Fully agree with you. The hope (although far from expectation) would be that another country proving a policy works might have more weight than a few experiments that the government doesn't care about nearly as much apparently.
They proved it with the drug policy enough that the world AIDS organization (forgive me for forgetting the real name of that organization) decided to declare to the world that everyone needs to follow in suit, which they've only done prior to that in declaring AIDS is caused by HIV (because Russia was denying it). Of course, most countries have said fuck you to that.
The question is if they're going to be able to prove that it's actually effective with file sharing, though. And then if anyone is going to give a shit that they proved it (I have a feeling the US in particular, unless a revolution happens, is going to deny any proof Portugal gives here).
Not sure if your post was actually meant towards me or the other poster, but I actually agree with you overall (hence the quotes on "pseudoscience"; although, there is still some schools of thought in even modern psychology that the major criticism is the lack of ability to really test their theories). I've just let people hold on to that if there's other fields of science they might see as more legitimate that back up the same point anyway, though.
The bigger deal is not that it's DOCTORS saying it. The bigger deal that I'm trying to say is that it's multiple research studies, published in peer reviewed, scientific journals, and repeated multiple times over using accepted scientific methods that say it.
You are correct. I'll retract my statement and say that it is more true that it is not prescribed. A lot of people view recommendations by a doctor equal to prescriptions, though, which is where it gets tricky. Not to say that they're right on any level. Actually, I will agree they're wrong in thinking so, but I hear "I was given prescription to cannabis" a hell of a lot more than "I was recommended cannabis". Looks like I fell into that myself this time.
Cannabis withdrawal, described nearly identically, is also in the ICD-10 classification, which would be the diagnostic criteria followed by every medical doctor out there as well, if you prefer the science of medicine over the "pseudoscience" of psychology. At this point, it's well known in medicine, pharmacology, psychiatry, neurology, and any other field that has any interest in these things that the withdrawal symptoms are fact. Not everyone has the same symptoms, however, so you can't dismiss them based on you or anyone else not having them. And I did mistype increased appetite and weight gain--it's actually decreased appetite and weight loss, as pointed out in the link I provided. My mistake in typing quickly off the top of my head.
There's no comparing in my post. As I also posted in reply to my own post, if you compare, opiate withdrawal is more severe. The point wasn't to compare, though. I was simply refuting the claim that cannabis isn't addictive, which it is.
Of the two drugs mentioned, one can fairly easily be taken in high enough doses to kill you, while the other you practically need an IV with ridiculously high doses for it to kill you. That is a pretty big difference.
Neither one has withdrawal symptoms that are likely to kill you, though (opiate withdrawal is significantly more severe and also more likely to interact with medical conditions that could lead to death as the withdrawal makes those medical conditions worse, however).
Wrong. The first is prescribed by a doctor and is highly addictive. That part you got right. Congratulations.
Cannabis, you're wrong on, though. It is prescribed by a doctor in growing number of states in the US, and I can't speak for outside of the US on that, so I'll leave that to someone who knows better (as far as I know, it may or may not be the case elsewhere in the world that doctors prescribe it). So, a little right on the first one there, but equally wrong.
As for addictive... Cannabis IS addictive. Psychologically for sure (you can be psychologically addicted to all kinds of things, though). Physically, despite popular, bullshit lies, you CAN be physically addicted to cannabis. Physical Dependence requires Tolerance and Withdrawal. You definitely get tolerance with cannabis, specifically because the receptors that the cannabinoids attach to begin to down regulate or stop functioning so that you need more cannabinoids to have the same effect. As for withdrawal, there is very clear withdrawal symptoms associated to stopping cannabis use suddenly: irritability, anger, aggression, restlessness, difficulty focusing, increased appetite, weight gain, sleep disturbances (insomnia, disturbing dreams, etc.), anxiety, depressed mood, cravings, sensitivity to light, stomach pain, increased sweating, fever, chills, and headaches, to name a few. In fact, because this has become accepted fact throughout the psychological and medical fields, they are adding official diagnosis of Cannabis Withdrawal to the latest diagnostic standards (mind you, they are also dropping the terms Abuse and Dependence and moving to simply Substance Use Disorders, with a spectrum of No Diagnosis, Mild, Moderate, and Severe).
