I'm not advocating rooting - I didn't try that on my Moment. BUT - for those that want to go that route, the EVO forums are already pointing to hotspot methods, such as the one I posted (it included tethering, too - but if you followed that app's link you'll see both are supported.
I'm well-aware of EVO's capabilities. Like you, I've been studying them and went for mine on the 4th - but my store was shorted, so I had to wait until yesterday.
I was merely making an arcane point - not an important one.
For the masses, and for practical purposes, and to not get in trouble with any carrier's TOS - yes, I'll agree that the EVO is unique with this as a supported feature.
By the way - have you installed Fring? I'm Skype videoconferencing with my offices (I'm on travel) from my EVO and I'm loving it!
You want free videoconferencing on your forward-camera phone? Use Fring - I'm using it on my EVO on travel, and I'm Skype videoconferencing our offices just with my phone.
2. Attach Fring to whatever xport you want. I don't have any special skype app installed, I just told Fring that I wanted to use Skype and AIM, logged in to each and I was good to go.
Won't support video or audio thru AIM, so I'm SOL for my iChat only friends - but Skype - works great.
As I understand tethering (I used to tether my Razr to my Macbook Pro), one dedicates something like a modem script to communicate with the phone and the phone does the rest.
As I understand hotspot, the phone's internet is then served with the phone putting out the wifi signal, per this quote:
The pros of this method: it's free and it makes your phone act as a Wi-Fi hotspot that any computer can connect to without extra software or messing with your computer's setting.
I've been using mobile videoconferencing since yesterday. I'm on travel with my EVO and Skype videoconferencing our various offices while on travel, without looking for a hotspot or pulling out my laptop.
There are lots of places on the web that tell you how to hotspot your Android phone, the EVO just makes it simpler.
FWIW - just so you know - Android 2.2 is coming to EVO in July from Sprint - no mucking about to install Froyo by rooting, etc. I can't wait, got my EVO yesterday, replaced my Samsung Moment (that was a great phone too, IMO - but the EVO is just better).
First he's convicted for being stiff by using a computer to try to get a 13 year-old girl - and now the appeals court got stiff with the lower court and said, "That's stiff, give him his computer back."
Gee - it's a stiff fucking mystery what could possibly come next in this drama.
The hot dog concession at Home Depot is particularly convenient when you on that third trip (Murphy's law for home repair requires three trips to the store) and still haven't had lunch.
There's a world of difference between missing lunch due to frequent trips to the Home Depot and saying to yourself, "Gee, I still haven't found that calendar-sync'ing app and it's my third try - guess I'll buy a game."
Or - "I've missed lunch on home repair so often that I've learned to like their hot dogs, such that today when I don't need hardware, I guess I'll go to Home Depot for lunch because I know how convenient it is to get one of their hot dogs."
I insist you haven't done that. At least I sure don't - and yes, I like Hebrew Nationals (a lot!!) they sell at the stand outside our Home Depot. But I can - and always do - hit The Doghouse or Chicago Doggies when it's just lunch.
Hey - lots of people seem to buy groceries at WalMart. Not me - never have, never will. Lots of people are like me that way.
Therefore - TFA's insistence that the one model is THE model is what I disagree with.
This isn't about Java apps - TFA is about Java GAMES.
Another poster, above, points out that maybe iPhone and Android are for different markets - one wanting frilly add-ons, one wanting open source.
I think they're for the same market - we all want a phone platform that just works and comes from a big, trusted name for doing that - Apple and Google certainly qualify. Maybe this market does actually subdivide into those wanting a fully-integrated vs. a more open experience. I don't know - I can't extrapolate to infinity from myself as a data point.
Since TFA was about GAMES, does this raise a question about who's more likely to play games - an iPhone user or an Android user? TFA claims that the demand should be the same and it's the easy-buy feature of the iPhone that's proving that - and goes to claim that if the Android market had that, Java game sales numbers would be up there as well.
TFA author cannot know that a causal relationship exists for this. It's an interesting speculation - but his numbers only show association - not distribution as the cause.
He's into the gaming industry and seems to have frustration that Java games haven't caught on as pundits have speculated - but that their penetration is disproportionately higher for the iPhone.
His argument is more GAMES would sell if Google had an App Store equivalent.
Personally - the issue is confusing to me and probably others like me. I don't play games on my phone and never will. But I hang and work with gamers - mention games on a Mac to them and they look back cross-eyed. And I understand the Java promise is platform freedom. So I can make the leap to Java games being acceptable on an iPhone (and yes, I know it's not a Mac running OS X).
