There's no way to fit all your I/O and power input, in that much space. Where do you plug in the keyboard?
I wouldn't doubt thaht the NSA has broken iPhone's encryption.
This proposal by NSA mirrors the Clipper Chip/Skipjack + Key Escrow system proposed back in the early 90s. People didn't trust the government with their keys THEN... why the hell should they do so NOW, given that government intrusion into our lives has only increased in the interim?
Unlike the 90s, by now they have proved they can't be trusted.
I'm surprised the USA makes advanced computer chips. I thought all that stuff was exported to Asia years ago.
Don't be ridiculous. Asia has made good on cheap manufacturing, but the majority of design AND cutting-edge fab is done in U.S. and Europe.
Intel should not have been allowed in the first place; it is a surprise to me that they have only been blocked now. There is a thin but very definite line between simple international commerce and treason.
IBM and Thomas Watson crossed that line in WWII.
Kids need to learn the consequences of embarrassing powerful people. That is one of the golden rules of modern society; thou shalt not embarrass thy superiors. Snowden forgot that, and this little punk forgot that.
Are you for real? It is hard to tell whether this is sarcasm, but I suspect that it is.
You respect your betters, or you get tossed in a cage. That's the law. Ingrain that into your kid's brains before puberty hits, or they will wind up in a cage too.
There are no "betters", in America. Hell, I had a very hard time trying to teach my British manager that, way back when. He felt justified in taking credit for my work, because he was a manager and a "better".
Haha.
But again, that's sarcasm. Here's what I actually suggest: pretend to respect your "betters", because in fact that's all they require: the facade. Then when they're not looking, prove they're not "better".
I don't mean backstabbing. I mean frontstabbing. Make the truth plain to all.
But who will register .sucks.sucks?
Anybody. Just get a .sucks domain and create a .sucks.sucks subdomain. Hell, you don't even have to know how to build a website to use cPanel or similar.
BINGO! And I see I'm not the only one suspicious of her bizarre excuse for refusing to negotiate.
I'm of divided mind. I think she might actually be sincere but misguided. It seems like it must be one of the two. I think that we can agree that either way, it won't result in overall advantage for the employees, women or not.
I wonder if she will also propose that from now on, all employees will get the same raises.
We are talking about a simple number. One party wants to maximize it, the other minimize. There isn't any room for anything except a game of chicken there.
Nonsense. What we're talking about here is supposed to be a labor MARKET. In a market, people negotiate for prices. That's how markets get "price signals" that allow them to find the proper balance between supply and demand.
Pao wants to make it a "take it or leave it" deal, with the result, as one GP said, that the "price" will almost surely go down across the board over time.
No thanks.
Or they can take advantage of their vastly stronger position and simply refuse to indulge the candidates. Sure, they might miss out on "top talent", but it doesn't take that to maintain a message board.
While you have a point about message boards, again the result of not playing in the market is (which you have given kind of a sideways nod to): you will end up with lesser quality employees.