I'd rather the splash screen than having the program running resident in the background(like MSOffice does) eating up my resources.
Have you actually tried using MSOffice recently? It doesn't run resident in the background for quite a while now, and yet it still starts up orders of magnitude faster than OO.org.
*rant up ahead, totally irrelevant, feel free to skip*
I'm truly disappointed in OO.org. I say this as a formerly devoted OO.org user for 7 years. But when I had to make a quick presentation and only MSOffice 2007 was available in my lab's computers, the first thing in my mind was "why did I put up with that horrible OO.org interface for so long?" Many people may hate the Ribbon, but to me it was completely usable and quick to use, even for someone that has all the keyboard shortcuts ingrained in long term memory. I immediately downloaded the 2010 beta on my notebook, loved it, and purchased it when the beta expired. Never looked back.
OO.org could have had better progress in the 7 years I gave it. I even switched to the ODF format for all that "truly open format" jazz, which in practice gave me so much headache. C'mon, missing lines of text (!!) whenever I print out documents on a computer other than my own? On the *exact same* version of OO.org?! Yes, MSWord used to give me that same problem, but TEN years ago. (And usually the text just moves to another page, not DISAPPEAR entirely. What the eff is up with that?!)
Now that I am back to MSOffice, I'm just glad that I don't have to put up with OO.org's bugs, slowness and UI inconsistency anymore. The only qualm I had was that 7 years of my work would be rendered useless, but guess what, all of my OO.org documents opened up (most of them perfectly) in MSOffice! Did not expect it to, but hey it's there! The same cannot be said of OO.org's support for Office format files (DOC/XLS/PPT is just barely there, and every PPTX I have ever opened was just garbage in OO.org Impress. Not impressive at all (pardon the wordplay, just had to) -- isn't OOXML an open standard?!)
I hope I don't sound like an MS shill -- happy Android user here, and I completely detest Visual Studio, but of out of all office suites, MSOffice is still the best I have ever used.
*end rant*
Going back to your 3-second argument... it was definitely on the order of 15 seconds for me. 15 seconds is an ETERNITY when you have to restart Impress in the middle of your thesis defense.
What's curious is the word "idle" here in Slashdot has been mangled to mean "weird stuff with some (or a lot of) idiocy involved", when it really ought to mean "this might be remotely interesting in an otherwise completely uneventful day."
Anyway, by either of those standards, this article is clearly not idle.
(Okay, the recording industry could be right... they claimed back then that "something MUST be done", but they never claimed that something "is NOT currently being done". After all, thirty years later, we now have all these stupid copyright laws...)
Other companies do the same, but only internally. Google just condenses it to "Don't be evil", but if you look at their code of conduct http://investor.google.com/corporate/code-of-conduct.html, the format is very similar to Microsoft's. They do have differences, but they have striking similarities:
Microsoft: Integrity and Honesty Google: Integrity, Responsiveness (see how they define it)
Microsoft: Open and respectful with others Google: Respect Each Other
Microsoft: Accountable for commitments, results, and quality Google: Ensure financial integrity and responsibility
Those are pretty close to what we define as "good" ethically, in terms of a company's relationship with its customers.
Also, to be quite pedantic, "Don't Be Evil" is Google's INFORMAL company motto, and the place it appears in their website is in the same place Microsoft puts theirs in their website: in their investors relations pages. That's pretty standard.
So, back to you. Can you substantiate your claim that Google makes a big deal of their motto any more than other companies? Editorials from the free press not included.
It's naive to think that people have a moral/ethical framework?
No, but you are attacking a straw man. Remember when you contradicted this statement?
They may not always reach that standard... but heck, most actual people don't even try.
That seems very doubtful. Most people have some kind of moral/ethical framework.
You were using, as an argument, that "most actual people don't even try [to do good]" is very doubtful because people have a moral/ethical framework. You could only be right IF people are always consistent with their moral/ethical framework -- that MOST people ALWAYS do the right thing BECAUSE they have morals/ethics. That's what makes your argument naive.
Furthermore...
If this is true, then your other claim is bogus:
How so? Google might be particularly prone to evil, hence the need to proclaim "do no evil."
... you AGAIN show your confusion. If people HAVE a moral/ethical framework and they always follow through with it (the hidden assumption that you've always been making) then your statement that "Google MUST be evil because they proclaim this as their moral/ethical framework" is contradictory with your own beliefs, because under your own assumption, since Google has a moral/ethical framework, Google must be good.
