I never said it was a waste of money or resources. I said that it's a great option if I/O is important. But that doesn't mean that it's great in general... If most of your needs are simply for bulk storage or the added I/O isn't worth the considerable difference in price, then SSDs may not be for you. And 30 times the performance is only worth the price if you need that performance... My whole point was that there's more to consider than just purchase price or thermal savings when looking into SSD storage...
True, but my whole point is that the power savings is minimal, even including cooling costs. So 1TB of SSD would save you 60 Watts of power (including the traditional 2*power cooling estimate). So for every 5TB, you could add another 1U server. The savings is minimal in terms of power draw (at least compared to the investment required)... Sure, you could upgrade your 15 disk array to SSD, and save about 225 Watts, but it'd cost you over $45000 to save that 225 watts. For that cost, you could replace all your servers with blades and save over 3000 Watts (considering a typical 1U server uses about 300 Watts, and a typical 14 blade setup uses around 1kW). That's my point. Not that you can't save power by switching to SSD, but that you're not going to spend the $$$ for SSD just to save power...
Oh, I'm not saying that they don't have a good place in the market. I am saying that it would be foolish to buy them from a power consumption standpoint alone. If you need IOPS, then the added cost can definitely be worth it...
The other thing you need to look at is lifespan. A 15k drive should last a company at least 3 years (I know some companies replace them yearly, but a typical rotation is 3 to 5 years based on what I've seen). Can an SSD (that's under high I/O) last that long? Or are you going to be replacing them yearly because of wear leveling issues? Again, I'm not saying that they are not worth the money. All I am saying is that it's far from a simple math problem to determine if they are the right fit for an enterprise...
Well, a normal 15k RPM SAS drive costs about $1400 per TB ($700 for a 500gb drive) and draws around 16 watts of power (for a Seagate Cheetah at least). Let's assume these SSD's will be like the others and draw around 1 watt. So that's a difference of $2600 and 31 watts (Because you need 2 SAS drives per SSD). So every hour, each SSD will consume 31 watts less. So with a price of $0.12 / kWh, every hour the SSD will save about $0.0036. Over the course of a year, that will add up to about $31.44 in power savings. So you'd need to run the drives for around 82 years to recoup the added cost from power savings (A higher electricty cost will lower this, but even at $0.50 per kWh, you're looking at nearly 20 years). Needless to say, that's well beyond the life span of the drive. So no, a prudent company won't buy these for power savings...
Yup... The same thing happened with Michael Crichton in the 90's... Jurrasic Park, Lost World (Although that was REALLY different from the book), Sphere, Congo, Rising Sun and Disclosure... It sort of extended into the 2000's with 2003's Timeline.
I find it works far better than FF for Linux... It's in Beta, but so far I haven't found any issues with it (Well, except for Flash, but that's not Chrome's fault)...
I use extensions heavily both on Windows (Chrome 4) and Linux (Chrome 5)... My favorite (and I wish there was a decent version for FF) is chromeTouch. It enables PDF/iPhone style scrolling (just click anywhere on the page, and move the mouse)... There are a few for FF that do it, but they all have problems with selecting text (I've yet to have that issue with chromeTouch)...
True, but since when is it possible for something that happens outside of court to be considered contempt? I would understand harassment. I would understand some other (possibly spam related) law. But contempt? So if I am walking down the street and say something to a judge that's walking the other way, he can find me in contempt? WTF? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this guy is innocent of everything, but I can't see how he's guilty of contempt...
I don't expect to get 100% of the maximum over the month. But I also don't expect to be artificially cut off at less than 5% of the maximum capacity. And I don't expect for congestion to get to the point where I can use less than 5% of the maximum capacity (If I'm constantly congested to 5%, then it's up to them to increase capacity to a reasonable amount. I'd tolerate 50% average, or even 25%. But 5% of the speed that I paid for? And you call that reasonable?). With your water analogy, people expect full pressure, but they don't complain unless it's bad for a significant portion of the time (and being bad for 95% isn't what most people would consider reasonable)...
