This is why I hate conservatives. I can't get them to understand that a legal document written 200 years ago might, just might, not be 100% relevant any more.
This would be why said document does have a method by which to change it. Liberals seem to forget about that part because it's difficult.
Still waiting for a citation. I'd like real figures with an honest comparison between the two, including fraud for both. How you could be modded informative with absolutely no backing boggles my mind.
...but not as interesting as what the public will do once this technology is perfected. Cool concept + released to the masses of the Internet = further innovation.
If by "interesting", you mean "interesting and likely disturbing" you're right on. The masses of the internet bring us things like 4chan, goatse, and 2girls1cup. I mean, yes, the masses have brought us other things not quite so disturbing, but the potential for bringing the disturbing to augmented reality is huge.
In the meantime, I await what will come of this with baited breath and trepidation.
It couldn't be that everyone had over leveraged themselves... if that were the case, something like the Glass-Steagall Act would have keep the markets free from similar crashes. Oh, that's right... it did for nearly 70 years until it was repealed in 1999.
I'd definitely rank this as one of the major contributing factors to the financial collapse. Hindsight proves what a stupid decision that was.
Then why are all states at the top of GDP per capita Keynesian or sitting on top of valuable natural resources?
You still fail to address the point that you're attacking here. All those governments (with the exception of China, should it make that list) are massively in debt. Sooner or later it's going to catch up with them (see Greece) and no amount of Keynesian economics will save their collective asses.
The sound Canadian banking system holds the real answer: do not led greedy investors lurk in the shadows. Never take cops off the beat. Government oversight and transparency are the only realistic methods to preventing speculative bubbles, among other things.
I agree with this 100%. There is a balance between too much and too little regulation. Now, if there was only a party in the United States that was actually moderate. Rather than a Crazy Liberal/Neo-Con masquerading as one.
Even more funny - this is exactly what Pelosi and the Democrats propose to keep doing. Tax the rich and give to the poor, no? There's no accident that all the states that have similar problems to California (e.g. pay more in federal taxes than they get back) are all states where the per capita income is in the top 10 of the 50 states.
On a more serious note, this looks promising. I just hope we don't rush into this. The immune system runs a delicate balance, over response is nearly as dangerous as not enough. More research needed.
No kidding. Since you obviously don't understand where the CDMA in W-CDMA came from, I'll explain it. The WCDMA standard, for all intents and purposes, is just CDMA in 5 MHz bandwidth rather than CDMA's 1.25 MHz bandwidth. Sure, there are some goodies for interop between WCDMA and GSM (and some portions twiddled to lower royalties and such), but the tech is the same. The point of my original post was to show that GSM was a dead end technology as soon as CDMA was developed.
I personally find this hilarious on two counts:
1.) GSM and EDGE are TDMA technologies that are inferior in every way to the CDMA waveform.
2.) Your 3G service through AT&T is based off of CDMA. (All GSM carriers use W-CDMA for 3G service. See also #1.)
You forgot the aimbot hackers that are in 1 in 4 games. That, by far, is the most irritating part of the multi-player experience. While it's easy to tell (thank you kill-cam) it's just irritating after getting connection to host errors 3 games in a row.
Abstract:
A computer-implemented method for use in conjunction with a computing device with a touch screen display comprises: detecting one or more finger contacts with the touch screen display, applying one or more heuristics to the one or more finger contacts to determine a command for the device, and processing the command. The one or more heuristics comprise: a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command, a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a two-dimensional screen translation command, and a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a command to transition from displaying a respective item in a set of items to displaying a next item in the set of items.
First off, IANAPL (I am not a patent lawyer).
I know, looking at the abstract isn't particularly helpful as it's horrible patent legal speak. All you really need to notice is the repeated use of the word "heuristics". This is a software patent. They're patenting the heuristic (READ: software) used to determine what a user means by multiple figured gesture on a touch screen. The claims in the patent just go on to clarify what heuristics they're covering.
