"Beaming"/bluetooth contact/file transfer worked pretty bloody well for my Nokia and Sony Ericssons. Indeed, iSync made it wonderfully easy to wirelessly sync updated contact info to my Mac. Why is this missing for the iPhone?
(indeed, why didn't Apple use iSync for the iPhone?)
You're still working in their Multitasking API sandbox. Without having seen the list of APIs myself, I can imagine that there would be cases which don't fall into any of the functions provided, and you really just want a GenericMultitaskHook or somesuch.
For example, one of the most brilliant jailbreak tools is SBSettings, which lets you flick WiFi, Bluetooth, GPS, or Edge/3G off without having to dig down into the Settings app. Turning on bluetooth with SBSettings (for when you want to play multiplayer Flight Control, for instance) is a swipe of the status bar and a tap on a button, then another to close. With the Settings "app", it's Quit to Home > Go to Settings > General > Bluetooth > Flick switch > Quit to Home > Reopen app.
Will Apple allow the built in Settings app to run in the background? will they expose APIs to manipulate these settings?
You are not covered by the iPad's use case. It's more like the iPhone, inherently a personal device, not a "family tablet" to be shared. Buy a MacBook Air if you must have multiple users on a light portable device.
My point was not that Android won't overtake the iPhone in popularity or technical merit, but to highlight the danger of using a one-off month to project for an annual rate. If the figure quoted was based on Feb or March it might have more credence. For that matter, Gartner doesn't exactly have a stellar prediction record.
That said, who is "Mainland China" exactly? Do you mean a/more-than-one PRC telecomms provider has forced Android for their own purposes? I'd hardly expect that to be as open the promise of Android is.
I don't think it's a matter of keeping up with technology so much as trying to find a winner other than the dominant market leader. He's egging on Apple's iPad because of the control it enables him to exert over the consumption of the media his empire produces. Google plays by its own rules, so Murdoch is unlikely to want to play nice with someone who he can't intimidate, cajole or otherwise influence. The ideals of open access don't sit well with Sir Rupert, not unless he can make a buck out of it somehow.
Why would anyone sell, or for that matter buy, a smartphone without "unlimited" internet usage?
I use quotes because here in the UK mobile providers have "fair use" policies are somewhat coy about what that means. From what I understand you'd have to exceed about 40GiB/mo for a month or two to fall afoul though.
Well aren't you lucky sods. I happen to live in a country where there is an illusion of competition more correctly referred to as all-out collusion and an entrenched market monopoly leader which has until now had little incentive to provide a service or invest in infrastructure. It sounds like the US, but no sir, it's Australia, and you'd struggle to find a provider that will willingly throw in more than a couple of gigs of data a month even on "unlimited" $99/mo plans. While the rest of the world enjoys call rates going down over time, recently the major telcos all hiked their rates ("independently" mind you) to 90c per minute with a 35c flagfall.
Meanwhile my friend in India pays Rs. 0.01 per second. Sure, he has to pay for incoming call roaming outside his state, but 99% of his calls wouldn't even round up to an Australian cent.
"Sales rate"? Are you projecting from the first month of sales for the Nexus One to a uniform total sales for the year? By that logic the iPad alone has a "sales rate" of roughly 109 million.
Make that Media tycoon - Fox (incl. Fox News, 20th Century Fox), Sky (UK), and Star (Asia) are all attributable to the Murdoch empire.
but these days that skillset makes him roughly as useful as a candlestick maker or a wheelwright.
y'know, I think it's a bit early to be calling someone who has had the canny ability to come into markets long established and shake them up entirely as an outsider; he's simply got more competition in the form of others who are able to do the same with the leverage of the internet, but don't pretend for a minute that Murdoch doesn't have the mental ability to take on the status quo. Remember, this is a guy who started with a single city paper in the 5th largest city in Australia (Adelaide's Advertiser) and grew it into a multinational media company.
It's $499 to begin, and why would the purchase of the iPad be per week? if you're going to make a point, average it over a year or something (hint: still come out way ahead)
Unless you're operating on some inside knowledge the rest of us don't have, Blu-ray licensing comes through the Blu-ray Disc Association, which administers the licensing on behalf of patent holders. Sony doesn't hold all the patents around Blu-ray, though it'd be true to say that they (along with Pioneer) were the ones pushing the format originally.
The issue here is that the Blu-ray Disc Association is itself creating a format which isn't backwards compatible; the idea that Sony has no "incentive" to make Blu-ray compatible with "anyone else's standard" is an entirely false one, since there's no major competing standard for Blu-ray any more, and the only incentive they would have would be if they were losing significantly in the market. See the recent conversion of Sony from being Memory Stick exclusive to including SD support in many of their products.