But I can't make the leap that Google needs to provide him with something better than the non-searchable flea market and that the Apple model is the one proven to be needed by Google.
Why doesn't he instead conclude that the Java game-building community should open their own app store - maybe a co-op - where any non-iPhone/Java-capable phone user could go for that sort of thing?
I don't buy groceries where I buy hardware - I prefer specialized stores.
TFA sounds like whining. TFS sounds very interesting - if it had referred to the subject it suggests that would be one thing. But it didn't - this is about games, a very narrow segment of a narrow segment of a narrow market.
According to TFA, the patent in question is US Patent No. 5,825,352. According to the US Patent and Trademark Office, Steven Bisset and Bernard Kasser are the sole inventors (filed 1996) of the multi-touch tech - and Logitech was the assignee as of 1998.
but the idea that they themselves invented the tech on the patent in question is not accurate. Here's their list of their achievements - http://www.emc.com.tw/eng/about_elan1_3.asp
I'm a little confused here. Nothing wrong with selling technology and if Logitech did that, fine - but this sure seems like there's a lot more to this than "Apple rips off Taiwanese firm" - in my opinion.
That's what we called 'em when I was in college - exact same principles - exact same ensnarements.
The intern will literally be on the front-lines of the epic battle against pirated content, ensnaring users in incriminating transactions, issuing takedown requests, and causing general frustration amongst the file-sharing population on the Internet.
At the same time, Chang says that his company will target uploaders of copyrighted material -- whom he refers to as criminals -- more aggressively."
I admit to not knowing a lot about this - but isn't the model of busting users, then deciding to bust the pushers because without pushers, there won't be users?
I've got neighborhoods in my town that suggest that attacking symptoms instead of root causes for problems will never work.
But as I said, I'm not terribly knowledgeable on this and I could applying the wrong simile.
If this is the solution to the dark matter question, then all those astronomers and astrophysicists have been disturbingly myopic.
You are absolutely 100% correct.
However, given that the article stated at the very top that this has nothing to do with dark matter, your premise dissolves to:
Given that astronomers and astrophysicists are not myopic, this is obviously not the solution to dark matter.
Given that it was THEM that you found ass-hatted when they are apparently the reasonable ones and given that you were driven to leave for Comp Sci indicates two things about your move.
It was:
1. Astronomy's gain
2. Comp Sci's loss
It's one thing to follow/. tradition and not RTFA. But in the/. tradition of your posting this tripe long after mod points for -1, Redundant have been exhausted, might I point out that there's still plenty of room left in the liberal arts?
it is precisely this kind of ass-hatted, onanistic speculation
You mean the kind you engaged in when a single mouse click would have saved you that?
I'm especially looking forward to this for HDTV, because it's said that picture quality is affected by contrast, color accuracy, color saturation and resolution, in that order - and QD-LEDs can really impact the top three parameters in ways that competing may not. Traditional LED are now used only as backlighting for LCD displays (outside of gargantuan displays in stadiums and along skyscrapers) and of those requiring white-light LEDs, we're stuck with devices that still rely on phosphors (coated inside the lens of the LED) - so QD-LED really opens up a lot of possibilities, and won't need entail the chemistry problems that have plagued OLED's r&d.
I've been following QD Vision, Inc nearly since their inception, and was surprised that the Economist didn't give their link, so there you are. The linked video at the end of the article you recommend was very well done, in my opinion.
Most of the world is eating it up. A lot of people welcome it. Few of them made a conscious decision among alternatives on the matter of culture and spirit.
I said to a friend of 40 years running two days ago that this is not my America anymore. Complacency has led to political leadership where not long ago, t-shirts were seen in New York City saying, "Ever think you'd miss Nixon?" - and our cultural values have death spiraled into Western music being typified by Britney Spears, movies being typified by Transformers and our intellectual degradation is best summed up by the observation that there is actually a debate raging between evolution and creationism/ID.
I now live in an America where enlightenment and consciousness are no longer on the list of valuable prizes to seek in life = precisely because few of us in the USA made conscious decisions among the matters of our culture and spirit.
I'm not debating if the US culture is "good" or "bad" here, just stating the fact that the amount of culture that is in the american way of doing business is seldom reflected.
An interesting complimentarity - on one hand it's a great truth, but its opposite - that our way of doing business is an exact reflection of culture - is equally a great truth.
To tell the truth - I really *sweated* that recommendation post, and still couldn't figure out whether to hit submit or not. I wanted to point those interested in the topic at the movie, and that is kinda spoiling - but since you've seen it - maybe not so much.