To answer your second question, I'm not really sure. In any case, it's my hope that when the Supreme Court reviews the "machine-or-transformation" test with the In re Bilski case that this and other software patents will be invalidated.
The radio vendor Apple uses (Infineon) already licenses the patents in order to build their baseband chips. However, if you read the terms of the licenses, they aren't (and I can't remember the actual term) "follow-on" licenses. Meaning anyone that uses those chips also has to license the appropriate technology in order to use them. Apple and Nokia are playing the usual game. Apple wants too much for the "precious" multi-touch patents, and Nokia just wants to do what most companies do in the industry. Set up a cross-licensing agreement and be done with it.
Quite thin? Every DLP TV I find listed is at least 10 inches thick, if not more.
Check out the Mitsubishi models. While most are huge (and cheap for the size) they are anything but thin.
While it's true than UMB died a horrible death, CDMA isn't going to die out any time soon. There are quite a few incremental upgrades in the future for CDMA 1x. The 3GPP2 standards body approved the 1x Advanced standard (4x improvement in voice calls in the same amount of used spectrum) and SVDO which will finally allow concurrent 1x Voice and 1xEVDO data calls. It's a fairly strong evolutionary path since it'll use much of the existing CDMA infrastructure making it a cheaper alternative to LTE or UMTS for current CDMA carriers. Many carriers will begin to roll out LTE at the end of 2010, but I really can't see wide scale adoption for several more years after that (Verizon thinks it'll have it all rolled out ~2013). So, for low end CDMA carriers, it's a lifeline. For others, it's a bridge to LTE while 3GPP works on the LTE voice call problem. AFAIK, there still isn't a standard for dealing with voice over LTE networks in the standard. One would think it would be some kind of VOIP (as LTE is an all IP network), but that's hard on carriers with all their "legacy" call handling equipment. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out.
Hopelessly carrier dependent. If you think the standards themselves are alphabet soup, you should see the individual releases for each. What speeds you can get are very dependent upon what each carrier actually has rolled out (which is often not uniform). Phone hardware definitely ahead of what the carriers have rolled out in many cases.
I really do think cdmaOne(IS95) would have had wider adoption in the end if they'd employed a SIM mechanism. I'm not sure of the reason why they weren't included, but my unsubstantiated opinion is that it was carrier pressure back when CDMA was first being developed. The "If you include 'insert feature here' we won't buy." kind of thing.
Band space is a real freaking mess. It makes world/multi-mode phones needlessly more expensive due to complex antennae and RF hardware required to handle the large numbers of bands.
True. Not sure why it slipped my mind. D-AMPS was first implemented in 1990, while GSM didn't make it's debut until 1991. I don't think there are any carriers still using it. Last carrier in the US using it was US Cellular, and I think they switched to CDMA2000 at the beginning of this year (2009).
Sure thing. I was referring to ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) who has managed the GSM standard since they were transferred responsibility for the standard in 1989 (Phase 1 of the standard was published in 1990). They (along with many others) formed the 3GPP group that released the first UMTS standard in 1999 (commonly referred to as release '99).
There's a bunch of funny stories involved with the development of the UMTS standard. Most of which revolve around the fact that virtually no one outside of Qualcomm in the early 90s believed that CDMA could even work. Once it became apparent that TDMA systems were not technology of choice moving forward, ETSI had a problem. Qualcomm owns most of the IP for the air interface, and no one is fond of paying royalties. Comparing the CDMA to UMTS air interface standards will yield slight differences in many places for no other reason but to attempt to reduce the royalty rates. The one that comes to mind is reverse-link power control (the cell site telling the cell phone itself to transmit stronger or weaker). The only material difference is the reversal of the meaning of the power control bits.
Eris is cheap with a contract right now too. Saw it for $49 after a rebate at Best Buy recently.
Personally, I'll be waiting for whatever Verizon is going to call the HTC PassionC (Nexus is the HTC Passion, C for CDMA). That's assuming it actually gets there sometime in the near future.
Like another poster says in reply to this, there's a lot you've gotten wrong here. You seem to have your technologies confused.