The same thing happened with the dial-up ISPs in the early 90's. I paid for a 14.4 kbps uplink. Other than that, it was unlimited. The catch was that they only had a limited number of phone lines. So if you dialed in, and one wasn't available then tough for you. I can't think of a single one of those providers that is still in business today... The point of the matter is that if you are going to charge me for a connection, I expect a reasonable effort to meet the agreed upon conditions. If I pay for 50mbps, I expect to be able to average at least 25mbps over the long run. You're saying that expecting to get 50% off of what I paid for is unreasonable? What about them being unreasonable for selling me something that they can't support? If they really are selling 15mbps at 2% duty cycle, then they should either say that, or don't complain if you exceed the 2%...
Well, let me see if I understand you correctly. Say they advertise 15mbps. That equates to about 5TB per month. If the total transfer was 4.8TB, I would think that it would be reasonable (and hence wouldn't be argued in court). But if I was cut off at 200gb per month (less than 0.75mbps average), wouldn't that be not reasonable? I'm not saying we should be able to use every bit of bandwidth, but is not being able to use more than 5% of the advertised bandwidth reasonable (5% --0.75mbps-- would be about 240gb per month)?
There's a difference. You're dealing with the Wireless division... Compare these two pages for what I'm talking about (Both were 1 click away from the home page):
Mobile explicitly states that not only is there a cap, but what it is. Fios makes no mention of even the existence of such a cap, yet alone what it is. And that's where I see the implication of "unlimited"...
I'm not talking about the contract that you signed (which falls under contract law). I'm talking about false advertising (which falls under the FTC). And based on everything that I've seen so far, I can't understand how this could NOT be false or deceptive advertising... They misrepresented the product to you prior to purchase, so then the whole contract is null and void even after it's signed...
If I told you that I was going to sell you a 2009 Lexus, and showed you the car. You paid me, and then I handed you a tiny matchbox car, I can bet you'd turn around and sue me for it even if the contract said something along the lines of "actual product may be different from what you saw"... I don't see how that situation is any different from the Verizon one...
I don't think anyone expects that they can transfer 5 TBs a month over a shared line. If you expect to transfer that much data I don't see why you expect to pay the same as the average user who is likely closer to 1 GB.
I expect to be able to transfer that much, because I purchased a 15mbps connection, not a 200gb/month connection. If they advertised them by total transfer, or priced it based on total transfer, I'd be content with paying the difference. But my whole point is that they don't. They advertise 15mbps. Period. End of story.
http://www22.verizon.com/Residential/FiOSInternet/Plans/Plans.htm
Actually, now that I look at it, even in the fine print do they not disclose any kind of cap on transfer. They just say that they don't guarantee the rate. Nothing about "You are allowed to transfer x GB / month" or "Subject to usage caps" or even "Heavy users will be castrated and fed to the pigs"... Only:
Connection speeds are between your location and Verizon central office serving your location. Actual download and upload speeds will vary based on numerous factors, such as condition of wiring at your location, computer configuration, Internet and network congestion, and speed of website servers you access, among other factors. Available in select areas. Speed and uninterrupted use of service not guaranteed.
It's repeated a few times on that page, but there's nothing that I can see that even remotely implies that you can't expect to use whatever bandwidth you can get to the fullest it provides you. Now sure, they could implement selective filtering based on that (the higher transfer people get rate limited)...
While the terms "false" and "deceptive" are essentially the same for most, being deceptive is not the same as producing deception. What is illegal is the potential to deceive, which is interpreted to occur when consumers see the advertising to be stating to them, explicitly or implicitly, a claim that they may not realize is false and material. The latter means that the claim, if relied on for making a purchasing decision, is likely to be harmful by adversely affecting that decision. If an ad is implicitly false, evidence must be obtained for what consumers saw the ad saying, and for the materiality of that, and for the true facts about the advertised item, but no evidence is required that actual deception occurred, or that reliance occurred, or that the advertiser intended to deceive or knew that the claim was false.