Reputable facts are a good thing to know if you're going to make claims...
Do you have a Galaxy Nexus? Because I definitely do, and I can definitely say that the camera is far underrated. I won't say it's as good as the 4S--I have yet to actually play with a 4S to be honest, so I don't know if it's actually comparable there from personal experience--but it beats my friends' iPhone 4s (that's plural 4), as they say themselves. I've been in the same boat as the OP you're replying to has mentioned. As I said, never with a 4S (because I don't know anyone as well that has one yet), but with 4s and 3GSs for sure.
No fucking clue why the first article is linked, myself... it has nothing to do with what the summary is talking about.
However, the second link actually shows what I think they're trying to talk about in the summary (you can kinda make it into a strange triangle sort of thing...).
Or you can go to http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/ and select AIA 193 (or AIA 211, AIA 335, or AIA Composite [all three of those, but one that it particularly stands out is 211, 193, 171]) on the drop down below the picture of the sun, and you'll see another view of it.
This. The 3 main areas mentioned have Verizon's 4G coverage as well (and I am sure that AT&T and T-Mobile also have 4G to some degree in these areas, though, as they're pretty significant areas to get covered). Traveling from Los Angeles to San Francisco and back with Verizon, I had pretty decent coverage the whole way (with a few holes). Same for Los Angeles to Las Vegas and back (a few more holes in the desert than the other, but I doubt you're going to avoid that with any carrier).
Although, specific areas (less than a square mile and less some times, even--this is especially true when you're in the more hilly/mountainous areas in the region) of those can still be different. I've found T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon to be pretty consistent throughout, but there are definite areas where one beats the others and areas where that same one loses to the others, along with some pockets that they all suck. Generally, though, if you're just traveling through and not getting stuck in a specific area for extended amounts of time, they are all pretty decent. I don't mention Sprint, because I have the least experience with them, so I can't be sure how they are in the areas, but I would be surprised to see that they suck too bad throughout, considering how important most carriers would probably consider those cities...
3. It means that they're pumping money into Linux. For what means... speculation includes the Tegra platform (which really is not a bad speculation at all), but who knows. You also have Oracle, Adobe, etc. in that list that have little to no support for Linux with their software (or other questionable attributes).
You don't need a server running your PHP code. As an experiment to prove it to someone, I've even used GTK in PHP without any server running at all. I quickly decided that in most of the cases I've ever looked at, there are significantly better choices, but it is definitely possible to use it just like any other interpreted language outside of a web server.
But try doing that on any modern smartphone... Compared to today's smartphones, even the old dumbphones of years passed didn't have much of a need for something like this. Now, we're in an age of smartphones that are having less and less expectation to even make it through the day. My Galaxy Nexus lasts 15-20 hours pretty easily under low to moderate use, but that's terrible compared to the last dumbphone that I had, which I would regularly forget to charge it for a night and not have to worry that it was going to be dead in the morning. Personally, aside from maybe aiming for a dumbphone that wouldn't ever need charged at all, I would see smartphones being a pretty big market for this sort of technology.
You can buy some things that are similar to what you're talking about already. I've actually got a kinda small one that won't do much while using my phone with like everything on, but if the phone's sitting idly, it'll charge it pretty well. This one's not quite as much as you're talking about--it does have a battery that it puts the charge into, but it's actually pretty small and really only meant to keep the charge off of the panel more consistent (makes a light more solidly on as opposed to flickering on a very similar panel without the battery; this is just my very limited understanding of it, so I could be off on why they have a minimal battery on the thing, but that's the way the sales guy was describing it to me when I bought it). However, if they even started selling these with phones, that would be pretty cool in itself (though I think it's more of a niche market--most people I know don't really charge the phone in sunlight very often...)
It's been proved several times over now by several showings. Louis CK is the one that this article talks about. Apple has done that with their DRM-free stuff as well. Neither of them are the only or the first.
It's one thing to be for freedom and another thing to be for letting the most powerful fuck everyone else in the ass.