AMPS (the original analog cell) is first gen.
Next came GSM, a 2G technology
CDMA rolled around first in the IS-95 standard, also 2G.
GSM folks upgraded with GPRS (and later EDGE) making 2.5G networks
CDMA2000 is a family of 3-3.5G technologies (1x, 1xEVDO/revA/revB)
GSM people realized that CDMA > TDMA when they got together to make WCDMA (also called UMTS). From a simple view, UMTS is CDMA, but using a 5 MHz frequency band, rather than the ~1.25 MHz band that CMDA uses. There's more to it, of course.
3.5G networks use UMTS + HSPA/HSPA+. Not that there are really many networks that use anything more than the 3.6Mbps HSPA. (which, incidentally isn't much faster than EVDOrA @ 3.1 Mbps)
4G is LTE and WiMax (sort of).
The only reason that smartphones make more sense at the moment on GSM/UMTS networks has nothing to do with the technology involved, but the economics. There are a lot more people on GSM/UMTS networks than CDMA, mostly due to the fact that CDMA was a late comer to the cell phone game. My guess is that the CDMA follow-on will come later in the year.
That would be pretty funny if it were true, but no, it doesn't actually say that.
Try writing a real article instead of just completely making shit up.
The little chats even say "good for:" or "ideal for:".
The checkboxes clearly mean "if you want to do these sorts of things you probably want this amount of bandwidth", not "lesser connections are incapable of this".
It doesn't take a genius.
While it is a bit on the "making it up side", you and I both know that most people will take that chart exactly that way. That they actually need 3 mbps to use "Social Networking".
Given that they're the ones that make it such that the "up" key defaults to "Mobile Web" on their BREW based phones, my problem is still with Verizon. Given that the data charge granularity is ludicrous (orders of magnitude worse than their call granularity), my problem is still with Verizon.
The problem isn't so much the charge itself. It's just how easy it is to make that mistake.
It isn't like it's deeper menu item. On my phone, just fat fingering "up" will cause you to try to use Mobile Web.
This is a really easy thing to do, given that the "ok" button is in the middle of the D-pad on my phone.
The granularity is also an issue. Charging for a full MB when you use less than 1k? That's orders of magnitude worse than futzing a call and being charged a minute.
Slashdot Mirror
This would be why said document does have a method by which to change it. Liberals seem to forget about that part because it's difficult.
Still waiting for a citation. I'd like real figures with an honest comparison between the two, including fraud for both. How you could be modded informative with absolutely no backing boggles my mind.
[Citation Needed] I wonder if that 2-3% for medicare counts the $60B in medicare fraud every year (source, 60 minutes).
...but not as interesting as what the public will do once this technology is perfected. Cool concept + released to the masses of the Internet = further innovation.
If by "interesting", you mean "interesting and likely disturbing" you're right on. The masses of the internet bring us things like 4chan, goatse, and 2girls1cup. I mean, yes, the masses have brought us other things not quite so disturbing, but the potential for bringing the disturbing to augmented reality is huge.
In the meantime, I await what will come of this with baited breath and trepidation.
It couldn't be that everyone had over leveraged themselves... if that were the case, something like the Glass-Steagall Act would have keep the markets free from similar crashes. Oh, that's right... it did for nearly 70 years until it was repealed in 1999.
I'd definitely rank this as one of the major contributing factors to the financial collapse. Hindsight proves what a stupid decision that was.
Then why are all states at the top of GDP per capita Keynesian or sitting on top of valuable natural resources?
You still fail to address the point that you're attacking here. All those governments (with the exception of China, should it make that list) are massively in debt. Sooner or later it's going to catch up with them (see Greece) and no amount of Keynesian economics will save their collective asses.
The sound Canadian banking system holds the real answer: do not led greedy investors lurk in the shadows. Never take cops off the beat. Government oversight and transparency are the only realistic methods to preventing speculative bubbles, among other things.
I agree with this 100%. There is a balance between too much and too little regulation. Now, if there was only a party in the United States that was actually moderate. Rather than a Crazy Liberal/Neo-Con masquerading as one.