I'm not saying that Google might NOT be particularly prone to evil.
I'm saying that your belief:
"most people have a moral/ethical framework, therefore people MUST be good at some level"
contradicts with your other belief:
"Google has a moral/ethical framework, therefore Google MUST be bad at some level"
That shows that either you have a double standard with particular malice against Google (at worst), or simply confused (at best). I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt.
For a company to even suggest that "do no evil" is a corporate value is amazing.
What's so amazing about it? It's pretty normal actually. I don't think any large companies these days don't have statements of ethics.
Hold that thought. You just said it's "pretty normal" for a corporation to have a "do no evil" value, yet you just said in your own previous post that it "shouldn't need to be said".
You're pretty confused. Those statements of ethics that you were talking about are SPECIFICALLY for stating corporate values. Make up your mind -- either it should be said, or not.
That seems very doubtful. Most people have some kind of moral/ethical framework.
That comes off to me as particularly naive, and again you are showing your confusion. If this is true, then your other claim is bogus:
there is a high possibility of Google naturally being evil, so they have to make efforts keep it in check.
Assuming you can set the screen down flat, you can do a lot of multiplayer games with this. Like duet piano, or playing Magic the Gathering with two players (and "tapping" virtual cards couldn't be any more realistic too!)
1. It is NOT obviously about relative suckage. The original contention was that Skype "can't accept the fact that your programmers suck". Furthermore you only provide debatable personal experience with the clients you are using. I'm merely pointing out that if you're going to give quality metrics the way you are doing it now (i.e. pretty subjective metrics), then I will give my own personal experience running counter to your experience, the same way you delivered them (i.e. my connection WAS flawed, it exposes the faults of the protocol of yahoo, skype handled it well). In other words, it's arguable. You can only get ahead by citing real performance data, which the original poster purposely chose to omit in order to insult Skype in defense of Fring.
2. If it IS about relative suckage, the comparison would have to be between Skype and Fring. So far the impression I'm getting is that "Fring's programmers suck so bad that they probably haven't realized that Skype didn't block them; that their own system overload is causing the block.":p (it's just my biased opinion, feel free to correct me) And seeing that the post I originally replied to resorts to flamebaiting without any objective measure, well, what can I say? I'm a sucker for playing the devil's advocate to crack down other people's views when they get malicious. (not yours, btw; I'm just replying to you because you replied to me.:) )
But even if they are better, that's hardly proof that Skype programmers suck. Skype handled beautifully even when my connection in Singapore was bad when I was videocalling to Canada. That was enough for me. Maybe gtalk was better, who knows, but my experience definitely didn't SUCK (that is the point of contention, isn't it?) as compared to yahoo's service.
Not being able to bring videocalling to mobile is not necessarily a programming decision. It may be a business one. But if they do release a client and it was plagued with problems, THEN you can unarguably say that they suck.
Fring's press release only *claims* that Skype blocked Fring (probably through the legal system, but in that case they should have been more clear with that). We do not see any actual C&D to remove any functionality whatsoever. (If you do find one, let me know.)
Skype's position clearly states otherwise.
"In this case, however, there is no truth to Fring’s claims that Skype has blocked it. Fring made the decision to remove Skype functionality on its own."
It's one company's word against another, yes, but since Fring is the accuser, it is in their burden to prove what they are saying. Let's see the legal documents, not a flowery press release (one that suspiciously advertises their own service as an alternative). If Fring doesn't provide that, it just reinforces the possibility that they are lying, as Skype has already shown that there is a clear motive for them to drop Skype support.
Wow, who is failing basic reasoning here and has his head up Fring's "ass" as you so call it. The facts remain that Fring intentionally crippled access (with the temporary part apparently an exaggeration judging from the blog commenters' complaints afterwards), while there is no evidence, technical OR legal, that Skype pulled the plug on them. Solely on that, it is reasonable to assume that the party with technical evidence of the other party's actions is more credible. What's YOUR basis for trusting Fring other than a press release with unfounded legal accusations and an apparent loathing of Skype's programmers (from your own scathing post)?
Fring has a very good reason to lie--they had a blunder and their users are irate about it (see their own blog post). For a free service, losing users is the worst thing to happen. And as you yourself said sarcastically, "guilty people (or companies) are always so eager to admit to being guilty".