They never said your connection had an unlimited number of bytes.
True, but they never said that I should expect otherwise either (except deep into the fine print). It's all about what the average person expects, not what they find reasonable. If an ad said "This car gets 400mpg", the average person would expect it to mean 400mpg averaged over a tank not an instantaneous value at some point in time. I guess my question is if you said "This plan has 15mb/s" to the average person, would they expect that to be the peak instantaneous transfer rate, or would they expect it to be the average value over a period of time (that you could transfer approximately 4.8TB over the course of a month)? I would think the latter. Plus, if you look at datacenters and web hosts, they explicitly state that you get 200gb of transfer on a 100mbps link, or a 100mbps link billed at 98%, or a unlimited 100mbps link. If I just told you that you were purchasing a 100bmps link, which would you (the average person) infer from that? I would assume one of the latter two, since 200gb is a LOT more limiting than 100mbps (and hence would normally be the disclosed factor). And that's the whole point...
Actually, that makes me wonder if Verizon would be liable for false advertising based on that... They offer you 15mbit internet, and then cap you at 1gb/month. Sure, they may say that in the fine print but would a good lawyer be able to get around that (basically saying that they implied unlimited transfer based on the main advertisement)? I mean I've never heard anyone say that there's a cap on it... Car companies aren't allowed to tell you that you'll get 400mpg, and then put in the fine print that it will only happen if you are coasting down a hill with the engine off. Making your product look better in advertising is nothing new, but doesn't this come down to blatant coercion?
Unless this is a marketing ploy (Have a friend "offer" $100 Million, just so you can turn it down publicly)... After all, news that a social site turns down huge money would likely generate publicity...
Re:Bluetooth keyboard
on
iPad Review
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Also, any reports on how that second-monitor app works on it?
Well, I did quit for a year last year. I did notice that I felt a lot better and could think clearer (after the first week or so after quitting at least). But what I also notice now, is that my drive for abstract thought went down considerably. I'm not saying anything about my ability, but more so my desire and motivation. When I go outside for the 5 minutes, I'm forced to think about something for 5 minutes that I otherwise wouldn't think about. Now, I'm sure I could do that without resorting to the death sticks, but they provide the excuse and motivation to go out and think away from it all (That sounds like a rationalization for smoking, but it isn't, it's more of a rationalization about why I have better abstract thoughts when smoking). But I do agree with everything that you said (and have experienced it first hand). With that said, I know that I am addicted... I know that I should quit, I just haven't... I even find myself rationalizing not quitting (work is stressful, etc, etc). I know that it's wrong, and I don't believe the rationalizations, but I just haven't done it yet...
I don't take offense. I hate the habit, so why would I be offended by someone pointing out that it's bad (rhetorical question)?
but I'm sure you could achieve the same mental experience without a cigarette.
When I quit for a little over a year (last year), I did find it easier to think in general (as you imply), but I did find it harder to concentrate on abstract ideas. I've always been one to think about and formulate my own theories on everything (from philosophy to physics to math, etc). Most of them are complete and utter BS, but some of them I think have merit. In the year that I quit, I pretty much stopped thinking/working on these ideas (The exact reason, I don't know, but I suspect it has to do with the 5 minute regular breaks). Once I started smoking again, I started working on them again. Now I've got one of the theories to a stage where I'm starting to write a book/paper on it, and another where I'm going to friend who's a PHD in Math to help me with certain parts (I'm good at math, but not at the complex geometries that I need)... I could replace the nicotine with caffeine (tea/coffee/etc), but that wouldn't be a good idea. I have a veryaddictive personality. When I worked nights for an Ambulance company during college, I got hooked on coffee. I would go through 2 pots or so per night. So I don't want to replace one bad habit with another...
Normally I am one to raise that flag. But I agree here that it doesn't really apply. The article didn't make mention of any causation. All it said was in this study, men who smoked also had lower IQ's. There's 2 ways that could happen. Smoking lowers your IQ, or the more likely (on the average) lower IQ people smoke. It's interesting to say the least, but they never drew conclusions from the data, so it is a bit of a leap to jump down the correlation != causation bandwagon...
