Ahh, so distributing native binaries embedded in HTML is the future of mobile devices? In other words, you want to go full circle and end up back at the security and compatibility nightmare that was ActiveX components embedded in web pages?
No thank you.
As for using Flash CS6 and it's proprietary, closed, commercial programming language for development, no thank you either.
and with pocket devices we'll be reaching them throughout the day instead of just when "logged-on
Oh, you will, huh? And they aren't the least bit worried about establishing themselves in an entire market and hardware paradigm in which they have no influence or foothold in whatsoever? (And no, using Actionscript as a compiler language to build native iPhone apps doesn't count.)
Different companies have a vastly different presence in foreign companies, especially in regards to products. Microsoft sells software products straight-out, while Google provides services which generates revenue via advertising. I can see why it would be an entirely different decision for the two companies. I think Bing is just a minor footnote in all this anyway. It's market presence in China can't be very large, especially since it is so new.
Microsoft might go along with China's requirements with Bing just to keep a good relationship so China will help combat piracy of Microsoft's products, etc. Those a drastically different considerations than for Google.
Oh, and at some point the economy of the US needs to be considered by US companies. Every cent spent in China buying a US product is needed at this time.
Is this thing for real? Why does it have a parallel port, 2 serial ports, PS/2 connectors, DVI output, S-Video output, and a CF reader? These ports date this thing back at least 5 years.
The hardware is actually rather cheap looking, especially when viewed from the sides. The case looks like cheap plastic with a poor finish.
I think HDD will continue to stay enough ahead of SSD in raw capacity that it will stay relevant for a long time. When SSD is affordable at 200 GB then HDD will already be affordable at 2 TB, etc.
You mean people would actually have to SPEND MONEY? And even worse, on an actual PHYSICAL OBJECT? No way, not in a million years would something like this replace a simple, free online service.
I like the way this is portrayed in a totally positive light, as if a person, upon forgetting the password to their device, is going to go out and buy one of these video cards, install it in a machine capable of supporting it (PSU wattage, bus speed, OS, etc), purchase the proprietary "password breaker" software (sold by the company that authored this "story"), all just to recover their password. I think the typical usage for this type of setup is of a more nefarious sort.
Just out of curiosity, which religions are incompatible with the existence of extraterrestrial life? To my knowledge, such an issue is not addressed by most religions, and is compatible with most beliefs. Scientology expressly revolves around the concept of aliens, but Scientology is a tax dodge, not a religion.
Certainly. Tests of this nature are completely, totally worthless. His previous experience with other devices may actually be to the detriment of his performance with devices with dissimilar keyboard layouts.
A proper study would use a number of individuals. Each would be given a phone, tested on that phone, instructed to use that phone over the course of a week, and then tested again. Then they would move on to another phone. Each individual would be given the phones in a different order, so the performance improvement gained through general use of smart phones, as well as growing familiarity with the testing process, wouldn't skew the results.
I think it's interesting how we use standards developed so very long ago, when the negative ramifications of various design decisions on modern technology could never have been predicted during the design process. QWERTY might stand up against Dvorak with a physical keyboard, but it has some significant problems on compact QWERTY (IE the Blackberry Pearl) and touch screen devices.
One of the biggest issues with QWERTY is that the vowels U, I and O are all consecutive in a row. Consider typing the word "HIT". If either letter to the left or right of "I" is hit accidentally then it still results in valid words: "HUT" and "HOT". That is the case in many other instances as well. Both compact QWERTY and touchscreen devices have to make guesses as to what words the user has typed, and they make a lot of mistakes purely because of the layout of the QWERTY keyboard. An optimum layout would prevent commonly interchangeable letters from residing next to one another, particularly the vowels.
I doubt that is something considered in the Dvorak layout either. In fact, the Dvorak placement of the most common letters in a single row (the home row) could exacerbate the problem.
Do people get paid to throw Apple branding around like this? Are any of these issues in any way unique to, or only now forthcoming because of, Apple's late entry into the tablet computing market?
My game engine, which has been used in a Top-100 iPhone game, is 99% C++, and only has the minimum amount of Objective-C code required to handle various system events (around 200 lines of code). Of course applications intimately integrating with the iPhone's GUI API would require much more Objective-C. So Objective C is not the only officially supported language for the iPhone for generating native binaries.
Then according to his logic, Windows Mobile is better than Android and iPhone combined, because not only can it run Java apps, but you can author software for it in practically any mainstream programming language.
What about Blackberry? It is a pure Java based platform, even more so than Android.
I just think it's silly to say "This device is LISP based, so it is better than device X because some corporation might have LISP developers sitting around that can write apps for it in a language they're used to!"
This story specifically addresses work for hire and consulting scenarios. It totally neglects other methods of income, such as direct software sales and licensing. An individual developer can build up a portfolio of half a dozen apps for a specific platform (Windows, OSX, Windows Mobile, iPhone, Blackberry, etc) and do well financially.