Except that, if *you* understood what you read, "Skype cut them off entirely" is NOT a "fact" as you so claim -- it is an unproven accusation, one that Skype totally rejects.
And Skype's rejection has a much stronger basis -- it is provably true that they reduced the support to Skype; Fring admits it themselves in their own blog. What's Fring's basis for their accusation? Nothing but a few press releases with no technical facts proving that the block exists at all.
Frankly, it leads more credence to the likelihood that Fring INTENTIONALLY decided to remove one of their biggest features, pissed off their users (by accident), and NOW blaming it on Skype in an effort to save their faces. Rather unprofessionally, too -- who calls a company they are piggybacking on "cowards"?
And since people still don't bother clicking links:
As even more fringsters video call their friends on Android, Nokia and iPhones, we have seen some network ’stress’ (as the techies are telling me). So to free up capacity for more the fring-to-fring video calling, we are temporarily reducing support to 3rd –party Skype. Thanks for your patience.
Tell me NOW, is Skype sabotaging them and lying about it by merely linking to Fring's OWN blog announcements?:D
Let's face it -- Fring is piggybacking on Skype infrastructure. So change #3 to:
3) Skype told Fring that they should be PROPERLY using their infrastructure. It has nothing to do with adding stuff in their client that wasn't in the official client -- it has everything to do with "stop leeching off of us, we are explicitly not providing that service! If you want it, go build your own infrastructure, but don't piggyback on us!".
After that, #4 seems like a bitch response to intentionally tarnish the Skype brand.
Skype's response says "Fring was using Skype software in a way it wasn’t designed to be used – and in a way which is in breach of Skype’s API Terms of Use and End User License Agreement. We’ve been talking with Fring for some time to try to resolve this amicably." Nowhere did they claim that they blocked them.
Heck, Skype's response links directly to the Fring blog post where Fring ADMITTED that they reduced Skype functionality.
It's pretty clear cut. Fring is being VERY unprofessional by accusing Skype of things that Fring broke themselves, and then later calling Skype unpleasant names.
Society suffers just because you can't accept that your programmers suck.
Do you have proof of this "suckage"? Skype is pretty good for me -- it does not drop my video calls like Yahoo's VoIP does, and I get a higher frame rate. If I had to describe their programmers, "suck" is the farthest thing from my mind.
Frankly, judging from the comments of other users here about Fring's UI, it seems to me Fring's programmers are more deserving of that title.
then all of the sudden Skype bans them.
Skype firmly claims the direct opposite of this accusation. Not a downplaying like "they were using functionality that was not supported", but a firm denial, "they removed their support THEMSELVES". Again, I'd rather believe them than you.
Scour the internet. You will not find a single page, post, or comment from me wherein I bashed the Android for having multitasking.
I have no reason to care whether you have bashed the Android or not. But, as exemplified by your statement...
Ever since I've had an iPhone, I've wondered what the obsession is with multitasking. I couldn't really think of any two *productive* things to do simultaneously on a phone.
... and then you go on to ridicule people who bash the iPhone by saying...
If you're visiting YouTube, you've already decided that your time isn't valuable
All of what you said has just shown that you are being ignorant of the real applications people use their phones for -- I've JUST pointed out two examples where I am doing two *productive* things simultaneously on a phone. (One of which you specified so many preconditions, ignoring the fact that they aren't all that hard to achieve in practice.)
It's not right for you to bash iPhone bashers (as you have just admitted doing) when you are deliberately ignoring WHY they were bashing it in the first place -- it couldn't do what they require it to do for tasks they deem important.
Besides, it's improper to bash people based on the importance of what they are doing, all for the glory of defending a phone. At least those people are bashing inanimate objects, not people.
(with the exception of those rare instructive YouTube videos that show you how to do something useful).
You realize that your entire argument goes down the drain with that one exception?
How about if you wanted to take down notes with your phone WHILE watching said instructive YouTube video?
Point is, people have perfectly legitimate, non-time-wasting reasons to "bellyache" (as you so put it) for multitasking. Don't treat those reasons as unimportant (implicit from your accusation that "they have already decided that their time isn't valuable") just because *you* don't have those reasons.
