It should. It's an excellent platform, well ahead of the rest.
Given that BlackBerry apps earn the most money, it's not a tough decision for developers to make. As we all know, Android development sucks. Developers are already jumping on BB10 at an impressive pace. The app gap will close.
The market is going to look very different this time next year.
So you're saying that voting for a third-party is a great way to help insure that they candidate that represents you the least wins?
Your point is that third-party candidates do nothing other than siphon votes from the candidate that is closest aligned ideologically to that candidate, giving advantage to the candidate that represents you and your interests the least?
Why would we want these leaches in the mix at all!? Who in their right mind would vote for a third-party candidate knowing that it actively works against their own interests?! You might as well just vote for the guy you don't want to win!
They're very unlikely to get any electoral votes. It would be an absolute miracle if any of the third-party candidates playing pretend "run for president" achieved that.
It's cute the people thing these third-party candidates matter.
It's super cute that these third-party candidates are having a little debate.
Overall, I support this. They'll learn a lot about how government works. I wonder if they'll play with one of those Model UN groups when their done playing "run for president".
In the real world, when I make less than expected, I simply buy less. Perhaps I do not take a trip, eat out less often, or not buy a few books I like.
You read?
Don't worry, I'm sure that if you write a letter that explained your plight, Glenn Beck will gladly send you a copy of his latest rambling incoherent scribbling gratis.
Have other phones even reached the pixel density that the iPhone introduced three generations ago?
Yeah. They have. A while ago. So far back, in fact, that they actually reached and exceeded the pixel density of the display used in Apple's iPhone 4 more than a year before it was released!
Today, it's tough to find a phone that doesn't have a higher PPI than Apple. Even the Dev Alpha, the phone RIM passes out to developers, has a significantly higher pixel density than Apple's latest product.
You might want to take a look at the other products on the market -- you're missing out on some pretty good stuff.
So, how can I know that the screenshot that an AC posted is a fake and that the screenshot you're referring to is real?
You clearly have an ideologically driven agenda, so I can't really take your word for it.
I don't have an iPad to check for myself, though several other users report that they need to scroll when they view the site on an iPad and many other users report that they need to scroll even when using a high-resolution display.
So, I'm left either trusting you and your screenshot or the consensus of reports from other users. I know that I need to scroll on my P, C to see the text below the header. Further, even if I could trust the other screenshot, it appears that only in portrait mode can the sub-footer been seen without scrolling. How many users browse the web in portrait mode on their tablets? (I know I never do) How many do the same on their PC?
The point? Even if I could trust you, and there was some circumstance where scrolling was not necessary, the vast majority would need to scroll to find the text, which does not hint at the nature of the content (an apology).
I have no idea what I had for lunch last Wednesday.
Not everyone has a piss-poor memory.
I know what I had for lunch last Wednesday. Why? Because I don't stumble through life blindly moving from one moment to the next!
Had I checked out Apples page like the parent last week, I would have certainly taken note of both the position and content in the footer due to all the talk about how Apple was likely to bury the link there. Not that it would have been terribly difficult to call to mind the look of a page I'd seen recently!
Still, your argument boils down to "I have a bad memory therefore the parent is lying!" Not too convincing...
You're really stretching here. The fellow remembers seeing the footer on a page he was on last week. Does he need a reason?
What would that even be?
Try this: You remember what you had for lunch last Wednesday because __________.
Of course, if you can't answer that, you must be lying about remembering what you had for lunch last Wednesday in an effort to make {company} look bad!
Apple is doing just fine. You don't need to defend them or shill for them.
A more scientific approach is to consider what the evidence tells you and then form a conclusion. A more scientific approach is to consider what the evidence tells you and then form a conclusion.
It should be noted that the conclusion will often be "a conclusion cannot be formed", assuming a scientific approach.
There's a lot of nonsense in the science cheerleader community -- non-scientific concepts like 'default position' (related to the above) do more harm than good. In their effort to defend science against some perceived threat or defend some ideological position, they've abandoned science, reason, and logic; they've become an even more dangerous threat to science than any creationist group could ever hope to be!
Remember these three simple things: 1) Science has a finite scope 2) Science neither presumes nor tends toward truth. 3) A conclusion drawn exclusively or predominantly from the metaphysics upon which natural science is based does not make that conclusion scientific.
Science depends upon constraint. Trying to expand science beyond its scope epistemologically or methodologically is far more dangerous than anything a few nuts with some bronze-age scribblings or an army of parade magazine quality science "journalists" could ever manage.
Slashdot Mirror
It should. It's an excellent platform, well ahead of the rest.
Given that BlackBerry apps earn the most money, it's not a tough decision for developers to make. As we all know, Android development sucks. Developers are already jumping on BB10 at an impressive pace. The app gap will close.
The market is going to look very different this time next year.
Mom?
Is that you?
Wow, you're just impervious to facts, aren't you?
If your a BES user, RIM can't hand over the keys because they don't have them.
As always, RIM is the ONLY option for the security conscious.
Go find some new talking points, preferably some with facts behind them.
The reality is that RIM is not building hardware that people actually want.
Sorry, are you from the past?
You're using that wacky voodoo science math. Try using Republican math.
(You should get something like Obama: 12, Romney 1,000,000 -- Just a rough estimate.)
This should help:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9628114/US-presidential-debate-Mitt-Romney-mocked-after-calling-Syria-Irans-route-to-the-sea.html
Indeed, if you're planning to vote for Obama, vote for Jill Stein instead.
The Romney Campaign truly appreciates your vote!