"How big should touchable areas be? I recall Verizon's mobile style guide recommending nothing smaller than 44 by 44 pixels;"
I lost a little respect for the developer when I read that. Pixels are meaningless as they are affected by the display's DPI. Considering Verizon doesn't even sell the iPhone, obviously their style guidelines are specific to some other hardware. My HTC has a DPI of 259 versus the iPhone's 163, so a 44x44 pixel area is rendered with vastly different scale from device to device.
You are exactly right, and other manufactures, like HTC, also provide their own UI which serves as the primary first-layer (and often second-layer) interactiveness that the user experiences. Generally this interface is very good, but as you say, when you get into the nitty-gritty, it's just WM underneath, which is the child of Pocket PC, which is the child of Palm-Sized PC (windows CE 2.11), which is the child of Windows CE 1.0, which was an _exact_ copy of the Windows 95 user interface. And here's the real problem - Microsoft has managed backwards compatibility all this time. There's still a huge amount that can be done while maintaining backwards compatibility, like using those widgets only with older apps. One of my biggest problems with WM 6.5 is its messaging system (specifically the user interface). HTC, again, tried to provide a layer over this as well, but it doesn't go deep enough. But the fact of the matter is the messaging system is implemented by Microsoft, thus they can do anything they want with it without having to worry about backwards compatibility.
I just have a hard time believing MS could get WM7 wrong. Mainly because everyone and their brother is now producing a decent mobile shell (Apple, Google, Palm, and I've just heard Samsung is joining the fray as well). So MS doesn't even have to do anything groundbreaking or original - merely being on par and in the same paradigm as everyone else would be good enough.
Hmm. Maybe I can answer my own question. It would be much easier to roll out Opera Mini for iPhone, since it is already implemented in Java (making it OS / hardware independent). If Apple approves Opera Mini, then Opera can begin investing the resources into porting Opera Mobile to the iPhone platform. So perhaps Opera is testing Apple with a low-risk, low-investment browser first. If Apple approves mini, then Opera could perhaps have some legal ground to challenge Apple should they later deny Opera Mobile.
Really? Why not Opera Mobile? That doesn't make sense to me. Opera Mini is java based and is for smartphones. Web pages are processed by Opera's proxy servers and stripped down for mobile viewing on underpowered devices. Opera Mobile 10 is an actual web browser, on par with Safari on the iPhone.
Slashdot Mirror
No, Yahoo is blocking direct access to the print version of the article. Remove "print" from the end of the URL and it will work.
Dana Carvey, Robin Williams and Will Ferrell fall into the same category.
Ahh, so distributing native binaries embedded in HTML is the future of mobile devices? In other words, you want to go full circle and end up back at the security and compatibility nightmare that was ActiveX components embedded in web pages?
No thank you.
As for using Flash CS6 and it's proprietary, closed, commercial programming language for development, no thank you either.
What is this guy smoking?
and with pocket devices we'll be reaching them throughout the day instead of just when "logged-on
Oh, you will, huh? And they aren't the least bit worried about establishing themselves in an entire market and hardware paradigm in which they have no influence or foothold in whatsoever? (And no, using Actionscript as a compiler language to build native iPhone apps doesn't count.)
Different companies have a vastly different presence in foreign companies, especially in regards to products. Microsoft sells software products straight-out, while Google provides services which generates revenue via advertising. I can see why it would be an entirely different decision for the two companies. I think Bing is just a minor footnote in all this anyway. It's market presence in China can't be very large, especially since it is so new.
Microsoft might go along with China's requirements with Bing just to keep a good relationship so China will help combat piracy of Microsoft's products, etc. Those a drastically different considerations than for Google.
Oh, and at some point the economy of the US needs to be considered by US companies. Every cent spent in China buying a US product is needed at this time.
Is this thing for real? Why does it have a parallel port, 2 serial ports, PS/2 connectors, DVI output, S-Video output, and a CF reader? These ports date this thing back at least 5 years.
The hardware is actually rather cheap looking, especially when viewed from the sides. The case looks like cheap plastic with a poor finish.
I think HDD will continue to stay enough ahead of SSD in raw capacity that it will stay relevant for a long time. When SSD is affordable at 200 GB then HDD will already be affordable at 2 TB, etc.
You mean people would actually have to SPEND MONEY? And even worse, on an actual PHYSICAL OBJECT? No way, not in a million years would something like this replace a simple, free online service.
"With this experiment, we've shown that the dividing line can be pushed up all the way to about a trillion atoms."
"The "quantum resonator" can be seen with the naked eye."
I like the way this is portrayed in a totally positive light, as if a person, upon forgetting the password to their device, is going to go out and buy one of these video cards, install it in a machine capable of supporting it (PSU wattage, bus speed, OS, etc), purchase the proprietary "password breaker" software (sold by the company that authored this "story"), all just to recover their password. I think the typical usage for this type of setup is of a more nefarious sort.
Just out of curiosity, which religions are incompatible with the existence of extraterrestrial life? To my knowledge, such an issue is not addressed by most religions, and is compatible with most beliefs. Scientology expressly revolves around the concept of aliens, but Scientology is a tax dodge, not a religion.
Certainly. Tests of this nature are completely, totally worthless. His previous experience with other devices may actually be to the detriment of his performance with devices with dissimilar keyboard layouts.