But yeah - given that, I'm way OK with lighthearted poking and/or condemnation any day - I've found I'm not perfect - who knew?
If you're not familiar with modern transporter as copy/destroy mechanisms, you'll enjoy The Prestige for the characters and the intrigue.
If you're familiar with this theory, you'll spot it in about no time flat, and will enjoy the anticipation of if/how it ties to the character intrigue.
It's really a story within a story with some interesting tangents - I really rather enjoyed it. Especially the part played by David Bowie.
My wife's the touchy/feely artist type and we talked about the tech stuff that she wasn't catching when watching - and in this instance, just didn't care, her enjoyment focused on other things.
In all honesty, I think I really only spoiled the movie for the slow and uninformed - not the typical/. crowd on this subject.
I think you're safe.
When ever the thread is on something that I am personally slow or uniformed on, and I see the words spoiler alert, I really appreciate it and stop reading right that instant - directing my peripheral vision to managing getting the post scrolled out of sight.
Best I could think to do was to recommend the movie itself, while doing my best to give unto others as I've enjoyed when given unto me.
Anyway - check out the flick. Not War and Peace, nor Avatar, nor Casablanca - but I liked it, hope you do, too.
How am I supposed to know if I haven't seen it if the name of the movie is in the spoiled text itself?
Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. That's prestige for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe we're just miscommunicating then.
I'm not advocating rooting - I didn't try that on my Moment. BUT - for those that want to go that route, the EVO forums are already pointing to hotspot methods, such as the one I posted (it included tethering, too - but if you followed that app's link you'll see both are supported.
I'm well-aware of EVO's capabilities. Like you, I've been studying them and went for mine on the 4th - but my store was shorted, so I had to wait until yesterday.
I was merely making an arcane point - not an important one.
For the masses, and for practical purposes, and to not get in trouble with any carrier's TOS - yes, I'll agree that the EVO is unique with this as a supported feature.
By the way - have you installed Fring? I'm Skype videoconferencing with my offices (I'm on travel) from my EVO and I'm loving it!
You want free videoconferencing on your forward-camera phone? Use Fring - I'm using it on my EVO on travel, and I'm Skype videoconferencing our offices just with my phone.
http://www.fring.com/fring_is/what_is_fring/
It's too simple:
1. Create Fring account
2. Attach Fring to whatever xport you want. I don't have any special skype app installed, I just told Fring that I wanted to use Skype and AIM, logged in to each and I was good to go.
Won't support video or audio thru AIM, so I'm SOL for my iChat only friends - but Skype - works great.
You may be right.
As I understand tethering (I used to tether my Razr to my Macbook Pro), one dedicates something like a modem script to communicate with the phone and the phone does the rest.
As I understand hotspot, the phone's internet is then served with the phone putting out the wifi signal, per this quote:
The pros of this method: it's free and it makes your phone act as a Wi-Fi hotspot that any computer can connect to without extra software or messing with your computer's setting.
From - http://blog.7touchgroup.com/tag/android-hotspot-app/
The downside was that it required a rooted phone, but I've been seeing these instructions for a few months now.
Did I miss something?
Me, for one.
I've been using mobile videoconferencing since yesterday. I'm on travel with my EVO and Skype videoconferencing our various offices while on travel, without looking for a hotspot or pulling out my laptop.
http://www.fring.com/fring_is/what_is_fring/
There are lots of places on the web that tell you how to hotspot your Android phone, the EVO just makes it simpler.
FWIW - just so you know - Android 2.2 is coming to EVO in July from Sprint - no mucking about to install Froyo by rooting, etc. I can't wait, got my EVO yesterday, replaced my Samsung Moment (that was a great phone too, IMO - but the EVO is just better).
http://www.evdoinfo.com/
Absolutely agree.
Possibly the Worst Thing Ever.
To... FaceBible?
First he's convicted for being stiff by using a computer to try to get a 13 year-old girl - and now the appeals court got stiff with the lower court and said, "That's stiff, give him his computer back."
Gee - it's a stiff fucking mystery what could possibly come next in this drama.
The hot dog concession at Home Depot is particularly convenient when you on that third trip (Murphy's law for home repair requires three trips to the store) and still haven't had lunch.
There's a world of difference between missing lunch due to frequent trips to the Home Depot and saying to yourself, "Gee, I still haven't found that calendar-sync'ing app and it's my third try - guess I'll buy a game."
Or - "I've missed lunch on home repair so often that I've learned to like their hot dogs, such that today when I don't need hardware, I guess I'll go to Home Depot for lunch because I know how convenient it is to get one of their hot dogs."
