There are way too many Nokia phones. This causes either choice paralysis, sending buyers screaming to Apple for relief, or buyer's remorse.
Judging by Android's "problem" of having way too many phones, I doubt that's really the issue. I don't see Android users running to Apple for "relief".
No the problem is that the Nokia devices are outdated. Having too many phones has nothing to do with it, the issue is that all the phones are boring. People want flashy. People want apps.
If that was true, they would have chosen Android. Microsoft isn't exactly a powerhouse when it comes to mobile devices. The top phone OSes are Android, RIM, Symbian, iOS, and Windows (Not necessarily in that order.) What I do know, is that Windows is on the very bottom of that list. RIM and iOS wouldn't be interested in Nokia, so it's either Android or WP7.
Android has a lot of potential, a hundred thousand times more than what Windows Phone 7 has. They better go big or go home.
Microsoft likely had more than a little to do with this. They heard that Nokia was looking around for new ideas, and figured this was likely their best shot at making Windows 7 popular (like, for example, in emerging markets). I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine the conversation went something like this: "Alright Nokia, here's what we'll do for you. We'll allow you to put Windows Phone 7 on your devices with no licensing fees whatsoever for the first year. After that, we'll go from there."
Hell, Microsoft might have even offered to pay Nokia in some form or another to use Windows Phone 7 over Android. It's the only reason I can think of to choose Windows Phone 7 instead of Android.
Verifying that the name and/or photo on an ID card matches the credit card is quite different than the cashier taking the ID and recording information, I'm sure that most people can tell the difference.
And yes, while merchants do have the right to verify the identity of a customer using a credit card, the store asking for the zip code had nothing to do with that, and a zip code is hardly a secure verification at any rate.
You can be held accountable for destruction of evidence if the courts have a reasonable belief that you destroyed the evidence to cover up a crime, or to interfere with an investigation. If you were aware that an investigation was going on, and your hard drive failed, it would still be evidence, and would be legally advisable to hold on to it for awhile instead of destroying it.
If you don't know that you're under investigation, of course, it would be up to the prosecution to prove that you destroyed the hard drive to destroy evidence, and not because of a hard drive failure. Unfortunately, physically destroying a destroyed hard drive does carry a bit of suspicion to it, because most people don't do it, even though is makes perfect sense to do so.
Evidence is anything that can be used to demonstrate the innocence or guilt of a person in relation to a crime. It isn't evidence when the police find it, it's evidence the moment it can be used in connection to a crime in any way. You assume that something needs to be documented and logged to be evidence, which is not true.
Fox News reporters can be seen by some as supporters of Al Qaeda, terrorism, and talking in a movie theatre," she said.
By the way....what relevance is it that she's a book author? I'm sure if she wrote a book relevant to video games, violence, or hell, even children, Fox News would have eaten that up and used it every way they could.
Life has an excess of profanity. Shielding your children from something often has the opposite effect, making it appealing and 'new' when children finally come into contact with it.
That wasn't the point I was arguing. I was arguing the logic that believing something only on the word of people who benefit from its existence is not a good reason to consider it valid.
Playing a bit of the devil's advocate here, but someone being paid to study the human effects of climate change seems to be a bit biased on the subject of its validity.
You won't find an Astrologer who thinks Astrology is a bunch of B.S., and I don't trust them one bit.
Here's my question....if nobody knows who they are, how do they know it's "key" members? How do they know it isn't just "level 2" guys? I'm pretty sure "lol I'm a key member of Anonymous lolz, and I totally took down Mastercard!" on Facebook isn't exactly evidence to support something like that.
Turns out, using buzz words in a way that doesn't convey its true meaning is a great way to get people to read what you have to say. And if you think that's a lie, then you're a terrorist who uses a botnet to sync up and infect America with viruses and keyloggers in the cloud, because this is Web 2.0. iPhone.
if all it did was run your query over to Google and search on it and return the results with its own front.
No, that would be mamma.com, which would just give you results from ask.com, yahoo.com, etc.
Before Google was big it was all I really used, and I don't recall anyone making a big deal out of it, but at the same time it told you up front which search engine each link came from.
A phone OS that pays for itself by pushing ads to you will always be a very special sort of hell.
I have no idea what you're talking about. But yes, apps with ads are the norm...if you install apps with ads. I have an Android phone, and I can't think of any apps I have that show ads (with the exception of Handcent, but it only shows ads when you're in the settings, which most people will use once and not touch it again).
Am I the only one worried about escalation here? Cops start bringing judges to roadblocks, and drunk drivers start carpooling with Supreme Court justices. Where will the madness end?
Slashdot Mirror
There are way too many Nokia phones. This causes either choice paralysis, sending buyers screaming to Apple for relief, or buyer's remorse.
Judging by Android's "problem" of having way too many phones, I doubt that's really the issue. I don't see Android users running to Apple for "relief".
No the problem is that the Nokia devices are outdated. Having too many phones has nothing to do with it, the issue is that all the phones are boring. People want flashy. People want apps.
They better go big or go home.