A proper study would use a number of individuals. Each would be given a phone, tested on that phone, instructed to use that phone over the course of a week, and then tested again. Then they would move on to another phone. Each individual would be given the phones in a different order, so the performance improvement gained through general use of smart phones, as well as growing familiarity with the testing process, wouldn't skew the results.
I think it's interesting how we use standards developed so very long ago, when the negative ramifications of various design decisions on modern technology could never have been predicted during the design process. QWERTY might stand up against Dvorak with a physical keyboard, but it has some significant problems on compact QWERTY (IE the Blackberry Pearl) and touch screen devices.
One of the biggest issues with QWERTY is that the vowels U, I and O are all consecutive in a row. Consider typing the word "HIT". If either letter to the left or right of "I" is hit accidentally then it still results in valid words: "HUT" and "HOT". That is the case in many other instances as well. Both compact QWERTY and touchscreen devices have to make guesses as to what words the user has typed, and they make a lot of mistakes purely because of the layout of the QWERTY keyboard. An optimum layout would prevent commonly interchangeable letters from residing next to one another, particularly the vowels.
I doubt that is something considered in the Dvorak layout either. In fact, the Dvorak placement of the most common letters in a single row (the home row) could exacerbate the problem.
Do people get paid to throw Apple branding around like this? Are any of these issues in any way unique to, or only now forthcoming because of, Apple's late entry into the tablet computing market?
My game engine, which has been used in a Top-100 iPhone game, is 99% C++, and only has the minimum amount of Objective-C code required to handle various system events (around 200 lines of code). Of course applications intimately integrating with the iPhone's GUI API would require much more Objective-C. So Objective C is not the only officially supported language for the iPhone for generating native binaries.
Then according to his logic, Windows Mobile is better than Android and iPhone combined, because not only can it run Java apps, but you can author software for it in practically any mainstream programming language.
What about Blackberry? It is a pure Java based platform, even more so than Android.
I just think it's silly to say "This device is LISP based, so it is better than device X because some corporation might have LISP developers sitting around that can write apps for it in a language they're used to!"
Then what came first? The shopping list or the egg?
This story specifically addresses work for hire and consulting scenarios. It totally neglects other methods of income, such as direct software sales and licensing. An individual developer can build up a portfolio of half a dozen apps for a specific platform (Windows, OSX, Windows Mobile, iPhone, Blackberry, etc) and do well financially.
"How big should touchable areas be? I recall Verizon's mobile style guide recommending nothing smaller than 44 by 44 pixels;"
I lost a little respect for the developer when I read that. Pixels are meaningless as they are affected by the display's DPI. Considering Verizon doesn't even sell the iPhone, obviously their style guidelines are specific to some other hardware. My HTC has a DPI of 259 versus the iPhone's 163, so a 44x44 pixel area is rendered with vastly different scale from device to device.
Everyone needs a hobby. If you enjoy playing cloak and dagger, then let that be your hobby. Otherwise invest your time in more worthwhile endeavors.
You are exactly right, and other manufactures, like HTC, also provide their own UI which serves as the primary first-layer (and often second-layer) interactiveness that the user experiences. Generally this interface is very good, but as you say, when you get into the nitty-gritty, it's just WM underneath, which is the child of Pocket PC, which is the child of Palm-Sized PC (windows CE 2.11), which is the child of Windows CE 1.0, which was an _exact_ copy of the Windows 95 user interface. And here's the real problem - Microsoft has managed backwards compatibility all this time. There's still a huge amount that can be done while maintaining backwards compatibility, like using those widgets only with older apps. One of my biggest problems with WM 6.5 is its messaging system (specifically the user interface). HTC, again, tried to provide a layer over this as well, but it doesn't go deep enough. But the fact of the matter is the messaging system is implemented by Microsoft, thus they can do anything they want with it without having to worry about backwards compatibility.
I just have a hard time believing MS could get WM7 wrong. Mainly because everyone and their brother is now producing a decent mobile shell (Apple, Google, Palm, and I've just heard Samsung is joining the fray as well). So MS doesn't even have to do anything groundbreaking or original - merely being on par and in the same paradigm as everyone else would be good enough.
The infected PC is unusable or it will be restored to a clean state. Either way it won't be spamming or participating DDOS attacks, etc.
Hmm. Maybe I can answer my own question. It would be much easier to roll out Opera Mini for iPhone, since it is already implemented in Java (making it OS / hardware independent). If Apple approves Opera Mini, then Opera can begin investing the resources into porting Opera Mobile to the iPhone platform. So perhaps Opera is testing Apple with a low-risk, low-investment browser first. If Apple approves mini, then Opera could perhaps have some legal ground to challenge Apple should they later deny Opera Mobile.
Really? Why not Opera Mobile? That doesn't make sense to me. Opera Mini is java based and is for smartphones. Web pages are processed by Opera's proxy servers and stripped down for mobile viewing on underpowered devices. Opera Mobile 10 is an actual web browser, on par with Safari on the iPhone.
"Do not use your cell phone while driving"
What if you are used by your cell phone?