I don't see how they could've excluded Google. I use Outlook+Exchange, Gmail, and Yahoo mail on a regular basis (work, personal, shopping) and Gmail is the gold standard. Outlook and Yahoo are a joke.
Point is you don't gain anything if the users don't understand the sandbox.
Android tells you precisely what every app is allowed to do, most people blithely ignore the part where a variety of apps have access to "Read phone call state and identity."
And further fragment the current vorbis-H.264 slugfest? If Microsoft doesn't want HTML5 to succeed, they can just not implement it. Introducing yet another codec would be even dumber than Silverlight, since Silverlight fills a niche (studios want DRM.) Unless they decide to hack DRM into <video>, but I really find that unlikely.
You're missing the point. A frame has a point value for every pixel at a given point in time. The eye has no such thing. Each pixel is transmitted individually and asynchronously to the brain, so even though an individual 'pixel' has a rate of refresh, you could conceivably have a different refresh time for every cone on the eye.
It's certainly a nice thought (for them), but it won't work. As goes YouTube, so goes the Internet. Nothing Microsoft can do about that. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if IE9 at a bare minimum supports <video> and <audio> It's such a simple thing to hack into the engine that even they should be able to pull it off without any fuss.
SVG, that's a bit trickier, but they do have that VML renderer lying around.
The point is that Android is not a random open source project from Freshmeat. It's a platform half a dozen major corporations have spent the past two years working on, and the operating system layer has been in constant development for nearly two decades, and has one of the best security records around. In terms of security, it's a sturdy platform built on bedrock.
On the other hand, there are a number of ways it is obviously insecure. Gesture unlock instead of a real password is my biggest concern, as well as the unencrypted SD card. But just the same, the point is that excepting the obvious gaping holes, there's no reason to believe that Android has any more security flaws than another Linux-based OS.
He's primarily talking about the signing process, and he's quite right. Actually, it's worse than he's letting on. The Android Dev Tool plugin for Eclipse (which is the preferred frontend for signing your Android applications) is itself an unsigned Eclipse package - complete with warning from Eclipse that it's unsigned.
So think about that for a moment: You're signing software using unsigned software. All someone has to do is get a man in the middle on you, and the whole chain of trust is blown wide open. It's absurd. I love my Droid, and knowing what an application can do is nice, but Google needs to look at dealing with these obvious problems.
Also I've never been able to connect to get updates to the SDK over https. The great advice on the Android site is to click "force https sources to be fetched over http." Honestly, we might as well be transmitting this crap over irc for all the attention they're paying to security.
See, now that post was flamebait, and it's modded troll. People these days. I could understand a troll mod for the OP, but really... if you thought that was a serious attack on anyone, and worthy of a scathing flame reply... I think you should seek professional help. You have a serious problem.
Back when I was a kid, I never understood why they could make a game like gameboy camera, but they couldn't trade out that camera for an antenna connected to a car with a camera on it.
I suppose we still don't have it thanks to privacy concerns, but it would be so badass.
While I agree in principle, you're missing the overall cost of service. Since the overall cost of service usually dwarfs the cost of the device, it makes sense that the phone is a throwaway device.
On the other hand, with a superphone, at least the current generation, the cost of the device is almost 30% or so the lifetime cost of service, so it makes sense to hold on to it.
I'd say the design limitation is the 16GB of storage on the iPhone. (as opposed to the Droid which can easily be updated when 32gb micro SD cards come out) If a person can't figure out how to store graphics and level maps on the SD card, I don't think that person has any business designing games.
Droid has the camera. The processor is about half the speed, but then it's a 600mhz cpu downclocked to 550mhz, so I'm a little skeptical that the Nexus will provide more bang for your buck. If anything, you're likely to be trading speed for battery life, as is often the case. And I'm happy with the Droid's speed.
I'm hoping that Motorola will be rolling out 2.1 soon given that the Droid just has stock Android, it would be a pretty dangerous move for the Droid to let it sit with 2.0 while the snazzy Nexus One rolls out with 2.1.
That was his point. The person in question cannot have sufficient grounding in computing if he doesn't know how arbitrary-length integers are stored, he certainly is not qualified to review this patent.
Do you get the idea of software? It has nothing to do with the hardware. Kurzweil is thinking ahead, and not locking his books into a format that will be obsolete when full-sized tablets become economically viable. He's several steps ahead, designing software for a couple generations down the road.
Of course, incidentally it will work just fine on your current iMac or whatnot.
How much do you have to pay for stock OEM windows? Because whenever I optimize a computer, it mostly involves removing the shoddy always-on software installed by the manufacturer / Best Buy.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how they could've excluded Google. I use Outlook+Exchange, Gmail, and Yahoo mail on a regular basis (work, personal, shopping) and Gmail is the gold standard. Outlook and Yahoo are a joke.
Point is you don't gain anything if the users don't understand the sandbox.
Android tells you precisely what every app is allowed to do, most people blithely ignore the part where a variety of apps have access to "Read phone call state and identity."
And further fragment the current vorbis-H.264 slugfest? If Microsoft doesn't want HTML5 to succeed, they can just not implement it. Introducing yet another codec would be even dumber than Silverlight, since Silverlight fills a niche (studios want DRM.) Unless they decide to hack DRM into <video>, but I really find that unlikely.