Yeah, and the uproar from those caught out by the rapid price drops caught them by surprise, and forced a public acknowledgement and store credit to be issued to those affected. Apple's unlikely to make the same mistake again.
yeah but your parent is comparing two similar places, while you've brought in a totally unrelated comparison without reason beyond pointing out the obvious (i.e. cost is subjective)
And until you stop referring to the majority of the populace as "the masses", you're not exactly going to be leading the change. No-one thinks of themselves as part of "the masses", so some language that is actually likely to engage would be far more useful.
We the people of Australia through our elected representatives in government. If you don't like it, go speak up, or stand for parliament and make a change through the system. Most people won't care too much because they either don't know or are likely to believe it'll not affect them, unless we who understand the implications raise awareness and can argue a persuasive case.
Against all my instincts, I find myself for the right of governments to filter, as long as they are 'legitimate' governments.
The issue is that while you might be quite happy for a legitimate government to filter, they can quickly become an illegitimate government, perhaps especially because they control the filters and will filter any evidence of their illegitimacy from the public at large.
The biggest issue governments have is that there's no heirarchy to the internet - they can't speak to the owner of the internet like they could with newspapers or TV networks or radio networks - and that lack of a single point, or even a limited set of points of control freaks most governments out. Spin is awful hard to get out there when you need to spin hundreds instead of a handful.
ACTA isn't being rammed down our throats, since we're taking an active part in negotiating it. Far more nefarious was 5 years ago when through the AUSFTA we had copyright extensions from 50 to 70 years, and the DMCA rammed into Australian law without any significant debate in the Australian parliament under the banner of the greater trade good.
From TFA, the closest hint we get to the 3D nature:
By combining the Hubble observations of gravitational lenses with spectroscopic red shift observations from telescopes on Earth, the 3D location of clumps of mass (dark matter, galaxies, black holes etc.) can be found. In this case, the white, cyan, and green regions are closer to Earth than those indicated in orange and red.
but yes, the rest is pretty awful... it's just a starfield without any context with blotches of colour randomly scattered over it.
Slashdot Mirror
"Beaming"/bluetooth contact/file transfer worked pretty bloody well for my Nokia and Sony Ericssons. Indeed, iSync made it wonderfully easy to wirelessly sync updated contact info to my Mac. Why is this missing for the iPhone?
(indeed, why didn't Apple use iSync for the iPhone?)
You're still working in their Multitasking API sandbox. Without having seen the list of APIs myself, I can imagine that there would be cases which don't fall into any of the functions provided, and you really just want a GenericMultitaskHook or somesuch.
For example, one of the most brilliant jailbreak tools is SBSettings, which lets you flick WiFi, Bluetooth, GPS, or Edge/3G off without having to dig down into the Settings app. Turning on bluetooth with SBSettings (for when you want to play multiplayer Flight Control, for instance) is a swipe of the status bar and a tap on a button, then another to close. With the Settings "app", it's Quit to Home > Go to Settings > General > Bluetooth > Flick switch > Quit to Home > Reopen app.
Will Apple allow the built in Settings app to run in the background? will they expose APIs to manipulate these settings?
You are not covered by the iPad's use case. It's more like the iPhone, inherently a personal device, not a "family tablet" to be shared. Buy a MacBook Air if you must have multiple users on a light portable device.
OTOH there may be an App for that =)
He's probably not using any apps or taking any calls.
Oh, wait...
My point was not that Android won't overtake the iPhone in popularity or technical merit, but to highlight the danger of using a one-off month to project for an annual rate. If the figure quoted was based on Feb or March it might have more credence. For that matter, Gartner doesn't exactly have a stellar prediction record.
That said, who is "Mainland China" exactly? Do you mean a/more-than-one PRC telecomms provider has forced Android for their own purposes? I'd hardly expect that to be as open the promise of Android is.
I don't think it's a matter of keeping up with technology so much as trying to find a winner other than the dominant market leader. He's egging on Apple's iPad because of the control it enables him to exert over the consumption of the media his empire produces. Google plays by its own rules, so Murdoch is unlikely to want to play nice with someone who he can't intimidate, cajole or otherwise influence. The ideals of open access don't sit well with Sir Rupert, not unless he can make a buck out of it somehow.
Why would anyone sell, or for that matter buy, a smartphone without "unlimited" internet usage?
I use quotes because here in the UK mobile providers have "fair use" policies are somewhat coy about what that means. From what I understand you'd have to exceed about 40GiB/mo for a month or two to fall afoul though.
Well aren't you lucky sods. I happen to live in a country where there is an illusion of competition more correctly referred to as all-out collusion and an entrenched market monopoly leader which has until now had little incentive to provide a service or invest in infrastructure. It sounds like the US, but no sir, it's Australia, and you'd struggle to find a provider that will willingly throw in more than a couple of gigs of data a month even on "unlimited" $99/mo plans. While the rest of the world enjoys call rates going down over time, recently the major telcos all hiked their rates ("independently" mind you) to 90c per minute with a 35c flagfall.
