Find it funny that you link to an article about Australia, considering the current topic of national discourse is why our electricity prices are so high, and continue to go up.
From what I've seen, they don't admit that they heavily slant to the left, they make out that they're fair and unbiased, but it doesn't take long to realise that they're pushing their own barrows, so to speak.
I meant lying with respect to their active daily users. Facebook has been caught out lying multiple times about user figures. I'm sure snapchat do the same thing.
These tech writers are not technical people. They write about this sort of subjective stuff because they have no clue about what actually happens underneath, nor do they care. Their goal is to look hipster, put on black horn rimmed glasses when they don't need them.
What we have now is an industry that just shills for google.
Facebook is nowhere near as pervasive as google. To stop using facebook is relatively easy, and you don't really miss out on much at all. Try to switch off from google, and that's a much more restricting proposition. Try using a smartphone without google being involved. I've noticed that all the smartphone OS's that have failed have been ones which saw no, or negligible support by google.
There are two things that come to mind which make me think it's not unreasonable.
The first is, the guy's dead, his true intentions can't really be determined now, insofar as what was left behind, and are probably more inclined to just to share the estate, because ultimately the court doesn't care.
The second is a lot of suicidal people don't send out their messages, they do leave them on their phone, so that no one comes and tries to rescue them. I would guess this situation is no different, after all, I'm sure the brother would have tried to intervene with a message like what was saved on the phone.
Looking at those things together, and given the circumstances of the breakdown in the relationship, yea, I think the courts determined an appropriate outcome.
I think your comment goes to where the problem for MS is. Smartphones didn't dominate the enterprise sector, they dominated the consumer space, and from there, enterprise followed.
This is an important difference because I think it really comes to show that where previously, enterprise tended to determine who the big players were, it definitely hasn't been the case with smartphones. Where a lot of people would have been introduced to tech such as a computer at work, in decades past, smartphones and tablets have been more from the consumer side. From my perspective, it really looks like consumers have basically forced the hand of enterprise this time around.
I'm talking about 16:10 or 3:2 display ratios, relative to 16:9 they have more vertical space at the same width and they're just much better to use. going to 2560x1440 or 4k, they're still 16:9 aspect ratios, and rather annoying to use.
There's a reason apple persist with 16:10 on their macbooks. It's a small detail, but an important one for some.
In many respects, it kind of makes the original, in retrospect, look a little bit misguided, like as if it was stabbing in the dark, not knowing what it was meant to be. BR2049 honed in on all the great aspects of the original, and gave a lot more of that. In a lot of scenes, it showed a great deal, without actually having to dwell a long time on it, even though the movie was long. I personally most enjoyed the scenes which, some would argue are pointless, because they're just cars flying through the air, in the backdrop of the city, with the music, it all worked very well. For me, it really came across that the movie had a story to tell in the way that a good story teller embellishes and articulates certain details, as opposed to just getting the job done, because of a more corporate approach of 90 minutes, and your typical checklist of getting the introduction, complication and resolution.
It has kind of been a bunch of small things for me, which I've more or less listed; big one is the keyboard layout, but also features like the thinklight, lid latches, i personally prefer them, I think the build quality has gotten worse, may be better than the competition, but offerings I've seen from dell and HP are significantly better than they once were, and they do have a very premium feel, albeit, also have those cheap features which the thinkpads now have. Also screen aspect ratio; 16:9 has no place on a machine for "those who do", extra vertical pixels go a long way to help with many things in productivity related tasks.
It's coming out, with an oldschool 7-row keyboard and all.
I had a look, ok it has finally been announced, after a long period of nothing. They've brought back the 7 row keyboard, but seriously, everything else that people voted for, beyond the regular stuff hasn't been included; still a 16:9 screen, no lid latches, no thinklight, basic ultrabook laptop. It comes across a bit basic and with a premium price.
Having been a user of thinkpads from the IBM days, I can say that somehow, Lenovo has been able to take a genuine, quality product, and turn it into something more like the other counterfeit chinese knock-offs.
I really liked the design of the IBM thinkpads, they really paid attention to details which agreed with me. Admittedly, I'm not a typical laptop user, and that's why current thinkpads are dead to me. They have pretty much dropped all the unique features that made the devices more convenient for engineers and programmers.
The main thing now is, why pay a premium for a device which is marginally different to the entry level stuff in terms of function, or at least, imperceptibly different from the mid range?
I participated in the retro thinkpad surveys (looks like that has gone nowhere), because I'd really like to see some of the old features come back, namely a 7 row keyboard, by far the best compromise of a compact keyboard, yet still having the function of a full desktop one. A lot of other classic features, people also generally wanted to see come back, like the keyboard light (really useful when you have documents to look at in the dark, can't be done with backlit keys), lid latches and abandoning the awful 16:9 aspect ratio and go to something taller like 16:10 or 3:2.
