I knew some idiot such as yourself would read what I wrote and point that out. I was waiting for such an argument to be made. Congratulations, you just demonstrated that you're a tool...who also can't spell.
You're right, you caught me. You laid out a trap by presenting anecdotal evidence with an air of being emperical evidence, and waited for "a tool" who prefers emperical illustrations over anecdotal ones to point that out. And I fell for it. You can pat yourself on the back now.
I still suspect that the manner in which an email address is distributed affects the probability of it being targeted by spam. Your comment did not allay my suspicions at all.
They've been completely unwilling to whitelist our domain or even incorporate a more expedient process for getting these blocks resolved.
I don't think that Hotmail has a whitelist. They'll block emails from gmail, yahoo and aol. It's just that with the big providers they work with them on resolving the issues quickly. So it would be difficult for them to add you to a non existent list.
As for a more expendient process, that does sound like a fault of theirs.
While I'm not a Rand fan, I don't see how the free market failed here. AT&T is still providing the service, they just being forced to put reasonable expectations around the service now.
Microsoft PR department is a powerful beast and they pay these trolls to spread misinformation on blogs
I would be very surprised if that was true. It's quite possible that thereare people who legitimatly think/believe opposite of what you think. It's also possible that there are people who are misinformed, at as a result spread the misinformation.
You're correct. The source of many of the comments here proclaiming the death of Windows are that many slashdotters firmly believe that people only use Windows for programs which were written for Windows 3.1. Since that code won't run a certain SKU of Windows they're positive that that fact will for sure prevent anyone from purchasing a copy of Windows ever again. They don't concider the possibility that there could be people out there actively developing for Windows right now, and that someone might possibly write an app for WinRT which will work on all future copies of Windows.
its UI thread is at the same priority as the apps.
It's not quite as simple as that. Apps use the UI thread. The first problem is that the UI thread does too much. iPhone and WP7 have split the responsibility of UI into two threads which coordinate the responsibilities of the "classic UI thread". Roughly speaking, ones for input and the other is for output. You could make the UI thread on Android as high a priority as you want and it wouldn't matter because the UI thread receives an input signal and calls the appropriate method/event for the given area of the screen. The registered method can take as long as it wants, doing whatever work it wants, before the UI thread returns to the state of receiving more messages. So it's not the priority of the UI thread that matters, what counts is dividing up the UI work amongst threads, allowing each one the time it needs to get the job done. And since all of the UI on Android happens on the same thread, adding more cores to Android will have less of an immediate measurable gain than iOS or WP7.
Wouldn't a device with e-paper (Kindle, Nook, Sony Reader, etc) be a better replacement for books? Those devices have no glare, have all of the benefits listed, and all have a longer battery life.
I was trying to see if she was saying what the 5% of the time a handheld device needed the four cores was. I didn't find the statement to be clear enough which is why I asked the question. If decoding HD video doesn't require the cores, why would a user be paying for this extra hardware they're never really going to end up using?
I wanted a bigger screen. I told myself it was because I hate typing on cramped virtual keyboards
Perfect. You knew what user experience you wanted and why you wanted it. In a perfect world there might have even been a size-of-screen-per-hour-of-battery metric that could have helped you make an even more informed decision. But if it's all about screen size, it's all about screen size.
Now correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that having multiple cores on a phones CPU actually *increased* battery life somewhat.
If all a device manufactuer did was add cores, for each core you added, that much more power would be consumed. By default your computer sends NoOp signals across the core for every clock cycle it doesn't have anything to do. The last few years though there have been more games played with sending cores to low powered states or turning them off altogether. The reason why they have to play these games is because more cores require more power. So if there is an increase in power savings it's because they had to have the ability to play the power savings games that they didn't have before.
If I can get 16 hours without a charge under heavy call/text use, I'm fine.
Exactly. But pulling off that great end to end experience generally requires more control over a system than what the device makers generally have. So when they decide to advertise their brand to consumers all they can go off on is how much hardware is on the system. But if the hardware doesn't actually help with anything the user notices (battery life for example) I find bragging about hardware to be a moot point.
Motorola says: On one full charge, you can host a marathon (as in more than 21-hour) conference call. Whip through the web for 7 hours straight. Get your movie fix with 15 uninterrupted hours of flick watching. Jam out all weekend. That’s right — on one full charge, you can listen to music for two and half days straight.
This is what we need more of. While an Apple like 1000 songs, isn't a very scientific unit of measurement, it does express the idea of what the device does for me regardless of hardware.