Even more funny - this is exactly what Pelosi and the Democrats propose to keep doing. Tax the rich and give to the poor, no? There's no accident that all the states that have similar problems to California (e.g. pay more in federal taxes than they get back) are all states where the per capita income is in the top 10 of the 50 states.
whatcouldpossiblygowrong
On a more serious note, this looks promising. I just hope we don't rush into this. The immune system runs a delicate balance, over response is nearly as dangerous as not enough. More research needed.
andnothingofvaluewaslost
No kidding. Since you obviously don't understand where the CDMA in W-CDMA came from, I'll explain it. The WCDMA standard, for all intents and purposes, is just CDMA in 5 MHz bandwidth rather than CDMA's 1.25 MHz bandwidth. Sure, there are some goodies for interop between WCDMA and GSM (and some portions twiddled to lower royalties and such), but the tech is the same. The point of my original post was to show that GSM was a dead end technology as soon as CDMA was developed.
I personally find this hilarious on two counts:
1.) GSM and EDGE are TDMA technologies that are inferior in every way to the CDMA waveform.
2.) Your 3G service through AT&T is based off of CDMA. (All GSM carriers use W-CDMA for 3G service. See also #1.)
You forgot the aimbot hackers that are in 1 in 4 games. That, by far, is the most irritating part of the multi-player experience. While it's easy to tell (thank you kill-cam) it's just irritating after getting connection to host errors 3 games in a row.
Patent 7,479,949:
Abstract:
A computer-implemented method for use in conjunction with a computing device with a touch screen display comprises: detecting one or more finger contacts with the touch screen display, applying one or more heuristics to the one or more finger contacts to determine a command for the device, and processing the command. The one or more heuristics comprise: a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command, a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a two-dimensional screen translation command, and a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a command to transition from displaying a respective item in a set of items to displaying a next item in the set of items.
First off, IANAPL (I am not a patent lawyer).
I know, looking at the abstract isn't particularly helpful as it's horrible patent legal speak. All you really need to notice is the repeated use of the word "heuristics". This is a software patent. They're patenting the heuristic (READ: software) used to determine what a user means by multiple figured gesture on a touch screen. The claims in the patent just go on to clarify what heuristics they're covering.
To answer your second question, I'm not really sure. In any case, it's my hope that when the Supreme Court reviews the "machine-or-transformation" test with the In re Bilski case that this and other software patents will be invalidated.
The radio vendor Apple uses (Infineon) already licenses the patents in order to build their baseband chips. However, if you read the terms of the licenses, they aren't (and I can't remember the actual term) "follow-on" licenses. Meaning anyone that uses those chips also has to license the appropriate technology in order to use them. Apple and Nokia are playing the usual game. Apple wants too much for the "precious" multi-touch patents, and Nokia just wants to do what most companies do in the industry. Set up a cross-licensing agreement and be done with it.
... Or more likely they've been talking with Apple and RIM for a while now, and the negotiations broke down.
Quite thin? Every DLP TV I find listed is at least 10 inches thick, if not more. Check out the Mitsubishi models. While most are huge (and cheap for the size) they are anything but thin.
When will HTC be releasing the PassionC? I'm pretty happy with my current carrier (Verizon) which means I need a CDMA version of this phone...
While it's true than UMB died a horrible death, CDMA isn't going to die out any time soon. There are quite a few incremental upgrades in the future for CDMA 1x. The 3GPP2 standards body approved the 1x Advanced standard (4x improvement in voice calls in the same amount of used spectrum) and SVDO which will finally allow concurrent 1x Voice and 1xEVDO data calls. It's a fairly strong evolutionary path since it'll use much of the existing CDMA infrastructure making it a cheaper alternative to LTE or UMTS for current CDMA carriers. Many carriers will begin to roll out LTE at the end of 2010, but I really can't see wide scale adoption for several more years after that (Verizon thinks it'll have it all rolled out ~2013). So, for low end CDMA carriers, it's a lifeline. For others, it's a bridge to LTE while 3GPP works on the LTE voice call problem. AFAIK, there still isn't a standard for dealing with voice over LTE networks in the standard. One would think it would be some kind of VOIP (as LTE is an all IP network), but that's hard on carriers with all their "legacy" call handling equipment. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out.