I recall a memo from lenovo, regarding their concern about losing a lot of business sales to macbooks. Well my sentiment is when you start dropping features to make your product more like a macbook, as a customer why should I go for some wannabe, might as well just go for the real thing. Similarly, if they're going to make the product rather indistinguishable in function from entry level to mid range devices, why bother spending premium dollars?
There are other pieces necessary, the antenna being one. This also dictates the case design as obviously metal backed phones will have a problem. Additionally I haven't the slightest clue about mobile phone circuit layout, but I would also presume that having the loudspeaker and earpiece speaker, the DAC at least will have to be there, and there's a good chance that the amps could also be integrated to have multiple outputs for the various channels.
Now to the crux of your comment, so basically removing the jack is a retrograde step for the user as the only reason the manufacturers are ditching it is to save costs. I suspected this, but bottom line is, users suffer. None of the phones have gotten any cheaper anyway. If anything, the price points of the stagnant flagship sector just keep getting dearer.
I wondered about this. Radio noise, surely at some point becomes a problem. The stupidity behind this forced step is, at some point all audio has to revert back to analogue anyway, it just doesn't make sense why they're getting rid of the plug. If one could tangibly see some sort of major benefit of its removal, then fair enough, but the largely called for features such as better battery life, are continually ignored, and these phones without the plug have generally cost more than the phones they've replaced, so there's no advantage to the consumer.
About the only reason I can think of is, designing good quality audio gear in a condensed device like a phone may create a lot of restrictions in order to isolate noise and interference feeding into the audio output. Eliminating it may make it easier to design a board layout. And this assumes that the audio circuitry to drive the speakerphone are ignored since no one expects high fidelity out of that. With that said, though, the phones are no cheaper, so there's no advantage to the consumer.
Facebook has been caught lying about their figures before. I don't think any of them are truthful about their figures, after all, they're the only ones that really know and they have a pecuniary interest with advertisers if they exaggerate (or just outright fabricate) the number of users.
The only problem is, this was happening well before steam was opened up to anyone and everyone. Those attrocious games didn't exist on steam until a few years ago, because steam used to be curated and generally games on steam were, broadly speaking, good.
Slashdot Mirror
So your retort is basically saying that they're unfair and biased. Thanks for agreeing with me.
English must be a second language for you...
Find it funny that you link to an article about Australia, considering the current topic of national discourse is why our electricity prices are so high, and continue to go up.
From what I've seen, they don't admit that they heavily slant to the left, they make out that they're fair and unbiased, but it doesn't take long to realise that they're pushing their own barrows, so to speak.
I meant lying with respect to their active daily users. Facebook has been caught out lying multiple times about user figures. I'm sure snapchat do the same thing.
It's because they lie. After all, who can tell whether their numbers are accurate?
TYT - The Young Turks... legitimate... are you being serious???
These tech writers are not technical people. They write about this sort of subjective stuff because they have no clue about what actually happens underneath, nor do they care. Their goal is to look hipster, put on black horn rimmed glasses when they don't need them.
What we have now is an industry that just shills for google.
Facebook is nowhere near as pervasive as google. To stop using facebook is relatively easy, and you don't really miss out on much at all. Try to switch off from google, and that's a much more restricting proposition. Try using a smartphone without google being involved. I've noticed that all the smartphone OS's that have failed have been ones which saw no, or negligible support by google.
Google probably wants it to be, they certainly appear to be working to that end.
There are two things that come to mind which make me think it's not unreasonable.
The first is, the guy's dead, his true intentions can't really be determined now, insofar as what was left behind, and are probably more inclined to just to share the estate, because ultimately the court doesn't care.
The second is a lot of suicidal people don't send out their messages, they do leave them on their phone, so that no one comes and tries to rescue them. I would guess this situation is no different, after all, I'm sure the brother would have tried to intervene with a message like what was saved on the phone.
Looking at those things together, and given the circumstances of the breakdown in the relationship, yea, I think the courts determined an appropriate outcome.
I think your comment goes to where the problem for MS is. Smartphones didn't dominate the enterprise sector, they dominated the consumer space, and from there, enterprise followed.
This is an important difference because I think it really comes to show that where previously, enterprise tended to determine who the big players were, it definitely hasn't been the case with smartphones. Where a lot of people would have been introduced to tech such as a computer at work, in decades past, smartphones and tablets have been more from the consumer side. From my perspective, it really looks like consumers have basically forced the hand of enterprise this time around.
I'm talking about 16:10 or 3:2 display ratios, relative to 16:9 they have more vertical space at the same width and they're just much better to use. going to 2560x1440 or 4k, they're still 16:9 aspect ratios, and rather annoying to use.
There's a reason apple persist with 16:10 on their macbooks. It's a small detail, but an important one for some.