Personally, I'm all for freedom. However, if that freedom has no regulation keeping it in check, it runs rampant over everyone else's ability to live freely. I'm against unregulated freedom in practice (I'm all for it in theory, but in practice, it just doesn't work).
On that note, I don't honestly see anything wrong with this bill, to be honest. It's a little annoying to some, I can see, but at that high of pay, I don't think it's that big of a deal. Hell, you can easily make more than the same positioned worker who is on a lower ended salary with or without time and a half (doing the math, it's pretty easy to beat $50k/year--considering that I'm currently doing 50 hours/week at $50k/year salary, that's only like $19.23/hour for me--less when I do more than 50 hours/week, which I regularly do--and I have no hope of overtime pay or making anything more at all except for bonuses). I have a hard time understanding bitching about it, really.
I'm going to go with everyone else here and wonder where you got that information. As one of the AC's pointed out, the best I can find directly saying it is the following sentence:
Currently, Trevor has found CarrierIQ in a number of Sprint phones, including HTC and Samsung Android devices. CarrierIQ is confirmed to be found on the iPhone or on feature phones, but Trevor has found RIM’s Blackberry handsets and several Nokia devices with CarrierIQ on board as well.
That grammar is screwed up and makes the most sense by adding in a "not" to read "CarrierIQ is not confirmed to be found on the iPhone or on feature phones".
1+ years of application development experience on at least one other mobile platform (iPhone, Windows Mobile, BREW, Symbian, and so on.)
That's the best that I can find supporting that it is on the iPhone.
Personally, I wouldn't doubt for a second that something like this is on the iPhone (I would almost be more surprised if there wasn't, actually), but I'm not really seeing any strong evidence.
And then there's others of us who followed the opposite path from atheism/agnosticism to being some sort of theist. In that boat, I can say that it's going to take a whole lot more than anything science has shown me thus far to change my mind. The only thing for me is that I actually believe that science and faith can and should live harmoniously; I'm not the type to discredit evolution, etc. just because it doesn't match some interpretation of the bible that I've been told all my life (actually, it matches my interpretation of the bible just fine, because I don't understand how the two have to conflict at all unless you want to think that your interpretations of said writings are infallible, which of course is what a lot of christians do under the guise of calling the bible infallible). The history of Christianity is dark, but a lot of Christianity for a long time now has been nothing but one blind man driving a bus full of other blind men around. As a believer myself, I have a lot of anger about this. I have spent most of my life in which I've believed not going to church, specifically because of this--I'm not blind any more, I can drive myself where I need to go without a blind guy driving me off of a cliff.
I see the argument of religion vs. evolution to be stupid. Religion vs. atheism doesn't even make sense when talking to most christians. Religion is an institution (at their core, I would say that they are philosophies, but Christianity is specifically guilty of losing any of that philosophy to the institution, which is inherently corrupt and bogus--it's not even about the philosophy any more, it's about having control and power over people). Talking theism vs. atheism makes a lot of sense. Intelligent Design/Creationism vs. Evolution makes sense to a certain point (at a certain point, Intelligent Design and Creationism also try to explain things that have nothing to do with evolution), but Religion always gets dragged into it. That's stupid (why the hell is Noah always brought into it... that specifically seems like such a completely unrelated topic that I've never been able to understand why creationists tout it and evolutionists even entertain them about it).
There's also schools of thought that evolution, etc. can fit securely into a theist's (even christian) mind as well, though that's really a different point than the one I'm trying to make.
No, they will put an Android tablet into it and get sued by Apple and Microsoft through those means...
And thinking of Microsoft, does Microsoft have patents with their Microsoft Sync thing that could bring this in even more?
P.S. I actually kinda think this is cool in a science-fiction way, but am otherwise completely neutral about most of anything to do with it until it actually becomes realistic to get a car like this...
Trying to figure out which one you're talking about...