I insist you haven't done that. At least I sure don't - and yes, I like Hebrew Nationals (a lot!!) they sell at the stand outside our Home Depot. But I can - and always do - hit The Doghouse or Chicago Doggies when it's just lunch.
Hey - lots of people seem to buy groceries at WalMart. Not me - never have, never will. Lots of people are like me that way.
Therefore - TFA's insistence that the one model is THE model is what I disagree with.
And your analogy - I question that, too. :)
This isn't about Java apps - TFA is about Java GAMES.
Another poster, above, points out that maybe iPhone and Android are for different markets - one wanting frilly add-ons, one wanting open source.
I think they're for the same market - we all want a phone platform that just works and comes from a big, trusted name for doing that - Apple and Google certainly qualify. Maybe this market does actually subdivide into those wanting a fully-integrated vs. a more open experience. I don't know - I can't extrapolate to infinity from myself as a data point.
Since TFA was about GAMES, does this raise a question about who's more likely to play games - an iPhone user or an Android user? TFA claims that the demand should be the same and it's the easy-buy feature of the iPhone that's proving that - and goes to claim that if the Android market had that, Java game sales numbers would be up there as well.
TFA author cannot know that a causal relationship exists for this. It's an interesting speculation - but his numbers only show association - not distribution as the cause.
He's into the gaming industry and seems to have frustration that Java games haven't caught on as pundits have speculated - but that their penetration is disproportionately higher for the iPhone.
His argument is more GAMES would sell if Google had an App Store equivalent.
Personally - the issue is confusing to me and probably others like me. I don't play games on my phone and never will. But I hang and work with gamers - mention games on a Mac to them and they look back cross-eyed. And I understand the Java promise is platform freedom. So I can make the leap to Java games being acceptable on an iPhone (and yes, I know it's not a Mac running OS X).
But I can't make the leap that Google needs to provide him with something better than the non-searchable flea market and that the Apple model is the one proven to be needed by Google.
Why doesn't he instead conclude that the Java game-building community should open their own app store - maybe a co-op - where any non-iPhone/Java-capable phone user could go for that sort of thing?
I don't buy groceries where I buy hardware - I prefer specialized stores.
TFA sounds like whining. TFS sounds very interesting - if it had referred to the subject it suggests that would be one thing. But it didn't - this is about games, a very narrow segment of a narrow segment of a narrow market.
k, thanks - I was having trouble finding that...
As I noted.
According to TFA, the patent in question is US Patent No. 5,825,352. According to the US Patent and Trademark Office, Steven Bisset and Bernard Kasser are the sole inventors (filed 1996) of the multi-touch tech - and Logitech was the assignee as of 1998.
According to this link, Elan was launched to do semiconductor R&D in 1994, per http://www.computex.biz/elan/
SO - unless Elan bought this Logitech something's terribly wrong with the article. Can anyone help me with this?
Elan is winning local awards, see - http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-200983370.html
but the idea that they themselves invented the tech on the patent in question is not accurate. Here's their list of their achievements - http://www.emc.com.tw/eng/about_elan1_3.asp
I'm a little confused here. Nothing wrong with selling technology and if Logitech did that, fine - but this sure seems like there's a lot more to this than "Apple rips off Taiwanese firm" - in my opinion.
That's what we called 'em when I was in college - exact same principles - exact same ensnarements.
The intern will literally be on the front-lines of the epic battle against pirated content, ensnaring users in incriminating transactions, issuing takedown requests, and causing general frustration amongst the file-sharing population on the Internet.
Exact same cluelessness, all the way around.
From TFS:
At the same time, Chang says that his company will target uploaders of copyrighted material -- whom he refers to as criminals -- more aggressively."
I admit to not knowing a lot about this - but isn't the model of busting users, then deciding to bust the pushers because without pushers, there won't be users?
I've got neighborhoods in my town that suggest that attacking symptoms instead of root causes for problems will never work.
But as I said, I'm not terribly knowledgeable on this and I could applying the wrong simile.
Well, your cheerful comeback proves you're a good guy, so I guess no harm/no foul on my part - cool.
If this is the solution to the dark matter question, then all those astronomers and astrophysicists have been disturbingly myopic.
You are absolutely 100% correct.
However, given that the article stated at the very top that this has nothing to do with dark matter, your premise dissolves to:
Given that astronomers and astrophysicists are not myopic, this is obviously not the solution to dark matter.