It doesn't have to be that way. Battery life has all but dissapeared in discussions/debates/religious wars about cell phones. The hard core android fan brags about having four cores in their phone, even if everything they're doing could easily be handled by a single core, gets its battery drained four times faster, and doesn't have a noticable performance improvement over the competition.
We're missing a battery life per functionality unit in the tech wars debate.
I know that, you know that, but the politicians don't know that. If the majority of searches all go through the same source, censoring that source results in censoring the majority. Censoring/controling all possible sources has a point of diminishing returns and with how big Google is, that's the only one they apparently feel is worth it.
If someone is searching for this supposed offensive content, they'll find it. I think this has more to do with stopping people from finding it when they aren't looking for it, or don't really want to find it.
I don't know what games you've written, but if there on par with Cut The Rope, it should be possible to use the same tools that they did to convert the game to javascript to be able to run on all platforms.
If it behaves in the same way as the other prerequsites, the installer doesn't include a copy of the SDK. It contains some smarts about checking to see if it's installed on the computer, and if not knows where to go get it (ie the Microsoft download servers). So I don't think that would break copyright, given that it's the Microsoft servers making the copy. According to the Kinect SDK FAQ "The commercial license authorizes development and distribution of commercial applications." I'm no lawyer, but I read that as allowing for the deployment of applications to systems which aren't used for development.
Prerequisites have existed for software installers for a few years now. I don't know how easy it is to add this SDK to an installer (haven't had to do it), but eventually (if not already) there'll be a template/plugin for Visual Studio and all a programmer will need to do when creating their installer, is check the box for the Kinect SDK prerequisite. Maybe they won't even have to do that, the current VS 2010 installer project will autodect a bunch of prerequisites for your project automatically and just do the right thing.
Do these individuals really represent the US population?
Are they supposed to? I don't remember anywhere in my public education propoganda that a President's role is to represent the people. I do remember that being the Senators and Representatives jobs. I'm not saying I want a President to not represent the people, I just can't think of where that's written down as their job description. Presidents are to carry out the law, and lead.
Slashdot Mirror
I knew some idiot such as yourself would read what I wrote and point that out. I was waiting for such an argument to be made. Congratulations, you just demonstrated that you're a tool...who also can't spell.
You're right, you caught me. You laid out a trap by presenting anecdotal evidence with an air of being emperical evidence, and waited for "a tool" who prefers emperical illustrations over anecdotal ones to point that out. And I fell for it. You can pat yourself on the back now.
I still suspect that the manner in which an email address is distributed affects the probability of it being targeted by spam. Your comment did not allay my suspicions at all.
They've been completely unwilling to whitelist our domain or even incorporate a more expedient process for getting these blocks resolved.
I don't think that Hotmail has a whitelist. They'll block emails from gmail, yahoo and aol. It's just that with the big providers they work with them on resolving the issues quickly. So it would be difficult for them to add you to a non existent list.
As for a more expendient process, that does sound like a fault of theirs.
So you're saying that the account you hand out wrecklessly gets more spam than the one you keep safe and only hand out to very trusted parties?
While I'm not a Rand fan, I don't see how the free market failed here. AT&T is still providing the service, they just being forced to put reasonable expectations around the service now.
An audience can be wowed with visual affects. So yes, the story is pretty much all audio, but the visuals are what add a wow factor.
Microsoft PR department is a powerful beast and they pay these trolls to spread misinformation on blogs
I would be very surprised if that was true. It's quite possible that thereare people who legitimatly think/believe opposite of what you think. It's also possible that there are people who are misinformed, at as a result spread the misinformation.
We've seen how the Evangelicals in South Carolina respond to the Golden Rule.
You're correct. The source of many of the comments here proclaiming the death of Windows are that many slashdotters firmly believe that people only use Windows for programs which were written for Windows 3.1. Since that code won't run a certain SKU of Windows they're positive that that fact will for sure prevent anyone from purchasing a copy of Windows ever again. They don't concider the possibility that there could be people out there actively developing for Windows right now, and that someone might possibly write an app for WinRT which will work on all future copies of Windows.
its UI thread is at the same priority as the apps.
It's not quite as simple as that. Apps use the UI thread. The first problem is that the UI thread does too much. iPhone and WP7 have split the responsibility of UI into two threads which coordinate the responsibilities of the "classic UI thread". Roughly speaking, ones for input and the other is for output. You could make the UI thread on Android as high a priority as you want and it wouldn't matter because the UI thread receives an input signal and calls the appropriate method/event for the given area of the screen. The registered method can take as long as it wants, doing whatever work it wants, before the UI thread returns to the state of receiving more messages. So it's not the priority of the UI thread that matters, what counts is dividing up the UI work amongst threads, allowing each one the time it needs to get the job done. And since all of the UI on Android happens on the same thread, adding more cores to Android will have less of an immediate measurable gain than iOS or WP7.