1. Tobacco : first day was the easiest for me. Even the first week wasn't too bad. Bad enough that I ended up falling in most often the first week. But all but two times that I made it past the first week (probably just under half of the times I said I was going to quit smoking), I fell flat on my ass the second week with much worse withdrawals. The two times I made it past the second week, things started to fluctuate up and down in difficulty with the worst getting progressively less worse. Quitting nicotine sucks, if you ask me. That could just be the way that my body responds to it, though, along with the fact that nicotine has some really nice effects on PTSD and most of the times that I was going to try to quit smoking and failed came down to realizing that dealing with the PTSD symptoms is easier with nicotine on board.
2. Caffeine: this is actually kind of valid. It usually takes about a week for me before it's all gone, but the first day is kind of shitty and after that it just gets easier and easier (although there's some of the same PTSD shit in there for me as nicotine).
3. Marijuana: The first day was never too shitty for me, except for the fact that marijuana is the most amazing substance for PTSD I have yet to use and that going away threw all of those symptoms in my face, but that would usually actually peak up after around 1-2 weeks. I also always found that the best state for me was either when I didn't really feel too high yet or when the largest parts of the intoxication where faded away and there was just a bit of lingering effect (some of which I noticed for a few days to a week after smoking, depending on how much I had been smoking prior to stopping). That mostly because while being high there's some anxiety, but as that fades, it leaves a lot more subtle effects instead of the usual obvious effects. I'm also the type (thanks mostly to the PTSD) that I was always more functional when I had been smoking pot than when I was completely sober (to a noticeable level--for example, I would watch my house become a mess while I was staying sober, but if I had been smoking pot, I would maintain a very clean house, and this is actually secondary effects with my PTSD, when that is particularly peaking up). All of that said, I actually only use marijuana for a few months out of the year, when my PTSD symptoms consistently peak up, so I go through quitting usually every year. In the past, before I started getting proper treatment for my PTSD, I used to abuse Marijuana to the point that it was a huge detriment to myself and those around me, and I knew this but kept doing it. I have a very hard time saying I was ever addicted, though, as though it was a detriment, my PTSD was also a detriment in similar ways and I considered the marijuana abuse to be the lesser evil. I did quit several times and only kept coming back to it because I kept coming back to that I'd rather have the detriment of smoking pot than the detriment of my PTSD. Now that I'm receiving proper treatment, there's still a use for the marijuana, but I can actually keep it very controlled and minimize any detrimental effects it has to as near none as possible. I have a goal of not needing it for anything, but I'm not there yet. I never had any real withdrawal symptoms or anything from it, though--only the symptoms of my PTSD that marijuana works wonders for coming back, which were there and were the same before I ever started using marijuana.
Actually. The first two versions of Android weren't named, so A and B were never done. The third version was Cupcake. Then Donut for the fourth and Eclair for the fifth. So Froyo = 6, Gingerbread = 7, Honeycomb = 8, and Ice cream sandwhich = 9.
You can see this reflected in CyanogenMod's version numbers, where Gingerbread = CM7 (the current) and Ice Cream Sandwhich = CM9 (there has been no CM8 at this point, because CyanogenMod was never made for Honeycomb due to lack of source).
Android's version numbers of 2.2, 2.3, 3.0, and 4.0 are on a different version scheme, where 2.0 was a major step up from those of the 1.x ilk (through Donut, as 2.0-2.1 was Eclair). Honeycomb, 3.0 was then a major step up from the 2.x ilk (through Gingerbread), and 4.0 is a major step up from Honeycomb (and Gingerbread as is the case for phones only). Donut was then just a minor step up from Cupcake and Gingerbread was just a minor step up from Froyo, which was a minor step up from Eclair.
That's a better comparison. I can agree with the large Samsung label on both sides of the device, but some of the designs are very comparable between the two (beyond the rectangle aspect of it). I really do want Samsung to win, but there's ways that they do look pretty damn similar. There's very certain things that set it off for me (a lot of the similarities are actually obviously different depending on how you're looking at the device), but is that enough?
TFA shows a picture of the Galaxy Tab 10 being compared in court (and this is in fact the case). Your picture of the Galaxy Tab is of the original Galaxy Tab, which does not look the same as the newer Galaxy Tab. I would suggest finding a better picture for the galaxy tab for this argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Fully agree with you. The hope (although far from expectation) would be that another country proving a policy works might have more weight than a few experiments that the government doesn't care about nearly as much apparently.