And I find it easier to think abstractly when I do (I did quit for over a year). Smoking forces me to take a break from what I'm doing every once in a while, so I get to separate myself from it. Then I get 5 minutes or so of time to contemplate or for abstract thought. I do honestly find myself more productive when I do smoke. Now, I'm not trying to rationalize it (I hate the fact that I got started again)... Just an observation...
I've had an iPhone since a month after the initial release. I've not had a crash, a lockup or any other sort of issue
That's odd, because EVERY SINGLE person I know with an iPhone has had an issue at one point or another. Sometimes it took a restart to fix, sometimes it took a reset, and a few times it took a device swap, but it happened to every one. Now, I'm not saying that the iPhone is unstable (as the GP is), but I am saying that it's not a model of stability. Neither is any MS product. Neither is Android...
Fragmentation isn't a good thing, regardless of what Linux fanboys think.
So tailoring a product to the needs of the consumer isn't a good thing? Making different size clothes isn't a good thing? Making medication available in different doses isn't a good thing? The fact of the matter is that different people need different things. Most people don't need a smart phone at all. So that rules out the iPhone for them. But it doesn't rule out Android (it is being put on increasingly "light" devices). Fragmentation can be good, so long as it's controlled and for a reason... That's why different phones exist (oh yeah, that's right, you think there should be one phone to rule them all)...
Yep, Apple requires you purchase through the AppStore that they control... and you think thats bad... except... everyone else in the world prefers it over any alternative. Look at the combined android device sales figures, compare them to... well anyone really. I was going to say Apple, but Android would be a lemon in this case so its not a fair comparison
Actually, you can't say that for sure. There can be no alternative to the App store, so you can't say that a (possibly large) portion of iPhone users wouldn't use another market... You're telling me that everyone who like the iPhone experience LIKES the restrictive store? I know at least one person (the only one I've talked to about it) that's not a geek that would disagree with you...
You're arguement is that Android is better because you can get shittier apps because there is absolutely no oversight?
It's not about quality... It's about availability. There are dozens of things I can get from the Android market (and actually have and use) that wouldn't be allowed in the Apple market... I'm an adult, and I like being treated like one, and not told how and what I can use...
Look at the combined android device sales figures, compare them to... well anyone really.
Hrm, really? What about all of these news stories? Sure, total sales to day are slim, but considering the first powerhouse Android phones are only MAYBE 6 months old, it's growing quite fast...
We've ported portions of it to Android, but unless something spectacular happens it'll never finish. No one here likes them for various reasons.
Can you please elaborate on why? As it stands, it sounds like pure fanboi-ism, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask your reasoning...?
Continue making your battle cry 'but I can run anything I want on it' and maybe eventually you will realize that while thats great from an idealogical standpoint, its fucking retarded from a practical standpoint, and practical is what normal people actually care about.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said it was a waste of money or resources. I said that it's a great option if I/O is important. But that doesn't mean that it's great in general... If most of your needs are simply for bulk storage or the added I/O isn't worth the considerable difference in price, then SSDs may not be for you. And 30 times the performance is only worth the price if you need that performance... My whole point was that there's more to consider than just purchase price or thermal savings when looking into SSD storage...
True, but my whole point is that the power savings is minimal, even including cooling costs. So 1TB of SSD would save you 60 Watts of power (including the traditional 2*power cooling estimate). So for every 5TB, you could add another 1U server. The savings is minimal in terms of power draw (at least compared to the investment required)... Sure, you could upgrade your 15 disk array to SSD, and save about 225 Watts, but it'd cost you over $45000 to save that 225 watts. For that cost, you could replace all your servers with blades and save over 3000 Watts (considering a typical 1U server uses about 300 Watts, and a typical 14 blade setup uses around 1kW). That's my point. Not that you can't save power by switching to SSD, but that you're not going to spend the $$$ for SSD just to save power...