I read another article where a guy was mad because he couldn't go switch to something else in the 5-6 seconds while a page loads in Safari
I hope you don't mind me omitting the trollish end of your sentence. I *do* switch between the web browser and the maps app on my Android phone when navigating on foot to somewhere, with the web browser bringing up the website of my destination (to get address details that the map won't show, e.g. when the destination is inside a mall).
Even though it's one USER task, those are still two PHONE tasks running at the same time. I expect my phone to keep up with me. 5 to 6 seconds is an awfully long time when you're running late.
Needless to say I'm quite glad I've been able to do what I do on my Android long before *anyone* can do it on an iPhone, thanks to multitasking.
Heck my older Nokia 6680 has been doing it way before these new-fangled phones, and I've always found it useful.
I wonder what the obsession is with your kind about BASHING the existence of multitasking on phones.
If your phone got stolen, the thief would get access to your google account (if you've ever set it up) or your browser history in the first place. Those are things that you wouldn't have been able to delete at the point of theft. Even if you lock the phone -- a good enough thief whose purpose is to steal your data would have researched enough to know how to get it. So that supposed "security hole" is moot -- it's just a tiny thing compared to the other data the thief has already gotten hold of.
My only real concern is if the issue is exploitable remotely.
I've noticed that my HTC Desire (also with Sense UI) does a similar thing, except it stores the thumbnails in my SD card. (The factory reset won't touch SD cards.) Maybe it saves to internal memory when there's no SD card, but I have not checked.
So it's probably more of a feature with a failsafe (i.e. write to internal memory if no SD is there) that wasn't implemented correctly, and you can still delete the files manually anyway. No big deal for me, but it's enough for me to know in case I do dispose/resell my phone in the future. (And if the phone gets stolen, the thief would have gotten hold of the SD card too anyway, so it's moot.)
Jesus was not even portrayed in cinema until 1961's "King of King's".
An earlier silent movie also named King of Kings (1927) also portrayed Jesus. In fact, depictions of Jesus go back as early as 1897, almost in line with the advent of film itself.
Maybe you mean non-sacred depictions? In which case I can only go back as far as 1979 (Life of Brian).
I'm not disagreeing with your main point... just that itty bitty claim.:)
As for actual cost of living... my university, NUS, doles out out-of-country subsistence allowances (for when a student/staff goes abroad) based on a per-country estimated cost of expenditures (excluding accommodation) per month. The circular estimates this at S$450 for US and S$300 for China.
No idea how they calculate this, but it was pretty accurate for me. It was S$265 for the Philippines (where I live), roughly translating to Php 8745, which was close to our minimum wage. For Singapore it was S$480, which is close to my current monthly expenditures if I don't splurge on anything.
Given that 1.5 : 1 ratio for US : China, $7.30/hour in the US is roughly equivalent to $4.87/hour in China.
If we use this (admittedly not firmly grounded) calculations, $.52/hour is not enough, even for China.
Slashdot Mirror
If you try hard enough, you'll get to World -1.
*sits down waiting for Troll moderation*
Have you actually tried using MSOffice recently? It doesn't run resident in the background for quite a while now, and yet it still starts up orders of magnitude faster than OO.org.
*rant up ahead, totally irrelevant, feel free to skip*
I'm truly disappointed in OO.org. I say this as a formerly devoted OO.org user for 7 years. But when I had to make a quick presentation and only MSOffice 2007 was available in my lab's computers, the first thing in my mind was "why did I put up with that horrible OO.org interface for so long?" Many people may hate the Ribbon, but to me it was completely usable and quick to use, even for someone that has all the keyboard shortcuts ingrained in long term memory. I immediately downloaded the 2010 beta on my notebook, loved it, and purchased it when the beta expired. Never looked back.
OO.org could have had better progress in the 7 years I gave it. I even switched to the ODF format for all that "truly open format" jazz, which in practice gave me so much headache. C'mon, missing lines of text (!!) whenever I print out documents on a computer other than my own? On the *exact same* version of OO.org?! Yes, MSWord used to give me that same problem, but TEN years ago. (And usually the text just moves to another page, not DISAPPEAR entirely. What the eff is up with that?!)
Now that I am back to MSOffice, I'm just glad that I don't have to put up with OO.org's bugs, slowness and UI inconsistency anymore. The only qualm I had was that 7 years of my work would be rendered useless, but guess what, all of my OO.org documents opened up (most of them perfectly) in MSOffice! Did not expect it to, but hey it's there! The same cannot be said of OO.org's support for Office format files (DOC/XLS/PPT is just barely there, and every PPTX I have ever opened was just garbage in OO.org Impress. Not impressive at all (pardon the wordplay, just had to) -- isn't OOXML an open standard?!)