Hopelessly carrier dependent. If you think the standards themselves are alphabet soup, you should see the individual releases for each. What speeds you can get are very dependent upon what each carrier actually has rolled out (which is often not uniform). Phone hardware definitely ahead of what the carriers have rolled out in many cases.
I really do think cdmaOne(IS95) would have had wider adoption in the end if they'd employed a SIM mechanism. I'm not sure of the reason why they weren't included, but my unsubstantiated opinion is that it was carrier pressure back when CDMA was first being developed. The "If you include 'insert feature here' we won't buy." kind of thing.
Band space is a real freaking mess. It makes world/multi-mode phones needlessly more expensive due to complex antennae and RF hardware required to handle the large numbers of bands.
True. Not sure why it slipped my mind. D-AMPS was first implemented in 1990, while GSM didn't make it's debut until 1991. I don't think there are any carriers still using it. Last carrier in the US using it was US Cellular, and I think they switched to CDMA2000 at the beginning of this year (2009).
Sure thing. I was referring to ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) who has managed the GSM standard since they were transferred responsibility for the standard in 1989 (Phase 1 of the standard was published in 1990). They (along with many others) formed the 3GPP group that released the first UMTS standard in 1999 (commonly referred to as release '99).
There's a bunch of funny stories involved with the development of the UMTS standard. Most of which revolve around the fact that virtually no one outside of Qualcomm in the early 90s believed that CDMA could even work. Once it became apparent that TDMA systems were not technology of choice moving forward, ETSI had a problem. Qualcomm owns most of the IP for the air interface, and no one is fond of paying royalties. Comparing the CDMA to UMTS air interface standards will yield slight differences in many places for no other reason but to attempt to reduce the royalty rates. The one that comes to mind is reverse-link power control (the cell site telling the cell phone itself to transmit stronger or weaker). The only material difference is the reversal of the meaning of the power control bits.
Eris is cheap with a contract right now too. Saw it for $49 after a rebate at Best Buy recently.
Personally, I'll be waiting for whatever Verizon is going to call the HTC PassionC (Nexus is the HTC Passion, C for CDMA). That's assuming it actually gets there sometime in the near future.
Like another poster says in reply to this, there's a lot you've gotten wrong here. You seem to have your technologies confused.
The only reason that smartphones make more sense at the moment on GSM/UMTS networks has nothing to do with the technology involved, but the economics. There are a lot more people on GSM/UMTS networks than CDMA, mostly due to the fact that CDMA was a late comer to the cell phone game. My guess is that the CDMA follow-on will come later in the year.
That would be pretty funny if it were true, but no, it doesn't actually say that.
Try writing a real article instead of just completely making shit up.
The little chats even say "good for:" or "ideal for:".
The checkboxes clearly mean "if you want to do these sorts of things you probably want this amount of bandwidth", not "lesser connections are incapable of this".
It doesn't take a genius.
While it is a bit on the "making it up side", you and I both know that most people will take that chart exactly that way. That they actually need 3 mbps to use "Social Networking".
Given that they're the ones that make it such that the "up" key defaults to "Mobile Web" on their BREW based phones, my problem is still with Verizon. Given that the data charge granularity is ludicrous (orders of magnitude worse than their call granularity), my problem is still with Verizon.
The problem isn't so much the charge itself. It's just how easy it is to make that mistake.
It isn't like it's deeper menu item. On my phone, just fat fingering "up" will cause you to try to use Mobile Web. This is a really easy thing to do, given that the "ok" button is in the middle of the D-pad on my phone.
The granularity is also an issue. Charging for a full MB when you use less than 1k? That's orders of magnitude worse than futzing a call and being charged a minute.