Oh, I'm not saying that they don't have a good place in the market. I am saying that it would be foolish to buy them from a power consumption standpoint alone. If you need IOPS, then the added cost can definitely be worth it...
The other thing you need to look at is lifespan. A 15k drive should last a company at least 3 years (I know some companies replace them yearly, but a typical rotation is 3 to 5 years based on what I've seen). Can an SSD (that's under high I/O) last that long? Or are you going to be replacing them yearly because of wear leveling issues? Again, I'm not saying that they are not worth the money. All I am saying is that it's far from a simple math problem to determine if they are the right fit for an enterprise...
Well, a normal 15k RPM SAS drive costs about $1400 per TB ($700 for a 500gb drive) and draws around 16 watts of power (for a Seagate Cheetah at least). Let's assume these SSD's will be like the others and draw around 1 watt. So that's a difference of $2600 and 31 watts (Because you need 2 SAS drives per SSD). So every hour, each SSD will consume 31 watts less. So with a price of $0.12 / kWh, every hour the SSD will save about $0.0036. Over the course of a year, that will add up to about $31.44 in power savings. So you'd need to run the drives for around 82 years to recoup the added cost from power savings (A higher electricty cost will lower this, but even at $0.50 per kWh, you're looking at nearly 20 years). Needless to say, that's well beyond the life span of the drive. So no, a prudent company won't buy these for power savings...
Yup... The same thing happened with Michael Crichton in the 90's... Jurrasic Park, Lost World (Although that was REALLY different from the book), Sphere, Congo, Rising Sun and Disclosure... It sort of extended into the 2000's with 2003's Timeline.
I find it works far better than FF for Linux... It's in Beta, but so far I haven't found any issues with it (Well, except for Flash, but that's not Chrome's fault)...
I use extensions heavily both on Windows (Chrome 4) and Linux (Chrome 5)... My favorite (and I wish there was a decent version for FF) is chromeTouch. It enables PDF/iPhone style scrolling (just click anywhere on the page, and move the mouse)... There are a few for FF that do it, but they all have problems with selecting text (I've yet to have that issue with chromeTouch)...
Skipped due to superstition... Or at least that's what WikiPedia claims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office#Microsoft_Windows_versions
2003 is Office 11. 2007 is 12, 2010 is 14. So 15 is the next release after this one... Here's to waiting 3+ years for support... Maybe...
True, but since when is it possible for something that happens outside of court to be considered contempt? I would understand harassment. I would understand some other (possibly spam related) law. But contempt? So if I am walking down the street and say something to a judge that's walking the other way, he can find me in contempt? WTF? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this guy is innocent of everything, but I can't see how he's guilty of contempt...
I don't expect to get 100% of the maximum over the month. But I also don't expect to be artificially cut off at less than 5% of the maximum capacity. And I don't expect for congestion to get to the point where I can use less than 5% of the maximum capacity (If I'm constantly congested to 5%, then it's up to them to increase capacity to a reasonable amount. I'd tolerate 50% average, or even 25%. But 5% of the speed that I paid for? And you call that reasonable?). With your water analogy, people expect full pressure, but they don't complain unless it's bad for a significant portion of the time (and being bad for 95% isn't what most people would consider reasonable)...
The same thing happened with the dial-up ISPs in the early 90's. I paid for a 14.4 kbps uplink. Other than that, it was unlimited. The catch was that they only had a limited number of phone lines. So if you dialed in, and one wasn't available then tough for you. I can't think of a single one of those providers that is still in business today... The point of the matter is that if you are going to charge me for a connection, I expect a reasonable effort to meet the agreed upon conditions. If I pay for 50mbps, I expect to be able to average at least 25mbps over the long run. You're saying that expecting to get 50% off of what I paid for is unreasonable? What about them being unreasonable for selling me something that they can't support? If they really are selling 15mbps at 2% duty cycle, then they should either say that, or don't complain if you exceed the 2%...