They proved it with the drug policy enough that the world AIDS organization (forgive me for forgetting the real name of that organization) decided to declare to the world that everyone needs to follow in suit, which they've only done prior to that in declaring AIDS is caused by HIV (because Russia was denying it). Of course, most countries have said fuck you to that.
The question is if they're going to be able to prove that it's actually effective with file sharing, though. And then if anyone is going to give a shit that they proved it (I have a feeling the US in particular, unless a revolution happens, is going to deny any proof Portugal gives here).
Not sure if your post was actually meant towards me or the other poster, but I actually agree with you overall (hence the quotes on "pseudoscience"; although, there is still some schools of thought in even modern psychology that the major criticism is the lack of ability to really test their theories). I've just let people hold on to that if there's other fields of science they might see as more legitimate that back up the same point anyway, though.
The bigger deal is not that it's DOCTORS saying it. The bigger deal that I'm trying to say is that it's multiple research studies, published in peer reviewed, scientific journals, and repeated multiple times over using accepted scientific methods that say it.
You are correct. I'll retract my statement and say that it is more true that it is not prescribed. A lot of people view recommendations by a doctor equal to prescriptions, though, which is where it gets tricky. Not to say that they're right on any level. Actually, I will agree they're wrong in thinking so, but I hear "I was given prescription to cannabis" a hell of a lot more than "I was recommended cannabis". Looks like I fell into that myself this time.
Cannabis withdrawal, described nearly identically, is also in the ICD-10 classification, which would be the diagnostic criteria followed by every medical doctor out there as well, if you prefer the science of medicine over the "pseudoscience" of psychology. At this point, it's well known in medicine, pharmacology, psychiatry, neurology, and any other field that has any interest in these things that the withdrawal symptoms are fact. Not everyone has the same symptoms, however, so you can't dismiss them based on you or anyone else not having them. And I did mistype increased appetite and weight gain--it's actually decreased appetite and weight loss, as pointed out in the link I provided. My mistake in typing quickly off the top of my head.
There's no comparing in my post. As I also posted in reply to my own post, if you compare, opiate withdrawal is more severe. The point wasn't to compare, though. I was simply refuting the claim that cannabis isn't addictive, which it is.
I will add terms that will work, though:
Of the two drugs mentioned, one can fairly easily be taken in high enough doses to kill you, while the other you practically need an IV with ridiculously high doses for it to kill you. That is a pretty big difference.
Neither one has withdrawal symptoms that are likely to kill you, though (opiate withdrawal is significantly more severe and also more likely to interact with medical conditions that could lead to death as the withdrawal makes those medical conditions worse, however).
Wrong. The first is prescribed by a doctor and is highly addictive. That part you got right. Congratulations.
Cannabis, you're wrong on, though. It is prescribed by a doctor in growing number of states in the US, and I can't speak for outside of the US on that, so I'll leave that to someone who knows better (as far as I know, it may or may not be the case elsewhere in the world that doctors prescribe it). So, a little right on the first one there, but equally wrong.
As for addictive... Cannabis IS addictive. Psychologically for sure (you can be psychologically addicted to all kinds of things, though). Physically, despite popular, bullshit lies, you CAN be physically addicted to cannabis. Physical Dependence requires Tolerance and Withdrawal. You definitely get tolerance with cannabis, specifically because the receptors that the cannabinoids attach to begin to down regulate or stop functioning so that you need more cannabinoids to have the same effect. As for withdrawal, there is very clear withdrawal symptoms associated to stopping cannabis use suddenly: irritability, anger, aggression, restlessness, difficulty focusing, increased appetite, weight gain, sleep disturbances (insomnia, disturbing dreams, etc.), anxiety, depressed mood, cravings, sensitivity to light, stomach pain, increased sweating, fever, chills, and headaches, to name a few. In fact, because this has become accepted fact throughout the psychological and medical fields, they are adding official diagnosis of Cannabis Withdrawal to the latest diagnostic standards (mind you, they are also dropping the terms Abuse and Dependence and moving to simply Substance Use Disorders, with a spectrum of No Diagnosis, Mild, Moderate, and Severe).