Given that it was THEM that you found ass-hatted when they are apparently the reasonable ones and given that you were driven to leave for Comp Sci indicates two things about your move.
It was:
1. Astronomy's gain
2. Comp Sci's loss
It's one thing to follow /. tradition and not RTFA. But in the /. tradition of your posting this tripe long after mod points for -1, Redundant have been exhausted, might I point out that there's still plenty of room left in the liberal arts?
it is precisely this kind of ass-hatted, onanistic speculation
You mean the kind you engaged in when a single mouse click would have saved you that?
Can I get some fries with your opinion, to go?
Possible Cancer Cure Announced!
Slashdotters Transform Announcement into Wanton Pleas for Women!
Film at 11.
http://www.monkeyhelpers.org/
Wow. Seriously - wow.
That's a pretty good article! Previously, I'd used this to learn about QD-LEDs:
http://www.oled-display.info/what-is-a-qdled
I'm especially looking forward to this for HDTV, because it's said that picture quality is affected by contrast, color accuracy, color saturation and resolution, in that order - and QD-LEDs can really impact the top three parameters in ways that competing may not. Traditional LED are now used only as backlighting for LCD displays (outside of gargantuan displays in stadiums and along skyscrapers) and of those requiring white-light LEDs, we're stuck with devices that still rely on phosphors (coated inside the lens of the LED) - so QD-LED really opens up a lot of possibilities, and won't need entail the chemistry problems that have plagued OLED's r&d.
I've been following QD Vision, Inc nearly since their inception, and was surprised that the Economist didn't give their link, so there you are. The linked video at the end of the article you recommend was very well done, in my opinion.
Again - thanks.
Most of the world is eating it up. A lot of people welcome it. Few of them made a conscious decision among alternatives on the matter of culture and spirit.
I said to a friend of 40 years running two days ago that this is not my America anymore. Complacency has led to political leadership where not long ago, t-shirts were seen in New York City saying, "Ever think you'd miss Nixon?" - and our cultural values have death spiraled into Western music being typified by Britney Spears, movies being typified by Transformers and our intellectual degradation is best summed up by the observation that there is actually a debate raging between evolution and creationism/ID.
I now live in an America where enlightenment and consciousness are no longer on the list of valuable prizes to seek in life = precisely because few of us in the USA made conscious decisions among the matters of our culture and spirit.
I'm not debating if the US culture is "good" or "bad" here, just stating the fact that the amount of culture that is in the american way of doing business is seldom reflected.
An interesting complimentarity - on one hand it's a great truth, but its opposite - that our way of doing business is an exact reflection of culture - is equally a great truth.
OK, great, no problem!
To tell the truth - I really *sweated* that recommendation post, and still couldn't figure out whether to hit submit or not. I wanted to point those interested in the topic at the movie, and that is kinda spoiling - but since you've seen it - maybe not so much.
But yeah - given that, I'm way OK with lighthearted poking and/or condemnation any day - I've found I'm not perfect - who knew?
Cheers!
ps - sorry, hit submit instead of preview:
I thought the spoiler was the youtube trailer.
Even knowing the "trick" I've warned you of with teleporting - I've not spoiled the prestige, nor The Prestige.
Requirements management is hard.
(Actually, the sarcasm was directed at me.)
If you're not familiar with modern transporter as copy/destroy mechanisms, you'll enjoy The Prestige for the characters and the intrigue.
If you're familiar with this theory, you'll spot it in about no time flat, and will enjoy the anticipation of if/how it ties to the character intrigue.
It's really a story within a story with some interesting tangents - I really rather enjoyed it. Especially the part played by David Bowie.
My wife's the touchy/feely artist type and we talked about the tech stuff that she wasn't catching when watching - and in this instance, just didn't care, her enjoyment focused on other things.
In all honesty, I think I really only spoiled the movie for the slow and uninformed - not the typical /. crowd on this subject.
I think you're safe.
When ever the thread is on something that I am personally slow or uniformed on, and I see the words spoiler alert, I really appreciate it and stop reading right that instant - directing my peripheral vision to managing getting the post scrolled out of sight.
Best I could think to do was to recommend the movie itself, while doing my best to give unto others as I've enjoyed when given unto me.
Anyway - check out the flick. Not War and Peace, nor Avatar, nor Casablanca - but I liked it, hope you do, too.
How am I supposed to know if I haven't seen it if the name of the movie is in the spoiled text itself?
Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. That's prestige for you.
PS - think I'm backpedaling? Too bad - read my responses to others under my original post. I've been completely consistent.
Then again, so have you - most seriously so.