Meanwhile my friend in India pays Rs. 0.01 per second. Sure, he has to pay for incoming call roaming outside his state, but 99% of his calls wouldn't even round up to an Australian cent.
"Sales rate"? Are you projecting from the first month of sales for the Nexus One to a uniform total sales for the year? By that logic the iPad alone has a "sales rate" of roughly 109 million.
He understood how to be a Newspaper tycoon,
Make that Media tycoon - Fox (incl. Fox News, 20th Century Fox), Sky (UK), and Star (Asia) are all attributable to the Murdoch empire.
but these days that skillset makes him roughly as useful as a candlestick maker or a wheelwright.
y'know, I think it's a bit early to be calling someone who has had the canny ability to come into markets long established and shake them up entirely as an outsider; he's simply got more competition in the form of others who are able to do the same with the leverage of the internet, but don't pretend for a minute that Murdoch doesn't have the mental ability to take on the status quo. Remember, this is a guy who started with a single city paper in the 5th largest city in Australia (Adelaide's Advertiser) and grew it into a multinational media company.
He is getting old, though.
Yeah, they're only making a buck a week to sell it to people who will clearly pay a lot for something with limited functionality.
It's $499 to begin, and why would the purchase of the iPad be per week? if you're going to make a point, average it over a year or something (hint: still come out way ahead)
It'
Damn, looks like the Old Media got to him before he could finish the post...
That may have been a poison mushroom. Been hanging around the lost levels at work?
Unless you're operating on some inside knowledge the rest of us don't have, Blu-ray licensing comes through the Blu-ray Disc Association, which administers the licensing on behalf of patent holders. Sony doesn't hold all the patents around Blu-ray, though it'd be true to say that they (along with Pioneer) were the ones pushing the format originally.
The issue here is that the Blu-ray Disc Association is itself creating a format which isn't backwards compatible; the idea that Sony has no "incentive" to make Blu-ray compatible with "anyone else's standard" is an entirely false one, since there's no major competing standard for Blu-ray any more, and the only incentive they would have would be if they were losing significantly in the market. See the recent conversion of Sony from being Memory Stick exclusive to including SD support in many of their products.
Yeah, and the uproar from those caught out by the rapid price drops caught them by surprise, and forced a public acknowledgement and store credit to be issued to those affected. Apple's unlikely to make the same mistake again.
yeah but your parent is comparing two similar places, while you've brought in a totally unrelated comparison without reason beyond pointing out the obvious (i.e. cost is subjective)
What natural laziness? Australians are, on average, amongst the hardest working in the developed world. The lazy perception and stereotype that persists is outdated and needs to be thrown out.
And until you stop referring to the majority of the populace as "the masses", you're not exactly going to be leading the change. No-one thinks of themselves as part of "the masses", so some language that is actually likely to engage would be far more useful.
Actually, somewhere between a decade and a half to two decades ago, as sad as it is to think of it as that long ago...
Who's we?
We the people of Australia through our elected representatives in government. If you don't like it, go speak up, or stand for parliament and make a change through the system. Most people won't care too much because they either don't know or are likely to believe it'll not affect them, unless we who understand the implications raise awareness and can argue a persuasive case.
Welcome to democracy.
Against all my instincts, I find myself for the right of governments to filter, as long as they are 'legitimate' governments.
The issue is that while you might be quite happy for a legitimate government to filter, they can quickly become an illegitimate government, perhaps especially because they control the filters and will filter any evidence of their illegitimacy from the public at large.
The biggest issue governments have is that there's no heirarchy to the internet - they can't speak to the owner of the internet like they could with newspapers or TV networks or radio networks - and that lack of a single point, or even a limited set of points of control freaks most governments out. Spin is awful hard to get out there when you need to spin hundreds instead of a handful.
ACTA isn't being rammed down our throats, since we're taking an active part in negotiating it. Far more nefarious was 5 years ago when through the AUSFTA we had copyright extensions from 50 to 70 years, and the DMCA rammed into Australian law without any significant debate in the Australian parliament under the banner of the greater trade good.
Yeah, but one would assume that as the minister in charge of the area being discussed he would at the very least be notified as soon as practical.
That or he's a lying slimeball. I'm not sure which is easier to believe.
From TFA, the closest hint we get to the 3D nature:
By combining the Hubble observations of gravitational lenses with spectroscopic red shift observations from telescopes on Earth, the 3D location of clumps of mass (dark matter, galaxies, black holes etc.) can be found. In this case, the white, cyan, and green regions are closer to Earth than those indicated in orange and red.
but yes, the rest is pretty awful... it's just a starfield without any context with blotches of colour randomly scattered over it.
4,000,000 bytes / 4096 bytes-per-sector = 977 (rounded up).
But the more important question: Why do you care?
It's not that I can't understand it, it's that I can't read it. Alas, I simply cannot tell the difference between 2.8V and 0V.
That's actually easier to tell than you think.