I don't get the idea that my vote is wasted. It sends a message.
A message, eh? I'm curious as to what that message contains, and who you think is listening...
Remember: a vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama; just like a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush back in 2000.
So you're saying that voting for a third-party is a great way to help insure that they candidate that represents you the least wins?
Your point is that third-party candidates do nothing other than siphon votes from the candidate that is closest aligned ideologically to that candidate, giving advantage to the candidate that represents you and your interests the least?
Why would we want these leaches in the mix at all!? Who in their right mind would vote for a third-party candidate knowing that it actively works against their own interests?! You might as well just vote for the guy you don't want to win!
Some peoples children...
They're very unlikely to get any electoral votes. It would be an absolute miracle if any of the third-party candidates playing pretend "run for president" achieved that.
I'm looking forward to it. Right now, the race between Jill Stein and Mickey Mouse is too close to call.
(Just kidding. I know that Stein won't even come close to M.M. in the general.)
It's cute the people thing these third-party candidates matter.
It's super cute that these third-party candidates are having a little debate.
Overall, I support this. They'll learn a lot about how government works. I wonder if they'll play with one of those Model UN groups when their done playing "run for president".
In the real world, when I make less than expected, I simply buy less. Perhaps I do not take a trip, eat out less often, or not buy a few books I like.
You read?
Don't worry, I'm sure that if you write a letter that explained your plight, Glenn Beck will gladly send you a copy of his latest rambling incoherent scribbling gratis.
You know that the overpriced hammer and toilet seat stories are total bullshit, right?
Not that it matters, you don't seem the type to let facts interfere with your preconceptions.
. Coding is about thinking out elegant solutions to interesting problems.
On very rare occasion.
The rest of the time it's tapping out boring and obvious solutions to depressingly uninteresting problems.
Salt in the wound: The longer you're at it, you'll find that more problems that once would have been interesting are simple and terrifyingly dull.
My advice? Switch fields as early as you can, write code as a hobby. You'll want to kill yourself after a few years otherwise.
Have other phones even reached the pixel density that the iPhone introduced three generations ago?
Yeah. They have. A while ago. So far back, in fact, that they actually reached and exceeded the pixel density of the display used in Apple's iPhone 4 more than a year before it was released!
Today, it's tough to find a phone that doesn't have a higher PPI than Apple. Even the Dev Alpha, the phone RIM passes out to developers, has a significantly higher pixel density than Apple's latest product.
You might want to take a look at the other products on the market -- you're missing out on some pretty good stuff.
Sorry, way off-topic, but can you elaborate a bit on that?
So, how can I know that the screenshot that an AC posted is a fake and that the screenshot you're referring to is real?
You clearly have an ideologically driven agenda, so I can't really take your word for it.
I don't have an iPad to check for myself, though several other users report that they need to scroll when they view the site on an iPad and many other users report that they need to scroll even when using a high-resolution display.
So, I'm left either trusting you and your screenshot or the consensus of reports from other users. I know that I need to scroll on my P, C to see the text below the header. Further, even if I could trust the other screenshot, it appears that only in portrait mode can the sub-footer been seen without scrolling. How many users browse the web in portrait mode on their tablets? (I know I never do) How many do the same on their PC?
The point? Even if I could trust you, and there was some circumstance where scrolling was not necessary, the vast majority would need to scroll to find the text, which does not hint at the nature of the content (an apology).
I have no idea what I had for lunch last Wednesday.
Not everyone has a piss-poor memory.
I know what I had for lunch last Wednesday. Why? Because I don't stumble through life blindly moving from one moment to the next!
Had I checked out Apples page like the parent last week, I would have certainly taken note of both the position and content in the footer due to all the talk about how Apple was likely to bury the link there. Not that it would have been terribly difficult to call to mind the look of a page I'd seen recently!
Still, your argument boils down to "I have a bad memory therefore the parent is lying!" Not too convincing...
This screenshot?
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/6237043/applesucks.png
What was that about dishonesty?
You're really stretching here. The fellow remembers seeing the footer on a page he was on last week. Does he need a reason?
What would that even be?
Try this: You remember what you had for lunch last Wednesday because __________.
Of course, if you can't answer that, you must be lying about remembering what you had for lunch last Wednesday in an effort to make {company} look bad!
Apple is doing just fine. You don't need to defend them or shill for them.
In case you missed this:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/6237043/applesucks.png
What now?
That they're able to use iTunes does NOT mean that they're able to use iTunes without problems.
Nonsense.
I've never seen a non-technical user use iTunes without running in to problems -- even performing basic functions.
A more scientific approach is to consider what the evidence tells you and then form a conclusion. A more scientific approach is to consider what the evidence tells you and then form a conclusion.
It should be noted that the conclusion will often be "a conclusion cannot be formed", assuming a scientific approach.
There's a lot of nonsense in the science cheerleader community -- non-scientific concepts like 'default position' (related to the above) do more harm than good. In their effort to defend science against some perceived threat or defend some ideological position, they've abandoned science, reason, and logic; they've become an even more dangerous threat to science than any creationist group could ever hope to be!
Remember these three simple things: 1) Science has a finite scope 2) Science neither presumes nor tends toward truth. 3) A conclusion drawn exclusively or predominantly from the metaphysics upon which natural science is based does not make that conclusion scientific.
Science depends upon constraint. Trying to expand science beyond its scope epistemologically or methodologically is far more dangerous than anything a few nuts with some bronze-age scribblings or an army of parade magazine quality science "journalists" could ever manage.