Well, let me see if I understand you correctly. Say they advertise 15mbps. That equates to about 5TB per month. If the total transfer was 4.8TB, I would think that it would be reasonable (and hence wouldn't be argued in court). But if I was cut off at 200gb per month (less than 0.75mbps average), wouldn't that be not reasonable? I'm not saying we should be able to use every bit of bandwidth, but is not being able to use more than 5% of the advertised bandwidth reasonable (5% --0.75mbps-- would be about 240gb per month)?
There's a difference. You're dealing with the Wireless division... Compare these two pages for what I'm talking about (Both were 1 click away from the home page):
FIOS Internet Plans: http://www22.verizon.com/Residential/FiOSInternet/Plans/Plans.htm
Mobile Broadband: http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/mobilebroadband/?page=plans
Mobile explicitly states that not only is there a cap, but what it is. Fios makes no mention of even the existence of such a cap, yet alone what it is. And that's where I see the implication of "unlimited"...
I'm not talking about the contract that you signed (which falls under contract law). I'm talking about false advertising (which falls under the FTC). And based on everything that I've seen so far, I can't understand how this could NOT be false or deceptive advertising... They misrepresented the product to you prior to purchase, so then the whole contract is null and void even after it's signed...
If I told you that I was going to sell you a 2009 Lexus, and showed you the car. You paid me, and then I handed you a tiny matchbox car, I can bet you'd turn around and sue me for it even if the contract said something along the lines of "actual product may be different from what you saw"... I don't see how that situation is any different from the Verizon one...
I expect to be able to transfer that much, because I purchased a 15mbps connection, not a 200gb/month connection. If they advertised them by total transfer, or priced it based on total transfer, I'd be content with paying the difference. But my whole point is that they don't. They advertise 15mbps. Period. End of story. http://www22.verizon.com/Residential/FiOSInternet/Plans/Plans.htm Actually, now that I look at it, even in the fine print do they not disclose any kind of cap on transfer. They just say that they don't guarantee the rate. Nothing about "You are allowed to transfer x GB / month" or "Subject to usage caps" or even "Heavy users will be castrated and fed to the pigs"... Only:
It's repeated a few times on that page, but there's nothing that I can see that even remotely implies that you can't expect to use whatever bandwidth you can get to the fullest it provides you. Now sure, they could implement selective filtering based on that (the higher transfer people get rate limited)...
Particularly:
True, but they never said that I should expect otherwise either (except deep into the fine print). It's all about what the average person expects, not what they find reasonable. If an ad said "This car gets 400mpg", the average person would expect it to mean 400mpg averaged over a tank not an instantaneous value at some point in time. I guess my question is if you said "This plan has 15mb/s" to the average person, would they expect that to be the peak instantaneous transfer rate, or would they expect it to be the average value over a period of time (that you could transfer approximately 4.8TB over the course of a month)? I would think the latter. Plus, if you look at datacenters and web hosts, they explicitly state that you get 200gb of transfer on a 100mbps link, or a 100mbps link billed at 98%, or a unlimited 100mbps link. If I just told you that you were purchasing a 100bmps link, which would you (the average person) infer from that? I would assume one of the latter two, since 200gb is a LOT more limiting than 100mbps (and hence would normally be the disclosed factor). And that's the whole point...
Actually, that makes me wonder if Verizon would be liable for false advertising based on that... They offer you 15mbit internet, and then cap you at 1gb/month. Sure, they may say that in the fine print but would a good lawyer be able to get around that (basically saying that they implied unlimited transfer based on the main advertisement)? I mean I've never heard anyone say that there's a cap on it... Car companies aren't allowed to tell you that you'll get 400mpg, and then put in the fine print that it will only happen if you are coasting down a hill with the engine off. Making your product look better in advertising is nothing new, but doesn't this come down to blatant coercion?
Unless this is a marketing ploy (Have a friend "offer" $100 Million, just so you can turn it down publicly)... After all, news that a social site turns down huge money would likely generate publicity...
Horrible...