In many respects, it kind of makes the original, in retrospect, look a little bit misguided, like as if it was stabbing in the dark, not knowing what it was meant to be. BR2049 honed in on all the great aspects of the original, and gave a lot more of that. In a lot of scenes, it showed a great deal, without actually having to dwell a long time on it, even though the movie was long. I personally most enjoyed the scenes which, some would argue are pointless, because they're just cars flying through the air, in the backdrop of the city, with the music, it all worked very well. For me, it really came across that the movie had a story to tell in the way that a good story teller embellishes and articulates certain details, as opposed to just getting the job done, because of a more corporate approach of 90 minutes, and your typical checklist of getting the introduction, complication and resolution.
Such as?
It has kind of been a bunch of small things for me, which I've more or less listed; big one is the keyboard layout, but also features like the thinklight, lid latches, i personally prefer them, I think the build quality has gotten worse, may be better than the competition, but offerings I've seen from dell and HP are significantly better than they once were, and they do have a very premium feel, albeit, also have those cheap features which the thinkpads now have. Also screen aspect ratio; 16:9 has no place on a machine for "those who do", extra vertical pixels go a long way to help with many things in productivity related tasks.
It's coming out, with an oldschool 7-row keyboard and all.
I had a look, ok it has finally been announced, after a long period of nothing. They've brought back the 7 row keyboard, but seriously, everything else that people voted for, beyond the regular stuff hasn't been included; still a 16:9 screen, no lid latches, no thinklight, basic ultrabook laptop. It comes across a bit basic and with a premium price.
Having been a user of thinkpads from the IBM days, I can say that somehow, Lenovo has been able to take a genuine, quality product, and turn it into something more like the other counterfeit chinese knock-offs.
I really liked the design of the IBM thinkpads, they really paid attention to details which agreed with me. Admittedly, I'm not a typical laptop user, and that's why current thinkpads are dead to me. They have pretty much dropped all the unique features that made the devices more convenient for engineers and programmers.
The main thing now is, why pay a premium for a device which is marginally different to the entry level stuff in terms of function, or at least, imperceptibly different from the mid range?
I participated in the retro thinkpad surveys (looks like that has gone nowhere), because I'd really like to see some of the old features come back, namely a 7 row keyboard, by far the best compromise of a compact keyboard, yet still having the function of a full desktop one. A lot of other classic features, people also generally wanted to see come back, like the keyboard light (really useful when you have documents to look at in the dark, can't be done with backlit keys), lid latches and abandoning the awful 16:9 aspect ratio and go to something taller like 16:10 or 3:2.
I recall a memo from lenovo, regarding their concern about losing a lot of business sales to macbooks. Well my sentiment is when you start dropping features to make your product more like a macbook, as a customer why should I go for some wannabe, might as well just go for the real thing. Similarly, if they're going to make the product rather indistinguishable in function from entry level to mid range devices, why bother spending premium dollars?
There are other pieces necessary, the antenna being one. This also dictates the case design as obviously metal backed phones will have a problem. Additionally I haven't the slightest clue about mobile phone circuit layout, but I would also presume that having the loudspeaker and earpiece speaker, the DAC at least will have to be there, and there's a good chance that the amps could also be integrated to have multiple outputs for the various channels.
Now to the crux of your comment, so basically removing the jack is a retrograde step for the user as the only reason the manufacturers are ditching it is to save costs. I suspected this, but bottom line is, users suffer. None of the phones have gotten any cheaper anyway. If anything, the price points of the stagnant flagship sector just keep getting dearer.
I wondered about this. Radio noise, surely at some point becomes a problem. The stupidity behind this forced step is, at some point all audio has to revert back to analogue anyway, it just doesn't make sense why they're getting rid of the plug. If one could tangibly see some sort of major benefit of its removal, then fair enough, but the largely called for features such as better battery life, are continually ignored, and these phones without the plug have generally cost more than the phones they've replaced, so there's no advantage to the consumer.
About the only reason I can think of is, designing good quality audio gear in a condensed device like a phone may create a lot of restrictions in order to isolate noise and interference feeding into the audio output. Eliminating it may make it easier to design a board layout. And this assumes that the audio circuitry to drive the speakerphone are ignored since no one expects high fidelity out of that. With that said, though, the phones are no cheaper, so there's no advantage to the consumer.
I would hazard a guess that far fewer people use something like the NFC, yet, it's included in the phone.
This will be google's 'windows phone' moment.
Geeks are the hipsters, we're just plain old nerds...
Kind of like the myth that chrome is still fast and not a memory hog.
Facebook has been caught lying about their figures before. I don't think any of them are truthful about their figures, after all, they're the only ones that really know and they have a pecuniary interest with advertisers if they exaggerate (or just outright fabricate) the number of users.
The only problem is, this was happening well before steam was opened up to anyone and everyone. Those attrocious games didn't exist on steam until a few years ago, because steam used to be curated and generally games on steam were, broadly speaking, good.