I'm sure if the US military wanted rugged they could find a supplier for rugged.
Wouldn't a device with e-paper (Kindle, Nook, Sony Reader, etc) be a better replacement for books? Those devices have no glare, have all of the benefits listed, and all have a longer battery life.
If it gets tied up in court until 2013 the patents will have expired, would he still have the ability to use after that point?
I was trying to see if she was saying what the 5% of the time a handheld device needed the four cores was. I didn't find the statement to be clear enough which is why I asked the question. If decoding HD video doesn't require the cores, why would a user be paying for this extra hardware they're never really going to end up using?
I wanted a bigger screen. I told myself it was because I hate typing on cramped virtual keyboards
Perfect. You knew what user experience you wanted and why you wanted it. In a perfect world there might have even been a size-of-screen-per-hour-of-battery metric that could have helped you make an even more informed decision. But if it's all about screen size, it's all about screen size.
Now correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that having multiple cores on a phones CPU actually *increased* battery life somewhat.
If all a device manufactuer did was add cores, for each core you added, that much more power would be consumed. By default your computer sends NoOp signals across the core for every clock cycle it doesn't have anything to do. The last few years though there have been more games played with sending cores to low powered states or turning them off altogether. The reason why they have to play these games is because more cores require more power. So if there is an increase in power savings it's because they had to have the ability to play the power savings games that they didn't have before.
If I can get 16 hours without a charge under heavy call/text use, I'm fine.
Exactly. But pulling off that great end to end experience generally requires more control over a system than what the device makers generally have. So when they decide to advertise their brand to consumers all they can go off on is how much hardware is on the system. But if the hardware doesn't actually help with anything the user notices (battery life for example) I find bragging about hardware to be a moot point.
but is well enough to play music and HW-decoded video.
Are you saying a device needs four cores to play music?
Motorola says: On one full charge, you can host a marathon (as in more than 21-hour) conference call. Whip through the web for 7 hours straight. Get your movie fix with 15 uninterrupted hours of flick watching. Jam out all weekend. That’s right — on one full charge, you can listen to music for two and half days straight.
This is what we need more of. While an Apple like 1000 songs, isn't a very scientific unit of measurement, it does express the idea of what the device does for me regardless of hardware.
It doesn't have to be that way. Battery life has all but dissapeared in discussions/debates/religious wars about cell phones. The hard core android fan brags about having four cores in their phone, even if everything they're doing could easily be handled by a single core, gets its battery drained four times faster, and doesn't have a noticable performance improvement over the competition.
We're missing a battery life per functionality unit in the tech wars debate.
Yahoo, Bing, Ask, etc?
I know that, you know that, but the politicians don't know that. If the majority of searches all go through the same source, censoring that source results in censoring the majority. Censoring/controling all possible sources has a point of diminishing returns and with how big Google is, that's the only one they apparently feel is worth it.
If someone is searching for this supposed offensive content, they'll find it. I think this has more to do with stopping people from finding it when they aren't looking for it, or don't really want to find it.
Because without Google people are at a loss on how to find the content.
I don't know what games you've written, but if there on par with Cut The Rope, it should be possible to use the same tools that they did to convert the game to javascript to be able to run on all platforms.
If it behaves in the same way as the other prerequsites, the installer doesn't include a copy of the SDK. It contains some smarts about checking to see if it's installed on the computer, and if not knows where to go get it (ie the Microsoft download servers). So I don't think that would break copyright, given that it's the Microsoft servers making the copy. According to the Kinect SDK FAQ "The commercial license authorizes development and distribution of commercial applications." I'm no lawyer, but I read that as allowing for the deployment of applications to systems which aren't used for development.
Prerequisites have existed for software installers for a few years now. I don't know how easy it is to add this SDK to an installer (haven't had to do it), but eventually (if not already) there'll be a template/plugin for Visual Studio and all a programmer will need to do when creating their installer, is check the box for the Kinect SDK prerequisite. Maybe they won't even have to do that, the current VS 2010 installer project will autodect a bunch of prerequisites for your project automatically and just do the right thing.
Do these individuals really represent the US population?
Are they supposed to? I don't remember anywhere in my public education propoganda that a President's role is to represent the people. I do remember that being the Senators and Representatives jobs. I'm not saying I want a President to not represent the people, I just can't think of where that's written down as their job description. Presidents are to carry out the law, and lead.