Well, I did quit for a year last year. I did notice that I felt a lot better and could think clearer (after the first week or so after quitting at least). But what I also notice now, is that my drive for abstract thought went down considerably. I'm not saying anything about my ability, but more so my desire and motivation. When I go outside for the 5 minutes, I'm forced to think about something for 5 minutes that I otherwise wouldn't think about. Now, I'm sure I could do that without resorting to the death sticks, but they provide the excuse and motivation to go out and think away from it all (That sounds like a rationalization for smoking, but it isn't, it's more of a rationalization about why I have better abstract thoughts when smoking). But I do agree with everything that you said (and have experienced it first hand). With that said, I know that I am addicted... I know that I should quit, I just haven't... I even find myself rationalizing not quitting (work is stressful, etc, etc). I know that it's wrong, and I don't believe the rationalizations, but I just haven't done it yet...
When I quit for a little over a year (last year), I did find it easier to think in general (as you imply), but I did find it harder to concentrate on abstract ideas. I've always been one to think about and formulate my own theories on everything (from philosophy to physics to math, etc). Most of them are complete and utter BS, but some of them I think have merit. In the year that I quit, I pretty much stopped thinking/working on these ideas (The exact reason, I don't know, but I suspect it has to do with the 5 minute regular breaks). Once I started smoking again, I started working on them again. Now I've got one of the theories to a stage where I'm starting to write a book/paper on it, and another where I'm going to friend who's a PHD in Math to help me with certain parts (I'm good at math, but not at the complex geometries that I need)... I could replace the nicotine with caffeine (tea/coffee/etc), but that wouldn't be a good idea. I have a veryaddictive personality. When I worked nights for an Ambulance company during college, I got hooked on coffee. I would go through 2 pots or so per night. So I don't want to replace one bad habit with another...
Normally I am one to raise that flag. But I agree here that it doesn't really apply. The article didn't make mention of any causation. All it said was in this study, men who smoked also had lower IQ's. There's 2 ways that could happen. Smoking lowers your IQ, or the more likely (on the average) lower IQ people smoke. It's interesting to say the least, but they never drew conclusions from the data, so it is a bit of a leap to jump down the correlation != causation bandwagon...
And I find it easier to think abstractly when I do (I did quit for over a year). Smoking forces me to take a break from what I'm doing every once in a while, so I get to separate myself from it. Then I get 5 minutes or so of time to contemplate or for abstract thought. I do honestly find myself more productive when I do smoke. Now, I'm not trying to rationalize it (I hate the fact that I got started again)... Just an observation...
That's odd, because EVERY SINGLE person I know with an iPhone has had an issue at one point or another. Sometimes it took a restart to fix, sometimes it took a reset, and a few times it took a device swap, but it happened to every one. Now, I'm not saying that the iPhone is unstable (as the GP is), but I am saying that it's not a model of stability. Neither is any MS product. Neither is Android...
So tailoring a product to the needs of the consumer isn't a good thing? Making different size clothes isn't a good thing? Making medication available in different doses isn't a good thing? The fact of the matter is that different people need different things. Most people don't need a smart phone at all. So that rules out the iPhone for them. But it doesn't rule out Android (it is being put on increasingly "light" devices). Fragmentation can be good, so long as it's controlled and for a reason... That's why different phones exist (oh yeah, that's right, you think there should be one phone to rule them all)...
Actually, you can't say that for sure. There can be no alternative to the App store, so you can't say that a (possibly large) portion of iPhone users wouldn't use another market... You're telling me that everyone who like the iPhone experience LIKES the restrictive store? I know at least one person (the only one I've talked to about it) that's not a geek that would disagree with you...
It's not about quality... It's about availability. There are dozens of things I can get from the Android market (and actually have and use) that wouldn't be allowed in the Apple market... I'm an adult, and I like being treated like one, and not told how and what I can use...
Hrm, really? What about all of these news stories? Sure, total sales to day are slim, but considering the first powerhouse Android phones are only MAYBE 6 months old, it's growing quite fast...
Can you please elaborate on why? As it stands, it sounds like pure fanboi-ism, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask your reasoning...?