I hope I don't sound like an MS shill -- happy Android user here, and I completely detest Visual Studio, but of out of all office suites, MSOffice is still the best I have ever used.
*end rant*
Going back to your 3-second argument... it was definitely on the order of 15 seconds for me. 15 seconds is an ETERNITY when you have to restart Impress in the middle of your thesis defense.
What's curious is the word "idle" here in Slashdot has been mangled to mean "weird stuff with some (or a lot of) idiocy involved", when it really ought to mean "this might be remotely interesting in an otherwise completely uneventful day."
Anyway, by either of those standards, this article is clearly not idle.
As they say, hindsight is ... *gets shot*
(Okay, the recording industry could be right... they claimed back then that "something MUST be done", but they never claimed that something "is NOT currently being done". After all, thirty years later, we now have all these stupid copyright laws...)
Epic fail.
I disagree. I actually think it's standard practice for companies, especially the big ones, to make a big deal of their values.
Microsoft, for example, makes a big deal enough to have a verbose code of values documented online. http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/Compliance/Buscond/Default.aspx#values
Other companies do the same, but only internally. Google just condenses it to "Don't be evil", but if you look at their code of conduct http://investor.google.com/corporate/code-of-conduct.html, the format is very similar to Microsoft's. They do have differences, but they have striking similarities:
Microsoft: Integrity and Honesty
Google: Integrity, Responsiveness (see how they define it)
Microsoft: Open and respectful with others
Google: Respect Each Other
Microsoft: Accountable for commitments, results, and quality
Google: Ensure financial integrity and responsibility
Those are pretty close to what we define as "good" ethically, in terms of a company's relationship with its customers.
Also, to be quite pedantic, "Don't Be Evil" is Google's INFORMAL company motto, and the place it appears in their website is in the same place Microsoft puts theirs in their website: in their investors relations pages. That's pretty standard.
So, back to you. Can you substantiate your claim that Google makes a big deal of their motto any more than other companies? Editorials from the free press not included.
No, but you are attacking a straw man. Remember when you contradicted this statement?
You were using, as an argument, that "most actual people don't even try [to do good]" is very doubtful because people have a moral/ethical framework. You could only be right IF people are always consistent with their moral/ethical framework -- that MOST people ALWAYS do the right thing BECAUSE they have morals/ethics. That's what makes your argument naive.
Furthermore...
I'm not saying that Google might NOT be particularly prone to evil.
I'm saying that your belief:
"most people have a moral/ethical framework, therefore people MUST be good at some level"
contradicts with your other belief:
"Google has a moral/ethical framework, therefore Google MUST be bad at some level"
That shows that either you have a double standard with particular malice against Google (at worst), or simply confused (at best). I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Hold that thought. You just said it's "pretty normal" for a corporation to have a "do no evil" value, yet you just said in your own previous post that it "shouldn't need to be said".
You're pretty confused. Those statements of ethics that you were talking about are SPECIFICALLY for stating corporate values. Make up your mind -- either it should be said, or not.
That comes off to me as particularly naive, and again you are showing your confusion. If this is true, then your other claim is bogus:
Assuming you can set the screen down flat, you can do a lot of multiplayer games with this. Like duet piano, or playing Magic the Gathering with two players (and "tapping" virtual cards couldn't be any more realistic too!)
1. It is NOT obviously about relative suckage. The original contention was that Skype "can't accept the fact that your programmers suck". Furthermore you only provide debatable personal experience with the clients you are using. I'm merely pointing out that if you're going to give quality metrics the way you are doing it now (i.e. pretty subjective metrics), then I will give my own personal experience running counter to your experience, the same way you delivered them (i.e. my connection WAS flawed, it exposes the faults of the protocol of yahoo, skype handled it well). In other words, it's arguable. You can only get ahead by citing real performance data, which the original poster purposely chose to omit in order to insult Skype in defense of Fring.