I took that to mean that a Tablet PC was superior in every respect for notetaking. I suppose you simply meant that it was completely different.
You're missing the point. A frame has a point value for every pixel at a given point in time. The eye has no such thing. Each pixel is transmitted individually and asynchronously to the brain, so even though an individual 'pixel' has a rate of refresh, you could conceivably have a different refresh time for every cone on the eye.
It's certainly a nice thought (for them), but it won't work. As goes YouTube, so goes the Internet. Nothing Microsoft can do about that. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if IE9 at a bare minimum supports <video> and <audio> It's such a simple thing to hack into the engine that even they should be able to pull it off without any fuss.
SVG, that's a bit trickier, but they do have that VML renderer lying around.
You write faster with a stylus than you can type? I am surprised.
A proper knowledge of LaTeX you can even do mathematical notation at a decent rate (and it looks prettier too.) I'll keep my keyboard, thanks.
excellent summary of the summary.
The point is that Android is not a random open source project from Freshmeat. It's a platform half a dozen major corporations have spent the past two years working on, and the operating system layer has been in constant development for nearly two decades, and has one of the best security records around. In terms of security, it's a sturdy platform built on bedrock.
On the other hand, there are a number of ways it is obviously insecure. Gesture unlock instead of a real password is my biggest concern, as well as the unencrypted SD card. But just the same, the point is that excepting the obvious gaping holes, there's no reason to believe that Android has any more security flaws than another Linux-based OS.
He's primarily talking about the signing process, and he's quite right. Actually, it's worse than he's letting on. The Android Dev Tool plugin for Eclipse (which is the preferred frontend for signing your Android applications) is itself an unsigned Eclipse package - complete with warning from Eclipse that it's unsigned.
So think about that for a moment: You're signing software using unsigned software. All someone has to do is get a man in the middle on you, and the whole chain of trust is blown wide open. It's absurd. I love my Droid, and knowing what an application can do is nice, but Google needs to look at dealing with these obvious problems.
Also I've never been able to connect to get updates to the SDK over https. The great advice on the Android site is to click "force https sources to be fetched over http." Honestly, we might as well be transmitting this crap over irc for all the attention they're paying to security.
I can't bring myself to purchase a computer that lacks an interpreter I can use to write scripts.
No, the primary issue has really been the headaches. If they can do it without damaging people's vision, it will catch on.
See, now that post was flamebait, and it's modded troll. People these days. I could understand a troll mod for the OP, but really... if you thought that was a serious attack on anyone, and worthy of a scathing flame reply... I think you should seek professional help. You have a serious problem.
Back when I was a kid, I never understood why they could make a game like gameboy camera, but they couldn't trade out that camera for an antenna connected to a car with a camera on it.
I suppose we still don't have it thanks to privacy concerns, but it would be so badass.
In theory 3D should be possible without these issues. Have you seen Avatar in Imax 3D? I've heard tell it's not headache-inducing.
I'm willing to believe that the headaches on the tech demoes I've seen are the result of poor filmography or hardware (both of which are tricky.)
Of course I would be surprised if healthy hardware is ready for the home by 2012.
That Digg post is bullshit. As I recall, it was only Blackberries (and my Droid definitely uses Google.)
While I agree in principle, you're missing the overall cost of service. Since the overall cost of service usually dwarfs the cost of the device, it makes sense that the phone is a throwaway device.
On the other hand, with a superphone, at least the current generation, the cost of the device is almost 30% or so the lifetime cost of service, so it makes sense to hold on to it.
I'd say the design limitation is the 16GB of storage on the iPhone. (as opposed to the Droid which can easily be updated when 32gb micro SD cards come out) If a person can't figure out how to store graphics and level maps on the SD card, I don't think that person has any business designing games.
Droid has the camera. The processor is about half the speed, but then it's a 600mhz cpu downclocked to 550mhz, so I'm a little skeptical that the Nexus will provide more bang for your buck. If anything, you're likely to be trading speed for battery life, as is often the case. And I'm happy with the Droid's speed.
I'm hoping that Motorola will be rolling out 2.1 soon given that the Droid just has stock Android, it would be a pretty dangerous move for the Droid to let it sit with 2.0 while the snazzy Nexus One rolls out with 2.1.
That's cool. But I really don't need a document extension language. It's a document, not a graphics editor.
I'd settle for point six.
That was his point. The person in question cannot have sufficient grounding in computing if he doesn't know how arbitrary-length integers are stored, he certainly is not qualified to review this patent.
Do you get the idea of software? It has nothing to do with the hardware. Kurzweil is thinking ahead, and not locking his books into a format that will be obsolete when full-sized tablets become economically viable. He's several steps ahead, designing software for a couple generations down the road.
Of course, incidentally it will work just fine on your current iMac or whatnot.
I suspect he's using Euros or maybe pounds... then it sounds fairly plausible.
How much do you have to pay for stock OEM windows? Because whenever I optimize a computer, it mostly involves removing the shoddy always-on software installed by the manufacturer / Best Buy.