If that was true, they would have chosen Android. Microsoft isn't exactly a powerhouse when it comes to mobile devices. The top phone OSes are Android, RIM, Symbian, iOS, and Windows (Not necessarily in that order.) What I do know, is that Windows is on the very bottom of that list. RIM and iOS wouldn't be interested in Nokia, so it's either Android or WP7.
Android has a lot of potential, a hundred thousand times more than what Windows Phone 7 has. They better go big or go home.
FTFY
the Pope and Santa Claus.
Grow up. Everyone knows the Pope is just something parents tell their children. Santa only comes once a year, so they had to invent the Pope.
Unfortunately, good phones only go so far when nobody's buying them. People don't want good phones, they want flashy apps.
Microsoft likely had more than a little to do with this. They heard that Nokia was looking around for new ideas, and figured this was likely their best shot at making Windows 7 popular (like, for example, in emerging markets). I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine the conversation went something like this: "Alright Nokia, here's what we'll do for you. We'll allow you to put Windows Phone 7 on your devices with no licensing fees whatsoever for the first year. After that, we'll go from there."
Hell, Microsoft might have even offered to pay Nokia in some form or another to use Windows Phone 7 over Android. It's the only reason I can think of to choose Windows Phone 7 instead of Android.
Verifying that the name and/or photo on an ID card matches the credit card is quite different than the cashier taking the ID and recording information, I'm sure that most people can tell the difference.
And yes, while merchants do have the right to verify the identity of a customer using a credit card, the store asking for the zip code had nothing to do with that, and a zip code is hardly a secure verification at any rate.
I think a better analogy is that Ubuntu is to Debian what HTC Sense is to Android.
You can be held accountable for destruction of evidence if the courts have a reasonable belief that you destroyed the evidence to cover up a crime, or to interfere with an investigation. If you were aware that an investigation was going on, and your hard drive failed, it would still be evidence, and would be legally advisable to hold on to it for awhile instead of destroying it.
If you don't know that you're under investigation, of course, it would be up to the prosecution to prove that you destroyed the hard drive to destroy evidence, and not because of a hard drive failure. Unfortunately, physically destroying a destroyed hard drive does carry a bit of suspicion to it, because most people don't do it, even though is makes perfect sense to do so.
Evidence is anything that can be used to demonstrate the innocence or guilt of a person in relation to a crime. It isn't evidence when the police find it, it's evidence the moment it can be used in connection to a crime in any way. You assume that something needs to be documented and logged to be evidence, which is not true.
Fox News reporters can be seen by some as supporters of Al Qaeda, terrorism, and talking in a movie theatre," she said.
By the way....what relevance is it that she's a book author? I'm sure if she wrote a book relevant to video games, violence, or hell, even children, Fox News would have eaten that up and used it every way they could.
There's an excess of profanity
Life has an excess of profanity. Shielding your children from something often has the opposite effect, making it appealing and 'new' when children finally come into contact with it.
But I can blame Microsoft for my computer getting viruses in Windows, why can't I do it in Linux?
That wasn't the point I was arguing. I was arguing the logic that believing something only on the word of people who benefit from its existence is not a good reason to consider it valid.
Playing a bit of the devil's advocate here, but someone being paid to study the human effects of climate change seems to be a bit biased on the subject of its validity. You won't find an Astrologer who thinks Astrology is a bunch of B.S., and I don't trust them one bit.
Here's my question....if nobody knows who they are, how do they know it's "key" members? How do they know it isn't just "level 2" guys? I'm pretty sure "lol I'm a key member of Anonymous lolz, and I totally took down Mastercard!" on Facebook isn't exactly evidence to support something like that.
Turns out, using buzz words in a way that doesn't convey its true meaning is a great way to get people to read what you have to say. And if you think that's a lie, then you're a terrorist who uses a botnet to sync up and infect America with viruses and keyloggers in the cloud, because this is Web 2.0. iPhone.
if all it did was run your query over to Google and search on it and return the results with its own front.
No, that would be mamma.com, which would just give you results from ask.com, yahoo.com, etc.
Before Google was big it was all I really used, and I don't recall anyone making a big deal out of it, but at the same time it told you up front which search engine each link came from.
You're probably right. But last I checked, 'probably' wasn't a good enough standard for any serious study.
If the criminals has a gun and I don't, I'd define that as worse.
Yes, that's exactly why. They didn't want the iPhone at all before Android sales declined.
America != The whole word.
You're right. The whole word is 'The United States of America'.
A phone OS that pays for itself by pushing ads to you will always be a very special sort of hell.
I have no idea what you're talking about. But yes, apps with ads are the norm...if you install apps with ads. I have an Android phone, and I can't think of any apps I have that show ads (with the exception of Handcent, but it only shows ads when you're in the settings, which most people will use once and not touch it again).
Apple: Think Different. How different? It also comes in white!
Am I the only one worried about escalation here? Cops start bringing judges to roadblocks, and drunk drivers start carpooling with Supreme Court justices. Where will the madness end?
If you notify Google of people violating their patent, and they do nothing and you record the fact, then their patent can be thrown out in court
That doesn't sound right...but it's on a Slashdot comment, it must be true.