2. If it IS about relative suckage, the comparison would have to be between Skype and Fring. So far the impression I'm getting is that "Fring's programmers suck so bad that they probably haven't realized that Skype didn't block them; that their own system overload is causing the block." :p (it's just my biased opinion, feel free to correct me) And seeing that the post I originally replied to resorts to flamebaiting without any objective measure, well, what can I say? I'm a sucker for playing the devil's advocate to crack down other people's views when they get malicious. (not yours, btw; I'm just replying to you because you replied to me. :) )
I haven't used Gtalk's videocalls or Jingle VoIP.
But even if they are better, that's hardly proof that Skype programmers suck. Skype handled beautifully even when my connection in Singapore was bad when I was videocalling to Canada. That was enough for me. Maybe gtalk was better, who knows, but my experience definitely didn't SUCK (that is the point of contention, isn't it?) as compared to yahoo's service.
Not being able to bring videocalling to mobile is not necessarily a programming decision. It may be a business one. But if they do release a client and it was plagued with problems, THEN you can unarguably say that they suck.
Good for you! I use Skype specifically for video calling though.
Fring's press release only *claims* that Skype blocked Fring (probably through the legal system, but in that case they should have been more clear with that). We do not see any actual C&D to remove any functionality whatsoever. (If you do find one, let me know.)
Skype's position clearly states otherwise.
"In this case, however, there is no truth to Fring’s claims that Skype has blocked it. Fring made the decision to remove Skype functionality on its own."
It's one company's word against another, yes, but since Fring is the accuser, it is in their burden to prove what they are saying. Let's see the legal documents, not a flowery press release (one that suspiciously advertises their own service as an alternative). If Fring doesn't provide that, it just reinforces the possibility that they are lying, as Skype has already shown that there is a clear motive for them to drop Skype support.
Wow, who is failing basic reasoning here and has his head up Fring's "ass" as you so call it. The facts remain that Fring intentionally crippled access (with the temporary part apparently an exaggeration judging from the blog commenters' complaints afterwards), while there is no evidence, technical OR legal, that Skype pulled the plug on them. Solely on that, it is reasonable to assume that the party with technical evidence of the other party's actions is more credible. What's YOUR basis for trusting Fring other than a press release with unfounded legal accusations and an apparent loathing of Skype's programmers (from your own scathing post)?
Fring has a very good reason to lie--they had a blunder and their users are irate about it (see their own blog post). For a free service, losing users is the worst thing to happen. And as you yourself said sarcastically, "guilty people (or companies) are always so eager to admit to being guilty".
I rest my case.
Except that, if *you* understood what you read, "Skype cut them off entirely" is NOT a "fact" as you so claim -- it is an unproven accusation, one that Skype totally rejects.
And Skype's rejection has a much stronger basis -- it is provably true that they reduced the support to Skype; Fring admits it themselves in their own blog. What's Fring's basis for their accusation? Nothing but a few press releases with no technical facts proving that the block exists at all.
Frankly, it leads more credence to the likelihood that Fring INTENTIONALLY decided to remove one of their biggest features, pissed off their users (by accident), and NOW blaming it on Skype in an effort to save their faces. Rather unprofessionally, too -- who calls a company they are piggybacking on "cowards"?
EXACTLY! Use common sense!
This is Fring's blog post that Skype has posted in their response, which many apparently have not read:
http://www.fring.com/blog/?p=2303
And since people still don't bother clicking links:
Tell me NOW, is Skype sabotaging them and lying about it by merely linking to Fring's OWN blog announcements? :D
Let's face it -- Fring is piggybacking on Skype infrastructure. So change #3 to:
3) Skype told Fring that they should be PROPERLY using their infrastructure. It has nothing to do with adding stuff in their client that wasn't in the official client -- it has everything to do with "stop leeching off of us, we are explicitly not providing that service! If you want it, go build your own infrastructure, but don't piggyback on us!".
After that, #4 seems like a bitch response to intentionally tarnish the Skype brand.
Skype's response says "Fring was using Skype software in a way it wasn’t designed to be used – and in a way which is in breach of Skype’s API Terms of Use and End User License Agreement. We’ve been talking with Fring for some time to try to resolve this amicably." Nowhere did they claim that they blocked them.
Heck, Skype's response links directly to the Fring blog post where Fring ADMITTED that they reduced Skype functionality.
It's pretty clear cut. Fring is being VERY unprofessional by accusing Skype of things that Fring broke themselves, and then later calling Skype unpleasant names.
Do you have proof of this "suckage"? Skype is pretty good for me -- it does not drop my video calls like Yahoo's VoIP does, and I get a higher frame rate. If I had to describe their programmers, "suck" is the farthest thing from my mind.