Reputable facts are a good thing to know if you're going to make claims...
Do you have a Galaxy Nexus? Because I definitely do, and I can definitely say that the camera is far underrated. I won't say it's as good as the 4S--I have yet to actually play with a 4S to be honest, so I don't know if it's actually comparable there from personal experience--but it beats my friends' iPhone 4s (that's plural 4), as they say themselves. I've been in the same boat as the OP you're replying to has mentioned. As I said, never with a 4S (because I don't know anyone as well that has one yet), but with 4s and 3GSs for sure.
No fucking clue why the first article is linked, myself... it has nothing to do with what the summary is talking about.
However, the second link actually shows what I think they're trying to talk about in the summary (you can kinda make it into a strange triangle sort of thing...).
Or you can go to http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/ and select AIA 193 (or AIA 211, AIA 335, or AIA Composite [all three of those, but one that it particularly stands out is 211, 193, 171]) on the drop down below the picture of the sun, and you'll see another view of it.
This. The 3 main areas mentioned have Verizon's 4G coverage as well (and I am sure that AT&T and T-Mobile also have 4G to some degree in these areas, though, as they're pretty significant areas to get covered). Traveling from Los Angeles to San Francisco and back with Verizon, I had pretty decent coverage the whole way (with a few holes). Same for Los Angeles to Las Vegas and back (a few more holes in the desert than the other, but I doubt you're going to avoid that with any carrier).
Although, specific areas (less than a square mile and less some times, even--this is especially true when you're in the more hilly/mountainous areas in the region) of those can still be different. I've found T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon to be pretty consistent throughout, but there are definite areas where one beats the others and areas where that same one loses to the others, along with some pockets that they all suck. Generally, though, if you're just traveling through and not getting stuck in a specific area for extended amounts of time, they are all pretty decent. I don't mention Sprint, because I have the least experience with them, so I can't be sure how they are in the areas, but I would be surprised to see that they suck too bad throughout, considering how important most carriers would probably consider those cities...
1. RTFA.
2. It does not mean any of that.
3. It means that they're pumping money into Linux. For what means... speculation includes the Tegra platform (which really is not a bad speculation at all), but who knows. You also have Oracle, Adobe, etc. in that list that have little to no support for Linux with their software (or other questionable attributes).
Get better sources.
You don't need a server running your PHP code. As an experiment to prove it to someone, I've even used GTK in PHP without any server running at all. I quickly decided that in most of the cases I've ever looked at, there are significantly better choices, but it is definitely possible to use it just like any other interpreted language outside of a web server.
But try doing that on any modern smartphone... Compared to today's smartphones, even the old dumbphones of years passed didn't have much of a need for something like this. Now, we're in an age of smartphones that are having less and less expectation to even make it through the day. My Galaxy Nexus lasts 15-20 hours pretty easily under low to moderate use, but that's terrible compared to the last dumbphone that I had, which I would regularly forget to charge it for a night and not have to worry that it was going to be dead in the morning. Personally, aside from maybe aiming for a dumbphone that wouldn't ever need charged at all, I would see smartphones being a pretty big market for this sort of technology.
You can buy some things that are similar to what you're talking about already. I've actually got a kinda small one that won't do much while using my phone with like everything on, but if the phone's sitting idly, it'll charge it pretty well. This one's not quite as much as you're talking about--it does have a battery that it puts the charge into, but it's actually pretty small and really only meant to keep the charge off of the panel more consistent (makes a light more solidly on as opposed to flickering on a very similar panel without the battery; this is just my very limited understanding of it, so I could be off on why they have a minimal battery on the thing, but that's the way the sales guy was describing it to me when I bought it). However, if they even started selling these with phones, that would be pretty cool in itself (though I think it's more of a niche market--most people I know don't really charge the phone in sunlight very often...)
It's been proved several times over now by several showings. Louis CK is the one that this article talks about. Apple has done that with their DRM-free stuff as well. Neither of them are the only or the first.
It's one thing to be for freedom and another thing to be for letting the most powerful fuck everyone else in the ass.