Frankly, judging from the comments of other users here about Fring's UI, it seems to me Fring's programmers are more deserving of that title.
Skype firmly claims the direct opposite of this accusation. Not a downplaying like "they were using functionality that was not supported", but a firm denial, "they removed their support THEMSELVES". Again, I'd rather believe them than you.
I have no reason to care whether you have bashed the Android or not. But, as exemplified by your statement...
All of what you said has just shown that you are being ignorant of the real applications people use their phones for -- I've JUST pointed out two examples where I am doing two *productive* things simultaneously on a phone. (One of which you specified so many preconditions, ignoring the fact that they aren't all that hard to achieve in practice.)
It's not right for you to bash iPhone bashers (as you have just admitted doing) when you are deliberately ignoring WHY they were bashing it in the first place -- it couldn't do what they require it to do for tasks they deem important.
Besides, it's improper to bash people based on the importance of what they are doing, all for the glory of defending a phone. At least those people are bashing inanimate objects, not people.
You realize that your entire argument goes down the drain with that one exception?
How about if you wanted to take down notes with your phone WHILE watching said instructive YouTube video?
Point is, people have perfectly legitimate, non-time-wasting reasons to "bellyache" (as you so put it) for multitasking. Don't treat those reasons as unimportant (implicit from your accusation that "they have already decided that their time isn't valuable") just because *you* don't have those reasons.
I hope you don't mind me omitting the trollish end of your sentence. I *do* switch between the web browser and the maps app on my Android phone when navigating on foot to somewhere, with the web browser bringing up the website of my destination (to get address details that the map won't show, e.g. when the destination is inside a mall).
Even though it's one USER task, those are still two PHONE tasks running at the same time. I expect my phone to keep up with me. 5 to 6 seconds is an awfully long time when you're running late.
Needless to say I'm quite glad I've been able to do what I do on my Android long before *anyone* can do it on an iPhone, thanks to multitasking.
Heck my older Nokia 6680 has been doing it way before these new-fangled phones, and I've always found it useful.
I wonder what the obsession is with your kind about BASHING the existence of multitasking on phones.
If your phone got stolen, the thief would get access to your google account (if you've ever set it up) or your browser history in the first place. Those are things that you wouldn't have been able to delete at the point of theft. Even if you lock the phone -- a good enough thief whose purpose is to steal your data would have researched enough to know how to get it. So that supposed "security hole" is moot -- it's just a tiny thing compared to the other data the thief has already gotten hold of.
My only real concern is if the issue is exploitable remotely.
TFA says it's stored in the internal storage on the Droid, which is more difficult to delete. (Not by much, but still worth noting.)
I've noticed that my HTC Desire (also with Sense UI) does a similar thing, except it stores the thumbnails in my SD card. (The factory reset won't touch SD cards.) Maybe it saves to internal memory when there's no SD card, but I have not checked.
So it's probably more of a feature with a failsafe (i.e. write to internal memory if no SD is there) that wasn't implemented correctly, and you can still delete the files manually anyway. No big deal for me, but it's enough for me to know in case I do dispose/resell my phone in the future. (And if the phone gets stolen, the thief would have gotten hold of the SD card too anyway, so it's moot.)
An earlier silent movie also named King of Kings (1927) also portrayed Jesus. In fact, depictions of Jesus go back as early as 1897, almost in line with the advent of film itself.
Maybe you mean non-sacred depictions? In which case I can only go back as far as 1979 (Life of Brian).
I'm not disagreeing with your main point... just that itty bitty claim. :)
That's a pretty big if.
As for actual cost of living... my university, NUS, doles out out-of-country subsistence allowances (for when a student/staff goes abroad) based on a per-country estimated cost of expenditures (excluding accommodation) per month. The circular estimates this at S$450 for US and S$300 for China.
No idea how they calculate this, but it was pretty accurate for me. It was S$265 for the Philippines (where I live), roughly translating to Php 8745, which was close to our minimum wage. For Singapore it was S$480, which is close to my current monthly expenditures if I don't splurge on anything.
Given that 1.5 : 1 ratio for US : China, $7.30/hour in the US is roughly equivalent to $4.87/hour in China.
If we use this (admittedly not firmly grounded) calculations, $.52/hour is not enough, even for China.