Personally, I'm all for freedom. However, if that freedom has no regulation keeping it in check, it runs rampant over everyone else's ability to live freely. I'm against unregulated freedom in practice (I'm all for it in theory, but in practice, it just doesn't work).
On that note, I don't honestly see anything wrong with this bill, to be honest. It's a little annoying to some, I can see, but at that high of pay, I don't think it's that big of a deal. Hell, you can easily make more than the same positioned worker who is on a lower ended salary with or without time and a half (doing the math, it's pretty easy to beat $50k/year--considering that I'm currently doing 50 hours/week at $50k/year salary, that's only like $19.23/hour for me--less when I do more than 50 hours/week, which I regularly do--and I have no hope of overtime pay or making anything more at all except for bonuses). I have a hard time understanding bitching about it, really.
I'm going to go with everyone else here and wonder where you got that information. As one of the AC's pointed out, the best I can find directly saying it is the following sentence:
Currently, Trevor has found CarrierIQ in a number of Sprint phones, including HTC and Samsung Android devices. CarrierIQ is confirmed to be found on the iPhone or on feature phones, but Trevor has found RIM’s Blackberry handsets and several Nokia devices with CarrierIQ on board as well.
That grammar is screwed up and makes the most sense by adding in a "not" to read "CarrierIQ is not confirmed to be found on the iPhone or on feature phones".
At http://www.carrieriq.com/company/careers.htm, under the Senior Software Engineer position, it does give this as well for Job Requirements:
1+ years of application development experience on at least one other mobile platform (iPhone, Windows Mobile, BREW, Symbian, and so on.)
That's the best that I can find supporting that it is on the iPhone.
Personally, I wouldn't doubt for a second that something like this is on the iPhone (I would almost be more surprised if there wasn't, actually), but I'm not really seeing any strong evidence.
And then there's others of us who followed the opposite path from atheism/agnosticism to being some sort of theist. In that boat, I can say that it's going to take a whole lot more than anything science has shown me thus far to change my mind. The only thing for me is that I actually believe that science and faith can and should live harmoniously; I'm not the type to discredit evolution, etc. just because it doesn't match some interpretation of the bible that I've been told all my life (actually, it matches my interpretation of the bible just fine, because I don't understand how the two have to conflict at all unless you want to think that your interpretations of said writings are infallible, which of course is what a lot of christians do under the guise of calling the bible infallible). The history of Christianity is dark, but a lot of Christianity for a long time now has been nothing but one blind man driving a bus full of other blind men around. As a believer myself, I have a lot of anger about this. I have spent most of my life in which I've believed not going to church, specifically because of this--I'm not blind any more, I can drive myself where I need to go without a blind guy driving me off of a cliff.
I see the argument of religion vs. evolution to be stupid. Religion vs. atheism doesn't even make sense when talking to most christians. Religion is an institution (at their core, I would say that they are philosophies, but Christianity is specifically guilty of losing any of that philosophy to the institution, which is inherently corrupt and bogus--it's not even about the philosophy any more, it's about having control and power over people). Talking theism vs. atheism makes a lot of sense. Intelligent Design/Creationism vs. Evolution makes sense to a certain point (at a certain point, Intelligent Design and Creationism also try to explain things that have nothing to do with evolution), but Religion always gets dragged into it. That's stupid (why the hell is Noah always brought into it... that specifically seems like such a completely unrelated topic that I've never been able to understand why creationists tout it and evolutionists even entertain them about it).
There's also schools of thought that evolution, etc. can fit securely into a theist's (even christian) mind as well, though that's really a different point than the one I'm trying to make.
No, they will put an Android tablet into it and get sued by Apple and Microsoft through those means...
And thinking of Microsoft, does Microsoft have patents with their Microsoft Sync thing that could bring this in even more?
P.S. I actually kinda think this is cool in a science-fiction way, but am otherwise completely neutral about most of anything to do with it until it actually becomes realistic to get a car like this...
Trying to figure out which one you're talking about...
1. Tobacco : first day was the easiest for me. Even the first week wasn't too bad. Bad enough that I ended up falling in most often the first week. But all but two times that I made it past the first week (probably just under half of the times I said I was going to quit smoking), I fell flat on my ass the second week with much worse withdrawals. The two times I made it past the second week, things started to fluctuate up and down in difficulty with the worst getting progressively less worse. Quitting nicotine sucks, if you ask me. That could just be the way that my body responds to it, though, along with the fact that nicotine has some really nice effects on PTSD and most of the times that I was going to try to quit smoking and failed came down to realizing that dealing with the PTSD symptoms is easier with nicotine on board.
2. Caffeine: this is actually kind of valid. It usually takes about a week for me before it's all gone, but the first day is kind of shitty and after that it just gets easier and easier (although there's some of the same PTSD shit in there for me as nicotine).
3. Marijuana: The first day was never too shitty for me, except for the fact that marijuana is the most amazing substance for PTSD I have yet to use and that going away threw all of those symptoms in my face, but that would usually actually peak up after around 1-2 weeks. I also always found that the best state for me was either when I didn't really feel too high yet or when the largest parts of the intoxication where faded away and there was just a bit of lingering effect (some of which I noticed for a few days to a week after smoking, depending on how much I had been smoking prior to stopping). That mostly because while being high there's some anxiety, but as that fades, it leaves a lot more subtle effects instead of the usual obvious effects. I'm also the type (thanks mostly to the PTSD) that I was always more functional when I had been smoking pot than when I was completely sober (to a noticeable level--for example, I would watch my house become a mess while I was staying sober, but if I had been smoking pot, I would maintain a very clean house, and this is actually secondary effects with my PTSD, when that is particularly peaking up). All of that said, I actually only use marijuana for a few months out of the year, when my PTSD symptoms consistently peak up, so I go through quitting usually every year. In the past, before I started getting proper treatment for my PTSD, I used to abuse Marijuana to the point that it was a huge detriment to myself and those around me, and I knew this but kept doing it. I have a very hard time saying I was ever addicted, though, as though it was a detriment, my PTSD was also a detriment in similar ways and I considered the marijuana abuse to be the lesser evil. I did quit several times and only kept coming back to it because I kept coming back to that I'd rather have the detriment of smoking pot than the detriment of my PTSD. Now that I'm receiving proper treatment, there's still a use for the marijuana, but I can actually keep it very controlled and minimize any detrimental effects it has to as near none as possible. I have a goal of not needing it for anything, but I'm not there yet. I never had any real withdrawal symptoms or anything from it, though--only the symptoms of my PTSD that marijuana works wonders for coming back, which were there and were the same before I ever started using marijuana.
Just my two cents...
Actually. The first two versions of Android weren't named, so A and B were never done. The third version was Cupcake. Then Donut for the fourth and Eclair for the fifth. So Froyo = 6, Gingerbread = 7, Honeycomb = 8, and Ice cream sandwhich = 9.
You can see this reflected in CyanogenMod's version numbers, where Gingerbread = CM7 (the current) and Ice Cream Sandwhich = CM9 (there has been no CM8 at this point, because CyanogenMod was never made for Honeycomb due to lack of source).
Android's version numbers of 2.2, 2.3, 3.0, and 4.0 are on a different version scheme, where 2.0 was a major step up from those of the 1.x ilk (through Donut, as 2.0-2.1 was Eclair). Honeycomb, 3.0 was then a major step up from the 2.x ilk (through Gingerbread), and 4.0 is a major step up from Honeycomb (and Gingerbread as is the case for phones only). Donut was then just a minor step up from Cupcake and Gingerbread was just a minor step up from Froyo, which was a minor step up from Eclair.
Make sense?
That's a better comparison. I can agree with the large Samsung label on both sides of the device, but some of the designs are very comparable between the two (beyond the rectangle aspect of it). I really do want Samsung to win, but there's ways that they do look pretty damn similar. There's very certain things that set it off for me (a lot of the similarities are actually obviously different depending on how you're looking at the device), but is that enough?
TFA shows a picture of the Galaxy Tab 10 being compared in court (and this is in fact the case). Your picture of the Galaxy Tab is of the original Galaxy Tab, which does not look the same as the newer Galaxy Tab. I would suggest finding a better picture for the galaxy tab for this argument.